Slashdot Mirror
MP3.com Summit - The Music Revolution is Over
CBNobi writes: "CNet has an article (which is also located at ZDNet) describing this year's MP3.com Summit, held at San Diego, CA. Compared to last year's gathering, things seemed to settle down a lot. "There's no room for small companies to do big things anymore," said Michael Robertson, MP3.com's 34-year-old CEO." I liked the last sentence, which pretty much sums up the state of things - everything innovative in the music world has been crushed by lawsuits.
Pooling of many people's money (taxes) to buy copyrighted material to be freely shared among them. This has 200 years of precedent supporting this. You are are a stupid punk loser.
Sure Madonna or the Back Street boys can make $20,000,000 a month by doing a few concerts but if you were to force all musicians to do that you limit a lot of them. What if they have a kid and can't tour but they can make a nice income by cutting some albums and living off the record contract and sales?
Yes it is if we make it so.
Given a good enough P2P system music sharing will become so widely practised that enforcing the law would put most of the population in the jail.
So, just keep on showing your kids, neighbours and grandfathers/mothers how to swap files and they can't touch us!
Man, good thing none of this shit ever happened in the sixties.
Nobody except geeks does this. Most of the rest of the population cannot be bothered to find out the latest p2p program, let alone find where the music sharing app saved the file, or organize the files or sit around creating playlists or burning CDs. They're like, fuck this nonsense, I have a life to live, and pick up the CD at the store. It's a quick fad for a few geeks. Normal people aren't going to mess around with it much.
Once again, the Slashbots overestimate their own importance in the grand scheme of things.
Of course... unless they truly believe the law is unjust. Scary huh? I teach my kids to think for themselves. Unlike you and your Oliver North ilk.
Did you know that it was "the law" that Rosa Parks give up her seat on the bus to a white person? Maybe you think she should hae obeyed the law?
It's called query-by-humming and a framework for it will supposedly be a part of MPEG-7.
I doubt the validity of that statement. Underground hiphop has a large following, just like underground punk rock does, and underground techno, and underground whatever. Its by virtue of being underground that you only really know the extent of the scene of whatever particular flavour of music you like. I grew up listening to punk rock, and recently just lost interest or maybe "grew out" of it, I'm not really sure. Underground hiphop is what I've been listening to almost exclusively lately. Nearly everyone I knew in the punk scene considered everyone who listened to rap to be a gangsta wannabe. Everyone in the hiphop scene considered anyone who listened to punk to be a headbanging, slam dancing moron. Neither of these are accurate depictions of the scenes, although there are people in both who fit those descriptions. [Actually, you're far more likely to run into holier-than-thou egomanics in both scenes]. Before you go trashing it, try listening to some. Punk rock and hiphop are a *lot* more similar than most people in both scenes think, and its too bad they can't cooperate more often. Actually, maybe it's a good thing they don't -- the last thing the world needs is another rap-metal band.
Some links:
www.anticon.com
www.hieroglyphics.com
www.rhymesayers.com
www.non-prophets.com
www.fourwaystorock.com
I always post anonymously.
It's not their property. Copyright under the Constitution is an artifical incentive that works by temporarily restraining the public's inherent rights (freedom of speech, freedom of the press) and the free market system. Copyright is not a recognition of property rights.
No, that's called compulsory licensing, and it is already in use for musical compositions & lyrics, as opposed to sound recording. If the Congress decides that it is not willing to give the copyright holder the exclusive right to control commercial distribution, but merely an exclusive right to collect royalties, because THAT would better serve the public good for which the Constitution authorizes copyright in the first place, that is not a gangster action.
People have had their taste of free music now. The record companies really cannot continue ripping both the consumers _and_ the artists off for much longer.
Yeah, eliminate the middle man, lets rip off the artists directly.
--
--
This is exactly what the RIAA would _like_ you to believe, because it equates to
"Everything innovative in the music world comes out of the RIAA labels"
I know it was fun downloading music from all across an RIAA-controlled recent history, but can we get a clue and start looking towards the future please? If I wasn't working _so_ hard at, literally, innovative things in the music world (that happen to be involved with digital mastering and dynamics processing, plus wordlength reduction), I would be insulted at this pronouncement.
As it is, it just makes ya look lazy ;)
Face it, there are loads of innovative, interesting things you can do with music that the RIAA has no jurisdiction over whatsoever. This includes online distribution- see ampcast.com, with their capacity to sell full Red Book audio CDs (not necessarily off mp3s- they can be original masters too) SANS JEWEL CASES to people who would want to store them in carrying cases or want to avoid jewel cases for other reasons. When was the last time you were offered the latest RIAA album at a special price for just the CD of it, no packaging?
I'm sorry Napster is history, but yeesh- move on!
I'd say bringing high-end wordlength reduction, bandlimited sidechain compression, harmonic enhancement, and azimuth chasing into the GPL sphere is a kind of innovative :D
http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/MasteringTools ProSource.txt
And here's the homepage: http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/index.html
Cheers :)
-- Seriously though, there are a couple people (5, or 6) using MP3 for legitimate purposes. --
Oh c'mon I'm sick of seeing everybody saying that besides what everybody says nobody really uses mp3 for legit purposes.
Yes I have thousands of illegal songs.
I also have -thousands- of legal songs, I have a HUGE cd collection I've ripped, I also listen to alot of mp3s from mp3.com's independent musicians.
I've even produced mp3's from my friend's band live performance that I put online, they don't have a record deal and their cd isn't out yet. They're getting a good following online, and they're opening for better than ezra next week. The fact that they're good helps, but a good online presense with the ability for everybody to listen to their mp3s helps too.
Let's not forget mp3s I've downloaded for cds that have been destroyed, and live bootlegs, remixes, and whatnot, which make up the majority of my collection.
Pirating music is wrong, yes, and I disagree with the outright pirating of music. People need to ralize though, something needs to be done about that, and the record industry is realizing that. The massive greed and the lawers will probobly win, but, I had mp3s before napster, and I'll have them after napster.
Like what? Napster? That's the only thing I can think of that you could have meant by that.
