Slashdot Mirror
Napster Wars
barjam wrote to us with the news from the MP3 front. Apparently the RIAA has
filed to have Napster pull all major-label songs from Napster. There's another take from Canoe on the story. The Canoe article states that the RIAA has gone a step further and wants to have Napster shut down on a preliminary injunction.
Filename grepping--great: now we'll see stuff like
(|\/|3ta||1ca) |\|0th1ng 31s3 |\/|att3r5.mp3
All of these formats have or can be broken. I don't care how good your crypto algorithm is, the simple fact is that audio must be decoded and sent to the soundcard. And right when this happens, it is quite easy to take this data stream and write it to a file. This is before the DAC or any other sort of degradation occurs. Long story short, nonwatermarked digital audio will be around for a long, long time - at least until someone can get proprietary soundcards into all of our machines. Fat chance. I haven't lost any sleep over MP4, SDMI, or any secure format.
Ditto for DVD-Audio. Audio DVD will present a ton more data, meaning much bigger MP3s, but I have a hard time seeing it gain mass acceptance by the general public. The gain just isn't that great. 192khz sampling at 24 bit is just totally worthless, as far as I'm concerned. Take the average CD user, who plays it in their car, discman, or tinny computer speakers, and you simply aren't going to notice a difference. Ditto for 96khz - who the hell wants to buy four more speakers simply for the pseudoenjoyment of added channels. Digital music, in its current form, is just fine, thank you. The only new innovation I could see that would take hold would be a size reduction. Aside from that, it's trivial to downsample DVD-A into a more palatable-sized MP3/4. With bandwidth doubling faster than Moore's law anyways, who knows, maybe we'll be able to pirate them in their entirety soon.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Hell yeah it is, definately in the rave scene/electronic music scene. Its soooo cool when i start seeing local djs i know and love having mp3s of mixes they released being traded all over the place. Paulina taylor a local dj has about 2 pages of people having his remix of shooting star. Maybe in other forms of music its not beneficial but certainly in the electronic music scene.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Good lord. You lucky bastards. Its $1.94 for regular here in the upper peninnsula of Michigan.
Now, suppose they were to do that .. suppose they were to shut down each and ever existing file transfer server .. The fact remains that, mp3s are *not* necessarily illegal, and new programs to create and transfer them can be re-created at any given time. This whole debate is completely useless. Just let Napster be.
This quote is from one of the texts on the GNU webpage:
We can also see why the abstractness of intellectual property is not the crucial factor. Other forms of abstract property represent shares of something. Copying any kind of share is intrinsically a zero-sum activity; the person who copies benefits only by taking wealth away from everyone else...By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive activity that strengthens social bonds.
N.B. I don't want to sound like I want artists to just be screwed--they do need to be compensated for their work, but (ab)using the current copyright laws to do that doesn't fit anymore.
No, they wouldn't. One could still release binary-only derivatives with technical measures to protect against using the software for free. There would be no gaurantee that you could see the source.
could music be gpl or copyleft? that would be neat
The coffee god lives!
Hehe, yea, her b.s. pissed me off too.
The funny part, IMHO, is when they start to bring morality into the equation. Record Executives and morality, that's almost as funny as that Seagram's guy decrying pirates...when his grandfather was a bootlegger (the real kind).
--
+&x
Hehe, I doubt they could legally bait you. What they could do though is enter a GNUtella ip and search the connected network and then send all the involved ISP's cease and desist for open pirate networks.
When I heard about songs getting "leaked" before the release dates, I secretly wondered if that wasn't a ploy by the artist (or somebody) to do sort of a pre-release... see how the song goes over before you start throwing promotional money behind it.
Maybe I'm way off base here, but I know Napster was ablaze with early tracks off of N'Sync's (or one of those boy groups) last album before the album came out. That was the album that then set the all-time record for first-week sales once it hit record shops.
I know several publications, including Entertainment Weekly, soon pointed out that there was one instance where the leaked tracks helped build hype over the album. Makes sense to me.
-David Wong
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
"You'll have a hard time finding a record store that carries used CDs
and major label new releases, because if the store is found out, the label will stop distributing new CDs to them or refuse to allow them to
advertise they have those new releases in stock. "
That would be clear prior restraint of speech and no court would uphold any such "refusal."
What you mispelleed here is the label will not contribute to coop advertising, leaving the independent record store to fend for its entire advertising budget (while the mainstream record store gets advertising money -- which is where a
substantial portion of what "the label gets."
I'd be willing to bet 10% of the label revenue goes to advertising.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Down in Tennessee gas is $1.25 and people are complaining about that.
Forgive the offtopic comment, but $1.25 is NOTHING. The average price for a gallon of unleaded gas around New York is $1.63. I saw on the news last night that the average price in Chicago is $2.06 per gallon. Not to mention that in most other countries the prices are often double that.
I guess it's all relative, but (back on topic) like the record industry, oil companies engage in price fixing. They set gas prices for areas as small as one block, based on economic surveys (how rich people are, how many of them drive big SUV's, etc). However, just like with record companies, the oil industry has once again come under investigation as to their pricing methods. With any luck, we'll be paying exactly what we owe in due time.
For more information, click here.
In other words, it'd be damn hard for Napster to filter the index. RIAA doesn't want Napster to "pull" the songs from their "site", they want Napster shutdown completely -- and to look like they won.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
nothing will pacify the riaa except a full return to the 'old' (?) profit-making ways.
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
You've been brainwashed into caring about the body shape of useless people just because they appear on the radio and television a lot.
yes, the connection is that last week they settled a billion dollar lawsuit with the RIAA. There's no need to look further.
--
+&x
Depends on if it's pre- or post-breast-implant, silly!
Very good article, read it!
J.
just put a filter on the word 'Metallica'. wouldn't be all that effective. however, i'm not making the argument that it would be effective. i'm just tired of seeing all the comments that napster can't remove all the files. no, they can't. but, if they're not indexed, they can't be found.
yes, it could easily be circumvented. however, it would show some cooperation from napster. the riaa would shut up. the average idiot might lose the ability to download on napster, but i wouldn't, and you wouldn't. so, most people would be fairly happy.
it likely won't fly in court to just shut down napster, as it does have a legitimate use. so, napster could implement a policy to 'filter' the index and remove any word that matches the artist name of an riaa member.
Ever tried the netstat command while running Napster?
create | destroy | enjoy
Jeh riiiiight, as soon as it is gone something else will pop up as it always does... like using IRC or ICQ to trade files. Funny though, My Jazz is always the first out the door... must say something about the age range of the people grabbing free music. I would buy CD's if the price was a bit more reasonable, but knowing what it costs to manufacture a cd... $1.25 CDN or so... I can't see clear paying $18.00 CDN for distribution. Oh well there will always be live FTP lists I guess.
flinging poop since 1969
Copyrights have no sense serving public interest.
The Constitution disagrees:
Section 8 - Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
// TODO: fix sig
Come on, I am so sick of everyone (including Lars and the kid in the article) saying that mp3's sound just like off the cd. Sure they can, but the vast majority are compressed so much they sound worse than tape. This is an important fact to spread; most every criticism of napster by rich industry types claims perfect digital copies can be spread instantly. On any halfway decent system, the difference is clear... Vinyl sounds better than cd or mp3 anyway ;-)
Apparently no one knows that there is also an abundance of places where you can download movies. It's funny, because there are all these quotes about how the movie industry would be pissed if you could download movies off the Net. :)
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
not this again!
Explain this to me then:
I will not work for free. I will not have my work taken from me without my consent. I will not work unless I am free to decide (within reasonable limits) the terms of it's use and distribution.
I will however work unpaid for the GPL community. I am not working for free; my reward is to use the work of others or their changes to my work without paying them. Without the GPL I could not be certain this would work. I might work and others would not repay my efforts by giving me (and others) the improvements they have made to my work.
How can I be sure I get 'paid' without the the copyright that allows the GPL to exist?
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
the only reason they're giving the "preview" is to manipulate you into buying their full-priced CD.
The only reason they're offering a CD for sale is to "manipulate" you into buying it. Jeez, man, I think you need a tinfoil hat to keep their manipulation rays out.
Sure they do. Shut napster down and all the users have to find some other central location from which to list illegal mp3's from which they can peer to peer download.
Taking your sentence litterally. It's hard to infringe upon your own copyright.
Taking it as you mean it: I'm sure some special dispensation could be made, or a special license could be written up.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Napster could probably get a pretty strong argument against blocking song names. I'm sure there are MANY songs with the same names, some of these bands are RIAA puppets, and some are little garage bands in North Dakota. Blocking by song name will affect the legal downloads too much. (Yeah, it's there, honestly!)
:/
I suppose they could have it block by band name, but still... say there was 'Free Band - I hate metallica because they're total sell outs.mp3"... I don't know how they're thinking of pulling this off
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Sure, if you have 5000 people on your e-mail list and are regularly sending to them, and the RIAA happens to get a copy of said illegal material.
I think your rhetorical question is flawed in that e-mail isn't generally a listing medium for thousands of mp3 files from thousands of people (but you could set up such an application if you wanted, I guess).
Just out of curiosity, exactly what does your comment have to do with the subject at hand, namely Napster? Exactly who is insisting that Napster go around deleting files from everyone's hard drive?
The RIAA is hoping to dupe a judge into doing just that. If I were the judge in question, I would be furious with the RIAA for attempting to make such an ass of both the judge personally and the legal system as a whole.
Or was this meant to be a non-sequitur?
I can't speak to the poster's initial intent, but his comment most certainly was not a non-sequitur.
Napster does not store any files on its servers. It facilitates the exchange of files between client machines only, with no traffic going to the napster server at all.
It is basically a big index, much like the old FTP indexes that circulated around the internet in text format in the days before the world wide web. It tells people where they can find things, nothing more. Last I checked, this was a protected form of speach (although the DMCA, not to mention the fiasco that is The War on Drugs, may have eroded this particular right).
Insisting that Napster remove content is insisting that Napster invade individuals personal computers and delete files, an illegal act in most jurisdictions.
The original poster's satirical comments that the editors of slashdot had better remove all the illegal content from the poster's personal computer, "or else," serves to illustrate the stupidity of such a demand rather well, actually.
In short, the RIAA is making an ass of both itself and the American Justice system.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I suppose that this is the right time to do it. All the college kids lost thier high speed lines. They won't get the huge backlash that they would of if it were mid school year.
Anybody out here a former taper for the Grateful Dead? If you don't know what I'm talking about, anybody could go into one of a Dead show and record it and distribute the tape without paying a fee of any kind to the band, and their shows always sold out, and their albums sold like crazy.
Phish has been doing the same thing, to great success. Phish concerts are online within hours after their shows, yet their live two-volume CD A Live One still sells very well. I have a friend who has over a thousand hours of Phish concerts on CD, all off the net. He still goes to shows. If he and his wife see them four times a year that's two hundred bucks to Phish, record label be damned.
Barlow's right: the "artists" most at risk from Napster are manufactured contrivances like the New Kids on the Block, designed by actuaries and focus group reports to have a high statistical likelihood of appealing to fourteen year olds. Real art, however, does not need to be rammed down your throat. When you find it, you'll know it. The way to find something that really turns you on is when a friend e-mails you that first .mp3 with a note saying "Let me know what you think of these guys. They'll be in town in a couple of weeks."
--
This is not my sandwich.
That really is the beauty of Napster, and is what has allowed it to last this long... if they had a huge server full of illegal MP3's operating in the open they would have been shut down within four seconds of opening.
But in reality, they don't have a single illegal piece of software on their servers.
The other, related problem for the music industry, of course, is that millions of us Napster users already have the MP3's on our hard drives, THEREFORE if they shut Napster down, and a replacement arises (as is already happening) we don't have to start over... the files are still out there, on C drives around the world.... just waiting for another piece of software to connect them.
David Wong
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
In a related story, today, the Better Business Bureau has filed a lawsuit today, seeking an injunction against Home Dept, Sears Roebuck & Co, Ace Hardware, True Value Hardware, and 50,000+ other independent hardware retailers for selling crowbars, the tool of choice for theives breaking and illegally entering businesses, in their stores nationwide.
"It's disgusting." says BBB representative Harvey Rabbit. "In 80% of all robberies, a crowbar was used to force doors open, or break through glass, or even beat unsuspecting victims silly while they sleep! The crowbar is a dangerous tool that criminals have been abusing. We need to make sure that people cannot have access to this dangerous tool."
"It's all about people wanting to remove a useful tool from use." says recycling-advocate-turned-crowbar-rights activist Marion Fruvous. "There are many legitimate uses for a crowbar, like in construction, or demolition, or even pulling nails out of a wooden board. The fact that it's used by a few people for criminal purposes doesn't mean that it should be pulled from the stores' shelves..."
It is unclear at this time if Judge Nance will accept the preliminary injunction motion.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
They cant tell napster to do that. They dont have the songs, they just provide the service. Like the Underground they sell you "water tobacoo pipes" hehe who actually uses them as "water tobacco pipes"? Not many, the Underground just provides a service like napster. And going after the users is pointless. They just need to wake up and smell the freshly burnt cd's mp3s are here to stay, getting people to change formats is going to be hard.
The Beaver The Best Things In Life Are Free And So Is Linux!
This story on CNNFN has some interesting information in addition to the stories mentioned in the article...
Oh, come on... They developed the software to let you search millions of machines simultaneously, do you really think that it would be THAT difficult to either create a table of phrases (song names or bands) or digital signatures of songs that it could process prior to returning results to the users?
And unions are supposed to be set up and run by the people they're representing... Napster isn't... Napsters still too chicken to admit what they're doing in a way that they can present themselves to signed bands as a way to distribute their music. If you figure that the average CD has say 15 songs and the bands get $1.50 per CD which equates to $.10/song, Napster should be trying to figure out a way that they can get the bands $.11/song downloaded. Maybe the labels will up it to $.12/song. Then napster could counter with $.13/song. THAT would trully be good for musicians.
Currently, Napster's taking away many musicians SOLE source of revenue from their music and their supporters repeatedly say that bands should make up for it with tours and T-shirt sales. They don't account for what you just said.... "demand for live bands has plummeted". So, if you're taking away the musicians' royalties and sending them on tour to earn money right as people have stopped going to shows, how is that supposedly HELPING the musicians? That's what unions are for, afterall...
They want to stop the illegal trading of copyrighted music you don't own.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The "Industry" just controls distribution, and boy do they ever control it. You'll have a hard time finding a record store that carries used CDs and major label new releases, because if the store is found out, the label will stop distributing new CDs to them or refuse to allow them to advertise they have those new releases in stock.
So now there's an entirely new way of distributing music. And the current distributors are scared. They are terrified of their own obsolescence, and they are swaddling their greed in a rhetoric of justice. They don't care about music, or artistic integrity, or artists' rights. They care about their money, and absolutely nothing else in the world. The new reality is that the link between artist and performer is the music itself, not the industry's permission to distribute it.
We need Columbia Records for music the way we need buggy whips to drive a car. They're just not part of the equation anymore.
--
This is not my sandwich.
The Post ran a HUGE story on Napster today, Chuck D, etc.
It can be found here.
BilldaCat
Not if you use a dialup ISP that randomly assigns IP addresses from a pool at connect-time (e.g., AOL and most others). Unfortunately this doesn't work if you've got a DSL line, or even if you're behind a proxy server because it still has to have a real address. I'm not familiar with address-spoofing techniques... perhaps they could be added to a future version of Gnutella?
"... I declare our city to be a free and independent state to be named Tri-Insula!" --Fernando Wood, Mayor of NYC 1861
Like they're ever going to stop MP3s. Its too late. Stop crying over spilled milk. Your money and your power will not stop the innevitable - Digital music IS the FUTURE. Price gouging on plastic disks will no longer make you money. You better cut down your fat companies, because your going to start having declining sales. The days where you could charge whatever you want for something that costs you nothing to make is over.
1. They pay the artists out of the advertising revenue from thier site. They don't get advertising revenue from Napster.
2. They are immoral because they attempt to pay artists something instead of completing robbing them blind?
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
I agree. It is about the loss of power. Right now I am studying the political economy of China at Fudan University in Shanghai. The same thing is happening over with the entrance of China into the WTO. The Telecommunications industry, on one hand, wants to liberalize the Internet in hopes of boosting the economy, whereas, on the other hand, want to maintain control of the industry. Of course China is a communist Regime.... but you get my point.
On a second note, I think the music industry should also be concerned about the illegal pirating in other countries. The MP3 scene in the states is nothing compared to the mass distribution of illegal music in China. I have been in China for 2 months now and only once have I found a legit CD store in which they were selling actual imported CDs and not bootlegs. No one was even buying them because of the price difference between the store and on the streets. This is, however, what the music industry gets when they try to price CDs in China at American Prices rather then comply with the economic destinction between the quae(Chinese Dollar) and the US Dollar.
--------------------------------------------
Customers are taking to many free napkins...
Rather, the price is artificially high in other countries because of heavy taxation.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
That said, I think it's time I changed my .sig.
