Slashdot Mirror
Senate Judiciary Committee On Digital Music
An unnamed correspondent writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the future of digital music at [this link]. Real Video's available from [The Washington Post] or on CSPAN. (I'd recommend using the CSPAN link, it appears to work better). Witnesses include Lars Ulrich of Metallica; Roger McGuinn of The Byrds; Hank Berry, CEO of Napster; Michael Robertson, Chairman and CEO of MP3.com; Fred Ehrlich, President of New Technology, Sony Music Entertainment; Gene Hoffman, Jr., Founder, CEO and President, Emusic.com; Gene Kan, Gnutella developer and Infrasearch founder; Jim Griffin, Founder and CEO, Cherry Lane Music. (A hard copy of their planned statements can be found at [the U.S. Senate Web site]." Of course, whether this is an issue that ought to be handled politically rather than in the marketplace is a question I hope the witnesses get around to in their spare moments.
Everyone on the board has some financial interest in the outcome. Besides the fact that they haven't even made any room for consumers, shouldn't they have some people who stand to gain nothing from any outcome? People with, shall we say, academic interest only? They wouldn't be unbiased, but they'd be less biased and probably more useful than anyone there now.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
I think the artist that embrace digital music are the ones that will succeed. Just after they were showing clips of the meeting they had the singer from Limp Bizkit talking about how he is going to do a Napster tour. I think the idea of if you can't beat them join them.
Kate
Visit me on the web at http://pornforcomputers.com
_________________________ Visit me at http://pornforcomputers.com
After listening to Lars' comments RE copyrighted works et. al. I am reminded of what we were hearing a couple of months ago about OpenSource software. He seemed to be holding on very tightly to the idea that you can't make money producing something which is Free (as in beer).
However in many cases this has proven just not to be true. Coders in the software industry (anologous to Musicians) are now getting payed for producing code that is totally free, and which in theory their companies wouldn't make a dime from (but they somehow do). The software industry, one that has had to deal with non-degrading copies for all of its life has figured out that sometimes its better not to charge for a product. Its also interesting to note that there are several companies that make money by selling free products (linux distributers spring to mind, selling CD's and service contracts for their Free versions of the OS).
In short the recording industry, the RIAA in particular, needs to take a long hard look at alternative revanue models, and accept the fact that the world is changing into a place where information DOES long to be free.
Pendragn
Do you think maybe Larry Ellison hired the thugs to break in to the studio and steal the demo tape?
Perhaps this is the reason Ray Lane resigned here recently, he knew about the Napstergate tapes!
Congress needs to waste billions of dollars and ignore real problems, like what the president is sticking his dick into, before we can get an indifferent ruling on MP3s. Thank you congress!
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah was commiserating with his "fellow musician" Lars, expressing his concern that Hatch's music could be pirated too. I just did Napster and Gnutella searches for his name. What a surprise, nothing found. Puhleeze. I've heard some of his stuff - you'd have to pay me to pirate it.
actually, with the plane example, it's up to the airport security to search for drugs and weapons, not the airlines. to get to the airlines, one must pass through security gates. those gates are not manned by the airline staff, but by the airport security and police. it is their duty to provide the security. not the transport.
carrying this over, it is up to the record labels to create both an incentive for the user to buy the cd, but also to make it so that either a user can't rip the mp3's or won't really want to. napster is only the transport mechanism.
Courtney commends Lars throughout her article. She even goes so far as to mention morons like you who have villified Metallica for standing up for their rights.
They both made incredibly good points and both essentially said the same thing.
Just how many morons are there in the media? This is more than annoying, it gets kind of dangerous to know that this kind of misinformation is being propagated.
MP3.Com at least made an effort to protect artist's rights. Their regular mp3.com service doesn't even have anything to do with established contract-bound artists, and everyone in the know is familiar with their security strategy at my.mp3.com, which you have to admit was pretty effective. The security criticism was about how it was easy to give a friend your cds and have them put it in their accounts. But the lawsuit didn't have anything to do with piracy. The stupid thing about the lawsuit was that if the users had actually uploaded the tracks rather than uploading proof, the whole thing would have been legal. The whole thing only hinged on a technicality. my.mp3.com is an example of something that followed the spirit of the law, but not the letter.
Napster, however, is the opposite. Their whole defense strategy can be put in the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" category. "Oh, we just have a technology that enables people to do something illegal. We're not doing it OURSELVES." They write a utility whose express purpose is to enable this, and then put on a disclaimer saying they don't condone it. Uh, bullshit? And finding undiscovered music through it? Please. You search off of artist name and title. Yeah, you can browse other tracks in a person's directory, but I'd love to see the comparitive percentage usage of that feature. They are following the letter of the law, and not the spirit.
Their new strategy of arguing copyrights might work, but it still doesn't help ultimately. Say they win, and there's a precedent that trading any record company's tracks for free are legal. What about the artist?? Are they just SOL? For those of lazy morality, Napster is cool because they are against the RIAA. But Napster is also against the artist, and ultimately, the consumer. Lazy consumers can convince themselves that going against the RIAA and going against the artist are the same thing, but they are very different. Using the service and hurting artists will eventually hurt the consumer. Using Napster to protest the RIAA is short-sighted and immature.
For those interested in consumer rights versus just getting something for nothing, a real solution is to investigate the anti-competitive practices of the RIAA, and champion artists' rights. Don't defend your "right" to download and keep your free tracks from Napster and Gnutella. And be honest with yourself when you are telling yourself you are only downloading the tracks to see if you want to buy the album. How often have you rationalized this and then realized that the unpaid-for mp3s are still on your disk and playlist weeks later?
Protest the RIAA. Throw away your Napster client. Show your support for micropayment solutions. Write your congressman, write your favorite artists. And to take a break, go to your local open-mic night and drop some coins into the tip jar. Being a responsible consumer doesn't mean figuring out how to get the most while costing yourself the least; damn the consequences. It means to do your part to protect the free economy. To be responsible consumers, it is OUR duty to know when our actions are damaging or constructive in the long run.
tune
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
Well, okay. It's not a real interview. It's in flash (I'm sorry!) but it's absolutely hilarious. You must check it out:
.exe file for windows users here: /buddies/chaos/dlnapsterbad.html
http://www.joecartoon.com/buddie s/chaos/index.html
or download a stand-alone
http://www.joecartoon.com
Ohh, man...
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
If you value your freedom--freedom to link and freedom to copy music for noncommercial purposes
... this is why making a tape for your friends never got ANYONE in this country arrested. It was no big threat simply due to the amount of tapes you could dub and distribute was so miniscule.
/MP3 directory for "non-commercial" purposes, you are DISTRIBUTING at the level of a commercial enterprise.
... or in the case of MP3's, perceived impact.
... if you take the NY Post into your local library and copy an article for your friend, are you breaking the law? Sure but not on any grand scope. Now take this SAME article, scan it and put it up on your Geocities account, then get it linked from /. ... are you breaking the law then? You're damn right you are, regardless if you intended for hundreds of thousands of people to utilize your illegal distribution of copyrighted material.
... now it's time for folks to step up to the plate and realize that with this power comes accountability, regardless of your intent to be "non-commercial".
This is where people like yourself just don't get it. Back in the days before the Internet, high bandwidth and GHz computers, consumers did not have the ABILITY to distribute music like their commercial counterparts
Now fast forward to the year 2000 where kids in dorms have FATTER PIPES than many corporate sites and you have a serious problem. Regardless if you're sharing your
The dynamic has shifted from one guy bootlegging a few tapes for his buddies to people sharing hundreds of thousands of albums that can be downloaded in a matter of MINUTES by anyone in the free world. Non-commercial or not, the IMPACT is what matters
Think of it this way
This is why your argument for "non-commercial" duplication and distribution is deemed to fail, it's a brave new world out there were the individual has gained a tremendous amount of publishing power, more than anyone could have ever dreamed
Lots of people buy boxed copies of Redhat even though it is free for download
"Metallica used to annoy their parents; now that they're old enough to have children they annoy their kids."
"They'll be lucky to be playing at a Holiday Inn 3 years from now. They've pissed off a lot of people."
The only problem now is the absolutely *enormous* installed base of CD players. It's a pretty huge standard to kill (and one still sees audio cassettes for sale).
"Perfect digital copy" is a tough thing to pin down. I'd be willing to bet that most of us, given the average listening environment, couldn't hear the difference between a CD and a MiniDisc recording, even though the MD clips some of the dynamic range (why Sony is kosher with it). And there are people arguing that nothing less than DVD quality sound (with a dynamic range beyond what most humans are capable of appreciating) is the only way to go. I suppose CD is the nice break-even point. It's going to be a bitch to supercede.
I agree w/your points regarding the "price of piracy" - well said.
just my blog and pix
You were distributing copyrighted works without permission, and were pursued for it. They had every right to do what they did to you.
Just because the technology exists to allow you to pirate music, doesn't mean that you have a right and obligation to do so.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
sony.com domain registered 07-Jul-1989.
I can't wait for the inevitable campchaos cartoon about this one...the first 3 were hillarious....beer GOOD!
On a serious note, I hope they talk to people other than artists, record execs, and software makers about this. It would lend a great deal of credibility if your average mullet-head Joe Schmoe came up to the mic and testified that he ended up buying the entire Selloutica collection (well, up until the black album anyway)after hearing Sanitarium.mp3 from some random site. But then, given congress' inclination toward corporate welfare, don't expect a balanced & representative set of speakers.
I think the real issues here are twofold;
Some bands are starting to get this, and have (thankfully) put pressure on their management to adapt. It's not like we're going to be able to ban the MP3 format, eradicate Napster & Gnutella and their derivatives, or prosecute/sue everyone who does pirate a song. It's simply a change in the market that the record companies are going to have to deal with.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Actually, the way things are going with internet access, it will place the distribution cost on advertisers! :)
just my blog and pix
No, the RIAA has already copyrighted Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence"
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Hetfield hurt his back when he was Jet-skiing, so the next 3 shows are cancelled!
So if someone created, say, a bag that allowed people to carry conceled weapons into secure areas, such as airports, the creator of the product would not be somehow responsible for the use of the product?
Actually, legally speaking, no they would not. Just because you make a product does not mean that you must ensure that everyone who uses your product uses it in the manner intended. You might want to include some warnings or something, but you are not legally responsible for their actions while using your product.
Think about it this way, if someone were to kill another person using a spoon, would the maker of that spoon be responsible for the killing?
Thats an extreme example, but it points out how far something like this goes.
P.S. People already manufacture guns that I could walk into almost any airport in the world with. Think High temerature/preassure ceramics, caseless ammo, and plastic bullets.
Recognition does not put food on the table. And everyone's got to eat.
Think before you speak.
Are you ignorant?
Metallica isn't going against MP3s now... they are going against Napster.
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium , or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
It doesn't say that a consumer can make recordings without being sued, it says that recording equipment manufacturers can't be sued for making stereos capable of making recordings, tape manufacturers can't be sued for making tapes, and neither can be sued if the person who buys the stereo or tape and uses them for non-commercial purposes. It also doesn't say anything in cases where the user uses equipment to make commercial copies...
IANAL. YMMV. RADBTM. HAND.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Ahh, but you see...
- Music can be transformed into files, through the miracle of modern technology.
- Gnutella lets you share files.
- Thus, Gnutella lets you get music you shouldn't have.
- Thus... Gnutella = SATAN!
