Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Opt-In Filtering For Napster
"So who would decide what songs go on this 'opt-in' list? The copyright holder or the RIAA?
In other words, if I want to distribute a 3-hour recording of me gargling (to which I would own the copyright), would I be able to add it to the opt-in list? If so, what's stopping anyone adding in any old song into the list. If not, who would be responsible for listening to all the material that is submitted, and deciding whether or not it should be added?"
I bet the completely trustworthy, infallably charitable Music Industry would like to be the one making that decision. They know what's best, and how much it should cost (per listen, ideally). Conceding control of what's on people's hard drives to large businesses with vested interests in limited fair use (however you define it) seems like a bad idea.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
This sounds very big brother-ish... only listen to the right music, go to the approved places, drive in gov't sanctioned cars.
Sure, I say this with sarcasm now, but even if They can't take away our physical rights, why not our electronic ones? Right now there is the possibility that Napster could turn into the only RIAA approved file sharing system right? And it'll only stock "approved" titles. So what makes you think that after a good relationship is established that gnutella etc aren't going to be what They start going after?
I hate to be a conspiricy theorist, but I appreciate my fair use rights as much as the next guy. Soon you won't be able to download non-sanctioned music, you'll have people monitoring what you watch on your HDTV, you won't be able to record it, and your HDTV won't really be under your control anymore anyway, as it's remote control capabilities allow Them to turn it off when They see fit. Oh, and those DVDs you purchased? Wanna watch them on a non-approved OS or using a non-licensed player? Sorry bub, no joy. Rip a CD to listen in an un-approved manner? Good luck!
Sarcasm now, but lets see what it's like in a few years.
I'm Slashdot User #580, who else?
I'm no kind of hero man. There are so many people out there who're just like me- turn away from the TV and commercial FM radio and you'll spot 'em all over the place. Maybe I'm just madder than most because I'm 32 and have spent _years_ learning about this stuff and learning how to do it myself instead of being a passive consumer person with a neat little role in society.
If you like what I have to say and want to cheer me up, then when I _do_ finish all this CD mastering and move over to Ampcast and start selling awesome CDs, buy some- I do enough very different sorts of music that probably there's something in there you'd like.
If you _really_ want to cheer me up, save your money and buy a guitar and start making your own damn art! -chris
Of course, my cowardly friend! I do both kinds of music- country _and_ western ;)
I DON'T HAVE FUCKING TIME TO PERSONALLY AUTHORISE EVERY LITTLE DOWNLOAD!
_Apologies_ to anyone who is offended by this strong language- but I am _very_ angry here. As copyright holder it is UP TO ME how I want to license my stuff. As it happens, I use the statement "All commercial rights reserved- noncommercial copying OKAY", because I fully intend to completely permit ALL FORMS of fair use copying and EVERY sort of copying and sharing and trading that doesn't actually involve someone charging people for my stuff. That is MY RIGHT under the law. _I!_ am the one who says what people can do with it.
Even _if_ the idea of this isn't 'submit your song to the RIAA to have Napster given permission to let YOU host it on YOUR computer only', even if the idea is that Napster keeps the records, I am really angry and finding this suggestion absolutely intolerable. As copyright holder _I_ have the right to authorise every listener I have to share my stuff on Napster. I've even asked people to do just this, repeatedly- I thought it would not only help me but would also add to the argument that Napster links to lots of different kinds of content.
I am not trying to get a free ride off the RIAA, okay? I'm not even _seeking_ fame and money and record contracts that are fair. I am perfectly content to do all the work for producing my own music, to seek out places like besonic and ampcast that aren't ripping me off, to accept that I may not sell zillions of CDs even once I finish the work of making them available from Ampcast. I'm not asking for help with all this, and I'm not getting any. I have to do it all myself and that suits me fine.
But I draw the line at having to be a _fucking_ performing rights organisation too, just because OTHER PEOPLE can't deal with the idea that people can exchange their artworks without paying. I am completely offended at this to the point that I begin to understand the feelings of some slashdotters and anarcholibertarians when confronted with unions: I am more socialist myself but here's a situation where I am forbidden to license my stuff under my own rules because that would mean people could legally share it on napster without my _personal_ authorisation. And I'm looking at a possible future where, every time some new sharing program or P2P thing comes around, I have to PERSONALLY go and give them an 'it's okay to share my music' before they're permitted. Goddammit, I write that on my CDs! I do not have TIME to piddle around being a performing rights organisation. The record companies have time and resources to do this kind of crap, and I do _not_.
And I am _pissed_ that they are even suggesting it. Sorry for all the strong language. I am _so_ pissed at this suggestion. I'm sorry, I put a great deal of effort into checking out the resources available to me (like ampcast, and for that matter CafePress) that let me offload some of the work in being an active, productive Internet artist and musician, and this ability is absolutely central to increasing the fluidity and efficiency of the Internet age and allowing people like me access to the world's commerce and media. It is _crucial_ that I am allowed to set my own terms on copyright and that this is _respected_: requiring me to authorise each new little P2P startup is refusing to honor the copyright licensing I already make that specifically authorizes noncommercial copying! I _must_ be allowed to authorise just-plain-listeners to share my stuff on P2P networks etc, do anything with it as long as it's noncommercial- because _I_ don't have the time to run around being a Publishing Rights Organisation and an IANAL and a publicist and an advertising flack and a suit. It's just not reasonable. Why the hell can't they at least let _me_ do my work and allow the random forces of the net to bring me whatever publicity or sales turn up? Why do they effectively plan to _force_ me to operate as a rights agent and individually authorize every little P2P thing that might turn up? I am so angry...
OK, that was messy and a lot of extrapolation but I've got a lot of work to do which these nice people at the RIAA are _not_ helping me do in any way shape or form, so I'd better go off and do it and hope other people can keep the RIAA from loading even _more_ compulsory work on me for the privilege of trying to distribute MY OWN music... I _so_ don't have the time to track down the relevant people and scream at them... if anyone wishes these views cleaned up for broader publication I'd be more than happy to do so and promise not to say F**K...
