Slashdot Mirror
The Heavenly Jukebox, From Hell
davecb linked us to a story at The Atlantic about the whole Napster, DeCSS, RIAA blah blah blah thats been all the rage with the kids these days. Talks about how this case is bigger then just Napster: its results will affect the future of democracy. It's a really well written piece that you definitely should read if you're following this stuff.
What do you mean? They have perfect control over what gets out - they just don't play what they don't want to get out to anyone with a recording instrument.
Once they play in a public venue, or burn millions of CDs & distribute them worldwide - well, they chose to let that performance OUT.
The important phrase is "small-scale". Downloading music continues to be legal AFAIK, but distributing it to millions of others over Napster or Gnutella is probably not exempt. Small-scale is aimed at making a tape for your friend, not for a million of your friends.
Speaking of smoking, in some states it is illegal for a minor (under 16, usually) to purchase cigarettes, but not illegal to possess them. I have no idea why, but it's sort of the same situation. IMHO pot smokers shouldn't be tossed in prison just for smoking, since they're not violent or dangerous to society. If pot needs to be illegal, a stiff fine and/or community service would be more appropriate as far as I'm concerned. Now if they were knocking over convenience stores for cash to feed their monkey, that would be different.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
No, Napster is a feeding frenzy for people who want their music immediately. Polls show that people would pay for it. I would certainly pay for it, provided it were available on MY terms (either all-you-can-eat for $19.95/mo, or $1/mp3, and MP3s, not that SDMI shit). No "legit" source exists, and nature/technology abhor vacuums, so Napster is what results. This is good news for everyone but the lawyers; why should the public wait for them to catch up??
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Do you think Atlantic would take Katz in exhange for the author???
HH
No matter how much you think it is, society doesn't exist to be "fair". People *are* liable for the effects of products they create even if it is not strictly their fault. Software is a loaded example because that goes straight to the free speech issue. Remember, society is a shared host that *grants* people privelages. It's not a free ride for people to abandon all conscience. That's why we have laws on the porno industry. Is *that* "fair"? Free speech right? We have laws on tobacco. Is *that* "fair"? Is it their fault if idiots smoke and then are surprised they have cancer (well, besides the fact that someone might believe them when they lie and say it is safe)? There are laws regarding safe toys. Is *that* fair? After all, people should not buy products that are unsafe, right?
The answer is that "fairness" is the wrong question. The question is not whether it is fair, but whether it has a bad or good effect on society. We have all sorts of "unfair" sin taxes, but that's the price of the privelages the society grants you.
That said, YES I think a lot of the control on things like software is just downright stupid and brainless. But there is a reason we have such tendencies to "unfairness".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Trolling or not, Metallica is marketed to that group.
I haven't seen Jazz marketed towards any group. Same goes with Classical & Gsopel.
Your right about Heavy metal. How many pimple cream ads do you see scaatterd about the videos?
Sure they aren't part of culture but their money still puts coke on the table in LA.
Get a clue. Modern music is about big payoffs and the musicians are just discardable pawns in the game.
If you want to hear bands that play in pubs near where I live, check out my web site
Dunno how involved you are on this level, but I've made upwards of $400 on mp3.com, where most of 'my competition' struggles to make $40 or $4, and I've told people how to do that and now some of the people I've told make more than me. I would love to think that people would do it your way but I am obliged to share the information of how to really do it with slashdotters, as I've seen other slashdotten musicians :)
First, go to mp3.com/chrisj and download all of my music a lot and buy all my CDs *g* just kidding! *ducks flung boots and stuff* Seriously, I mean, please do, but that was a joke. The real point is simply this:
Free stuff beats restricted stuff for mindshare.
It's that simple. I made all my stuff available free. I know a lot of people who used to, or still are, putting up only 'sample tracks' and making full CDs available with lots more stuff. A lot of those people got trapped by their own tightfistedness- they behaved as if they did such wonderful stuff that people would _have_ to buy their CD, would be _forced_ to do business. Unfortunately mp3.com is like a microcosm of internet commerce in that there are a LOT of bands there, and every time, the listeners would listen to those few tunes, get bored and go somewhere else, to some page that had LOTS of tunes! for free! The top money-spinners of mp3.com ended up being various more or less mainstream-type artists who didn't need to force money out of people (for instance, 'Bassic') and who made very large amounts of music available free.
That's the dynamic, and there's no escaping it. This is how Microsoft killed Netscape. This is how any number of internet musicians will kill the ones who insist on full prepayment. You just click a link or search and bam, you've got 40 different bands and musicians who are just as good and who aren't insisting on any sort of payment at all. Some (such as myself) are happily getting a cut of the ad banner revenue or something- some might just be distributing freely because they want to be heard, and want the freedom to pursue their art with NO compromises whatsoever. That's a good motivation- another motivation might come from recognising this dynamic and realising, damn, the way to get enough mindshare to be _able_ to be paid at all for good work is to begin giving the work away and just don't stop- keep doing it and doing it, and count on eventually selling things like 'convenience CDs' (as I've done repeatedly, even though I supply not only mp3s for burning CDs from but even literally the cover art to print out and use for your privately burned CD- not a joke, go see for yourself) or posters or special vinyl releases or special CD mixes- any or all of those things. Tchochkes. If you can be heard you can find a niche- people manage to find niches even by playing with tacky PC software to layer pre-made trance loops. Even this can sell CDs- given a bit of mindshare- but you can't tell people 'I ought to be able to do something great, give me money and I'll do something awesome!'. This can't compete with unrestricted free stuff...
For the record, I think space-shifting and my.mp3.com is totally valid and fair use.
Some people also use it to obtain copies of music that they would otherwise have bought on CD.
And it is my contention that how they obtain this music should be determined by the artist. For instance the artist could set up a website with that new street corner performer service where people chuck some money in their pot.
I'm not sure if that is legal. Orrin Hatch asked if it would be legal to burn a copy for his wife in the Future of Digital Music hearing. Lending is different from copying because only one person has it. When you copy it then it's up to the copyright hold to determine whether or not you should be able to. If artists were in control they could simply say something like "Yeah, you can let a maximum of 5 friends copy it". That would solve the whole Napster problem without making artists look like assholes. I mean, really, if you are giving it to more than @5 people I think that's sort of crossing the line.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
That is so backwards - copyright was originally intended to reward creativity by providing authors a limited opportunity to be the sole beneficiary of the profit from their work. Copyright law doesn't prevent creating at all, it just specifies who has the right to copy (i.e. distribute) a work that has already been created.
Napster is providing an index of users who may be (probably most are) violating current copyright law. My opinion is that the copyright holders should go after those who are infringing on their copyrights, not after an indexing service. Under the DMCA service providers (common carriers) are exempt from prosecution as long as they remove infringing users when notified. Napster has done so and has followed the letter of the law with regard to copyright as far as I know.
The real issue is that the recording industry is too lazy to go after millions of copyright violators, and would rather shoot the messenger instead. I don't blame them for being lazy (tracking down and prosecuting all of those users would be essentially impossible) but that doesn't make their actions ethical or right. The sooner they realize that the world has moved on, the fewer people will be hurt by their reflexive legal lashing out at all and sundry.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Really? What part? I don't see anything in the DMCA that makes it illegal to have copyrighted works that you do not own.
--
The real Slim Shady does not have a Slashdot id. But I don't know of any imposters.
Copyright law are built around the concept of preventing other people from creating. If you create something, you copyright it, and therefore prevent other people from creating that as well...
How do you get that? From what I can see, copyright law (the spirit of it that is) allows a creator (whether music, literature etc) a fair amount of time to profit from his own creation. In other words, if I put a lot of work into a song or a novel, the idea of copyrighting assures me that someone won't turn around, take MY work and make a ton of money by stealing the revenue that would normally come to me.
The problem that a lot of people on here seem to have, that they use to justify things like Napster, is that musicians don't see a whole lot from CD sales. The article did go into that fact a lot. I don't agree with a "middleman" screwing over content creators and I don't buy their sob stories that they are losing SO much money from "pirating". That said, I also don't think that free trading of copyrighted works is a moral thing to do. Its a grey area to me.
I'd love to see a new business model evolve from here, one that CUTS OUT the middleman (Record labels) and puts the rewards where they SHOULD go, to the musicians...but should that happen, I think that the RIAA would go after THAT model just as fiercely as they are going after Napster, because as much as they shout "pirating" (and like I said before, they aren't completely wrong), their efforts are about ONE thing: Retaining control over a lucrative resource. End of story.
"I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
I usually limit myself to two connections on a dial-up, although it can sometimes still take some time to get those two. Even the gnet[2..5].ath.cx servers sometimes get backlogged and won't connect me. Fewer connections also often mean longer, less efficient searches.
For more information, click here.
maybe a 1st round, and two second round, from the next geek draft.
Speaking of which, when is that Norwergian DECSS hacker free to be drafted?
The midnight bomber who bombs at midnight?
Yeah baby yeah yeah!
Nobody seems to be saying anything about the fact that Napster and its ilk, while certainly making all this stuff easier, did not make file-trading possible: that was done long ago. Peer to peer sharing something new and innovative? Bah. Ever hear of something called ftp? http? If the RIAA could wave its magic wand and infect every copy of Napster and Gnutella and Freenet and so on with rampant segfaults, they wouldn't be able to stop people trading MP3s. OK, maybe it would be harder, and a bit less anonymous, but so long as I can cheaply buy a website and a mess of space to put MP3s up for download, and as long as Google will find them for interested folks, I can share my files with my peers. The WWW is entirely made of file-sharing! To make that impossible would require them to dismantle the whole web, which would probably be even worse for business.
I suppose the only thing really stopping sharing MP3s by websites is AUPs from the ISPs (owwww, too many TLAs!) If I put up my Copyrighted Songs Collection on my webpage at GeoCities, they can probably quote me some passage in their AUP that I'm violating and pull the plug on the pages. That seems to work okay; I bet kiddieporn pages don't stay on the net very long for that reason. But considering the fact that the web is peer-to-peer file sharing, any legislation curtailing that kind of sharing software had better be worded very carefully, or it could affect the web as a whole. After all, http can be used for copyright infringement, even as Napster can be used legitimately.
You need to read this: http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html to get an idea of how fast a format can go away when big money gets behind the new thing. I'm not saying it's a done deal, since consumers effectively deep-sixed DivX, but I don't think CD's are nearly as permanent as you think they will be.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
[T]he real value is in creating intellectual property, a service. If the service is good, you leave a tip. Again, companies like Red Hat are bringing this model back into play. (The reason Red Hat has been so much more successful than, say, Caldera Systems (Nasdaq: CALD), is that Red Hat sees what it does as a service, and Caldera sees its intellectual property as a product it can control.)
The Napster parallel is quite relevant. Napster, MP3.com, et al. are services that provide value to the user (aggregation) and the artist (distribution), and can certainly be tweaked to also provide $. So the publisher gets cut out - disintermediated, to use an overused Katzism, which is exactly what should happen.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
If Napster is not currently doing anything illegal, it is at the very least doing something very morally questionable and shady, and if anything at least shouldn't be supported as vocally as a lot of us do. If anything it is standing idly by while it figures out how it can make money of this (but not currently making money from it doesn't make it good). See my other posts, including:2 21&cid=215
5 1221&cid=44
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/18/1351
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/18/13
I think we all have a libertarian streak through us, but I for one don't oppose (sensible) gun control. Libertarianism is fine and good but taken to extremes it is just plain irresponsible.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Napster represents a fundamental shift in our economic system that has been in the making for many years.
Our economic system is bassed on scarcity. Basically, as long as there is not an unlimited supply of something, it has value. This works very well for physical objects like pork bellies and RAM chips. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this system falls apart in the virtual world. There is no scarcity... there is an unlimited supply, so the laws of supply and demand don't apply.
The RIAA (and MPAA, and SPA) are trying to apply real world economics to the virtual world, and this round peg won't fit in the square hole, no matter how hard they hammer.
Any economists out there?
Reality has a liberal bias
My point was that Metallica gave up almost all control over what I do with my copy of the CD once I've bought it.
Somewhere there's a line between wrong (making copies and selling them) and right (making an archival copy), with a whole 16-bit gray scale that includes:
making a copy for the car;
making a copy for my wife's car (thanks, Orrin);
giving the copy I had in my car to a friend;
making a copy for a friend;
making copies for 20 friends and
making copies for 20 million friends.
Maybe we need to ask the Brunching Shuttlecocks to do a Good or Bad poll to find the line.
--
--
E_NOSIG
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Right now I don't even think the issue is the right of music fans to music. I'm sure every artists on earth is *gladly* trying to get people to listen to their music. The issue is control and power. Right now Napster is just acting as a digital surrogate of the record company middlemen controlling distribution. It's just a horizontal shift in power - the artists haven't gained anything. Digital media should be empowering artists. Before record companies had all the power. Now Napster, and the fans have a lot of power. My point is that we should realize that while this free ride is great, that it is our *responsibility* to give some of that power back to the artists to which it belongs. Sure, fans have some sort of say, I think, and at least some conceptual level of "ownership", but right now where hogging all the power because free stuff is cool. Give the power back to the artists, not Napster, not the record companies.
(see my other posts)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
And what if the RIAA members (who control both the price of their products and a large fraction of the overall supply) decide to raise the prices on CDs and/or sell SDMI music cheap? Do you really think Joe Average isn't going to sell his Fair Use rights to get Britney's new album for $10 less?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Let distribution be free," they'll say. "Download all you want; go for it!" they'll say. "But you won't get anything until you pay us to release it in the first place!"
They'll put up a form like this:
I think it's just that simple.Metallica/Stephen King will be able to charge more, because they're well known; other artists (or, most probably their labels/producers) will have to do more marketing to create a buzz, and/or release free songs/chapters at random to create interest, but mark my words, the day of full prepayment is coming.
(My $0.02, anyway.)
--
Orlando, Paladin of Charlemagne
Orlando, Paladin of Charlemagne
I for one am glad to see the Atlantic's articles posted here, as they often deal with many of the same issues you'll see Katz try to address, but in a much more thorough, fair, and (real) thought-provoking way. I think it was Robert Kuttner who wrote a very good (mainstream) piece on Linux almost two years ago. OK, maybe there's no news peg for these articles, but it's a good publication to keep an eye on.
--
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
The Atlantic is somewhat famous for this: they've been around so long they've become used to outliving annoyed advertizers (;-))
davecb@spamcop.net
Honestly, the record industry already does just this, and much more- they've managed to seize the intellectual property of most of the artists forever (see the copyright reversion stuff tacked onto the Home Satellite act) and have destroyed the artists' ability to get out of ungodly horrible contracts even when the artists are literally bankrupted. That's 'losing all their money' not simply 'not earning lots of money'- that's 'taking the songs, the performances, the mechanicals and all the intellectual property and also taking all the money away from the artist and leaving them bankrupt and, as Courtney Love astutely pointed out, with no credit'.
Seeing as they already behave even worse than you suggest and Slashdot people are mostly oblivious, why would there be an uproar in support of artists if the record companies formalised this and stated outright what they already do anyhow? Slashdotters don't necessarily care all that much about artists, why should they? Let artists care about artists. Artists may not care as much about DeCSS and that's where slashdotters might find themselves more directly involved.
Personally, as an artist, I'm just happy a bunch of people are fans of a digital file format that I can distribute music with. Some slashdotters have really dug my music, some were like 'what?' and some made fun of me because I'm not Metallica :) go figure! At least there's somebody coding the formats I get to use as a 'content producer' ;) I still can't wait to see Ogg Vorbis eventually get to the Mac where I can make use of it, I'm _ready_ for that stuff...
come in.
You own a CD; say it's a Beetles album. You rip it, mp3 it, and place it on Napster.