After the evil people who wrote gnutella get shut down, the government and RIAA intend to look into other sinister methods of getting music you havn't paid for, including something used by "31337 h5x0rz" called "FTP"...How in the world does Napster make music a non-scarce good? Napster doesn't create music, it's only a means of distribution. Napster or not, music still has to be created by a limited population of musicians and songwriters. Take away these people's means of supporting themselves and you'll see just how scarce music can become.
with humpy love,
with humpy love,
humpmonkey
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Ironically, Speakeasy (my provider, and the ones with the 'screw metallica' ads here on /.) has a usage policy that pretty much says "We know you're going to be running a server. Duh! Why else would you want broadband access?". They also provide static IPs standard. But for the most part, you're right. Providers don't want you filling your upstream bandwidth.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Perhaps we will finally see some new major laws come out of this. There are 20 posts in every news article about how "the old laws do not conform to new technology." I am glad the Senate is going to listen in on this issue. The question about MP3s and Napster-like things can finally be resolved; Are they perfectly legal, or blatantly in violation of copyright laws?
<p>
For certain, whatever the outcome is, people will continue trading them. Still I applause the Senate for reviewing the material!<p>
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
Speaking as a person who was sued by the RIAA, spent 6 months of her life in fear, and lost tens of thousands of dollars in cash because of sharing MP3s files--a system which only a few people participated, hardly the level at which many music-swappers operate--I feel compelled to speak about this matter.
The [record companies] v. Napster lawsuit has finally brought to light the significance of digital music to Congress. Billions of dollars are at stake here--a figure big enough to catch Congress' attention--and an entire sector of the economy will be impacted in ways that will shape the landscape of intellectual property policy for decades.
You must get involved NOW while you still can, to push the tide of the law on our side rather than on the record companies'.
If you value your freedom--freedom to link and freedom to copy music for noncommercial purposes--now is the time to write your senators and demand that any legal issues regarding non-commercial copying of music be settled once and for all. We continue to live in a legal grey area in which recording company lawyers, backed by tremendous wads of cash, have the ability to coerce people to concede to their demands to stop all activity involving music that does not involve paying them $16+ for a brand new CD or tying the listening of digital music to our fingerprints.
While there is little doubt that linking should be made unequivocably legal, Congress could seriously limit our ability to share music--or even make backup copies--if we don't make clear our desires while their ears are open. Fight now, and fight hard! Make your opinions known, through phone call, letter or FAX.
Don't let the RIAA run away with our rights!
It will be amazing if he can even construct an intelligent argument. I'm sure it's not as easy as playing the drums. Me go bang bang like this....me Lars
Just a quick note about that - its THEFT - not sampling or borrowing or whatnot.
Nope, it's copyright infringement. Referring to it as theft is simply an appeal to emotions. Copyright infringement and theft are two very different things, legally and morally.
Music is Intellectual Property, and copyrighted material.
Intellectual property is a misnomer; copyrighted material isn't truly yours. In exchange for sharing it with the rest of us, we agree to allow you to control its distribution for a limited time. But don't try invoking property rights, because they don't apply.
Maybe instead of breaking these laws and watching these dreams crumble we could act on them, and things legally and ethically. Destryoing one immoral institution (RIAA or metillaca) etc does no good if you have to become evil to get there.
First off, there's a BIG difference between "evil" and "illegal." Breaking laws doesn't make someone evil, only harming someone else with malice aforethought makes someone evil. Second, pick your fights in order of importance. The record labels are keeping millions of dollars that by any ethical standards should be going to the artists; Napster's negative effect has not even been demonstrated to exist. Which do YOU think we should be attacking here?
I hope that Napster wins its case - but only if the DMCA is fatally flawed enough to allow it. The individual user ought to be tracked, brought to court, fined to the maximum extent, and then cut loose. Start making individuals pay a $5k fine for each song they steal and the piracy rate would go down.
Under copyright law, that's exactly what the RIAA should be doing. I, for one, would support them if that's what they were doing. The problem is, that's not what they're doing, because that might involve, like, work, and they're too used to free money to bother with that. Instead, they want to have the laws changed to gut fair use and privacy rights even more than they already have been, simply so they can protect their EVILLY gained profits.
I guess I didnt cover the points i wanted to make very well - but i honest to God cant understand how anyone could support Napster. I can understand why people dont want it to lose the case (i understand that services shouldnt be liable for users actions) - but in the general picture and I *like* to think that rationale minded people see how unethical personal use of Napster is.
Personal use of Napster is neither illegal nor unethical. Personal use of Napster to distribute copyrighted material without a distribution license is illegal, and possibly unethical. (I don't consider civil disobedience unethical, so the 2 or 3 people using it for civil disobedience rather than free beer aren't behaving unethically in my book). Since you obviously haven't bothered to actually research any of the issues involved, Napster's purpose is sharing MP3s. That's all. It's entirely possible for that sharing to be legal, despite RIAA propoganda.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
No, it's not. If it were based on social contract, we would use NO money and recieve items on a "need" basis, which would be insufferably boring (read: suck) :).
So, no, it's not like the copyright laws (which aren't based on social contract either, rather government enforced/controlled distribution)
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
This has to be a case of life imitating Onion...
"I was listening to Metallica this morning in my office," said [Sen. Orrin] Hatch, drawing laughter for the packed committee room. "Pretty darn good," he added.
My god. Look, Dee Snyder v. Tipper Gore - THAT was rock'n'roll. Zappa testifying - THAT's rock'n'roll. But Orrin Hatch, Orrin freakin' Hatch, of UTAH for chrissakes, complimenting your band in front of the whole nation... that's just sad. One minute you're an inexplicably popular headbanging band that has, in spite of itself, managed to cling to a few shreds of dignity, then suddenly whammo! Orrin Hatch digs ya.
It's like someone took away the Sammy Hagar and replaced him with Pat Boone. You'd have to feel a twinge of sympathy for Eddie Van Halen, no matter how much you hated him.
I say the only honorable path left for Metallica, besides seppuku, obviously, is the David Lee Roth path... squeeze into that rhinestone jumpsuit and brush up on your Mel Torme, Lars - next stop: Vegas!
"Of course, whether this is an issue that ought to be handled politically rather than in the marketplace is a question I hope the witnesses get around to in their spare moments. " handled in the marketplace? there's two ways that handling can go. It might happen like this: "record company: stop doing things we don't agree with with our music." "napster: ok." or: "napster: never mind. we're sorry." "record company: don't sweat it. and dont let it happen again" To just about all of you dummies, only one of those "getting handled in the marketplace" would be acceptible. "getting handled in the marketplace" is a pathetic effort to lend some intellectual credibility to your thieving impulses. you gutless liars. it should happen like this: "record company: you're breaking the law" "napster: no we're not" "court 1: maybe" "court 2: maybe not" "court 3: maybe" "court 4: maybe not" "everyone else with a brain: why dont we do the sensible thing and try to legislatively define some new intellectual property rights instead of letting a hodgepodge of court decisions that leave everyone confused define intellectual property" even the most libertarian among us will recognize definition of property rights as an essential function of government. the fundamental problem here is a disagreement on who owns what. the fact is, it isnt exactly clear who's in the right here, and some good legislation needs to correct that.
It's actually annoyingly complex math, figuring out where all the money goes to. Actually, most of it goes to the record companies (which I'm sure you've heard thousands of times). The artist's royalties never change.
Now, you seem to think that I said artists are losing money NOW, which in some cases is true, while others is isn't. However, what I ACTUALLY said was that artists in general will make less money because they'll never get the initial push from the multimillion dollar record companies.
I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE music. I listen every day, and have a very extensive collection.
However, in order for musicians to become popular w/o record companies, they may have to actually *gasp* work for a number of years to get the startup money. The process will be much slower, but there'll be the probably even more really good artists.
However, as we both know, this will never happen. The Record companies will maintain their stranglehold on the market, and we'll all be forced to take regular doses of Brittney Spears and Backstreet Boys intraveinously by the time we're 70.
This probably made no sense, but I'm tired, so oh well.
saintalex
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
Of course, there are few ways (only one, that I know of, but I'm biased as hell) to efficiently pay anyone, anywhere, a dollar's worth of anything (much less ten cents worth) on the internet. The problem, as I've said before, is that in this debate it's a lot more fun to scream "LIAR" and "THIEF" back and forth than to actually do something in the real world of economics about what Courtney Love said, and make yourself ABLE to give her the tip she deserves for her music if she'd just ask me for it. *sigh*
JMR
(Ready to click a million geeks a spot of e-gold, as usual, just send me your account number.)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
That's what I'm saying. Sony is out to lunch. Of course. They want to keep their blowjobs.
I once spent 14 hours on a flight to London, sitting next to a guy who was an independent accountant - he did audits on Music companies. My credibility on this, as gossip goes, is left as an excercise for the reader.
Suffice it to say, that the stories he told me, about how badly these guys cheat - and we're just talking about taxes and money-laundering here, they opened my eyes. Nobody more than me wants to see $3-$5/song die like a witness to Bill Clinton's sexual misadventures. But the thing is, they think they can get away with it. And why not? $19.99/CD is working. Even in the face of this rampant piracy, they're making obscene amounts of money.
There is the very valid argument that music labels and all that other stuff, DO serve a valid purpose. To filter out garbage. We've suggested an alternative model. But it can't work if the prices are set artificially high. Because you'll get this artificial market of the only people who can afford music (the bulk of the market) being 13-14 year old girls with rich daddies who want to spoil them rotten, and thus will give them TONS of money to buy a CD. The girlies didn't work for it, they don't know the value of it, so it's an easy sale. That is what is going on today, my friends. The music industry is happy to stick it to this niche market, they're profitable, handsomely. And they're getting their blowjobs.
Lars said one intersting thing in his latest address. He said he had no problem seeing the music industry move on to a new technology, one that was cheaper for production, and passed on the savings to the consumer . Also, if it protected the artists rights. I'm totally down with that. But what Lars didn't say, and probably won't say because he's a chicken shit, or maybe too dumb and rich to know, that CD's were supposed to be cheaper than LP's, and the cost savings were supposed to be passed onto the consumer. Instead, they were sold at a premium, because of the supposedly higher-quality audio, and prices have pretty much not gone down with the cost of production. If you go to non-mainstream CD sources (ie. Christian music, independents, what have you), you'll see CD's retailing at $4-$8. Perhaps closer to reality.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Drugs are usually chemical. Music consists of sound waves aranged in a pattern. Quite different. If you could get a stunning high by stimulating your eardrums with a certain tone, would you expect to have to pay for the privelidge every time you listened to that tone? Oh wait, maybe that's pretty much what goes on now....
I for one do not necessarily condone obtaining someone else's creative works without ever compensating them, but in terms of the record company cartels (you provided an excellent metaphor there!), I don't give a rat's ass whether they lose a fucking million.
As for those who say that metallica dosen't exactly understand it, so what? Its obvious to anybody that their money is being lost here. Over a million songs downloaded without any money going to Lars and co? They certianly didn't get rich that way
The thing I am against however, is the record label's M.O. Musicians should get more money than they are. And linux configurability sucks too, but that's for another post =P
---
Linux is only Free if your time is worth Nothing
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Be in Your Senses
He's the band member who is best at public speaking.
Edith Keeler Must Die
How do they plan to get people to buy this crap? Will it be forced upon us by the government? Will the major industry players all get together on this one to make sure we don't get a choice? Will consumers be willing to fight them on it? Will we decide to give them all the power by letting them foist this stuff upon us? Will viable alternatives exist? What does the industry plan to do to deter us from buying alternatives?
Judging from the past, I suspect that most of us will be good little sheeple and buy these products.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Napster stands for nothing that Slashdot does, but because they give music away free (as in beer, but not in speech) everyone loves them. Anyone care to explain?