So don't go telling me corporations are evil. If anything's evil here, it's human nature -- the willing pursuit of personal wellbeing even in instances where such pursuit involves direct and willful harm to others. And I don't think you can do anything about that.
It's always bugged me that the heads of a corporation get to claim the value of the corporation as their own assets.
Erm. They can't. A significant part of it, maybe, depending on how much stock they own -- but actually claiming a company's assets as one's own is only possible in a sole proprietership, to a lesser extend in a partnership... absolutely not in a corporation.
Corporations are a useful thing - there are things you can ONLY do with lots of money. But corporations as people, that's a mechanism that doesn't need to be there, wasn't always there, and now serves primarily as a way for greedy assholes to increase the size of their dicks.
Not so. There's a very, very important reason corporations are considered people: If you're not a person, you can't sign contracts. Think about that for a moment.
In the case of a sole proprietership, for instance, the company cannot sign contracts -- though the owner (and his agents) can. The only thing is, it's the owner who is personally liable to these contracts, and not the company as a whole. The concept of corporation makes a distinction between the owner and the company -- and that's a Very Good Thing.
So Bill Gates can't spend the company's money, beyond what the board of directors authorizes. Control is already heavily delegated, flowing through people who eventually answer to, and can be kicked out by, the actual owners of stock. Hence, it's Not That Bad.
If you can voluntarily transfer money to other people, you can use it to influence their actions. It doesn't matter if you're legally a corporation or any other kind of entity. If you can have enough power over a business to run it effectively (resource allocation, hiring and firing, etc) then you have enough power to make people do things they otherwise wouldn't. If you have enough money to amass material wealth, you have enough money to control. I totally miss how removing one particular (useful) legal fiction makes money and power only useful for good -- or how it limits their ability to be misused to a greater extent than it constrains their availability for more proper purposes.
If you propose that somehow a change in the law will have an effect upon men's souls -- or that there is any way other than through instilling individual ethics to eliminate corruption and evil -- then I've little alternative but to brand you a hopeless idealist. If you believe that it's only through a few, specific, easily eliminated means that men do each other harm, you're more than a bit naive. There's no way to separate the power that corrupts from that which gets things done... and personally, I think that this power, on the whole, does more good than evil.
If you see means to fight specific abuses which can take place without infringing on productive uses or individual rights -- good! However, I'm more than a bit concerned when I see movements which wish to throw the baby -- the high standard of living we enjoy -- out with the bathwater.
Content can not remain in (1) forever.
That remains to be seen.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Well it seems like they'd be able to distribute their music by granting Napster permission to do so.
i.e. the point of the opt-in list.
The RIAA's people (actually, label A&R personnel and record producers) already listen to unsigned bands. The only effect this has is (a) they can find bands to pick up, ply with $500,000 advances and transform into more commercial, mass-market incarnations, or (b) to find what the underground sound is so that they can produce a diluted, more marketable version that eclipses it (examples: old-school hip-hop -> Will Smith, industrial/goth -> NIN/Manson, Jesus and Mary Chain -> Garbage, Liz Phair -> Alanis Morisette (-> Jennifer Love Hewitt's foray into music))
Though blocking infringing uses takes precedence over allowing non-infringing uses. A system requiring each allowed MP3 to have written permission would make Napster impractical and unusable, but that is neither the RIAA's nor the court's problem.
RIAA's present business model has been ruled illegal. Whether they can find a legal business model or not is up to them.
That should of course say "Napster's present business model."
(Though hopefully the RIAA's business model may be ruled illegal soon as well; keep an eye out for Courtney Love vs. Universal Music.)
I don't think even a vulture/buzzard would be able to safely digest one of those "lawyers"...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's up to Napster to decide whether or not they want to do that. But it's not RIAA's place to do anything other than politely ask for it- they can only insist on blocking what is known to be the properties of the companies they represent. They can't "demand" anything other than that because they don't have a legal standing in that regard.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Capitalism is an economic system, not a government system (though we've gotten that very confused of late here in the US...)- and it's done very good by the people of the United States of America over the years. Socialism is another economic system. So's communism and marxism for that matter.
None of these are forms of governments as people mistake them for. Many of the communist countries have totalitarian or oligarchical regimes in charge of the government.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's supposed to place the burdens on the holder to prove that a violation has, in fact, occurred. Not the other way around. Many people need to scream "foul" right now over this.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Bill Gates' vast wealth exists mostly on paper. And there's more than one sense in which a cop may "get away with" violating someone's rights - in Bill Gates' case, I doubt a group of corrupt cops could get anywhere NEAR his fortified house to break and enter.
I can't think of too many people in history who've gotten insanely rich - rich enough to be above the harassment of a corrupt policeman, let's say - without the help of a giant artificial person (a corporation).
A subtle point being missed here is - yes, corporations are legally the equivalent of giant people with super powers. But behind every corporation there's usually a few REAL people operating the controls - they thus have access to all the super powers of the giant they control. It's always bugged me that the heads of a corporation get to claim the value of the corporation as their own assets.
Beneath the surface it's all still about people with money fetishes and a mean streak. But what the current legal definition of "corporation" provides, is a WAY-too-easy way for such people to acquire godlike powers. You can't eat people and absorb their strength, but you can buy corporations and add their powers (and wealth) to your own, removing a potential competitor in the process.
Corporations are a useful thing - there are things you can ONLY do with lots of money. But corporations as people, that's a mechanism that doesn't need to be there, wasn't always there, and now serves primarily as a way for greedy assholes to increase the size of their dicks.
Consider if you removed the "person" aspect from a corporation, and severely limited its rights to behave as a giant person. That is, restore the legal concept of a corporation to what it was 100 years ago. How much damage can a Bill Gates do, if he can only spend his own money, not that of the company? What if corporate mergers were a big deal again, not "oh we bought another one" like it is today? Corporations wield power over the marketplace - but if your power over that corporation is now INdirect, and you can't use their power as your own (to write company checks to bribe politicians for example), owning a corporation no longer grants you godlike power, so even if you're rich, you can't buy power! You can only buy material wealth (which is fine by me), and your "power" if any comes from your ability to personally convince people to see things your way.
