Slashdot Mirror
More Napster Updates
Here's another quick round of Napster updates! First off, LinuxParanoid wrote in to tell us about Napster reinstating a portion of the accounts removed by the Metallica-inspired crackdown. Grexnix shared at article at the Beeb about Madonna's record company threatening legal action against Napster because a single from her not-yet-released album was leaked onto the net. DanCentury wrote in to tell us about The Offspring selling Napster hats, shirts and stickers on their website. gmr2048 writes "For anyone who may have owned an old HP4020 or 6020 or a Phillips CDD2000 or CDD2600 check out this lawsuit settlement HP/Phillips was sued because of the lack
of quality in these units. They have settled and you may be entitled to a repair/replacement or $200 (if you've disposed of your original burner)." Cool! Also, check out the Brunching Shuttlecocks' 'Napster of Puppets,' and 'Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Pirated Mp3s' at Modern Humorist.
From The Onion's "Our Dumb Century" book...
... the number of Americans describing themselves as "shocked" by Madonna dropped from 48 to 11."
:)
"Madonna Shocks Seven!
In the pop superstar's 132nd outrageous stunt of the past six months, Madonna shocked seven TV viewers last night when she appeared on a Barbara Walters special and graphically described oral sex she had performed on an unnamed NBA star
...The shocking remarks returned Madonna to the national spotlight after a three-day absence. Last week, during an appearance on Late Night with David Letterman she strapped a crucifix to her pelvis and simulated coitus, an act which shocked dozens of viewers, but was met with yawns by the millions of Madonna fans who had already witnessed far more impressive acts of sacrilege during her 1990 Blond Ambition tour.
According to a recent poll,
Just thought that might be relevant...
- Oliver
"exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
Copyright isn't really the issue. Extortion is more to the point. They have something we want, and they're going to make us pay through the nose for it. Why? Not because the market determined a fair price, but because the biggest corporations got together and decided that they needed to set some limits on the pricing in order to make sure they make more money, and keep making that money. This happens to be illegal. Did they care that they were ripping us off? Nope, and they'll never have to reimburse us either. So, tell me again why we should care when we rip off the record labels?
Here's some info if you'd care to inform yourself: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/05/cdpres.htm .
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm not on an anti-Napster crusade; I think most of the content there is crap, but people are welcome to it.
I get out of the house a lot; specifically as a musician in a band that uses MP3's a LOT to promote ourselves.
I'm not arguing for the RIAA; they're a bunch of money-grubbing morons.
However, I didn't paint computer users as aristocrats; just as people who definitionally can afford luxury items roughly a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive than the price of a CD. And I'm not necessarily talking about entry-level PC's in the first place, I'm just taking a nice middle ground between a $500 entry-level machine, and a $5000 monster Dell box, both of which are represented in the Napster-using population.
I'm just trying to make the point that the cost argument is stupid. If you don't want to pay that much for music, don't get music, or shop the cutout bin, there's a lot of $2.99 CD's that are full of great stuff. But don't try to tell me that $17 for a band you appreciate is too much to pay; you CAN afford it, you just don't want to.
--
I think you bought the rights to the specific recording you bought. Now wait before you jump on me, it gets better. IANAL. It's like this. You bought it on tape. You could've hooked your tape player up to a computer, sucked it in in MP3 form, and washed the sound to create a better sound quality. You're in the gold my friend.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Hopefully enough suits will go back and forth that someone finally figures out that something is broken and needs to be fixed.
In any case, you left out progressive rock.
:)
... And progressive trance...
Ahhh trolling
Dancing all night on trancy sounds, ingesting advanced mind-altering substances. How could one not like electronic dance music (please note: != techno).
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Check out this link if you've been banned from Napster. http://david.weekly.org/code/na pster-metallica.php3
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
I wish I could agree it was some kind of age/generational thing, but it just isn't. TMBG were formed in 1983, only two years after Metallica (1981). Dre's first album was released in 1992. The difference is that Metallica's Black Album has sold more copies than every TMBG disc ever recorded, and Dre was not only a dominant song-seller, but also has had a hand in the production (and thus the cash stream) of many really successful acts. I won't go so far as to say money corrupts, but it does change perspective and incentives. What I'm trying to say is this: Metallica and Dre, regardless of what generation they are in, are the industry. Whoever replaces them as the next mega-acts will also quickly become part of the industry, and whether or not they "get it" when they were small and poor will be quickly forgotten when they are famous and rolling in the big bucks. I hope you are right about change- but I think that if you expect the change to come from young musicians who retain their values when they strike it rich... well, all I can say is don't hold your breath.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
The Rolling Stone interview linked from the offspring's website (http://www.rollingstone.com/sections/news/text/ne wsarticle.asp?afl=&NewsID=1069 4&ArtistID=153) said that the reason they came out was that Wired pissed them off saying they were thinking about suing. Anyone see the Wired article about how The Offspring is ripping off Napster? http://www.wired.com/news/cu lture/0,1284,36733,00.html
Funny, what you didn't say is really all that matters in this case and why so many people don't want to take the RIAA's side:
There's a difference between blaming software and blaming users.
Maybe you're all for helping to push legislation that will make programs like napster, scour, and gnutella illegal instead of enforcing existing laws on the local user level. Make no mistake about it this is the RIAA's main goal.
Maybe you're all for corporate policing the net.
Maybe you're all for putting the right of the wealthy to become more wealthy above your right to use the net.
Maybe you're an idiot and your know it and that's why you posted as an AC.
PROVE IT
Were some of them stealing. Hell yes. I don't want to see them defended, but if that's the cost of making sure the RIAA doesn't take rights away from the rest of us, so be it.
I know somebody said (attribution anyone?) "It is better to let [40(?)] guilty people go free than to imprison one innocent person", and the US is (used to be?) based on that philosophy
Class-action suits in general often do not really work out to significantly compensate the harmed party, but even so they form an important deterrent to prevent companies from deliberately producing shoddy products.
You seem to be suggesting that people should not take advantage of this settlement, because the lawyers profit from it. I'm no fan of lawyers, but they're going to make their money whether the people who were harmed collect or not.
Damn, Binary Finary moved (sorry I only noticed it after posting). Anyone knows where their site is now?
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
http://david.weekly.org/code/na pster-metallica.php3
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
We believe it is up to the individual to uphold the law; not that of organisations such as Napster and Metallicster.
- From the website.
I take it that no Napster supporter here supports gun control, then? OK, Napster doesn't kill people. But the whole idea of having a police force is that *people can't be trusted* to uphold the law. In the same way, certain lockpicking tools are only available to bona-fide locksmiths, even though there's a perfectly legitimate use for someone who has forgotten their keys, because if they were freely available then the majority of use would be for burglaries. If a company sold these tools to the public, they'd be sued and/or shut down, fined, etc etc.
Napster is almost exclusively used for theft. And if Lars is to be believed, they're going to try and get an IPO out of it. This, surely, is ridiculous (and personally I find it pretty disgusting)...
- Oliver
"exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
..however, you can add these people (nme.com article) to the For: (or in some cases, "not against") Napster list:
qube
You pretty much nailed all of them. Here is another that bothers me as well:
An Internet tax to pay for RIAA "losses" due to piracy--kind of like the money they collect on blank audio CD-R's (and DATs?) Since they pulled that off it doesn't seem like such a wierd idea that they could report huge losses due to piracy on the Net...they're already doing it now at the same time as they are making record earnings. But they've got a lot of competition coming now and it'll be harder for them to maintain those earnings. If they actually experience a loss you can bet it's going to be blamed on piracy.
I know to some people it seems like we don't care about copyright law because we're so wrapped up in protecting the Net. And people are getting divided over it. It sucks that we're taking sides between protecting the Net and protecting copyright law. We should all be protecting both instead of squabbling over which is more important because in the meantime there are corporations that are working their hardest to fuck up both.
How do we protect copyright law and the Net at the same time?
numb
I think there's a .sig around here somewhere that explains this phenomenon fairly well..
it goes something like this...
your favorite band sucks
:^)
--
+&x
If you think an entry level PC is 2 grand maybe you should take a break from your anti-napster crusade and get out of the house for 10 minutes. Painting computer users as wealthy aristocrats is about convincing and realistic as all the other RIAA arguments.
The early philips drives clearly said "650 meg of storage" but they started locking up when it went over 560 meg. Sounds blatantly obvious to me. My CDD2600 crapped out after a year, then it was smashed with a sledgehammer. Hmm I wonder if they need a serial number or proof of purchase. Mine came from some random online store over 2 years ago.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
...no, not the record companies. Napster users.
Who doesn't want something for nothing? Heck, I want everything for free, too. But the bottom line is that someone's work is not being compensated if I download music without paying for it.
The capacity for rationalization on this issue is amazing.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It looks like the folks at Napster have the means to keep misguided attacks like the one coming from Metallica from ever bothering them again.
You can see the whole thing live here.
--The Colonel
I am only banned at this IP address, as I can login to napster at other stations. Kinda interestig that they simply check your login, if you are banned then they ban that IP address also
Any comments
Yhcrana
The voices in my head don't like you
All those people who got their accounts back. I'm sure that most of them had Metallica MP3s, and I'm willing to bet that a good portion of those MP3s were illegal. Now we get to see if the individuals will get sued... (they DID say, (under penalty of perjury) that they didn't have any illegal Metallica MP3s...)
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
Quite frankly, I'll download my music pirated, and NOT complain about how expensive CD's are. I'll laugh my ass off in spite that I've just ripped the assholes off.
the real at&t mix
You can find the Madonna single on GnuTella,
just search for "madonna music"
about Mad-Donna. Actually just want to show off my new .sig link. :))
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
on another note, are we sure that this wasn't a publicity stunt by madonna's pr people to get more people to get the mp3? i would never have even thought to search for a new madonna single had there not been an article.
Finally an original thought regarding Napster!
I don't if that's true, but it would be a brilliant move. If Madonna didn't intend it to be a PR stunt, you can bet that someone will do it in the future.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
... wasn't it *HER* fault for letting the single get out in the first place?
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
The Offspring's sales is interesting. In the opinions of many, Offspring is a good band, and certainly their record company is enjoying their record sales. For those of us who think that record companies leach both the artists and the fans, this is an interesting update. Should Offspring's record company go after Napster or Offspring for supporting Napster, it would be a good example of record companies acting against, not on behalf of, their artists.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Is it just me or does it seem that more and more record companies are using Napster as a way out of taking the blame for leaked music? They should keep Napster around so they don't have to take the rap for anything. Ask Madonna what the hell Napster is, I bet the answer you get, "A bunch of hacker kids stealing our music."
Not everyone wants to steal. I like to pay my own way. I think artists deserve pay. And I feel good when I pay for their stuff. So I will never use a system like kidnapster. (Did you know artists get paid for radio play? They do you know...) In the seventies our Government was shooting students to death in the streets over whether or not they would be forced to go to Viet Nam and die. There were millions of protesters. Many went to jail. Many left the country and never returned. Many died. Look at Mitnik. Do you really think the fed won't arrest individuals who steal intellectual property? They can't arrest everyone, but how about if they arrest just twenty people a day... It would be like a lottery! Who won today? If you think it won't happen, look at the war on drugs. Millions of people do it. Most do not go to jail. Nevertheless, the goverment pursues the 'war'. There are ten times more people in jail from drug offenses than any other type of offense. There is lots of room! Do you imagine the feds will do less for the very foundation of our capitalist system (intellectual property rights)? I hate to see anyone go to prison so I am going to say 'good luck' but I don't think it will do you any good. Ultimately, this kind of distribution will be found to be illegal. And individuals caught doing it will do jail time. And you may never actually go to jail yourself, but you will certainly be in the game. And you will see some of your friends go to jail. I choose not to participate. I played these games with the fed over other issues and I am tired of fighting. What this country really needs is not free music for lotus eaters. (As if the radio is not sort of free.) We need to eliminate the electoral college. Then we can have true representation. We really need lower taxes. I know you guys don't make any money (otherwise why steal art?) but if you had jobs you would be amazed how high our taxes are. Some one who is buying a house and has a family pays over 40% of their income to the fed. We need lower taxes. Then maybe we could find it in our hearts to pay for our musicians.
1. Uninstall Napster1 3-1F34-1B3E-
2. Delete all Registry keys that have NAPSTER in them.
3. Search for the following key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{CAD8C8
00CEAE43FF0AAD} and make a note of the ID# value. This ID is what lets
Napster know a banned computer is trying to log on.
4. Search for this ID# and delete all instance.
When you search for this ID#, start from the very beginning, i.e. Click on My
Computer, then do the search.
5. Install Napster.
6. Create a new login and use a different e-mail address. Don't use the
same login ID or you may have to start back at step 1.
7. Only share dirs without Metallica and don't download Metallica
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I like napster. I like slashdot. But the combination bores me. It's napster-this and napster-that. If I want to hear that, I'll just turn on the radio, or the TV. Napster is a complete hype. It will pass. And frankly, I don't care. It's a way overrated (although by some underrated) system. Of course it's cute, downloading all that music, but I just about had it with all the so-called "news" about it.