.mp3 files around from user to user. There are pleanty of .mp3 files out there that are NOT copywrited, or are public domain. Yes, Napster can be used as a tool for piracy, but as has often been pointed out, nearly ANYTHING could be used as a tool for something bad. Telnet can be used to hack systems. Compilers can be used to write viruses. Ecetera, ad nausium. The point is, you can't (well, shouldn't, in my mind) outlaw something, because it MIGHT be used by someone bad to do something bad.
I'll take a stab at explaining... Or at least why *I* would rather see Napster win than RIAA:
Part of it, of course, is my [probably over simplistic] ideology as a programmer. The guys at napster and gnutella each came up with a neat idea, and translated it into program code. It was never originally intended to be malicious, or to cause harm to anyone or any individual. IMHO, acts of creativity that are not inherrantly malicious should not be made illegal.
And as for the point that Napster is a corperate entity, and profits from people using it, my general reaction is "so what?". So they've managed to find a way to offer a service for free, and profit themselves in the process. So has Yahoo, along with most search engines. So have a lot of websites. (Slashdot included, I believe). The fact that someone profits from something does not, in my mind, immedietly make it evil.
I hope Napster wins this one, because if it doesn't, it will set what is in my mind a VERY dangerous precedent. Consider: Napster is not specifically designed to pirate, it is simply designed to move
If RIAA wins and shuts down Napster, then all they will have done is cured a symptom, not a disease. The problem is the people. If they want to pirate things, they will. Using whatever tools they find most convienent. Napster is under fire because at the moment, it is an extremely convienent tool. If you remove Napster, then all that you will accomplish is to remove one outlet, and force people to move to a different one. And if you continue the precedent of outlawing anything that could be used in a criminal activity, then before too long, we'll all end up living in a world of Nerf, programming in BASIC.
Alright then. Duplicate some "fucking money". It's more difficult than you may think.
And you should probably ask your parents before you use their computer...
saintalex
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
So can drugs. Somehow I think that the cartels would be a bit less tolerant than the record industry if you stole drugs that they had produced. If you want to improve your mood, calm down or dance, grow your own, don't complain that others are charging money for product.
I used to be a Metallica fan until about 1992 or so, and I still have some of their CDs and videos. The other day I was digging through some of myvideo tapes and I came across one of Metallica's called "Cliff 'em All". It's basically a bunch of performances and interviews and stuff from pre 1986, mostly concentrating on the bassist Cliff Burton, who died in a bus crash in europe in 1986. The tape is in memory to him and for people who were just getting into Metallica to see what they were like before MTV and the hair cuts and stuff. Anyways almost all of the performances are from people with video cameras at concerts. Bootleggers. Now I highly doubt that many people would submit tapes now if there were to make a "Cliff 'em All II", out of fear of legal persacution. It's kinda sad really. Also right on the beginning of the tape Cliff Burton is walking around with a video camera and he and the other band members (lars, james, kirk) are in a conv. store picking up beer and chips and slim jims and hostess cupcakes and stuff, and they just walk right by the counter and out the door. Cliff starts to understand what's happening and takes the camera off his face and starts running out the door too. Very arrogant. Metallica thinks it's ok to steal from some mom-and-pop store in the middle of nowhere but if you steal from them, watch out.
andy j.
Stupid Cheap Guitars
Will anyone buy a copy-protected MP3 when they could get an unprotected one for free? Are you going to be able to play them at home and at work, or will they be attached to one computer? If a file you paid $1 for suddenly won't play because it thinks you pirated it, can you return it? Will SDMI-protected files play on Linux? Will the player be free (as in anything)? Will anyone use the new, restrictive player instead of Winamp/xmms?
Would you pay $1.50, as Gene suggests, to a random Napster user? Would you give him your credit card? Or would you grab a free MP3 off Gnutella in half the time it would take to enter your payment details into a new pay-napster?
All this talk is well and good, but these are questions that need to be addressed if we're going to advocate that the music industry move towards these new technologies.
Someone please take this opportunity to pie Lars in the face like Gates got in Europe. I'll never buy another Metallica album as long as I live.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Totally off topic, but does anyone know how Lars Ulrich got designated as Metallica's Piracy Meister? I mean, logic would say that they'd have a PR rep or let their manager handle it.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Funny bit is, he did the same thing we've all been doing. Finding a group you wouldn't normally listen to a hearing what they sound like.
In a sad way he proved what some of us have been saying but didn't even notice it.
Malk-a-mite
Can anyone say there's nothing wrong with a system where the producer of an item (music) gets only 6% from the sales of their work?
There is nothing wrong with a system where the producerof an item (music) gets only 6% from the sales of their work. No one put a gun to their head and made them sign a recording contract. How is napster any better? Then the artists gets a big fat zero.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Okay, music is free when you're singing in the shower, and at other similar times. That's not what I'm talking about. It takes money to record and distribute music that sounds good. Equipment costs money. Sound engineers cost money. Studio musicians cost money. Media costs money. Artwork costs money. Shipping costs money. Lawyers cost money. Prosititutes cost money. Cocaine costs money. I think it's wrong to steal music after all the money the record companies have spent on their product. If enough people do it, then all the music we have will consist of people singing in the shower, and some guys playing on the sidewalk in the hopes that passersby will toss a few coins in their instument case. I don't think we want that, do we?
Gnutella is a fileshare program but that is the only relation that is has to Napster. Under Gnutella there is no central server to be tapped and no real way to discover anyone past the first level of comunications.
Information wants to be free like speech wants to be free, not like we want beer to be free.
They should all don Mexican Wrestling masks and broadcast the event live on Pay Per View.
;)
I'll post the AVI up on my web page later that day....
---
I wear pants.
The whole reason that Napster scares the shit out of record companies is precisely described in your post, yet you fail to even grasp the implications.
"Actually, most of it goes to the record companies (which I'm sure you've heard thousands of times). The artist's royalties never change."
Let's examine who the problem is here: What do the record companies provide to the artists?
1. A medium of expression.
What do the record companies provide to the buying public?
2. A cultural filter of what's "hot" and "happening."
What do they take in return?
1. Almost all of the artist's money, self-respect, and creative freedom.
2. Almost all of the variety out of the music-buying public's hands, replacing it with the lowest common denominator, sacrificing a cultural exchange and blocking the corridors of musical discourse with piles of shiny junk. Britney Spears does not qualify as art. The Backstreet Boys are not representatives of anything except an image-making machine. The rare artist who gets through this miasma with the ability to create at will has to be unusually lucky, smart, savvy, and endowed with the patience of a saint.
A tool such as Napster is a direct assault on this entire facade! What the record companies are NOT worried about is the relatively minor leakage of cash from so-called "piracy." What has probably got them shaking in their boots at night in RAVENING TERROR is the idea that an artist will become popular, well-known, and insanely rich by releasing selected songs as mp3's free for download on the internet.
The internet does not have distribution channels. There are no middlemen on the internet. There are no aisles for pop/country/hip-hop/alternative on the internet. There is no fucking Billboard 100 to consult. There are no sales representatives asking if you are finding everything fucking OK. In short, Napster breaks every artificial barrier the parisitical record companies have erected between the music-playing artists and their music-listening audience.
This is why I am boycotting Metallica and anyone else who gets behind this. Music is dying a slow, painful death at the hands of the record industry. The stuff I hear on the radio most of the time is just shit. It's not worth two seconds of anyone's time. It's elevator music, background filler, soundtrack for a meaningless culture. It MUST die.
This seems not to make sense; maybe I'm misunderstanding timothy. We're talking about a marketplace which could not exist save by political action (ie. IP law). We're dealing with the rules upon which the marketplace is predicated. A market-based solution doesn't quite make sense in this context; like we're trying to decide on the rules for chess, and someone proposes we settle the matter on the chessboard.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"We traced the source of this leak to a corporation called Napster." - Lars
Kinda like saying, "We traced the source of this leak to a corporation called Xerox."
Somehow I think that the cartels would be a bit less tolerant than the record industry if you stole drugs that they had produced.
Sure, but if you take a seed from the drugs you buy from them, plant it in your window box and give the resulting plant to your friend, will they care? I doubt it.
Where's Courtney Love? I thought that speech she made a while ago was pretty intelligent. She was lucid and convincing in her arguments, and she has street cred, since she's a name-brand rawk myoozishen. Why isn't she testifying? I bet she'd say some good stuff.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
We, the people of the Capitol, in full control of our senses (really!), feel that the campaign contributions of half a dozen major labels is worth anything they may want from us.
So, it is our common understanting that:
I) All music in existence or to be created, or at least all music that matters to us, is the sole property of the labels that enslave and brainwash its creators;
II) Searching, linking, findind, looking at, thinking about, downloading and playing any kind of music in whatsoever format without paying the amount of money required by the said labels is a crime only comparable in cruelty with drug dealing and murder;
III)Being so mean, the crimes listed in (II) must be punished to the maximun extend of law;
IV) We so hereby decide that those considered guilty of the crimes listed in (II) are to be put to death by hearing The Metallica Collected Works in a volume no lower than 200 Db until.
For anyone else wanting to do this, I formatted RMS's essay in a nice text file for easy attachment (instead of HTML). You can grab it here.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You didn't read the message, did you? :). I was pointing out flaws in ludicrous laws.
The question was not about theft of garbage, but piracy of music (though the 2 may often be confused
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, in the absence of Napster, people couldn't simply go back to FTP sites. Look what happened to MP3.com. However, Napster really has no right to be getting all high and mighty about this. Groups like Metallica have a moral and legal right to limit access to their music (record companies lack the moral right). It should be really simple to simply change the Napster service to ignore requests containing the string "metallica", and do the same for any musical group that requests the service. Suddenly artists and Napster would be on the same side. So, all you geeks at Napster, start coding!
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
If slashdot2 concentrates on trying to take the devil's advocate side on slashdot issues, I think we may have an extremely valuable information gathering combination here :)
I do hope Andover doesn't sue them. If done right, this could be highly beneficial to Slashdot itself.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
As far as saying that you don't want to hurt the artists but don't mind hurting the record companies, you have to realize that alot of the time you can't have one without the other. Like it or not, the record companies ARE the middle men. If you take money out of their pockets then you take money out of the bands pockets as well.
No, man, you know what... you are so RIGHT. I don't know what the hell I was thinking back there.
Rock over London, rock on Chicago, bro!
good luck against the moderators on this one :(
...who, like them, bought the CD. Neither of them bought the rights to the music to redistribute it. Neither of them are giving royalties to the band.
A couple of ntpks
And neither of them are making any money off the deal, yet both of them are paying with effort and bandwidth.
And since currently their primary/only business is in enabling people to share/swap/copy music, one can presume that's how they intend to make their money.
That would make sense. They are providing the service of allowing music fans to listen to and share music. To make a somewhat real world analogy (keeping the same product and action) : Napster is a warehouse where millions of people can come and trade or borrow music from others. To keep the analogy real world, Napster also provides Personal Transporter Devices, which can instantly teleport you to the warehouse from any computer terminal. ALSO, Napster has created an amazing paging system (the Googo Searchamatic 5280) within the warehouse, where you can just shout out an artists name or a song title, (wait a bit) and you get a set of buttons you can press to jump immediately to the location of the music within the warehouse. You then take a few moments to fire up your Really Neat-o Replicator and make an exact copy of their music, while leaving their supply alone. You can do this as often as you like. Later, you can leave the Napster warehouse, and do anything you like. Including breaking other pre-existing laws or not, depending on your personal preferences. This is the service Napster offers.
Whether or not they should be allowed to profit from offering such a totally amazing out of this world service, is now left up to the courts. Personally, as a consumer, this is the type of service I expect from a company (because as a consumer I have a right to unrealistic expectations). I think they should be able to, for the reasons listed above.