Given that this guy is from mp3.com, it seems rather more likely that he's talking about mymp3.com, the service where -- once you proved you had access to a particular CD -- you could access the MP3s to match.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
It would help if our public airwaves weren't held by corporations who play corporate music, but then I mostly just listen to college stations now. But college stations can be obnoxious too, so nothing's perfect. Several online music vendors have a "if you like XXX you might like YYY or ZZZ too", which I think is a good way to find something new, and since it's based on all that information they strip from us (for good or bad) it usually presents a fair sampling of artists.
But it's just hard. It's like you have a make a lifestyle out of finding new music (and we all know the people for whom it's not just a hobby, but their primary identity). So normal people end up finding music by word of mouth and the radio. That doesn't make them ignorant and they don't deserve to be reviled for it.
It's a much better investment plan than dealing with all those damn artists.
I wonder if there will be an uprising by the true artists against the RIAA.
Except it's nothing of the sort.
Unlicenced use of "intellectual property" is merely an individual violating a state sponsored monopoly put in place in order to further public policy goals.
Copyright was never intended to create a new form or property or property rights. Attempting to call licence infringement "theft" is extremely disengenuous.
In small amounts, such activity by individuals isn't even considered criminal (by the actual law). Before recent revisions to the Copyright Act, NO AMOUNT of "piracy" by an individual was considered criminal.
These are some of the things that armchair moralists conveniently ignore in their rants.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's only illegal past a certain point. At least try to get the law right if you're going to be an armchair moralist.
Something like Napster just makes it remarkably easier for an individual not engaging in commercial profit to breach the threshhold that defines the current standard of criminal behaivor in this area.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It suits the situation.
The record labels steal from the artists, and the public steals from the record labels. There's a nice symmetry to the situation.
Regardless of how you might want to smear certain groups of individuals, the most heinous thieves in this situation remain the record labels. They vicimize artists far more effectively than you or I can.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It would be far better than teaching them that moral correctness is merely a matter of authority. Such a retarded sense of morality is usually why most individuals or mobs can't be trusted when the threat of punishment is removed.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, people who think Communism is popular amoung open sourcers are being intellectually sloppy and haven't taken a long enough look at the movement to understand what it's really about and where it really came from, or they are just making a slur. I might add that there are many opensource advocates that don't seem to have thought long enough about it either... (I am not accusing you of either since you merely seem to be repeating something you heard elsewhere).
In certain segments of our society, information hording is one of the highest crimes you can commit, and can ruin your reputation. The reason it is such a high crime has nothing to do with capitalism or communism, the reason is that it impedes progress. Can you guess in what segment that might exist? (I'll give you a hint, scientists) There are also segments of society where it's perfectly legitimate to horde (or at least control distribution of) information, and I have no problem with that (at least on a limited basis).
The opensource movement isn't about capitalism vs.socialism, it's about a collision occuring between two different segments of society. In one segment, information sharing has been part and parcel of everyday life for centuries while in the other, some form of compensation has historically been required for distribution or access.
Well, I could go on, but basically what I believe it boils down to is that (especially in the case of software) we are seeing a bluring of the line between what is science and what is art. And Microsoft, in particular, has become a master of exploiting that ambiguity. Whether or not this is ethical is an open question.
The problem with comments linking communism and opensource is that they completely and totally miss the point of the true conflict. There are too many people who are too wound up in arguments about capitalism==good and communism==bad to realize that not every conflict is about a polito-economic(if that's even a word) theory. But sometimes it's all too easy to allow arguments to degenerate to that because it automatically sets up that good vs. evil mentality in people, and will stir up more of a ruckus.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
Just like we saw a market correction to the over inflated tech stocks this year, we will also see a correction with these Oppressive and Limiting law suits.
Society will eventually decide it values the availability of music (for instance) rather than a few rich companies, and take away that legal bludeon we've given them.
I axiously await a thinking and informed Society who'll start making much needed Societal Corrections.
You want this:
u si c&c=meldex&a=page&p=query&aq=0
http://nzdl2.cs.waikato.ac.nz/cgi-bin/gwmm?mt=m
Lloyd Smith, David Bainbridge are two people at the University of Waikato I used to know who were working (successfully!) on this problem.
... a lot of people think that song is called "Go with him".. but it's not. And now for 50000 in a row. (single funniest ep of MWC) mike
Cool, but useless.
You need the sheet music for this, so it requires a bit more effort to set up than just collecting a bunch of mp3's, but the search algorithm itself is easy to write and efficient and the legal picture may be less ugly.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Actually they just launched a new version a couple of weeks ago - it's pretty cool and they seem to do a much better job of picking songs. It lists what all your friends are listening to, so if you have a couple of friends listening, someone is always listening to something cool and you can just jump right in with them.
Sure it does. I'm at least certain you're familiar with the conversion rate... a dime a dozen.
What?! Pearl Jam don't rock anymore? Hell, they rocked 9 persons to DEATH on the Roskilde festival in Denmark last summer!
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Actually there IS a LOT of good punkrock released since then! You just have to know where to find it! If you go to a (underground) punkconcert and look through the records that old fat punkrocker in the corner is selling you will find LOADS of really great punk/Oi! music released even in the year 2001! The way to find todays good punkrecords is by asking people that you know have a taste similar to yours!
Last weekend I went to Holidays In The Sun festival in Morcambe/England (I'm from Sweden) and although there were lots of old bands playing (Antinowhere League, Cockney Rejects, Exploited, Cock Sparrer, Subhumans, The Damned, Stiff Little Fingers, Sham 69, Partisans, The Blood, The Crack, Menace, Splodgenessabounds, Business, UK Subs, Vice Squad, Special Duties, GBH, 999, Dickies, Peter & the test tube babies, Varukers, Red Alert, Lurkers, Vibrators, One Way System etc etc etc), there were also a lot of younger bands! And thousands and thousands of punkrockers! Todays punkscene is HUGE! And the best thing is that it is back to being underground again!
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
I have already posted in this forum so I can't use my moderationpoints on you. +5 Insightful!
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
...in the small companies getting crushed by lawsuits, especially when all of those lawsuits centered around piracy.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
[XXX] will become so widely practised that enforcing the law would put most of the population in the jail.
I do wish that logic actually held. It doesn't seem to make a bit of difference when it comes to marijuana laws.