That said, I think it's time I changed my
Well, next time you use Napster, start downloading a file from somewhere. Pop open a DOS box and type "netstat -a". You'll get a list of all active TCP connections on your machine - with IP numbers. If it can, it'll resolve them to hostnames so it's pretty easy to figure out which connection's which. You'll have at minimum a connection to the Napster server, which will read as something.napster.com, and the IP number of the machine you're downloading from.
create | destroy | enjoy
unless, of course, 'the' is on their stoplist. As it is at altavista, northernlight, google, and amazon to name a few. Some handle stoplist words in quoted phrases reasonably, some just strip them out and look for the phrase that's left, not what you requested (which makes a librarian like me VERY cross). From The The's point of view, what seemed like a nice witty idea ten years ago now begins to look like career suicide :)
TomV
Even the 'nearly half' part of the quote had to be parenthesized, so the odds are that the study actually indicated something entirely other than what was presented. If less than half of Napster users bought less, and more than half bought the same or more; I wonder what the net change is?
Statistics I'd actually like to see:
Relevant statistics would be helpful in determining the actual effect of technology on the music industry. Citing studies like the Field, or calling studies centered around college campuses directly relevant to Napster, without more than speculative data, is not quite so helpful.
---
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
Anyway, the settlement was only about letting MP3.com carry on with the mymp3 thingy, where the user already owns the music. Aka not free.
--
Of course the winamp crew is now being controlled by mainstream corporate america ... I wonder if they noticed that sucking sound as they lost their souls when the signed the contract??
subsolar
What next, are they going to ban paintings from the internet.
What if an artist WANTED to be on napster (and it was allowed in the contract)? Banning unpaid songs from napster, without the artists consent, is just as "bad" as allowing
One question for Lars: If it's not about the money, what's it about? Musicians like coverage, or money, or both.
It's ALL about money. It's too sad to see that the art has to be restricted.
http://siokaos.org/
That should be simple. Napster doesn't have any major-label songs on Napster.
:)
I might, but Napster doesn't
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
testse a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic
ilk
- --------------------------------
A 26/A2656100.wav):
American Heritage:
ilka (lk) also ilk (lk).
adj. Scots
Each; every.
ilk1 (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk. See Synonyms at type.
pron. Scots
The same. Used following a name to indicate that the one named resides in an area bearing the same name: Duncan of that ilk.
-----------------------------------------------
[Middle English same, from Old English ilca; see i- in Indo-European Roots.]
Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, "kind or sort," is actually quite recent, having been recorded no earlier than the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning "of the same place, territorial designation, or name." This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning "Guthrie of Guthrie." "Same" is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.
Encarta (http://dictionary.msn.com/ewedmedia/11k_GSM.wav/
ilk noun
sort: kind or sort "save forlorn hopes and their ilk" Stephen Crane The Red Badge of Courage (1895)
[Old English ilca "same," a compound whose parts are descended from an Indo-European word meaning "same" and a prehistoric Germanic word meaning "form" (also the ancestor of English each)]
Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1ilk
Pronunciation: 'ilk
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English ilca, from a prehistoric compound whose constituents are akin respectively to Gothic is he (akin to Latin is he, that) and Old English gelIc like -- more at ITERATE, LIKE
Date: before 12th century
chiefly Scottish : SAME -- used with that especially in the names of landed families
Wordnet
synonyms
Sense 1
ilk -- (a kind of person; "I don't like people of his ilk")
=> kind, sort, form, variety -- (a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality; "sculpture is a form of art"; "what kinds of desserts are there?")
coordinate terms
Sense 1
ilk -- (a kind of person; "I don't like people of his ilk")
-> kind, sort, form, variety -- (a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality; "sculpture is a form of art"; "what kinds of desserts are there?")
=> description -- (sort or variety; "every description of book was there")
=> type -- (a subdivision of a particular kind of thing; "what type of sculpture do you prefer?")
=> antitype -- (an opposite or contrasting type)
=> art form -- (a form of artistic expression (such as writing or painting or architecture))
=> style -- (a particular kind (as to appearance); "this style of shoe is in demand")
=> flavor, flavour -- ((high energy physics) the kinds of quarks)
=> species, variety -- (a specific kind of something: "a species of molecule"; "a species of villainy")
=> genus -- (a general kind of something; "ignore the genus communism")
=> brand, make -- (a recognizable kind; "there's a new brand of hero in the movies now"; "what make of car is that?")
=> genre -- (a kind of literary or artistic work)
=> ilk -- (a kind of person; "I don't like people of his ilk")
=> manner -- (a kind; "what manner of man are you?")
=> model -- (a type of product; "his car was an old model")
=> the like, the likes of -- (a similar kind; "dogs, foxes, and the like", "we don't want the likes of you around here")
hypernyms
Sense 1
ilk -- (a kind of person; "I don't like people of his ilk")
=> kind, sort, form, variety -- (a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality; "sculpture is a form of art"; "what kinds of desserts are there?")
=> category -- (a general concept that marks divisions or coordinations in a conceptual scheme)
=> concept, conception, construct -- (an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances)
=> idea, thought -- (the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about; "it was not a good idea"; "the thought never entered my mind")
=> content, cognitive content, mental object -- (the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned)
=> cognition, knowledge -- (the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning)
=> psychological feature -- (a feature of the mental life of a living organism)
there's nothing that napster can do about that. however, it would go a long ways if they showed a little 'cooperation' even if it accomplishes little. as it is, they almost act like they promote piracy. that attitude will keep them in court until they are bled dry.
"now its all gnapster"
No central server where everyone can list files from thousands of people. You speak truth when you say they can't block them all. Everyone hear assumes that the lawyers do not know this. They do. Napster is running a business on this model. If they prevent this and other companies from doing so, then it will surely be an underground affair that the average user will either not be aware of, or will have to overcome technical barriers to participate in.
Could anyone provide a link to some information about this whole limited-listening Mp3 concept? I can't quite seem to understand how one could append an executable to a wave file, then encode it in Layer-3, then have it execute every time the mp3 was decoded... Mp3 codecs don't have a provision for *running executables* in the music, do they?
However, if they do, I should suggest that Metallica release a new album for download... it will have an executable attached to the end of each mp3 track that will demand your credit card number after each playback. If you say 'no', it will delete all mp3s (most of them are pirated anyhow), all your jpegs (most of them are porn anyhow), and forward itself to everyone in your Outlook address book.
In conclusion, I don't believe the Phish story (cough). Please enlighten me.
Wah!
that guy is screwed no matter what! however, searching for "the the" (most sites let you use quotes) should limit undesirable responses.
The average price in Chicago may be 2.06... but the average price in the northwest suburbs of Chicago (where I am, unfortunately) is more like $2.16 *sighs* Oh well, good thing my gas guzzler isn't around to see these days.
On a couple lighter (and even more off-topic) notes, this isn't too much of a problem considering I don't drive very far... and it *IS* fun to make fun of those people driving their 9mpg SUVs =)... plus, our stock in BP/Amoco is going up! =)
-- Dr. Eldarion --
I bring this all up because I still buy CD's at the same rate I used to... but I use Napster to sample them first...
I won't spend $15.00 on a CD that has ONE SONG I like. Screw that, I'll download that one song (or rip it off a friend's CD). But if there are 3-4 songs I like, I have no problem paying for it, and getting the cover art, lyrics, etc.
I mean, let's face it. If I like an entire album, it's a huge pain to download EVERY song, convert them to wavs, burn them to a CD that won't have the same quality or scratch resistance that a factory disc has....
So maybe the record industry won't be the hardest hit... maybe it'll be those "artists" who had one catchy song in them, and were hoping to sell 5 million albums based on that one single...
heyyyyy Macarena......
David Wong
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
An argument I often see on Slashdot, "Copyright violation is condoned whereas GPL violation is condemned. Since both are violations, we are hypocrites".
Most programmers believe in sharing. We believe that knowledge only grows by sharing. What little we offer- by way of designs, algorithms and code- we hope enriches humanity. Never has altruism been advocated as a way of life; and never has it been practiced each day so faithfully. GPL protects our deep desire to share, learn and grow as a people.
Contrast that to what Copyright stands for-its implementation today-and, I believe you will have your answer.
Although Copyright and GPL, explicitly say what you can do with what you hold. One does not bind knowledge in fetters.
Napster makes money??
How?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
And where'd they get the idea from? USENET and Eschelon.
CrystalNOSPAMMethod
They'll just have to come up with some sort of fuzzy-logic Bryce Lynch AI whatever to match up the altered names to their real artist, check the artists' standing with the record companies(I doubt they will go after people who pirate Soul Asylum, for instance), and sue accordingly with the MS Lawsuit Wizard.
"If the courts allow Napster and services like it to continue to facilitate massive copyright infringement, there is a grave risk that the public will begin to perceive and believe that they have a right to obtain copyrighted materials for free," -- the RIAA
"[A] government of the people, by the people, for the people" -- Abraham Lincon
The RIAA seems to forget something - all these laws that the "public" dosen't understand, or disregards... the "public" are the ones who define the laws. Oh, sure, in the short run, you'll see lots of fines, even some people with jail time. But if the pendulum of public opinion *really* swings to the concept that there is nothing wrong with Napster, the laws will be disregarded, ignored, and then changed.
There are plenty of laws on the books that are ignored, some with rather serious reprocussions that were considered "vital" at the time that they were written and passed into law. When was the last time a married couple was charged with sodomy for oral sex?
As an occasionally aspiring artist myself, I know it's not in my best interest to see the IP laws pass out of vogue, but all laws are, in the end, a fiction created by people agreeing. I'm *not* saying that it *will* happen, just that in cases of the public opinion versus a law always causes the law to eventually lose.
And don't even try to say "America isn't the internet". This is not an internet issue... it's the RIA_A_, and the IP laws of America apply.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Kind of proves his point, though.
Bit of a self fulfilling thing going on.
PigPog.
Hello, Napster, Inc. I thought I would give you the solution for building the index of "blocked songs". It's pretty easy, and I won't even charge you my usual consulting fee!
First, take your current index. Accumulate the names of songs and bands for a week or two. Sort this list and eliminate duplicates. Now go through and identify the few hundred or so legitimate titles (I might be too generous, there...).
That is now your blocking list. Now take some of the $15 mill and hire a staff to review logs of transfers. The number of transfers should now be a trickle, so you probably only have to start with one person. Heck, Yahoo has a staff of hundreds of reviewers! Surely a small staff to maintain the blocking list shouldn't be too difficult?
Of course people will rename the songs, but you just keep adding the new variations to the list. Eventually, the songs will be so renamed that people won't be able to find them anyway.
No, no! Don't thank me. I just aim to be a service to the community.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Fight the power, and the power will fight back; Your only as good as the system you hack; If you become a problem you will be replaced; Shut down, ERASED! (mdfmk)
....move along....nothing to see here....
I love Napster, and I think this debate is an interesting one. But this jumps out at me when I read it here. Where do people get off saying "CD's should be 8.99-10.99." What is this based on? What you'd *like* to pay? What's affordable to *you*? Frankly, not many of us know where the record labels spend their money, and they probably spend it poorly. But the fact is, if we don't like the price, we should *not buy it* (I'm not advocating a boycott per se, just stating what makes the most sense). Telling a company what they can, or should, charge for something, when you know little or nothing about their production costs (I don't mean JUST the pressing of the CD), is asinine and presumptuous and seems to me to be close to socialist.
Actually, I had downloaded one of these "limited" MP3's when they were available. They have since been taken down. See: .MP3 files, but they ran the executable when you tried to play them. They would just sound like static if you tried to play them under Linux with XMMS, tho.
http://www.elicense.com/phish
The have an exe file (Windows only) that "installs" the MP3 and also an "eLicense Control" device in the Windows control panel. Even worse, the original files they had up "were" just
Apparently, at least under Windows, there is some way to hook and executable into an MP3 so that when you try to play it, it executes... Hope the virus writers don't figure this on out, eh... If they do, watch the RIAA's next attack...
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Dialup ISP's log the use of their IP's. If the RIAA has the IP and the time of download, they can find out from the ISP who had that IP at that time.
LRJ
No, i'm sorry... They're just like the dotcoms in that they're not making money yet... Just generating losses for themselves and everyone involved with them... They are however accepting $15 million investments, which would only be made if they had thought of a way to generate revenues. They're paying $2 million to sponsor a Limp Bizkit tour.
Napster might have started as a college drop-outs project, but it's big business now.
Even if the RIAA doesn't get them, their users will when a year from now they find that they're supposed to PAY, in some way, to download something that they had formerly received for free. They're just about backed into a corner with nowhere to go...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Yep... sure is. And avgas is higher grade stuff than car gas, too. Although it's leaded so you couldn't exactly put it in your car.
also offtopic:
I paid $0.789CDN per LITRE (approx 4L in a gallon.. like 3.78 or something like that) last night.
Don't complain about YOUR prices.
The recording industry has been bleeding us all dry for so long that its about time they got whats coming.. Personally I couldnt give a rats ass whether the legal technicalities are on their side or not, I just wanna see 'em take one in the face!
#undef _RANT_;
Huh? The recording industry has been "bleeding you dry"? How's that? Are they stealing money from you? Are they forcing you to buy things you don't want at gunpoint?
Look, if you don't like the practices of the recording industry, don't buy recordings!
Violating copyright by trading around millions of MP3s of other people's work is not the answer. Obviously MP3 has some great uses: making copies of CD's you own for personal enjoyment, easily distributing your garage band's latest hits, etc. We should defend these uses of MP3, as should we defend Napster's right to be a peer-to-peer file-sharing service.
But portraying those who support copyright as "behind the times" or outright villainous is wrong--unless you want to take the position that copyright should be abolished, in which case get ready for the quality of media to be exactly what people will have to pay for it.
You are wrong.
unless it's expressly given to you for free, you must pay for it. Without payment, the incentive goes away.
Without cost, there's no need for payment. The payment for art comes from celebrity.
If the recording industry was truly gouging customers, then they wouldn't be able to sell any records.
If Microsoft was gouging customers, they wouldn't be able to sell OSes. That's the power a monopoly gives you. It removes choice and allows for price fixing.
Sharing is not wrong, never has been, never will be. It only hurts artists who suck (which is another reason why the RIAA is against it).
--
+&x
ple comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that d
According to Mirriam-Webster, he is not necessarily wrong.
Entry Word: ilk
Function: noun
Text: Synonyms TYPE, breed, character, description, kidney, kind, nature, sort, stripe, variety
hehehe I actually purchased the Eminem CD, because my internet access is down. I usually dont however, because they are overpriced and I am in debt to begin with.
-Paul
Main Entry: ilk
Function: noun
Date: 1790
: SORT, KIND <the rejection of these books or others of like ilk -- Kathleen Molz>
Agreed.
You are rather naive if you honestly think that the band gets $1.50. It's more like $0.25-0.35, so we are talking a penny or two that the band does not get and a buck that the distributor loses.
Bands generally receive 7-15% of a CD's cover price as royalties... NOT $.25-35. Read up some from sources other than around here before you start making statements that just aren't at all true.
I would happily pay $0.10 per song to the artist for CD quality music and $0.02 per song for 128kbps MP3.
And if mp3's are deemed acceptable to listen to, why should they cost any less than CD quality music? Yes, mp3's are lossy, but if they're displacing cd sales, the royalties a band recieves should at least stay equal, not plummet.
If someone has an MP3 of a song I like that I own on a vorn vinyl I honestly think it is quite legal for me to download that file. I am after all legally entitled to making my own copies of the song for listening where I do not have a disc player (car, work etc).
That's an iffy proposal... kind of like saying that if you bought a movie on VHS 10 years ago you should be entitled to a free upgrade to the DVD version. It's just not happening, and it shouldn't. You should be allowed to, and i believe that you are allowed being that a record is an analog medium, connect your turntable to a pre-amp and connect that to your sound card and convert THAT to mp3 for your own personal use.
Also the fact that a CD is so outrageously expensive makes it les slikely that I buy CD's. Lower the price to a reasonable level and I (and presumably many more) will buy more CD's.
That's just such a bullshit statement coming in a forum full of IT people or aspiring (college student) IT professionals. A music CD which costs a record company tens of thousands to produce prior to it even being pressed (and that's just for a small no-name band) and being sold to you for $15 is too much, but Redhat selling a CD full of software that they in no way financed for $49 is okay.
Microsoft earned more money last year than the entire recording industry did. Some of their CD's cost $2500. Where's the site that lets me download the software for free? And don't say IRC or anything like that... A COMMERCIAL website that actively (by the runners of the website, not posters in a forum) points me to it or provides me with tools to find it? How about the site that gives me GPL'ed binaries without the source?
Everyone here gets up in arms whe nthere's the slightest hint of a company stepping on the GPL, which is based entirely on the concepts of copyright, and expect that they adhere to the license. "If you don't like the license, don't use the code". Well, if you don't like the terms where the music is offered to you, don't listen to the music. It's really that simple.
So,in a pro Napster spin, this means that Less than Half of Napster users have purchased fewer CDs since using Napster. And the question was probably worded in such a way that there were many responses which could "suggest" that Napster displaces CD sales without really meaning it.
Surveys mean whatever you want them to mean.
Wombat
Almost all universities are moving from their old internet backbone to a new one with a new pricing model. The old one was kind of a "flatrate" while the new one uses a volume-dependent pricing model. Since the change is coming, all "private" users outside the university have to accept more or less regular portscans and other "measures" to "ensure" there are no servers running on their machines.