Their first album was 1989. So... 11 years v. 19 for Metallica. And not a commercial success until 1994, whereas Metallica has been commercially successful (and one could even argue artistically important) since 1986. I'm not slamming The Offspring or anything, but they aren't anywhere near the musical force (in terms of influence, selling power, or sheer recognition) that Metallica is (or maybe was, considering the last couple of albums.)
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
I work at the Philips PCP technical helpdesk here in Europe, and I can already see all those people calling about wanting a replacement for that CDD2000 or CDD2600 they still have lying around in their attic somewhere. Besides, that whole quality issue was only with the first versions of those writers. The later revisions were quite reliable, and I've seen some of them in use up to now while other writers from that era have all gone dead by now. *shrug*, guess everything's relative.
Question remains, does this American lawsuit have any effect whatsoever on us here in Europe? Could I yank the CDD2000 and CDD2600 out of our test systems (yes, we actually have test systems with those things still in it. Working, too) and file for a replacement? I think two CDRW804Ks would do fine *grin*
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Simple: Beat the suits at their own game!
the real at&t mix
The band themselves don't have ANY control over the prices of the individual CDs their records company distributes to a vast number of retailers.
And as near as anyone can tell, the bands haven't been affected by Napster at all. Unless you can show me some real evidence to the contrary.
but that's not gonna work if we want professional musicians (better than amateurs, I'm almost positive on this one) then we need to pay them for their work.
While I certainly agree that musicians deserve to be able to sell their work and make money from it, I think the current system does a terrible job of achieving this goal. It overcharges the consumer and underpays the artists. You can only expect people to go along with a moronic system for so long. If nothing is done about it, they'll do something about it themselves.
The record industry spends millions on hyping up bands that may never make it.
Maybe they need to stop the hype and just let their music stand on its own.
But the more they pushed, the more they got some underexposed bands out there
Once again... forget about "pushing" bands on us... just let the music get out there and let people buy what they want.
Listen to the radio instead until prices come down.
You haven't bought a cd lately have you? Prices don't go down. When an album debuts, that's the lowest price you're gonna see it hit, ever. They only go up from there. I was browsing through a music store last week. Looked at some older Queenryche cds. They cost 17 bucks now while their newest one was selling for 13. It was the same with all the others. It was the same when I looked at Best Buy and Wal-Mart too, the prices just go up.
Just because the FTC says that music is too expensive doesn't give you the right to go into Tower Records and walk out with their singles section.
No, it doesn't. Tower paid for that cd and is trying to sell it to people. Taking that would be wrong because you then they would not have it anymore and could not sell it.
So don't go stealing it on Napster either
That's a different matter. Downloading music on Napster isn't necessarily stealing. Nor have I seen any indication that artists are being deprived of money or are making any less money because of Napster. I tried Napster briefly, but didn't like it all that much. It was kind of a pain to get anything that I wanted. It's probably improved a lot since then, but I haven't tried it again. That said, I still download a lot of MP3s. Most I get from MP3.com or artists' websites, but some I get from other people, just so I can listen to the songs and decide whether I want to buy the cd or not. Now, according to the RIAA, I'm stealing from artists by downloading those MP3s from my friends. According to me, I'm not depriving them of any legitimate earnings. I don't keep MP3s that I don't like, and I buy the cds if I like the songs. Who's being harmed?
I'm not alone in my practices either. I know many people who do the very same thing. I'd bet that the majority of people on Napster do this as well, which would explain why the record industry hasn't seen a drop in profits, and has, in fact, seen an increase.
The RIAA isn't after people to defend the artists, they are after people to defend their control over the industry. They control the distribution of music in this country and many others. Anything that challenges that control will be attacked by them. Even if it increases profits, if they can't control it, it will have to go.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Society can exist without intellectual property. People will still program, people will still make music. Many people make music now without any delusion of making money from it--they simply enjoy it. AT&T programmed the UNIX operating system before copyright applied to computer software, and gaurded it as a trade secret [someone check me up on this].
Financial rewards do still motivate most people, I agree. But musicians will still be paid to perform their work, and programmers will still be paid to do their work, even if there is no intellectual property. The reason is that there will still be a demand--Radio shack will still want a customer database even if they can't technically own the software. Furthermore, people will still want to hear their favorite musician perform even if he doesn't make money off of the sales of his music.
Will there be less music without copyright? Will there be less innovation in computer science without copyright? The answer to both of these questions is, I agree, YES. However, we have to consider the entire social impact of a policy, and not just sacrifice anything for the sake of innovation.
Consider: we might allow companies to enslave the children of those that work for them, so that the children will be raised to be the most productive they can be for the company. Will the company be more productive? YES. Will it be worth it? NO.
So what are the negative aspects of copyright? Right now, many internet and technology companies are using patents in an offensive manner, not to protect a great discovery they have made, but to claim a common sense idea as their property and no one else's. An example of this is the one-click purchase patent by Amazon.
What about music? You say that most music would not exist as we know it without intellectual property. Yes, but we shouldn't have this music anyway. The music companies spend most of their time trying to convince us what we want to hear. Most of the time, they are successful because so few Americans think for themselves. So its ironic that people steal what they are brainwashed into liking. I say let them steal it.
Madonna sucks/is past her prime?
Um...when was it that she won 4 Grammies (including Best Pop Album), and was nominated for Album of the Year and Record of the Year? Oh yeah...1999.
Now Metallica, Dre, and Eminem I can do without...but this is aggravating. Happily, it looks as if "she" (i.e. Time Warner) is only pissed about the unreleased track, not about mp3s off of released discs. On the other hand, while I don't particularly care for him, Eminem's album just broke the single-week sales record or something, so it's a bit difficult to support the notion that he objectively sucks either. Frankly, I think your argument is absolutely wrong.
But in order to do that, you have to release the rights to the music to the public domain and that defeats the purpose you're trying to support. While it would be easy to use Gnutella/Napster/FreeNet to chart ratings to give crappy bands a chance, but it's still breaking copyright. So the industry CAN'T in good conscience support Gnutella/Napster/FreeNet because they are screwing them eight ways to Sunday. The industry pushes lame bands down our throat simply because nobody really knows who's gonna have that One Hit Single that the labels hope will force consumers into the Record Store.
I don't like the industry any more than you do, but I still, on a rare occasion, purchase CDs to reward the companies for publishing a record I like. A real rarity. But they still exist.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
This is a short program I wrote a while back that actually composes classical-sounding music (based on pseudorandom numbers and a lot of music theory). It compiles for DOS and Linux; a DOS binary is included.
Will I retire or break 10K?
no, what you don't realize is the fact that it shows you are just as bad as they are, very hypocritical, and that It won't solve a fucking thing.
it also shows the total lack of intellience/experience in the community
Like I implied in a previous post, I have NO REMORSE for downloading from Napster. The record companies are greedy, and so am I. They're getting away with their greed... and now so am I :-D
the real at&t mix
I was playing in a band three years ago. We decided, "Screw the record labels, let's record and release a CD on our own!" We had spent 2 years developing original songs at that point. We spent another 6 months rehearsing and fine-tuning the songs we decided to record.
We had a budget of $6000 to do the actual recording and CD duplication. $4000 of that was spent on a too-short 3-week period in the recording studio (they cut us a BIG break on rates!) and the other $2000 got us 1000 CD's with artwork and some x-tra promotional materials (about 100 t-shirts).
During this time we were all working regular jobs to pay the bills and pay the loan payment on the 6 grand we borrowed to do the CD. We also gigged as often as we could manage to get gigs - none of which payed enough to contribute to our financial situation.
We wanted to price the CD's at about $10 each so that meant we had to get them to the record stores (all on consignment - they don't pay you unless the product sells) at about $6 to $7. Because we didn't have a big distributor, we had to drive around to the independent record stores to stock our own product. We sent out the t-shirts with CD's to local radio stations, newspapers, music critics, and booking agencies - about 100 promo packages in all - all at our own expense. I created a web site for the band and had artist friends contribute so that we would have a page with artwork, lyrics, and an audio clip for each song.
What happened? We got a few plays on local radio stations, two great reviews in the local media, sold 150 CD's, and had to pay a $6000 loan. A definite disappointment! We've resigned ourselves to the fact that we'll probably never make any money from all of our work, so this year I posted everything on mp3.com (I haven't seen any money from them, either - but that's another story...). Music is very subjective but you can go to www.mp3.com/souldoubt if you want to judge if the band was any good or not.
I'm no fan of record labels. Part of their function is to narrow down your choices for listening entertainment. There are hundreds of thousands of musical acts out there creating music. Most of them will tell you stories similar to mine,if not more depressing.
You need to realize that in order for you to listen to your mp3's, someone needs to create music. And, unfortunately, just making the music isn't enough.
The music needs to be brought to your attention so that you can download it and listen to it. Surprisingly, most people *need* someone to tell them what to listen to! Your friend maybe tells you that "Band X" is a really rockin' band. They found out about Band X from their cousin in Seattle. The cousin in Seattle heard the band's song on the radio because some RECORD COMPANY GUY managed to convince the stations Program Manager that Band X is the shit!
Very few people will take it upon themselves to discover new music. Do you randomly browse mp3.com or Napster and just download stuff? I think an increasing number of people are more inclined to do exactly this because of mp3's. But I'll also bet that more commonly, people are looking for a specific song that they heard about from a friend or heard on the radio. (BTW: People are even less inclined to go to a concert of a band they've never heard of. This is another reason you depend on big record companies. "Hey! Band X is playing at the Palimino Club tonight! My cousin said they rock!")
There are too many artists making music for most people to really make listening decisions on their own. If you were presented with a list of songs by bands that weren't on major labels (all of which you'd never heard of), where would you start listening? And if you did pick something and liked it, what would you say when your friend hears it and tells you it sucks? Now your buddy thinks you're a looser because you listen to sucky music! I have yet to see an artist become well known because they released their stuff as mp3's on the net and shunned major record labels. (I'd love it if someone proved me wrong on this one, believe it!)
So finally a big fuck off to all of you consumers out there that are used to getting all your music free and can't get off your lazy ass and create something to contribute to society! The next time you feel like listening to some music, pick up a fucking instrument and MAKE some! Record the shit and release it on the net so I can hear it!
Peace,
Ibodog
I found an article about the case detailing exactly why the drives were faulty and the law firm that sued for the settlement.
http://www.maxtarget. com/hardware/cdrom/cd_class_action.shtml
-- iCEBaLM
And as near as anyone can tell, the bands haven't been affected by Napster at all. Unless you can show me some real evidence to the contrary.
Well true, but regardless, they can spearhead the fight since it's their music being pilfered on the web via .
While I certainly agree that musicians deserve to be able to sell their work and make money from it, I think the current system does a terrible job of achieving this goal. It overcharges the consumer and underpays the artists. You can only expect people to go along with a moronic system for so long. If nothing is done about it, they'll do something about it themselves.
Yeah, that's true, but stealing IP in the form of music isn't the answer, it only screws the promotions people while the execs pull down their millions. Go after the execs, not the promotions people and the accountants.
Maybe they need to stop the hype and just let their music stand on its own.
Yeah, I agree, but apparently, they never know when the single is gonna go huge...so they sign everyone and then they're stuck selling everybody shitty muzak.
You haven't bought a cd lately have you? Prices don't go down. When an album debuts, that's the lowest price you're gonna see it hit, ever.
I do by CDs, I buy them relatively often, but for the most part I buy USED CDs. Heard of em? Most of them sell for cheap. And are of decent quality.
That's a different matter. Downloading music on Napster isn't necessarily stealing. Nor have I seen any indication that artists are being deprived of money or are making any less money because of Napster
It is stealing. You're acquiring IP you don't have the license for. It's theft, whether or not the RecCos got cash for it or not.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
... and you'll see a better picture of the way technology-focused (i.e. technology types made it) music propagates.
"Tech" music is scarey to big media. And it's people like programmers and admins, and their general ability to confront scarey technology, wrestle it to the ground, and wack it over the head with a big stick, which gives most modern monopolistic companies something to really be scared of.
The average Joe Musician, recording his own material in a digital studio he built himself using inexpensive components, is the same sort of persona (generally) as the average OS Student Finnish programmer wacking out 386 code in the wee hours of the morning, circa 1991... able to work things out for themselves, and use the machines they've built for themselves, to write art (software) for themselves and share it freely.
There'll be a similar boost in this culture (DIY Musicians) as there was with the opensource programmer culture during the mid-90's - many of us are already seeing this occurring now, with sites like MP3, SampleLibrary.Net (which I run), etc.
So I think you're pretty close to being spot on with your asessment that we need to start writing our own music. Just like we needed to start writing our own OS, just a few short years ago...
And look for this "roll your own" cultural phenomenon to make its presence felt in other industries too...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Why the hell would Napster sue for that? That's just free advertising for them.