I think the United States has shown its willingness to drop large sections of the populus in cages. Maybe you should rethink the protection you feel you have by virtue of "everyone else is doing it too." I would have for you to become the newest forced employee of our great nation's prison industry.
This sig is false.
Am I the only one that see's the positive light in MP3.Com as it SHOULD be taken. I'm an MP3.com artist myself, and I've ammassed a massive $1.60 in earnings over the past few months. THIS DOES NOT BOTHER ME IN THE SLIGHTEST. I am a musician, and what I see as being great about MP3.com, is the fact that around 700 people who may have never even heard my music in their life have now done so - and I've gotten positive comments from all over the world and I've even made contacts. Although I'm glad every time my $ raise a little (hey I might have enough cash one day to send myself a CD of myself!), its not the reason I joined and its certainly not the reason I stay on MP3.com. I think the readers on Slashdot (which I know a fair proportion of actual perform music) should stop worrying about whether they can download the Madonna song thats on the radio ALL THE TIME anyway, and appreciate the service for what it actually provides.
Chris Fraew Andrews
Email me!
Because then I can't get screwed over in the end by the MP3 people, whoever they end up being at the time, to pay for my pirated music using their format.
.. I could be wrong though.
Seriously though, there are a couple people (5, or 6) using MP3 for legitimate purposes.. and it would be bad to see the GIF phenomenon take place a year or two down the road with audio instead of images.
Nice try in making me out to be a hypocrite, or something. I'm not going to lie to you, I pirate as much music as the next guy (and buy the CDs when they deserve my money.) However, it's comparing apples to oranges when you're talking about the standard way of transporting audio over the net being a proprietary standard. It expands beyond just music, and even where it applies to music it is important. You can yell at the guy in the next cube for pirating Windows from Microsoft (and getting IE,) but you can't use that to invalidate his opinion that the web needs to be an open standard. When the Borg comes and takes him away in shackles at the next audit, they'll be sure to ask for input about Windows before they lock him away.
(I can never hold off the inherent CS geek need to make analogies. Damn program abstraction methods ingrained in my brain.)
Someone who sneaks into a movie can still form a valid judgement about the quality of the film, even though they cheated the creators out of their money. If you discredit their opinion in deciding what movie you'd like to see this weekend, simply because they didn't pay, you're being ignorant.
To the AC equating proprietary standards with Communism - Um. I thought that Communism was regarded as a good thing on here by the OSS (Open Source Socialists)
--
I just checked it out.. if it wasn't for your comment I wouldn't take them seriously. Offering a "Insiders Secrets Guide" to getting free hotel rooms if you sign up someone for free isn't the most reputable style of convincing people to sign up :) It's also very loud about the porn aspect of it on the front page, which also makes it seem more ghetto :)
:)
I might try it though anyway, just for kicks. $4 is nothing
--
Well, particularly since the image says something different now, I'd hinder a guess that it's dynamically generated. I'd be assuming too much if I told you it would be trivial for them to put the numbers in text form on the front page.. they might just automate taking a screenshot from the client or something weird.
:) Reminds me of the "free nude britteny picz LOL!#@*$" links and fake FTP directories with "SpearsNippleShot.avi" links on warez sites. And, if for no other reason than to counter the AC insults, I click on all of them, view them regularly, and have them all saved to my desktop.
Images don't always = static. Like I said though, I'm still a bit skeptical just because of the lameness factor in the way they word things on the site:
Search for whatever you want and maybe stumble across some of the thousands of private erotic files which are only distributed in this way.
(Their boldness) Puhleaaaze
--
Ok first off I am not an "open source person" :) Secondly, the Ogg Vorbis idea is not something I would ever have the time, energy, or resources to do.
.ogg format to be the standard instead of .mp3.. not necessarily my goal (I'm too busy running a site and building another) but a goal many "open source people" have undoubtedly.
Anyway, the concept would basically be two things. Take the gnutella network and 1) Make a client that looked and felt exactly like Napster and 2) (not necessary) filter all but Ogg Vorbis files. Perhaps make it an alternative network for speed reason. The problem with the "geek" clients such as gnutella et al not being used by the average dude like Napster was is because they're unaware that they exist or they're too hard to use. If you made a Napster replacement using gnutella you would get around the legal reprecussions (no central server, nobody can shut it down) while letting all the ex-Napster users jump right in. The RIAA couldn't go after anyone except the software developer, and even then, they have no case since the software developer isn't running the network.
Filtering in the Ogg Vorbis stuff exclusively would be an additional benefit in getting the
--
The music revolution IS over. We won. I can get any music I want still.. the record companies think they've won by killing Napster or whatever, but unfortunately their narrow-sightedness has made them be oblivious to the fact that you can get tons of MP3s on
- Audiogalaxy
- Gnutella
- IRC
- FTPs
- Shoutcast Streams
- Direct Connect
and so on. 0 Day albums on IRC anyone? In fact, the MP3s I get are usually named better, categorized better, and easier to find then they were on Napster, since Napster has a very primitive interface and backend.
I feel bad for Napster as they keep getting nailed up to the cross.. but it's a good thing overall since the record companies can spend their time and money to crucify Napster while everyone else is just using other means. Until cops start arresting lots of people for pirating MP3s, the "piracy" of music will continue.
Something I was recently thinking about is starting a new channel of getting music along the lines of Napster's interface for simplicity (perhaps using the Gnutella protocol or whatever so there's no legal issues) which only distributed Ogg Vorbis format files. It would have to include a database backend like audiogalaxy and be smart about recognizing filenames and such. If Ogg were used exclusively in a new easy to use client for trading files, many college kids would probably jump on it and maybe, just maybe, we would have a standard open format for digial music.
Regardless, despite all the depression and pessimism by the small companies looking to make a buck off the music revolution, the end user hasn't had it better, and there's still places to innovate independently as long as you're not trying to get rich quick.