Since i read a little about the pricing model, I more or less think that it's a big scam to get a legal backdoor to our computers.
Paranoids everywhere, Unite!
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
WinAmp *is* AOL and thus it *is* corporate America. These are the people who own Netscape yet license MSIE for their AOL software.
How did they put in a multi-platform executable? Or did this only work with Windows?
My point was that they can't filter Prince's music out of the index without filtering out a lot of legitimate MP3's.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Stop and think about this.
.com's onto the net.
assume napster to be an advanced, specialized search engine:
napster is basically "linking" to files.
if linking to illegal content is proven to be illegal (stuff like 2600 and deCSS vs MPAA),
and napster is shutdown
then you have 2 precidents where search engines could be considered illegal.
so people can have search engines shut down.
so things stop being linked.
so the world wide web is no longer a web as large parts of it cant see each other.
whoa. time to go deeper underground?
should never have let the
Yeah. First, their sample rate is 2503 adults over the age of 18. Second, they don't show their method at all, so I would tend to call it invalid unless it was made clear that their sampling was valid.
I sincerely doubt it was.
Sites like www.scour.net allow you to search for mp3's and then store them on sites like idrive.com. The result is that the mp3's propogate themselves as more and more people make copies of these mp3's and store them on their idrive accounts. Now try to stop it.
$1.25/gallon is no big deal, Cripes, it was $1.25/gal in MA over 10 years ago when I was in high school, making $4/hr! Geez.
As for CDs, why is this always brought up to justify copyright infringement via MP3 files? Where have you people been for the last 10 years? At least here in Canada, 95% of the CDs I've seen have been around CAN$17 for the last decade, with HMV having blowout specials for really popular new releases around $13.99.
Of course, that's only at the 333 Yonge Street location. If you go into the Eaton Centre location or any other Mall location those same discs are often $4 more!
Hey, you ever notice that mall record stores prices are higher? I guess you have to take what's around you.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
alt.binaries.music.mp3
alt.binaries.music.mp3.heavy-metal
alt.binaries.music.bootlegs.mp3
[pink beam of light]
You can't contrast it. It is orthogonal. The GNU GPL is a license. Copyright it not.
<P>Correct me if I'm wrong: the GPL is used by the copyright holders (those who wrote the GPLed code) to *excerise* copyrights by saying who can and cannot distribute source code. There's licenses on CDs against reproducing them, right?
<P>Now why can't music companies excerise the
same copyrights?
George Lee
One could search for the song title...
I think that the poster chose a particuallarily poor example when he chose to use Loreena McKennitt as an illustration. Loreena is her own production, copyright and distribution channel - she refused a long time ago to sign with any label, so, most of the price of the CD goes directly to her and her own company. The complaint that the artist isn't getting any of the real profits evaporates in the case of Ms. McKennitt. And I imagine that the reason that she allows her CD's to be charged at the same prices as the rest of the market, is just that - why leave money on the table when you don't have to?
"Inde" labels such as hers just play the game with the rest of the industry.
I'd be very interested in seeing the comparison in campuses with depressed CD buying nearby and campuses which have banned napster. Anyone have a copy of the full report including which colleges were in the study?
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
No, enlighten me.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
hah, I love these Star Wars analogies! actually, why isn't the RIAA going after programs like the new Scour or CuteMX? There's at least a few programs out there nearly identical to Napster, with regular companies running central servers, what makes them immune so far?
You know, I don't honestly think that anyone has grasped the true nature of the beast, here. Yeah, sure, I think it has a lot to do with privacy, piracy, and people like the RIAA just being general dorks. However, I think that there is a very clear economic struggle here, fueling this movement.
Why do you have MP3s? Any of you who has some, <i>why</i> do you have them? Do you have full albums? Unlikely. The more likely scenario is that you have what you consider to be the "best" songs from each of the artists you listen to and unless you have a favorite artist, you don't have all of the songs from any one album. (soundtracks respectfully excluded) Here we have a medium that allows us to pick the songs we want, <i>individually</i>, without spending $15 for a whole album when we only want one or two of the tracks. HELL! This is a great deal! I think it's awesome, I can listen to hours and hours of music without listening to anything but good music (defined in my own terms, of course.) <br><br>
I think the RIAA and others are missing this point. The development of the digital music format has promoted people choosing what they want, not what they have to buy. Customization! Flexibility! Linux! Need I say more? <br><br>
To <i>really</i> market to these people, the artists and record companies need to embrace this ideal and offer custom CDs or more singles. Would I buy a single CD of a good song instead of just getting the MP3? Heck, yeah. Better quality, etc., and I can still rip it if I want. I just don't right now because I have to pay $15 for songs I don't want. Long live the freedom of <b>CHOICE</b>.
Blog,Twitter
> Contrast that [the GPL] to what Copyright stands for
You can't contrast it. It is orthogonal. The GNU GPL is a license. Copyright it not.
That said, the GNU GPL stands for most of the things you mention. eg sharing, growth of knowledge.
What copyright stands for is the right for the creator (uaually) of a work to decide how it is licenced.
HOW MANY TIMES!?!?! will people keep thinking that copyright and GPL somehow opposites, or conflict with each other.
Without copyright the GNU GPL would not exist.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
> If an artist chooses non-redistribution as a license, it should be honored
I agree with you. Real life is not that simple however.
Ideally, the good thing about an artist being allowed to choose whatever licence they please is that many will choose different licenses and that, together perhaps with the price and the quality of the product will allow consumers to decide which product is best for them. A problem arises though when most of a market is controlled by one company (or many cooperating companies) because they find themselces able to charge higher prices and use more restrictive licenses and the consumers don't have much choice. What you have is something resebling a monopoly by it's nature.
When this happens to the point that the market doesn't like it, the market will do something about it. If the industry wasn't contorlled by en elite few this would probably involve boycotting certain products or brands for example in order to avoid certain licenses, but in the case of the music industry that's just not possible due to the tight control held by a few very powerful ppl. It seems the consumers have taken what they see as the only other option left. To ignore the license and break the law.
I am not saying that is the best solution, but if someone knowingly breaks the law and it prepared to do whatever it takes including jail as a result of their actions then I won't stop them. Some ppl think it's worth the risk in order to highlight the problem to others.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
I saw on the news last night that the average price in Chicago is $2.06
Yup. Right now, it is cheaper to buy aviation fuel ($2.00/gal at OXI) and fly than it is to buy automobile gas ($2.06/gal) and drive. How odd the world is becomming...
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Napster has negatively affected how much money I spend on CDs. I no longer buy albums that suck.
I used to buy 2-3 CDs a week. Then, long before Napster, MP3s or even Linux, I stopped. My reason? Crappy albums and high prices. I was paying for stuff I didn't like and didn't listen too.
Just yesterday I bought a half dozen CDs online, and for each one, I'd already heard 75% of the album. But that was explicitly WHY I bought those albums. Before Napster I'd never even heard of these artists. (please check the Britney Spears jokes at the door).
Napster is good for music and bad for the recording industry. Musicians will be fine. This won't be the first time a technology makes someone's job obsolete, just ask a typesetter. We still have printed words however.
While not many artists are happy about lost CD sales, they'd be fools to regret people hearing their music.
OK, now explain how they filter against wildcard names like "Prince" that can appear in many legitimate files.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
If memory serves, they get money from their venture capitalists, who presumably see potential for profit. Either they plan a fee-for-service model, or they go with advertising, or perhaps merchandising... but they're a business.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The basic problem is that you can't stop piracy, not without taking an axe to every server on the internet. I think that's the basic deal that's being exposed in this whole MP3 thing. Individual sources may start protecting copyright and paying back, but that's not going to cut it. A pirate will pop up, even if just to share MP3 with friends across the net. Take them out, someone else takes their place.
So what's going to happen? I think there have to be changes on the user-end... the technology for distribution is beyond control and I want it to stay that way, it's not the root of the problem.
Listeners have to realize their moral obligation to support the bands they like... that's the real trouble, the people who believe in their right to build up huge collections of complete records and never pay a cent. Buy some band shirts! Get a CD for your car player... I dunno, but there has to be a personal reason to co-operate with the artists.
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
"This is not just about online vs. offline," said Hilary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA. "Most in the online business community recognize that what Napster is doing threatens legitimate e-commerce models and is legally and morally wrong."
Notice that they only seem to recognize the business community. It appears as though the consumer has no say in this what so ever. I don't know about you, but I feel that sharing is not morally wrong. I've been copying material for as long as I can remember. (Road trip tapes, etc...)
I should stop rambling now because it isn't like the RIAA can stop this even if Napster dies there have always been alternative methods.
Love,
Lars
Do you think those Modest Mouse songs were endcoded from vinyl originals? Just a thought.
don't believe the hype
IANAL (gotta start it off with THAT one), but in court, if you can prove a smaller case to be true, it is a very strong point against larger cases. I'm sure napster does not have the revenue to hire as many lawyers and specialists, or to dedicate the resources and time as lycos or hotbot. Napster has been served a few blows as it is, and htey have lost a lot of ground as it is.
RIAA is just using a steel chair on the wounded knee. Prove that a smaller, yet weaker company, is wrong, it's easier to shut down the larger ones.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
its something to do with napster so the recording industry hates it. Thats so obvious it should be taken as a given fact.
#define _RANT_;
The recording industry has been bleeding us all dry for so long that its about time they got whats coming.. Personally I couldnt give a rats ass whether the legal technicalities are on their side or not, I just wanna see 'em take one in the face!
#undef _RANT_;
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
Hiliary Rosen:
"This is not just about online vs. offline," said Hilary Rosen, president and CEO of the RIAA. "Most in the online business community recognize that what Napster is doing threatens legitimate e-commerce models and is legally and morally wrong."
Since when is the CEO of any huge business in the driver's seat of morality or legality? I believe that the recording industry is currently under investigation for price-gouging by the FTC, which is both illegal and immoral. It also strikes me that any industry that has no qualms about the less-than-ideal content or lifestyle of the artists that they represent has no business pointing fingers at people for copyright infringement. I realize that there are indeed certain legal issues regarding the copyrights at stake here, but what is wrong with a little revolution to update these century-old laws to reflect current technology? Perhaps if some of these industries spent a little money updating their technology instead of still trying to milk old tech, this would not happen.
They gonna ban Peer-Peer file sharing too?
Jeeez!
Remember kids! Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people.
Not sure if this is 'redundant' by now.., but what about independent/underground bands, who rely heavily on any sales they can get to keep going in the industry, or get started?
If you take away all the major label music, where the bands/artists have millions in the bank etc.., then more and more indie/underground will start showing, or at least become more obvious, and this will cut into the way of them making the money to start out, if this is _really_ a matter of money at the end of the day..,
Good luck, RIAA.. even stupid judges don't need to think hard about that one.
Napster is not morally wrong. Certainly not in the world that we live in today. What I think IS morally wrong is the fact that these corporations continue to try to expand their control over copyrighted works, and even worse, continue to have the copyright term-length extended. The whole reason we have copyright was not so that huge corporations could buy up everything in sight and own it and profit from it forever. It was to expand the amount of creative works in the public domain that everyone has free access to. The idea was to give artists an incentive to create by allowing them to have exclusive control over their works (to the extent that was allowed by copyright laws) so that they could profit from them for a limited period of time (originally 14 years I believe). Now, works that were created and/or copyrighted in my lifetime will probably not enter the public domain in my lifetime. THAT is morally wrong! So, don't expect me to shed any tears over whatever money/control the record industry thinks they're losing to "pirates." As far as I'm concerned, the record industry and others like them are the true pirates that have stolen more from us than we ever could from them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Wow, it's pretty surprising that the top 5 servers there are opennap...
-- Dr. Eldarion --
What, and they could stop it if it wasn't ported to Windows? How that work? Anyways, it was *written* for Windows.
create | destroy | enjoy
I found those on Napster, and that's the only way I've found them.
There's so many out-of-print or unavailable music that I have in my library (95% of my library is remixes). The RIAA doesn't care about the artists, or the remix artists, or the fact that I want that version of the song. They just want money.
"I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
"I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
-Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
They did a survey about internet usage and excluded everybody under 18??
My 16-year-old brother and all his friends are on summer vacation right now. Since they're too lazy to work, they spend all day alternating between grabbing MP3s and playing Age of Empires II.
Someone show me an 18+ year old with that kind of spare time on his/her hands. Sure, they exist. But not in such overwhelming numbers.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
This makes me gag almost as much as Yahoo! refering to Napster as a "Web Site."
I don't understand what they are trying to do. Even if they succeeded to get Napster to close down operations in the morning, they'd have gotten themselves absoloutly nowhere. There would be something else in it's place before you could say "Chocolate Spread!"
at least this story might finally convince some of the more naive ones that mp3.com is not about freeing the world from the evil major labels. It is about making big money and if the majors help making that then Robertson quickly loses his idealistic mask.
If they think that just shuting one down will fix all the problems in the world. 5 minutes after the shut down, college kids will search and post music up on *illegal* web sites all over the world.
I think Princess Leia said it best in Star Wars, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
--Besides, I got most of my stuff on CD's already.
Someone was saying that they were disappointed in MP3.com for not continuing the cause that they have been pretending to support all this time. Michael R. is a fraud.
And don't stereotype Slashdot participants. I don't use Linux. And I contribute to society by working for America's largest bank.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
I've said this before: short previews suck.
That's not what the internet is about. That's not how digital distribution should be used. The "preview" mentality is the RIAA mentality: "Okay, you thieving shits, we'll use the goddamn internet, but we're gonna use it to tease you. We're not gonna exploit it. We'll give you 30 seconds of a song in order to *make you buy the CD*."
Well, screw that. I don't want to buy the CD. I'll pay for the download if it's reasonable -- or, yeah, okay: I'll buy the CD if it's reasonably priced: 8.99 to 10.99 -- but I'll be goddammed if I'll buy into the RIAA's "preview" mindgame and succomb to their marketing tactics. The only reason they're giving the "preview" is to manipulate you into buying their full-priced CD.
The "preview" isn't a value-add -- it doesn't enhance the 'art' or make available more of the 'art'. The "preview" only points back to the problem -- even though the RIAA takes great pains to disguise the "preview" as a new way of viewing the 'art.'
All art is to some extent manipulated by the way middlemen/middlewomen decide to commodify it. Intellectual property has nothing to do with 'art.' How come nobody is talking about this?
How come nobody is saying, look: intellectual property is just another phrase for 'leveraging corporate profits?' How come nobody is questioning the link between artistic creation and 'property?'
For chrissake: how come no one is writing editorials about the very idea of 'intellectual property' in the first place? Valenti goes on and on about how crazy our culture will become if 'property' suddenly loses its status as a commodity. How come no one is talking about the relation of 'property' to the artist?
Just who owns this property anyway? And how is it possible to own art in the first place? And once ownership is established, just what, exactly, does that mean?
It's pretty interesting that a week after MP3.com settles with RIAA (at least in some part), they've started offering supporting statements in court. I wonder if there's a connection ...
Even if there was a shutdown of Napster the trade of music over the internet will no doubt continue. Many people should be familiar with iMesh, a new system similar to Napster which allows for the transfer of Images, Music, and Video files. Perhaps this will be the next target, but won't another such site just arise shortly after?
--C:\DOS C:\DOS\RUN RUN\DOS\RUN
> "Most in the online business community recognize that what Napster is doing threatens legitimate e-commerce models and is legally and morally wrong."
Translation: We don't know how to make any money off of napster. We don't give a shit about the morality of it, but we do have lots of lawyers.
> "If the courts allow Napster and services like it to continue to facilitate massive copyright infringement, there is a grave risk that the public will begin to perceive and believe that they have a right to obtain copyrighted materials for free,"
Translation: This scares us shitless.
> "The record companies are trying to shut down Napster--an entirely legal system of file sharing that reflects the heart and soul of the Internet"
Translation: Everyone knows that napster is used almost exclusively to violate copyright, but it does have legitimate uses, so the law is on our side. Yeah!
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
Without copyright the GNU GPL would not exist.
...and would be unnecessary, as the very freedoms it seeks to protect would be inherent.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
[quoted]
If they were serious about fairly guaging their artists' popularity and reimbursing the artist accordingly, they could monitor Napster traffic in exactly the same way that Metallica's lackeys did. Not a perfect collection of data (repeat download attempts distort the figures, for example), but certainly more helpful than ignoring the phenominon altogether.
[end quote]
wouldn't the point in the network where you started 'listening' for napster traffic also be pretty important in determining exactly what data you are able to sample?
[quoted]
At the very least, they should be considreed to be nothing more than another amoral, unethical company that may or may not produce a product one might need or want, and treated accordingly.
[end quote]
this could be applied to any company, organization, group of people. at the lowest level, the base driving force of interaction is 'what can you do for me' (imo).
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
Several times, the article refers to songs that have "leaked" out to the general public via the Internet. Instead of chiding those who would download and listen to the songs as infringers of artists' rights, perhaps the artists and record companies would better serve themselves by exercising more control over unreleased product.
It certainly sounds like that within their inner circle, the constituents of the RIAA treat recorded music as a commodity.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
If you look around the mp3 page, you'll find: holophrastic.com and the band page, both of which give excellent access to all the band members. (Message boards, webcam, etc.)