--
It's strange you should say MP3s are "the consumer's first real weapon." I'm almost certain the first boycott was organized before the MP3 format was developed.
No shit! My 6020i was a piece of junk from the day I bought it, and I'm glad to know I can get at least part of my money back. I dunno if I've got the receipts any more, but if HP wants to argue the point with me I'd be more than willing to pull the drive out of my bottom drawer and mail the damned thing back to them. :)
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
"We don't need no steenkin' techno."
Reminds me of the sort of thing all my Microsoft-lovin' NT bigot friends used to say back in '93 when I told 'em about this litlle ol' thing called Linux.
"We don't need no steenkin' Unix."
Techno is the music of the future, man. Get used to it.
;)
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"Many artists enjoy the publicity the recieve by having their songs traded on Napster"
Many artists are also suing Napster and anyone else who either trades, or facilitates the trading of illegal mp3s.
True and true. The thing I've noticed is that the artists that are suing already have their own distribution channels and publicity machines. I'm glad that more and more are turning up in support Napster despite the fact that they already already have these things.
CDs cost too much! Why should I pay them $12-$18 when CDs are so cheap?"
If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them and don't listen to the music. Find cheap local labels, or get music from independent sources like mp3.com Don't download the music for free then complain that it's "too expensive".
I agree. I just wish it were easier to tell if a CD is too expensive or not. I have a few that I are worth at least $25 to me. The problem is, you don't get to know what you're buying except for one song--unless you want to wait for a year to go by to see what else gets played from that CD. I've been burned a bunch of times buying CD's because the one song they were playing on the radio sounded cool--then I get the CD and realize it's value to me is about $2 because every other track is crap.
"If the artists are in it for the art, they should welcome mp3 trading."
Try living off of "art". Walk into a supermarket and try to trade your mp3 collection for a loaf of bread. Art is nice, but money is a necessity. And do you really think that Metallica or [insert current teenage pop star] are doing music for "art"?
I'd suggest making money by working like every other musician out there. If you are talented enough you will make some money off of it--provided you have an efficient distribution channel to get your music to fans and potential fans. If you do well you get to make it a full time job. Also, I think Metallica does care about art even if they may (notice I said "may") care more about the money.
"All intellectual property should be free"
If this were true, most music wouldn't exist. Despite what your favorite left-wing writers might think, financial rewards still have an attraction for most people.
Sorry but I think you're way off base here. I think you're confusing the music you hear on MTV and the radio with "most music." The fact is that most music is not on MTV or your local radio stations. It's produced at a loss with a slim chance of being heavily promoted by a major label. Most music is *not* produced for the money.
"Anti-Napster 'advocates' want to destroy free music!"
No, many just think that the attitude of many Napster users is hypocritical and wrong. You don't deserve everything for free, no matter what Momma Slashdot says.
Thank you for being fair and using the word "many" instead of "all" (wrt Anti-Napster as well as Napster users.)
"Napster introduces a whole new paradigm of free information exchange which artists need to understand."
Perhaps *you* need to "understand" the current paradigm better. Most artists don't offer mp3s for sale. That is no excuse to download them illegaly. You can live without the new Britney Spears album. Trust me.
I think both things are important to understand at this point. I think the new paradigm is more important to understand than the one that's on it's way out though.
numb
If you read in further, Offspring goes into saying that they support the distribution of mp3s over the internet. They support the idea in general; countering a Wired article saying they would be pressing charges against Napster.
More information as well as quotes from Offspring can be found at the Rolling Stone.
I personally find it ironic that Metallica, which had previously promoted spreading of their music via bootlegs
And the band still does encourage bootlegging of its concert performances.
is so up in arms over napster
They have the rights to their studio recordings; how can you argue with that?
Will I retire or break 10K?
People who sit back and just willingly take it up the ass from the record companies because that's what we've been doing for 20 years just sicken me.
"If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them and don't listen to the music. Find cheap local labels, or get music from independent sources like mp3.com Don't download the music for free then complain that it's "too expensive"."
Uhm, well, no. CD's are not just "too expensive" - they are conspiritorially overpriced. The record label oligopoly in this country is making money hand over first because of dumbasses like you who just mope around and consign themselves to paying $16-$18 per CD, and then go whine on Slashdot about how everyone else should too. Did you ever even stop to consider that maybe you weren't paying a fair market price for those CDs, that maybe that price is aritificially inflated by a quintet of record companies that have a lot more to gain through cooperation than they do through competition? Obviously not.
Because if you did, you'd realize that they are basically perpetrating fraud on every poor cad who has to by music from them. These companies have had literally no incentive, ever, to lower the price, because the have never had another competitor. They own the means of music distribution in this country, and many others. Period.
MP3s and the Internet represent the consumer's first real weapon against the record companies. For the first time there is a way to get out music at a much, much lower price, to the masses. Albeit this price happens to be free, what you fail to understand is that the innovation of digitally distributed music is a good, good thing. Eventually, a someone will find a secure way to distribute music on the Internet, and that will open the floodgates for literally anyone to make money selling their music.
Paying $12-18 for a CD is a bad, bad thing. We are getting ripped off everytime we do. You have obviously been deluded into thinking that is a fair price for a CD only because that's been the price for as long as anyone can remember. I implore you to think outside the box a bit before posting drivel like this. Maybe you'd realize that preserving the status quo isn't always a good thing, and that just because we've paid high price for CDs for as long as any of us can remember, doesn't mean that's the right thing.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I think this is legally untested in most juristictions, so it probably partly depends on where you've moved to. Personally I think it *should* be acceptable to get a higher-quality copy, since the argument for copy protection is that "you're not buying the tape, you're buying a license to use the song" and it is obvious, at least for older music, that there was never any intention of reserving the right to use a higher-quality version.
[BTW, just to nitpick, it is not "theft" even if it is "unauthorised copying" - the latter is a much less serious offence]
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Quite [the] contrary.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
...after reading a bunch of these posts. If the record companies are screwing the consumers (conspiritorial overpricing of CDs as one post puts it) it's called 'fair-market pricing' or 'charging what the market will bear' irregardless of the fact that there IS no competition to determine fair price. If the consumers are screwing the record companies by downloading copies for free, it's 'theft'. All a matter of perspective, I do suppose.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Not everyone wants to steal. I like to pay my own way.
I think artists deserve pay. And I feel good when I pay for their stuff. So I will never use a system like kidnapster. (Did you know artists get paid for radio play? They do you know...)
In the seventies our Government was shooting students to death in the streets over whether or not they would be forced to go to Viet Nam and die. There were millions of protesters. Many went to jail. Many left the country and never returned. Many died.
Look at Mitnik. Do you really think the fed won't arrest individuals who steal intellectual property? They can't arrest everyone, but how about if they arrest just twenty people a day...
It would be like a lottery! Who won today?
If you think it won't happen, look at the war on drugs. Millions of people do it. Most do not go to jail. Nevertheless, the goverment pursues the 'war'. There are ten times more people in jail from drug offenses than any other type of offense.
There is lots of room! Do you imagine the feds will do less for the very foundation of our capitalist system (intellectual property rights)?
I hate to see anyone go to prison so I am going to say 'good luck' but I don't think it will do you any good. Ultimately, this kind of distribution will be found to be illegal. And individuals caught doing it will do jail time. And you may never actually go to jail yourself, but you will certainly be in the game. And you will see some of your friends go to jail.
I choose not to participate. I played these games with the fed over other issues and I am tired of fighting.
What this country really needs is not free music for lotus eaters. (As if the radio is not sort of free.) We need to eliminate the electoral college. Then we can have true representation. We really need lower taxes. I know you guys don't make any money (otherwise why steal art?) but if you had jobs you would be amazed how high our taxes are. Some one who is buying a house and has a family pays over 40% of their income to the fed. We need lower taxes.
Then maybe we could find it in our hearts to pay for our musicians.
I'm not certain that it's a matter of raw intelligence, per se, but rather it might be the result of selfishness that's generally promoted throughout our lives, by our primitive-animal influenced predatory social and economic systems.
A matter of wisdom, insight, or simply perspective. I'm certain there're many intelligent people that promote stealing, because they really don't care about much other than themselves.
Personally, I think the individuals that really want to liberate music, should develop and promote a community of public domain music, instead of taking the decisions away from others.
Oh I see, you're taking the position that because people can afford to be gouged that they should be gouged and not complain about it.
CD prices are artificialy inflated, you prove to me that they arent. Here's a little something from the Federal Trade Commision to start you off:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/05/cdpres.htm
I and many others would rather not be gouged, thanks. Defending the status quo with this economic arguments is hardly convincing. Then again what do I know I'm an aristocratic PC owner. Lets ignore that PC hardware is sold at market prices with little or no inflation over what the market can bear, maybe thats why they're so popular and affordable.
All the people I know in Belgium that have some sort of musical interest own a CD burner, they are hugely popular for obvious reasons. I heard the CD sales have been dropping pretty badly, something like 5 to 10% in a year.
But I don't blame anyone for copying CDs in Belgium, because a lot of people simply CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY MUSIC!!!! CD's cost between $20 and $25, and salaries are pretty low because of huge taxation rates. And as far as I know, music (and culture in general) is not a privilege for rich people, but should be affordable to everyone ('affordable' not necessarily being equal to 'free').
Strange thing, the music distributors don't seem to understand this, and CD prices keep going up.
>Now we have videos for $14.95, or $19.95. Is it really worth $14.95 to have two VCRs, a bunch of cables, and the wasted time of copying VHS cassettes? I think not.
>And now it's time for all of the music industry to follow suit. They need to lower prices. Piracy is a result of outrageous prices! If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
If you approve of $15-20 for a VHS tape, why is $12-18 for a CD "outrageous"?
If you get free music out of the deal, people are going to think you're doing it for the free music, not the message.
It's my understanding that banned Napster users have a Registry Key inserted which the Napster program checks to see if you're allowed to login... assuming you're talking about a Windows machine here that might be the problem. There's a document on how to fix that (can someone post it?) but I can't remember where it is.
the real at&t mix
ICE - T. Duh. He's a l33t h4xor and a failed musician, and don't forget a self-proclaimed "pimp." He attended E3, holds seminars, and pretends like he knows his ass from a exterm. Oh well. Close enough.
~Patrick
"Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency." -Patrick Bennett
Alternatively, "Pastor of Muppets" makes for a slightly less morbid image. I could have sworn I ran across a band once with an album called "Pastor of Muppets". Anywho, I did a search and came up with this which is equally amusing.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
>>They're being just as hypocritical.
>And as we all know, if someone steals from you, you are morally correct
>to steal from them. They way to show they are hypocritical is to not
>make their mistakes while showing others what they are doing.
No - what he does is irrelevant to what THEY are. If we say they have in effect stolen from the public by charging exorbitant prices, and have claimed they did not do so, then they ARE hypocrites - regardless of what he is doing.
>You invalidate your own arguement in the same breath you invalidate theirs.He does no such thing - he was responding to your fallacy that people who use Napster are greedy hypocrites. He points out that IF the public are stealing from the industry and pretending that stealing is generally wrong , then they are on par with the industry who is stealing from the public and pretending that stealing is wrong.
i.e., saying "You are as much a hypocrite as I am" does not invalidate the claim by being said by a hypocrite in the first place.
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
No, the FTC concluded that the record industry can't withhold advertising money from stores that offer their CD's at less than the recommended price. What this means is Best Buy or whoever can offer CDs at less than they pay for them (which is what was happening to attact people to the store and then hopefully sell them a big ticket item). CDs in general will not go down in price because of this.
And now it's time for all of the music industry to follow suit. They need to lower prices. Piracy is a result of outrageous prices! If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it. Most people want something for nothing. That is why they use Napster, not as some grand protest.
And am I the only one who is sick and tired of music artists telling us bullshit like, "We don't have any control over the prices of CDs". I HATE THAT. Lars Ulrich sat there, and lied to our faces. You know it's bad when someone like Metallica cares so much about profits, that they are willing to lie, and try to get warm and fuzzy with their fans. Don't believe for a second. Artists have a lot more control than you think. They've just been locked into the "system" for so long, that they've lost sight of what's really important.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Artists have no control over how much they pay for a cd. They sign with a label, they make the music, the label advertises them and markets them and produces and sells the cds. The band can want to give away their CD for free, but it ain't gonna happen. The selling process is controled by the label.
If you ask me, I say keep running Napster, or Gnutella, as your taste preferes. And stop letting the criminal music industry tell you that you are a theif. Art should be free for everyone to enjoy!
So if you want to make a statement, don't buy RIAA CDs. Buy indie Cds, or go to MP3.com. That would make a statement. But when you try to make a statement about how the music industry is greedy and charge too much, and then go and show your own greed by stealing someone else's intellectual property, the only statement you make is about you own hypocrisy.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
The FTC found that CDs cost TOO MUCH! ... If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
I don't work for Play, but Play has lots of 60% off deals. And they start you out with 15 CDs for $50 + shipping.
Will I retire or break 10K?