--
If anyone is to blame for the status quo, it is consumers and those FEW artists that CHOOSE to sign. The consumers CLEARLY want music that is packaged up neatly for them. Consumers will buy music, but generally only if they're barraged by enough of it to find an "artist" that they (grow to) like; very few people spend the time to scout for talent themselves. Thus, it takes both cash and knowledge, to bring it to the consumers' ears. Popular radio, television, and other sources have finite air time, and thus will always be expensive. As long as this is true, any artist that wants access to the _mass markets_ will require the _resources_ of some large _entity_ (currently called the label).
The labels are not good. The labels are not evil. They're simply filling a need. In other words, do not blame the labels. This is just the way things are. Unless consumers suddenly change their habits, preferring to be truely unique and finding music of their own, it's going to be the same situation, perhaps just different individuals players. The economics are simply such that there is only room for a few players. Furthermore, the economics are setup in such a way that few artists will even break even. Save your cries for someone else.
The labels are, however, operating within the bounds of copyright law and the artists within the bounds of contract law, thus they deserve to be respected. If you want to change things, _create_ another _better_ alternative, rather than _destroying_ that which you happen to disagree with.
No, I did read what the previous message had to say. My message was well directed. Your message contained a strong implication that all the good artists, being defenceless and incapable of thinking clearly, signed ironclad agreements long before anyone else could give them an alternative, rather than facing up to the reality that what sets those big-name artists apart from the hundred other no-named artists is (record company) money to begin with. In other words, the money creates big names, by and large (it's not generally sufficient by any means, but it is what sets them apart), they're not merely _all_ ensared in the recording companies nets. Thus, far from agreeing with either of you, if the .com's and startups had sufficient resources (both capital and connections), they could make similar stars of their own stars, as opposed to sitting back mp3.com-style, and hoping consumers browsing habits will make a star.
.coms fundamentally lacked an understanding of their environment, never mind the fact that a little VC money is not enough to create a major artist. [Maybe enough to create one if they got lucky, but it's a numbers game. You invest enough in a bunch of artists, in the hopes that just one or two will be a hit.]
That said, virtually all the
Corporate music? They are for profit corporations that consumers CHOOSE to listen to. The music they play is simply that which makes them the most money; they don't care whose money it is. The radio station owners and record industry owners are seperate parties and they have divergent interests. The problem, again, is that popular air time is very finite. Not everyone can get played. Those that want to get played must pay for the opportunity.
While I do enjoy some public radio, the fact of the matter is that the public shows a clear preference for corporate owned stations.
I don't revile them, I frankly don't care that much. The point is simply that if anyone has the power to change the situation, it is the customers. Killing the labels will solve nothing, because, as a result of consumer behavior, there is a need for such parties. They may not behave the exact same way, but the concerns would largely be the same.
why didn't anyone try to sign some big names - example, Hole, Smashing Pumpkins, etc.
Well, Smashing Pumpkins is gone. I was at their last American concert *ever*. But, before they went, they released one more album in MP3 format only, on the web, free for download. I beleive that it was called "Machina II - The Friends and Enemies of Modern Music" which I've taken to be a statement about recording studios. Make what you will of it.
Quick search on google found this site:
http://www.slut-69.com/sp_machina2.html
When it was originally released, I'd read that it was mp3-only, although a search on google turns up several pages that indicate that you are correct. However, for all intents and purposes, giving away a handful of records and asking that they be distributed as mp3's and *only* as mp3's makes it sorta official. At least as official as a CD that was recorded from a master.
everything innovative in the music world has been crushed by lawsuits
Yes, MP3.com did offer an innovative service (making the music CD's you own and leave at home available to you from anywhere.)
Napster wasn't... They took over the mp3 spotlight and basically spoiled it for the rest of the legitamate interests and uses.
not many other bands, not even metallica, i don't think, make as much as she did... But they tour a lot more often, and therefore don't charge fan's $100 a ticket for BAD seats.
I work for a company called Emusic. This is exactly
what Emusic is about. Emusic carrries loads of artists, many of them
(though not all of them) are independants. Emusic works on a
subscription model: you pay roughly the price of a CD every
month, and you get unlimited access to the entire collection
(and there's a one month trial period where you can play
with site and cancel the sub if you don't like). And
weirdly enough, the artists actually get paid royalties if
you listen to their stuff.
I submit that this is actually a fairly sensible business
model, as online businesses go. But
something-for-next-to-nothing just doesn't sound that
exciting compared to something-for-nothing, does it? Real
internet businesses didn't have a chance to get going when
the VC/stock speculation/tulip mania was going on... I'm
really glad to see all that bullshit go.
As for the idea that small guys can't do anything
interesting in the music world any more: Phfftpt.
Here's just one example: Limited Sedition.
This is a CD-R record label that covers improvised music
in the bay area scene. Typical releases are limited to
something like 100 CDs, and it's all great, really strange,
creative music (albiet a little low on teen angst for some
tastes).
For any one who cares about music, there's a million
different directions to go now, for anyone who chooses
stick their head just a little bit above the LCD.
When the starts throw down there Britany's,
we will water capitol with our kidneys
This is such bullshit. Mp3.com's original and legitimate mission did not have any need for relationships with the big record companies. (I would even say that if anyone thinks they need a relationship with the big companies, then they're probably already out of the game, in terms of innovation.) It was only after they got into game of distributing 3rd-party music whom they didn't have a contract with, that these "relationships" became necessary.
Robertson has no one to blame but himself and his own greed. It wasn't the big record companies' fault that he had to sell out; it was mp3.com's foolish decision to offer other company's music on my.mp3.com. If they had not done that, they would have remained untouchable and could still have potential to be a major player in the future. Instead, they blew it and now they've accrued multimillion dollar liabilities so that they've no equity and can be easily assilimated/squashed.
There's probably some ego involved with this whole thing. It must be hard to Robertson to face the fact that he built and then destroyed something that was interesting. It's not surprising that he would look for scapegoats.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Sugar Jones were the winners of Popstars here in Canada, and a recent newspaper article had the managers expressing disappointment because their album wasn't #1, ie. all attempts to essentially manufacture a "sure-fire" hit band failed because people didn't buy the record. I don't feel sorry for either "band" in the least.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Anyway, what I wanted to address was your comments about Robertson being a sellout. As I said, I never liked him either, but as the CEO of a public company, he is legally required to do what will get shareholders the most money. I am completely sure that mp3.com's shareholders were thrilled to learn that their worthless chares of MPPP would be traded for shares of V. So he pretty much had to do it.