As for making a living at it, sure, why not. But I don't bank on that, so I have a day job. The music is about the music, not about money.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Napster is a business -- and one with quite a few million US$ in funding. It's also got readily identifiable management, which is handy when you're looking for somebody to sue.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Napster makes money?? How?
It may not seem like they have a business model that would make money, but appearances can be deceiving. Almost no high-tech companies make a profit on the merits of their own business these days. They rely heavily on advertising, investment, and stock.
I read somewhere that Napster's involved in this game and is going/has gone IPO. I don't know if that's true. But if my company can exist for a year without putting out a product, and attract $5 million venture capital to boot, something as high-profile as Napster should have no problem making a bundle.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
hmm, two people using the word "ilk" in consecutive posts... funky
Course all that can really be done is to stop the central servers... If Napster felt *really* nihilistic they could just open source the server code or release the server software so that anyone could run a Napster server. With the protocol being well-known, I expect that writing one's own wouldn't that challenging anyway. And surely this is exactly what'll happen if the core gets pulled?
create | destroy | enjoy
I don't know what they call it in the USA, but here in Canada, it's justifiable under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 1 provides for 'reasonable limits' to be set on people's rights for the betterment of the 'free and democratic' society.
In this case, your right to anonymity could easily be breached to enforce copyright law.
Sorry(?)
75% of my collection came from #cablemp3 on IRC. Try an injunction on that, biatch. These articles keep quoting that survey about declining music sales. Didn't that study also show that cd sales declined even more around colleges that had banned Napster. Selective statistics should be thrown out.
swweeeeet.
I want to file :
o a tort
o a class action suit
o personal injury
o a civil suit
---
hmm.. yes... yes! must start work immediately.
I now pay aprox. $4.20 per gallon, so quit whining and be thankful for the low gas price.
But, then again it's just my fault that I pay such high gas prices,.. being european and all.......
Of course they're not including bands like Limp Bizkit and Offspring in this, right?
After all, those bands have said they like their songs being traded on Napster, and RIAA works on behalf of the artists, right?
Right?
What? What do you mean the RIAA is an evil corporate entity? No! I feel like I just found out Santa Claus wasn't real!!!
NO CARRIER
I wonder what will happen when kiddies realise they can use Napster to trade warez and porn etc. (zip the files up and rename them to .mp3).
That'll put the cat amoung the pigeons.
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
Copyright's basically an unenforcable law, especially with the internet making distribution so easy and whatever warez you want so easy to find. It's a bad idea whose time to die is come, and that's just what's happening. Hopefully people will settle down with a more reasonable system based on the kind of thing that intellectual property is and the way the internet works, but the odds are that someone's just going to come up with a new way of screwing people for money.
Until the law and the industry show a little justice, it's our right to be disobedient.
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
It would be interesting to create a set of remixed tracks, each track itself consisting of the maximum allowed length sample from a number of different songs... each track in the set would contain a sample from a slightly different time index into the original song.
Thus, songs could be "striped" across multiple mixed tracks which could then be distributed freely. All you'd need is an index to tell you which "mixes" you needed to get back the whole original song you were interested in.
If enough people were involved in the distribution of different tracks, how could they sue anyone even if they found out who you were?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Until a couple weeks ago I hadn't ever used Napster at all, so I decided to download it and see what it's all about. One of the things I did on there was do a search for "Celtic" and it came up with Loreena McKennitt, which I listened to and decided I really loved her songs. I decided I wanted to buy one of her CDs for myself, and also thought that my friend would like one for her birthday. So I went to the music store and was COMPLETELY disgusted with the price of the CDs (I hadn't gone CD shopping in awhile...) I ended up getting 2 at $17.99 (+5.75% tax) each but I definitely wasn't happy about it. I looked them up on Amazon.com later and they have them for $13.99. Which is better, but still a lot if you take shipping into consideration.
I wonder if there's anything the average person can do to help with the "war for cheaper CDs". They're seriously gouging us.
Not to mention I found out that it isn't the foreign people setting the prices for gas. Down in Tennessee gas is $1.25 and people are complaining about that. What the hell is this, who is setting the gas prices so high? It's harming the gas stations who are having lots of people drive off without paying.
You don't even need to throw away your Napster client, if Napster the company goes under. Just cruise to Napigator and you can connect to the open servers at imperialfleet.com, culvernap and a bunch of places. Or if you use gnapster, you can automatically connect to these servers, which have nothing to do with the Napster company.
----------------------------------
What are the weapons of happiness?
[To the tune of "My Sharona"]
So you want to share some songs
Share some songs
When your Napster's gone you'll use my Gnutella
RIAA Copyright qualms
Copyright qualms
They will never find you with my Gnutella
Screw Metallica, and the rest, never gonna stop
I won't give it up. I'm gonna rock. You'll never
catch me with my... my... my... my WOO!
m-m-m-my Gnutella!
m-m-m-my Gnutella!
Napster has given us the one thing we need though - an amazing idea. You must commend them on that. Napster, the idea, can NOT be stopped.
No matter how deep one digs, there will always be a level of underground another step deeper.
The time is going to come for us to move back down underground and use IRC (That's what I use for my death and power METAL - DalNet - #mp3_death and #mp3_metal (cant usually find this on Napster)), FreeNet, Gnutella, and others.
In Napsters defeat, realize that the RIAA and the music industry has NOT won at all. We will still willingly pirate music, and they cannot stop it. No matter what they do, it won't be stopped. Never. And that's a damn shame for them, I don't give two shits about their stock.
Just remember -- WE WIN.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) -GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
If you live in the desert and make your living selling water, and all of a sudden it begins to rain where you live and there is no longer a demand for what people can just walk outside and get cheaply do you:
A) File a suit against the meterologists for monitoring the rain on their radar.
or
B) Begin to sell umbrellas.
Good companies can adapt to ever changing markets.
Wheeeee
Actually, that is wrong. If the sample is recognizable, and forms a "significant part" of the derived work, it is infringement.
You may notice that at the top of the artical it says MP3.com chief executive Michael Robertson and Emusic.com chairman Robert Kohn both support the RIAA. Of course they just happen to be direct competitors... There probably trying to get Napster shutdown so they can make more money of their legal MP3's.
information...
>For the first time, the industry is providing hard statistics on how much material on Napster it believes is breaking copyright law.
What are the statistics? Who took them? How much were they paid? Was the process reviwed by both sides to insure that it is at least partially fair?
I understand not dismissing a case based on these "statistics" but before an actual injunction is heard I hope they come up with more than this.
Devil Ducky
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
There is also work on a format called MP4 that is an enhancement to MP3 in that it allows files to be encrypted and allow copyright controls as to who can play the file.
Though on pricipal I stay away from such systems since I don't like technologies that limits my rights to access music I own. I can make perfect digital copies of my CDs and play them on any digital device I have, any system that replaces CDs for me will have to allow the same. It does not look like audio DVDs will be it for me.
subsolar
I'm also accepting $15 million investments if anyone is interested
If your name was chez69_Linux_Solutions, I'd consider it.
Actually, someone left a post here a couple months ago about a mining company that changed its name from something like "Johnson Minerals" to "Linux Solutions" the day before it went IPO. It was a surprisingly successful IPO for a mining company. Sorry, I don't remember any of the specifics.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Napster:
Napster's terms of service and copyright dispute policy is here.Yahoo:
Yahoo's terms of service is here and their copyright dispute policy is here.CNN:
CNN's terms of service and copyright dispute policy can be found here.Slashdot:
If Napster loses, we're all in trouble.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
--
The RIAA (and MPAA) clearly has no idea how technology works. How long until a consultant or low-level flunky points out that all software piracy software has one common denominator: an operating system.
Yes, soon the RIAA (and MPAA) will launch a suit against MS, Apple, RedHat, IBM, etc claiming that their so-called "Operating Systems", being in use by 100% of software pirates, constitute a illegal piracy tool. And since the UCITA will guarantee that OS's have "remote shutdown" MS, Apple, IBM, etc will be forced to "kick their users off the system" (i.e. remotely shutdown those machines). Only those people running Open Source OS's will survive (because they removed any shutdown code).
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
A current story at The Register reports on two new Napster usage polls. One shows most of the people using Napster to pirate music are not college students, as widely believed. The other indicates that users are buying the CDs they sample online.
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Without copyright source code availability could not be guaranteed, but how many proprietary products out there have borrowed code from free ones? How would you ever know? Who really cares?
That's the point: RMS cares. [Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily a fan of the GPL...]
My understanding of this (and my understanding of RMS is not necessarily complete) is that this is the essential difference between "open source" and "free as freedom software" that RMS talks about. RMS intentionally made it so that people who used GPL'd software would be forced to follow the "morals" (RMS's word) of the free software movement, otherwise they would be forbidden to reuse GPL'd code. That is the "virus" aspect of the GPL.
Granted that the GPL has never been tested in court, but it still attempts to stand on the foundation of copyright law.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
sig not found
How was that insightful? Perhaps a little funny, in a sort of South-Parkianesque shock at such unnecessary profanity, but it really wasn't insightful at all since it didn't provide any insight into the topic at hand or the post to which it was a response. It was just a simple expression of bile, the same as all of the Natalie Portman trolls (well, except for the funny ones which I secretly enjoy).
I have no idea why anyone would moderate up a post which stated that they (the moderator) were "fucking stupid", especially without any supporting information. Hope this goes to meta-moderation...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I think you forget that money makes the world go round.
I thought it was gravity..?
--
+&x
And then they are going to shutdown the
e-mail, when people send mp3 as an attch ?.
Then the internet ?, they are very stupid, and
mp3 were trade before even napster exist.
Overlord
Digital copies of popular music are out there waiting to be shared. If Napster and the other sharing web sites are shut down, there will only be another half dozen options created to take advantage of this medium's popularity - and it will not be limited to warez sites either.
MP3.com made a few people rich and it still will. Money like that will attract others like blood in the ocean attracts sharks.
Eventually, the RIAA will spend all of their time chasing one company after another until their legal resources are exhausted.
I hate being one of the gang, but I am afraid many of the posters here are correct: It is too late, there is very little they can do, short of confiscating computers and turning off Internet access to the public.
Well I don't feel so bad about all these Thrill Kill Kult MP3's then.
If it may be to interest to anyone, I fired off an email to their president explaining the concept of Napster and the DMCA. You can find the letter here.
I haven't recieved a response as of yet.
(Yeah, there's a banner on the page, only free hosting option I can find, blah)
After 4 emails to the RIAA "Question and Answer" email address, I have still not received a reply as to the industry average that artists receive for each CD sold.
However, whilst watching VH-1's "Behind the Music" last night, I gained some insight. It seams the Goo Goo Dolls foolishly signed a deal with Metal Blade Records in which they only got about $.30 for each unit sold. A lawyer hired by the band to sue Metal Blade and renogiate a better deal with them, said that new bands typically get 3x that much. Oh, wow. A whole buck...split between 4 band members for 2-3 million unit sales.
A fair chunk of change...BUT...I bet that some savvy label could get them a lot more dough by selling it for a lot less by employing new technology.
Stupid artists.
I find it very interesting that mp3.com has become an ally of the RIAA in this effort, particularly since they give away mp3s of their artists music.
As a customer of theirs, I find this particularly troubling. What they are saying, basically, is that the mp3's are gratis, but not libre: they want traffic to their web page, so they don't want you sharing music the artists have authorized you to download for free, and presumably therefor to share with your friends.
One expects such a cynical rape of the justice system by such amoral entities as the RIAA, but to see a relatively new startup who is not only an underdog, but a self-styled representative of change in a corrupt industry, engage in such cynical ploys simply to keep the traffic to their website up is very distasteful, to say the least.
I must say, in light of this news, I will be giving serious second thoughts to purchasing any additional CDs from mp3.com. As they have been the only ones I have been purchasing CDs from in the last year, I suppose this could mean an end to yet another vice (and more cash for other hobbies instead).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
- Mettalika
- Brytni Spiers
- M-and-M
- Broose-remove-Spring-me-stene
These are all legitimate garage bands, I swear!"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
Hard rock band Metallica and rapper Dr. Dre have trolled...
Hmm... I didn't see these guys post. They must have been moderated down fast...
Hey, if you want to trade mp3's with a few of your friends that's one thing. Go ahead and set up your own FTP server and file sharing and go to town. Allowing *anyone* on the internet to get the files in a very easy manner is where the RIAA and musicians get upset.
Here's the difference; record companies have the reputation of ripping people off over the years, and they're making millions off of starving artists....
Dude, they're not starving. It's all the drugs and booze that makes them look like that.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Napster Users, RIAA, and Corporations Suck:
Protect the Software Writers and Artists
Actually, independent bands have a hard time promoting their mp3's on napster because you have 50 kids all looking for 5-stupid-kids-who-can't-sing bands.
The corporate bands and their representatives have a legitimate complaint that you can't distribute their music without permission. Even though most of the music sucks, people did work and spend money to produce music for the masses and to cram it in your ear on every corporate radio station and music television.
I personally think RIAA is wrong. I think Mp3.com and Napster provide legitimate services. However, some people use Napster and MP3.com (without even the decency of covering their ISP packets through a compromised machine somewhere) in an illegal manner against MP3.com and Napster user agreements.
I personally think the best way to deal with Napster is to not deal with Napster but start getting IP addresses of the people distributing copyrighted material without permission.
Once the FBI starts making phone calls, the napster scene will dwindle to a few idiots, a few kids with parents that don't care, and a few people from idiot governments.
Yes, the illegal trade will still continue no matter what. But the point is not the end result. The point is the means. The means justify the end.
The problem with our society today in all respects is that we have replaced individual liberty and responsibility (based on tort law) with the tryanny of the stupid masses wanting their "free" suck-ass corporate music.
Cracking-down on music pirates is one of the few things that the U.S. government is Constitutionally authorized. Let's end the insane war on mob-unapproved drugs, and start calling the parents of the deliquents and start arresting the bums who can't afford a CD or who can't listen to the corporate crap on the corporate radio stations or can't listen to the better and free music out there legitimately. And if you can't afford any of those things...I'm sure Columbia Records will give you some free music if you clean their offices or the band's car.
The gun companies are innocent. The tobacco companies are innocent. Napster and MP3.com are innocent.
It is the people who steal property. It is the people who illegal distribute property. It is the people that pull the trigger on someone not attacking you that are guilty.
No wonder we have people killing, stealing, and using drugs. We no longer own ourselves. We are no longer responsible for what we do. The the corporations (private communism/socialism where the worker--share holder--owns the means of production) and the government (the mob) own us collectively.
I would never be one to defend the RIAA or Valenti, however this argument has one big hole: scarcity.
The reason libraries are currently tolerated is the fact that popular works are usually constantly in use, meaning that when Mr. A uthor's latest work first comes out, maybe they pick up a few copies. Everyone is out buying it, the libraries have their few copies, which not surprisingly, are never in when you go to check it out. You still go to buy it. The older, not-as-popular books may be extremely difficult to find and stock in bookstores, and you still only get them for about a week or two from the library. To be honest, I'd rather own the O'reilly's definitive guide to being an evil genius than to have to keep taking it back and re-checking it out.
Napster, and other file sharing programs break down any illusion of scarcity, and completely devalue anything popular that gets shared. This is what has them so scared- it's not the fact that people can now get ahold of it with such ease, but rather that they now no longer see any incentive to pay for recordings.
Although Britney, N'Sync and co. do a roaring trade on Napster, it's also the place to get material from bands that are nigh-on impossible to find outside specialist shops (hard to come by in a non-city environment), and bands who have been dropped by their labels in the last few years and have had their albums deleted.
What makes me laugh about the whole Metallica thing is there is no way they would have been signed in today's musical climate. They not only relied on bootleggers and word-of-mouth, but on independent labels such as MFN, and sympathetic people like Johnny Zazula to enable them to survive until being picked up by Elektra in the mid-80s. If they were trying to be signed today, they'd have to go to image consultants, focus group meetings, and prove to these arse^H^H^H^Hpeople that they can sell something, before they were as much as offered a pre-contract memo, let alone a record deal!
It annoys me that the labels can get away with slowly narrowing the focus of what constitutes 'contemporary music' until nothing is left but that which they produce, which they can price/distribute as they please. RIAA is nothing more than a cartel of people who care about nothing but label profits, annulling any alternative method of distributing music that isn't theirs, and, this is the bit which gets my hackles up no end, claiming they're doing it for the good of the artist. Artists that have already made their millions are sympathetic, because they have nothing to fear anymore. But what about those who are being forced out? What about those who can't afford stage school or image consultants? How much talent are we denying here?
I see my friends who were promised a shot at recording in the late 90's being throttled with their pre-contract exclusivity memos, forced into silence by a system that doesn't feel it needs them anymore. Where's the justice in that?
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
one of the reader provided articles near the top of the comments led to a story stating that a group in Ct. are planning a class action suit to the tune of 1.5 billion.
in most cases, the record company owns the material regardless of whether or not it's paid back.
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!
--
And Justice for None
If there was no copyright, then there would be little need for the GPL,
How do you figure that? That GPL is enforced using copyright. The GPL forces people who use the software to follow the rules of GPL, like a) forcing availability of source code, and b) not being able to use GPL code in a closed product.