No, the FTC concluded that the record industry can't withhold advertising money from stores that offer their CD's at less than the recommended price.
Umm.. that's considered price-fixing. The record industry is setting a price and telling the retailers that they aren't allowed to sell a cd for less than that price, or they will face consequences (such as loss of ad money, or a refusal to deal with that particular store again). When you get the five largest record companies all doing this, you get an antitrust violation due to the harm they are doing to consumers and the market. This is what the FTC said:
"The Commission has unanimously found reason to believe that the arrangements entered into by the five largest distributors of prerecorded music violate the antitrust laws in two respects. First, when considered together, the arrangements constitute practices that facilitate horizontal collusion among the distributors, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Second, when viewed individually, each distributor's arrangement constitutes an unreasonable vertical restraint of trade under the rule of reason.
So, the record industry was engaged in illegal actions that cost the consumers of their products as much as $480 million dollars over the last 3 years. That's right. They stole from us. They have no intention of returning that money. Then they go and try to complain that people are stealing from them when their decision to overcharge people probably played a big part in the creation of things like Napster. If people could get cds cheap, they wouldn't bother with napster anyway. And that's not even considering that many people actually buy the music that they get from Napster and elsewhere. I've bought quite a bit of music after listening to the MP3s. This probably explains why the record industry has continued to see increased profits despite Napster and other methods of obtaining MP3s for free.
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it.
Maybe, but I doubt it would be any worse than what you get with vhs tapes or cassette tapes. Once the prices came down on these, people didn't bother to copy them. They were cheap enough to buy that it didn't make sense to bother with copying.
The selling process is controled by the label.
This is true, and not only do the record companies control the sales, they usually own the music as well as part of their contract with the artist.
But when you try to make a statement about how the music industry is greedy and charge too much, and then go and show your own greed by stealing someone else's intellectual property, the only statement you make is about you own hypocrisy.
The industry stole from us, and then complains about us stealing from them. They're being just as hypocritical. Not only that, but they haven't shown that Napster has done any monetary harm, whereas the FTC has shown monetary harm to consumers. I doubt that Napster has had any significant affect on the industry other than being a threat to their control over the distribution of music.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Napster, in order to "protect" its trademark, may pursue legal remedy with respect to Offspring's unauthorized distribution of Napster-branded merchandise.
Metallica, in order to protect is copyright, is pursuing Napster for facilitating the unauthorized distribution of its intellectual property.
What's the difference?
One has to wonder: are The Offspring paying a licensing fee for the use of the Napster logo, or just copying it onto T-shirts and keeping the proceeds? ;)
> Slashdot at whistle3? You betcha... ThuddaThuddaThudda Thud
I actually met someone who read Slashdot at whistle3... he was wearing a 'Got Root?' t-shirt, so I had to pop the question
Where are you, Got Root guy?!
>You forgot one:
>
> "But I'm a white American college student, and I'm entitled to everything I want."
Certainly the comment is sarcastic and a bit rude, but it may not be entirely wrong.
I think it's a valid point, even if I'm not certain I entirely agree with it.
I'm just commenting in hopes someone might reconsider its fate. If no one believes it's a valid perspective, then I apologize for wasting everyone's time.
Your sig: quote or original? context? What happened next? :-)
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
- I was hosting a slash-like website on one of my computers, using my univ. lines
- Of course it was not commercial (no banners, nothing to sell, etc.), just free medical information about reseach, new therapies,...
- Yet one day the single sysadm decided that medical information was "off topic" on the univ. network, and blocked all the ports of my machines
- I moved the site to another french university where I know the admins, but this BOFH threatened them, and asked them to remove the site asap
- 2 weeks later I installed it in the us, and sent a humoristic email to the BOFH : "you didn't succeeded".
That's the whole story ; free speech is not really protected in France, and there are anal rules for medical information ; a bit like the DMCA in the US.IMHO, Napster should act accordingly : don't fight, comply with the laws i.e. kick the users abusing copyrights on request from the copyright holder.
Then move (chess-like) , i.e. let people use anonymising software, don't log their IP or their usernames : the other guys will have to forgive all this because it is a battle they can't win.
They can't cut the whole internet.
"Try living off of "art". Walk into a supermarket and try to trade your mp3 collection for a loaf of bread. Art is nice, but money is a necessity. And do you really think that Metallica or [insert current teenage pop star] are doing music for "art"? "
Many artists, even unknown ones, live off of performances and t-shirts. Some artists (like Metallica) have been known to make millions and millions off of just performances and t-shirts. Making more money off of your own blood sweat and tears every night in a performance is a much more respectable and grass-roots way anyhow.
I think it's time that Napster or something else finally forces artists like Celine Dion and Metallica to perform, instead of having the option to sit back and rake in profits while not working.
Somehow, in the last 100 years, artists have slowly pushed the legal system to a point where they can milk it for all it's worth. I still think that if I buy something, I should have the right to do whatever I want with it, including copy it and give it away, as long as I *** DON'T MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT ***.
Now that is fair copywright law. Anyone can copy anything. But only the original artist is allowed to make a buck at it.
What does everyone think about this idea?
I don't think there is a problem with mp3s. I see them as audio shareware. You download the software, try it out for a while, and if you like it, you pay the money. If you don't, you stop listening to it anyway.
However, there will always be people who have little conscience and won't pay the money. It's down to the individual. The problem with Napster is that they are only in this to make money, not to distribute music. If the artists don't want their music distributed in this fashion, then another company shouldn't make money out of doing it.
Sheryl Crowe
Billy Corgan (formerly of Smashing Pumpkins)
Against:
L.L. Cool J.
grep -ri 'should work'
I was made aware of the story over on alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.d, and the one I read stated that her song was also available on fan's web sites. Shouldn't they go after THEM first if they're gonna go after anybody?
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Oh. (well, I did say I didn't know too much about them. To be honest - I'll have to dig out the CD to see which one it was.) :-)
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I was unfortunate enough to purchase a CDD2600. I had 3 replacement units within a year and the last died 10 days after the warranty expired (none of the drives managed to write more than 50 cds). The Company I purchased the drive from had also ceased trading so I was up the proverbial creek. I think Philips are getting exactly what they deserve. I only hope that European users, myself included, can get our money back\unit replaced. BTW the drive was installed in a 5 1/4" bay with nothing but air either side of it. A TEAC cdr now sits where it used to live and has pumped out about 400 cds with no problems whatsoever. Blaming the users for poor installation is a well known "cop out" for any company when its substandard products start to go wrong.
Yeah record companies have had artificially high prices. But you can't rob the record company with out robbing the poor artist too!
I bought The Offspring's newest CD after downloading their MP3's and finding that I really liked them. I could have spent my money on another CD that I didn't have the music from. I'm glad to know that The Offspring are cool with stuff like this. The only problem is that buying CD's supports the RIAA and their price-fixing practices, which is something I don't want to do. If artists could make their music electronically downloadable for a small fee, it would be very cool.
Grammies suck. All those awards suck. Nobody I like ever wins them.
-- $SIGNATURE
No it *isn't*. Unauthorised copying is *not* theft.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Hello, I beleive the support for Napster is well deserved... Yes, some people would disagree but the RIAA needs to stop trying to control the world.
Because it costs several million dollars to make a "good movie", while it costs not near that to make a "good album" ... besides, people are ripping off VHS from the internet via ASF files or what-have-you. I don't hear the movie companies screaming in outrage over that, although admittedly, it isn't as big as mp3s.
Sure, I have taken mp3s from Napster, plenty of em. But, when I found the mp3s that I liked, I went out and bought the CDs, and if I didn't like the mp3s, then I deleted them. Is that illegal? I don't know.
It's like taking an album off the shelf, listening to it, and then choosing to buy it. Much like you can do at some modern bookstores (like Borders). The only difference is, you are able to listen to a much wider range through Napster and you are able to buy them through Amazon if you like. I think that Napster offers many people that choice.
Yes, I agree that there are many people who remorselessly steal mp3s and never think twice, and never have the slightest intention of buying the album. Those people are the ones who are, IMHO, breaking the law. Not the ones who download and delete or download and buy.
Gawyn
Freedom of Speech?
I. Thou shalt have no other MP3 Search Engines before Me
/kill a Napster user unless you are Metallica
II. Thou shoult not make unto Napster any incomplete MP3s
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the lord, Napster, in vain
IV. Thou shalt useth Napster every day to keep it holy
V. Honor Napster's Father, IRC, and its Mother, Fraunhofer
VI. Thou shalt not
VII. Thou shalt not try to pick up horny thirteen year old girls on Napster
VIII. Thou shalt not download MP3s that you do not have the CD of
IIX. Thau shalt not lie to Metallica just to have your account re-activiated
IX. Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbors DSL connection
X. Nor their MP3 Files, or any other 'property' of thiers
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
$16 to $18 per CD? In the UK that was the price of CDs when this media was launched! The record companies justified this by saying prices will drop once the volume of sales increase. When the sales increased they reduced the price by a -ve amount!
You can expect to pay 15-18 quid ($23-$28) for a normal album in a high street retailer. Online offerings reduce the price but have grossly inflated postage and packaging costs 2.45UKP ($4), so the net price is generally the same. Yet it wasn't that long ago the same company would charge 45 pence. They know they can get away with it so they take the piss. Who's gonna stop 'em?
The fscking stupid thing is that I can import a UK title from the US cheaper than I can buy it over here. But then this is Rip-off Britain.
You got that right. The real question is whether I could live with myself if I bought it.
The complaint issued from the IFTI, the International Federation of Phonographic Industry
Read "IFTI" as "RIAE" (recording industry association of Europe).
Will I retire or break 10K?
People here have writen about the Street Performer Protocol. The idea is that millions of people can pay together to buy the next album from a major artist. This mechanism has been implemented by a startup http://www.loudvoices.com
I wonder how long until someone hacks up this Quake level to replace Eminem with a Napster character. Little kitty blowing away the Doctor. Haha.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Ah, it's at http://www.anteye.com/home/1,1065,638 ,00.html so you don't need to deal with the horrific interface.
Hmmmm.... If Metallica is such a media-asskissing, ego-driven gang of attention whores, perhaps this project will be more up their alley...
DontBlow.com is an absolute good.
No. Read what I actually say, not what you'd like to think I'm saying.
I'm taking the position that being gouged for something and/or disliking the copyright is NOT a viable excuse for breaking the law and violating licensing terms.
There are other options to being gouged that hold water, buying discounted/used CD's, buying CD's from independant bands (I'll sell you some of our CD's for $10 at http://www.elfhill.com/Annwn), or just not buying CD's.
But taking something illegally is simply not a justifiable position just because you don't like the price point. You might not like the copyright laws (I sure don't either), but putting your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la doesn't make the unsupportability of your position go away.
Copyright law is the only law we have for being able to make licensing demands on content. The GPL only exists because of the strength of copyright law, as does the BSD license, as does any licensing of content, open or not. Undermining just some licenses because you don't like them paints you as selfish and hypocritical; part of the 'gimme-gimme' crowd that makes Open Source and Linux and most of this community look bad to the outside world.
There are constructive ways to make changes in things you don't like; freely taking for your own personal gain is not one of them.
You probably already saw this by Larry Wall, but it's deeply well-spoken and correct: "When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking."
--
Here's a list of people against that I gathered from RIAA's website:
-- Elton John
-- Lou Reed
-- Lars Ulrich, Metallica
-- Victoria Shaw, country music singer/songwriter
-- Art Alexakis, Everclear
-- Matt Johnson of The The
-- The Push Stars
-- Denyce Graves, RCA Victor Red Seal, Classical recording artist
-- Scott Stapp, lead singer/ lyricist for Creed
-- DJ Scratch, artist/producer
-- Anastacia, Daylight/Epic recording artist
-- Aimee Mann
-- Deborah Harry of Blondie
-- Bif Naked
-- Kristin Hersh, Throwing Muses
-- Mike Greene, President and CEO of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences
-- Ron Stone, Gold Mountain Management (represents Bonnie Raitt, Tracy Chapman, Ziggy Marley and others)
-- Mike Robertson, Mike Robertson Management (represents Nitty Gritty Dirt band, Wade Hayes, BlackHawk and others)
-- Ken Crear, Creative Management Group (represents Next, Sisqo, Mary Mary and others)
-- Chris Robinson, Black Crowes
-- Jonatha Brook
-- Morgan Rose, Sevendust
-- Cliff Burnstein, Q Prime Management (represents Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica)
-- Miles Copeland (manager for Sting)
-- Sean "Puffy" Combs, CEO, Bad Boy Entertainment, Inc.
-- Simon Renshaw, Senior Management (personal manager of the Dixie Chicks)
-- Rusty Harmon, Fishco Management (represents Hootie & The Blowfish)
-- Frank Breeden, President, Gospel Music Association, Inc.
-- Jeff Cameron, Jeff Hanson Management & Promotions (represents Creed and other artists)
-- Robert Holleyman, President and CEO, Business Software Alliance
Here is the link: http://www.riaa.com/Napster.cfm
I also believe Eminem is against.