Millions of people have taken copies in two weeks, yet:
You still have the CD, which you own.
The mp3 != the CD music, due to compression and artifacts
The only thing you have violated is copyright distribution here. You aren't the owner of the copyright, only the copy, so you don't have the right to distribute the music. You *can* legally sell the CD; you can legally give away your CD. Can you legally give away *millions* of inferior copies of your CD?
Another point:
So if your friend had borrowed your lawn mower, made *infinite* number of copies and left them all over the city with a big "please take me" sign on them, then the analogy would be more accurate.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Ok, it's been a boring day, so I read the while article... It almost made me want to go back to work.
How can you call this news? Maybe my eyes started to glaze, but I didn't see a single thing in there that hasn't already shown up here a dozen or so times. I guess someone just wanted another napster fix. (Affecting the future of democracy??? Are you saying all pirates are democrats?)
Well, I'd better get back to work, as much as I'd love to count the fp's, I'm more in the modd for news
-Space for rent
And what did they say about Warp? Did they say it was a very nice system, or did they say it was going to take the world by storm?
They said very nice things about Warp (you should look up the article), they made me want to try it, but it tanked. The Atlantic has a bad track record writing about technology.
It's just the predictions, and perhaps advice to switch, that was wrong.
If you can't see that distinction, then you're probably one of those people who judges things by their popularity rather than their merits. I bet you're wearing designer pants, Nike shoes, eat at McDonalds, listen to Britney
Spears/Limp Bizkit, and use IIS for your web server.
Reread what I said, I said it was the kiss of death.
I'm wearing Levi's (made by hard working American's), Bass shoes (made by hard working Americans), rarely eat at McDonald's, preferring to patronize my locally owned and established restaurants, don't listen to Britney Spears (rather, that American band from with RMS stole his ideas on free software and his dress code, the Grateful Dead) and use Linux or FreeBSD for my web server, plus whatever xoom uses.
I remember one of the last times the Atlantic tried to write about computer technology, this was about 6 years ago, and the reviewer was gushing about this wonderful, new, crashproof operating system called... Warp Has anyone heard from OS/2 lately? Nope, sunk without a trace. On the contrary, I'm writing this comment on a Warp 4 machine, sitting next to another warp 4 machine. 24/7 uptime on both. Yes, its a 4 year old OS, but hell, it even supports my new Voodoo5. And its still 100 times better than any version of Windows out there.
moo
Finally someone who realizes that Napster-like technology is more about "pirating".
Based on comments I got from my `"Information wants to be free" == "2nd law of thermodynamics"` comment a couple weeks ago, I'm talking notes for a paper whose working title is "The Society Machine". I'll let y'all know when Beta 1 is ready.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
The real threat -- to listeners and, conceivably, democracy itself -- is the music industry's reaction to it
The record industrys attempts to solve the piracy problem won't solve anything, but they will make life awful for consumers and musicians.
I already pay a tax on the DAT tapes I use to mix down the recordings I produce. Where does this tax go? The major labels. Now DAT's aren't being used to steal from the majors - they are 99% used by home and semi-pro recording artists to record original material. Still the Big 5 record labels profit.
Now we hear about schemes to build protection into hardware devices. Well watermarks are going to be audible in some cases (despite the claims made). So now even though I buy a record legally, the sound of the recording will be compromised by the stupid protection scheme. Still - the protection scheme won't stop the pirates. Worse the devices are likely to confuse and anger consumers, and make it more expensive to master content to play on them. And expect more taxes that will be paid by the innocent, to cover the costs of pirates - with little or no money going to independant labels or independant musicians.
Tune in, buddy. You're taking my arguement all wrong. I'm not saying that creators should not be rewarded for their work. What I'm saying is this: when technology makes it such that the cost of (re)production drops to zero AND production facilities are decentralized (both are important), the current model no longer makes sense. I am saying that this has happened to the music industry, will shortly happen to other "culture industries", and will eventually happen to all industries if we don't bury ourselves in grey goo in the process of getting there.
To me, this conclusion seems blatantly obvious, but apparently they are not to you. To wit:
The current model is based on the exchange of value: you give me food, I give you cash, etc. This exchange has always been moderated/controlled by the vehicle for the value (in the case of music, books, etc) or by the physical object itself (in the case of cars, CD players, etc). When the means of (re)production are such that the moderating element is no longer controllable (i.e. you don't need a CD to listen to music, or, with nanotech, you don't need a fab to make a chip), then the system falls apart. You can try to impose artificial (i.e. legal) controls to replace the former natural ones, but this is not a good idea. You will have to pass so many laws, and make them so restrictive, that personal freedom and liberty will be sacrificed in an attempt to preserve the old model. The artist/creator/etc still needs to be compensated, but the model for that compensation is going to have to change. I don't know what the new model should be, but I do know that the old one won't work anymore.
Taking my arguement into the future, to the nanotech world: now it costs nothing to produce anything, and the current model makes NO sense at all. A creator has to make a living, you say. In ghod's name, WHY ??!? If all the necessities of life are free for the making, what use is money? Yes, the creator will be paid, but it won't be in cash or in real goods. It will be in the respect and admiration of his/her peers. Just like free software. Just think: no one would have to hold down a job that they hate, and every little bit of original work that was done would be a labor of love. Sounds like a pretty cool world to me.
Gods, I can't believe I just spent this much time replying to a troll. But maybe some of the things I say will be relevant to other folks out there. In that spirit, I will point out what I see as the two biggest issues that will remain after nanotech has obsoleted capitalism:
1) The allocation of space. The one thing that nanotech will not do for us is create more virgin wilderness. Land will remain scarce, which means some way of allocating its use will have to be found. And we will still have to control our population (on the planet, anyway): it might become possible to support 3 trillion people, but it would still suck because we'd all have to live in little boxes.
2) Personal motivation. A great many projects (software and otherwise) are undertaken just because they are fun, because some people enjoy stretching their minds and their abilities. However, I'm guessing that most people in our culture (including you, FallLine), given the option, would plant in front of the TV and never move again. That's a problem, because all the technology in the world is not going to save us from death by societal enuii. This is a tough one, and anyone who has any thoughts about it, please speak up!
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
Yes, everyone doesn't want to "work" instead they would rather "play" with toys(even computers), art, music or write.
It is more rare that someone get's such a jub where they "play" for a living and get paid for it.
It is impossible to have everyone play that wants
to and have each of them make money to live.
All good basketball players cannot make millions of dollers a year.
If I like to play with legos(tm), I cannot expect to be paid for it, although there may be a few in the world that do.
So if your dream is to play with music or art or legos or basketballs and make millions of dollars,
think about a backup plan just in case.
And Remember that even Jesus, though most of the account of his life was fictional, was a carpenter by trade to support his theological goals.
And he didn't complain if someone copied down his words, or even misquoted him.
The thing that really scares record labels, publishers, everyone in that industry, is the possible direction in which Napster points us. How many companies who print books are terrified that as the internet becomes more prominent their business will dwindle. For example, why drive down to the bookstore and shell out 8 dollars for a thin paperback book, when you could download the same book online for 2 or 3 dollars and load it onto a palm pilot for travel reading. Or keep it on your computer and have instant access to an on the fly dictionary/thesaurus, and the internet as a whole so you can cross reference or look up anything you don't know about. Reading history? Look up exact birth dates of prominent figures in history. Reading a sci-fi? Look up the validity of a scientific theory mentioned in the book, all on the computer, all available at the click of a mouse. So much more convenient than the old days of digging through encyclopedias that might be years out of date by the time you get them.
The one's who are the most afraid in this situation, and who stand to loose the most in the long run are the companies who make the physical product. The book printers. The newspapers, the record companies. Why cart a heavy case of CD's with you everywhere when in another 5 years you can have a small pocket sized Mp3 player that holds 100 gigs of music and can be updated on the fly via a cellular modem? All music payments automatically deducted from your bank account. I know I would carry one.
It's not about the musicians and their music or if they are loosing money. They make miniscule profits off of each CD anyway. It's not about the music being free, that will get sorted out eventually. No, it's about the publishers and their profits, and everything they stand to loose as media becomes fully electronic.
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
You're confusing terms here; by my moral code, IP laws are immoral, hence I'm taking moral action by disregarding them (civil disobedience). I am doing something illegal though, not immoral.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
-- d'arcy poirot
"Pork bellies" is the term for the product on which a futures market is based. It is actual pork, from the actual belly of a pig, from which actual meat products are made :-). The futures market in question bids on whether or not more bacon and chops will be sold in the future, basically.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Wow. M$ porting to linux, now this...we live in wondrous times.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Most musicians I know begrudgingly buy new or at least recent CDs because they don't want to listen to the REO Speedwagon, Men at work and Spandau Ballet cutouts.
Napster is a commercial entity whose business plan permits attracting users by allowing the sharing/distribution/piracy of copyrighted material. They are there for the money, but they are making it on the backs of those who own the rights to the music. Napster also has not done an acceptable job at trying to curtail the illegal trading of copyrighted music on their servers. They don't want to do this because they know that very few people are interested in finding new (non-RIAA affiliated) music when they visit Napster. No one knows who 'Dog Head 9' is and don't want to download a song from a band they know nothing about, they do however want to find bands that they know, but due to RIAA price fixing, can't afford to buy the CD.
Lita and Joan were full-on Hotties in their day (non-sequitor, just a truth that must be stated).
Piracy is illegal. I wouldn't have a problem with Napster if they weren't in this for the money, and like Freenet, just wanted to provide an open and free file-sharing environment. But it is clear that they allowed this to happen for their own profit motives.
You've got the GPL confused a little here.
If you compile the program, you're fine.
If you distribute the compiled form without the source code, you have implicitly not agreed to the license, meaning that you've now just broken copyright laws.
The GPL gives you rights, with certain restrictions, unlike the greater amount of other computer licenses which take away rights.
Now how this relates to music and free speech?
It's relatively the same thing, once I download/buy/hold-up-RIAA-for some music, I have the right(well, not if I pirate it with the judicious use of artillery and sharp objects) to do anything I want with it exclusive of copying.
This is the heart of almost every major debate on Slashdot right now-
FSF knows you can do whatever you want once you download gpl'd software, and doesn't care, unless you modify the source, and distribute it without paying heed to the GPL.
RIAA wants you to keep everything in physical form, though they're slowly starting to realize that they can't.
MPAA wants to control every aspect of your media watching experience, and looks like they've found a way to, atleast until some specific old guys get upset.
So there we have it: the good, the bad, and the worse. Now what am I going to do about it? I have no freaking idea.
Ok, I actually forgot what the response was, but I thought it was rather clueful that he asked it in the first place.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
...and big movie studios will make money by providing makeup services to actors and a typing pool for script writiers.
Recording companies can't survive on the thin revenues of services to musicians. Of course the people who work in the studios and set up lighting at concerts will still be able to make a living doing what they know. A few might even acquire the names of the big record labels they work for now. That can't be described by any stretch of the imagination as record companies doing okay.
But they shouldn't exploit artists as if they were strawberry pickers.
Now we're drifting off topic, but I find this funny. Musicians are artists as in "starving artist", as in someone who works in a field that most people don't consider work and many participate in for free (a bit like trying to make a living as a male prostitute who only hires out to attractive women; too many others are willing to do it for free for it to be considered a reasonable business). I could take a walk around town today and find a dozen musicians with as much ability as the the ones I hear on the radio. The labels create their massive commercial value with large investments, it's totally artificial.
The ones who aren't being "exploited" usually aren't even making a living.
I have a lot more sympathy for an honest strawberry picker, getting a wage for a physically taxing job they'd rather not do, than for musicians, who chose their career because it is the thing they most enjoy doing, but they expect to get paid for it anyway.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Getting enormously rich from your mediocre talent plus a large promotion budget does, though. That's what Metallica did, and that's what they're trying to protect.
AFAIK, Metallica tried to get radio/MTV play, and up until "One" and the black album, they didn't get anything. To quote James from VH1 Behind the Music "Radio didn't want us, MTV didn't want us, so we said fuck em, we'll play live". If they'd have had that "large promotion budget" as you said they did, they wouldn't have had a problem getting on the radio.
-- Bucket
I would like to see a world in which artists have the freedom to decide how to create, distribute (up to the point it leaves their hands), and promote their music. I would like to see a world in which artists use the *services* of the recording industry (equipment, advertising), but are still in control. And I would like to see a world in which there are mechanisms for honest people to compensate artists for the work they create. Where artists put music on their *own* servers and attract people themselves.
I don't see Napster promoting this world. As far as I know Napster has no compensation mechanisms, or even promotes it. At best Napster is standing idly by, playing off the all to easily supported image of being a saint, while it figures out how it can make money of this.
Just because Napster uses nifty technology we like doesn't mean it's the Right Thing. In a world where information is infinately copyable, one must rely on fostering the goodwill of consumers and fans towards the content providers, and providing convenient mechanism for compensation. I don't think Napster does this. Napster just seems to me a feeding frenzy for people who want a free ride. It takes control away from artists who want to participate and have control over the way they give or sell their music.
To copy a line from Nader who copied it from Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power". Napster undermines artists' power. And while we consumers looking for free rides love the "power" we are given, it is our *responsibility* to give a fair share back to the creators of the content.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Excellent information. If the moderation system was half-sane I'd mod you up now. I wonder if they considered a hard drive a "digital audio recording device"? Anyway, it doesn't cause me any grief knowing the recording industry is not getting money it feels it "deserves". I just care about the artists.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
This is an interesting statement quoted from the article said to Lars in regards to Metallica wanting to control their music. A lot will be made of this statement and I must reiterate my consistent point on Napster et.al., I haven't a clue as to who is right or who is wrong.
Artists should be justly compensated for their work but they aren't being justly compensated right now by the record labels. A new paradigm for the music industry needs to be created.
The philosophical question this raises isn't new, but is a twist on an old favorite. Is music considered music if no one hears it?
I believe the statement, "Fuck you, Lars. It's our music too!" was not saying Metallica doesn't have a right to control their music but was saying that without the people who listen to their music, Metallica wouldn't exist.
This does not give anyone the right to deny them compensation for their music. What it does do is establish the fact that the fans, the people who make or break musicians, want a shift in how the music economy works.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Yes, many times. I would rather a band try something new rather than put out the same old shit album after album (AC/DC, anyone?).
/. is willing to give me any valid points why those albums suck so bad. The typical response is, "Dude, if you can't tell, you must be stupid." Great. Mr. AC, please give me a detailed list of what's wrong with Load/Reload.
So, what's wrong with Load/Reload? Everyone here dogs those two albums, but not one person on
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
In other words, you may have Metallica on one hand and Limp Bizkit on the other. Imagine Limp Bizkit pulling a sort of 'IE destroying Netscape's business' by making all their stuff free, and hyping that a lot so it's everywhere. To what extent would this hurt Metallica, who will be trying to produce the expectation that you always pay for music? What if _lots_ of internet musicians and bankrupt major label refugees (including the big names of the last 30-40 years in pop music) began to pursue this strategy of keeping the same day job they had to have all along, and recording the music they especially liked, releasing it for free?
I think there comes a point where the amount of artist-driven free material will start to seriously impact the ability of a Metallica to create the expectation that music is something you meter and sell and restrict. That's not to say people won't go to a concert or buy a CD, but the business model of 'all the fans HAVE TO buy the CD' will die. And the consumer will feel no responsibility to pay the artist- when you read a book from the library, do you pay the author?
If there is any artist's power, it is in the rabid fans- the fanatics. In the early sixties they were cutting up _bedsheets_ that the Beatles had slept on, and selling them- how would free access to recordings diminish this sort of frenzy? You look to the heavy users, the fanatics, if you want to do business and earn money, because those are the people who think what you do is WORTH something. The uninterested consumer's natural degree of commitment only goes as far as sparing a bit of attention, and if you think you can squeeze money out of them you're conning yourself...