If there was no copyright, you would have a license such as BSD, which is basically unrestricted.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Here's how it works. If Napster gets an injunction keeping them from allowing the transfer of copyrighted materials, we (the slashdot community) have a huge download-a-thon and gather every song being offered on the servers. This can be organized by our User #s. Everyone with a numbers 1 - 5000 take songs starting with letters A - F, 5001 - 10000 get G - L, 10001 - 15000 get M - R, and 15001 or higher get S - Z. We save it all to one big iDrive, and make use of one of those nifty IBM Shark Hard-drives to store all the MP3s. Next we just have Jon Katz take it to a remote island in the Pacific and start up a server from there, outside US jurisdiction. Then we just download them from there, and we're all set.
I'd like to see the RIAA find a hole in this one =)
--Forager.
student of animation and the fine arts
Can someone please explain the difference between music which is covered by copyright and software which is covered by the GPL?
:-)
The question is badly formed since the GPL is a *licence* governing the use of copyrighted material, so you are really comparing apples to.. err... apple seeds.
Here goes anyway: the GPL guarantees your right to use the licenced intellectual property freely, including redistributing it, and forbids you from imposing new conditions on anyone you restribute it to. It is a guarantee of freedom. As such, it is in a completely different class from the conditions that the RIAA is trying to impose on the use and distribution of music.
[offtopic] Rob, there is a new BUG in slash that prevents offline composition. Error message: Invalid form key! Sheesh, this bug has been in for weeks, does this say anything to you about the need to make the slash code truly open?????
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Sort of set a suicidal precedent, eh?
thats the best RIAA description i've heard yet...
XZ
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR022 65:@@@L
(REVISED AS OF 11/04/97 -- Passed House, amended)
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act - Amends Federal copyright law to define "financial gain" to include the receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Sets penalties for willfully infringing a copyright: (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; or (2) by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, one or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000. Provides that evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
Let's see $1000/$17 per cd = 58 cds ... 58 cds * 10 songs per cd = 580 songs per 180 day period (3 songs a day)?
Extends the statute of limitations for criminal copyright infringement from three to five years.
They can come after for up to five year from the infingement
Revises Federal criminal code provisions regarding criminal copyright infringement to provide for a fine and up to five years' imprisonment for infringing a copyright for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, at least ten copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $2,500.
$2500/$17 per cd = 147 cds ... 147 cds * 10 songs per cd = 1470 songs (8 songs a day)... more than this is a Federal crime?
Provides for: (1) up to three years' imprisonment and fines in infringement cases described above (exclusive of commercial gain intent considerations); (2) up to six years' imprisonment and a fine for a second or subsequent felony offense under (1); and (3) up to one year's imprisonment and a fine for the reproduction or distribution of one or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000.
Penalities and repeat offense provisions
Requires, during preparation of the presentence report in cases of criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of live musical performances, and trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, that victims of the offense be permitted to submit, and the probation officer receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim and the extent and scope of the victim's injury and loss, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
How to report infringement
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to ensure that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime and adequately reflects consideration of the retail value and quantity of items with respect to which the crime against intellectual property was committed.
Can anyone provide an expert opinion?
If they own the copyright and put the songs up for download on Gnutella, wouldn't it be legal to download them? After all, the copyright holder is making them available for free download via Gnutella.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Hey, I remember when pirating software and copying CDs and taping VHS tapes was something that you did with your friends. And occasionally there was a pirate BBS that was very hush hush about what it was doing. Now, everyone wants to be able to do this stuff out in the open and starts complaining when people get pissed off about it. Do we really need Napster? No. I have no sympathy for them. They should have known before they started that they were going to get themselves in trouble for this.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
I'm also accepting $15 million investments if anyone is interested
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
What if there is a track by an independent artist in the UK, which is then licensed to a major label in the US? Who then dictates whether or not the track is available on Napster? The artist should be the one that decides, not the Major Label if it has licensed the track, as the artist might be quite happy for the track to exist electronically.
Are we now to expect clauses in Record contracts that explicitly state that the label that owns the work, not the artist, and as such the artist would be pirating their own work?
Somehow I think that's pretty unfair, and I think the worst part of it is Michael Knobend or whatever his name is of mp3.com getting his digs in. You're a hypocrite, Michael, and just jealous you didn't think of a distributed client.
hehe, you are probably the hoodlum who ran up and assaulted that RIAA executive*.
*the term "RIAA executive" includes all assaulted persons within a five mile radius of an actual RIAA representative.
----(o)----
Napster does one thing, it makes theft easy, anonymous, and simple enough that you don't even think about it. I really don't see the fire fight here, what I see is a piece of software that makes it painless and risk-free to steal. How exactly do you see this as fighting fire with fire? What is the result you expect?
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
What they are saying, basically, is that the mp3's are gratis, but not libre: they want traffic to their web page, so they don't want you sharing music the artists have authorized you to download for free, and presumably therefor to share with your friends.
It is invalid to assume that by posting music to MP3.com the artists have authorized you to redistribute their music, even to your friends. The artists have placed their music on MP3.com with the assurance that only individuals will be authorized to use it for personal use. If they want to grant users broader redistribution rights they are perfectly able to do so because they fully retain the copyright on the music that they post. So while finding music on MP3.com does not by default make it legal to share that music with your friends, the artists are not forced to make sharing illegal as they are with traditional record labels - the artists retain the copyright and can authorize sharing if they so desire (witness the Kosmic Free Music Foundation. I urge you to rethink your condemnation of MP3.com because even though they do not force their artists to authorize sharing, they do not prohibit it.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
From the cnet article :
As part of its filing, the RIAA said it had hired the California-based Field Institute polling firm to talk to students and determine what, if any, effect Napster had on music sales. According to that study, "essentially every single Napster user sampled was engaged in some copyright infringement," the industry said in a statement. The study also claimed that 87 percent or more of the songs copied and downloaded on Napster were copyrighted.
Nearly half of Napster users "described the nature of its impact on their music purchases in a way which either explicitly indicated or suggested that Napster displaces CD sales," the Field study said.
The survey commissioned by the RIAA shows that something less than half of the students that use Napster end up buying less product from the RIAA as a result. This means that for more than half of the students using Napster, it either has no effect or a positive effect in that they buy *more* CDs. As often as we see comments posted to Slashdot about Napster use actually encouraging users to buy CDs, I would like to see the details of this study and not just the bits the RIAA wants to publicize.
How long before all except N'Sync and their ilk remove themselves from the death-grip?
TheGeek
TheGeek
http://www.geekrights.org
Kill the monkey
I think it was Wednesday, Hillary Rosen and the guy from Gnutella were on Talk of the Nation. Maybe I am just partial, but the guy from Gnutella was very cool, and Hillary was, well, a total bitch. She played the part of Dragon Lady very well.
She was sitting there absolutely lying to all the NPR listeners every time she opened her mouth. Finally, near the end of the show, she said that "Napster was bad because Metallica had to tell them who to remove," or something like that. The Gnutella dude spoke up and said, "But that is what the DMCA - which the music industry pushed so hard for - says they have to do!" Then Hillary had the gall to poo poo his comment.
I really wish that comment had happened near the beginning of the show.
The more I hear the RIAA and their ilk spout off, the more I want to punch something. Preferably Hillary Rosen's nose.
Napster, on the other hand, is a business which is trying to make money off the fruits of other people's labor. They are hardly a member of the "open source" movement in good standing nor are they out to liberate the world from corporate greed...they just want to get a piece of the pie without earning it. I frankly couldn't care less what happens to them.
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
How can Napster possibly remove all copyrighted material from their service? They don't own the files that are being traded. The files aren't stored in their machines. At best, they could intercept the copyrighted material as it flows between users, but that only prevents it from spreading further. The RIAA had better face facts...times have changed. This is somewhat like the musicians union. They used to be a powerful lobby. But with the advent of high quality sound recording, demand for live bands has plummetted. As the popularity of Napster grows, the demand for CDs and tapes will also fall. Stop beating a dead horse and find a way to profit from the MP3 revolution!
Who are you? Where are we going? And what's with the handbasket?
It's apparent to me that Napster in it's present form is not going to be around much longer. Enjoy it while you can, folks - hoard those songs.
What I hope is that when the huge-scale Napster operation crumbles, Gnutella or possibly Freenet will step in and fill the void. Sure, they're already here and they work, but what is needed is the SCALE. It's that HUGE community of users that makes it so convenient to find virtually any song you like. So spread the word. If Napster kicks it, I hope like the public will move to a more subversive version of the same distributed filesharing system - and with more than just songs.
If Gnutella or Freenet becomes widespread, that will only make the present community of Napster users stronger, and make it more evident that nothing can be done - especially if it crosses international boundaries. It might even sway the public's paradigm of intellectual property, showing that now, they old system CANNOT work.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
RMS and the GPL advocates would I'm sure love a world where copyright - even on GPL programs - was a non-issue. So long as it's consistent and copyright can't be ignored on GPL and then asserted on the plagiarized proprietary version.
Lets say 'napster can't trade in copywrited material of the RIAA' *poof*
Ok, there will still be SOME things and use for napster....there is MP3 art that is copywrited and able to be distributed. And, gosh, some that is not copywrited! Napster doesn't become useless....but it DOES remove the value for most people.
If the TRUE desire is for people to illegally trade warez, then it will just move to swapping via IRC channels, UseNet, the up and comming freenet, guntilla(sp), and the old fashioned 'go to Joe's house and have a copy party' The article quoted a couple of days ago about how 'for the 1st time in 90 years money won't be made from recordings' is true.
So, who's got a MP3 of the 'sounds of slashot' CD?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
What is a "fair price" for a CD, such that you would buy (pay money for) all your music and stop downloading copyrighted music without paying for it? To keep things simple, let's assume that all single CDs are priced the same.
What about being able to download MP3 at maybe a buck apeice (and there was some way to do it and be charged securely WITHOUT having to enter your credit card number every time)? That would be great. Also, I'd do it much more often if a much larger percentage of the money went to the artists themselves (or a kill-the-backstreet-boys fund.)
--
Nope, that's trademarks.
You can let people copy your copyrighted works for years, then specifically attack certain ones only and still have a strong case.
It's trademarks that force you to attack everyone you notice in order to set the precedent of defending your trademark, or else it becomes legal for other people to use it.
As I understand it, the GNU philosophy is to take away most of the control of the software from the creator, and give it to the user (without giving ownership). To have it any other way is to be controlled by those who make the software.
The key word is "most". You are very restricted in what you can do with GPL source code. You are not allowed to distribute a binary, or use the code in a project that you give away without source code. The limitations of your freedom (strong verbiage intended :) ) are enforced using copyright law. Many people like these limitations of freedom, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they want to eliminate copyright law. Do you notice where the similarity lies? Yes -- in each case, they are for whatever benefits them the most, creator be damned.
Besides, who said the artist really chose non-redistribution as a license? It was forced upon them by their contract with the record company. The record companies control the artists too.
Nobody forced them to do anything. No gun was held to their head to sign the contract. What's basically happening is that record company gives them a huge wad of production money up front in exchange for certain rights to distribution. For some reason, nobody remembers that initial big wad of money that goes down the drain if the band craters (which 9 out of 10 do).
If a band wants to go direct, nothing's stopping them. And many do. But they better be willing to pick up of the cost of production and promotion themselves.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"What do they think is going to stop this?" asks Chuck. "Baby Jesus? Jesus is going to stop Napster."
I can see the press releases now:
"Metallica claims that downloading MP3s from Napster makes Baby Jesus cry. Millions don't care."
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
I just completed a final project on Napster Ethics and Legality, and we have a guestbook where you can voice your opinion about it. So far mainly pro-Napster people have posted, so I would appreciate any anti-Napster positions for contrast. Also, any ideas on what the future holds for online music would be interesting. Thanks for your time!
a prophet on the burning shore
Call me naive if you like, but Napster isn't only trading illegal MP3's of bands. The point of Napster is that it's a musical distribution network. The fact that people are using it for trading illegal MP3's is one thing. However, shutting down Napster for this reason is going way too far, IMHO. That would be like making bricks illegal, because you can throw one through a window, and steal items in a store.
Warning of redundancy warning. What Napster allows is a distribution channel independent of the record companies. In the bad old days, if you wanted people to hear your music, you had to distribute your records/tapes/CD's to stores around the country and radio stations(enter record companies). But now, in the internet age, you just put some MP3's on your harddisk, and provide pointers to them via an informational hub, like Napster. Such that people around the globe can find them. And what this does is bypass the record companies, and their sources of revenue.
Silly utopian suggestions for future music.What Napster et al provide is a sort of musical revolution. I'd ultimately like to set up a musical version of Cheap-Bytes, where the music is in some form of public domain (and copyrighted by the artist, not a record company). So, you go to a website, order some CD's for $2 apiece, and each item you buy has an option to donate $1 (or other amount) to the artist. So, what's the difference for paying $2 or $3 per CD? not much (okay, it adds up when you buy hundreds), but this allows money to go directly to the artist and to the production of the CD. This bypasses much of the middle-man (read record companies) which I think is a good thing.
Rant about the record companies. The record companies piss me off for a few reasons. Firstly, they amass significantly large fractions of the artists work, merely for distributing it. Music prices are ridiculously high to account for this, and hence the artist gets only a minute fraction of royalties. Secondly, they manipulate (or attempt to) the populace in really annoying ways, IMHO. For instance, say the new Big Bad Boys album gets recorded, and obviously these companies want to make as much money off it as possible. So they use their power to coerce the radio stations (usually Top-40 radio stations, which I hate) to play Big Bad Boys music all the time. Anyone in the radio business care to comment as to whether record companies offer money or other goodies in exchange for playing albums with so much airtime? I get so sick of hearing the same songs on the radio, which is why I mostly listen to the cool (mostly free?) college radio stations around here in Boston. Finally, the profit-making maximization keeps out good music. For example, I've seen many a friend's band get rejected from record labels, due to the fact that the music was different from the current norm. The exec's would say, "This music is real hip, but now record us something we can sell." Ie, this music is really good, but the music of today that sells is in these few genres, so that's all we'll market. And hence, that's the only music that these companies put on the radios, so that's what sells to the kids, and hence that's the type of music the record companies sign on. An ugly vicious circle. Witness the many musical revolutions, coming from the garages and small clubs, until the record industry caught up with lost revenue. (examples include punk, grunge, electronica, etc)
So, hopefully the next generation of musicians can bypass these record companies, and put their music on the web directly, and sell actual CD's, T-shirts, and other things to make their money, and remove the record companies from the picture. Music would be cheaper to buy, and the artists would get (hopefully) a larger amount of proceeds.
Regarding the illegal downloads on Napster.And sorry, I now realize I forgot to talk about the part I quoted above, dealing with GPL advocates violating a music artist's license. I can tell that you I've never downloaded an illegal MP3. What alot Napster users are clamoring for, whether they realize it or not, is some sort of musical revolution (or change, if revolution sounds too violent). Possibly it may come about as I've detailed above. And as per your quote regarding artists choosing non-redistribution as their license, I'd point out that it was the record companies that put these clauses into the artist's contracts. For artists to make it , they had to sign some such contract or other, as record companies provided the only way to get their music out to the crowds. Now, with Napster and others, the record companies are becoming obsolete.
Okay, sorry for the long-winded arguments
make world, not war
Of course it helps unknown aritists by giving them an outlet for their music.
I am a frequent Napster user and I will hunt people's libraries for anything that sounds new or interesting. My hotlist has grown very long as I find people with similar musical tastes to mine, and since I can download a song and check it out for free, I have been able to find plenty of new musicians and DJ's I never would have heard of otherwise. Admitedly, most of these musicians might have record deals already but since I don't see them on MTV or hear them on my local corporate controlled radio station I would never of heard of them, let alone bought their CD's if not for Napster.
When will the get it through their thick skulls that Napster doesn't host MP3 files? How many times does Napster's staff and other people in the know have to tell them???
Geez!
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Well then my friend's A&R guy (at Astralwerks) lied to him. Probably wouldn't be the first time...
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
The entire Napster/MP3/copyright issue is being moved from a "cool, music for free!" situation into a "youth-vs-the-establishment" issue, isn't it?
It's already been pretty well established that the proverbial genie isn't going back in the bottle at this point, and the the official voices in the music industry start to appear to be growing steadily more and more out of touch with their alleged core audience.
I just start to wonder how much it matters... and this is me speaking from my "pretentious brat" "I-don't-really-listen-to-mainstream-music" standpoint. Historically, the "entertainment companies" haven't been making money off of music for all that long -- maybe a century. There was music before them, and there will be music after them. I'd like to see the musicians who are really deprived of their livelihood by MP3 -- not Metallica, but the independent artist who can't make ends meet since this took off.
But hey, it's the results of capitalism. Markets change.
If it wasn't ported to Windows, they wouldn't *need* to stop it, because it would never take off.
"Most in the online business community recognize that what Napster is doing threatens legitimate e-commerce models and is legally and morally wrong." - Die Fueroren, Rosen
and skipping the judiciary process to get a preliminary injuction because you know you won't win a legitimate court case is what?