I firmly believe that only the artist should be by law the *only* one allowed to make money off of their creation, unless they sign that power away.
Copywright law goes against the basic human instinct of "It's mine, I can do what I want with it, and I got it fair and square." Once someone gives you something (ie you legally obtain it), you can do whatever you want with it, including make duplicates of it, and give it or any duplicates away to whomever you want. Once you legally obtain something, I think that you should be allowed to do practically anything you want with it, including give copies away.
How do we balance these two desires somewhere in the middle? I think we should ban anyone from making money on something other than the artist him/herself.
Now actual THEFT has nothing to do with it. The artist sold someone the CD fair and square. That person then pays for the copy medium and *gives* that copy someone else, with their full permission. Intuitively many people feel that no harm is being done, because they feel they can do anything they want to something that is in their posession. (I think doing whatever you want to inanimate objects in your posession should be an inalienable human right.)
THAT is the basis of why people use Napster. Not because they want to "steal someone's overpriced land rover", but rather, because they feel they should be allowed to do anything they want to objects that are in their own home.
If the artist didn't want his music copied, he never should have sold it to people!
We won't have a say in the music industry until we provide content. So why aren't there any rapper/programmers. Both rappers and programmers are arrogant and prone to trash talking - seems like a natural fit. My coworkers are always saying things like "bitch couldn't optimize a hash join if you let him specify the cardinality of the tuples in advance." It seems like an easy transition from talking this kind of shit to busting phat rhymes. Why aren't any of us doing it? We'd have more pull if we produced music. If anyone wants to take action, I have the perfect stage name for you: NeXT Cube. Just screams geeky gangsta doesn't it?
Enough talk, lets take control of the music!
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
Hmmm... I wonder how that comment about those HP CD-R drives relates to Napster? Mysteries abound! :)
Metallic is just fussy because nobody is stealing anything off of Garage, Inc. Maybe Napster should set up a number of dummy accounts to trade tracks from what was clearly the worst Metallica album to date.
All Metallica is doing is protecting their interests, much like Napster will have to do with respect to Offspring's unauthorized use of its name. What really puzzles me is just what constitutes a "fan"...if I were Metallica, I wouldn't call someone willing to steal my music, a "fan". I'd call them what they are---a thief.
Well, as I said, many CDD2X00s are still around, writing along quite happily, churning out hundreds upon hundreds of CDs. We've got a few of them right here in our test systems, and never had any trouble with them. Are you sure it wasn't an issue with your SCSI card, for example?
And just 10 days out of warranty? Had you sent us a fax then, you'd probably have received another replacement even though it was out of warranty. Chances also are that the last replacement was less than 3 months before that one died on you aswell? In that case, you would have simply been a warranty case. But that is Philips PCP Europe, I don't know what the procedures in the US were...
*shrug*, we'll see what happens, and I'm truly sorry you had such a bad experience with Philips writers. By the way, 50% of ALL writers sold in Europe, if not even worldwide, are manufactured by Philips. Currently the Philips 3601, 3801, 4401 and 4801 are among the most OEM-ed drives out there. The CDD2X00 series were sold by various OEMs, among which indeed HP, but others aswell...
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
You have very good points.
It's unfortunate that people take the militia group stance towards this subject. The attitude of
"We don't like your stink'n laws, so we ain't gonna follow 'em," doesn't get much done.
If people really want freely redistributable music, the best way to get it, is to develop it, or support a community of those that do.
Err... sorry. Just wanted to take exception to one comment.
:)
Sure, then we can watch as concert ticket prices go MORE through the roof than they already are (my friend Dave paid more than $150 for Bruce Springsteen tickets...unreal).\
If your friend paid more than $150, that's because he bought multiple tickets. Springsteen has traditionally been very good about keeping tickets at reasonable prices, and making sure they go to actual fans (instead of scalpers). I went to his show in Austin and paid $150 (face value) for a pair of floor seats probably about 20 yards from the stage. I didn't think that was a bad deal at all. Springsteen is one of the hardest-working guys in music today, puts on a fantastic show, and in my opinion, those tickets were worth every penny. If you want to see some outrageous ticket pricing, check out the Rolling Stones, to mention a band off the top of my head.
Yeah, I'm a Springsteen fan. Is it that obvious?
-jay
An interview in Rolling Stone quotes them as saying some very interesting things. My personal favorite being:
Humorless sig goes here.
Intellectual property predates recording, soalthough you didn't ahve IP, there was no real way for people to copy you. People didn't buy your music,they bought your performance.
The management apologize for any convenience caused.
I had an English teacher in ninth grade who insisted you could find the word "sex" in any alcohol print advertising. For example, it could be written in the copy text, or it could be much more subtle. For example, "S" would be the curvaceous woman standing there, "E" in the fingers of her hand, and "X" in her crossed legs. Or "S" in the name of the product, "E" in the copyright notice, and "X" in crossed girders in the background.
Now, thanks to Slashdot, I've found someone even nuttier than her. Wow.
For more information, click here.
Well I've gone to the record stores to look at CDs and a lot of places have headphones that you can listen to a bunch of new albums. I've bought some CDs without ever having heard the artist on the radio, because I put on the headphones and listened to the first 15-30 secs of each song on the CD, then decided if it was worth purchasing.
I was talking at the bar this evening with one of the guys that runs www.etree.org and he said that a LOT of bands ENCOURAGE the distribution of their live show songs. Metallica is one of them. The quality of the show songs are not nearly what they are for the recordings that the bands themselves do, so they really don't hurt their sales. I think what a lot of bands are complaining about is the distribution of their recorded-for-CD songs which for the general population tend to replace a CD that the people would have otherwise bought.
If Napster was more like http://www.mp3.com I don't think they would have nearly the amount of problems they're having. Napster's facilitating the distribution of songs that the artists haven't given permission to be distributed.
As long as we're theorizing, why not do away with record companies completely? Artists can make their money giving concerts and selling merchandize, and use mp3s for bringing in the audience in the first place.
There's a pretty much universal belief running through the whole mp3/napster debate that CDs are too expensive. Living in the UK, I agree entirely ($15, try £15). The question is, how much would you be prepared to pay per track, if the company just put it on a web site for you?
/.ers be prepared to pay per track?
We don't even need a secure format, people are generally honest, especially when the gain from dishonesty is small. I get my paper from the newsagent's at the station. They are sitting on a rack with a coin box next to them. there is no way the staff can watch the box, they're too busy. I have never seen someone take a paper without paying. Why? Because a paper is 35p.
I'd be prepared to pay 20-50p a track, even if it was available on napster, and I'd buy a hell of a lot more music. what kind of price would other
The management apologize for any convenience caused.
"Many artists enjoy the publicity the recieve by having their songs traded on Napster"
Many artists are also suing Napster and anyone else who either trades, or facilitates the trading of illegal mp3s.
"CDs cost too much! Why should I pay them $12-$18 when CDs are so cheap?"
If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them and don't listen to the music. Find cheap local labels, or get music from independent sources like mp3.com Don't download the music for free then complain that it's "too expensive".
"If the artists are in it for the art, they should welcome mp3 trading."
Try living off of "art". Walk into a supermarket and try to trade your mp3 collection for a loaf of bread. Art is nice, but money is a necessity. And do you really think that Metallica or [insert current teenage pop star] are doing music for "art"?
"All intellectual property should be free"
If this were true, most music wouldn't exist. Despite what your favorite left-wing writers might think, financial rewards still have an attraction for most people.
"Anti-Napster 'advocates' want to destroy free music!"
No, many just think that the attitude of many Napster users is hypocritical and wrong. You don't deserve everything for free, no matter what Momma Slashdot says.
"Napster introduces a whole new paradigm of free information exchange which artists need to understand."
Perhaps *you* need to "understand" the current paradigm better. Most artists don't offer mp3s for sale. That is no excuse to download them illegaly. You can live without the new Britney Spears album. Trust me.
"You must work for the RIAA!"
Good parrot. Have a cracker.
It's almost as if the Offspring are saying "Sure you can violate our copyright, but we're going to violate your trademark." I think it's brilliant. It will be a horrible problem with public relations if Napster sues to protect it's trademark, but they'll lose it if they don't. Lets see how Napster feels about intellectual property when it's their own.
Here's the relavent section from Napster's license terms page:
(My emphasis in italics.)
- Of course I think I'm right. If I thought I was wrong I'd change my mind. (That doesn't apply to spelling. I know I'm wrong there.)
So if you want to make a statement, don't buy RIAA CDs. Buy indie Cds, or go to MP3.com. That would make a statement. But when you try to make a statement about how the music industry is greedy and charge too much, and then go and show your own greed by stealing someone else's intellectual property, the only statement you make is about you own hypocrisy.
My question is, why not? There are components of a CD price that the record companies just can't explain. If you do a dollar-for-dollar accounting of where the money goes when you buy a CD (e.g. $.50 for pressing, $6.00 to artist, etc.) there is money that just has no reason to be there. They are overpricing the CD's simply because they can. They have a monopoly on a commodity, they being 5 record companies who have a standing agreement not to foster competition amongst each other, the commodity beind music, which, okay, isn't water or electricity, but it's high up on the list of people's wants and needs. The Big Five can charge what they want, to a point, because they know people have to pay it. And record companies have been doing this since CDs came out (20 years), possibly longer. Now, with that in mind, what is so bad about ripping them off in return? I simply don't see the moral argument about "stealing" when their own, essentially, theft, has turned David Geffen et al. into multibillionaires by ripping the consumer off. Maybe if piracy continues en mass for about 20 more years, and the recording industry is finally cut down to size, I'll feel a few pangs of guilt. Until then, I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I have an old HP rewritable drive sitting in front of me that i trashed a while ago. it died. i know it's 2x/2x/6x drive. i do'nt know if it's the 4020. there are lots of fun numbers on the back, none of them looking like an intelligent id. and of course i don't have the original box. it's about 3 years old. Can anyone tell me if i have a winner?
also, i bought the 8250 as a replacement, which I really dislike. Can i toss that drive in too and get even more of a rebate? thanks!
You can sue a company for selling a crappy product. Couldn't read the actual site cause it's been /.ed -- but that is the gist of it from what I understand.
Oh My God -- the law suits against micros~1 should begin any second now!!!
I cannot be the only here that remembers the Encyclopedia Brown series with fondness. I still remember most of the cases (what's a word with three double-letters in a row? Bookkeeper of course! Car's hoods get hot after driving for several hours. Blind men don't read newspapers. Boiled eggs are cleaned up with brooms, not mops. Need I go on?) I think, for me at least, the best part was lying there groaning afterwards at how stupid you were for not seeing that in the first place. Wow, and the modernhumorist gets the tone of those down exactly right, too. Well, the tone is right, some of the content is slightly different (fine ho's!! hehe). I was laughing out loud.
I appreciate what you are saying... The class action law suit mentality is a bad thing. BUT! The 4020i was a freaking hunk of trash. Seriously, I had to work so hard to get burns out of it... And then it died. It was a piece of crap, and I've known about this grumbling for a long time. Its not a hypochondriac imagined thing... Its so reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal!
-jeff
http://www.somethingpositive.net Funny + bitter = comedy gold
Doh!
www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com Temporarily Unavailable
This account has surpassed its bandwidth allocation at the present time. You may reach the account administrator at www@www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com
Looks like more people have those CDR's than they expected. I for one have two of 'em and am eagerly awaiting my $400!
Me, I car-jack just to see if I like a car or not. If I find that I really like it, I'm going to go out and buy it. If not, no harm done, they've lost a sale.
What is starting to rankle a little is how sanctimonious people are being about the evil record industry stealing copyright. That's right, you ignoring copyright laws is really striking a blow for poor, oppressed musicians. How touchingly altruistic of you. You don't get anything out of it.
ad
Napster battle nigh
Artists, companies take sides
Hope consumers win
This item appeared yesterday on the frequently-linked-to Brunching Shuttlecocks:
Napster of Puppets
MSK
I think you can count Courtney Love in the pro-Napster camp. Though I can't find a reference online, I've read several articles that feature pro-Napster comments from her.
Of course John Perry Barlow, EFF cofounder & Grateful Dead lyricist, is foursquare for Napster too....
--
"Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare,
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
I heard it *only* affected the first CDD2xxx drives - later versions of the same model (if there is such a thing...) were OK.
Like I said below, mine kept on stopping a month or two after warranty ran out (on the original warranty, then 6-month ones from the people who "mended" it. Twice).
I bought a new internal HP CDRW (no mean feat given I have a G4!) only a fortnight ago after the CDD2000 conked out one last time. I really want some compensation from Philips.
(Sorry to keep posting the same stuff, it just seems relevant.)
- Oliver
"exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
Mötley Crüe's "Metalli Greed!"
In this hilarious macromedia flash 4 cartoon, characatures of the Mötley Crüe band members, in their own voices, tell their fans and the rest of the Internet what they really think about Metallica, Napster, and the whole bit. They call Metallica "grumpy, moody assholes." Hmm.