Yes, short of copyright law, Metallica doesn't and shouldn't have control over what you do with the music you buy after you buy it. However, not only does Metallica give up that control, but, unless Lars handed you the CD himself, Metallica has *already* given up control by allowing record companies to distribute their music. That CD has filtered through a lot of middlemen before it ended up on the shelves for $17.49. This control, control of what happens *before* it leaves their hands, should not have to be given up. And Napster is no better. It undermines control of how Metallica represents and distributes its music before it reaches your hands. At best, power is shifting slightly from the record companies to Napster...and now they are in talks for joint efforts. So no real power is being granted to the artist by Napster. That should be on our conscience, and we should do the right thing by giving artists that control back.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ok. Here goes.
I can easily find over 100 ftp/http sites that have illegal mp3s, ready for easy download. Does that mean Metallica should sue the creators of the http and ftp protocols? Or maybe they should sue the creators of the particular httpd/ftpd software? NO! They go after the owner of the server.
The same should be done with the "Napster Protocol". Napster Inc. does not have any mp3s on their servers, or software that they write. The true servers with illegal mp3s belong to Joe User.
Going after Napster Inc. is like going after the inventor of ftp or http. Napster is just another protocal IMHO.
Thats all.
moo
Very simple. Consumers don't want a micropayment system. We proved it by rejecting the original DIVX system. I don't want a car stereo with wireless internet access that charges me a nickel every time it plays a song. Nor do I want my computer to work that way.
The major copyright holders have been trying to move us to a "pay-per-view" world for some time now. This model is consumer-hostile in the extreme and we should all be fighting tooth and nail against it.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have the everything-is-free model preferred by many. This is equally bad - with no incentive to perform, most artists simply won't. This applies not only to music, but to movies as well. The system is nearly robust enough now to support widespread digital distribution of DVD-quality video.
The solution? I believe the solution lies in the "heavenly library" that the author speaks of. If, for a reasonable monthly fee, you had *instant* access to a full library of every song ever recorded, every movie ever made, every episode of every TV show ever broadcast...few would bother with the hassles involved in piracy.
This is a serious issue. I personally want to see some position statements from the US Presidential candidates on this sort of thing.
"Property is theft, therefore theft must be property, right?"
Please apologies for saying that I have a nasty ass.
I'll be your brown eyed girl.
Actually, no, a hard drive is not considered a "digital audio recording device for royalty purposes" The computer industry wanted no part of this scheme, so they were not included in the law.
Interestingly, in reversing the injunction against Napster, the appeals court rejected the theory that because hard drives are not taxed, the AHRA does not protect activities using hard drives. The appeals court said that Congress clearly intended to exempt all non-commercial copying, not just copying on 1201-taxed media and equipment. If you read the law, you'll find that only certain digital equipment is subject to the royalty tax, but the exemption from infringement applies both to analog and digital recorders and media.
If you want to read the entire law, do a web search on the "Audio Home Recording Act." It's worth the read and critical if you want to understand what is going on with Napster's defense.
The injunction reversal is very enlightening reading also. There is a complete media blackout of the actual content of the reversal, probably because the appeals court basically told the judge that she was completely wrong, and that the law is completely on Napster's side. You have to read it yourself. It isn't part of the media coverage.
Sheesh... I must be in the minority, because I thought it was a well written, well researched, and interesting article. I've been paying very close attention this issue, and I've been trying to see both sides. I think he's done a good job at not taking sides. Historical comparison is always useful, and to be honest, I hadn't heard any of that history until I read the article. -S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
just like the DAT TAX, I'll betcha pretty soon everyone with an internet connection will be charged a special fee, just like anyone with a phone pays the Gore Tax to pay off the phone companies for all the local calls which go on for hours - the ISP tax will go toward placating the RIAA, MPAA, and anybody else who can scream bloody murder the loudest over Inet media and lines up for a piece of the action. It's the perfect solution, a no brainer - it's quick, easy to institute, and assumes everybody is guilty of making illegal copies. Of course the people who do respect copyrights will get shafted, but that's their punishment for being honest in the first place. :))
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
"The notion of copyright was not invented by artists to protect themselves from honest individuals sharing their enthusiasm about their work," he writes. "It was invented by artists to protect themselves from dishonest and hypocritical individuals and companies exploiting their work without their consent."
A quote from Richard Parsons, the president of Time Warner Inc.:
"An increasing number of young people don't buy albums, so we are not only losing that immediate revenue. They are growing up with a notion that music is free and ought to be free."
Although it seems unfortunate that metallica had to have that one song (that they put on the mission impossible soundtrack) heard by everyone else before it was done... on the other hand, how can you ignore the fact that the record companies are being sued by 30 states for fixing cd prices? When you talk about theft, the stealing seems to me to be between the middlemen and the end buyers... and no one is the good guy. The musicians are so far out of the loop by now that you can't really say they own anything. They better begin to own up to that. Anyone who's saying they are an amateur musician who'd like to earn a living should talk to prince about what the record industry is all about.
Here's what I suggest, (as an amateur musician myself who sees a lot of people out there thinking that being a rock star is a great way to get out of poverty), Think about what it would be like if you hated your fans for stealing from you... Isn't this an odd mindset for a person who should only appreciate his fans for caring at all? Would you really side with the record companies over your fans? What kind of monster would you be if this happened? Perhaps you might relook your reasons for wanting to be a musician, because its about entertaining people, not making money off of them.
"Welcome my son, welcome to the machine,
What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream,
You dreamed of a big star, he played a mean guitar,
He alwasy ate in the steak bar,
He loved his Jaguar,
So welcome to the machine"
-- pink floyd (1975)
So in a sense, music should be free, right? At least music should be free of the commercial hype, the superficial schlock, the taint of the record companies. I'm sorry lars, but I just don't understand. I bought 'kill em all' and 'ride the lighting' about 10 years ago because I thought you were about good music and integrity, and now I want to share that music with my friends, can you really beat down on me for that?
I never would have thought that prince and elton john were cooler than lars ulrich.
The last part of the article talked about ways of making file trading more difficult on the internet, via laws and such - legal methods to allow cops to police the net, and seize user's machines who were caught trading. A point was made that geeks in SV don't see the govt as a threat because they have never seen the govt get serious.
Maybe not...
But I'll tell you somthing - the day the net becomes this "un-free", is the day I work with every friend and neighbor I can to setup a neighborhood freenet using laser interconnects. I encourage everyone to give this thought, and learn how to do it yourself - there are many links and sites detailing this - heck, many HAM clubs and operators are doing it as well. Look up the terms "lasercomm", "laser comms", "laser communications". Read about the history of it. Buy the Forest Mimms books at Radio Shack that detail how to do it (to a limited degree). Get those interconnects set up, link to the net where you have to (via DSL, cable or whatnot), add radio links as well (2.4 GHz is currently unlicensed - mod an X-10 camera transceiver system - or an AirLink, whatever - add a Yagi - bammo!) for redundancy.
Then get your guns - because it may come down to that...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
One last point: when libraries were started, it was prohibitively expensive to buy books in large quantities, because it was expensive to produce mass quantities of books. You can note the reduce in the cost of printing stuff by noting the increase in both size and frequency of newspaper additions - they've gotten larger as time goes on. (This is also due to an increase in ads.)
However, when I'm at a book store, I find myself much less likely to buy a book that I don't know if I like, where as at a library, I'm much more likely to pick something up and read it. I may later decide that I hate the book, but it doesn't matter to me. This effect does apply to Napster - people use it similarly to a library. I'll accept that part of the argument.
What you're forgetting is that Napster gets new material faster than libraries, and has a larger selection. The other thing is that the music industry doesn't care that the music quality on MP3 is inferiour to CD quality - they're afraid of what MP4 and MP5 might sound like! As technology gets better, tradable music will start sounding better and better. It will probably get larger and larger, but disk drive tech will probably keep up with them. Just a few years ago, a 100MB file would have taken up about 10% of my harddrive. Now it takes up about 0.5% of my harddrive - and I've got another one of the same size, so it's more like 0.25% (one for Linux, one for Windows - basically (each OS has it's own main drive and the other gets to be "swap")). Right now, it's feasable for me to store several 100MB files on my drive - that's about the size a CD quality, uncompressed track takes up. They aren't worried about today's technology - they're scared of tomorrow's.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Sorry, this is old news. It may be that the RIAA is having great success in taking away Orrin Hatch's right to legally burn a CD for his wife as fair use, but he had that right. Let's not be confused on that point- our government people went to a lot of trouble to arrange that we had a reasonable amount of fair use, and the laws are on the books. The fact that the RIAA is trying to overturn all this doesn't change the fact that fair use is the law, and it was put there on purpose, to allow people to do just these things.
Please get your facts straight. Microsoft runs no service which allows children to illegally pirate copryrighted music. That's Napster's job. Moreover Microsoft does not run a service for people to ilegally distribute programs which violate trade secrets. Napster and 2600 provide services; Microsoft provides products. Microsoft cannot get sued because they sell tools, but the defendants involved provide services, not tools. That's why they got sued and lost (or will lose) in court.
Yes, this post is kinda redundant, I don't care if you moderate it down, just read it first.
From the above linked TMF article from TMFOak
"A system based on charging people for copies they can easily make for themselves for free is not a stable situation. It just doesn't make any sense. More restrictive laws can't substitute for the consent of the governed. King George tried that when the American colonies started grumbling. In the 1920s our own government tried it with prohibition. Restricting copying is no longer a viable model. The only way to deal with industries that refuse to change, and bet their existence on sustaining an obsolete status quo, is to hasten their destruction. Call it a mercy killing."
This is the key. Democracy is rule by the consent of the governed. There are about 20 million registered users. Of course some of these aren't real, and some are not of voting age, but I would be willing to bet that there are at least 3 or 4 times this amount of people who understand that IP cannot be the same post-internet. We don't need another Drug War, another prohibition fought against the the majority will.
-----------------------------
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
He's refering to the change in sound that Metallica has undergone since the early 90's. Since then, Metallica's new songs don't sound like KEA,RTL,MOP,and AJFA songs. Coincedentially, the early 90's is where Metallica went big (sales wise). They seem to want to corelate the sales increase to selling out, and Metallica changing their sound to allow this to happen. However, they've been overlooking the fact that each album taken in chronological order has shown a good degree of change from the one's previous (with the exception of Load and Reload, which where written mostly at the same time), so it probably was just that the sound Metallica hit in the 90's was the sound people were looking for. People bitched "Sellouts" since "Fade To Black", but now that song is considered a fan favorite.
Just my rant about the topic.
-- Bucket
It is legal - it's considered non-commercial distribution, which is fine.
There was discussion of it in the Napster defence PDF that was on
--
Also, so far, the mp3.com contract does require both parties to consent to any changes that might be imposed in future. This is incredibly important as most major label contracts, and a lot of sleazy 'fake-indie' mp3-site contracts, give the label unrestricted freedom to unilaterally change the terms after you've agreed to them- check out farmclub.com's agreement for a particularly nasty example that forbids you to _imply_ they _endorse_ you in any way, on top of everything else :)
This is the new millenium, man- don't _ever_ sign a contract that's like you say. Don't _ever_ sign away all your rights and IP. You need to remain free to move as these issues develop :)
Because [...] sites pop up as rapidly as the old ones are taken down, the studios are facing a grim, unwinnable contest of legal Whack-a-Mole.
Thank you for playing, and better luck next time.
Yeah, everybody who makes it big is a "sellout". Which puts a stigma on really decent artists that hit big but are afraid of being called sell outs.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Easy.
Library. I take out Book A. You come in, but find that Book A is currently unavailable until I return it. You cannot read Book A while I read Book A. There is only one copy of Book A from the library at any given time. (There may be other copies, but the library only has one, and cannot easily create another.)
Napster. I download Song A. You download Song A. We both listen to it at the same time. While listening to it, someone else downloads it again. There are now four copies (the original, my copy, your copy, and the random other person). Anyone can create a copy, and there is no reason to destroy the copy once you have it.
The difference can be summed up quite simply: Napster makes copies. Libraries don't. And that's really all this trouble comes from.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I think that the record companies will do fine,
Why would you think that? They have nothing of value to sell. They are simply acquisition-promotion-litigation engines which purchase IP at a low price, and pump the demand for it to sell access for a high price.
It won't work when the the most convenient delivery system is controlled by end-user choice rather than 3rd-party payments. Their only value to the musicians is that they can get the musicians' music into the ears of the paying public, which would be almost impossible otherwise. When, instead of a dozen radio stations, there are a million playlists to choose from, the listeners won't choose those on which a spot can be bought with bribes, and the record companies will no longer have the ear of the listening public. Musicians will start to do fine without signing on with a label, and then it will all be over.
They will "do fine" in the new information media, about as well as the currency traders would "do fine" if everyone went back to the gold standard.
They are dying, with no hope of survival. Their existence no longer makes sense, so we can't expect their actions to make sense. They will continue to thrash around wildly until they run out of money.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
i mean,
obtaining the songs for free is besides the point.
i know alot of true fans of the music
WOULD actually purchase a copy,
if, for nothing else,
just to have the packaging,lyrics,
pretty pictures,etc.......
as well as
(for us winblowz users)
interactive shit.
another thing is every mofo
has a tape deck,
but that didn't put 'em out of biz.
music should be about
the love of making music
not about the benjamins.
tho everyone's gotta make a buck,
some just have to force themselves on you.
(bill gates comes to mind.........)
}:kill.process:{
I'm sorry, but I can't agree here. The whole point of a carrier is that they don't police anything. Sort of like a telephone company -- you can't sue them if their network is used for, let's say, dealing drugs. Once you start policing, you can be held responsible for anything that you miss.
--
yeah and you can probably catch a movie at a small 2-theatre cinema in a midwest town for $4 still... quality and size aren't on par with those huge multiplexes, but you still get a great movie experience for a cheap price.
If you knew what the economics of daily life in the 3rd world were, you'd be stunned. It's not that everything is more expensive here, it's that the range is different - essentially, imports are incredibly unaffordable, because they are priced according to the US market. (I.e., it is more profitable to price according to what 90% of American markets and 10% of third-world markets can pay, than risk letting Americans buy at prices that the 3rd world could afford, and thus losing the profit, even if it were otherwise feasible.)
The first time Slashdot linked to 'em, I ended up spending _hours_ there reading article after article. They are _great_ articles, terrific journalism done with style and intelligence. At this point I would be much more likely to click on a link and read an article if I knew it was Atlantic Monthly, that's how favorably they impressed me. I strongly recommend going there and reading all the articles you can find :)
I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply here. Napster is not a common carrier. Whoever sells them their bandwidth is a common carrier.
The service that Napster provides is very different. They arrange connections between people who want to distribute music files, most of which are probably illegal for them to distribute. They charge a fee for the service of assisting in the commission of what is - with very high probability - a crime. This can be construed as criminal behavior.
This is why Napster is terrible for the cause of intellectual freedom and fair use. It's hard to shout "I didn't do anything" while you're driving the getaway car, even if it's the guys with the guns who deserve most of the blame.
The only shift napster represents is the possibility of piracy en masse. It is not as if Napster solved some nagging problem of distribution or manufacturing. The fact is that the cost structure of other digital/online methods was just as good, and maybe even better, than napster long before napster came out. Furthermore, it is hard to even make the argument for the advent of digital/online distribution itself. The very notion of intellectual property is itself testament to the fact that physical rarity is NOT the issue. Nor is it as if even the record industry has been focused around these physical costs, because they've never been that much of a component. We're talking about 1 to 2 dollars of a 15+ dollar sale.