And Napster devised the system that allowed this to happen. That's why Napster's bad.
Napster (or at least their real world equivalent) is damn cool. Whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up to a California(?) judge. But I seriously doubt, either way, that this will be the end of it. (and Gnutella gets to totally avoid the "company, VC, profit" thing.)
If you think music should be free, why don't you go out and make some for us and share it with the world??
You can divide these tasks. Some can make, some can share. That makes it easier for everyone.
--
+&x
Hmm, locally stored key, local player, whip out the debugger... bingo, auto unlocker.
... locally stored key generated from machine key + song key at purchase time. Auto unlocker for that particular song yes, not for any other.
not quite
I supppppose you could build a shared db of the decoded song keys somehow. But why on earth would you bother to go to that much effort when just redirecting the sound output through a capture driver is so much easier?
All we need is a functional micropayments infrastructure, and you'll see Piracy drop off the radar screen faster than a passenger-laden 747 flying over a US Navy anti-aircraft test range
Why would you pay for something when you can have it for free?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
"Are you ignorant?"
:)
No, are you?
"Metallica isn't going against MP3s now... they are going against Napster."
I realize that. But, you're missing the point here. Three years ago, Metallica said that they didn't care that their music was being distributed on the Internet in MP3 form. My question is, why are they raising such a big ruckus over it three years later? Where was Lars back in 1997 to complain that his music was being traded like a commodity, and not an art?
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
Well, well, well... looks like one of the Senators on the committee (Leahy) is from my home state.
Looks like there might be something I can do that might actually make a difference for once. Now all I have to do is organize a geek rally... anyone have any ideas?
---------
"There's no swimming in the heavy water, no playing in the acid rain.
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
From someone including GNU in the name of their software package, I found this all a little surprising.
Of paritcular note was his appeal for viral marketing. This one I hadn't heard of, despite digging through the comments of quite of few copyright/IP/now mp3 slashdot stories. Unfortunately he spent very little time describing what he seemed to consider the complete economic solution to the "problem". It seems like an semi-interesting idea, if anyone can provide more information about it. It doesn't seem like it'd be actually be viable, but I wouldn't mind knowing more about the full idea.
Finally, from Gene Kan: "When the telephone company comes to your house to install your DSL, they might charge 150 USD for installation and 50 USD per month. Using that line, an infinite amount of music and be downloaded with little hassle."
Downloaded yes. Uploaded, no. A broadband connection for $50 USD a month does not equate to unlimited bandwidth.
Many, many universities are now enforcing bandwidth caps (and outright blocking napster). I have never seen a sub-$100/month (unmetered) connection that did not prohibit servers, which napster generally counts as. Crackdowns on high-bandwidth servers are spotty around my town - however friends of mine around town have been shut down and forced to pay reconnection/penalty fees for Quake servers, ftp servers, and yes, napster from their Cable/DSL providers because they were sucking up (or actually, shooting out) enough bandwidth to draw the hammer down. My ISP, which provides a T1 to my apartment complex, banned napster a few months ago because the amount of traffic it was causing was incredible. While we do have a no-servers clause in our usage agreement, I've never heard of it being enforced, but once the traffic was great enough - bang.
Usage agreements are, among other things, a sort of limitation on bandwidth.
Once DSL/Cable rollout has stabilized in some areas and the companies mature, I am pretty sure you'll see the enforcement on usage agreements begin to tighten significantly. The hoardes of fellow napster users or the anonymity of FreeNet may protect you from violating copyright laws, but these will not protect you from your ISP asking for a lot more money to support your bandwidth habits. There may be a day when broadband connections with no restrictions on usage are availible for really cheap and ISPs have so much bandwidth availible they see no reason to charge bandwidth hogs any less than casual users, but that day is not anytime soon. The real crux here is - most people will pay for broadband regardless of whether that means they can run napster, gnutella, freenet, or not.
That said, assuming your primary outlet of bandwidth usage is serving up and sucking down mp3s in some form or another, would prefer paying for "legitmate" mp3's at a much lower cost than current CD prices, or would you prefer paying your ISP a hefty sum for a connection that will allow the "free" exchange of pirated files?
Back in 1997, Metallica had a chat on MSN. There, someone asked the band what their thoughts were on the fact that their songs were being distributed on the Internet. According to Kirk Hammett, "We don't give a fuck!"
You know, I honestly wonder why Metallica is going against MP3s now...[ insert conspiracy theory here ]
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
They are selectively choosing the copyright holders and corporate web entities for their discussions.
when we have political leaders who spend more on their tan then some of their constituents make in a year. It IS all about the Benjamin Franklins. Not to mention the slight political bonus of having friends in the media.
(cynicism is just msicinyc spelled backwards)
--
+&x
Ha, what a farce. The Record Industry maintains a Barrier to Entry for all artists, which is essentially a legal monopoly. Until independant internet distribution takes off (and I mean REALLY takes off), this is the ONLY way for most artists to get a chance at making any money - sign their souls over to the devil.
-Paul Furio
Static Engine
http://www.staticengine.com
Maybe they couldn't "shut down" Gnutella, but they can easily attack it.
- Spam the crap out of it (this is already happening
- Track down the users sharing illegal files using IP numbers (easy with ISP cooperation), get ISPs to ban users
- Force Unis to install firewalls which block Gnutella traffic
I just hope people don't try using freenet for this - I don't think it will be good at transferring huge amount of Britney Spears songs.Music is not a tangeable or unique item. It can be easily manipulated or duplicated.
Just for kicks, imagine a worker in a record store (who does not own any of the CD's he is selling... he's just a clerk), copies a CD. His company realizes this, fires him, and takes the CD from him (assuming it was on company media, using company computers). The company owners don't want the CD, so they throw it away.
who owns the CD? If someone were to stroll by, could they pick it up and keep it? Are we no longer allowed to take things others throw away? If they do take it, would that be piracy, and if so, who is guilty?
Now, my point is, claiming that something easily transferable, yet nontangable in essence is "property" that can be owned is a fallacy. The fact that there is a multi billion dollar industry built upon it is unfortunate, but that's no reason to stop, well, reason. It's an evil allowed by another evil.
Conclusion:
Basically, some insanely rich people will lose some of their money (which they acquired through an "evil"), and some other less talented people will have to choose actual professions. boo hoo.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!
Wait no, I was only joking! Realy, don't sue me!
AHHHHHH!
Information wants to be free like speech wants to be free, not like we want beer to be free.
Alright, I'll post something a little more on topic than "hot grits" this time.
First, please keep in mind that Gnutella doesn't have anything to do with getting around copy protection. Gnutella is simply a way to distribute files, no more, no less. Gnutella doesn't help crackers (please, no "hacker" vs "cracker" flames) break copy protection, just distribute the cracked files and/or utilties to crack those files.
Back in high school, I'd just borrow somebody's tape and copy it. There's always a way around copy protection.
You're 100% correct in that statement, as we have seen in the past. Copy protection methods have come and gone, and as of yet, none have withstood the ultimate test: time and ingenuity.
I feel the largest problem for the RIAA is they don't seem to have very much technical knowledge to employ in this argument. If they want to look at the issue from all sides, they should hire some geeks, have them research and report copy prevention techniques and ways around them in order to get a larger, "big picture" perspective of what they're "fighting" against.
The reason I say they should hire some geeks is becasue, quite simply, you'll never be able to make something that is 100% copy protected, and hopefully these geeks can enlighten them to this fact. Two cases in point: first, the drivers. That's right folks, the drivers. If any of you haven't heard about this theory before, decrypted data can be captured at the device driver level. All it takes is someone to write a modified Sound Blaster driver which will capture the data right before it's sent to the hardware (ie: sound card and speakers). The second case is capturing at the hardware level. This can be either as simple as putting a microphone up to your speakers and recording it back to the drive. Sure, not as good of quality, blah blah blah, but a copy none the less. The other example of capture at the hardware level is something I have seen on a few posts here on Slashdot as the past: digital or an alternative output from the sound device (sound card). Can't crack that encrypted music file? Play it and send the output to some sort of recording device (Sony Minidisc, Tape Player, input on another sound card on the machine, etc)
I hate to give them ideas, but here's what the RIAA really needs to do in order to take the next real step in copy protection: copy protection must be implemented at the hardware level. That's right, a special sound device (sound card) and perhaps output device (speakers, headphones, etc) that makes some sort of "secure" connection to eachother so that no decrypted data can be captured on the computer/device itself. Now, this still won't deter the old microphone method (you'll never be able to get around that one. If you can hear it, you can record it.), but it will deter the alternate output method, along with the driver method.
Oh yes, and please don't get me wrong. Copy protection at the hardware level wouldn't stop crackers, no siree Bob. It would make it harder, but keep in mind, the word "impossible" is a very strong, and often misused word.
I just noticed a new phenomenon (at least for me)today. My Gnutella searches for certain items got a bunch of responses "SPAM GNUTELLA." Given the dispersed nature of Gnutella, polluting the stream like this and furnishing phoney files may be the only defense that can be mounted. It'll be interesting to see if the RIAA or its agents tries this.
What's interesting in all these comments is the fact that while everyone is arguing the merits of .MP3 files and Napster, the commercial record companies are already pushing ahead with a newer and better digital music file technology called AAC (Advanced Audio Coding).
.MP3 files, AAC files can be as much as 25% smaller in size for the same sound quality (and in fact, AAC files have better sound quality because they encode at the same 44.1 KHz sampling rate as commercial CD's) thanks to the use of better encoding techniques than the technology used on .MP3 files.
Unlike
Also, AAC files are designed to work closely with current copyright protection technologies, so it is a format that is supported by the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI). I think it's possible to encode AAC files so while you can download it for free, the file will become unusable after so many plays.
In fact, already a number of electronic manufacturers will soon sell portable players that can play AAC files. And we should see a proliferation of AAC player programs for Windows and Macintosh very soon.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
... she spends the entirety of the rest of the article refuting the arguements of him and his RIAA puppetmasters, affirming many of the pro-MP3 arguements, and does a fair bit of villification (of the anti-MP3 / geeks suck / napster must die cadre) of her own.
Nowhere does she demonise geeks as lars does... instead she takes issue (on the pro-MP3 side) with beancounter types, venture capitalists specifically (does *anyone* REALLY *like* dealing these guys?), calling them "sucka VCs". In fact, she later claims that "As a user, I love Napster", and she even goes so far as to quote Snow Crash. Sure sounds like the *bulk* of the article is geek-friendy to me.
As for that ONE instance (out of SIX pages) where she claims allegiance with metallica/RIAA... well, your guess is as good as mine. But that's ONE inconsistency in an overwhealming pro-MP3/geek article.
Perhaps YOU need to reread the article.
I hardly think that one soundbyte quote equates to 'commending lars throughout the article'. And the only (pro MP3) people she calls anything close to a moron are venture capitalists, who she calls "suckers" (which might not be far from the truth, given the so-called dot-com-collapse of late).
And it's cute how you completely skirted my original point on how Love was articulate and well reasoned; while uh, lars was, well uh, totally, like, disjointed, er... inarticulate, and um... disjointed.. oops, did I uh, repeat myself?
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
What happens when, through the use of portable recording and computing devices, individuals become capable of recording, playing back, and distributing everything they hear in its original form with minimal loss to quality and no limitation to the scale of distribution?
First, deaf prostitutes will become extremely popular in Washington, D.C. Secondly, the last shred of hope that policing the private citizenry to eliminate "unlawful" sharing of audible intellectual property will dissipate. Finally, the real money in the music industry will revert back to the people who deserve it, the performers.
