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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
"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