______________________________
rooooar
I had read that the Smashing Pumpkins released MACHINA II on one dozen vinyl albums, not mp3s. The band gave the albums to their friends, whom they expected to rip into mp3s. So the mp3s are not technically the official release.
cpeterso
The reason government is giving business such leeway in regards to digital media is that our court judges, congressmen, etc. don't know JACK about such things. As a result, they end up listening to the corporate lawyers/interests, who of course are there to persuade government officials to support their efforts to squash the free trade of information (and even data!)
This, my friends, is the crusade that we Slashdotters should all be taking up and fighting on the front lines for: keeping information free! I don't think any of you want any more than I do to see the Internet turn into a guided-tour of an advertisement-ridden online shopping mall, but I assure you that this is what the corporate interests would like the Internet to be, more than anything else! The Internet, however, was designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: the free exchange of data (and by extension, information, which is useful/meaningful data)
It is possible that such data has effectively an inherent drive to be freely exchanged, but it's better to be on the safe side and actively resist attempts to cut off the flow of information that we currently have.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Fine idea as long you do it all with your own music and kindly defer from stealing others people stuff under the false pretense of "freedom.
If nothing turns up missing, how can it be "stealing"?
Anyway, I was suprised I'd never heard about this until a friend told me about it. Kind of gives me some hope that the labels haven't completely crushed any hope for little guys doing something interesting.
Any idea where I could download that from? I looked on their website, but I couldn't seem to find the download for it.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Very true. In fact, legally it will become impossible to enforce, because one can claim selective enforcement. You see, it's illegal to declare something illegal and then pick and choose whom you will arrest. Otherwise the government could simply declare breathing illegal, and then just use it when the police were "sure" that someone was guilty of something. (Just like they were "sure" Armadou Diallo had a gun.) It is important to make file sharing as ubiquitous as possible. Then any arrest made will fall under heavy criticism for selective enforcement. Why is this post not redundant? Because it establishes a legal, not just a logistical reason for unenforcability.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Sign if you agree.
Signed,
a fan
Regards,
proclus
GNU-Darwin.org
BTW, I'm no hypocrite. Check it out.
Earth Hack 4777
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
There's no room for small companies to do big things anymore," said Michael Robertson, MP3.com's 34-year-old CEO.
Sorry, there was little innovative in Michael's contributions, just as there was little innovative in Napster. Both contributed a bunch of technology, and found themselves in a great place and time to ride the wave of some network effects.
This is not innovation. Both MP3 and Napster skipped quite a few steps in their race to market to position themselves to blow their competitors away. In doing so, legitimate uses of the internet and p2p for distributing good content was set back a decade or so, and it will take quite awhile until the Courts can set aright what these people (and their far uglier counterparts at RIAA) have set asunder.
Their contribution was not in content, the artists provided that. Their contribution was not in data format and technology, many others contributed that. Their contribution, if anything, was exploiting the opportunities of these technologies and content and beating others to market by stomping over rights of others.
Eventually, they paid. Unfortunately, hard cases make bad law, and the courts wielded a too-blunt instrument to slam down what they perceived to be a wrongdoing in view of the public policies stated by the Congress.
Don't get me wrong -- no lawyer I know is more critical than I of both the MP3 and Napster decisions, particularly the analysis at the District Court level. Those courts stomped on something, no doubt.
But they didn't stomp on Napster and MP3's innovations. Just their business models.
is by no means over. There still exist very structured, entrenched means of sharing mp3's. Audiogalaxy, though plagued by server load, is still my favorite choice. Also, you can't beat gnutella for ease of search, and diversity of media.
One man alone cannot fight the future... but we can.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I didn't mean to say that innovation wouldn't continue, but rather the kind of innovation extolled in the highly rated comments will come to an end.
See, I don't think "victory" involves being able to use someone's stuff however you like no matter what they say. Despite the fact that digital music is an easily reproducible "object", I had hoped that people would take a more rational approach than "d00d! free music!". I would like to see a business model in which everyone gets compensated for the work that they do. That includes the artist as well as the poor guy running a mixer in a recording studio.
Visit the
Oh really? Did your tax dollars go to paying for that song you just downloaded? Were any of the people responsible for that recording anywhere along the production chain compensated?
A COMMUNITY gives money to a library to BUY books to share among that COMMUNITY. The community in this case is the United States, which gives federal funding to libaries.
Visit the
But see, the RIAA actually has the motive of trying to protect their property. What else are they supposed to do? Be forced into selling songs to Napster? That's gangster marketing. I agree that the lawsuits go a bit overboard, but can you come up with a better idea?
Visit the
If "innovative" involves "using other people's stuff without their permission", then yeah, I'd say it's been crushed.
Visit the
This must be why I have 69 MP3s by Stan Rogers, and none by Metallica :)
:(
Of course, Stan Rogers is beyond caring, too.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I have opted out of moderating, but thank you for a truly insightful post.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
They didn't say distribute it only as mp3s. They just said to distribute it. spifc.org (Smashing Pumpkins Internet Fan Club) had CDs professionally made from their vinyl, and for a few months made free copies for anyone - just had to send them a pair of blank CDs and a SASE.
Actually, the system didn't serve them very well at all. Virgin records provided pretty much no promotion at all for their last 2 commericial albums. There was practically no advertising. And they were horrible when it came to releasing the CD singles. While Perfect did really well on the radio, they didn't bother to release the single until it started falling off the charts. Machina's singles didn't even get released in the US, only in the UK.
Oh, and also keep in mind that over the past fewyears the band has given people a lot of demo tapes with unreleased songs and alternate versions of released stuff for distribution. They didn't like the system at all. They just used it when it was easier, and worked around it when it got in the way. Despite the coolness of Machina 2 being free, most people posting messages on their website indicated they would've prefered to be able to go to the store and buy a CD.
turn out the lights?
(cringe)
----- --- - - -
jacob rothstein reed college
Until they moved to a Windows only format.