When the dead weight known as the recording industry is kicked off the supply chain, music will once again become a performance art and musicians will make their money providing the visceral experience of a live performance, something which will never be replaceable by technology.
This outcome is just a shadow of things to come, it's funny how technology can cause society to revert back to things that worked when we were communities and not producers/consumers.
"My works are like water. The works of the great masters is like wine, but everybody drinks water."
"My works are like water. The works of the great masters is like wine, but everybody drinks water."
--Mark Twain
I've been watching over this whole MP3 thing. To me, I sorta see where the record companies and bands are coming from, but then again I'm not. Personally, I've downloaded music... i've downloaded some stuff from bands i never got into. I'd listen to it... if i liked it, i went out and got the CD. There, the musicians got their money. Hadn't i not have heard that one song, i may never have even gotten into the band in question. Ah well, i'm just interested to see where this is gonna take MP3s and the technology in general
Copying work without permission is illegal and wrong in many cases -- but there are certain legitimate types of fair-use copying such as archival backup, translation of purchased work to another data format, sampling for review, study, and parody, etc.
The law should enforce access to these particular exceptions every bit as strongly as it enforces copyright; and the penalties for cutting off the former should be no less severe than the penalties for infringing upon the latter. The purpose of legitimate law is to protect the rights of all concerned parties -- when someone is made an outlaw in the traditional sense (a person excluded from the protection of the law), he has every reason to become an outlaw in the modern colloquial sense (someone who regards the law with contempt and commits crimes whenever he thinks he can profit from it and get away with it).
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I watched Lars speak on CNN this morning in front of the Judiciary Committee and I found his ending remarks rather poignant. I'm paraphrasing, but he read from the Napster terms of service, specifically the part where they discuss the copyright of their site, which is theirs and cannot be redistributed without their express written permission. I thought that was a very good point to make. If they're alright with doing it to others, why don't they let everyone else take their software?
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Here is the answer to your irrelevant rantings about the existance of record companies.
Statement of
Roger McGuinn
Songwriter\Musician
Formerly with The Byrds
on
"The Future of Digital Music: Is There an Upside to Downloading?"
before the
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
July 11, 2000
Hello, my name is Roger McGuinn. My experience in the music business began in 1960 with my recording of "Tonight In Person" on RCA Records. I played guitar and banjo for the folk group the "Limeliters." I subsequently recorded two albums with the folk group the "Chad Mitchell Trio." I toured and recorded with Bobby Darin and was the musical director of Judy Collins' third album. In each of those situations I was not a royalty artist, but a musician for hire.
My first position as a royalty artist came in 1964 when I signed a recording contract with Columbia Records as the leader of the folk-rock band the "Byrds." During my tenure with the Byrds I recorded over fifteen albums. In most cases a modest advance against royalties was all the money I received for my participation in these recording projects.
In 1973 my work with the Byrds ended. I embarked on a solo recording career on Columbia Records, and recorded five albums. The only money I've received for these albums was the modest advance paid prior to each recording.
In 1977 I recorded three albums for Capitol Records in the group "McGuinn Clark and Hillman." Even though the song "Don't You Write Her Off" was a top 40 hit, the only money I received from Capitol Records was in the form of a modest advance.
In 1989 I recorded a solo CD, "Back from Rio", for Arista Records. This CD sold approximately 500,000 copies worldwide, and aside from a modest advance, I have received no royalties from that project.
The same is true of my 1996 recording of "Live From Mars" for Hollywood Records. In all cases the publicity generated by having recordings available and promoted on radio created an audience for my live performances. My performing work is how I make my living. Even though I've recorded over twenty-five records, I cannot support my family on record royalties alone.
In 1994 I began making recordings of traditional folk songs that I'd learned as a young folk singer. I was concerned that these wonderful songs would be lost. The commercial music business hasn't promoted traditional music for many years. These recording were all available for free download on my website http://www.mcguinn.com on the Internet.
In 1998 an employee of MP3.com heard the folk recordings that I'd made available at http://www.mcguinn.com and invited me to place them on MP3.com http://www.mp3.com. They offered an unheard of, non-exclusive recording contract with a royalty rate of 50% of the gross sales. I was delighted by this youthful and uncommonly fair approach to the recording industry. MP3.com not only allowed me to place these songs on their server, but also offered to make CDs of these songs for sale. They absorbed all the packaging and distribution costs. Not only is MP3.com an on-line record distributor, it is also becoming the new radio of the 21st century!
So far I have made thousands of dollars from the sale of these folk recordings on MP3.com, and I feel privileged to be able to use MP3s and the Internet as a vehicle for my artistic expression. MP3.com has offered me more artistic freedom than any of my previous relationships with mainstream recording companies. I think this avenue of digital music delivery is of great value to young artists, because it's so difficult for bands to acquire a recording contract. When young bands ask me how to get their music heard, I always recommend MP3.com http://www.mp3.com.
2. The "immunity from lawsuits" provision of the AHRA probably does NOT apply to professional digital audio recorders (which aren't required to have all the SCMS and tax crap) or to computers. (A computer is not a digital audio recorder for the purposes of the AHRA; the computer industry lobbyists let it be known that they'd fight to block the AHRA, unless the record industry left computers alone.)
So if you're distributing MP3s that you made from commercial CDs over Napster, you're NOT protected against a lawsuit by the AHRA. If you distribute enough music, you may even qualify for prosecution under a newer law, the N.E.T. (No Electronic Theft) Act. That one carries felony penalties and was passed specifically because the government didn't have a good way to punish a guy who distributed a lot of pirated software for free (they do now!)
3. The AHRA's "immunity from lawsuit" provision does not actually give consumers ANY (new) legal rights to make non-commercial copies. If it was legal to make a particular recording before, it was legal to make it afterwards -- only now, you might have to pay recorder/media tax, and put up with SCMS. If it was illegal to make a recording before, it was just as illegal afterwards.
What's legal? Making copies of stuff you own for your own use is legal ... putting it up on a FTP server or on Napster for strangers to download is not.
4. The whole idea that the AHRA conferred benefits on consumers or the market is a sham. The AHRA provided the industry with BOTH copy protection AND taxes. If the copy protection was any good, what was the justification for royalty taxes; if everyone's paying taxes, what's the justification for preventing them from copying CDs? As we just saw (and as even the RIAA's own Web site claims), the AHRA doesn't provide any new right to record. Finally, the "market uncertainty" around digital recorders was caused by the very record companies who pushed CopyCode, SCMS, and the AHRA. Their attack should not have been met with capitulation, but rather with a legal counterattack based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the landmark Betamax case.
5. What gives you the right to make recordings of prerecorded music that you own, for your own use? The First Sale and Fair Use doctrines -- which apply whether you are using an analog tape deck, a SCMS-crippled consumer MiniDisc/CD-R/DAT, or a computer.
6. The courts have affirmed that some types of non-commercial home recording qualify as Fair Use (e.g. the Supreme Court found that timeshifting was Fair Use, and the Rio court refused to rule that copying music to hard disks was illegal on the grounds that Fair Use applies to all classes of devices, whether covered by the AHRA or not.)
>level-headed people in this whole debate, and
>certainly have a lot to add.
Look, for a moment, at which artitsts argue their cases more articulately... the ones who side WITH the geeks, or the ones that hate the geeks...
First, look at Courtney Love's suprisingly articulate, well thought out, reasoned piece in salon @:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
She put forth a well reasoned arguement on why the RIAA sucks, and why she supports MP3s. She even included a run down on the economics of CD sales, confirming what many people here who know a little about 'the biz' have been saying all along. The artist is *DAMN LUCKY* if she sees a whole 50 cents from a CD sale... the rest disappears into the RIAA void.
No go back through the Slashdot archives and find that pile of disjointed, inarticulate, sometimes incoherent, pile of drivel that finally spewed forth when lars denigned to address
It can be boiled down to:
Napster BAD!
I wish you people would die.
Um... Uh.... Eh... Um... Er...
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
Burris
Im pretty sure mp3.com has been wanting to work with the record labels for some time now, none of them have wanted to I guess.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist.
The LA Times and other major newspapers ran an ad today sponspored by Artists Against Piracy. Some well-known and not-so-well-known bands and performers have their names printed in the ad. I suggest the web site is due for a nasty Slashdotting. If they have a contact email address, that inbox should be filled up with your thoughts on the accusation they are making by the very name they chose for the organization (I can't tell if there is a contact email address on the site because it requires Shockwave, for which there is no Solaris plugin).
Edith Keeler Must Die
Granted, the original poster should have been more specific. There are, as you point out, non-commercial activities that are not acceptable (ripping a pile of mp3s and letting any person download them), but there are also VERY legitimate non-commercial reasons to link and copy music. Obviously, I'm talking about fair use.
Fair use includes making backup copies of music you own (wherever you locate the backup), sampling music for use in other works or just as a descriptive technique (here's 3 seconds from the song I'm talking about), as well as a myriad of other uses.
I'll agree that the responsibility for the tremendous publishing power rests squarely on the consumer, but I agree with the original poster that we need to be sure that our rights to use copies that we own in fair and acceptable ways needs to be protected.
Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
People will always pirate, and piracy will always be possible.
But there is a market-force balance in play here - when you "steal" something, there is still a certain amount of effort and time that goes into the stealing. If the product's price is so low, that stealing it takes more effort than it's worth, then the balance has been achieved. I think we're there, now, with VHS video cassettes. The price of your average movie, $24.99, is low enough that every American can afford it. It's much cheaper than buying two VCR's, gold-plated monster cables, and a Macrovision-defeating filter, and blank tape.
25 cents a song, that's still a bit high in my estimate. More like 5 or 10 cents a song. All we need is a functional micropayments infrastructure, and you'll see Piracy drop off the radar screen faster than a passenger-laden 747 flying over a US Navy anti-aircraft test range. Unfortunately, the figures I'm hearing coming out of the record companies, (Sony), are in the 3-5 US Dollar per song range.
So of course, to command that kind of price, they're going to have to enact some kind of copy protection technology. The point of that isn't to make it impossible to copy. We've beaten that horse, and it smells really, really bad. The point of copy protection technology is to bring the "cost of piracy" up to the level equivalent to what the music companies want to be able to charge.
But as long as music is provided on CD's, in the format it's in today - there will always be people ripping MP3's, and sharing them on the net. Which is why the RIAA is whining to the government for protection. A few MP3 traderz get busted, go to jail, and suddenly, the "cost of piracy" goes up.
This covers their ass while the music industry migrates to a format that's technically easier for them to protect, like whatever evil spawn results from SMDI. I wouldn't buy any new CD-players if I were you, I think they're going the way of the do-do. Some DVD-derived technology will probably take it's place on PC's. And playing music CD's on unlicensed/unsecured hardware will be a thing of the past.
If folks hack that, then there's the DCMA. Raise the "cost of piracy", raise "value of commodity".
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It's not such a far stretch, given that Hatch actually has CDs out of some of his music. I don't listen to them, but I hear he's quite good, and some wish he'd never gone into politics due to his talent.
Will in Seattle
I just read Lars's stament at the us senate website and it basically states that the reason that napster is bad is that they steal music wich costs them and everyone in the industry money.
"It's clear, then, that if music is free for downloading, the music industry is not viable; all the jobs I just talked about will be lost and the diverse voices of the artists will disappear."
But, didn't he say in the slashdot interview that he admits that since napster came along record sales have increased due to the increased fan base.
Did I read the interview wrong or is Lars full of shit?
I mean, what with Gnutella and other open source projects, the cat's out of the bag. They can try to attack Napster all the want - the Net will heal itself after each try.
Information just wants to buy free bheer.
Will in Seattle
If drugs are smuggled onto an airplane, is it the airplane's fault or the person carrying the drugs?