Just a thought exercise, pay it no mind.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
In addition, if the selection committee prevents bad music from appearing on napster, it will greatly increase the rate at which napster users find good, independent music.
Wow...
Now...I may get accused of flaming here, but aren't "good" and "bad" VERY subjective terms?
For example, I loathe country music. To me, it qualifies as "bad". Many of my friends share my view. Some don't. I also dislike music from the rap, "hip-hop", R&B and "popular" genres. I'd go so far as to rate these types of music as "bad". IMHO, of course.
Now, given that I have these views, were I selected to perform good/bad picks on various bits of music, that would weed a LOT of music out.
Is that fair? No. Those artists have a right to produce their music. Their fans have a right to listen to it. (no matter how "bad" *I* think it is) Imposing my preferences upon them would be wrong.
This goes the other way too. I would feel cheated if someone else imposed their musical preferences on me.
So...the question is - who gets to say what is "good" in your proposal - and why are they qualified to make those kinds of decisions for everyone? How will the balance be made between standard (RIAA approved) musical preferences and non-standard ones?
You are responsible for paying publishing fees for every single copy out there. Thus you need to track the number of times a track is downloaded and make a micropayment for each one. BMI and ASCAP will get into the act as soon as they realize how much revenue they can get out of P2P companies.
In other words, for Napster to distribute one of my spoken-word pieces, I'd have to tell Napster that it was okay to distribute it, exactly the same way I give permission to distribute my software by slapping a GPL on it. The presumption is that copyright exists and that people own their creations.
Having said that, I have severe misgivings about IP laws in general, but in this particular case, there doesn't appear to be anything questionable going on from a legal standpoint.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
you mean like this ?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Perhaps part of the RIAA motive is to cause individuals trying to share copyrighted music to violate more laws (and thus raise the stakes for prosecution).
Now, instead of just being charged with unlawfull distribution of copyrighted works, you can be charged with something more serious, as you must claim to be the copyright holder to "opt in" with whoever controls the list (even if it is napster). This probably opens up significant new areas for prosecution, perhaps moving the offense from misdemeanor to felony.
Of course, none of this matters to the slashdot crowd, who always argues in favor of napster in terms of exclusively non infringing usage.
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
The RIAA, MPAA, proving they are morally bankrupt and have no intention of becoming fiscally so, are trying to set up cumbersome and expensive institutions (like the RIAA and MPAA?) which they would control and YOU would pay for.
That a lot of fuss for music that's so bad that the jingles in the elevators are more interesting than the radio and for movies, (I read that "The Sopranos" rated higher than the Oscars,) we don't want to watch being pimped along with nine dolar pop-corn.
Personally, my life is a lot more serene and calm since I started listening only to the sound of one hand clapping and watch iTunes spin its images on my wife's iMac, in utter silence.
Its captivating, free, fill my eyes and ears and disturbs nobody. I spend the money I save on my wife and my life.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Excellant points!
The constitution provides for copyrights for a limited time (so how does that match up with "lifetime of the author plus seventy years?), for the public benefit.
However, there's no statement anywhere in the constitution that says that if you are making money right now, then you have the absolute right to continue to make money, despite whatever may happen in the future. Most buggy-whip manufacturers from the preceding century found this out the hard way.
However, buggy whip manufacturers of this century (read: RIAA, MPAA) are screaming bloody murder. The frightening thing is that judges are listening to their sorry tales, and are making stupid decisions ("sorry, you may not link to that page!") for the sole benefit that these buggy-whip manufacturers continue to rake in their billions of unearned dollars.
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
The RIAA represents five music publishers. They may sell the majority of all music recordings, but there are many other smaller publishers and self publishers.
The RIAA's idea is that you must get your music file onto their "approved" list before you can share it with anybody.
And, of course, the RIAA wouldn't want to provide such a service to their competitors for free, would they? That's right. This is just a simple, slimey trick that would allow the RIAA to extort money from ALL music distributors if they want their music on Napster.
So, the big companies get richer, and the smaller companies take it up the ***.
I guess the "government by the people, for the people, and of the people" is redefining the word "people" as multi-national corporations.
[sigh]
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
It would be trivial to implement and include in a napster application an automatic translation from names to numbers. Filtering becomes completely useless because only the numbers are stored in Napster.
and restraining piracy is NOT the same thing. Show me a law that says companies and individuals cannot band together to present a unified legal front. If RIAA were working together to, say, fix prices, then you might have an argument. But merely saying that because they're a combination of companies and doing something that you do not like is not enough.
Well, I'd love to be able to distribute anybody's music, and some part of me says it should be OK. I'm not sure it is really right to deprive an artist of income, but it doesn't sit well with me to thing that companies should be in control of it. Music and Business don't work well in the same sentence.
I've downloaded lots of stuff from Napster. Most of it was because I was too lazy to rip it from my own collection. There were two kinds of songs that I ripped from Napster:
1) The kind that I listened to, then bought the album.
2) The kind that I would not have bought, whether or not I got it from napster.
The third kind - The kind I would have bought, but didn't because I got it on Napster, doesn't exist for me. For the kind of people who buy CDs regularly, I don't think this exists. Anyway, back to the point.
Consider the following scenario:
This judgement passes. Non-RIAA bands are all that is on Napster. Napster becomes the source for all "non-commercial" music. Although it doesn't seem likely, it would be pretty interesting to have such an entity. Right now, it's so hard to see this working, but...
Imagine we went a step further. Since Napster would be totally in-the-clear, in terms of the law, there would be no reason to be afraid to get on. If Napster could compile ratings for bands, as well as associations: people who like band x like band y, and Band W sounds similar to band Z, you could have a very interesting, unbiased, recommendation system for listeners.