Um, gee, maybe it was because all the big names are already under contract with the "big 5" music companies. Did you ever think of that? Do you even know how the music industry works? Nearly all the major recording artists had to start as "independent artists" you seem to dislike so much. Talent spotters from the major labels then offer contracts to these artists, giving them money up front if the artist agrees to release a certain number of albums on that label. The contracts are usually worded in such a way that the artist is prohibited from recording under any other label, or from prematurely terminating the contract. Ergo your narrow-minded rant is completely inapplicable in most cases.
Regards,
It seems you have neglected to read the message to which I was responding. Looks like your rant is equally misdirected.
Regards,
Innovation is dead in music delivery?! Not by a long shot. The strongest statement that is true is the US based commercial innovation is dead for now. This leaves a big opening for a new player to step forward outside of this arena.
If a single nation is able to garner support for a more flexible copyright system, then that nation will likely be able to place itself in a dominant role in the music business.
It is also unclear that the "copyright is obsolete" mob -- who are willing to engage in civil disobedience in subversive or even open way -- have seen their strength diminished at all by the litigation. In fact, I think just the opposite has occured -- their convictions are only deepened now.
The music industry still has no effective response to the simple fact that millions of Americans don't like them and are willing to share their music despite judicial decrees that this violates the law. Until something occurs to moderate the mob, there will be tremendous innovation.
This was one of the most clear-eyed postings I've ever read on Slashdot (Timothy/Michael confusion notwithstanding...)
It is a pity Slashdot doesn't have annual awards for the most incisive contributions to the system, cuz legLess, you'd get my nod for this one.
Sadly, your only reward is a cap on your Karma at 50. The Man strikes again.
As long as you have Gnutella, Usenet News, or MP3 forums to facilitate trading of MP3s.
One does not need a business license to start, or fight, or win an economic revolution......
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
I think you slightly misunderstood the comment, it had nothing to do with artists on MTV being crushed by lawsuits, it had to do with artists and lables filing lawsuits over things like napster and mp3.com.
-- free as in swatantryam - not soujanyam.
This is absolutely rediculous! Hum last I heard jaywalking is still illegal, and can you name one person in your lifetime that was EVER arrested, hell cited, for it? Probably not. I know many many many places in the 48 states still have anti-black/Jim Crowe style laws on the books, but because of changing times are unenforcable, even thought they are still technically law.
Ironic how we all seem to have forgotten what happened to the porn industry just a few short years ago.
I remember the days where porn was easily available on the net (not to say that it probably still is). The laws came about and porn websites were required to verify your age (or should I be PC and say "do some verification"). In time such verification made the use of Credit cards and hey why not charge for the service in the process. That industry has certainly not shrunk, in fact it's grown exponentially.
The fact of the matter, whether we approve of it or not, is that we as human beings want the best deal we can get legally. If music online exists with cost, people will purchase it. Do note that illegal avenues will always persist (It's a fact of life).
The question that needs to be asked is this; why would I pay for a subscription service that gives me something for a month that I can no longer use after that month should I not continue to pay for it? If I buy a CD, that CD is mine for life or until harm comes to it.
I am Lord Snowbeam. Heed my call!
I liked the last sentence, which pretty much sums up the state of things - everything innovative in the music world has been crushed by lawsuits.
Which is, of course, is exactly what the RIAA/Record Companies were trying to do.
Lawsuits have been used as weapons for decades, couple that with bank accounts that make BillG blush, and you've got powerful enemies in the Record Companies (tm).
I just love how they keep telling us we're all assholes and thieves to use Napster (nobody uses Napster or Gnutella for any legal purpose, so they say) at exactly the same time the federal government was fining (suing!) them for price goughing us on CD prices (Wall Street Journal, Fall 2000).
Faaaaaaaaaaaggs. - Mr. Garrison, SouthPark
Moderators need an additional choice: "Karma Whore" for people who cut-and-paste articles as their comments!
>everything innovative in the music world has been crushed by lawsuits.
Actually everything innovative in the music INDUSTRY has been crushed by lawsuits. It always was and alway will be. everything innovative in the music world world is doing just fine. Despite the bad intentions of the powerbrokers.
Fine words there, legLess.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Tell that to all the people who get speeding tickets. Speeding is a very common practice, people get plenty ticketed. It's not 'unenforceable,' just that it isn't always enforced, and it gets enough people to keep the revenues flowing.
I've already been down that avenue, and sorry to say, that your comment is just idealist fluff. You know what makes popular music popular? A lot of people like it, duh! I speak from experience since I play bass, guitar, and piano. I don't particularly like classical, blues, jazz, or whatever (unless I'm high, of course). I like punk and alternative. I know what good music is. Its what I like. I also know what I consider good music, you probably consider shite. Thats how it works.
Ever been in a music shop, and watch some dude come in and wail away on drums or guitar, try a few different instruments out, buy some strings and leave? Those unknown musicians are the music revolution. The ones that make your jaw drop when you see them rip it all up. Thats what its about. Its about giving those musicians a chance to get thier music out. Right now, thats impossible, because the big labels only cater to artists (hah) that will probably make the label big bux. Some of the smaller labels are way more open, but they don't necessarily have the means to help an artist promote themselves. What would be nice is if the recording industry as a whole didn't have such a high level of disparity. How can an artist on an independant label hope to compete with someone under contract with say AOL/Time/Warner blah blah whatever? Of course they can't. Are the artists that are under the wing of AOL/Time/Warner more talented than independant artists? Not a chance. In fact, I'd say that its quite the inverse.
Remember about 10 years ago, when "Alternative" music blew up? Nobody was complaining about the radio then... take a look at the difference between then and now... what's changed?
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
I should really show your post to friends of mine who've been arrested under those laws in the UK. I'm sure they'd be interested to hear this!
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Wow.. you're willing to pay $20 to trade it to 1,000,000 people? I'm sure the bands will be sooo happy with their cut of the 0.0002c per listener then!
If you genuinely feel this then feel free to buy CDs from bands that want the coverage, not from bands that would actually rather you didn't trade. Don't assume that your $20 means your wishes concerning one your $20 CD overwhelm those of the business method that's paying the artists, sound engineers, and so forth.
If you want to change the world and create a whole new system then feel free, but don't make it piggyback of the system you're replacing.. ie. paid for CDs. That's parasitic.