After reading this quote you may think to yourself, ``Self, regardless of my individual music taste, I feel that The Offspring, when it comes to Napster, do indeed get it.'' This, of course, only holds true until you realize that they like Napster so much, that they are distributing Napster shirts, hats, stickers, et cetera by way of their site. This merchandising, though seemingly astute, is essentially forcing Napster to sue The Offspring to enforce its trademark.
If Napster chooses not to sue The Offspring it risks losing its trademark altogether. So you again think to yourself, ``Self, it sure would look foolish for Napster to be on the offensive end of a trademark dispute against a band who is being supportive. Would it really be that bad for Napster to loose its trademark?''
The answer to this internal monologue is a resounding (external), ``YES''. Here are a couple of scenarios that are possible if Napster chooses not to sue:
- Bands who oppose Napster (read: Metallica), are capable of distributing ``Napster(TM) SUCKS!'' accessories.
- RIAA may release their own Napster(TM) software, which deletes, from your drives, all MP3 files containing names of artists signed by RIAA members (and then spreads itself to everyone in your Microsoft Outlook address book).
This causes an extremely uncomfortable situation for the folks at Napster and does not work in the favor of The Offspring either.| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Don't try to tell me her newest album isn't just a William Orbit album with her singing over it.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
I remember the days of the ol' Z80, 6502, and 8080 assembler DIY computer kits. My first computer was 6502-based and required assembly.
Heck, I remember when USENET was introduced, and how cool that was! Whoa, you mean we can post messages and it'll get automatically distributed to News servers around the world? FREAKY!
Unix will never die.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Actually the CDD2200 has the weak spring, the CDD2600 has a problem with its lubricant being dried out. Both cause the heads to not be aligned properly towards the center of the disk. It causes many problems: Disc's not being recognized, unusually long spin-up time when first inserting a disk, and coasters.
Stupid things kids do.
that's got to be the funniest thing i've heard in years.
i think, as someone who remembers "napster" asking #couzin-ed for help creating an mp3 search engine a few years back on EdNet, i should set the record straight.
the napster system was created by a kid named sean (sorry dude, i don't remember your last name) who, IIRC, slept alot. he liked to nap. thus, the nickname napster.
at the time he was working for my current employer on a database for a local real estate agency. when sean left megabite to go to school, i took over his position.
he's not by any means a racist. and you, friend, are a terrible satirist.
I think the best recouse for something like this is to see the word get out about what a piece of crap their cd-rom drives are. Definitely get your money if you can, but with any luck, HP will get schooled by Johnny Customer and lose some business. That'll teach 'em good.
1. Ether way it is theft of intellectual property.
2. It can't be slander if they don't identify who did it...
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
OK, so HP have settled... But what about those of us who were backed into a corner, and had no option but to accept HP's "send us $X to upgrade and we'll send you a 6x2x2 rewriter'... Would I be able to get my $$$s back on this 'upgrade', since I had no other option to get a working drive? Or have I, as I suspect, already 'settled' with HP...
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
You're right, that is price fixing. My point was they didn't say anything about the price of CDs. CD prices won't come down, and the FTC didn't say they should.
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it.
Maybe, but I doubt it would be any worse than what you get with vhs tapes or cassette tapes. Once the prices came down on these, people didn't bother to copy them. They were cheap enough to buy that it didn't make sense to bother with copying.
Except that you can only copy so many videos by hand. Everyone seems to like this comparison, but they have basically nothing in common. To copy a video, you need 2 VCRs, a blank tape for every copy you make and LOTS of time. Distibuting a copy of a video to a million people is basically impossible. Now, to get a copy of a song to a million people you need a computer with a CD-ROM (which is almost every one), an internet connection, and Napster). With MP3s you can distribute an infinite number of songs to an infinite number of people (yes, it's hyperbole, I know) with little effort. It cost people time and money to get a (sometimes much) lesser quality copy of a video, whereas it is completely free to get a vitually exact copy of a song.
The industry stole from us, and then complains about us stealing from them. They're being just as hypocritical.
And as we all know, if someone steals from you, you are morally correct to steal from them. They way to show they are hypocritical is to not make their mistakes while showing others what they are doing. You invalidate your own arguement in the same breath you invalidate theirs.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
The other day, after hearing on a TV show a song which I liked, I spent some time trying to find it on the Internet, so that I could decide if I liked it in order to buy it (Beck, Sissyneck, I think was the song, but I wanted to be sure.)
It would have been nice if it was possible for me to listen to the song, and then even buy it with my credit card online. But apparently no such service exists, despite the technology being available for quite some years now. I searched for two hours and in that time did not manage to find a single site that could either let me listen to the song, or buy it (other than buying the entire CD, which I explicitly did *not* want to do, buying ten songs I DONT like to get one nice song is a dumb dumb dumb concept.)
I even attempted to locate the song illegally, but failed to come up with any site that would let me download before uploading first, a nasty proposition with my 33.6 modem in an African country. I even tried Napster, but failed to get connected to the server every time, I don't know why.
It is no bloody wonder that music piracy is rife on the Net - there *is* practically no way to buy legitimate mp3's online.
I don't know too much about the offspring, but I bought their first cd but not their second, had no idea if they have new material beyond that until now
You really bought their first, self-titled CD, in 1989? If so, you're one of the few. (excellent CD, though)
Unless, of course, you mean you bought Smash, their first MTV-popularized CD.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
its called "techno" - though this is not exclusive, as Punk, and Classical are also "Geek" favorites.
and its completely unacceptable to mainstream music interests. Theres no Depressing lyrics, no way to control the masses. Hell, most music that is put out is downright intelectually insulting.
We do create music... lots of it... but its music that you have to sit there and think about... sit there and really listen to. It isnt a quick 3 minute NSync piece of crap. Its music that was crafted with beautiful patterns that challenge the mind.
Go find that in your next Bacstreet Boys album.
... hi bingo
This is interesting, because on
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Can your IM do this?
why is this a troll???? It makes perfect sense.
---
Jedi-Bene Gesserit
"Teachers leave us kids alone
Tired of being the only one on your block who hasn't issued a rambling, meaningless legal threat to Napster? Can't afford high priced, low moral legal representation to craft elegant claims of damages and wrongdoing you have suffered at their cruel and perverted hand? Just click through this easy multiple choice form and your one hundred percent screwball legal threat will be generated and sent by Low Pass catfish to the acting CEO of Napster, Eileen Richardson. Don't delay, start now!
Napster Forgiveness Machine
Once again, Low Pass Industries is here to bail you out of your seemingly hopeless predicament. Our in-house polytheist chaplain (Mark Anthony Lynett) has agreed to read and provide nearly instant absolution for any confessions submitted via the form below. As everyone knows, the first step to forgiveness is the admission of sin.
If a single from Madonna's not-yet-released album got released, Madonna's got far bigger problems within her record company. People *THIS WAS AN INSIDE JOB* There's no way a bunch of college kids on Napster are going to pull something like this off. If people can walk off with something like this, what else are they making off with that nobody knows about?
I will now force you through an extensive list of my past experiences with computers and Unix, dating back to the early 60's, but... hey, you started it! :)
:) and back to the main point. As far as I'm concerned, Unix shouldn't ever have been born at all. I'm not sure that it ever was fit for some purpose, and if it was, it's no more so. Unix is already dead, and its decaying corpse is only still being lugged around thanks to the three decades of indoctrination, "worse is better" and "if it looks like it works, don't fix it" to which so many people were subjected. I remain convinced that, once the twin plagues of Unix and C are exterminated, the computer industry will flourish into a new Golden Age.
:)
Anyway, I myself had the privilege of working with the very first transistor-based computer to arrive here at Rio (an already-obsolete IBM complete with its card-reading sibling), and then with the first DEC minicomputer to arrive (a PDP-10, for which I personally ordered from MIT a copy of ITS on tape).
We didn't really know much about Unix here until around 1985-1986, when we were forced to switch to VAXen, and someone decided that, between VMS and BSD, we were better off with that stupid little OS.
Alas, no more ITS, and none of the fabled Lisp Machines ever arrived here (AFAIK, anyway); a few years later, we started adopting some Sun hardware too. And not once did the utter and complete imbecility of Unix's design, architecture and implementation cease to nag me whenever I logged into the system.
But enough of "my credentials are bigger than yours"
Thus my sig.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Yeah, that's true, but stealing IP in the form of music isn't the answer, it only screws the promotions people while the execs pull down their millions. Go after the execs, not the promotions people and the accountants.
I don't know of any way to go after the execs. We just do what we need to do to get the music. Now, like many people, I want to support the artists I like. That's why I still buy cds even though they're expensive as hell. I just make sure that the cd is worth buying before I allow myself to be screwed over by the record company in order to support the artist. I do this by downloading the music and listening to it so I can decide whether it's worth buying or not. I don't see why I should have to make an uninformed decision when I go to buy a cd. I think many people do the same thing, which is why the record industry's profits are still increasing each year.
Yeah, I agree, but apparently, they never know when the single is gonna go huge...so they sign everyone and then they're stuck selling everybody shitty muzak.
Right, which people are tired of getting stuck with. Which is why they like to download the music first and listen to it before they plunk down 15 bucks for the cd.
but for the most part I buy USED CDs. Heard of em?
Sure, but I'm talking about new cds, as in not previously owned. Used cds aren't really relevant to the discussion. We're talking about retail sales of new cds. That's the biggest part of the business. Hell, if the record companies had gotten their way before, you wouldn't be able to buy used cds.
It is stealing. You're acquiring IP you don't have the license for. It's theft, whether or not the RecCos got cash for it or not.
How can it be theft if nobody is losing anything? It's copyright infringement, not theft. Theft requires somebody to actually lose something, and I have seen no evidence that the record companies or artists are losing anything. On the other hand, the FTC did come up with evidence that consumers have been ripped off to the tune of $480 million by the record companies. So who are the real thieves?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The whole Napster blow up proves exactly one thing: It proves how well the record labels big budget marketing programs work on all the supposed "free thinkers" who complain about this. If you really want to hurt the RIAA, kick Metallica and Madonna off Napster and download somebody else's music. As long as you keep throwing a tantrum about it, you are playing right into thier hands. Go to www.iuma.com. There are thousands of free downloads there and most of them are better than Metallica...
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Disclaimer: I am of the persuasion that the MP3/Napster phenomenon is Not A Bad Thing.
I'm sure I'll probably get royally flamed for this, but I've gone for long enough without ranting.
I'm really tired of this banter about copying mp3s being stealing or that we shouldn't be doing it because we didn't pay for the music or whatever. Every argument I've heard crumbles in the face of one simple fact. You can't stop people from copying mp3s.
Sure, perhaps people ought to be searching out indie artists or whatever if they feel that the price of CDs is too high. Perhaps. But that's not going to happen and it's not realistic to stand around and whine about it. No one is going to stop the spread of mp3s. They're here and they're not going away. If you like you can cry and whimper, but you can't change it.
There's also the consideration that this is a free market, and technology has now changed in such a way to allow people to freely and easily copy mp3s instead of paying ridiculous prices for CDs. Whether or not it's legal or ethical is moot. You can't regulate it, so it becomes a factor that influences the choices people make. Sorry, that's the breaks.
Now.. if you find a way to actually regulate the spread of pirated mp3s, then I'll be more than happy to discuss ethics. Until then, however, this entire debate is ridiculous because it doesn't matter. Mp3s are here. Say hello or don't; they're not leaving.
This silly behavior by the RIAA and filthy rich artists comes off to me as some form of denial.
P.S. Since this is an old discussion, and I'm curious as to how people will react to this, I'm going to repost it verbatim to a newer napster-related article when I find a good time. Hope that doesn't piss anyone off (then again, if it does, tough.. I almost care about my karma).
So if those units had such a warranty, then this case may be a precedent for the invalidity of such warranties.
As always, IANAL (don't any lawyers post on /.? Oh wait, I saw one... once... ever...)
---
END OF LINE
If I could tell Madonna to pull her head out of my lap for a moment, I'd tell her that Napster is getting caught in the crossfire here and it's not right. I'm sure the staff of Napster are not responsible for the stolen/leaked track.
So cut the drama queen shit in the press. Come here and shag me rotten, baby!
So you think Unix and C should never have been born. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with yours.
On what basis are you assuming that Unix and C have been *detrimental* as a whole?
And what is your suggested alternative?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
http://www.joecartoon.com/buddie s/chaos/index.html
Requires Shockwave.
So many of you self-proclaimed "do gooders" are out and about, saying, rather hypocritically I bet, that we're all pirates, and we're so evil, that we steal from musicians. Well, I completely disagree. I think our society is one which requires a large movement of people to change things.
I don't remember if Slashdot ran a story on this or not, but a week or so ago, the Federal Trade Commision concluded that music producers were engaging in price-fixing (forget the proper term, I'm sure someone will help me out). The FTC found that CDs cost TOO MUCH!