When I look at mp3.com's artists(of which I am one) and system, I see a big haystack. The best artists are the needles. Through the use of statistics and voluntary recommendations, I think the haystack could be turned into place where the music that is recommended is better than what you'll find on the MTVs of the world.(my farts sound better than what's on MTV).
More simply put, an unbiased, tracking, review, and recommendation system could allow you to get better yields with less effort(and cost) than the current system. The current system being personal recommendations and media hype.
I could see some advantages for indie bands who can't seem to make it through the RIAA gauntlet and come out heard.
rhadc
http://www.mp3.com/badboogaloo
An artist who -WANTS- his music traded on Napster.
What about it? It wouldn't be effected by this, since RIAA's demand isn't being made on behalf of those copyright holders.
On the other hand, this would be a pretty good policy for dealing with non-RIAA stuff as well. Give Napster permission to index your stuff, and they can. Don't give permission, and they can't. I can't imagine any copyright holder objecting to people asking for permission, instead of just assuming that it was given.
(Except for that weird little presumption that indexing without permission is contributory infringement, this makes a lot of sense.)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There isn't a shred of a hint of a whiff of an iota of a suggestion in the BBC article that RIAA is asking for this.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
And you could still do this, if Napster handles this right. The only difference is that when you release music, the files would be PGP-signed (or something like that) with a bit set that basically says, "I own the copyright to this music and authorize redistribution" or "I assert that this music is public domain", and Napster would have have your public key on file. Then, when they index a file that is signed by you, they see, "Yeah, we know this sig" and everything works.
This wouldn't be censorship. It would just be a matter of Napster covering their ass by only indexing files that somebody else has agreed to take responsibility for.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
These are the same folks who've been saying, "We'll come up with a legit electonic music distribution mechanism, Real Soon Now," for, what, five years? How long do you think they'll take to approve opt-in requests?
They want digital music dead, so the only market that exists is the one they understand and control. If not dead, then delayed.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Indeed, Many times I have gone on napster to download either music which is in the public domain or else sound clips from tvs/movies. I don't know about this, but I'm fairly confident that the movie industry isn't going to go through and ok every single sound clip that is out there floating around napster. As a result, if I record something from say Pinky and the Brain, and then want to put it in my mp3 folder, no one else can access it. In addition what about works which no longer are copyrighted? This sounds totally illegal to me
You must know the moderator, because you're Trolling, if I ever saw it. That remark certainly didn't deserve a 4.
And to the point: Napster isn't eroding anyone's rights. Their business is not illegal. The constitution clearly lays out the right to trade creative works, specifically saying that there may be a very limited amount of time in which the works are protected from this -- to support the ARTIST, not the record companies and RIAA. Jefferson and Franklin, among others, expressed fear that this very thing would be happening, that lawyers and greedy buffoons would sell the idea that there is such a thing as owning ideas (they call it "intellectual property", an oxymoron).
You cannot own ideas. You cannot own a series of bits, no matter how unique. This is obvious to anyone who thinks enough about it. Copyright was supposed to exist for a short period to give artists more reason to create -- not to create property. You're telling me that if I know a song you wrote, you own the part of my brain that knows it? That's not only bullshit, that's tatamount to slavery.
The thing is, you know all this, and you're just saying the opposite to get us to flame you. My score for your post: 0. Troll and Flamebait.
I hope I get to moderate the moderator who gave you the "4. Interesting."
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
How about the assumption that Napster is no more liable for the content it serves than the city bus company is for the intent of the people who ride their busses?
Napster should be able to list any songs a user tells it (implicitly, by pointing Napster to them) are okay, unless specifically told otherwise.
Now RIAA has finally gotten it, and focuses on eliminating the old and useless rule "innocent until proven guilty". We all know that this is only a burden on modern society, and damaging to those that produce creative content. So RIAA wants to approve every song available? Will I have to register with RIAA, and have them check that my music is indeed not copyrighted? As free (and legal) music may make people choose this music instead of buying CDs, what is to stop RIAA from just taking VERY long to approve free tracks, so that the only music being distributed is through their channels? If they get this one, they might try to extend this opt-in system for ALL distribution of creative content. Ooh.. happy, happy, joy, joy.
If for no other reason, having opt-in only means that the RIAA doesn't have to do a damn thing except patrol napster occasionally and search for infringing material, at which point they can sue again because napster failed to filter it.
Napster simply isn't designed to run this way. MP3.COM is. Of course, if I remember correctly the RIAA doesn't care much for MP3.COM either.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I'd like to opt-in for the sharing of a file. The name of my file is:
pig_latin_metallica.mp3
Thank you,
Joe Ripper.
None of my bands have ever been a part of the RIAA andhopefully never will. I wrote it. I recorded it.. I produced it. Not the RIAA. If any of these major "artists" would actually stand up for their rights we wouldn't be in this mess.
There is a reason for the ethics of indie lables and why they have always been and will always be around. Alot of these new "alternative" bands tout their indie and/or punk ethics but I have yet to see one follow through. The cash keeps coming in so it doesn't really affect them.
--
Sue Napster? Hey, the Court has issued its injunction, and Napster has undertaken a good faith effort to comply, massively to Napster's detriment. RIAA wants more, and the more they ask for, the more they'll convince the judge that maybe she misjudged who are the guilty parties. We have already pushed the bounds of Contributory Infringement well beyond credulity. The 9th Circuit requires a scienter-based (knowledge-based) standard for the injunction. What does a right to censor titles have to do with that? Now, RIAA wants the right to affirmatively ce\nsor p2p protocols. Just plain silly, and the Court should see right through this.
now... if you could decipher the insane DATA statements at the end of C64 programs, i'd be impressed.
tagline
... hi bingo
No, it makes you a D.A. in Tex-ass 8-P
That's a joke, for the humor-impaired.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Put it even more simply; if we can all stuff our songs on web servers, who the hell needs Napster? The whole POINT is to turn our local hard drives into temporary servers and create an automatic index. The solution you propose reminds me of all the times my parents asked me to turn the music down, repeatedly, until I couldn't hear it with my ears pressed to the speaker. If you're going to insist the music can't be heard, just fucking turn it off and admit that's what you are doing.