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
I'll take it to mean the Smashing Pumpkins have made their money out of these recording studios and now they were breaking up decided to do the 'radical' thing and speak out against the system that'd served them so well all these years...
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
They're not trying to copyright the idea of music, they're trying to copyright the specific music of people signed to their members. Believe it or not the RIAA won't come to your house in the middle of the night and seize your guitar 'for playing music', they won't even come and be nasty for distributing the MP3s of unsigned bands, they may come and seuze your computer if you were distributing guitar stuff by one of their artists though.
Feel free to boycott the RIAA and their members, but don't be a hypocrite and do so whilst enjoying the music that the RIAA members are producing.
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Ho boy... not hardly. I have acess to thousands of hours of high quality live music from musicians all over the country... plus it's legal, with the artists' consent, no ads involved, and more importantly, no damn record companies!!
Check out sites like etree, sugarmegs, and gdlive for examples of how music is thriving on the net in a noncommercial environment. But I suppose those sites, though working well for users, have actually been crushed also... as the standard for 'crushed' apparently is 'failing to make money for corporations'.
Besides... really, Napster and the like sucked from the start, interesting computer science concept and great place to download mp3's of questionable quality at 1KB/sec though... if that's what you're into.
-Jackson
"A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
Chances to do what? Bleeding-edge music was around long before Napster, and will continue to be around no matter what happens to online music sharing.
Um, no. It would just make it a common violation of the law. "Everybody else does it" is not, and has never been, a valid defense to a lawsuit.
No difference. Copying an entire magazine article likely isn't fair use either. The enumerated (inclusive, not exclusive) factors set forth in the Copyright Act [U.S.] are:
The thing about a library is that it's based in the "first sale doctrine" that allows you to do what you want--resell it, lend it, destroy it, pretty much anything but copy the data onto something else--with the physical copy (book, CD, whatever) you bought. The first sale doctrine doesn't apply here.
You aren't allowed to go into a library and copy a book. (Yeah, I know that there are photocopiers in libraries, but those are intended for partial copies that fall under the "fair use" exemption. Most Napster-style music sharing is not fair use.)
I think you are right that the recording companies need to stop gouging consumers and ripping off artists. I would gladly pay $4 to $8 for a cd album if I knew that everything except the cost of the media and the recording (which seems to figure to maybe $1 at most) went to the artists.
As it is I look for small bands that are on thier own labels or at least on small labels. MP3.com is like one of those small labels in a lot of ways. They really are just for promoting the author and the amount of money that gets through to the artist is significant.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Recorded music should be a form of advertising an performance for the fans a way of making money. As for mp3.com they have really pioneered the way music is transfered over the internet. Yes the big traders will use message boards, ftps and irc but for the general public napster was it. I personally have seen 2 bands live now since i got a track from mp3.com (which IIRC they get paid for as well)
Actually, only a small fraction of the general population can see a band in concert -- there are only so many seats. Plus it is so expensive. Personally, I would like to see the artists distribute their music themselves. That way, you know that the (reasonable) fee to download it goes directly to them (+ minor overhead costs) instead of to the record companys. Free music does little to help the up and coming bands directly, although it does generate interest in their music. I think a good fraction of the population would be willing to pay reasonable rates for song downloads, if they then have the freedom to listen to it on any of their personal devices.
We live in a democratic society. Whether you like it, the laws are set and enforced by the representatives elected by the will of the majority of the people
And our representatives will do anything to get re-elected, including taking campaign contributions from Di$neyCo in exchange from passing oppressive copyright laws, such as the Sonny Bono Act and the DMCA, using the anonymous voice vote to hide from accountability to constituents.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There is no precedent for being able to make additional digital copies of something because you own a single copy.
Wrong. The USA's The Audio Home Recording Act (along with the Betamax interpretation of 17 USC 107) and foreign counterparts allow recording onto digital audio recording media on which a tax is levied, payable to the recording industry. In the United States, 17 USC 1004 specifies that the tax is 2% of wholesale on hardware and 3% on media. Why the spindles of "Music" CD-R media cost twice as much as "Data" CD-R media is beyond me.
Oh, by the way, I discovered a loophole in DMCA: 17 USC 112(a)(2); you simply have to get a work broadcasted and then archived.
Disclaimer: Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice; only a licensed attorney can give you that.Will I retire or break 10K?
That's because most teenagers in America lead a really nice life and most havn't had a lot of experience to know when something is really bad. So when they're angsty its usually something about nothing. Ohh my boyfriend dumped me, my parents hate me, etc. That's why angsty teenagers are idiots, they think they know everything.
Open Source, Open Standards, Open Minds
As was pointed out, Michael wrote the quoted line, not Timothy. My apologies.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Thanks, man. I'd rather get replies like this than get butted farther up against that 50 cap any day :)
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Beethoven, on the other hand, studied and had passion, and it shows. His work is several orders of magnitude above Hendrix. Truth is, though, that truly studied music isn't often heard today. People go to school to study music, and they learn the school's rote. In Beethoven's time, musicians were often educated like craftsmen - as apprentices to an acknowledged great.
angsty teenage idiots
So, you've never been a teenager? You've never felt angst? Or all teenagers who feel angst are idiots?
Cynicism may make you feel clever for a minute, but it's a lousy way to run your life. I hope you mature some before you decide to breed; it's unlikely that your teenage kids will avoid being "angsty idiots."
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
What exactly has been crushed by lawsuits? The idea that you can create a company founded on file-sharing software and supported by "eyeballs" or banner ads? The idea that you can distribute someone else's work without their permission? The idea that because it's now technically possible to share music faster and more widely that suddenly corporate music will roll over and die?
Music is created by people, and the rubber meets the road at your local music club. Sharing music on the web is a far fucking cry from being innovative. Innovation in music happens when some teenage kid has to choose between suicide and picking up his guitar, when some girl writes new lyrics while she's crying of a broken heart, when a fan skips work to catch his favorite band.
The Who said it best:
MP3.com has a CEO, and so does Napster. These are for-profit corporations, out for a buck just like all the rest. They're not the Great White Knights, selflessly trying to save the music world.If you want innovation in music, support your local bands. Go see their shows and scream 'til your throat hurts. To think that you can change the music scene by downloading a few songs from the web is sad.