The real costs are in promotions, marketing, and productions. Napster does absolutely nothing to address these concerns. They remain an issue for the artist. The fact is, fair or unfair, the vast majority of artists still choose to sign with these labels because they still need the functions of promotion, not because someone is holding a gun to their head. Napster has done absolutely zilche in the long run, other than feed a certain part of society's immediate desires, which ultimately may have a secondary effect on the long term outlook of the industry.
They charge a fee? I'm not a Napster user because I generally respect copyright laws, but my impression was that it was free. Sure, they sell ads, but it's not like they're charging users a fee. You can hardly say they're profiting since they're losing money hand-over-fist.
I think they are a good example of intellectual freedom - they're pointing out the dirty little secret that the recording industry has been trying to hide all along: their customers don't agree with copyright restrictions and are happy to work around them. Since the recording industry can't really go after their customers (it worked so well for Metallica), they have to go after the middleman before the public at large figures out how useless the RIAA really is.
Napster's service is no different from Google's, except that the interface is nicer (not a crime), the subject matter is more specialized (mp3s are legal, so again not a crime) and the majority of their users use it to commit copyright infringement. Should Napster be penalized for providing a tool for a purpose that apparently has huge public support, from which they do not profit, and which remains within the letter of the law?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
This would be a valid comparison if:
:P ...
1) You actually had to drive or walk to a building somewhere to "check out" a song - and while it was checked out nobody else in the area could "check out" the same song (or only a limited number of people anyhoo).
2) The library let you check out as many of their several million publications as you wanted at one time and let you keep the publications.
Heh.. I could go on and on listing reasons why this is a terrible comparison, but I won't... in a hurry - no time to type 'em up
This is really a seperate argument and it has little to do with production costs. IP has from the beginning been held by force of government. It is not as if napster or digital media has suddenly changed this.The only new question here is the extent of the means and the means which government should take to enforce it. This question is not obvious though and really comes down to a bunch of judgement calls.
Perhaps I'm not quite the optimist you are, but I do not see the realization of nanotechnology (to any extent) as resulting in the complete liberation of man. Sure, you lay it out as a hypothetical situation, but I question the very premise which you base it off of. Your production costs may be nil (and more likely only nil on certain tasks), but you still need brains. That means humans pushing paper. Engineers. Businessmen, etc. So long as there is a need for man, there will be a need for money, which really means a need for capitalism. It is just that simple.
Did it ever occur to you that this unwillingness to work may be present in everyone? In some more than others, sure... Having been a part of a number of startup companies, and seeing innovation first hand, I can tell you that there is a hell of a lot more to it than the mere desire to "stretch" your brain. Sometimes it is necessary to really work yourself and others hard,...I find it hard to believe that there will be a significant population that will organize around the mere desire to "stretch." Sure, you may see some academic-type efforts, so long as it doesn't involve too much blood, sweat, and tears....
...sleep.
I completely agree with you. I have no problem with napster if the bands don't (AKA Offspring).
What I see with Metallica, however, is a band that decided that they wanted to be *artists*. Long ago people used to say "listen to Metallica because it bugs your parents." I don't think Metallica ever really liked that even though they accepted it.
Metallica has decided that people should listen to their music because they are talented artist. Look at what they've done recently. There are many people who won't listen to anything post Ride the Lighning. The past two albums esp. are a severe break with the norm. The band is testing their creative limits, and trying new things.
Metallica is still Metallica. They still have the same raw emotion and increadible guitar work that fans have come to expect. I think they have won the right to be artists, and to have some control over their music. After all, they did write it, which is more than I can say for some.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
This effect does apply to Napster - people use it similarly to a library. I'll accept that part of the argument.
:)
Good that we agree on something.
What you're forgetting is that Napster gets new material faster than libraries, and has a larger selection.
The faster argument is true and somewhat valid, although I'm not aware of anything inherent in the way libraries are organized (or the law regarding libraries) which prevents them from getting recently published books quickly. While the publishing industry may not like it, I doubt many people would argue that such a change would make libraries the plague on society that Napster is often protrayed to be, though.
As for the larger selection argument, I'm not sure I buy that. I still maintain that a decent public library will have many more unique titles than Napster has unique songs at any given time, and that inter-library loan means that any library can get any book ever published--an argument that cannot be made for Napster. On the other hand, there are many more books than songs published in a year, and my view of libraries' selections may be biased by the fact that I live within walking distance of the second largest library in the world...
The other thing is that the music industry doesn't care that the music quality on MP3 is inferiour to CD quality - they're afraid of what MP4 and MP5 might sound like! As technology gets better, tradable music will start sounding better and better. It will probably get larger and larger, but disk drive tech will probably keep up with them.
Another valid concern, which was why I was careful to preface "Napster" with "in its current form" in my original post. Still, the largest problems with the MP3 listening experience do not revolve around the quality of the codec. Rather they revolve around the physical nature of computers as beasts not very well suited for music reproduction. The first problem is the quality of computer speakers--compared to real speakers, they are underpowered, unbalanced, and compromised by their plastic housing, magnetic shielding, and small size. In additon, the typical listener placement--about 2 feet away--is very much less than ideal. Most of these problems can be overcome, but mainly only by added cost, larger size, and better materials. Moore's law doesn't apply to speakers, unfortunately. And while medium-quality speakers are finally becoming available for computers (Klipsch et. al.), I doubt they'll work their way into the mainstream for quite a while. People will hang on to their stereos as the best sound equipment in their house.
Second, the inside of a PC is inherently a very noisy environment, one not designed for handling sound. CD-ROM's, sound cards, internal and external wiring are all designed with parts too cheap to find their way into any decent stereo, and the added electrical noise of a motherboard and a GHz CPU is like putting your stereo in your microwave and trying to play CD's. Yet this is the environment in which a CD has to get ripped, and an MP3 decoded and played. This is not likely to change anytime soon either. So while file size may go up (and I doubt we'll see anything better than 192 kbps MP3 widely accepted for at least the next few years), the real obstacles to computers replacing stereos in terms of audio quality are physical, not virtual.
Even disregarding all that, I simply don't think computers will replace stereos in most peoples homes from a cultural point of view any time soon. Web-enabled stereo components are certainly a possibility, but that's far enough afield and offers enough possibilities for regulation short of shutting down Naptser that I don't think it impacts our conversation too much.
Copyright is what makes GNU licencing posible. Without it anyone could take code change it and charge for it.
Also, The original coder(s) made the decision to gpl the code, it was there right to decide what to do with their code. They could have sold it, it belonged to them...
When someone violates the GPL slashdoters are outraged. I don't see any outrage for the musicians being stripped of there rights. They're was an interview of a small struggling musician who was surprised to find his music on napster.. He wasn't pleased.
Why shouldn't musicians have that right to control there music the way programer have the right to control there code?
I'd bet that when "infringements are brought to their attention" the phone company does a lot more than Napster in aiding the removal of those people.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm sorry to bust up your soap box here, but nothing you said contradicts what I said. The situation I was describing was purely hypothetical(thats why I used the words "imagine this"). I agree that the artists are being harmed to some degree by the record companies, but they are also being harmed by napster. At least the record companies give the artists "10%." I also agree that a new music distribution method would be nice, but I don't think outright piracy is the new method we are looking for.
please give me a detailed list of what's wrong with Load/Reload.
When "Load" came out, I was *very* disappointed with the album. It seemed Metallica had gone from crafting metal masterpieces ("...And Justice For All" and before) to writing more poppy rock with heavy metal influences (The Black Album) to writing pop rock with only a smattering of metal riffs to tip people off that Load is a Metallica album.
In retrospect, Load/Reload would be opuses for most other rock bands. But this is Metallica, and they're always going to have new work compared to "Master of Puppets" or "Ride the Lighting", and, although I think they're still a great rock band, they've stop doing serious metal. (Granted, they haven't done so since "...And Justice for All".)
And that's what makes me sad
George Lee
Indeed, most modern historians will agree that the prosecution of Galileo, as well as others, was not over scientific issues. Galileo made claims that were far beyond what he did have evidence for. Note that heliocentrism was never officially declared heresy, so they couldn't nail him for that. What they prosecuted him for, was his big mouth. But, the church had not realized that heliocentrism was correct at the time, though some strong critics of heliocentrism did admit that the old systems were obsolete (those having a good library can look up the name "Clavius" and the year 1611).
However, prosecution of a big mouth is not better than prosecution of a scientist. What is to be learned from the matter, is that nobody, be it the church, the government, big corps, or scientists for that matter (myself being a scientist) should gain too much formal power to decide about the lives of others. Power is currupting, and power will be abused.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
As you point out, a capitalist system only makes sense in a resource-scarce environment. One can argue that capitalism is good because it is the most efficient method for production and distribution of value in an environment of scarcity (which still applies to real goods, at least). But consider the ramifications of nanotech: suddenly, all you need to make anything you want is some power (cheaply produced by 100% efficient photovoltaics) and a set of instructions for the assembler.
Nanotech will do for real goods what the internet has done for IP and content. Consider the RIAA/Napster/MPAA/2600/MP3.com/etc mess a warmup for what's to come...
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
No, not legally--I understand why copyright law is usually read such that Napster users might be infringing but library card holders are not. (On the other hand I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that the book publishers tried long and hard to sue public libraries out of existence when they first appeared.) But in terms of its effect on the marketplace for music, its moral ramifications, and its societal implications, I challenge anyone to show me a relevant difference between Napster (in its current form) and your local public library.
/. we see people dismissing Napster as nothing but a bunch of immoral law-breaking pirating hooligans. Guess what, people: you've been trolled.
Both are places where you can obtain a copy of a copyrighted work, and use and enjoy it in its intended manner, for free. In both, the original copy of a work is donated out of the generosity of their own heart by someone who has (presumably) legally bought and paid for the original copyrighted work. (Of course, in the case of a public library, such a person has done a "good deed", while with Napster they have engaged in "rampant piracy" or some such thing.) Sure, a library book doesn't have the same look-and-feel as one you'd buy yourself--yellowed pages, that krinkly plastic book jacket--but MP3's are even worse: no physical CD, no liner notes, no cover art; the risk of getting a bad recording, a recording that chirps or hiccups or cuts off just before the end of the song; and the certainty that no matter what you get it won't play on your stereo, and if it could it would sound like crap compared to the original CD.
Yes, you have to return or renew library books after two weeks, but the point is that's good enough for how most people enjoy most books--they read them once and never look at them again. Similarly, Napster allows you an experience that is "good enough for how most people enjoy most songs"--that is, if you've got some tune stuck in your head, or just want some background music while you surf the web, you fire up Napster and get it. No, a public library isn't good enough to replace ownership in the case of those really important books that really impact you and you just want to have around...but neither is Napster. For a truly moving musical experience, you need a real CD (or good vinyl) on a real stereo, not some 128 kpbs muddle, decrypted in an electrically noisy environment, coming out your cheap underpowered magnetically-shielded plastic speakers. That is, the fact that you don't get to keep library books is a look-and-feel issue, not a utility issue--and the public library is still ahead of MP3 in terms of look-and-feel.
If anything, libraries pose a much greater danger to the publishing industry than Napster does to the RIAA, because once you have checked a book out of the library and read it, you are almost certain never to purchase it. With Napster, on the other hand, downloading an MP3 arguably makes you more likely to purchase the CD than before; certainly there is conclusive evidence that Napster increases CD purchases overall.
And yet, public libraries are held up as the paragon of the public good, the ideal of a fostered community, the sort of thing politicians throw into speeches to demonstrate what's right about America (or, more likely, what used to be right about America but no longer exists). Meanwhile, Napster--which, if anything, encourages more community (libraries, after all, are known for explicitly discouraging chatting), illustrates the possibility for knowledge shared throughout humanity which is inherent in the Internet, leads to more legal music purchasing, and facilitates an alternative to an industry which affords the artists much fewer rights and a much lower share of the monetary fruits of their labor than does the publishing industry--is sued, demonized, held up as an example of everything that's wrong and immoral about today's culture.
Huh? What gives?? Before the entertainment industry bought new copyright laws in 1997 and 1998, there was no legal concept of copyright infringement without corresponding non-commercial gains. And yet suddenly everyone believes that sharing music with others is not only illegal (it's still arguable whether that's true) but somehow immoral as well?? Somehow everyone has this ridiculous idea that copyright entitles a copyright holder to oversee every use his/her content is put to, fair use be damned?? (For those who don't understand why this is so absurd: copyright is automatically extended to every single piece of content ever created, no matter by whom or for what purpose. The above idea would mean you would need to get the permission of a gas station before you could submit the receipt they gave you as part of an expense account.)
Napster should be held up as an example of what's right with the world, of a way the promise of technology is enabling people to share the art they love, to expand their musical horizons, or just to get a copy of the new NSync song to play as a joke. It's an example of how the Internet will revolutionize an industry by opening up alternatives to a greedy oligopoly which stifles artists' rights to their own creations.
And yet even on
Feverishly, I hope not, but the W3C is working on micropayments and their Common Markup for micropayment per-fee-links is now a working draft in last call review period.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
On March 14 Stephen King electronically released a novella, Riding the Bullet, in a format that was readable only by using designated electronic books or special software. Just three days later a plaintext version appeared on a Web site in Switzerland. Remarkably, the crackers troubled themselves to break the code even though Amazon and Barnes & Noble were offering the authorized version at no charge.
= )
I love that. It's beautiful.
That is the hacker spirit at its best.
"I cracked your copy protection, even though your product was being given away for free."
Ya...it is true that some geeks on /. support napster for the same reasons they support gun control. But, I would be surprised if this was the case with a majority(or even a plurality) of slashdotters. It seems to me that most slashdotters are in it for the free music. You have to keep in mind that posting is not going to reflect this accurately. It is easy for someone to come out and say, "I don't blame napster for their users being irresponsible," or, "The record companies are mistreating musicians, lets not support them," or INSERT_CAUSE_HERE. However, no one(or at least very few) are gonna stand up and say, "I just like violating the artists rights to control their music, so I am gonna control it for them."
The difference between the record companies screwing the artists the way they are currently doing it(with bad contracts or whatever) and the way napster is doing it is quite simple. The artists have a choice of whether or not they want to deal with a record company. As you said, Courtney Love left her record company behind, but she does not have the choice to leave napster behind. There is also plenty of uproar from musicians and music business professionals about napster too. Just look at Metallica, Dr. Dre, and the RIAA.
Hey man, I'm not saying I support the record companies, but I don't exactly think napster is standing on high moral ground here.
Hey, that's really cool! Have you released this at all, or is it just a personal project? I've been looking for a utility like this for some time.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
umm, Unless the librarians I know are just mean, you have to give library books BACK! Which is why books still sell...You want to own it. Napster allows people to obtain something they had to buy before, and not pay anything for it. (own, even if it is a copy, so what, it's the same as the original to the person listening to it, and no, i don't mean EXACTLY the same, i just mean good enough not to buy it.) Nobody buys all that music after they listen to it, they just listen to it. Book publishers would have gone down a long time ago if you could go to the library and get a slightly faded copy of the book you wanted to read and never have to give it back.
As a musician ( I have no life, just three hobbies, Im sure you all can relate ), I KNOW when I sign with a label ( I am not signed ) that Im giving them SOLE rights to distribute my music. If I made the decision to sign, I gave THEM ( not YOU ) my music. Ripping and distributing is IMMORAL, without a doubt.
Whether the gun ( Napster ) is responsible for misconduct of its owners ( users ) is something else entirely.
Napster will probably be shut down soon, and for all of the less experienced net users out there, their pipeline to MP3s will be closed. But uneccesarily so.
The problem is that Gnutella, Freenet, etc. as powerful as they are, are NOT easy to use for the unsavvy. This is where Napster excelled. It's point and click. I would be very interested if we (the tech community) came together to modify the existing file sharing systems to make them easy to use for Joe Average.