-Z
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going.
#Warning: Anti-Napster Opinion.
.mp3 music. I've used it. Learned of quite a few bands that I never would have otherwise. But how long of a time span from CD-Release to Napster Debut is it? How many "0-Day Mp3z!!" groups are out there? Wanting acceptance from people who will never give it. What is the main reason to be on Napster? Why do -You- go there. How many people stopped buying CD music altogether because of Napster? Look yourself in the nearest reflective surface. What does the voice behind your head say? -Why- are you on Napster? Is your hat Black or White?
.mp3 if the music sucks. Nobody on Napster ever uses it for -that- purpose. I didn't. I was there for quite a time. Until the lightbulb came on and I realized it might be -My- work on Napster next month.
Let's hide behind "Digital Revolution" and "Price Gouging" while we fight -for- Napster. Let's wave the peer-to-peer networking file systems "Innovation" flag. Let's proclaim that no matter how many times the legal system -works- and shuts down a distribution network that traffics -=a non-trivial sum of non-legally distributable materials=-, The People will make a new one. Let's piss on Metallica, and Chuck D, and Which ever band has the balls to stand up for themselves, making them potentially unpopular. Alienation of a small segment of fans would be trivial versus upheval of future copyrights. (Honestly now, look at the Average Metallica Fan. How many in that sample set do you think would know Napster from a hole in the ground? Do you really think that a majority of -any- rock band fans even knew of Napster before all this press happened?) Boo Metallica! We want all your music for free! You Suck!
But when you get down to it, what is Napster's prime purpose? Distribution of
Armchair Economists and Armchair Lawyers craft well worded trolls, flames and doublespeak to protect their interests. To display their beatified software in a light of holy goodness. Because its not -their- product on the line. They can only save money that way.
How many Napster people out there would raise hell the moment -their- product was given away free? How many Pro-Napster people cringed at the thought of Wrapster distributing their company's game? Id software (for example) should -give- away their games. After all, it doesn't cost anything to give it away over the net. And Why are Win98 CD's $90? ( And before the Free Software junkies get on me, what's the price of retail $FreeOS CD's ~$30-50?) It doesn't cost any more to make, than a Music CD, does it?
The company I work for makes software. We've recouped our R&D Costs, so why aren't we giving away our software? Gee. Someone has to put food on my table. Do you think our little 50 person company wouldn't sick lawyers on something similar either? Gasp! But no product was stolen! No losses, just Potential Losses! Damn me for wanting to make a dollar. Damn me for wanting to protect my investments and efforts now and in the future!!
Isn't that what this narrows down to? The New God. The Dollar. (or $Currency for local values.)
After all, Music Companies, Metallica, and so on make Millions... they should sell CD's for cost.
And why don't you go to McDonalds and refuse to pay the full price for a Big Mac. After all, THEY are a huge company who doesn't need more money. They should sell burgers at _Cost_. No. They should pay -YOU- to eat at their restraunt. Or you'll get online and proclaim how they've Sold Out, and are only in it for the money. You'll go tell everyone to eat at $Foo Burger.
Every time I see this Napster discussion, all I see is people hiding behind the "Freedom" flag, or the "Innovation" banner... And then ten minutes later brag about how many CD's of free mp3's they have.
Of course my post will be followed up by people proclaminging that Napster has a better purpose than Free Music. And Nobody on Napster wants -EVERYTHING for NOTHING-. And I'm so horridly wrong. Heaven forbid I speak my mind and have an opinion.
Of -course- I'm wrong. My opinion isn't The Popular One. Moderate me to -50! Delete my Slashdot Account! Bomb my e-mail box! Draw pictures of me humping Jon Katz! How dare I post an Anti-Napster message!
Sure. Everyone and his brother on Napster buys the CD or deletes the
And your product may be next. Which side of this fight will you be on, when your efforts are given away for free? Double-standards time, isn't it?
I sure as hell hope that Metallica (et.al) win. I also hope that wise decisions are made, and Those Actually In This Fight ignore all these forums. Rash, emotional decisions are not needed. Napster won't go away. The basic rebellious/insolence nature of humanity will guarantee that. Perhaps bring about change to work both sides together. Nobody will stop the "We want EVERYTHING for NOTHING" movement. Police will never wholly stop lootings from happening. Software piracy is rampant, nothing will stop that either. I think Napster should initiate copyright distribution controls, blocking known copywritten material, and self-monitoring. And on the other side of this fence, Metallica should open their eyes, see that piracy will never go away. Two of the strongest driving forces I see in -any- new technology are Sex, and Free Stuff. Perhaps Metallica (and other bands) should release music exclusively via Napster-esque means.
It'll Never happen. I can't see this fight ever ending up gray. It will be either black or white. Everyone loses in the end. RIAA needs to be changed. This I agree whole heartedly on. However I don't see -this- as solving the problem. You can't punch a bull in the nose and innocently wonder why he's gored you on his horns.
Money Talks. But even money aside, who would you listen to? People who knowingly broken established laws in defiance that they were there? Or those who stayed in legal bounds to achieve their means?
I am neither a lawyer, or an economist. I'm a programmer who sees this fight being about more than music. But intellectual rights. It might be -my- work next.
Or yours.
"(Nearly half) of Napster users...described the nature of its impact on their music purchases in a way which either explicitly indicated or suggested that Napster displaces CD sales," the Field study said.
If less than half of Napster users buy less CDs, it means that more than half buy more CDs, which evens out and then some. See, they admit it themselves... the RIAA benefits from Napster!
-j
-sigs of the world unite
The way I understand it is that record companies basically serve as a bank where musicians can get a loan to produce and market an album. This basically how Lars Ulrich explained it. Now, when the album goes on sale, all the money made from sales goes to pay the record company first, and the artist doesn't see a penny until the loan is paid back. What I want to know is this: What happens if the album doesn't sell enough to cover the loan? Does the artist still own it? Are they beholden to the record company to produce more albums? What happens?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Is it so hypocritical?
As I understand it, the GNU philosophy is to take away most of the control of the software from the creator, and give it to the user (without giving ownership). To have it any other way is to be controlled by those who make the software.
In copying mp3's, listeners (the users) are taking back some control, even if it is against the laws and licenses. Who are they taking control from? The artist, yes partly, but mostly the record companies. The record companies are controlling music listeners.
Besides, who said the artist really chose non-redistribution as a license? It was forced upon them by their contract with the record company. The record companies control the artists too.
I believe that most pro-GPL, pro-mp3-copiers have some sense of whats right. Obviously not paying for the music is not right, but is perpetuating the current music paradigm any better? As more and more artists stop trying to push water uphill, I suspect the moral dilemna will solve itself.
No, piracy is not OK in my book and I can see why artists are very concerned about the possibilities of ripping them off big time due to digital distibution. That said, yes: I do believe that the major labels and their representing bodies are big time shmucks, completely unclear about the concept. Neverless, it's not about loss of $ and they couldn't care less about the artists they pretend to represent. It's about loss of their stranglehold of the distribution channels and more then anything else its about loss of POWER .
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Does the artist still own it?
Should be:
Does the artist still owe it?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Can someone please explain the difference between music which is covered by copyright and software which is covered by the GPL?
On another thread today, I noticed concern by posters that SCO might attempt to use GPL code in a proprietary version of linux, or at least in a proprietary add on. That must be fought against at any cost as it violates the license.
However, music, which is released under copyright, can be freely downloaded by anyone to use as they wish because "information (and music?) wants to be free"? and they can't stop us anyway?
Oh, I forgot. Its because music costs too much... The artists/record companies are making too much money, so its ok to violate their license. And so if a linux distro (say red hat, just for an example) starts charging money, then it's ok to violate the GPL and release your own closed source version of that, right?
Or am I missing something?
Of course I use Microsoft. Setting up a stable unix network is no challenge
But what is the difference between quoting for artistic reason, and quoting for storage? How do you define that?
The outside observer might see no difference at all - the idea I outlined would work just as well with random snippits of songs here and there in a tune of me saying "Number Nine, Number Nine..." over and over again - I can just say it's art, and the next mix might be some guy doing a easily compressed drum solo for an hour with a few other samples of songs thrown in. It doesn't matter even if you have only one sample per "artisitc" mix as long as you have enough different tracks to hold the whole thing eventually - the key is in the indexing.
Sure, it could be used to pirate songs - but it could just be used to put back together a myMP3.com kind of service where you just say what songs you have and get access to them whereever you are - after all the client could request just certain portions of song held together on the server and then reassemble them on the client. It could even be three seperate companies that made sure between them that none held a whole song.
Not very secure to be sure, but then again if they wanted a secure option they shouldn't have shut down a fairly secure solution already in place - myMP3.com. All I want to do is listen to the CD's I already own at work without having to cart them back and forth, risking damage and loss.
The whole idea does hinge on being able to use small samples of songs without an artists permission. I don't know if that is legal, but my original post was a response to someone who thought that it was legal to do so, and thus is already assumed by my post.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
End quote. I guess this Valenti guy, as well as all these artists, and all the RIAA executives have never heard of the radio before. I don't pay a nickel to anyone but the power company to listen to songs on the radio, but yet, the recording industry and the musicians alike seem to, *gasp*, make money at it. I'll start feeling sorry for Metallica and the RIAA when they can pull their heads out of their asses long enough to see the sh!t stains. The mere fact that they cannot seem to grasp exactly how much money they could make if they applied the same system as all legal radio stations follow to Napster is absolutely vulgar in my opinion.
"May the Code bless you and keep you until the day of your Compiling." ~Requiem
Why spend millions on promotion when you could hire one (1) web designer to put all of that online... how about 60000 bucks? These companies need to get web-savvy or die. A lot of designers do too... you're not making posters here people.
I, for one, don't have any interest in big posters at HMV or stupid ads on the TV... it's the SONGS I care about. I've bought 0 CDs based on "X has a new CD out! " and the other 450 on "This song sounds cool / X says this band is great" - which is what the internet and Napster are all about for me.
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
"If the courts allow Napster and services like it to continue to facilitate massive copyright infringement, there is a grave risk that the public will begin to perceive and believe that they have a right to obtain copyrighted materials for free," Valenti said.
You mean...like radio and broadcast TV? And libraries! Godless libraries, treating information as something other than a commodity...shame! SHAME! Don't they know they are promoting illegal and immoral behavior? Don;t they realize they are undermining the sacred trust of intellectual property? Libraries lead to lawlessness! Burn them all to the ground, I say!
SoupIsGood Food
It work like this:
Windows has a monopoly on the desktop OS, or at least so everyone claims. Anyways, they have a very large majority of the desktop OS market. Thus, copyright violations performable using Windows computers are vastly more damaging to the RIAA's interests than are copyright violations performable only on other desktop OS's.
Yep, that how it work.
That said, I think it's time I changed my
This has been the thought running through my mind -- that the Open Source / Free Software community not only relies on, but is extremely vigourous about protecting THEIR rights via the GPL, etc.
We jump all over Microsoft and others for omitting pieces of source, yet, while we're willing to say 'MP3 is here to stay, deal with it,' we don't seem prepared to say 'hey, FTP has been here even longer!'
To demand people honor the GPL while arguing that music companies "don't get it" and we should support copyright violation shows the entire movement at it's worst: Just a group of folks that want stuff for nothing.
If we were as rabid about flaming those who violate other's copyrights, and avidly pushed to end online piracy, THAT would be a good thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the GPL has never been tested in court. Neither have any of the other free software licenses. (If I'm wrong, someone please provide a link or the court case) There are hundreds of copyright lawsuits in court right now regarding proprietary works.
I really don't think copyrights are the point. Free software would still exist without copyright. I think the original poster is correct, If there was no copyright, then there would be little need for the GPL. Or rather perhaps we should just say "Open Licenses". The GPL is viral, which is sort of an underhanded way of keeping things free in a proprietary world, and this viral component doesn't really have anything to do with copyright.
Without copyright source code availability could not be guaranteed, but how many proprietary products out there have borrowed code from free ones? How would you ever know? Who really cares? Any features distributed in a binary-only version of an otherwise free program would just be re-implemented in open source. And with an open version available, who would sign away all their rights for a marginally improved version?
--Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Beautiful. :-)
;-)
Now everybody go steal all my mp3s! I don't want your money, just your adoration.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
guess I'm gonna have to change my .sig. . .
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
>All I want to do is listen to the CD's I already
>own at work without having to cart them back and
>forth, risking damage and loss.
This brings up an issue not many have mentionned. Sure, Napster is all good and nice, and as far as I'm concerned, as long as it is used for wink legal purposes, I dont have a problem with it.
Now you're mentionning that you want to listen to your CD at work. I dont have a problem with one of my guy listening to CD's at work. What I have a problem with is my guys sucking up my bandwidth downloading music off the net. I dont give a flying rat's ass that they own the CD. They do not own _MY_ bandwidth, and I'm not about to pay for them to listen to legally owned music. Bandwidth ain't free.
Therefore, we block all access to Napster at the firewall. Not to prevent the download of illegal music. Simply as a bandwidth economy measure. And with the number of sys admin's reading this, I'm surprised it didnt come out any sooner.
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
Something I've noticed on Napster especially when looking at Dance music, and wondered about is the legality of remixes (in record form) has never really legally been sorted out. Sometimes someone pays someone some royalties, sometimes someone doesn't.
How are these going to be sorted out and differentiated from a unremixed version of the same tune?
How is napster going to determine the difference between a song by an established artist who doesn't like napster and one by an unsigned artist happy to have the publicity?
And wouldn't it be delightfully ironic if Napster were sued by an unsigned artist for removing their tracks in error?
This article details just how screwed most artists get w/ major labels:
i c.html
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmus
But the short story is:
1) they still owe the money
2) they are still in their contract until they fufill the requirements (x albums) but the record co. determines how much (if any) money it will invest in future projects. I imagine it's very hard to finish off your 3 album deal with no money. Especially since you're usually required to distribute through your label, which charges an arm and a leg.
3) the artists have little or no control over marketing and distibution. so once you're signed the record company can trump any negotioation by threatining to not release/distribute/market your album - a death sentence for a band (see #2). If you're "lucky" they'll actually like your work and spend a small fortune promoting your album - which must be recouped before you see any cash - you'll have a plaitnum album and take home less $$$ than a good sysadmin, if you get anything at all. But at least you'll have some power to re-negotiate.
It gets pretty evil when the record company tells you how you ought to deal w/ production: which producers, studios, etc. While one could make an album pretty cheaply, major labels don't feel terribly inspired to release cheap albums. And a lot of the services that you use are purchased from the record company, so the record company is on their honor to not gouge the artists on the prices.
I'd strongly recommend reading "the problem with music" (to inspire further research) before getting involved w/ a label. A lot of kids have NO CLUE what they're dealing with when they're courted by A&R.
- bridgette
In a similar vein of offering more Napster information, TVT Records, one of the largest independent record labels in the US filed suit against Napster Inc. It seems that the RIAA and the major labels aren't the only ones after Napster.
After reading the article and the one in the Washington Post, I am not surprised to find no mention of online CD Sales. Follow my logic... What do you need to buy CD's online? -Internet Connection:every college kid has access to one -A Mailing address: every college kid has access to one -A Credit Card: every college kid has access to one I don't think you can underestimate this part of the equation. Remembering from my college days, college kids are lazy. Why drive to the nearest record store when you can buy the same thing from your computer in your dorm room?
Life is just one damn thing after another- Mark Twain
That's not entirely true. If you look on the right side of an artist page, you'll see a number called "Payback Earnings". If you click that, you'll note that there are stats on how many plays the artist has (from the webpage and "MP3 radio stations, etc"). The artists get compensated per play so it's hardly just in MP3.com's interest to promote their webpages. The artists make out as well.
The line between something like Napster (or gnutella or what have you) and independant sites with a similar function (think the ftp sites for trading software that were all the rage -- and still are, some places -- in the days of the BBS) is very fine. If they rule against Napster, they'll be ruling against those less organized, smaller sites, too. If they rule against those lesser sites, which would be a ruling that free trade of MP3s is illegal, they'd be ruling that peer-peer file sharing is illegal. If they rule that peer-peer file sharing (of MP3s) is illegal, they may as well say that copying songs or albums to cassette tape from your friends is illegal-- it amounts to the same thing. We all know how much of a copyright violation the RIAA thinks making mixes is. :P The difference is so small as to be inconsequential.
If Napster is ruled against, the reverbrations echo down to such a level that it would be impossible to enforce. Hopefully it won't come to that, and the courts will recognize the principle behind all of the issues.
Of course, if the injunction goes through and Napster has to shut itself down while it goes through the legal proceedings, it's history anyhow, most likely. It'd suck for Napster to have to sacrifice itself in the name of the cause.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
I assume you are referring to the MTV sitcom "The Real World", but I can't see for the life of me what your point is. And the word is "fucken", not "frigging".
-- the most controversial site on the Web
The fact that we have a proliferation of intellectual works is because we have copyright. You can't change the fact that there is a scarce amount of skill and talent out there to write good music, write good software, or make good movies. That makes intellectual works an economically governed resource.
If the world en masse decides that "movies and books and software" isn't worth paying for anymore, then fine, repeal copyright. Or if they figure out a technology that ensures remuneration WITHOUT IP protection, then fine, repeal copyright.