If the stewardess, or a member of the crew sees the person smuggling the drugs on board and winks at them knowingly, then the stewardess is at fault.
If the airline puts up a big sign that says 'Nobody will be checked to see if they are smuggling drugs' then the airline is at fault.
I wouldn't expect you kids to understand any of this, however. You're just hoping most of the drugs make it through so you can dope up tonight.
"...who has more money, the Napsterites or the RIAA?" Hmmm... let me think about that one.
And what about classical? It's great for coding, and extremely inexpensive. I just bought a whole stack of classical CD's for $25, and it's nowhere near the center of this hype.
-John
The hearing seems to be playing on loop on C-SPAN2 (at least on tuesday night)
For years people have harped about how unfare the prices for music cd's are and how crappy the music selections were. The music indistry could have avoided this whole issue if they had lowered their prices and/or survayed what music people wanted/liked on their albums but NNNNNNNOOOOOOOO! They got greedy and figured they were the only game in town so the cusumer had no choice but to buy their stuff at their prices. then napster/mp3 comes along and gives the public what it wants. Its just basic suply and demand. The people wanted something. The indistry didn't deliver and mp3/napster was created. It was bound to happen, It was just a matter of time.
Whenever I hear one of these discussions, I cannot help but remember this quote.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all." -- Robert A. Heinlein ("Life-Line")
And who should make the decisions on setting the structural and legal framework on how society operates? That is why politicians are elected to the legislature - to enact laws for the benefit of us all. Now if in the USA, your politicians have forgotten what a representative democracy is all about, then it is about time you get some politicians that do their job properly.
If we leave things to the marketplace, then those with the greatest financial muscle dominate. Of course, when Bill Gates and Microsoft dominates the marketplace by whatever tactics they can, everyone here decries that as a "Bad Thing". So the political process (including the judicial arm of government) gets involved to ensure the will of the people is carried out.
Can someone explain how "market forces" are subject to democracy?
Ken
There comes a time in the lifetime of a paradigm that it reaches adolescence. It's 'energy' touches lives of people, the world is changes sometimes forever.
The computing paradigm is such.
From earlier concepts of Difference Engine to the ENIAC, the objective remains same - a machine that can takeover the iterative tasks and lets us do the thinking.
The PC revolution put that computing paradigm in a neatly package, on our desktops and laps. It changed the world, it excited many, captured imaginations and affected many. Changed the course of humanity, created heroes and fortunes, but it does do it's job - free us up to think more, achieve more and invent more.
Capitalism is fantastic. One is rewarded for that one unique thing he/she can do - fair and square. Freedom. Whatever one needs to create wealth is right there within oneself - the skill, the motivation, the idea - whatever and a capitalist system.
An awesome paradigm was created by the name of software. Like a work of prose or poetry, software could be sold even though it had the least association with any physical form, it gave a new avtar to the computer it was installed on. The computer could do things that were not thought of originally e.g. a Honda Goldwing gone off-roading.
The paradigm matures. People understand and expect certain things that were assumptions before and hopes before that. The paradigm becomes commodity and people behind it cannot expect same response when there were just hopes.
Software became that arrogant kid. Everybody knows it's a genius and put up with many nuances but it doesn't give up. Corporations continue to charge people to worship in the temple where even though people had a new way of thinking, the ceremonies were ages old, some bordering on superstition and other forced by tradition. Open source comes along, made by people with limited resources for people with limited resources. The resource crunch fuels innovations, smarts and better software for anybody who wanted it. No temples, no cathedrals, just a friendly globe wide bazaar. A method to share intellect and an opportunity to participate, synergize and apply the thoughts that were allowed by the time created by the old paradigm. A group of explorers sharing knowledge by the fire side under a starry sky, because everybody wants to make the journey and amaze oneself, bring stories back to kids and their people. We are in this thing together. Simple.
Intellect and synergy. These are the foundations of all paradigms. Apply that to music. Somewhere music stirs the spiritual intellect, which if put in a summary would be a disaster. If the music does become commodity then it's time has come. Music itself has travelled from palaces, noblemen to everybody - almost. It, like any other paradigm, is going to take the next step - like it or not.
If my connection supports ten simultaneous downloads, why would I let any one person download for free when I could have ten paying downloaders?
Anyway, I posit this as a possibility. An option. SDMI, as the only other real possibility, is unlikely to succeed in the face of what is becoming an increasingly fluid Internet.
Gene Kan, e pluribus unum
If it's a major airline, that regularly inspects luggage for illegal contents and fully cooperates with the U.S. government in using drug-sniffing dogs to inspect luggage and arrest passengers that are trying to smuggle drugs, it's pretty much not their fault.
If it's "Bob's Nudge-Nudge Wink-Wink Airlines" making daily runs from Columbia, no questions asked, they probably can be found at fault by the law. Not quite sure what the legal precedent is, but I'm guessing they could be found guilty as an accomplice of some sort.
Law isn't really as cut-and-dry as, say, computer science, and there is room for people (like judges and juries) to use their own judgement to determine things like intent and acting in good faith. That, I believe, is where Napster is running into trouble. The idea of "Don't blame us! How were we supposed to know there was illegal stuff going on?" doesn't really fly.
Obviously, Napster is not actively doing anything to Metallica. No Napster employee is going out and "hijacking" Metallica songs. But there is the idea of making a reasonable effort to prevent illegal activity on their service, and that's going to be tough for Napster to prove.
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
When you first watch a DVD on a fairly nice tv, you notice that it is just as clear as they say, very very nice picture etc. etc. When you go buy a DVD movie, thats where things get a bit strange. You are only allowed to play that movie in the same region that the DVD was bought in. The content is scrambled as well. I first rented a dvd player back when I didn't have an rca jack on my tv for video in. I usually used my vcr and its jacks for that. I plugged the dvd into my vcr, and every movie I had rented would play fine for about a second, start to go black and white, the screen would roll up, and it would be back to color again, over and over. In any case, I took the dvd player back to the store and said that it didn't work. I had then found out that you cant send out the DVD's signal thru a vcr first, because the content gets scrambled. And for one final blow, anyone that wants to make a software/hardware dvd player has to get a liscense from the DVD CCA (something to that nature), id imagine if you wanted to produce retail quality dvds you would have to get your disc encrypted, and probably have to buy yet another liscense to do that. (by the way all these restrictions have already been cracked, in fact there was a hardware dvd player sold at circut city that bypassed the region info and the content scrambling system, for those who knew how to get into the dev menu). Pretty tough restrictions as far as im concerned. You look at the vcr and think wow. Could this happen to cds as well? I really doubt it. Music has become so small and compact, so many portable/recordable audio devices around that they would be too popular to completely get rid of. The only way I can see it happening is if the record labels/bands decided not to publish thier content on non-secure media. Of course this really means in the real life is that it will be secure until its cracked, thus defeating the whole purpose, and wasting a LOT of money on copy protection issues, and they blame that on the pirates out there. This cycle will continue forever, unless the record companies/bands change how they do buisness. This will not happen by restricting information to the people they are providing it to, but by making a new buisness model that fits into the digital world.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist.
Sony is out to lunch.
The public is becoming informed -- and will become a lot more informed as more artists speak out -- about the abusive accounting system of the big music publishers.
There is no way in hell that I will *EVER* pay Sony $3-5 a song for an MP3 that I'm downloading over an Internet connection that *I* have to pay for.
Internet distribution effectively eliminates all the costs of delivery *for the publisher* and places that cost entirely on the consumer. And the consumer then carries *all* the cost of creating a permanent record of the music, either as an MP3 chewing up HD space, a CDROM or a minidisc.
The publishers gain huge advantage. The consumer is put over a barrel and takes it up the bum.
And the artists? They're right there with us consumers, getting buggered for their labour, going broke for being driven to make music.
No *FUCKING* way will Sony see me pay $3-5 a song over the Internet.
But would I pay an artist a buck a song? Damn straight I would, if I knew that the majority of my payment was going to the artist and not a sleazebag that's put her over a barrel.
I've no problem exchanging my money for products of fair value. A song that I listen to frequently -- that's worth a buck.
But only when that buck is making a difference to someone who really counts. And in my books, promoters, DJs, managers and Sony's CEO *DO NOT* count.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Well, so much for the posts I moderated upwards, so here goes:
Somebody BOUGHT the Metallica CD.
That person then ripped the mp3s.
They then logged on to the Napster system.
Presumably, they began downloading someone else's music.
And other people started downloading music from them. Not only that, but the music that they're downloading can generally be assumed to be from another user who, like them, bought the CD. Neither of them bought the rights to the music to redistribute it. Neither of them are giving royalties to the band. And Napster devised the system that allowed this to happen. That's why Napster's bad.
No money is being made by anyone in this system (unless a user burns a cd and then ILLEGALLY sells it)
No one's making money right now. But napsters a company. They're taking VC cash. Since no venture capitalist would just give away money, the only assumption that can be made is that Napsters told them of how they intend to make money. And since currently their primary/only business is in enabling people to share/swap/copy music, one can presume that's how they intend to make their money. Hence, Napster will be making money from the artists and labels investments of their time and money.
If drugs are smuggled onto an airplane, is it the airplane's fault or the person carrying the drugs?
Depends on the person and the plane. If the plane crosses the border every night below radar, then not only will the flyer of the plane get in trouble, but in all likelihood, the owner will be busted as well. At the very least, in the US, they'll immediately lose possession of the plane. And we're not talking little Cesna's here... Napsters basically the Jumbo Jet with ton's of hidden compartments compared to every other way in the world you could pirate music.
If you think music should be free, why don't you go out and make some for us and share it with the world??
I don't think mexican wrestling could spice up senate proceedings, on account of mexican wrestling requiring a series of exciting and challenging high spots, while a congressional hearing has none. Besides, they'd all come off as cheap rip-offs of Jeff Jarrett, hitting people with guitars and such.
Oh yeah, no new CD players, SMDI seems like a GREAT technology, yep! No more pirating! Oh gee. except for when some guy sticks a stereo cord into a headphone jack and outputs it to his computer sound-in imput jack.
Really! Wait! RIAA, you say you can't do that? awwwww what are you going to do? Make a SMDI chip in all speakers and headphones, even those cheapo 5 dollar headphones will become 30 dollars more expensive and will require an AC outlet? oh yeah, real smart! The cost of piracy is at a plateu, it's not going to get any higher. The RIAA MUST DEAL WITH IT.
Metallica rehearses?
Did anyone else catch that one Senator refer to IP addresses as "Intellectual Property" addresses (LOL), then go on to surmise that music pirates could be fingered through these same "IP" addresses. These people are running our country?
Sig this.
I second the parent post. Oftentimes I've searched successfully for Tuva music. That's Mongolian (I think) throat singing. Not exactly top 40, but cool nonetheless.
Your post's logic is flawed, because you anthropomorphize the collective entities, 'society' and 'political system.'(Sorry about the pretentious sounding sentence.) 'Society' is merely a collection of individuals. When viewed in that light, it seems to me, at least, that in fact the descisions made by the 'politcal system' (again, a collective entity -- descisions are made by individuals within that system, namely politicians, aides, and so forth) are not really affected by most individuals within 'society.' The only things that influence politicians are votes. To get votes, politicians need money. They get this from rich people, who then influence their descisions. Politicians are also influenced by the opinions of those who control votes. However, they have no way to get these opinions except via polls, and statistics. If you don't think that statistics lie, than read the book, "How to Lie with statistics." Well, that's my 2 cents.
What was more interesting is that the artists have organized. This gives the Courtney Loves and Sheryl Crows (and yes, the Metallicas) a group to work with that isn't the RIAA.