No, I don't have any answers, either. This is going to get a lot more complicated before it gets better.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Content can fall into one of two categories:
1. Copyright
2. Public Domain
The RIAA plan does not account for works already in (2). Further, to paraphrase: "In the end, all works are Public Domain" - that is, Content can not remain in (1) forever. Thus, any proposal regarding "Opting In" would need to account for this.
Very good point about which/how many Copyrights apply. I think there was a recent article about this very issue biting the RIAA's plans at on-line music distribution. The Songwritters want to be compensated.
The problem is that this assumes that all content is copyrighted in the first place and that the copyright lasts to perpetuity. There should be no need to get permission to distribute works in the Public Domain, as no one "owns" the work.
The RIAA's behavior seems to indicate that they believe that Copyright lasts forever. This cannot be the case under the current Constitution.
is for Napster to no longer be Napster. And actually, I don't think the RIAA is the actual litigant in this case, just for accuracy's sake - it's the record comapines (except Bertelsmann) that comprise the RIAA.
Is it just me, or do the record companies and the courts still not understand what Napster is? Napster does not now and never has stored a single copyright-infringing work on any server. They have never transferred copyright-infringing material through their network. All they've ever done is list what people have on their hard drives available for other people to transfer.
There is no way of creating an opt-in list in this scenario that's any better than the blocking filter they're already trying to use. Napster doesn't have a database of file signatures to block/allow - because they never receive a copy of the song - and filenames are useless for filtering/allowing, as we've already seen.
All the record companies want is to continually raise the bar of compliance until Napster finally concedes "We can't comply with this!" and the court shuts them down. It wouldn't matter if Napster successfully complied with every court order that gets cooked up - the record companies will still claim non-compliance.
Right...
Well, isn't Napster technically a "carrier", not really doing any distribution itself, and cannot be held responsible for what goes over it. If I find something I wrote on the internet, do I sue "the internet"? Or the ISP that hosts the content? Or the country the ISP is in? Most probably I go after the *person* who infringed on the copyright, not the medium itself.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Exactly how does one ensure that the person claiming to be the copyright holder is such? How does one account for works in the public domain, not uploaded by their authors?
If I perform PD music, I don't want Napster Inc. bothering me just because a lot of my fans want to trade it over Napster -- what if I refuse?
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
Dutch national radio does the same, they play MP3s downloaded from Napster (after which they pay the rights for airing the music, so it's legal for them)
what an opt-in list will do to napster will be the following:
-restrict the audience, as music from other countries will probably not be included in the list. If they are, it will slow the appearance of such music, making napster useless outside the US and canada
-No more things like 'Jelle', which started out as a parody on eminem's 'Stan' on Napster and was later released on some record-label(a lawsuit helped to give it publicity). So much for free music.
an opt-in list will be the final straw that makes napster useless.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Bare with me a minute here.. Let me make sure I have the facts straight:
1. A college kid creates napster, and it starts getting some underground attention.
2. Napster gains immense popularity across the world
3. While gaining popularity, literally millions of copyrighted mp3's are being shared between millions of Napster users
4. The RIAA takes notice, and slams a suit on Napster (since they obviously own all copyrighted work that lives on Napster)
5. Napster and Bertelsmann make an alliance. Wouldn't ya know? Bertelsmann is one of the biggest labels behind the RIAA.
6. So, now that Bertelsmann practically owns Napster, and the RIAA has a big-time suit nipin' Napster in the butt, they're turning Napster into RIAAp$ter.
As much as I hate these turns of events, it seems like the RIAA had this planned out all along. Maybe they've had the better of the Napster Community?
-------------------
arcane for life
I feel dirty now.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
I make my music available over Napster. No record companies, just sharing with interested individuals. This is an entirely legal use of Napster that would be quashed by this action. How do I go about "registering" my files as freely available. I'd much rather just make them freely available.
I also use Napster to find the things I can't get in record stores. Live stuff, music out of print, music that was never "officially" released. The majority of it not available for sale through any venue. Where's the stealing there? These songs also would beco0me unavailable to me through Napster.
Back to IRC......just like the old days I suppose, before all the silly kids jumped on the bandwagon.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
This would involve putting into place some kind of controlling body to stop any Joe from saying, "Yeah, I'm Bono, it's ok to put 'All I Want Is You' on Napster." How would they go about confirming that a track that I've written is really being represented by me? It could turn into an interesting registration system, or it could be a free for all.\
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
THis sounds like they're trying to turn Napster in to a P2P version of mp3.com. I don't see a problem with that as long as they can find a way to accept submissions without RIAA having to OK each one. I don't think that'll be a problem because it's already being done at mp3.com. Of course, there will be people who try to do things like the suggested "my new band Etallica..." post, but then the problem is 100% with the user mis-representing themselves, and that's who the lawsuit should be against.
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
/* Copyright RIAA, forever and ever, so don't even THINK about
/* making use of this. It's OURS, understand?
#import All_Frank Wojnarowski_Polka_Music
#import Survivor_Eye_of_the_Tiger
#import Everything_by_Liberace
#import Engelbert_Humperdinck_sings_Janis_Joplin
#import Golden_Throats_Volume_1
public static void main() {
System.out.println("Thank you for using Napster - now with only 15 days to live!");
}
...a possibility to make opt-in filtering much easier would be to sign some sort of agreement with the CDDB people for the use of their database as a method of retrieving song names, so that songs with a filename matching a song name in the CDDB would be allowed.
this would be my concern. there are quite a few of my mixes and tracks up on Napster, and i love that they're being distributed. the problem is that people rename the MP3s all the time, perhaps to fit into their naming convention on their disk, or to a name that's more descriptive to them.
i see these variations all the time, and up until now it hasn't really been a problem (in fact, it usually means more people start finding the mixes under these slightly different file names). now i have to write to Napster every time somebody renames one of my tracks? give me a break! the RIAA are going to have to realize that they're not the only people out there distributing music, and they're certainly not the people distributing good music. but i always believed the whole Napster issue was more about music distribution than copyright infringement.
