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.
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
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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")
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.
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.
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.
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..
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 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.
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
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?
"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