Essentially, to this point it's been:
- RIAA to Napster: Die!
- Napster to RIAA, in response: No, you die!
Now the artists fly in from off the turnbuckle and scream "You both die!"I think the artists are probably the most level-headed people in this whole debate, and certainly have a lot to add. I'm glad they're organized now.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
They are selectively choosing the copyright holders and corporate web entities for their discussions.
What they missed were people who've done research on the history and meaning of copyright law in the US. People like RMS writing or Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig. It is critical that the Congress hear from people who actually consider the intent of copyright law (hint - it is not only about making money from one's authorship).
Copyright is intended to pass into public domain after a limited period of monopolism of SOME rights. It is entirely unclear that we SHOULD or CAN enforce draconian copyright laws in cyberspace.
As soon as you say "everyone knows", someone will disagree with you :-).
I would argue that the majority of musicians do not make a living from music. They have to find other means of paying the bills. It's a bit like sports. An elite few get rich, a somewhat larger group make a living at it, the vast majority make little or no money at it. So are we talking about musicians in the broader sense or the relatively small number of musicians who can quit their day job?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
It will be interesting to see which side of the debate Michael Robertson speaks up for, since MP3.com has now entered a license-based relationship with the big record companies (as part of the my.mp3.com settlement).
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
This whole Napster/DMCAA/RIAA/MPAA/2600.com is about one thing. Civil Disobedience. Our current laws don't handle electronic information very well at it's best and bobbles it horribly at it's worst. Intellectual Property IS NOT a permanent right of an individual. Copyrights were temporary protection. Not permanent. As many people before have pointed out, no copyright has expired since after WW2. DMCA is flawed. It makes no comparison between "strong" and "weak" encryption. It basically outlaws THINKING. Oh yeah you can crack any encryption but god forbid you talk to anybody else, especially electronically. Exposing a flaw in an encryption technology/algorithm/etc in the US would lead you to the slammer. DMCA was a knee jerk reaction by those who don't understand, and don't realize they outlawed thinking. One way we can fight this is by doing what you claim isn't right. Civil Disobedience. I personally don't think current US copyright and IP laws make any sense in the 21st century. Like Thoreau before me, I do what I can. I use Napster. I haven't bought a single CD since Napster! *SHOCK* *GASP* Why should I buy CD's when I can cut my own that have a quailty so close to retail CD's I cannot tell the difference. Also I can put the songs in the order I want. I also use Gnutella. If you check out my web site, you will find DeCSS. This is civil disobedience. Believe it or not, I'm a military man. I believe in the Constitution. I've given my oath to defend it. The main problem with this whole mess is that it only is applicable in the borders of the US. You guys in NZ or UK or anywhere else don't have to pay any attention to it(US Constitution). Which brings me to another point, the internet is borderless. The enherent problem in enforcing the DMCA or another US law that fines people $5k(US) for each song they steal is that how do you enforce that fine to someone who downloaded Britney's latest fluff who lives in Swaziland for instance. Good luck extracting that $5k! Americans! Write your congressmen! Explain the flaws that you see in the DMCA. Or any other law. Don't Email, snail mail get's more response and is taken more seriously. Remember these are the same people who voted overwhemingly for the DMCA and such. I am writing my congressmen! Don't just use Civil Disobedience by itself. The price of freedom IS vigilance. I hope that all our brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers who died in battle protecting that freedom did NOT die in vain because we, as a generation and a nation, let it (freedom) slip through our fingers while we slept! FREEDOM! Sorry about the overplayed emotion. I can't help myself sometimes. :D Kirch
Diligence is the price of Freedom
This is probably not going to change much. All it'll do is give TIME a chance to write yet another article about MP3s. In the end, MP3s will still be traded, and some people will be pissed while the public will be happy. I don't see why all of these "artists" don't just give up and embrace MP3s like so many great musicians.
If you ask me, these big bands are pissed because they'll have to make more than one good song per CD so people will buy the CD, and not download the one song.
-Derick
-Derick
And I'm sure a million other geeks will too ...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
this is the ONLY way for most artists to get a chance at making any money
How are artists going to make any money by having people steal their stuff using napster and its ilk?
Anyway, I don't care either way... record companies have a right to exist, and people have the right to enter into contracts...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
If I were a musician, I'd like to see some kind of service where consumers could purchase my songs online for, say, $0.25 a shot. That's probably a whole lot more per track than they make off of current CD sales due to the incredible chunk the recording studios are taking off the top.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Heh. Nice pun. I bet you didn't even mean to make it.
I watched the whole thing last night on CSPAN2. At one point the Gnutella developer (Gene Kan?) quoted something Lars said in the Slashdot interview. He prefaced it by saying it was on "slashdot, a popular geek site". The impossibly old D senator from VT questioned him a few minutes later saying in his mumbled, broken speech ~ "er, we've got the edu's and the gov's and the com's, what's this now, the .geeks?" At another point the R senator from Utah- I believe- was reading a quote from a paper he had in front of him about some software that was able to report a copyright offenders Intellectual Property Address- which he inline translated to when he saw IP Address. Despite the clearly non-technology-savy senators involved, I was (impressed may be too strong a word- but i'll use it anyway) impressed with the fact that genuinely did seem to want to figure out the right thing to do, as opposed to having knee-jerk reactions to things like Napster and Gnutella.
<BAD PUN>
Just goes to show, that metallica are the PUPPETS, and *not* the MASTERS.
</BAD PUN>
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
Check out Slashdot2.org. It's like Hotgrits, but it dosen't suck! Rock!
/.).
To keep (or rather, place) this on topic, Lars Ulrich's address to the Supreme court (from the 11th) is up on Metallica's site. It's actually rather interesting (and easier to read than his interview here at
-Heywood_Jablowme
_________________________
_________________________
heLlo... myy naame issh Linush Thoralvades, and I pronounsch (hic) it, "vodka"!
There was a story shomewhere about a firewall that could do it by filtering the packets, but it may not really be feasible. But then gnutella would have to encrypt it's connections and pretend to be ssh or something.
The point I was trying to make is that if anything, Gnutella is easier to attack than Napster, just not by litigation. And I wouldn't put it past the RIAA to at least sponsor smapping or monitoring.
I watched it on C-SPAN last night, and sitting in the audience near the front was Karl Marx himself, back from the grave! I wanted him to testify on the virtues of sharing with your common man but he never got that opportunity. Its a shame, as I would have liked to hear his opinions on the matter.
Somewhat offtopic, but it just occured to me: one of the main issues in the Napster case is whether they are aiding those who are violating copyright, because obviously they themselves are not. The RIAA's argument, I believe, is that Napster's database of songs is illegal, because it contains songs that are copyrighted and is therefore a clear cut case of helping people to break the copyright laws. Now, even if Napster were to lose it's trial, the RIAA might have trouble shutting down Gnutella, which uses no central database. I mean, aside from the obvious impracticallity of trying to shut it down, there is also the legal difference between creating a piece of software which could theoretically be used to do something illegal (I mean, any compiler/telnet client _could_ be used to do something illegal) and maintaining a database of the locations of copyrighted songs, and letting people access that database.
Here's a letter I just sent to my senator, who happens to be on the panel.
Date: 07/11/00
From: wbriggs@zoo.uvm.edu
Subject: Napster Hearings
To: Senator Leahy
Senator Leahy,
I am writing to you in regards to the recent Senate hearing involving Napster, MP3.com, et al. Being a computer science student at the University of Vermont, I try to keep myself as up to date as possible on technology issues. Having met you (briefly) in Washington during a trip to Princeton Model Congress and seeing that you also are knowledgeable in technology issues, I felt comfortable in sending this message. I am deeply concerned about the results of these proceedings. My concern is not simply for Napster. This may perhaps sound selfish, but never having used the Napster software, the demise of that particular company would not be of much concern to me, although I am conversant with the type of technology that Napster employs. My worry is that, if legislation were to be written in order to address the issue of online music, the effects could be farther reaching than first thought. It is possible that services will find themselves responsible for information that belongs to their users. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most of the online community, this would be extremely unfortunate. This would be similar to claiming that a telephone company is responsible for threatening phone calls; yes, these phone calls are illegal, but legitimate uses certainly exist for the telephone. Furthermore, it should be the responsibility of the _individual_ to not perform illegal acts, not the entity that provides a service to the individual. I have read the testimony given by Lars Ulrich, a member of the band Metallica, and I was extremely disheartened at the many fallacies contained therein. Unfortunately, many things that he gives as "facts" are merely gross simplifications and/or misconceptions made by someone not familiar with technology. I would ask you to look at statements made by another artist, Courtney Love, that contain a different point of view. I look forward to hearing your views on this matter (either directly or indirectly through the news), and will be reachable by email only for the summer; snail mail will be forced to await my return from CA. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
William Briggs
I would recommend that anyone who is able do the same. A list of members of the judiciary committee is available here.
---------
"There's no swimming in the heavy water, no playing in the acid rain.
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
Could it possibly be that copying someone else's work without there permission is actually WRONG while at the same time recognizing that the RIAA are in fact scum? Nahh... has to be one or the other..
Rep. *****,
Congress is presently holding hearings on electronic music formats, such as Napster, to determine how they should be regulated and whether they pose a threat to copyright.
Copyright law has become an issue of essential importance, as it affects not only our economy, but also our fundamental freedom of expression. Congressional regulation of electronic music can have a chilling effect on free speech on the Internet, just as Title V of the Telecommunications Reform Bill of 1996 (the so-called Computer Decency Act) almost had a chilling effect on Internet speech. Please keep the First Amendment in mind when considering any bill that affects electronic music formats -- or for that matter, any other 'intellectual property' bills.
I've included an article from the Oregon Law Review with this email; it is written by free software advocate Richard Stallman and is well worth the consideration of yourself and your peers on this issue.
Sincerely, (name, address, city, state, ZIP+4)
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
Here's a link to the Lars's testimony to the Senate Committee: Lars's testimony.
I must say, this sort of sentiment often makes me wonder about people with advanced educations. Each one seems to have his own mantra. Everything is biological. Everything is about power. Everything is about your childhood. Everything is about money. Everything is math. Most people with advanced educations want to reduce everything to their favorite something, and they've all got different somethings.
In the present case, I disagree: political systems seem to me an effect of the base functionality of society. I would be inclined to call that base commerce. Which is a function of lots of people acting according to what they think is their own best interests.
Hence, I think in the present case, we can ignore the politicians without much peril at all. Society will do as it pleases, and the politicians will (eventually) dance along.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I'm curious why I haven't seen any newsbites alluding to the assertion by napster's council that music trading is claerly legal based on law congress passed not that long ago. That, and the restraint of trade being applied by trying to get a preliminary injunction against Napster seemed to be the keystones of Napster's defense, and they simply don't show up in the media.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I knew you could.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
2. get the headlines, except when well organized, and even then not always
So we're not invited, because - one person, one vote notwithstanding - Congress has decided that we don't count.
Protest method: get a copy of Orrin Hatch's country tunes, put it on Napster, get all your friends to do the same!
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
I heard Lars say that every time a person downloads a Metallica song, it's lost revenue for them. That is just an outright lie.
First off, many of the people downloading a song start multiple downloads(to find a good connection), and some might have a previous copy, and are just trying to get a higher quality version. Also, since an album includes say 15 songs, you can't claim that each downloaded song represents one lost sale.
But most importantly, this whole notion rests on the assumption that if not for Napster, people would be buying the songs. That's not true. Many people could just switch back to FTP sites if Napster was gone, but even those who didn't would be unlikely to spend their money on the music. I download tons of music from Napster, but before that I'd only ever bought one CD. I didn't think buying a CD was worth it, so I never did. If I couldn't get the songs off the net, I just wouldn't listen to them at all.