- j
Radio broadcasters PAY copyright holders royalties in order to play their music.
Since virtually all artists sign over their copyrights to the recording companies, radio broadcasters are paying the companies that make up the RIAA.
I would not dispute that radio is not free. However, it seems rather trivial that I may listen to, and record, any song played on the airways, and play it back at my leisure (protected by the fourth amendment).
It is a great scam too. The best form of advertising possible is air play, and the recording companies get paid on a per play basis for this advertising.
Remember the last court order Napster was ordered to take their service down completely. It was then that napster said oh wait we'll put up filters if we can stay open. The courts have already decided that the non-infinging uses of Napster are expendable.
The injunction against the last court order basically said that the court order had to allow for non-infringing uses of Napster - hence the revised court order which said Napster had to block identified copyrighted material from the plaintiffs. Any decision by this court will be reasonably bound by the appeals court to allow for non-infringing uses. To allow blocking of non-infringing uses is akin to saying you cannot host a web site in which people freely exchange free information.
The court has an obligation to ALLOW non-infringing uses of Napster that will prevent this from happening. You have to identify infringing uses, and block them. Not block everything, and then decide what is non-infringing and allow it.
Basically, a long long time ago, the RIAA opened a really bad Pandora's box called radio. In this scheme, the radio stations pay the RIAA to play music, and the consumer gets music for free. Well, it is only a small leap in the consumer's mind from free music over the radio to free music on demand via Napster.
If it were not for free music to the consumer, the RIAA would be nearly worthless. That is their dominant form of advertising - radio, MTV, et al. Now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
You rmissing the point.
They are arguing for the ability to say "Only approved mp3s can be distributed".
This brings up the question of "Who can aprove"?
There is no magic wand that you can wave over an mp3 and determine the copyright holder of the music. For all Napster knows, thats 3 hours of my neibor gargling that I bootlegged and am distributing without permission.
If the average user can "aprove" something, then they can aprove anything. I can rename Metalica's "For who the bell tolls" to "Music by steve" and say "Hey I am the copyright holder of this, aprove it".
In which case, they again have no control, and everything reverts to buisness as usual.
If only the RIAA and big wigs like them can make aprovals, then anyone who DOES make hom emusic, or other audio (like 3 hgours of gagling) is screwed.
Basically... these restrictions can either be pointless (ie anyone can aprove) or, they have to screw over the very people that Napster was intended to help (at least in part)
Sounds to me like a setup for a circular argument actually... impose restrictions so that only aproved music, by the RIAA can be distribiuted. Then they can claim that nothing is aproved, and since only they can aprove, any argument that napster is used by independant artists is untrue, since they are now barred by napster... so napster is just a medium for copyright infringement with no value to independant artists.
--Steve
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
does this mean that everyone ripping approved songs is going to have to learn to spell things the same way?
"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
--
Free Mac Mini
What about their rights? What about the law that says you can't copy stuff without the copyright owners consent?
--
Free Mac Mini
Just because they lack the resources doesn't mean anything. People declair bankruptcy every day, businesses close up all the time because they lost a legal fight and couldn't pay the fine/comply with the law.
--
Free Mac Mini
I'm assuming that the copyright holder of the music is to contact napster and then opt in themselves. Most music will be owned by RIAA (per the artists record contract). Anything else (stuff I recorded in my garage) will have to have the permission of me. So I send that permission to Napster and all is well.
Doesn't sound like that bad of a deal to me. Who knows, there might be non-signed bands that don't wait their music on napster and don't have the money/time/resources to sue people trading their copyrighted works without their permission.
--
Free Mac Mini
I'm sure the RIAA would want jurisdiction over the opt in decision, thereby also giving them control over independent artists who want to use their talent to make money for themselves instead of paying the music industry to do it for them.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Then.. Since Guns facilitate thefts, the gun manufacturers are accessories to the crime.. Ford/Chevy/Toyota/etc. are responsible for theives leaving crime scenes are should be prosecuted as accessories ?
UPS Sucks
And is there anyone that doesn't think the RIAA would put its slowest, most detail-oriented people on the queue for submissions. Every cover band will be tossed off for not having permission to record...every bootleg will be yanked...anything with even the slightest hint of copyright will be yanked.
Oh, and just like Yahoo! and the other search engines, I'm sure the queue will have several months backup... it'll be just like ordering from a record club like BMG or Columbia House. Everything will be nice and delayed while the record companies figure out how to maximize their profits... and minimize everyone else's rights.
==
Is there a world outside the US?
Screw the RIAA. They're messing with me now.
If gun manufacturers ever hand over e-mail between senior management discussing their campaign to increase crime, then they'll have the same liability problem.
The problem with claiming that Napster is a common carrier and it wasn't built just to support copyright infringement is that they did intend for it to be used to swap infringing works. They discussed this in e-mail and even gloated about how they would put the record companies out of business.
The RIAA members hold copyrights over the RECORDINGS of the songs. The songwriters that put pencil to staff and put notes on paper own the copyright to the MUSIC.
That's why ASCAP and BMI go to the authors of the songs, not the recording companies.
As long as you pay your ASCAP and BMI for the songs you record, please feel free to cover popular songs and put them up for download. The RIAA has no control over that.
RIAA Doesn't want it's own music put on Napster. RIAA then controls an opt-in filter. Hence, nobody else's music gets to be on Napster... Thus, no music on Napster... hmm... "We can't win in court, so we'll have to cut off their supplies"...
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
There are a couple of options here. One is that you could do some sort of interesting form of diff-for-mp3's where your app would be able to check wave forms and such. After all, rips of songs from CD's are different: file size, encoder-used produces different files, different sampling rates, etc., etc.