My fear is that if it isn't done quickly, the force of Napster may be lost and the average web user will be doomed to micropayments. What do y'all think?
--
Chaosnetwork
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
Illegal perhaps, but immoral? How can you justify making such sweeping statements? Whether or not it is immoral all depends on intent. When you download a song, are you doing so to try it out before you buy the CD or are you just trying to get a free ride? The former, while illegal, isn't in any way immoral while the latter is. Also, what about those who download mp3s when they already own the CD, to save the time of ripping it themselves? Again, technically illegal but in no way immoral or wrong.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
OK, i know this is anal, but for fucks sake guys, work out the difference between 'than' and 'then'! The following sentence makes no sense: "Talks about how this case is bigger then just Napster: its results will affect the future of democracy." Whereas this one does: "Talks about how this case is bigger *than* just Napster: its results will affect the future of democracy." Get it? Sheesh, i never thought i'd see the day when *I* was correcting someone's grammar. koensayr
I remember one of the last times the Atlantic tried to write about computer technology, this was about 6 years ago, and the reviewer was gushing about this wonderful, new, crashproof operating system called...
Warp
Has anyone heard from OS/2 lately? Nope, sunk without a trace.
The Atlantic is so old and crufty, that by the time a technology is noted in it, you might as well give it the kiss of death.
The title is prophetic too, the real action these days is on the Pacific Rim, not the Atlantic, either side.
First, I want to say that I've enjoyed reading this exchange very much. IAMTAL (I Am Married To A Librarian) and my wife and I have been discussing the similarities between Napster and libraries for a while now. If I remember correctly (it's been a long thread) you mentioned that early on publishers tried to put libraries out of existence. Are you aware of any articles or published works that describe those efforts? The Atlantic Monthly article describes the early copyright battles that occurred around the turn of the century that applied to music. It would be very interesting to read about similar things that happened to libraries as copyright became a more powerful means of protecting publishers around the same time. I also wanted to say that from my experience living with an avid reader and library patron, that dedicated library patrons NEVER buy books. My wife reads approximately four books a week and in the twenty years we have been married she has never bought a single book. So the idea of your antagonist here that libraries are an inferior version of Napster from the standpoint of availability or that they libraries encourage people to buy books, at least from my experience, is unfounded in practice. She may have to wait a few weeks for some latest and greatest novel to wend its way through the "on hold" list, but hell there are 89 other trashy novels to read in the meantime so it's not a problem. Does the phrase "why would they buy it, if they can get if for free" ring a bell?
I have gone back and forth on my feelings about Napster. I do use it extensively and feel that for the first time in my life I finally have the same kind of access to music that avid readers have always enjoyed because of the existence of libraries. The only people who have had this kind of access to music before were either extremely wealthy or were somehow attached to the music industry (radio people, music reviewers, etc.) I now essentially have the same or better access to music for research or just plain out of curiosity purposes and this is a great thing. If I wanted to listen to every version or cover of a particular song I like I can do that now. It has really increaded my appreciation and knowledge of music immensely.
That is what libraries have done for readers and researchers. Can you imagine how even less literate our culture would be now if all reading was pay per view? In fact, using this logic, it might explain the relatively low musical taste of the mass culture. When one has to buy every piece of music one wants to listen to it discourages taking a lot, or any, chances when buying CD's. Just how many CD's can you buy just because you like the cover art? The recording industry made this even worse by probibiting returns for anything but reasons of defective media. And it has only been recently in my music purchasing life that it was even possible to listen to a CD in the store before purchasing. And record stores still make it difficult to do that!
However, I do worry about the artist conpensation aspects of the Napster controversy. I don't think this whole composing and producing for tips idea will fly. But authors and book publishers have been "surviving" under this onerous public library system for a very long time so I generally think it will work out. And the benefit to the free exchange of knowledge at the cultural level is enormous.
Finally, lest you think, that the public library is totally safe, it is not. As I said, I am married to a research librarian and the assault on fair use at the library level is an ongoing battle. This is especially true of serial publications (academic journals, research databases, etc.) Those are bought on a subscription basis from their publishers who constantly try to institute pay per view provisions in their licensing agreements. In many ways the conversion of book publishing from paper to digital media is being pursued with vigor by the book publishing industry. Fewer, ugly little fair use problems and more like the very attractive software publishing business. The budgets at university libraries are now increasingly going to these subscription costs vs. book purchasing. When I went to college I didn't have to budget for article procurement when writing research papers. That is not true anymore!
I mean, whenever someone talks about futures, they mention pork bellies, but what are they talking about, really?
- A hypothetical example?
- A term used to describe a cut of meat from a pig, not their actual stomach?
- The reason Oscar Myer hires a relatively small, unknown, elite group of financial analysts that are known and feared throughout the halls of banking worldwide?
What are they? Anyone know, or care? And if they are hypothetical, when was the term coined? Please enlighten us all...... that the internet is mostly controled by the users and when the users are in control you can't stop them. If people want free music they are going to get free music. Napster may be the most popular form of this but it is not the only one.
If they want to regain some control over this they are going to have to embrace the technology that they are fighting, not fight it.
If Lars doesn't even know how to use napster how is he supposed to understand what it realy means...
I believe the quote is "Know your enemy". maybe then he will realize that it could be his best freind instead.
Chris "Unstable Boy" DeBlass
I will pay for digital music.
I will not pay for music that requires a trusted client to play. I will not pay for music which is time-limited, except at ultra-bargain rates (something like 1/50th). I will not pay for music of which the price is based on track divisions of inflated CD prices. I will not pay for music encoded with a single-vendor system. I will pay 1/10th as much for a closed proprietary format as I will for an open format.
Given the recent industry track record, I will probably not see anything I am willing to pay more than $0.02 for anytime soon.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
And under the current system, the artists actually wind up paying for it! If you read about the current system, the record company will advance the musicians money against their royalties to produce, promote, and market the album. This means that for the most part the musicians don't actually receive any royalties unless the album sells at least a million copies. If it doesn't, the musicians wind up in debt to the record company. It's basically like share cropping, where the system is stacked so that it's almost impossible to break away from one company.
In any case, it's dubious that promotions and marketing are really an essential part of the process, or that they can't be solved by going outside the traditional music industry approach. If you don't think that Napster is changing the promotions and marketing aspect of things, you really need to pay more attention.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Interesting also that it seems much easier to get cops to riot than the "rabble" that they're out trying to control.
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
It's funny how so many napster supporters gripe about how the RIAA and even the US gov't are antiquated beasts that need to be pulled into the 21st century, yet they point ardantly to events 100-500 years ago as a means of justifying their arguments.
"sheet music was pirated, and that was good"
"in the Rennecianse (sp?), people just created for the sake of creating"
"Up until this century, artists mainly flourished on the patronage of their most wealthy fans and created for the rest of the world to enjoy".
This is the 21st century. The only way this is going to end amicably is if techologists (you) and the industry meet and device a 21st century solution that keeps everyone's best interests in mind. Musicians want to be paid. Labels want to be paid. You want to download music from the internet. Those are the arguments, aren't they?
How come no one out there is working feverishly on a new micropayment system, since none of the others were ever adopted? Or has Napster already spoiled it, by allowing people to download their music for free, will it increasingly be an expectation of consumers that whatever they want to download from the internet should always be free?
That would be wrong and is the heart of the issue. Music and all intellectual creations are owned by society. This is an indelible aspect of human society. There is no human society a without shared culture. Cultures that are not shared become exinct, often after a long period of catastrophic disease - such as the old USSR.
We all share and are owners in a common culture. All a muscian has is a limited license to comercially exploit the music he created and to have credit for it's creation
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Regardless of the outcome of these cases, I hope the plaintiffs fall flat on their faces, there will still be people out there willing to risk this kind of crap to bring new technology to the people.
What I found very interesting was the history section, about how the the "fight for copyright" isn't anything new at all, and in fact has been fought pretty much since the beginning of recorded music. Heck, Sullivan (from Gilbert & Sullivan) was suing people his whole life! and that was for sheet music... you know? the kind that YOU have to play?
What scares me is that the music industry is using tactics which could affect not only the music industry, but like the article says, the core of democracy. I mean, just imagine if you would, a country where the government's control reached out and checked *everything* you did electronically. I know there are those out there that think this is happening right now, what with Carnivore and like floating around, but at least its not done openly and without harsh public critism/outcry. I'm talking about a society where government intervention is expected and accepted - where the people have completely placed their trust and security in the hands of the all-knowing government.
1984 anyone? Animal Farm ring a bell? "Everyone is equal. Its just that some people are more equal than others." Don't tell me that it can't happen - Russia/USSR is just getting over something much like this right now.
You know, it kind of strikes me as a bit silly, all this running around the RIAA is doing... it seems to me, that what this is all about is one industry standing up and saying:
And as silly as that sounds, this is exactly what's happening. From the article:
I seriously doubt even the law-makers themselves can tell you all the ramifications one little law makes, let alone the massive DMCA! I was very glad to see that the RIAA was hauled before a senate(?) committee to "answer" for some of its actions the DMCA "allowed". It sounds like congress passed the law because of a lot of pressure from RIAA/MPAA - like a kid given a new baseball bat to replace the old broken one. Only now congress is hearing reports that the kid has been beating up the other children in the neighbourhood and taking their lunch money... It'll be interesting to see what kind of "parent" congress wants to play... I hope it'll be the one who leaves things pretty much alone, and lets the market figure things out for itself. 'Course, to do that they'd have to repeal the DMCA and few other things - this isn't impossible either.
Just imagine yourself being put in congress "by the people", and then suddenly finding out that 10% of your constituents are right royal pissed off at you because YOU helped shut down their Napster... Not exactly a perfect description, but pretty close I'd say.
I understand and agree that copyrights have to be upheld and all - but definitely *not* in their current form. Something like a 5 yr limit would be good. (or shorter, 5 is just a number). Hmm, remind you of another antiquated institution? coughUS Patent Officecough anyone?
Anywho, just my $0.035
Neil................
I used to have a cool sig.
Think about *who* you really support (I'm guessing you are pro-[your favorite band] not pro-[free music, gimme!]). While it tastes great, Naptster's free beer (music for free) is blocking Metallica's free speech (self-determination on what and how they express themselves to fans). I think the artists know just a little bit what they're talking about. Get behind them.
I don't care about these "artists" (I'm talking about all popular musicians here). They are absurdly rich because they entered into deals with the promoter/distributors to play their music for free into the ears of youth over the only convenient distribution systems that existed (radio, TV), until they got used to the music and felt a need to hear more. Their fame and riches stem from this deal more than from special musical ability. They are part of the machine, not victims of it.
Yes, good musicians deserve some compensation, but control is not part of the bargain! Any musician who wants to tell me how much I have to pay him to hear his music is never getting a cent from me. There are plenty of other musicians out there, and I've got money for them, when I like their music and when they don't try to attack me legally.
Compensation does not require control! Getting enormously rich from your mediocre talent plus a large promotion budget does, though. That's what Metallica did, and that's what they're trying to protect.
To hell with them. I have no special love for the tiny wealthy minority of musicians in bed with the record companies (who then bitch that they aren't getting a big enough slice of the absurdly large revenue). I have a lot more sympathy for the other 99% of musicians who are working second jobs to support their hobby. Without control, maybe we'd see fewer rich whiners and more decent musicians making a living.
You're damned right I'm selfish. That's the way you're supposed to be in commercial transactions. Not stupidly selfish, but putting your own interests first. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to pick your pocket with his tongue.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Err...how many times do you read a book? Once. Thus, even if it was faded the first time, there's no benefit to you to go out and buy a brand new copy, because you're done with it.
With music, on the other hand, you listen to it lots of times. Thus, you always have an incentive to upgrade to the better quality copy you get from buying the CD. Which is part of the reason why Napster causes people to buy more CD's than they would otherwise and libraries cause people to buy fewer books. Your argument is both theoretically poor and factually invalidated.
I remember correctly (it's been a long thread) you mentioned that early on publishers tried to put libraries out of existence. Are you aware of any articles or published works that describe those efforts?
I mentioned that I thought I remembered hearing such a thing. I'm pretty sure I did, but don't have any evidence to point you to. I was rather hoping someone else would steer me to such evidence; as they haven't it might be worth considering that I remembered incorrectly on this point...
I also wanted to say that from my experience living with an avid reader and library patron, that dedicated library patrons NEVER buy books. My wife reads approximately four books a week and in the twenty years we have been married she has never bought a single book. So the idea of your antagonist here that libraries are an inferior version of Napster from the standpoint of availability or that they libraries encourage people to buy books, at least from my experience, is unfounded in practice. She may have to wait a few weeks for some latest and greatest novel to wend its way through the "on hold" list, but hell there are 89 other trashy novels to read in the meantime so it's not a problem. Does the phrase "why would they buy it, if they can get if for free" ring a bell?
That was my impression, but it's nice to have it confirmed by someone who's more familiar with libraries than me. Meanwhile, we have factual evidence that just the opposite is true with Napster. And yet people who donate trashy novels to the local public library are looked up to as good samaritans, while someone posting a difficult-to-find and musically important song to Napster is a scum-sucking pirate!
I have gone back and forth on my feelings about Napster. I do use it extensively and feel that for the first time in my life I finally have the same kind of access to music that avid readers have always enjoyed because of the existence of libraries. The only people who have had this kind of access to music before were either extremely wealthy or were somehow attached to the music industry (radio people, music reviewers, etc.) I now essentially have the same or better access to music for research or just plain out of curiosity purposes and this is a great thing. If I wanted to listen to every version or cover of a particular song I like I can do that now. It has really increased my appreciation and knowledge of music immensely.
Then don't feel guilty about it! (As long as you buy the CD/compensate using fairtunes the artists you really appreciate!) The fact that you're so fraught with doubt about something that you recognize has significantly impacted your life for the better shows just how successful the RIAA has been in demonizing Napster.
Can you imagine how even less literate our culture would be now if all reading was pay per view? In fact, using this logic, it might explain the relatively low musical taste of the mass culture. When one has to buy every piece of music one wants to listen to it discourages taking a lot, or any, chances when buying CD's.
A very insightful point. In my experience, most people still get their books from stores, not libraries, but the fact that one can browse a book to your heart's content before buying it probably does have a lot to do with the risks we take on interesting literature.
However, I do worry about the artist conpensation aspects of the Napster controversy. I don't think this whole composing and producing for tips idea will fly.
It will be interesting to see. Personally, I'm supporting fairtunes and trying to give it a chance. Still, it's worth noting that that's not the only way for artists to make money in a world of unrestricted MP3 flows. For one thing, many if not most people will probably still choose to support those artists they really enjoy, even if they can get their music for free. For another, artists could include various other un-Napsterable incentives along with buying their CD, like first dibs on the best concert seats. In addition, artists are beginning to experiment with a model in which they would announce that they have, for example, just finished recording an album, but they won't release it until they get x preorders--enough to cover their costs and maybe get some profit for themselves. Even if the total number of sales is lower than it would have been under the old system, the fact that the Internet is allowing musicians to bypass the big labels means that the artists can make much more money even with much lower volume sales. And finally, the sound quality of a CD played out of a real stereo will beat MP3 for the forseeable future.
Whether or not you admit it, the fact is that most Artists still choose to go the major label route. Not just 10 years ago, not just last year, but today, despite the presense of all these theoretically marvelous alternative systems. (i.e.., napster (a joke), mp3.com (some potential), etc.). I, for one, don't believe the artists are totally stupid. They know the situation going in (that they'll get "shafted"), but they also obviously know that they _need_ the labels to be successfull. If anything is obvious, it is that the label perform a function beyond mere production of the physical media.