I'd like to see the music industry put out some real proof of it's claims of lost revenue. I see nothing of the sort: they're revenue has actually been going up recently.
"As far back as 1994, music companies were among the first to use the Internet to market and promote our recordings online. At Sony Music at that time, part of our job was evangelizing to our artists. Not only we were not afraid of the Internet, but we were actively encouraging our artists to take advantage of some of the Net's earliest opportunities."
Wow! What a bunch of BS! They've been actively encouraging artists to use the Internet since 94! This smells of an outrageous lie. I think any RIAA member/exec who claims that they were never afraid of the Internet is trying to pull a fast one over us.
We all know that those in power like to maintain the status quo. Freddy needs to keep the money rolling in so he can afford that third house in the Cayman Islands, never mind the poor artist he is knowingly starving to death.
Yes, the law is on their side, but morally I believe I have done no wrong by downloading songs off napster. These pigs know what they do is wrong, so they hide behind their lawyers who have a big bark with a painful bite.
Those bastards.
-=God Hates Me=-
> Working at a company with their own take on selling music online...
Hmm, locally stored key, local player, whip out the debugger... bingo, auto unlocker.
The Gnutella guy gets it.
These so-called artists who are crying about losing their profits because of people downloading their music just makes me sick. It makes no difference at all to me what the media is when I listen to music. What is important is that the musicians get their recognition for their music. And I don't see that Napster will take that away at all! And so I say to Metallica and Roger McGuinn that you guys are just a bunch of wankers!
What ??? They didn't ask for the true expert witnesses in this case ? That is any idiot who posts to slashdot.
Hell. I demand that a terminal be left open to the committee, slashdot users can post questions ( ooo, it'd be just like an interview ) and the Senate can get the real score.
Sometimes I really do wonder about people with allegedly advanced educations. Political systems set the base for the functionality of society, and all the rest follows. Meaning that ulitmately everything is political.
Almost all of the controversey surrounding digital music involves copyright infringement (*sigh*duh). Those were legislative decisions made by politicians. Ultimately those people will decide all of our crucial issues.
Quit dissing politics. It's the way this society makes the rules. Either take up arms or work within the system. Or ignore the politicians at your very great peril. They're easily bought--who has more money, the Napsterites or the RIAA?
Sapere Aude!
So I turn on c-span, and there are a bunch of nerdy types talking about the great innovations that they've come up with for mp3s, and then there are some suits [cough sony cough] whining about how they won't have any control over the music anymore. Well, can I just say DUH! Thats pretty much the point! If you can't see right now, its probably the blinding flash of the obvious hitting you^. music lovers love mp3 because they can go on the internet and listen to any new music they want, without having to endure hours of the same crappy music repeated over and over again from the radio (and mtv is completely hopeless). mp3 takes the control out of the hands of the big businesses that own the labels and the radio and the distribution channels and gives it to...not the artist...but the listener. No longer will people have control over what I hear and subsequently buy. This whole idea of "the music will die without proper copyright control" is a bunch of b.s. for 2 reasons. 1. I will never pay for an mp3. Its a useful format for evaluating new music, but the sq is absolutely horrid. How anyone could choose listening to an mp3 over listening to a CD is beyond me. If I like music, I am going to *BUY* it, and I think the same thing is true with music lovers everywhere. That being said, however, the idea of spending $18 for a cd, even one that I like, is rediculous. Almost all the cds I own have had other owners, and if I want to buy an album when it is brand new, I will shop for a good sale. 2. Music is not about money! this is a fundamental truth of the universe. Sure, every artist dreams about a big break and making millions--but on the other hand there are many musicians who would gladly pay money for the chance to be heard. Not for self-promotion, but just because thats what music is about. Ok, my rant is over ^joke shamelessly "pirated" from Dilbert
I'd really really really like to write something funny here... possibly even 'smart-assed'. Unfortunately, this article isn't even remotely funny! Any time the senate gets involved with something, its bad news. They'll screw this up somehow, and we'll all be listening to the worst crap you can imagine. --cr@ckwhore
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
This is (at least at the moment) a political issue - it can't (unfortunately) be sorted out by the marketplace.
And why not? Because when the opposition (esp. Metallica and the RIAA) bring the judiciary into the fight, it becomes a legal issue. Bad, but there is really no choice.
Be involved - this will become precedent, whatever happens....
... and today's pet project has
It says Lars from Metallia plans to testify. That oughta be interesting.
I wonder if he'll be as informative as Valenti was on DVD decoding.
I also wonder, how is he going to show up in court and testify that he sides with the mega-corporations against his listeners and still sound hardcore and rebellious?
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
One continuing problem raised throughout the evolution of online music, however, is the complaint that the major record labels have not been willing to license online music distributors to provide their music, or have offered licenses on terms much different than online entities related to those labels. While I do not think that copyright owners have any general duty to license their products to others, a complete lack of licensing puts in question the labels' professed desire to be ubiquitous, and a policy of merely cross-licensing among major label-related entities might raise some competition concerns that this committee would have a duty to consider.
Working at a company with their own take on selling music online, I can attest here that Sen. Hatch is so right. The major labels are in complete Fear-And-Loathing denial mode of what online distribution means to their business model (at a corporate level, I hasten to add; individual employees are often very savvy indeed) and after a few months of watching developments, I've come to the conclusion that the existing labels need to be Amazoned by somebody who gets online distribution before they start acting sensible on their own.
I think the RIAA should team up with Napster and put an end to this whole thing!! Napster is profitable... obviously, thats the place to be!!
Damn it... if the RIAA would simply team up with Napster, they could share the profits, heavily promote the industry, and experiment with some new merchandising methods.
God damn it... why does everything have to always be so difficult? I remember seeing an episode of Lassie once where Timmy was stuck in a well. There was an easily accessible ladder right next to Timmy that he could have gotten out of the well with, but... instead, Timmy sent lassie to get help... help arrived in the form of a helicopter and they literally air-lifted Timmy out of the well.
What the fsck?
Send a memo to the RIAA... either be a part of the program or get out of the damn way.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
>so they throw it away. who owns the CD? If
>someone were to stroll by, could they pick it
>up and keep it?
Once it's in the trash, it's fair game for anyone who wants to grab it and do whatever they like. There was a court case, quite awhile back, (I dunno if it went all the way to the supremes tho), that affirmed this.
This was established back in the AT&T monopoly phone phreaking days, when ma bell tried to sue people who took discarded copies of phoneCo manuals.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
Mr. McGuinn's very short and to the point testimony can be found here.
Burris
Oh well, it could be worse. At least we don't have actors from Hollywood getting involved like they do in everything else. "I once played a musician in a movie and am thus qualified to provide professional commentary to this committee on the subject at hand."
Once it hits congress, it's all down hill from here.
---
seumas.com
I've found an interesting point of view in this discussion - from an artist who, although disapproving of the piracy potential of Napster, is using the 'net to distribute his own material (to which he does not have copyright) as a protest against his label which is apparently not promoting his albums, because he's not a multi-million selling Limp Bizkit-a-like. Check out the testimony of Matt Johnson of TheThe at the band's website.
As the guy with the $20 who makes that whole supply chain possible. You know, the *consumer*.
Napster is a pretty damn efficient way to find and evaluate music that I want. I'm sorry that Lars and the RIAA aren't in control of that, but tough. It's my money.
Napster found an easy, cheap, fast way to distribute music online, and in doing so, woke up the music industry...which had been sitting on its collective butt.
When the music industry gives me a way to purchase music that's as easy as Napster, we'll talk.
Karma only matters to me now and zen.
MP3.com's payback for playback model seems to be working well for some artists. MP3.com pays artists based on how often their songs are played. They're basically splitting the ad revenue with the artists which is good for consumers since they're not stuck with paying for something before they know what they're getting. Anyway, some artists have been making several thousand dollars a month off of this which sounds like a much better deal than the traditional music industry as Courtney Love describes it. This payback for playback money is also in addition to other revenue the artist receives from the site such as CD sales (artists get 50% of CD sales through MP3.com, which again is unheard of in the traditional industry).
The way I see this (hopefully) heading is that it will provide artists with the means to financially bootstrap their careers. An artist that posts one or two well received songs written in his or her spare time would receive money which could be used to fund development of much more extensive work. Then if their more extensive work is well received, the artist is in an infinitely better postion than they would have been with a major label (financially, contractually, and artistically). If their work isn't well received, at least they won't be bankrupt as Ms Love described it. So, in all scenerios I think MP3.com's payback for playback system is something which artists should be heavily preferring over traditional labels as the market for internet distributed music continues to grow.
From the users' perspective, the mp3s are free (legally), and you can't get much more favorable than that. So, I think the revenue model definitely works from the user's end - it's just a matter of time for it to be thoroughly tested on the artists' side. I personally prefer hunting around mp3.com for a few hours to find an hour worth of music that I like for free over going to the CD store and buying half a dozen $15 CDs in hopes that they would each have more than one song that I like (which is what I used to do all the time - the RIAA has already lost itself one frequent customer). (Just so I don't seem totally cheap, I've also bought CDs of MP3.com artists which had a large number of songs that I liked because I like supporting them with more than just airplay royalties.)
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
God, I hate real video.
Anyway, its cool to see a *caugh* fellow Gnutella developer speak before the senate (well, ok, I hang out in #gnutella-dev once in a while, but I plan on doing something, really)
I hope all this turns out well, obviously. I doubt it will, though. Even if it turns out that napster is legal, Riaa will just buy itself some new legislation. Its going to be a long time before those in charge give up power.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
as stated by Metallica...
""We have many issues with Napster. First and foremost: Napster hijacked our music without asking. They never sought our permission-our catalog of music simply became available as free downloads on the Napster system. ""
HOLD UP! Napster hijacked their music? the Napster system?
Napster didn't touch their music. Lets look at this logically...
Somebody BOUGHT the Metallica CD.
That person then ripped the mp3s.
They then logged on to the Napster system.
Presumably, they began downloading someone else's music.
Now, where in this scheme does Napster touch the music? Why would they have to ask someone if they can use their music since they have nothing to do with the content? WHY AREN'T NAPSTER'S LAWYERS SAYING THIS?!?!
Instead, they say this...
"Napster has said that the company cannot be held accountable if some members use the server to exchange copyrighted material. The songs are not stored on Napster's computers, nor do they pass through the company's servers when users download music from one another.
"The Napster directory is a list of all the files that members of the community are willing to share," Hank Barry, the chief executive of Napster, told the committee. "
No money is being made by anyone in this system (unless a user burns a cd and then ILLEGALLY sells it)
Why do tech companies have to come off sounding oh so high and mighty instead of just sticking to the facts. Users are the ones, if anyone, that could be breaking the laws concerning copyright. The Napster software is just the transport mechanism.
If drugs are smuggled onto an airplane, is it the airplane's fault or the person carrying the drugs?
In this world there are products and there are services. Music as you define it falls under the "services" category. It's like going to a mechanic and not paying him to fix your car because the work isn't tangible.
Furthermore while I am on the subject of warez let me say that the open source movement is NOT similar to downloading pirated MP3's. Lot's of people want to make the connection between free software and "free" (read: PIRATED) music. There is a vast difference between the two. Free software is about making your own version of a commercial product from scratch, not just stealing a copy of the commercial product itself.
"We traced the source of this leak to a corporation called Napster." - Lars
Want to try that again there little drummer boy?
I believe the leak would be traced back to someone who had access to the demo tapes!
Unless the claim is that the employee's of Napster were sneaking in at night to your studio and stealing the tapes while you slept.
Malk-a-mite