Are there apps out there that can take two sound files, compare them (even at different sampling rates and "bit" (192, 168, etc.)), and determine whether they are the same?
It would be cool to see something like this happen.
--
MG
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
RIAA approved file list in XML format. Intercepted in a SOAP transaction to Napster last night by an anonymous hacker:
<?xml>
<RIAA_APPROVED_FILE_LIST>
</RIAA_APPROVED_FILE_LIST>
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
What about all the music out there that is NOT controlled by the RIAA?
Since when does the RIAA speak for artists OUTSIDE of the US?
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
After all, Steve Jobs is CEO of Apple, who are heading up the Rip. Mix. Burn. of iTunes and the DVD-R burning of iDVD and DVD Pro.
Steve Jobs is also CEO of Pixar, who last I knew, were in bed with Disney and members of MPAA, and makers of DVDs that require DeCSS to view on Linux.
So Jobs is having it both ways, he's selling the machines that enable fair use / copyright violation, and producing some of the material that gets reproduced through fair use and copyright violation.
I know this was primarily about Napster, but I couldn't resist bringing this issue up. It might have been more relevant if Apple owned a record company, but the iDVD- Pixar parallel is close enough, especially with the existance of iTunes.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Of course, you could always create a bunch of junk with the new and approved "legal" names. There are so many ways for this to go wrong.
but the RIAA is training people wonderfully well to treat the RIAA like the "Plague of the Month Club."
this must thrill them no end.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The one tiny problem is that RMS, who I had always pegged as being overly idealistic to the extreme, failed to place his song under the GPL. Instead, you're only allowed verbatim copying and distribution of the original article linked above (with no mention of whether or not you may produce recordings of the song, provided that you make the original sheet music still available).
So, instead, I offer the following (admittedly imperfect) lyrics distributed under the LGPL (for convenient mixing with commercial songs). If you have a problem with them, you're more than welcome to fork-and-fix.
LameAnti-RIAASong, v0.1 (Proof-of-concept prototype)
Contributors: Cameron Perkins, DeAnna Janecek, Stevie Strickland
We don't like all this opt-in stuff.
It speaks of serious collusion.
There's more to music than comercial fluff,
Hillary Rosen is suffering from delusion.
This song is just a half-assed protest,
it may not become a geek war cry.
But putting aside all bits of jest,
at least we did something to try.
Thanks to the Supreme Court decision
in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
we can create a spoof full of derision
and stuff the cease-and-desist down the sink:
All our music fades to grey,
getting further from us every day,
as the RIAA marches on,
soon the music might as well be gone *insert guitar riff here*
The RIAA attempts once more,
to prepare for this copyright war
and if we don't settle the score
they'll continue suing forever more...
(Quoth Lars Ulrich, "...ever more.")
All content IS copyrighted in the first place - read the current copyright act (if you have a strong stomach.) Very, very little recorded material is in the Public Domain since, if it were recorded after 1923 it has an automatic copyright lasting an absolute minimum of 70 years and, more likely with music, for 95 years. Congress has been systematically lengthening copyright term limits since 1909. Every time one limit is almost over, they tack more time onto it - a perpetual copyright handed out piecemeal. For more information check out my copyright website at http://limitingcopyright.com -- a lot of good links to important articles.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
Please show me where I said that.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
This is not illegal restraint of trade, because a) it hasn't friggin' happened yet, it's only that RIAA has asked a court to order it, and b) even if it did happen, something ordered by a court is assumed to be legal unless it's overturned, and even if it is it's ultimately the court's fault, and not the petitioner.
If I ask a court to kill my neighbor, that in itself does not make me a murderer.
Next time your knee jerks, don't let it hit you in the head and cause brain damage.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
The RIAA should just drop the Napster lawsuit and get into biotechnology. That way they can replace our ears with digital devices that will automatically bill our credit card whenever we hear one of their copyrighted songs. Then it doesn't matter if you overheard somebody's radio on the street, the poverty stricken RIAA gets their fair share.
Yes, but the Sherman Act prohibits agreements, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade. RIAA is a combination of companies looking to restrain trade. 'Nuff said.
sulli
RTFJ.
If the RIAA wants to block sharing of everything except - what? approved non RIAA music? this sounds to me like illegal restraint of trade. Where's the Antitrust Division when we need it?
sulli
RTFJ.
As a musician I find this very hard to believe and if such a decision could be made, as to allow a body to govern what is allowed instead of what is not allowed, is a very fundamental distinction that will indicate the direction that online civil liberties are taking.
I, for one, have been pleased with Napster's current filtering system. It has allowed more people to find and download our own music, which is free of copyright, recorded and distributed from our basement, for the love of music.
I understand that napster did take advantage of file sharing using material that was not ours to share ( I will take part of the blame, having been an avid napster user some time ago) yet the way this has been delt with has shown, more clearly than ever, that democracy can be bought and that music is no less of an industry than porn, or investing, with no thought to the beauty of the artform. What we need is very clear assessment of social values, what matters, what doesn't, as well as whose responsibility it is to decided such matters.
In fact, this has always been the issue and I don't think we can solve it now, but it's painful to see how the "little guys" always take one for the team while the big guys continue their rape of anything that can be controlled by the almighty dollar.
yoink
I work at a modest college radio station and we have a fairly large collection of CDs, vinyls and 7 inches. Despite our amassment music we do not have some albums. For the last couple of months, our solution has been to use Napster to download and then play the songs over the air; a supplement for the music we don't have. And it has been working very well.
We delete the MP3's after our shows - we only have a finite amount of space after all. There's no stealing here. If anything, we are helping promote the bands by playing the music we love so much.
I guess it's an interesting case in which we are using Napster, but the end results is good for the bands, RIAA and the people who are listening to our shows.
It'll just be harder to play some music or fill requests for music which I haven't gotten around to buying or which the station doesn't have in it's library. Oh well! We lived before Napster and we will live after. But some things just made life a bit easier.