This function that the labels perform is one of marketing and distribution (not just in the sense that it's economical, but in the sense that it puts it in front of the right eyes). To ignore that, and act as if a change in physical production means they've necessarily outlived their usefullness is laughable. Before these online methods, the production costs were in the range of 2 dollars, yet they sell to the end user for, say, 15 dollars. That still leaves 13 dollars of value added going to various parties. There is nothing necessarily obvious in that the mere elimination of 2 of 15 dollars, means value added should hit 0.
Now you can make up all the warm and fuzzy ideas you want, but until you come up with a better alternative that up-and-coming artists actually sign on (and enjoy success with), it's hardly realistic to say napster and company are an acceptable alternative. Only through this proof, will you make it demonstrably clear that the major labels have outlived their usefullness. Even then, that doesn't mean the merit of IP is injured in the least, rather that the industry was too attached to the physical model of distribution--not necessarily to IP. More than likely, if anything succeeds, it will be something like mp3.com, not napster, which revolves substantially around IP.
Wherein the record companies sell music at a great profit, "without giving the artists who created it a cent in return".
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I mean "Finally someone who realizes that Napster-like technology is about more than "pirating"."
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Just thought I'd point this out.
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Well, my argument is that libraries and Napster are the same functionally, not legally, so your post is sort of OT. My argument revolves around the fact that people use books in a different way than how they use CD's; thus while having to give back the book is not a restriction on getting full enjoyment out of it (you've already read it!), having to give back the CD is. Perhaps that's why checking out books is by far the more popular library function than checking out CD's. Still, I'll answer your questions in case you were wondering.
OK, I get the gist of the argument here, but let's expand the comparison. Besides books, I can check out a CD from my library. I can stuff it in my CD-ROM and copy to my CD-Write.
Q#1: If I only make a copy for my personal use, ie, non-commercial, is that legal or not? Think carefully before answering!
Depends. If you make a copy onto a CD-R which you bought at a record store, and which has the vile RIAA tax added on (i.e. if your CD-R cost $4 instead of $.50), then it is completely legal, persuant to the AHRA. If you copy it onto a CD-R which you bought at a computer store, then it may or may not be legal; indeed, one of the primary legal issues of the current Napster case is whether the AHRA's blanket legalization of all non-commercial audio copying applies to all media (as the act seems to say), or only to those which have had the RIAA royalty tax applied (as the act seems to imply). If it's the former, then it is also legal for you to rip the CD to another non-RIAA taxed medium--your hard drive. If it's the latter, it's probably not.
Q#2: How is this different than Napster? Think carefully again...
See the beginning of my comment for why my argument is that Napster is more closely analagous to checking out books, and not CD's, from the library. Having said that, it's slightly different from Napster in a couple ways. First off, you're getting a functionally perfect copy of the CD, not the functionally disabled copy you get with MP3. Second, the reason it just feels slimier than getting the songs off Napster probably has more to do with the fact that you're using a service in a way other than it was intended, rather than with any true moral or legal problems involved (although there may be some for the above reasons). After all--you wouldn't feel strange or immoral for photocopying a chapter out of a book you has checked out--why should you feel bad for copying a track off a CD?
I guess the same can be said about Modern Rock. I could name off bands and sound all hoity-toity but I bet you all would have different bands to mention and the conversation becomes flaimbait. However, I think we'd all agree that music evolves, and what once was unheard-of is now pop. It's been like that for awhile... maybe not specific bands, but definately styles.
Like Music, MP3 & other CNNfN buzz words will continue to circulate our media, and I'm sick of it.
Can anyone name something interesting that will soon to be be exploited in the media? Screener/movie piracy? Electronic book piracy? The cycle will continue.
----
Ok then, The phone company runs a service in which people can commit all sorts of fradulent activity - shut down the phone companies. And while we are it lets shut down all the internet service provdiers. They are a service, and that service is being used to download all sorts of pirated material.
Dude, get a friggin clue!
www.enthea.org
Library's have been proven not to be a great threat to the sale of books. The same cannot be said, that napster will not hurt the sale of records. Though I believe you know full well the dangers napster offers, I'll enumerate a few key differences.
When a library makes a book available, they are generating at least one sale and that single book can only be used by one person concurrently. Given the purchasing and acquisition patterns of most library, this means that books in high demand (i.e., brand new best sellers) are scarce, and most times even unavailable. The library either purchases more books, or the patrons run out to the book store and buy a couple copies. Furthermore, except for classic and other highly reguarded books, most publishers make their sales off of these same new books--libraries are hardly able to squelsh this. In fact, most publishers will stop printing most books after a short while. Unless the demand is high, it simply doens't make economic sense for the publisher keep printing it--nor does it make sense for them to print large quantities and store them. In essence, libraries only become a deciding factor at the end, where most publishers aren't selling anyways. Libraries serve a clear and well known public function (not just one of pure entertainment) by acting as a repository for these books, so they don't simply fall out of print and away from people's eyes.
The gist of it is:
Cost for publishers: Low.
Benefit for society: High.
Are you honestly going to tell me the same applies to napster? Are you going to ignore the fact that napster is really much the opposite [despite the denials of some individuals]? Napster traffics the most popular songs in almost instantly, and theoretically, only one purchase needs to be made for this to happen! Yet when you search for truely rare songs, it has been my experience that they're NOT there. Something like 90% of the mp3s listed on there are redundant--only the most recent and currently popular songs. And while you may try to refute that sales will actually be hurt, that is unproven, and highly doubtfull. As that article in the Atlantic Monthly pointed out, CD sales around college campuses were down [though not in huge numbers], while national sales were up. This fact alone is cause for concern, or at least question. Combine this with the growth of the internet, increased publicity for napster, spreading of broadband, and other such factors, and you have a stark picture for the industry. And for all these possible [though I think they're highly likely, if napster, et. al, goes unchallenged] costs, what are the benefits? That people get to listen to music free? You're going to have a hard time arguing that music enriches the mind to the same extent that a good book does, especially when it's pop music!
The gist here:
Record industry cost: High
Benefit for society: Low
...good bye.
Oh, so Democracy relies on the basis of theft now does it? Face it, using Napster to download MP3's is illegal and immoral, and none of your squawking about how it's "Free speech" and "Information wants to be free" will change that.
Anyone who is deluding themselves into thinking they are doing no harm is a dangerous person, and should face the consequences of their actions. Record companies have every right to distribute their songs. You do not have the right to steal them from them.
If someone says that "Information wants to be free", post your full personal details on Slashdot so we can all share it. After all, it wants to be free, right?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Metallica wants to protect their ability to be paid for their work in creating and recording music; I don't think the author would argue against that. His point is that the recording industry is the major force preventing artists from making a living off their music--not pirates. Whether or not Napster is legal is immaterial to the article's arguments. The presence of piracy--and more importantly, the industry's response to it--only serves to illustrate the aforementioned fact.
Stop and read what you're responding to. Think about *what* the author actually wrote.
The Atlantic doesn't generally write about technology, it writes about politics and policy. Naturally, by the time computer-related technological issues appear on the political radar, they're already obsolete. Most of the rest of the world doesn't move this fast.
Good one! Next time try thinking up your responses before sniffing the rubber cement you stole from art class, kid.
.sig: Now legally binding!
The internet is not some revolutionary force that makes innovation and creation irrelevant. It hasn't made the costs of innovation and creation any cheaper. Sure, there are some areas where there have been some cost reductions in production and distribution due to digital distribution [though those savings have NOTHING to do with the underground heros like napster, 2600, etc.] These costs, however, have been ALWAYS been a relatively small portion of the price. Depending on the product at hand, you may be expecting a ~10% price reduction. None of that, however, cuts away at the burden of the inventor/creator/artist/innovator. Their resources are still every bit as scarce. Artists only have so many hours in their day. Authors still need to be paid. Businessmen still only have so much cash at their disposal, and are only willing to tolerate so much risk. End users only have so much patience for listening to garbage, before the signal to noise ratio becomes unacceptable.
The basic guiding principle behind IP is every bit as valid today as it was yesterday. The relationship between risk and reward did not just evaporate. Just as Henry Ford's many innovations could have been stolen so many years ago with relative ease, software and music can be pirated today. Whether the margins are 2% of 90% is irrelevant, there is still a need to protect them. What you are effectively paying for is for future works and innovation, NOT for that particular product. So when you get on GNUtella and pirate software, it may seem as if you can download infinite copies and not "hurt" the artist , but you are doing nothing to encourage that next round of production.
It is still in society's interest to give legal protection to IP, even more so in many ways. The type of R&D we see today tends to be far far more capital intensive, and most of these products have very low production costs, provided they're produced on sufficient scale. It is ironic that you point to nanotechnology especially. Do you think people just develop these things because they want to? Is that it? What about the millions that have been spent on it already to create just one simple machine? What about new ones? You think they engineer themselves too? Get real.
I have heard that the Church in Galileo's time didn't actually want to suppress his information about the solar system. They just begged him to give them a little more time, and let them publish the information themselves. They knew the truth had to come out, and were hoping they could adapt to the new age where the Earth was not at the center of the universe. Sounds like the RIAA trying to buy time until SDMI works.
Unfortunately for SDMI, it seems easier to make a technology that enables people to do things than one that disables them from doing things. Lessig's warnings in the "Code" book are still pertinent, but the tide seems to be going with those who want to share. I think that the record companies will do fine, like the Catholic Church (which, if you've been reading news stories about traffic jams in Rome this year, seems to be pretty robust).
Since you're new, you'd better read the judges decision before you expose your further ignorance on the site. The phone company is a general purpose telecomunnications medium, and the ISP is a general purpose packet switching medium. Napster is specifically for indexing music, and for connecting thieves to each other. You need to learn a thing about scale: Napster is like a service which puts together all of the parts to build a nuclear bomb, but Microsoft supplies just the switches used to ignite the bomb, and the phone company supplies the water needed in production, and the ISP the electricity. If you cannot see the difference between these roles, I recommend you seek an alternate line of work!
This is covered by the various performance rights organizations. If you have an agreement with ASCAP or BMI, and your song is getting airplay, the artist's label and publishing company each get a share of money from a pool that radio stations pay into for the right to play ASCAP or BMI music.
Good point. Maybe the world IS evolving and I'm just stuck in 1995.
Actually it was the forced release of a preliminary song that lead Metallica into the fray. Maybe you should read the article before you post stuff that makes no sense...
I guess I should be happy with a vacation of some weeks from the last time I had to do this.
Ahem.
It's impossible to steal music.
Here's why (this isn't a cyber-hippy argument, I swear):
By definition, it is only possible to steal something that's owned. Conversely, if something cannot be owned, it cannot be stolen.
So music can't be stolen, because it can't be owned. And when I say that it can't be owned, I mean it. In order to own something, there are three requirements that must be met.
1)The owner must be able to make full use of the owned item
2)The owner must be able to control if and how others use the owned item
3)The owner must be able to dispose of (eg sell, destroy, give away) the owned item at will
So let's look at music, and how it fits with these things. Remember, we're talking about MUSIC. Not CDs. Not tapes. Not mp3s. Not even sound waves travelling through the air. None of those things are music, they are simply the media upon which music is transferred. Music is ultimately a concept.
1)If you write an original song, can you use it? Obviously the answer is yes. You can hum it, sing it, play it backwards to listen to the satanic messages, etc. (probably by having placed it onto a convenient medium, but hey, you might just be that good)
2)If you let me listen to the song, can you exert control over it? Here, the answer is no. You see, there are many seperate copies of the song floating around at this point.
There is the original copy, which exists within your mind. Don't believe me? Well let's prove it. Surely you know 'Doo Wah Diddy' - well can you hum it? Better yet, can you remember how it goes in your mind, without actually making any sounds? (eg when it gets stuck in your head) Then we've successfully demonstrated that music exists independently of any particular medium.
So what happens when you make a copy of the music in your mind onto a carrier like a soundwave, or sheet music, or a CD or mp3? Two copies exist. When I listen to the music, a third copy is created, within my mind. Even if I give back your CD, I can also do the trick with remembering how the song goes. (bear in mind that while most people have average memories, there are those with perfect recall that won't forget a note of the song)
Can you make me give back the copy in my mind? Not without a lobotomy, I'd warrant. And while you can demand that I not listen to the music in my mind, you can't enforce that in any way whatsoever, and neither can any court in the world. You simply do not have control over how I use the song.
3)So given that, can you get rid of the song? Perhaps by selling it or giving it away? Again, no. You can give people COPIES, but the original is basically stuck in your mind. And you can't give people the copies that exist in other listener's minds (like mine) either.
So music, or anything else that can be memorized, isn't able to fulfill the three traditional legal requirements for ownership. And without ownership, there can be no stealing or theft.
-----
What you _really_ mean is that people are commiting copyright infringement. Copyrights are ownable, but they're a package of rights governing legal transactions over an unownable piece of information. They do not pretend to be actual ownership of that information; that's impossible. (this is why the term 'Intellectual Property' is patently offensive. There is no such thing, nor would it be good if there were)
Additionally, do remember that from the dawn of humanity until about ~1730 there were no copyright laws. And yet the system worked, and there were books and songs and paintings all over the damn place. The system doesn't rely on copyright laws. I don't advocate totally getting rid of them, but they are in need of massive reform. More copyrights, as I've shown in another post, harm society. Few to no copyrights are optimal. And the fundementals of US copyright law exist for the benefit of society, not for copyright holders. Don't believe it? Read the Constitution.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Metallica. Remember when Metallica was dangerous? When parents screams "heavy metal is corrupting our youth!" and Metallica said "you do your thing, we do ours"? Ironically, Metallica has forgotten this.
That thought deserves more time put into it but I'm at work. Here's a better version: How is Metallica's current claim ("Our songs are our children so don't steal them") any different than the '80's parents claim ("Our children are our children, so don't corrupt them with heavy metal")?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
...and the Motley Fool article is full of wishful thinking. Tip jars and advertising? Whatever.
While this is moving outside of the realm of this discussion, I concur re: libertarianism. Mostly in that I distrust corporations (which would have made many of the founding fathers go white with shock) even more than I distrust the government.
But sensible gun control deals with nuclear weapons, and biological warfare. I don't trust the government to strip people of the only thing that ultimately is intended as a check on the government. And I don't let foxes guard my henhouse either.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You can call the future vision part "wishful thinking" if you like,but many would disagree with you. Fans have always been extremely supportive of their favourite bands, and in an environment where they didn't have to pay today's extorionate prices into label coffers there's every likelihood that a very different business model would deliver just as much money into the musicians' pockets, if not a lot more.
However, you can't pin the label of "wishful thinking" to the article's analysis of what was and what is, because it's right on the mark, not just in the author's view but in the view of musicians worldwide, often expressed by them in the music papers. They may not all have the eloquence of Courtney Love, but they feel the financial pain just the same. In brief, they're being sucked dry by the biggest and most cold-blooded pirate organization on the planet, the label/studio system. Anything is better than that kind of slavery.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Should free speech be limited to only those who would use it to express wholesome ideas? Someone might say something seditious, perverted, mean or even something that isn't completely true! There are ways to exploit most anything to your benefit at the cost of others; this is no different.
The concept behind the abolition of copyright is the idea that the content creator has absolutely no control over his works once he releases it to the public, provided it doesn't violate any existing laws (other than copyright laws, of course). Even with copyright, in theory, this happens already once the limited monopoly runs out. How is it any "less wrong" to allow anyone and everyone to copy copyright-expired materials? A hundred years after Metallica is dead, why is it no longer stealing to copy their works?