Otherwise, the world wants more books, movies and software. And you do not speak for the world, thankfully.
-Stu
Products are not ideas, information or concepts; they are applications of ideas, services applied to information and creations based on concepts. Where opponents of copywrite go way too far is when they fail to differentiate between the insubstantial, un-owneable basis for a product and the product itself.
Examples include "universal protocol for computer networks" vs. IP, "the novel" vs. The Pelican Brief, "software for the creation and manipulation of business data" vs. Microsoft Office, "music" vs. Metallica's ouvre, "statistics on government spending" vs. a non-fiction book organizing the data into a cohesive argument, "encryption" vs. PGP.
For our society and our citizens to be truly free, each of us must be open to to make use of the former in each pair: to create based on concepts; to conceive of, use and spread ideas; to analyze and share information with no interference from the powers that be - business, governement or the consumer mob.
For our society to be fair and just, however, the people whose efforts brings into existence the latter half of each pair must be allowed to charge for their services rendered or for the products created. On the flip side of this argument, those who wish to create these products or render these services for free must also be allowed to do so. The rights of any one group of citizens must not override those of another; consumers must be free to choose what products to use - free or otherwise - and producers must be free to choose whether to charge (and what to charge) for their products and services.
I understand the anger, the frustration and the poverty driving this movement. I can't afford to buy CD's at $12 CAD a pop, nor can I afford $850 CAD for Adobe Photoshop. Similarly, monopolies piss me off and companies patenting or copywriting ideas, concepts and information gall me. Is using a logical and warranted fight against the latter issues as justification for stealing the former the right answer? No. There are other legal options, including living without. No amount of desire for a product or anger against market forces can justify taking something against someone's will - especially when none of the products are necessities.
Perhaps we should examine what needs to be fixed before we start swinging the hammer. Companies should necessarily be restricted from "owning" ideas, concepts and information - all of which should rightly be free. Amend copywrite and patent law to reflect this.
Otherwise, stop tearing someone else down and start building yourself up! Believe art should be free? Make it and give it away. Believe in free software? Write it and put it on the Web. You have the legally defensible right to do either.
You do not, however, have the right to force others to live by your philosophy, whether the Internet makes it easy to do so or not.
© Copyright 2000 Matthew Yeo
I thought it was gravity..?
Actually, it's inertia. Gravity keeps us stuck to the surface of the planet, and the planet in orbit around the sun. And the sun together.
Watch out kind of long.
Here's a question for all of you. Is the RIAA concerned about giving the public quality music? Or lining their pockets? Duh! That's not a hard one to figure. I mean we're constantly being fed the crap that the RIAA tries to pass off as music. The Backstreet Boys? Britney Spears? Please. I'm so tired of most "popular" music that I've started listening to NPR and classical almost excusively. Then you've got mp3.com, who publishes music for artists who can't afford to go to or have been passed over by the "big labels". I have D/L'd music from mp3.com done by artists. Bands, individuals, etc. who care more about their artistic vision, than money.
So here's the point: Who cares if RIAA has Napster pull all the major label crap? I certainly don't. I was a Metallica fan for a while, and then they got all high and mighty and did the one thing that no fan should ever forgive them for...they stabbed us in the back, but at the same time exposed their only interest is money. I say let RIAA have it's "music" pulled. In fact Napster users should do it voluntarily, and then stop buying from them. Stop listening to anybody who whinned about Napster. Screw them! I can tell you that their is some real quality free music out there. If you support open source and have used or developed quality free software, then it just makes sense.
I'm down off my soap box. You want to flame me fine, but I'm not going to play the RIAA's little game anymore. Who's with me?
Search for truth. Not reality...
If the manufacturers of guns were truly selling weapons that are only useful for killing people, they wouldn't be able to sell any automatic weapons.
If the legal community was truly ripping off the nation by encouraging lawsuits, they wouldn't be able to charge any lawyer fees.
If prostitutes truly had STDs, they wouldn't be able to sell any poontang.
Pick your favorite. There's plenty more where that came from.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
On some of the channels eg. rap most of Napster consists of dopes remixing their own shit over somebody else's words. Or remixing their own words over somebody's previously resampled beat. Seems to me that if you provide attribution then it should be ok. It works for Puffy it should work for you.
1) Destroy the concept of the artist by promoting one hit wonders you can low-ball on contracts and then dispose of conveniently. The public forgets quickly.
2) Tightly control distribution and sales to maximize the price of music. Sprinkle a few tolerable tracks among seas of crap so that people have to buy many overpriced CD's to get the songs they want.
3) Tightly control radio play and promotion so that you can determine who will become popular. Remember, you can't afford to let a real artist slip in as they'll want a reasonable contract.
4) Now that you have achieved complete world domination and have a direct tap upon the wallets of the populace, exploit whereever possible, force people to pay $70 to see the artificial artists "play" live.
5) If the consumer finds some way to break this chain, bring out your legion of lawyers. Piss off everyone you can, and crush these traitors like the scum they are. Make sure they resent you for trying to control an artistic expression. (*)
(* note, handwritten in the margin) Are we really sure this will make them buy more? The rest of it sounds great but this last line doesn't seem right.
I'll say - you'd get better terms going to a bank or a loan shark than you ever will from a record company.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I mean, should we just wait until we see "Buy this 30gig drive full of MP3s" on Ebay?? Then we can say 'whew they won't bother going after ME'... Heck, I'd appreciate the misdirection, if you ask me ;-)
If napster had been used for nothing but sharing underground or indie bands, RIAA woulda cared less. But toss one file from a big 5...er...4 now...label up there and they get their shorts in a wad.
The majors and RIAA are exceptionally paranoid. Meanwhile a lot of the good independent labels are doing it right and hopping on the digital music bandwagon early. 4AD distributs rarities and the like online through atomicpop, Beggar's Banquet is doing something similar. Nettwerk has digital downloads of some tracks...they understadn that it's an opportunity and not a threat.
They already killed Consumer DAT, tried to kill cassettes, and they keep CD prices artifically high (if it costs $.50 to make a CD in the quantities the majors do, and the artist gets maybe a buck or two off the sale, where does the other $12 go?). Someday a backlash is inevitable.
----
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
Listen, moron, "ilk" is not a posh word for "kind" or "sort". It is an old Scottish word meaning "same" and should only be used in contexts where "same" would also be correct. For example "Lord Moncrieff of that Ilk" is Lord Moncrieff of that same, ie Moncrieff of Moncrieff. Or, for example "he joined the Communist Party in 1953 and left that ilk in 1971". If you mean "kind", use the fucking common Anglo-Saxon word. Don't try to appear clever with a word unless you know what it means.
People like you should have their arms and legs broken with iron bars.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
I have not been a mamber of the linux community for very long. That being said, I have noticed that whenever a tool comes out that has the "potential" to be used in a subversive manner, it is quickly replaced/updated with a better idea.
Napster was cool. We all did a collective head-slap and thought, "Why didn't I think of that?" But, we took the idea and kicked it around, and decided that since we do not own/care to support a large central database, let's just make it distributed.
Napster may or may not have been conceived as a pirate tool. Thoes who know probably will never tell. Sure, you can use it legally, but that is not the issue.
We now have something better (read harder to kill/open/whatever). Napster may die. If it does, some of our freedoms will die with it. The point is the tea still needs to be dumped into the harbour. Let's make sure a tool is ready to continue the legacy.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Posters on Usenet and IRC can be traced to a degree; and, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if law enforcement agents and corporate employees were regulars on both. Usenet also used to be a great way to lure people for the now-defunct Moron Muster as well (a list of "me too" / "add me to the list" / "c4n ne1 3m41l m3 5t4rCr4ft plz?" folks, mostly).
Freenet may be more applicable to those who are averse to lawsuits.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"(Nearly half) of Napster users...described the nature of its impact on their music purchases in a way which either explicitly indicated or suggested that Napster displaces CD sales," the Field study said.
Translation: Over half of Napster users have either stayed at the same level of music purchasing or increased their purchases of music. Interesting that they didn't give the exact statistics and just tried to glaze over the fact that over half of all users buy the same amount or MORE music.
I wonder if this was one of the unnoficial terms of the mp3.com/RIAA settlement, possibly even a major part of it?
I don't know how the judge could take the "me too"s of what are essentially "competing" services, seriously. And it doesn't help that they are basically in the pocket of the RIAA anyway.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Please excuse me now, I have to eat my grits made from next year's seed corn...
> The feline has departed the paper containment /dev
/dev.
And now the feces is hitting the air distribution
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If it's because of the price of CD's, split cost between 5 people and make copies.
Isn't that just a scaled-down version of what everyone using Napster is doing though? One perosn buys the CD, rips it to mp3s, and shares it with the (Napster using portion of the) world.
The only differences are scale, and (dis)organisation...
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Well, file sharing is here to stay. It's been here forever, and no one can legitimately try to bar it. But what can be done is to shut down Napster and any other service that attempts to make money without compensation to the producers of the music (artists) and the financers of their attempts (labels)...
Sure, trading of copyrighted music is illegal under copyright law today, and yes there are a lot of people doing it. But does that make MP3 and Napster bad. Not at all. MP3 is just a compression method that was developed that just happens to work very well (small file size w/ high quality audio). There are a lot of things MP3 is used for, so should we make it illegal to use it just because of the few things people are doing with the final result, no. Napster likewise is just a service. Do they distribute the MP3s, no. Just because people trade copyrighted MP3s over Napster doesn't put them at fault for it. Its like trying to sue Stanley Tools because someone gets killed with a hammer used by a murderer. Napster is just a tool, like a hammer, and the manufacturer of that tool cannot be held responsible for how it was used.
I personally think what it all comes down to is people are just getting sick and tired of being ripped off by the inflating prices of everything nowadays. Who wants to pay $15 for a CD when they only like 2-3 songs on the CD anyways. Has anyone every purchased a CD where they actually liked every song on the CD? I know I haven't. Even my favorite bands put out songs I don't like. There should be a way of purchasing just the songs you like and have it put to CD. Let my money go toward things/people who really deserve it. Take this for thought... think about how many local volunteer fire companies there are in your area. There's probably a lot. Where I am located about 65+% of the fire companies are volunteer. Know why? Because they don't have the money to have paid firefighters. What's wrong with this picture? We can give the record companies BILLIONS of dollars a year but we can't afford to pay a person to save your house, property, pets, and FAMILY when a fire starts out because of bad wiring? I think we need to look at the priorities we, as a country, have set up for ourselves. There's athletes making MILLIONS of dollars a year and police officers risking their lives to protect us against gang violence, murderer, rapists, etc... who can't even pay their gas bills on time. Actors & actresses making TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars for one movie when the average person in the United States makes $26,500 a year. I think we need to totally restructure our pay system in this country and pay people for what they are worth. If a person wants to make a lot of money, then that person really needs to do something that justifies their pay.
Also I should have the right to pay for what a CD is worth, what anything is worth, physical or digital items. That CD I just purchased for $15 that had only 3 songs on it I liked was worth nowhere near $15 to me. Or the DVD I just purchased for $15 bucks, how much did that actually cost to produce? I'd gladly pay $.50, maybe even $1.00 a song for songs I like. But I won't dish out a cent for a song I don't like or want. It's like buying a car, if you want the air conditioning, automatic transmission, and moonroof, then let me add them to it and pay for it, don't force me to buy these with every car.
Everyday I hear more and more about MP3, Napster, online censorship and piracy. I read tons of news on the Internet everyday... its my primary source of keeping myself informed on the happenings today. I try to think I can make informed decisions on things that may concern me. This is one of those areas. I'd like to keep my right to personal privacy (as it is stated in the United States Constitution, remember that thing made over 200 years ago that gave us these rights in the first place and that the government of today is slowing trying to tear down and rewrite themselves), my right of free speech so that I can stand in a public forum like I am now and voice my opinions for all to hear and take into consideration and make their own decisions on like I have (not to have comments/opinions moderated, changed or deleted like those of countries ruled by dictators and communists governments who's only concerns are to stay in power, be in control of everything, and tell you what you can or cannot think), and to have my power to change things if they do not go the way of the general public/community as a whole (which was given to us by our fore-fathers so that if things did start to get ugly in this country again we, "The People", would have the power to change our government and recreate one that would operate on behalf of our country and citizens beliefs, not of that of monopolies, corporations, and thick-headed politicians who are out-of-touch with the world around them).
Now I am not saying that we should start another Revolutionary war because war of any kind is not the answer. We have other political parties in this country besides Republicans and Democrats. I believe the political parties should be dissolved and the congress lobbyists dismissed and then our politicians might be able to think for themselves. Politicians following party guidelines doesn't allow for innovation in the government, and we really need it there. Ummm... I think I started going on another tangent, let me get back to my conclusion on what I started with.
MP3s should stay legal and Napster and MP3.com should not be held responsible for the files trading on/with them. The record companies should embrace MP3 and start listening to the consumers and give them what they want, the ability to purchase MP3s online at a reduced cost. Why should music companies have such an abundance of cash while our local townships can't even make budget? Put my money to better use there. Online censorship should not be allowed except for extreme circumstances like child pornography. Piracy of software, though illegal, should be reviewed and find another way to deal with it. If software packages cost almost nothing to mass produce once they are created, then sell them at a cheaper rate so people can afford them. Do you really think Adobe needs to charge $500+ for Photoshop or Macromedia needs to charge $1000 for Director? Why can't the software cost just as much as a Playstation game ($40-$50)? They don't think they can recoup their R&D cost with that? Electronic Arts, Blizzard, Bungie, InterPlay, Sony, etc... all seem to think they can.
Also, if production costs for a CD are also about $1 ( a general estimate on my part, but one I believe to be reasonably correct), that gives us about $2 spent on creating a CD so far. Large retailers (such as Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc.) generally pay about $8-9 per CD. That's a nice 300% mark up over costs. Then, our large retailers mark CD's up to $12 to $16. Aww, only 50%-100% mark up for them. How do they survive?
Does anyone remember when RealAudio became popular back in `95? For a while you could connect to sites that had a couple hundred albums encoded into .ra files and listen to streaming audio. Sure, the quality was poor at best, but I listened to a great deal of music that led me to purchase CDs that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Of course, after it caught on, the RIAA (I think, could be off on that) came stumbling in with the threat of a lawsuit. After that, only independent stuff was allowed, and those sites went to other content. So, I was just trying to throw in an analogy there. I realize that this is somewhat different as the .ra files were stored on the server, but it still hits close to home on this issue.
So here's the idea I had. Why not use abusive click-wrap like agreements to benefit this position. Instead of napster being a search tool initially, it would give the user a list of other users that were logged on. Everyone's list of songs would remain hidden/encrypted/whatever, until our user added another person to their "Search list." To add another user to one's "Search list," one would have to click through some insane agreement that would essentially say, "I don't work for the RIAA or anyone related to the stuffy, price-gouging fat cats of the recording industry. I won't use this list to do reconnaissance for a lawsuit, or anything else like that, etc." Of course, this process would suck at first, but then we could possibly side step the process by which the record labels are attacking Napster. Any thoughts?
Still, with a plan, you only get the best you can imagine. I'd always hoped for something better than that. -CP
>That's the power a monopoly gives you. It removes
>choice and allows for price fixing.
And indeed, the FTC recently found that the music industry *HAS*, in fact, been engaging in illegial price fixing over the last ten years, gouging the public out of something like a billion dollars or so.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
"If Napster can encourage and facilitate the distribution of pirated sound recordings, then what's to stop it from doing the same to movies, software, books, magazines, newspapers, television, photographs or video games?" Valenti said in his declaration.
ROTFLMAO! Hello?! I've got the Matrix on my hard drive, Mr. Valenti, and Napster had nothing to do with that.
Napster is merely the focus of your attention at the moment, and it's like you're staring at a piece of 3"x3" bark on a redwood in the middle of the wilderness. Sheesh.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
What's this I hear about Napster being helpful to new, unknown artists? BS!
Like when's the last time anyone went on Napster to search for "Crystal Bubblesh"? Geeeez... How can one search for something they don't even know the name to?
Metallica AND Dr. Dre have been successful in getting users off of Napster based off of their studies. So why doesn't the RIAA hire NetPD or whoever it was that did the research, and concentrate on removing users who trade all the songs on their labels? Sure, around 99% of the users would be off Napster, but the RIAA believes that Napster is the cause of their problems. Yes, getting Napster shut down would solve their problems with Napster, but it would also create legal precedents -- suddenly, gun stores would be liable for any crimes committed by the people who purchase guns from the store, pharamacies would be liable if people overdosed on a perscription drug, McDonalds would be liable for 10,000,000 cases of chronic obesity.
___
Now back the damn train up a minute here.
Everyone here so far has mentioned that "There's no way to stop the internet from sharing files peer to peer or pirating music so why don't the bad guys give up?"
Look at the other side: "There's no way they can win every lawsuit and stop our every action. Maybe they'll realize that, right or wrong, pirating music is illegal!"
I'm not claiming innocence in the least, but for crying out loud, people, at least think about both sides of the issue here!
True, the RIAA seems to have a poor understanding of the technicals of the Napster system. But on the same note, how many "IANAL, but..." comments do you see here?