And Napster is what's going to make the prices go down. Remember back in the day, when VHS costed $100 per movie. That sparked a movement where people began copying their own videos. People, this is nothing more than history repeating itself.
Now we have videos for $14.95, or $19.95. Is it really worth $14.95 to have two VCRs, a bunch of cables, and the wasted time of copying VHS cassettes? I think not.
And now it's time for all of the music industry to follow suit. They need to lower prices. Piracy is a result of outrageous prices! If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
And am I the only one who is sick and tired of music artists telling us bullshit like, "We don't have any control over the prices of CDs". I HATE THAT. Lars Ulrich sat there, and lied to our faces. You know it's bad when someone like Metallica cares so much about profits, that they are willing to lie, and try to get warm and fuzzy with their fans. Don't believe for a second. Artists have a lot more control than you think. They've just been locked into the "system" for so long, that they've lost sight of what's really important.
People we need to open our eyes. Artists who have embraced Napster are not going broke. If it weren't for Napster, I would have never bought my Offsping CDs! Let alone any of the large numbers of CDs I own now
If you ask me, I say keep running Napster, or Gnutella, as your taste preferes. And stop letting the criminal music industry tell you that you are a theif. Art should be free for everyone to enjoy!
For:
Courtney Love
Can you get Karma points via napster? Just looking for some info. -Signal 11
-o I'm not monotheist; It's obvious I'm a queer. o-
The Madonna link refers several times to Madonna as if she is a bigger act than Metallica.... Is this true? Have I really become THAT disconnected from pop music?
I guess I can only hope it's true...
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Actually, my friends and I always thought the proper bastardization of the title "Master of Puppets" was "Pasture of Muppets." Unfortunately, I don't have the artistic skills neccessary to depict Kermit & co. in a field with the Metallica logo atop.
I had a HP 4324 and I wanted to check it at http://www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com/ but I can't pull up anything useful because they got slashdotted =) I quote from the site: www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com Temporarily Unavailable This account has surpassed its bandwidth allocation at the present time. You may reach the account administrator at www@www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com Since Concentric's Hosting is done by Gbits transferred per month, I have to wait 30 days to access that site =P Doh! Gilbert
I know this script has been bashed before but Napster is a medium of data exchange. It by itself is not actively seeking to traffic copyrighted material. On the same note ethernet, FDDI, etc. are mediums of data exchange why not sue cable, card, and all other forms of data exchanging equipment. Imagine how much illegal material has crossed on the average CAT-5 cable!
If a radi station can buy a single copy of a CD and play it for free to millions of listeners over the air then why can't I buy a Metallica CD and play/share it over the internet for free??
Is Metallica going to start suing radio stations next?
If I record a Metallica song off the radio and listen to it later is that illegal??
If my friend is at my home and hears the song too is that illegal???
If so then VCR's and tape recorders will soon be outlawed.
We won't be able to tape a baseball game and watch it with a friend later.
I don't see how sharing songs on Napster is any different than taping a TV show or radio broadcast and playing it later for a friend
Anyone else feel the same???
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
By encouraging the bootlegging of their concerts, it could be argued that they effectively waived their rights to damages for use of this material. Not that I really think they're going to waste their time suing individual napsterites. Sadly, their previous comments plainly showed they were once on the side of their fans, rather than their record company. Now, they just seem upset that they aren't entitled to some of Napster's IPO cash. Napster is plainly playing wink wink nudge nudge on copyright law, but really, who cares? Once Metallica makes less money than I do, then I'll feel guilty about downloading their music for free. P.S. Lars, I don't even like Metallica, and I don't have any of your MP3's, so don't bother suing me.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
Part of the problem with most MP3 sharing is that the same horrible music keeps getting passed around, while independent bands have difficulty benefiting from digital distribution. Unfortunately, most still need the power of a label to help promote their music, as many people just download what they've already heard (or heard of).
I don't particularly care if the sharing of music destroys the music industry. I don't want to listen to most of it anyway. There are plenty of good, independent bands to listen to, and if the huge amount of money going to the corporate bands today was distributed among lots of little bands that most people have never heard of, we'd be better off. Why? Greater variety and more choice for music listeners.
The problem is this: how do you discern a good no-name band from a bad no-name band? Simple-- we take over radio. We don't take the corporate approach, however, with a few massive stations. Instead, a huge number of small stations take their place, each taking a much more narrow focus. Rather than generic, Top 40-ish stations, where nearly all listeners only like part of the play-list, you put in dozens of (very) genre-specific stations. They serve tiny markets, but they're run with small staffs, small transmitters, and music content free of charge.
So how does it all fit together?
Someone, with adequate venture capital, starts signing (non-exclusive) distribution agreements with every good no-name band they can find. Furthermore, they subsize the small radio station start-up fees for everyone who wants in. These radio stations play anything, with no restrictions, from your music repository. You provide high quality digital copies of the signed bands music (with no limits on redistribution). You provide community sections were like-minded fans can discuss/flame/recommend new bands. They can build their own play lists. They can DJ their own digital radio stations, etc.
Then, you start providing "value-adds". You promote your bands' tours and sell tickets online. You sell custom CDs (the customer selects tracks until the CD is full). You sell T-shirts, artwork (a throwback to the old era of CD inserts), perfect digital copies of the master, phonographs, autographed CDs, pictures, posters, ads on a my.mp3.com-like service, etc.
Things will start off slow, so it's important that the signing of bands be a totally non-exclusive, low-commitment thing. This way up and coming bands will sign on for exposure. When they get big, they'll dump you for major labels. Over time, your network will grow, and bands will be happy with the revenue stream generated by your service. Some existing big name bands will distribute some of their music through you, because they like the idea. As things continue, your network of radio stations will be large enough that you begin to wrest control from the corporate stations. Then conventional "brick and mortar" retail music distribution channels start to open up, and you can start putting your big name bands in mainstream stores, along with compilation CDs of your upcoming big name bands.
This is the key; you get in a position to take a cut of everything: merchanise, touring, ads, endorsements, media distribution, and even some music sales. The artists get the majority of this money. You can provide the publicity, the exposure, the distribution channels, and you don't rip the artists off. Nobody will make as much money anymore, and a lot fewer middlemen will be making money, but there will be many more artists capable of making a living. And for many aspiring bands, the prospect of being able to live comfortably making music would be an improvement, even if there is no longer a chance of them becoming insanely rich.
So, I have the business plan. Does anyone here have the VC? I want to be a billionaire. (irony intended to reflect my cyncial outlook on the realistic possibility of people accepting sharing the wealth among many bands when there is still the chance that they could be one of the insanely rich ones).
Odd, my 6020 here is happily burning away and has been for 3 years now...I've often pondered on it's reliability actually...Is this specific to external drives maybe?
Here in Belgium, a guy was arrested yesterday for having downloaded 4 000 mp3 files and having put them on a cable server : "the equivalent of 9 500 CD in the mp3 format" -- the math is strange, they just counted that he transferred 95 000 files since the begining of the year, with a mean of 10 songs/CD. No word about Napster/Gnutella, only a vague sentence about the Galaxy server.
The complaint issued from the IFTI, the International Federation of Phonographic Industry (?).
It was a hot topic on Belgian IRC channels today. I'm amazed how mp3 stories begin to appear everywhere, even for non-computer-litterate people.
Here's a link from a local newspaper about it. It's French, but those of you who read it should find it as scary as I found it myself.
Stéphane
Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head (John Lennon, 1970)
I respect your position, but keep in mind that it's people who build bridges. Sure, better tools help build better bridges - and bad tools will not only make for worse bridges, they'll make some things utterly impossible. (Where would primates be today without opposable thumbs?)
And that's where my point comes in. The fact that some people managed to build so much great software, despite Unix and C... that is, IMAO, a great testimony to each programmer's, engineer's or researcher's intelligence, skill and resourcefulness. (Of course, those are still the minority; as you well know, most software written anywhere is not at all demonstrative of intelligence, skill or resourcefulness.)
But I digress. My point is, sure we've used Unix and C to do some great things. But instead of lauding them for it, more people should be acknowledging their inadequacy for many other purposes. For they themselves have really done nothing, but the people who used them. In short, they should be replaced, not praised.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
I just find it ironic that Metallica started off by trading tapes in San Francisco.
. at my signal -- unleash hell .
I don't expect Mr. AC racist to take anything away from this, but anyone who has any interest in the TRUTH may want to read on.
The biological FACT is that inter-breeding produces SUPERIOR offspring.
Native American Indians were desimated largely becasue of their lack of genetic diversity. The Royal Families of Europe were so "pure" white that they could bleed to death from a little nick.
Frankly, I think that people (particularly women, since I am a man.) of mixed "racial" background (be it Asian, African, European, or American) are particularly attractive. But that's just me.
I put "racial" in quotes, as we are all the same race.
So, Mr. AC racist coward, it is nice for you to be able to justify your racist attitude with your little make-belive "facts." Try not to let it effect others.
Finally, since you want to bring peoples kids into this, who's kids suffer more; your kids who's hearts and minds are filled with your irrational hate and fear, or "mixed" kids who have to live in the same world with them?
-Peter
Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.
The website of the class action settlement in the story is temporarily unavailable due to exceeding their bandwidth limit. (http://www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com) Could someone please mirror it? (I got a P.O.S. hp6020 to rid myself of!)
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
I use Napster. I use it for "legitimate" purposes. I moved to a different country 4 years ago, but a lot of my stuff is still in England in storage until I can get it shipped to me. Now I use Napster to download songs that I DO own, but that are sitting with the rest of my stuff a few thousand miles away. This is not the question though, this is just to flesh out the background of the question.
The question is this. Practically everything I download on Napster I have on TAPE back in England. Now, MP3's are made from CD. While the area is grey, I believe it is legal to make a copy of your OWN CD for your OWN use. (Don't quote me, IANAL.) Now, my question. I own the tapes. Tapes are inferior to CD's, therefore, would you consider this "theft"? I have the tape, but am downloading an MP3 which is of higher quality. Is this more "illegal" than downloading an MP3 of a song you have on CD? After all, I only paid for the "inferior" tape version.
This has been intriguing me for a while now and I figured I'd post it and see what people think.
Cheers
Took the words right out of my, uh, hands?
Gotta go get that tinfoil hat back from my neighbour...
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Lubricant drying out? Yes, that's a known problem - if you operate the writer outside of its temperature margins. If you take care that the writer doesn't overheat, and stays within the recommended temperature margins, those writers can give you years and years of joy.
And the spring problem? That existed in the CDD2600 aswell, afaik. Up until now I had never heard of the CDD2200. Must be a US-only model? What speed is it?
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
The article says that the single was "a work in progress." If this was the case, isn't the custodian of the music, namely the record label, to blame for a lack of security regarding it?
Recorded music doesn't just fly away like a little bird. Someone released it - that's who Madonna should be worried about, not Napster or Gnutella.
Besides, who's to say she didn't do it herself to get some free publicity? She was never above creating controversy, no matter how popular she became...
Just a thought...
Why do all you holier-than-thous make the analogy of car theft?
Because they haven't yet got to the part of high school where they teach World War II, so they don't know to call people NAZIs yet.
Who thinks Slashdot needs a Napster topic icon? There seems to be a new Napster story each day ;)
AFAICT, and IANAPornStar, and standard disclaimers and so forth, but how is Napster responsible for a song being distributed before it's been "officially" released? Using this logic, couldn't EFNET and Undernet and Microsoft Outlook (or any e-mail application that provides attachment encoding/decoding) be sued as well just for providing the ability to transfer files? This sounds more like the "leaked beta" (AKA "free publicity") crap that MS pulls.
If the RIAA and these bands are so threatened by napster, why aren't they up in arms over the upgraded trade status with China? Isn't that where a lot of actual pirate copies of all kinds of stuff made?
I do not have a signature
Have you ever had to service a Compaq desktop?
Not only are most of the parts proprietary, they're absolute and utter CRAP! Even the floppy drive has to be purchased from Compaq (at an exhorbant price -- all thanks to a special face plate so the fucking thing will fit in the ugly-as-hell case).
I wonder how many ex-Packard Bell employees populate the Compaq desktop division? Not that Compaq needed any help from PB to suck -- they were doing just great at it when PB was on the upswing a few years back ("upswing" for Packard Bell meaning that they stopped reselling machines with known toasted parts and motherboards crammed into cases literally too small for them)
I will shed no tears for Compaq -- no matter how good their servers are.
Anyway, during the time that I devised the experiment, I gathered up as much info on subliminal messages as I could. My high-school art teacher showed me how subliminal messages can be embedded in magazine ads. Most notably beauty/fashion ads, for example makeup ads in Cosmopolitan. The messages are VERY hard to discern, so much so you'd almost think they weren't there. But after you spot one or two, you can find them more easily. Mostly they say SEX in light delicate thin strokes around the models faces and bodies.