I was going to write more, but I got bored. I'm not totally against copyright myself, I merely think that the limited monopoly needs to become a little more limited. Perhaps when asking for enforcement, the copyright owners should be required to prove that their limited monopoly has been seriously affected (to the tune of a large percentage of their income). The RIAA wouldn't be able to claim thousand dollar damages from every little website, but an MP3.com artist could claim twenty dollar damages from their roommate selling tapes. That is to say that the more money you make the harder it is to be ripped off.
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Ah, finally a reasonable person!
Just to clarify, When I defend IP, I am not defending the industry at all. Far from it. The industry may well be thorougly flawed and corrupt, but those flaws are not an integral feature of intellectual property. Rather, while it is true that the nature of the industry can only exist in an IP-rich environment, these big record houses exist of a certain necessity [not that it justifies or necessitates all of their behavior]. This is an important point that elludes many people. The fact that artists still sign with these major labels today only bolsters my argument. Recording, promoting, marketing, getting spots on the radio, etc. are expensive [even though physical distribution is less and less of a concern today]. Artists sign because they want need and want these things, they can't do it themselves or through other alternatives.
Napster simply does nothing to address these problems. Napster pokes holes in IP, but does not offer a credible alternative in its place. I say, let us not flush the baby out with the bathwater. The big six may be cruel to the artist, but they're still an option. No one is making them sign. By breaking IP, not only do you reduce the "big six" option, but you break other more palatable alternatives that rely on IP.
In essense, I believe we should take reasonable measures to protect IP (i.e., make sure napster is kept in check)--and let the rest of the chips fall where they may. If IP is kept intact, I think it is far more likely a capitalistic evolution of sorts will happen with the dinosuars aka the "big six." Their pricing structures, which have long revolved too much around physical distribution, will fall--prices will come down a couple dollars--maybe even as much as half. Accompanying the fall of physical distribution, will be an increased number of competitors, which will mean more competition in the music industry (a la mp3.com) and better deals for the artist. However, I think these marketing issues will long remain. You may see a few grassroots style bands pop up, but by and large, those artists which wish to go Platinum will sign with someone who can effectively market. Those who already have tons of money, might be able to pay for themselves. But for the vast majority of up and coming artists, that means someone will essentially make an investment in them--someone will take the lions' share of the risk. Someone will still be very rich, there will still be some grumbling....but the situation will have improved.
PS: I don't regard monopolies to be a flaw in capitalism, anymore than I regard, say, assholes a flaw of freedom. Sh*t happens, but that doesn't mean people, or the government, should never intervene.
The problem is, nowadays *everybody* is (or thinks they are) ridden with existential post-modern teenage angst. There is something wrong, but they can't quite figure it out. So the easiest thing is to "protest". Protest what? Anything. Everything. Who cares? It gives meaning. Like the idiots who threw rocks over the fence at the police at the DNC, inciting them to rampage over the majority of *peaceful* *innocent* protesters there. Like anarchists dressed in black just to incite trouble (if it isn't *just* to incite trouble, it is at least an obvious and deliberate effect).
I get angry when the mindless bleating of wannabees overpowers the real issues that real protesters are attempting to make. For instance, like Lars here. I'm sick of hearing every johnny come lately ripping Metallica because it's the cool thing to do. Metallica has a point that some don't have the attention span to consider. Metallica is not anti-fan. Metallica is not pro-corporation. Metallica is not a sellout and corporate whore. Metallica wants one thing that we would otherwise be championing here on Slashdot: *artist control of their own music*. Metallica's point is not that Napster is inherently wrong, or that technology should be banned. Their point is that *they* should be able to decide what they want to do with their music. Not big record companies. Not Napster. And this isn't even about copyright infringement or "lost revenue". Metallica freely allows bootlegging. The problem is that with all our shouting about how Napster is the David to the record industries goliath, we have forgotten that the *artists* are the David to *everybody*. Napster is a great service. Gnutella is a great technology. Metallica's contention is that they, as the artist, should choose how they want to interact with their fans. And they only sued Napster to raise this issue. Just like Metallica should be able to decide what songs of theirs radio stations play, and what image they portray, they should be able to self-determine how they want to interact with their fans. Don't lump artists in with the record companies and Napster as the lone hero. It's the other way around. Napster is entering in exclusive deals with the record companies to jointly exploit artists.
Stop and think about what you're shouting about. Think about *who* you really support (I'm guessing you are pro-[your favorite band] not pro-[free music, gimme!]). While it tastes great, Naptster's free beer (music for free) is blocking Metallica's free speech (self-determination on what and how they express themselves to fans). I think the artists know just a little bit what they're talking about. Get behind them.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
This is not a popularity contest. The issue is public interest, not just the immediate whims of the public. Our nation was founded on the principles of Federalism for a reason [not to mention law]...
You are being awefully presumptious to assert that you know the public's desires. The mere fact that you feel music and books are on intellectual par does not make it so. Nor do you know how the public would respond to evidence of destruction of the music industry.
Excuse me, but I'm an indepedent thinker. It may be perfectly acceptable for you to swallow what you are fed whole, but I have serious doubts. I can't take this press release at face value. Statistics are very easy to manipulate and are easily skewed. What's more, the conclusion can be made sound very good, while actually remaining irrelevant or without any base in the results.
I don't see how they could gather a reliable sample. Napster is essentially anonymous, it would be virtually impossible to get a truely random sample here. They obviously did not do a before and after, and most likely it was not random in the least. The biggest hint we get is:
"But when we conducted our consumer survey, controlled for key music purchasing factors-such as existing spending level, age, income, gender, and online tenure-we still found that Napster usage is one of the strongest determinants of increased music buying." If you ever studied statistics, you would know this does not mean anything like: Those who start using napster, start buying more music. Quite the contrary, it means: Those who use napster, are more likely to buy music. In other words, Jupiter looked at a certain population based on the above controls, and determined that those who used napster were 45% more likely to buy CDs than those who appeared the same based on those criteria and did not use the service. The problem with this statistic is that it does not tell you whether or not those same music lovers in the selected populations would be more inclined to use napster and would be self-selecting in the survey. It does not deny the possibility that those users DECREASED their CD purchases since they started using napster
Until I see proof to the contrary, I will continue to assert that it is far more likely that these regular napster users have actually decreased their purchasing habits, and thus hurt industry. I'm far from ignorant here. Being one of the original #mp3 ops on undernet [not to mention efnet, etc.], I've been using mp3s for at least 5 years now. I actually bumped into napster a few times myself, and saw the service, and many before it grow. I know many regular users who have, in fact, essentially stopped purchasing CDs. These users are something of a bellwether; having used the internet for longer, having broadband before others, owning CDRs, etc. While they're not fully representive of the population, they are enjoying today [and have been for quite awhile] a fraction of the goodies that much of the population does not yet enjoy, but will soon.
Not that it is terribly relevent, but do you have any evidence to back that claim up? Or is that first hand experience? In any case, napster is _very_ commonly used at most universities, at least those with decent internet connections. In fact, it is used as a replacement at some. For instance, at atleast one eating club at Princeton [which I will not name] with which i'm familiar, the members actually purchased a CD-R with the sole intention of burning mp3s into audio CDs. Many students used this regularly, and most told me they wouldn't buy a CD so long as they could burn what they needed.
Obviously you lack experience with the internet and the vast quantities of warez (pirated software) available to those who know how to get it. If you had, you'd know that the warez groups are able to distribute warez out to thousands, and millions, of people with just one copy, in a compressed format, such that if even one byte is corrupt, the entire package is bad. Similar systems could easily be setup within napster, and in fact, there were atleast such groups when I used mp3s more regularly. They took responsibility for ensuring a clean rip and a decent encoding, not to mention distribution [which is largely moot now] With decreased file size sensitivity, these groups could essentially gaurantee very high quality mp3s.
In case you are not aware, these servers are not that seperate. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. I go to the store, and buy the latest N'Sync CD the second it hits shelves. [actually, which reminds, these groups would actually obtain the software/songs before they hit the shelves]. It takes me about 30 minutes to rip and encode them, and then I make them available to napster. At that very instant, 100 teenie boppers are querying for the latest and greatest songs, they get a hit. I can support quite a few downloads, with a software max of 10 concurrent users. So within, say, 20 minutes, each of those 10 users now has the entire album. Another 10 copy from each of those 10 and so on. Someone signs on, and signs back on, grabs a new server, and suddenly a new server has the mp3s. It doesn't take a degree in mathematics to figure out that napster could easily be overrun the mp3s which I ripped, before stores on the west coast are even open!
Theoretically and empirically, all the ingredients are there for it. Combine this with the above mentioned "mp3 group", and it could happen with reliability [i.e., check summing schemes] What's more, these groups can get and distribute the songs before others can even buy them, they don't even half to wait....but people do anyways. I encourage you to look at the warez groups, it may give you a little insight here.
Books build on each other and on the mind in a way that music does not [part of the reason why libraries are key]. One can go to a library, and providing they have enough diligence, teach themselves hundreds of usefull things--even more than you think you know. The reader can improve themselves in ways that society can grasp and appreciate.
Music may be marvelous, but it is simply not interchangable with the many forms of books. Society has long placed a preference on reading, and has regarded music as a form of entertainment. Consider, for a moment, what portion of your curiculuum has been dedicated to books versus music. Most likely, your answer is something around 1/40th. If you were told that your kids weren't going to read anymore, but would listen to music in class instead, how would you react? You know damn well how you would react...It's a question of priorities, just one more reason why you can't quite make that analogy.
The MPAA/RIAA look like they are playing a silly game. They look like they don't know what they are doing and have little hope of actually succeeding at defeating "online piracy". Take a look at the participant's list of the SDMI. Included in there is everyone needed to control digital music. You have number 60, the Fraunhofer Institute. They own the patents on the mpeg format. As early as tommorrow they could have every mp3 player declared illegal and pulled off the net, just look at the DeCSS if you have any doubts. Speaking of DeCSS, it doesn't really matter if the encryption Microsoft (number 106) puts on their latest streaming media format is easily crackable, it's illegal to do so. But who says Fraunhofer will be able to track down the owners of every mp3 player out there? After all, the most popular mp3 player (Winamp) is written by a bunch of "nihilistic media terrorists" at Nullsoft who we are told we should ph34r. I have to agree, especially seeing they are owned by AOL (number 10). Can the SDMI put the genie back in the bottle? If you asked me that last year I would have said (and did say) no way. My argument was the same as Martin Eberhard, the CEO of Nuvomedia: "It doesn't matter how good the cryptography is," Eberhard says. "Once [the music] is decrypted, you just bypass the cryptography and re-rip the music into an MP3." Which is all well and good, but what if you can't play said mp3's? What if owning an mp3 player (or the encoder) is a violation of patent law.
So what's my predictions for the future? Your favourite artists will start releasing music in the new SDMI format that you need Windows Media Player to play and you will pay per song. You will probably even have to be online to play the songs. Fraunhofer will reign in their patents and Winamp will silently disappear. That's when the story will break. Everyone will snap to attention around that point because cease and decist letters will be sent out to every web site that hosts an mp3 player. Go ahead and rip into mp3, there will be no players. Microsoft will break the sound playing dll's on Windows (probably to give some new feature to digital playback) and only the underground will still have players. The mainstream will buy their SDMI music and players and that whole nasty incident around the turn of the century where copyright was doubted by the few and ignored by the many will be stamped out of history.
How we know is more important than what we know.
- Connect to another host on the gnutellaNet
- Enter the words you are looking for
- Look through the search results
- Download the files
How is this so much harder than Napster with Napigator?<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
I stand by the right to make a copy of a CD for a friend or two, or in the digital world email them an mp3. So do I have the right to keep a particular album in my stereo, in my house, and invite people in to bring along a blank tape and use my cassette deck to record it? Then run a classified ad in a music magazine saying that I'm doing so? Because that's the best solid world analogy for [the illegal use of] Napster that I can think of.
Maybe I do or should. But can you imagine that going unchallenged? It's right on the border. Done in any commercial way whatsoever its over the line. As described, you tell me. I think I'm a little frightened of the doctrine of first sale going that far.
Napster is for sharing music. That in itself is not a bad thing. But when people systemically use the system to infringe on copyright, then I think Napster has *some* responsibility.
... but if we give you royalties for non-commercial copying, then you have to agree that non-commercial copying is legal."
... Napster is NOT fair use. Fair use does not even enter into Napster. Wholesale Non-commercial copying of musical works (only) is not a copyright violation, and has not been one since 1992. This is the point that the recording industry is trying to bury. But the fact remains, The RIAA has been collecting royalties on all blank digital audio recording devices and media since 1992, and has been (or is supposed to be) paying that money out to artists and writers. There is no need to wring our hands looking for a way to "pay artists." The "way" already exists, and the money is already being collected. The RIAA just doesn't want you to know that so that you will feel guilty and won't exercise the right that you are paying for, with real money, every time you buy an audio CDR.
You're contradicting yourself. Is sharing music a good or a bad thing? Is it a good thing when it is done quietly, behind closed doors, by a few people, but a bad thing when it is used "systematically"?
Napster isn't fair use anyway. Music sharing is explicitly authorized by the copyright laws. In 1992, the RIAA went to Congress in a state of hysteria -- Digital Audio Tape was about to destroy the entire recording industry! The RIAA wanted, among other things, to receive a "royalty" on all digital recorders and media to compensate for the loss of sales due to personal, non-commercial copying.
Congress said, "Ok
The RIAA, more concerned with destroying the DAT format, agreed, and both Congress and the RIAA released announcements that an agreement had been reached that would break the legal gridlock, and bring digital recording to the masses. The result of this little insider lovefest is known as Title 17 Chapter 10.
Title 17 Chapter 10 is a nice little exercise in dirty lawmaking. Let's go through it.
Section 1001 defines all the terms.
Section 1002 says that all consumer digital audio recorders must include SCMS -- which prevents second-generation copies of DAT tapes.
Section 1003 says that anyone manufacturing digital audio recording equipment or media, including audio CDRs, has to make "royalty" payments.
Section 1004 says how much the royalty payments are.
Section 1005 says that the royalty payments are to be deposited in an account controlled and managed by the U.S. Treasury.
Section 1006 specifies how the loot is to be divided up. It's basically a list of the sponsors of the bill.
(1.75%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Musicians, to be paid to "non-featured" musicians (studio musicians)
(0.92%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, to be paid to "non-featured" vocalists (backup vocalists)
(25.60%) of the royalties are paid to "featured recording artists", including such bands as Metallica.
(38.40%) of the royalties are paid to "copyright owners" (the RIAA companies)
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to "music publishers"
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to music writers, including such bands as Metallica who write their own songs.
Section 1007 specifies procedures for distributing the royalties. Anyone interesting in sharing the loot basically reports their record sales to the Librarian of Congress, and the loot is divided up proportionally. Thus, the RIAA, which controls the vast majority of record sales, gets nearly all of the money.
Section 1008 is what makes Napster legal. This is what the general public receives in exchange for all this money being taken by the government and spread around the recording industry:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
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.
Section 1009 specifies awards for damages
Section 1010 provides for binding arbitration -- a provision that allows a company to obtain legal assurance that they are selling a legal product before bringing it to market.
So, in conclusion, you are right
Bottom line, if you want to find out what your rights are, don't expect the RIAA to help you find them out. Read the law instead.
I know there's already been a Slashdot interview with Bruce Schneier, but I'd love to see one at least twice a year.
Better yet: put Jon Katz on waivers and sign Bruce as a free agent. Katz has been in a slump since the middle of last season and he just doesn't play like he belongs on the field anymore. Slashdot could offer Schneier a three-year deal with incentives that would keep them out of salary-cap trouble and still plug the holes in Coach Taco's middle line. If Andover doesn't want to eat Katz's contract they can find a place for him on special teams, covering kickoffs and getting his ass whupped.
"They're not booing, they're shouting 'Bruce'!"