As for the backlash thing, if you're going to raise a protest over this, make sure you understand why. If it's because you like exposure to music, try MP3.com. If it's because of the price of CD's, split cost between 5 people and make copies. Or boycott CD's. If it's because the RIAA doesn't have a clear grasp of the technology issues, get yourself a clear grasp of the LEGAL issues and challenge it!
Okay. I'm done screaming now. Don't hurt me.
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
That's not entirely true. If you look on the right side of an artist page, you'll see a number called "Payback Earnings".
So, their popularity model is flawed, as it doesn't account for "word of mouth" sharing of gratis mp3s. Thus, they should sue, or file an amicus brief in the RIAA suit, a company for developing a protocol that facilitates this exchange, and even feel justified in doing so?
If they were serious about fairly guaging their artists' popularity and reimbursing the artist accordingly, they could monitor Napster traffic in exactly the same way that Metallica's lackeys did. Not a perfect collection of data (repeat download attempts distort the figures, for example), but certainly more helpful than ignoring the phenominon altogether.
mp3.com has discovered it has a competitor, and decided to coat-tial onto the RIAA frieght train to eliminate them in a ploy cynical enough to be worthy of Washington, D.C. When FreeNet and Gnutella hit the streets big time, they're going to find they really have a competitor. It is hypocritical in the extreme for them to give away mp3's in a digital, copy-friendly medium to promote their artists, and then turn on the very people they are promoting to and tell them "but don't you dare share this with your friends."
The more I think about this entire fiasco, the less I'm inclined to ever buy another thing from mp3.com again. Certainly, they should no longer receive any "good-will" support from the community. At the very least, they should be considreed to be nothing more than another amoral, unethical company that may or may not produce a product one might need or want, and treated accordingly.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This is from npr.org; here's the Napster hour segment of the show at 28.8.
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/t otn/20000607.totn.01.rmm
TomatoMan
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Until a couple weeks ago I hadn't ever used Napster at all, so I decided to download it and see what it's all about. One of the things I did on there was do a search for "Celtic" and it came up with Loreena McKennitt, which I listened to and decided I really loved her songs. I decided I wanted to buy one of her CDs for myself, and also thought that my friend would like one for her birthday. So I went to the music store and was COMPLETELY disgusted with the price of the CDs
:-)
Unlike 99% of artists on Napster, Loreena McKennitt created a record label to publish her music: Quinlan Road. However as far as I know they have a distribution deal with Warner Bros. So I'd guess the high prices on her CDs are a result of not being able to negotiate volume discounts in the same way as more major artists' labels can do. But kudos to Ms. McKennitt for going it alone; you can even download short previews of nearly all her songs `legit' if you want from her site. Not sure whether they'd fancy going in for full online distribution, but then I'm a rabid fan and have to get the box anyway
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
I am just now becoming pissed off with the RIAA. Sounds like it's time to move to Gnutella where They have no control. We're smarter than Them.
As some above have said, (and I'm not trying to be redundant) there are many other places to get MP3s, most of which existed before Napster.
Oth.net used to be an amazing source for them by listing searchable FTP sites full with albums and singles. There's always other less dependable websites like AudioGalaxy.com and LycosMP3. There are all BIG, well-known WWW sites, which, although not quite 100% reliable are well established. This does not cover the thousands of pages you can find if you go to Hotbot and search for 'mp3'.
Then, of course, there's IRC. Here again, there are hundreds of communities across dozens of servers all working on one thing: getting/trading MP3s. (My recommendation is to try some of the IRC servers on the Eris Free Network).
Then of course, you've got other Napster-like clients like GNUtella, FreeNet, and Globalscape's CuteMX (most of these share more than MP3 files).
And college students will always have the trusty, reliable LANs where students share their large collections.
Ok, so you knew this already. Bottom line: MP3 is not going away, not now, and especially not at the hands of the RIAA. If they are only half as smart as their lawyers are blockheaded, they would work with some of these companies, as well as organizations like the Frauenhoffer Institute to develop a replacement for the MP3 file format. One that maybe sounds twice as good for half the file size, so you can get 320kbps encoded songs for 3MB or so. New technology is the way to fight MP3. If enough people think it's worth it to pay $0.50 for a song that sounds twice as good and can be downloaded in half the time, guess what? They'll be more likely to get that song as opposed to an .mp3 file. Relatively secure encoding already exists. The band Phish released MP3s that you could listen to for free three times, then a window popped up that reuqired you to enter a credit card number and pay some small amount of money to continue listening to the song (apparently, an executable was appended to the WAV file before it was encoded... You couldn't remove this prompt, or extract a WAV file with WinAmp).
If Lars is reading this, spend money on getting new media developed, not on paying your lawyers. You may win against Napster, but not against MP3.
You really need to get a job. There's more to do in life than posting 1st on Slashdot.
Assume, however erroneously, that the survey is accurate and non-biased. Even given that, there are some pivotal details that did not make it to the press including:
- They claim 34.4% as explicitly or implicitly stating that they use Napster in a way that displaces cd sales. Actually, only 11.2% do so to make their own cds or avoid buying cd's, and 13.2% do so to get free music. The remainder of that 34.4% have other reasons that are not so blatant.
- Compare that 34.4% to 53.6% who use Napster for the convenience, variety, and community. Notably, 30.0% for convenience and ease of use. Take a lesson, music industry - make your product convenient and easy to use, and you'll gain that entire contingent equal to what you believe you are losing.
- 11.6% use it for rare or hard to find music.
- 5.2% use it to preview music to buy.
Now, for the truly damning stuff. The massive threat to the industry? Nearly half of the users are buying less? Look again.- 13.6% don't buy or buy fewer cd's as a result of using Napster.
- 1.4% indicate it causes more purchases of some music choices and fewer of others.
- 5.8% buy more music.
- 2.6% want to buy more.
- 21.8% are helped to make better informed decisions when they buy.
- 6.4% listen to a wider variety now.
- 0.8% listen to different music now.
- 10.8% had some other sort of answer.
- 4.2% did not answer
- and 37.6% did not have an impact or did not know the impact on their musical purchases.
Interesting. The rest, I believe, you have heard with spin in the press already.---
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
OK - I'm stupid, but how exactly are Napster making money with what they are doing? It can't all be coming from banner ads and miscellaneous cookies on their site. Can it?
Obviously, those major labels need protection from the RIAA. They need every penny they can get! Heaven forbid, that they, in their infinite wisdom, see that, if anyone, the small labels would be suffering more.While I would admit that programs such as Napster would help small labels, they probably would be helped more by just being played on the radio, because then at least someone would be paying them something.
The "Recording Industry" is more accurately called the recording distribution industry. When you buy a CD for $17 at a store, the store gets $2; the shipper gets $0.50; the manufacturer gets $0.50; the copyright holder gets $2 (which may or may not ever get to the artist-just ask John Fogerty how much he makes off of Fortunate Son)
You are pretty much right...except for in the case of a singer songwriter, that is, nearly every rock and electronic musician there is. These people make a maximum of $0.52 for every albumn sold. However, these royalties have to first go to paying off $30,000 or so of studio time, which the recording industry (already making megabucks off the recording) has only loaned the artist, not given in exchange for distribution rights.
For this reason, only a small handful of singer-songwriters have ever made a dime off of a recording. The record industry claims that the $18 you paid for a CD mostly goes toward promotion, which is true. The sad thing is that this money does not go towards promoting the artist who made the CD, but rather this months boy-band top 40 group.
Truthfully, with the advent of home recording, and advances in CD manufacturing, there is no need for a record industry outside of that which actually prints up media. I would encourage artists to not seek record contracts, but record their own CDs, print up a few thousand, and distribute the CDs themselves. Typically, local record stores love to stock local acts, and will buy the CDs. Artists can also make revenue by selling CDs at their concerts. (Remember to register your songs though...it is only $20 or so)
Artists can also alleviate the need to deal with these snakes by auditing a music business course. Belmont University in Nashville does an excellent intro to music business, which can help struggling artists not be taken advantage of by the megas.
lets face it, there are a lot more and cleverer people on our side, than there are on "The Man's" side, so no matter what they and their lawyers try to do, we will always go and set up our own system. "...the geeks will inherit the world..."
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
> The request was bolstered by declarations filed by
> Motion Picture Association of America president
> Jack Valenti and MP3.com CEO Michael Robertson.
> Robertson
, to whom Hilary Rosen affectionately referred during the filings as "you know, Mikie, my bitch". The origin of the reference is unclear, but sources close to the industry report that Ms. Rosen has taken to wearing black patent leather and carrying a riding crop - and Mr. Robertson playing the part of "ponyboy" and "dildoboy" at recording industry social events ever since the settlement between mp3.com and RIAA. Ms. Rosen's bitch
> supported the recording industry's claim [ ... ]
Ah, that reads much better.
Journalists can never trust editors not to cut out the important parts of stories these days, y'know?
Good plan! I'll start working on it now.
I agree that Gnutella is superior, I just wanted to illustrate the growth in the amount of such servers. Especially with the release of the source codes allowing these servers to be put up unchecked.
--C:\DOS C:\DOS\RUN RUN\DOS\RUN
All we hear is RIAA this and RIAA that... But just what is the music industry doing? I want that deleted CD, can I buy it from the record companies web site....NO I want that old B side, can I buy it...NO I want that EP released only in Japan, can I buy it....NO If you had thousands of tracks not for sale, thousands of people wanting to buy them, and very little effort invoved in providing a worldwide distribution, would you be sitting back doing nothing at all? Its no wonder people copy these tracks, it because of rooms full of music industry exec's sat around with there heads in the sand, hoping the Internet will just go away. Fishy
Michael Robertson has always been a Dollar Whore, not a revolutionary. He started MP3.com for the money, not to change anything.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
For once, the U.S. government will be prosecuting criminals (the people trading the music, not the software writers of napster) that the U.S. Constitution authorizes them to do. Cracking down on music and software pirates is the one thing our U.S. government does that is authorized in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they rather put people in prison for using non-mob approved drugs and to sue tobacco companies that provide legitimate consensual cancer stick of some benefits products. They sue the gun manufacturers. They don't go after the real criminals. The people who pull the trigger. The people who use something like napster to illegaly distribute someone else's property. I'm all for protecting Napster. I'm also all for the U.S. government to perform one or it's few legitimate duties.
It figures that TVT would turn around and file suit against Napster. They are just as bad for fucking over artists as any other major label. Remember when Trent Reznor had a very long drawn out lawsuit against them to get out of his contract with them? Also, TVT did a pretty damn good job of scaring pretty much every artist from Wax Trax! records when they bought them out. TVT is no better than the big guys...
Apparently the RIAA has filed to have Napster pull all major-label songs from Napster
Um, napster doesn't actually have these major-label songs on it's servers. Therefore how can they 'pull' them?
You're nothing; like me.
The last I heard, Napster was a program. How does the RIAA expect to bring an injunction against a program and its users? There are literally millions of Napster users in the US, and more outside it. What hubris is it for them to assume that those outside the country will adhere to the judge's rulings? With Napster out of the way, I say those users of Napster start using napster...its a different product see! the 'n' isn't capitalized...
0100100000100000011010010111000010000001100001001
This may be a little OT, but ever since all this legal mumbo-jumbo started, I've been wondering why the RIAA etc have never done anything about programs like Hotline ( hotlinesw.com win/mac only). Hotline is a client that can browse all sorts of proprietary hotline servers with all sorts of mp3s and illegal stuff...It's not searchable by far, and you need all sorts of passwords and stuff to access servers, yet a wealth of illegality.
Do we just not hear about this for some reason, or is this a piece of software the RIAA hasn't placed their sights on yet?
They are not asking Napster to "pull" the songs, which would involve removing the files from users' machines. They are asking Napster to stop "facilitating or assisting others in, the copying, downloading, uploading, transmission or distribution of copyrighted musical works." This could mean anything from filename grepping to unplugging their servers. I suppose that's up to the judge. But it is practical, at least to a degree, and it certainly inconveniences Napster, which I'd bet is the main goal of the RIAA.
Why I want to know is how can many of you people support GPL'd software, and disapprove of people redistrubiting it at will ("sharing" in RMS's terms), but be all for violating a music artist's license?
If an artist chooses non-redistribution as a license, it should be honored.
Or are many of you saying that we should ignore the GPL and companies can start redistributing binary version of gcc at will?
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
IF any of you can answer these questions, I'll give you my car-
1. IF Napster is killing off the recorded music industry, why was Eminem able to sell 1.7 million copies of his new album within ONE WEEK of its debut? The demographic he's selling to are also, coincidentally, the heaviest Napster users...
2. Even if overall CD sales are down... how can it be PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW that it's Napster's fault, and not other market forces?
Now, I'm not saying it's not Napster's fault - I'm just saying it's gonna be tough to prove. What will they do, poll everyone who didn't buy a CD that week to find out why? And even if they present that data, how will they possibly prove that those same people would have bought CD's if Napster hadn't been around? You see where the waters start to get muddy?
I used to work in a law office. If you're gonna make a claim like "Napster is hurting our sales!" you'd better damned well be able to prove it, or else the judge will just give you a long, hard stare and tell you to get the hell out of his courtroom.
-David Wong
Pointless Waste of Time.com
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
...who really cares if Napster's servers get shut down? There are always other servers...
There are many ways of stealing from someone. Armed robbery is just one of them, not to mention being one of the more crude ways that is more likely to get you caught. There are much better ways to steal, as the record companies have figured out.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is indeed an interesting question...one that I ask myself everytime I go to Tower Records.
For example,
I was looking at Eminem's new CD after I downloaded one of his songs using ghasp Macster. For some reason it was $19. I thought, "Gee, this isn't really worth THAT much. Plus, I don't really like that genre of music." So, the next day I was jumping around Amazon.com; I decided to check out the price of the same CD and bought it, since it was $13. Maybe this seems like an absurd example, but I think I fit into that "typical consumer" crowd. The only exception that I can think of, is that I actually bought a Mac last month. Regardless, I imagine other people have purchased music after discovering it on Napster -- even music from major labels.
Older versions of winamp used to convert FROM WMA, but Microsofts lawyer's forced them to take that capability out of their software. If you look at the readme file, it mentions it. Actually, winamp can convert from any format to any other format through output filters, but they have a specific piece of code added to block Microsoft formats, at the request/extortion of Microsoft lawyers.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Successor to MP3;
that's fine and dandy, but I think that if the RIAA had a tool like that (let's call it SMDI, just for argument's sake), then it sure as hell wouldn't be $.50 per song. I've heard statements in the news from the likes of Sony that the numbers being bounced around in the marble-paneled boardroom of like $3.00 per track.
If that happens, this new format will be ignored, and people will still be ripping via MP3. Market forces at work.
Similarly, if they adopt a "pay-per-view" model, like the Phish song you're talking about, that technology will be hacked quicker than you think, and the piracy will continue.
The only model that will work is unrestricted technology, and very low cost. If you restrict the IP via technology, it will be hacked. If you charge too much, it will be hacked.
Look at VHS tapes. We have Macrovision; we have devices that defeat macrovision. We have movies that cost $19.95. We don't have a piracy problem. (define: "problem" - are they getting rich? yes. would they like to get richer? wouldn't we all? - the question is, CAN they? Try it and see. The tighter you clench your grasp, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.)
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Who's to say that this executable will execute on a Linux system. Or PPC-based system? Is it Java bytecode?
Such things cannot be made to work. Unless you went with a wholly proprietary format, media, and player system, in which case, nobody would buy it, no matter how exclusive the content. And people would still hack it.
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You don't even have to go that far with it. The music companies aren't doomed to extinction, but they'd better damned well change they way they do business if they want to keep the same profit margins. As in, offer us something we can't get off Napster.
In fact, the biggest reason I root for Napster is because I know it will force the music distribution people to offer us more, or offer us the same for less money, in order to keep our business. They've been gouging us on the price of CD's since their debut, and now the pressure is on.
You listening, Columbia? You want me to buy the new N'Sync album, rather than just download the tunes? Well, what kind of deal are you willing to make me, you greedy bastards? (insert evil laughter here)
Come on, guys. You can spend millions on your lawyers fighting pointless lawsuits for the next ten years, or you can use that money to bring your company into the digital age. Deal with the new reality.
-David Wong
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
But then aren't they infringing on their own copyrights?
Remove the NOSPAM to spam me...
Simple; They remove the user. If you didn't know that you must have been sitting under a rock in a cave on Mars, with your fingers in your ears singing "La La La La Laaaaaa!"
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Shut Napster down, and MP3 sharing will move deeper underground, down where they'll NEVER have any hope of controlling the music piracy. FreeNet and Gnutella, they're both easily more robust and resistant to such control than Napster, which relies on one central, easily controllable server.
As bandwidth increases everywhere, MP3 trading will go on, and it will increase substantially as
Napster is their big, one-time chance to gain at least some control, like Metallica et al has. Their killing it off speaks volumes of their ignorance. I only hope it happens.
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
There may be some obvious reasons against this idea that I'm not realizing this morning, but if the RIAA wants Napster shutdow, why doesn't Napster simply host their servers from somewhere outside of the jurisdiction of the US Government. Sorry Yanks, the world does not revolve around you despite your best efforts to change it.