"And what about all the people that don't want their songs on napster and want to sell it/distribute it another way?"
well, if those bands don't want their music copied, then they should write in to napster and say so. It's that simple! If I don't want my music shared, I'll write to napster and give them a list of songs to block. Is that so hard? And yes, freedom is the default.
The problem here is that napster is an outstanding distribution medium. The RIAA realizes this and doesn't want any other (non riaa) artists to use this medium to distribute their own works. The RIAA wants to control the very method of music distribution. They don't want people listening to music that they did not distribute.
With this new opt method, only approved titles will be allowed to be given away. This is different than the riaa having to give a list of music it wants denied on default allow system. The RIAA wants a default deny system and now wants to give the tiny allow list to napster. If the RIAA is deciding what goes onto napster, then what about independent artists. Will they be blocked from distribution because the RIAA controls the allow list? Sorry, but that is restraint of trade and that is illegal.
Furthermore, there are titles that I've found on Napster which are impossible to find in any music store. Hence, the CD's are out of print and they can't be losing money on sales due to downloading. In other words, those CD's are not sold anymore so what the hell am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to not download it and let the songs be locked in plastic encased aluminum substrate in some guys garage because that's just the way it's supposed to be?
This is the sad part of it all, the RIAA can take the CD out of production, leave us high and dry, and because the copyright lasts 90 years we are never supposed to listen to it again even if the CD went out of print back in 1988. I'm sorry, but that is bullshit and it is the prostitution of art as we know it. As far as I'm concerned, there is a lack of good music these days and I rarely buy CD's anymore. I download songs that I would have bought in CD form, but the CD is impossible to find and possibly out of print.
Now, I have no problem with artists getting paid. I have no problem with the RIAA getting paid. I buy CD's, everyone I know buys CD's. I do have a problem with 10+ year old music that is out of print not being put on napster anymore. Obviously, it is not a money maker so what's it to them. I have a problem with the RIAA wanting to crush every known method of music distribution so they can maintain a monopoly. Another problem I have with the RIAA is that they are completely unfair and unyielding. If they had an ounce of fairness in them, I would not be typing this right now.
My new band Etallica just released an album "Nd Ustice Or LL" which we will promptly be submitting for approval.
Burn Hollywood Burn
click here
(Rudy Park is a mildly amusing cartoon in Infoworld magazine)
So let me get this straight. The RIAA wants to put huge barriers in the way of the legal use of napster, effectively eliminating it. Then the only use of napster will either be illegal - and they'll then get it shut down, or non-existant - and they won't have to worry. Why am I not surprised?
Damn it. I actually believe one thing about what the RIAA is alluding too, and that is that Napster is doing their damndest to not do what they know their supposed to do.
They simply are going to act like spoiled little children and keep yelling "NO" and name calling the RIAA. They aren't fighting for me or anyone elses rights. They are fighting to keep their stock value and their salaries. They are damn willing to use the users of their service as cannon fodder in their attempt to stay in an illegal business.
So what happens, the RIAA keeps dragging them into court, and popping out new ideas to screw over the rest of us. Unfortunately everyone damn twit jumps on them instead of facing the fact that is is BOTH the RIAA and Napster that are quickly eroding our rights.
Napster and RIAA both operate on one principal, and that is GREED. The only difference between the two is which came first.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
My question is who gets to choose whether music will be available or not:
A) The Record Company
B) The Artist
An Artist like the Dave Matthews Band, Madonna, Courtney Love, Fred Durst, and many more have voiced their approval of Napster, but they are all under contract with RIAA member companies.
Will their music be available?
Where does the RIAA get off thinking they should be the sole aribter of what it's OK to distribute?
This just gives me that much more motivation to continue my payware music boycott - only pirated music for me until the big record companies back off on content control and actually start paying the artists instead of screwing them.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
If the RIAA gets to decide what songs get to be distributed, they come one step closer to rebuilding thier fallen monopoly on mass distrbution of music and media.
artists with out RIAA recognition (which grow by the truckloads thanks to home recording software and such) will get pushed off to the side as so much rubish, so they wont be competition for the RIAA pop music slush.
Thank the fates that I know that the RIAA will never completly succeed in recreating their previous monoploy just do to the simple saying:
The bigger the wall, the more cracks in it.
the harder they try and squash the people trading the music, the more people they will have to squash (nothing draws a crowd like a crowd), and the more creative those people will get.
people should pay for the music they listen too, but people should also be able to do what they want with what they pay for.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
You know what, this fucking sucks. I have no idea why people did not predict this in advance.
Napster was a wonderful, democratic thing. you could put anything on it you wanted, which meant people were listening to home grown good music and brilliant DJs who produced on their computers instead of Britney Spears. The Britney was a second-order effect of the Napster phenomenon, whose purpose was the creation of a huge music bazaar.
Music swapping (not napster in specific) revolutionized my own taste in music. I was finding archival jazz, the latest electronica from around the world, Japanese girls singing bossa nova tunes over perfect retro backgrounds..instead of all the crap on the stupid radio and at Tower Records.
If the recording company thinks that they can turn Napster into its second order effect- basically, a huge Tower Records store set up in your computer- its head is up its asshole, which we all know is even bigger than the goatse.cx man's!
Goat sex free since 2001
I didn't read anywhere in the article that the RIAA is the sole gateway into this list. Your "Neighbor Gargling" MP3 would have just as much right to be put up on Napster as any song under the protection of the RIAA. If you did rename For whom the bell tolls to some other name, the RIAA can challenge the song in court. Posting a covered song would likely be challenged as well.
This isn't to say that that only the RIAA can challenge the list. Independant artists will also have the ability to do so, though with much more limited resources.
The RIAA is trying to get their members' copyrighted music off of Napster, and this is really the only way to do it. The RIAA doesn't care about indies. They care about their own artists. What's more likely is that Napster will become bare of music barred by the RIAA and filled with indies. Quite the opposite of what you suggest.
Dancin Santa