Kong
Only when the record companies come up with SDMI media and players that plug directly into your brain, perfectly encrypted all the way, will they be able to control it. But, doesn't that sound a bit like The Matrix, scary and improbable?
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
It's true, though -- if you want to watch a high quality film, chances are you're not going to be able to download a DVD from the internet. Music, on the other hand, is already fit for distribution because it was already cut down to 3-4 minutes for radio anyways.
"...the writers of the Constitution viewed copyright in utilitarian terms. By granting a temporary monopoly on distribution to creators, the Founders hoped to stimulate the creation of new ideas."
I just love that qoute -- had to throw it in.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Make no mistake. You cannot change anything by voting in a one party election. You have to take stand and act -- not by voting, but by claiming (by force if necessary) your right to what our great Founding Fathers believed in.
So ha!
;)
Beyond that, I agree that this argument is getting old and picayune. We've gotten horribly worked up about some trivial details in what, after all, was meant more to be a whimsical but thought-provoking analogy than an iron-clad argument.
I do happen to think I'm right on these details (especially that of whether Jupiter conducts meaningful surveys or misleading ones), but I do take your general point that one crucial difference is that while libraries don't change much from year to year, Napster and MP3 sharing in general may yet morph into something potentially dangerous for the music industry. Or rather, I believe (and hope) that they will turn out at least mildly dangerous for the record labels, while believing quite strongly that they will turn out to spur, rather than stifle, artistic creativity and the overall quality and quantity of music available for society. Of course I realize that the last point is anything but a sure thing, and that no one can predict exactly what will happen. It does make sense to point out that the arts have always survived the emergence of new technologies predicted to destroy them; whether those who have sought to control and profit off the work of artists will make the transition as well is happily less certain. MP3 might turn out disasterous for the record labels and maybe might impact the earnings of a few of the most successful musicians, but I have little doubt that it will not only spread the art of the average musician to a much wider audience, but make him or her more money as well. Still, it's too early to know for certain.
And with that, I think I'm done, unless you have anything else to say. I would like to point out that if you've just been arguing with me because I happened to say something in that Bush/Gore/Clinton/economics thread that, on reflection, sounded rather stuck up (the "look at my email addy" comment), well, I didn't mean it to sound that way and you've certainly wasted a lot of your time being mad at me. Course, you've wasted just as much of my time, so let's call it a draw.
They as the company probably cannot. But they as the founders could just get bought out by another company, or IPO and cash out. Many companies aren't making any money, but as long as someone's willing to throw money at them, it doesn't matter. As Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
I know it's awfully popular here on /. to say that all information should be free, particularly music. I'll ignore all the ideological arguments, and reduce it to what the issue really is: every Napster advocate out there is just too cheap to pay for music.
Notice how the local population, trolls and otherwise, loves to pounce on anyone who uses GPLed code, or even unlicensed (and therefore just plain copyrighted code) without permission. Around here, that's a stoning offence.
Don't you people think that musicians have rights to their music, too?! Juicy quote from that article:
They're kidding, right? Last I checked, music belongs to whoever wrote it. Same with books. Same with software. Whoever wrote it may then choose to share it. And they always choose to share it under their terms. Most of the Slashdot crowd seems to desparately want to ensure that their creations (for the small handful that actually has done anything for open-source/free software) are only distributed on their terms. They spit on Metallica for wanting to do the same.
I can understand disliking the RIAA for imposing ridiculous contracts on musicians. But in articles like this one, I see that the hatred is focused primarily on the handful of artists who decided to stand up for their rights. If you hate the RIAA because it forces musicians to sign their souls away, then that is a very legitimate concern. But do not fight the recording industry by stealing works that properly belong and should be bringing profit to artists.
Everyone who makes the argument that the RIAA is not losing money from Napster and its ilk must be smoking crack. The only reason revenues are increasing is because the consumer economy is fueling a faster rate of growth than anything Napster kiddies can do to destroy it. For now. Music piracy grows by leaps and bounds, every day. If things were to continue as they are now, I guarantee that in two years time, maximum, the music industry will be posting catastrophic losses. And guess what happens then? No one will get recorded. Independent labels are few and far between for one very good reason: it takes a fucking lot of money to make a good recording. (Granted, most of the stuff that gets recorded these days by major labels is utter shit, both musically and acoustically, but that is a different issue. Plenty of labels, particularly classic ones, release good quality recordings.)
Radio is not free. Radio pays royalties for every single track they air, so the comparison with radio is ludicrous. They finance this by airing hours of advertisements (except NPR, who finance their existence by begging for money from listeners 4 times a year).
Finally, I sincerely hope that record stores do not disappear from the face of the earth. Speaking as a music lover, I'll say that lossy compression codecs suck. I dislike the MP3 standard, because the quality loss, for me, is unacceptable. I find that the only MP3s remotely listenable to are ones I make myself, encoded at 192kbps or more. And even so they do not match the quality of CDs or MDs, let alone vinyl or DAT. It will be a sad day when everyone moves to recording stuff as MP3s, or Ogg Vorbis, or whatever the latest and greatest codec is, and physical media designed for genuine high fidelity is abandoned.
Sorry about the long rant, but the article was sufficiently inflammatory that I had to get this out. Fortunately I have the karma to spare for the inevitable bashing it's going to take :)
...or does that CD-looking angel look like it could fit neatly into a (not yet written) Shockwave game at NewGrounds where you throw pirated CD's at Metallica? ;)
For more information, click here.
And that's why you rarely see sports references on /.. I know, I've tried in the past, only to get tagged with offtopic or redundant.
Anyhow, we can hope Katz fails a random drug test for crack.
Since MP3's don't provide the same quality you get on a music CD, then in fact, the person downloading the music isn't getting "the real thing" for free.
Thus, this is piracy and not theft. And theft is the immoral act. Piracy wasn't mentioned in any biblical text.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
If you're downloading mp3s for nothing - and someone produced and recorded the music with the intention of you paying to listen to it - then you ARE stealing it.
Except it and shut-up - don't try to justify it with pathetic pseudo cyber-hippy arguements like "big-corporations don't deserve our money 'cos they over charge us"!
I.T. has the some of the most inflated rates of any industry. I'm sure most of you are well familiar with the concept of over-charging!
And has it occured to anyone that in the end someone MUST pay - otherwise the system breaks down. People cannot persevere in any field without making money enough to live on.
If you're so bothered about having a new world where everything is free why not give up your job and go and live in a self sufficient commune, grow you own vegtables and sit in pig shit all day. I think you might miss your Coke, Pizza, Cable TV and other assorted luxuries provided to you by various "evil" corporations.
Or better still, do your current job for nothing because thats is basically what you expecting others to do!
Grow up!
Excuse me, but if you really wanted the goatse.cx troll to be effective, you'd attach it to a post containing a real goatse.cx link. Most of us knew the moment we saw your warning that the link was perfectly groovy, and went for it without hesitation.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Gonzo
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Until CD's are no longer sold, NOTHING, not SDMI, not WMA, not micropayments, will stop the trading of MP3's. As long as someone can rip the CD and encode it and share it, why pay for it? That's the logic of the masses, and thats what the RIAA has to fight. The only way this will ever be over is for CD's to be abolished. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
Using Napster to download MP3s *is* not illegal.
I won't touch the moral question, and I'm not talking about Free Speech or IwtbF. I guess it's illegal to distribute music if you don't have permission to distribute it from the author/owner, so the persons placing music on Napster is doing something wrong. Downloading the music is not theft or property damage. You are not taking away something from someone else. It is not different than going to the library for a book.
Here's a thought; if someone set up a music library, online, with the same intent and purposes as a RL library, would grabbing music from them be illegal? What difference would there be?
Anyway, I take issue with the statement that people are 'stealing'. I think the definition of theft is old and unsuited for music, because it is *not* a limited resource, nor is it a rare or precious commodity. Someone who 'takes' a copy does not deny a copy to someone else. It is 'theft' in that the owner of the music is not getting reimbursed for the transaction. I agree that we have no right to take from them, but I disagree with the statement that it is theft, the same as taking a car or a shirt. We are guilty of violating contract and transaction protocols, the exchange of value for value, but not guilty of taking away value from owners.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
That link is QUALITY! Give it a try. You will like what you see!
Thank you.
As I've said in reply to another post, if we don't stop connecting "the movement" to this (and other future) issues it will fall. There is a big difference between being able to use property you own (fair use of a copy ie. DeCSS) and forcing others to let you do as you wish with their property (Napster).
I feel very strongly about this. I may sell or in some other way license you a piece of code I have written. Never mind the terms of that license (FreeSoftware or not), the point is it gives you certain rights of fair use. I still have rights as well _unless I assign them to you_.
This is important, and it underscores what is wrong with the Napster argument. I still have the right (and it is a right) to choose what happens to my property. And here is where you've gone off into the weeds. The movement is about freedom for people, not about freedom for something that cannot enjoy it (the IP, music, code, whatever).
I _should_ release my code under a FreeSoftware license so that you can benefit, there is a moral imperative to do so. Perhaps music is the same, I don't write or perform music, so I can't say (but it seems to be the case). Now if I decide not to release my code (as in FreeSpeech), it is _not_ your right, nor is it moral or legal for you to force me. That takes my rights away _as a person_ (forget about IP rights). This is against the purpose of the movement, and unfortunately what Napster does (take away the rights of artists).
DeCSS is different. Someone has licensed you something (a movie, for instance). However, they restrict you from using that which you have fair use rights to. Forget about fair use to copy (you don't need or even want DeCSS for that), in this case it's fair use to even _watch the movie_.
IMHO, the movement needs to choose it's battles more carefully, or it will fall. Situational morals are so convienent, arn't they!
I found the article interesting and insightful. It certainly reflects the the authors own mixed feelings about the technology. This section from part four was particularly amusing:
Not everyone is a network security guru, y'know. But there is alot more in the article, and at least the guy was trying to think about this.Maybe this isn't news. maybe it should be.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Allowing the travails of a single industry -- no matter how legitimate its concerns -- to decide the architecture of that arena would be a folly that could take a long time to undo.
Especially when that industry has a long history of screwing the artists. Perhaps neither the RIAA's model nor Napster's model should be used. The RIAA has shown it's colors and Napster doesn't do enough to compensate artists, face facts, artists have to be compensated or all the arts will suffer. Artists have to eat, they have to have supplies, a roof over their heads. If we're not willing to pay something for their product, they'll have to get a mundane job and who knows how many masterpieces will go uncreated because the unrealized artist is sacking groceries.
We need to get some cross-industry feedback before we decide what the "right" thing to do with intellectual property is. The RIAA is _NOT_ the industry we should attempt to emulate.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
Or is there a new law (since 1997) that changes this?
DMCA, 1998.
--
--
E_NOSIG
The funny thing about a good portion of the slashdot community being so supportive about napster is that they are essentially screwing the artists they listen to. Imagine this: /. necessarily supports the geeky start-up. It is amazing how predictable any large group of people is.
The record companies one day decided they were no longer going to sell music. They were simply going to take the music and give it away without giving the artists who created it a cent in return. There would be an uproar on slashdot about how the record companies are not giving the artists the money they deserve. However, since a geeky start-up is fighting a big business,
Maybe before we worry about these decisions affecting the future of democracy, we should worry about whether or not we have a democracy to begin with.
From http://www.realdemocracy.com/demorep.htm
Is the United States a democracy or a republic? Unfortunately, the answer is politically and definitively confusing. Our form of government is both a democracy and a republic. Fortunately, the debate is beginning all over again and it was started by ordinary people who feel that our government is out of control.
He's right, it was well-written. It's also the first mainstream news I've seen in a while that correctly notes the distinction between "Napster distributes copyrighted songs" and "people can use Napster to search each one another's hard drives for music."
... Exempt from criminal prosecution reproduction or distribution that is not done "willfully" or that constitutes small-scale non-commercial copying (copyrighted works with a total retail value of less than $1,000)
Another interesting note though, is that the article links to the No Electronic Theft Act, which says the following:
The criminal copyright and trademark provisions in titles 17 and 18 of the U.S. Code are amended to:
Now wait a minute, doesn't that say that if I go out on Napster or Gnutella or what have you, and get copies of lots of copyrighted songs, that I am exempt from criminal prosecution? As long as I don't steal anything worth more than $1,000 (per work, right, not total value?) or willfully distributed these songs?
Is there a catch? Am I to be civilly prosecuted, instead of criminally? Or is there a new law (since 1997) that changes this?
Or can you really not be busted for piracy unless you willfully distribute or pirate more than $1,000 at a time? This is much like making it legal to own and smoke pot, merely illegal to be a pot dealer.
http://www.gnu.org/philos ophy/reevaluating-copyright.html
Can your IM do this?
The articles are longer than what you find in USA Today, and require reading skills and critical thinking skills to comprehend.
Perhaps you should just stick with Aint it Cool News, and other sites that use short words and lots of pretty pictures.
Hey boyz and girliezz, you want some fun that big brother cant take away from you. They can try and take napster but just let them touch my comics. Visit my homepage!!!
Thank you.
What's actually at issue is the real right (backed by copyright law) of the public, once having purchased Metallica's music, to do whatever they want with it, including making copies and sharing them with their friends. Free use of information, including things like recordings of Metallica performances, is legally recognized as the default state. As a matter of public policy in order to encourage the creation of artistic works, and not because of a "right" of an artist to be in permanent control of his work even after he's sold it, the law grants a limited, temporary monopoly on the commercial distribution of the artist's work--but that's the exception, not the rule--and the law makes it clear that the limited temporary monopoly does not override the underlying right of the consumer to use the work (including making copies for non-commercial purposes, excerpting for reviews, and all the other things that fall under "fair use").
The record companies have been doing everything in their power to convert that limited temporary monopoly into a permanent, unlimited one, and erase the fundamental distinction between information (which can be copied infinitely without making anyone poorer) and real property (which cannot).
Nice to see a 19th century magazine writing about 21st century technology ;-)
I think that historically we will not regard Napster as the source of the problem, nor MP3, nor perhaps even the Internet. The music industry itself lay the foundation for the present malaise in the early 1980s by digitalisation: The Compact Disc.
By digitalisation they created a medium which seemed to have only advantages (beter quality, durability), but when new technologies emerged in the 1990s, a situation cascaded into effect which the industry did not plan on.
First there were PCs which from 1993 onwards were equipped with CD-ROM players that could easily "rip" those digital files off of the CDs.
Next with the publically available Internet of 1994 people could now exchange those digital files anonymously, though it was still impractical.
Then MP3 came to the foreground (±1996) which did make it practical to exchange the files and finally Napster and its ilk (1999) made it all accesible to the masses by providing an easy-to-use service.
Apart from Napster none of these technologies had the intention of the free exchange of music, but combined they created a major headache for record executives.
Think it won't happen again? Watch as the movie-industry makes the same "mistake" all over again. Or what do you think the digitalisation of film combined with greater bandwith, faster processors and terabyte-harddisks will result in?
Doktor Merkwürdigliebe
- Also Sprach Doktor Merkwurdigliebe
Why does the article mention DivX as this tool for copying movies created by hackers? Am I missing something here? DivX... that's the proprietary DVD format from Circuit City, right? Or is my memory failing? Why does the author liken DivX and DeCSS? Or is there actually something else that's called DivX now?
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Now just where the #@$*#@ did you see that? Certainly not on their announcements page.
Last time I checked, they were being sued to get shut down. MP3.com has entered into arrangements with certain labels, not Napster.
Sheesh.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
In the real world the strongest person can beat the shit out of you and take back what they just sold you and do what they want with it; there is no such thing as "natural property rights". On top of the real world we have a bunch of socially constructed artificial laws. Copyright just happens to be one of those socially constructed artificial laws. That doesn't make it worse than the artificial property rights that you base the other half of your argument on.