Of course, this could be chance. Ie, random photographic techniques may produce similar 'SEX' marks in any random magazine photograph. I didn't check out too many ads in this way. But most makeup ads that I looked at did have what appeared to be the letters 'SEX'.
make world, not war
Napster, Napster, great disaster,
;)
with MP3 downloads.
Profits to hell if CDs don't sell,
and tons of lawsuits all in a row!
(I wonder if the reference is clear
In agreement with Mr Barlow I must say that the 'Music Industry' has strangled much of the creativity of thousands of prospective artists. I agree that the Music Industry has produced little unique work in and of itself. However, the main purpose I beleive of the music industry is to make money (the ultimate in Morality) but first and formost the Music Industry protects the RIGHTS of the individual artists. As for yourself Mr Barlow you wish to see your music spread freely thoughout this 'gift market'? That is your choice. The artists that have signed contracts with Music Companies were not coerced or forced at the point of a gun, they willingly CHOSE to 'SELL' the creations of their MINDS in LEGAL and binding CONTRACT. For the most part Musicians that have 'MADE a living' in the music industry have worked MOST of their LIVES (meaning focusing all their mental, physical biengs) to become good enough to MAKE money at it. Each person has his or her own reasons why they chose music, but their personal reasons are not at issue. Each musician CHOSE WILLFULLY to SELL the products of their MINDS in order to MAKE A PROFIT. A profit that will be lessened by the free distribution of their hard earned work on the NET by NAPSTER and it's ILK. How in the name of MANKIND can you even call it 'FAIR USE'??!! It isn't 'FAIR' to those musicians that spent years of agonizing time and effort to create their music, dances, to write, to perfect their playing abilities, to labor over the perfection of their craft! Why is it 'FAIR' to them? How is it 'FAIR'?! They worked with all they had in them to create something never before created in order to make money, to support themselves and their families. How and Why are two questions that you have answered for yourself and your 'ALTRUISTIC' The Grateful Dead. Your opinion is NOT shared by all of the music industry (industry? Why do you 'DE-HUMANIZE' it? An INDUSTRY is a group of PEOPLE that have united with a simmilar goal, to make money. Making money from the labor of your own ahrd work, or in contract for distributing the hard work of others thru legal contract is EVIL to you? NO! I say NO! it is NOT evil to earn a living in such an honorable way. The 'Music Industry is a united group of PEOPLE that have formed corporations to distribute LEGALLY and with FULL contractual CONSENT of it's ARTISTs the BLOOD, SWEAT and TEARS of YEARS and LIFTEIMES of hard work on their individual parts. Music industry is NOT a non-living thing, it IS ALIVE. Ithas a life of it's own by contractual consent of it's statement of purpose, ie; to distribute music for it's CONSENTING artists.) To call the music industry EVIL because it is protecting its LEGAL PROPERTY is the most BASE and EVIL concept in itself. Altruism leads to only one final conclusion, DEATH. Death of ambition - who wants to work for years creating music, perfecting music ability only to recieve 'thank you'? Mr Barlow you are a very wealthy man. Why? because you distributed your music freely? or let people into your concerts freely? Excuse me sir, but I have never gone to a free DeadHead concert, recieved free music, or other things from your band. I expect to pay for these things. Money is your REWard for your Ability, creativity and hard work. MONEY is a STANDARD. (a GOLD standard is the only real standard but we'll pass on that till there is an article about economics) Your recieved money because people wanted what you were SELLING. To say that you would give away FREELY your music NOW AFTER you have sold MILLIONS of records, AFTER making Millions of dollars, is total HYPOCRICY. So sir, philosophicaly your premise is flawed. The very root of your argument (that Music given freely is good) is flawed. Is it innevitable that the music industry will fail? I do not know. I DO know this. Without the motivation of ACHIEVING MONEY for hard work and creativity this world will fail itself entirely. No wone will work for free. How can you expect musicians to do so? This might be the death toll of the music industry as we see it, but I swear by my life and my love of it, that it will be the death toll for all of us. People who 'LOOT' artists ability for free are thieves of the lowest kind. If you enjoy it, pay for it. No one works a 50 hours work week for free, why should artists? PS: Seek out Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged for a more complete concept of why a 'gift marktet' is evil.
Lawsuits against Napster will be dropped due to lack of interest, as musicians fight over the more important issue of which of them is the "biggest name"...
human://billy.j.mabray/
"Every good system has a backup." -- Dale Hanchey
--
It's really too bad that Madonna has come out against Napster. Surely she, if anyone, should be able to find some way to use it to further her own fame.
Also, I wonder how much the single was really a work-in-progress, as the video was being shot in April, according to the Official Madonna Fan Club.
If only Microsoft would move to Canada, we'd finally get the the "Windows, eh?" edition.
-- Diana Hsieh
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
Before any of you go off and Slashdot http://www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com/ keep in mind what you are going to be supporting. Recently, there have been a plethora of class action lawsuits filed against hardware manufacturers by a few less than scrupulous attorneys out to make a quick billion. Both Compaq and Toshiba have come under fire recently by these class action suits. Toshiba recently settled out of court one suit for $USD 2 billion.
Now, I'm not advocating that the companies that produce faulty hardware should not be liable for the quality of the products that they produce, but these suits are getting ridiculous. Toshiba HAD to settle that suit because the total value of the lawsuit was more than the $USD 9 billion. Here's an article from the New York Times.
This crap is getting out of hand. Toshiba, to me, has been a good company. They sold a flawed product, just as many manufacturers do. The flaw was minor and did not affect that many people. Now a couple of lawyers looking to make a quick 30% of the take have decided that their pocketbooks are more important than the thousands of jobs that Toshiba provides around the world. All of you that have bought the great products that Toshiba has made over the last few years are going to have to pay more for anything you buy from them because these bastards are legally stealing from Toshiba.
Compaq is on the chopping block for the same sort of trouble now too. Put "compaq class action" into a google search and see what you come up with. I just hope that more people take notice of this type of legalized theft before all hardware prices go up by 30%. What's next, "My Nvidia driver didn't work great, so I'm going to sue the company out of existence?"
Of course, no one is bringing suit against Microsoft for knowingly releasing a product with some 64,000 odd bugs....
For:
Limp Bizkit
Chuck D.
The Offspring
Against:
Metallica
Dr. Dre
Madonna
On the Fence:
Weird Al (Question 4)
Anyone know any other artists' stance?
-----
It's called 'Media Whore', from her forthcoming album 'Return 2 Teknophobia'.
Co-written by A. Bastard & D. Umbfukk.
The sleeve-notes will confirm the rumour that Madonna is, in fact, the mother of Christ.
On another point, it is really good to see that some bands like the Offspring are supporting the MP3 revolution, want people to enjoy their art, not have to dish out for it like it's some kind of commodity :), and realize that MP3s really don't hurt sales in the slightest. Hopefully more bands will get a frickin clue.
The glaring contrast between Madonna and The Offspring (in respect to their attitudes towards napster) got me thinking about what types of bands seemed most opposed digital music vs those that have seemed to embrace it. Take a look at groups/artists that are anti-digital music: :)
Metallica
Dr. Dre (I'd like to know what his Ph.D is in
Madonna
Some that support digital music and fans:
The Offspring
Limp Bizkit
They Might Be Giants
and many more i'm sure...
What common trait do these groups share? The anti-digital music camp is composed of bands that either suck, or are past their prime, while the other side doesn't suck and are all younger and pretty "hip" bands. Now granted TMBG aren't exactly a new act, neither are the Offspring but they definately come from a different generation of artist than Metallica and Madonna. Of course not all pro-digital bands are young, Chuck D has been around a long time and was one of first artists to see the power of digital music, and hell The Who are famous for encourging fans to freely trade their music. Guess some were just ahead of their times.
One other interesting thing I noticed in the ten minutes of research I did for this post was that both Limp Bizkit and The Offsprings websites contained a ton of useful and interesting information for fans, both included streaming versions of all of their songs, videos, lyrics and even guitar tabs! Talk about fan oriented groups!
This has gotten me thinking about how the 'net and mp3s will really change everything, it's going to come in phases, but what's really going to finally bring the industry as we know it to it's knees will be when the next Big Thing in music is discovered online and completly circumvents the traditional distro system, tells the major labels to fuck off and goes direct to fans first, online, before releasing a CD. I believe the condidtions for this to happen now exist, the fan base (ie market) online is big enough, the technology is ready and media awareness of the whole deal is there as well. The first band to make a name for themselves entirely online is going to get gobs of free publicity as soon as the traditional media hears of them, and once they start getting mainstream attention, radio broadcasts and the like, it really will signal the terminal phase of the cultural cancer we know as the music industry.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
I'll bet she'll be really pissed off when she finds out that the local radio station played the mp3 on the air ;)
i wonder who released it into the wild anyway. that would be the person i'd go after. actually since al gore invented the internet he might be her next target
Yeah, their intent is a little unclear. If I were them (and I wanted to make a point) I'd sell the shirts and stuff exactly at cost- don't make a dime- and talk about how they were just trying to "facilitate the transfer" of t-shirts. I'm sure you could find some delicious quote somewhere from the napster guys along the "napster doesn't violate copyright, people violate copyright" lines. Put that on the back, and then buy the shirts in small batches from dozens of small t-shirt shops all over the country. (Well, maybe that last part is overly elaborate, but you get my point.) OTOH, if they are really napster supporters, well, Metallica can have my idea for free :)
Seriously, I think that prosecuting the technology is the wrong idea. But there are really lots of good PR ideas that the anti-napster folks aren't taking advantage of here.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
Sounds like Madonna still is in the shock-to-promote game, and plays that "sue-Napster" as advertisement for her CD. She leaked the song out in the first place. And, it is available from numerous sources just as easily as from Napster.
Too bad such airheads do not realize that their silly little promotion scheme has such large ramifications for freedom of speech - or basic freedoms in general.
My first registration didn't work. The second time I tried it went through.
Can I bum a sig?
If Madonna and Metallica have people working for them that would release songs that arent available yet, that is THEIR OWN FAULT, not Napsters! Hire people who you can trust, and not people who will go online and upload the file onto the net.
Lets SUE the author of mIRC too... I hear people download and trade Mp3's all the time on IRC!
--- Tulsa T. Nawi, On Display @ Shattered.com
The perjury angle is not very strong. (See, e.g., Clinton). They can legitimately claim a gray area regarding the illegality of those MP3s anyway. Since perjury involves state of mind, that's all they need to beat the rap.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
From the bbc article:
Does that mean ``stolen'' as in ``somebody walked in and swiped the demo tape'', or ``stolen'' as in ``somebody copied the demo tape''? If it's the former then the manager's comments are fair enough. However if it's the latter then the manager has committed slander and they are therefore wide open for a countersuit if they try and litigate, in which case I do hope defendents take advantage of this because I'd like to see the flagrant misuse of the word ``stolen'' being stamped out.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Currently at Anteye.com in the "Anteye Primetime" section (just past the intro) is a small 1 minute movie called "A Message to Lars". "Confused Fans and Friends leave messages for Metallica's Lars Ulrich" is the description. If it's no longer in the Anteye Primetime section, um, well, good luck, because it's a REALLY BAD site. Still, the movie is worth a moment to catch.
On that Napster special MTV showed last week, they interviewed Sean, who claimed that "Napster" came from his school nickname, which was coined because of his curly "nappy" hair.
Check outd ex.html
http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/in
for a different look at the whole Napster/Metallica deal..
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
Is there any indication of the actual production fault in these products ? from my experience the problem was related to the SCSI / controlling part of the drive.
/.ed...
By my knowledge it is the ominous "spring problem". A certain spring holding a certain part of the writer in position was too weak, and would give up after some time, resulting in many early CDD2600s starting to cause buffer underruns after half a year or so. Most of those breakdowns were within the warranty period and therefor no real problem, and the spring was replaced by a stronger one in later revisions of the writer.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to read the original article because it's
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Hey, I've had one of those recorders for a couple of years now! Damn thing's been into the repair shop about 3 times, each time breaking again just after the 6 month warranty was up... Absolutely shitty bit of equipment.
Anyone knowledgeable out there... if I live in the UK, what are the chances of compensation?
- Oliver
"exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
I don't think he's a programmer but when asked in an interview, "Why do you have such a strong presence on mp3.com?" he answered "Because I am willing to waste away in front of the CRT for hours each day" :) That ought to count for something! Also, his style is geek-friendly: some rap sounds like Jocks, and Gentle is drastically more articulate, polysyllabic and creative than that, with a more relaxed, flowing delivery that first drew me to his music.
Again, just last night I uploaded four tracks to mp3.com/ChrisJ as part of this collaboration- they are just down from the top of the page, the ones that credit Gentle and have (experimental) in the name and 'parental advisory' on the track ;)
To hear what Gentle normally does (and also you can hear the vocal-only tracks that I added bebop-jazzesque music to), go to mp3.com/regularsizemon ster. I'm not a hip hop listener but I ended up liking lots of the tracks...
Now all we have to do is convince Gentle to geek out on Linux and programming a bit ;)