And to guard against the first few troll replies, yes, I know that one of the reasons Big Music is Big is that it controls all the distribution channels (e.g. radio, record stores). This is not news! It's been happening since before anyone here was born, and it will continue to happen as long as monopolies and oligarchies are rewarded by huge profits. The web never had a chance to "defeat" these companies. What's happened to popular music now that Napster has become an everyday word? Are we all listening to original, cutting-edge tunes? No - people still download Britney Spears and Metallica.
Yeah, many people have been exposed to music they otherwise wouldn't have heard by using Napster. That's true. And that will continue to happen. You don't a corporation's help to share or appreciate music. You need friends who like different music than you do, and you need to get off your ass and go see shows. Just like 10 years ago, just like when our parents were growing up.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
- Then they can make more good music
"Make" is a pretty vague term. The artists rarely write their own music, it's the studios that really give the music any quality, the studio musicians that play the instruments (assuming it's not all done on computer) and finally it's the label to push (advertise) that music.The artist is just a figurehead.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Exactly. I still trade music as much as I did 6 or 12 months ago.
The only thing that's changed is Napster is gone, and MP3.COM has new ownership. Napster sucked, and I only use MP3.COM once in a while anyway. (Good for techno.. some good stuff there)
Local Libraries
Yes, that's right, your local library. You know.. That physical structure made of brick and mortar that you actually have to leave your computer to get to. Chances are they have a lot of quality music on CD that you can borrow for free. Find yourself some classical, blues, jazz, ethnic, or whatever else looks interesting. Open your mind to more refined musical styles that you'll rarely find on the lame file sharing services. Once you gain a taste for good music, you'll never go back to crappy corporate pop musak marketed with excessive skin and a dozen layers of digital filters.
Then spread the word. And perhaps learn to play an instrument. Now that will be a music revolution.
"There's no room for small companies to do big things anymore,"
Maybe Open Source and Free Software can start doing the "big things" now. Gnutella is still alive, while it's not as good as Napster, it hasn't been sued to death.
We need decentralized projects that can't be attacked by corporations. If a company in one country tries to attack a project, just change the project leaders to someone in another country. A project isn't a physical item, only the leaders are, and if all the project leaders are attacked, the whole project will go down. Setting up a project with a few close project leaders is putting all your eggs in one basket.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I suspect the list above will probably appear either on more lawsuits or on a proposed bill to Congress saying why copyright law must be even stricter and more harmful to creativity.
If you really want a music revolution, start a website which is central to free music everywhere, get some good servers, and only put music on it where you have the explicit permission of the authors and it isn't a derivative product (except things like satire.) Then for goodness sake have a peer review system which ranks each file. THAT will be a new revolution - not swiping their stuff, but plowing their who industry into the ground. Take a page from the open source book - don't break or ignore their rules, but use them as weapons against them. Artists can still make money off of live concerts, and if they choose to release their music in such a fashion it will basically make a statement to the world that they believe they are good enough not to need the RIAA to market them.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I'm RIAA free, not a single RIAA disk on me, all independent. Shit folks, I _NEVER_ used MP3.com for illegial file storage anyways, shit, I have just always appreciated the large ammounts of independent bands that they contain.
:) to some Genras that are, err, odd to say the least, shit, they have it all %100 percent independent.
Howling Syn
Celestial Vision
Margaret Davis
Three Dead Trolls In a Baggy
Iria
And so on and so forth.
Shit, everythings there folks, from Italian Power Metal Opera Medieval Celtic music (yes, that is ONE single song, hehe, all of those Genras in it, damnit that song rocks too
well, now they are owned by an arm of the RIAA (member of the RIAA rather) but shit, the artists still rock, and the RIAA member that 0wnz them ain't getting nothin but a few cents profit, shit.
I support independent authors and so should j00!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
On a side note. There is much more to sharing now! Check out http://www.yerfit.net we've interfaced samba to the web and this new method allows anyone to share files simply, even outside firewalls. MP3 will probably never die.
.: 2+2 = PI SQRT(1+N)
Say it ain't so mike, say it ain't so, this sucks, how will my band distribute its music, shit motherfucker
I AGREE PUT ME DOWN, seriously I have had enough, I plege not to pay for any music from an RIAA company for a VERY long time. I will never EVER pay for an mp3 EVER regardless of who made it. Fuck off RIAA, you cannot copyright the idea of music
I find it scary but I've been pondering it for a while.... While we download our Phish concert recordings, and latest releases from our real bands, is it possible that those pre-teens (who can't use a computer) are going out and buying the crap that we can't stand from the RIAA?
I find it scary..... Very Scary.... I just lost two of my favorite radio stations (One to the Country format, and the other to the stupid pop format), and the thought that MP3 trading could be a factor in those changes makes me shudder...
Could this be a case of ignorance taking precious share in the marketplace?
Of course it could be that intelligent people would rather spend their money on whole albums than singles.... But it still proves my point:
Stupid people rule the pop charts, and talent loses to the pretty faces.
---
Never overestimate the intelligence of the individual, and never underestimate the stupidity of the masses.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I wasn't presuming to put forth a moral or legal argument, but an economic one. It is of course, illegal to counterfeit money, but the copyright laws are simple artifices of government meant to preserve the integrity of written works so that the interests of Science and Industry were preserved. One is currency, the other consists of ideas. There was a terrific article that I can't find that argued for abolishment of copyrights, leaving the protection of the information to contracts instead. It led me to think about the basics of copyright protection, and yes, I, too, came to the conclusion that sometimes enforcing them does more harm than good.
Anyway, your analogy presupposes that money is equal to ideas, which doesn't hold water.
I know an inventor and he cannot patent an item and bring it to the market. He must patent it and then present it to Coleco or Milton Bradley or Siemens, because if he tried to enter the market, he would be copied immediately, the ways and means of production - and distribution! - being owned by the big boys.
The company id exploited this early on by providing free downloads of Doom demos over BBSes back in the day. The computer did a complete end-around on the s/w companies of the day and foreshadowed Napster. This created a new 'ways and means' mechanism.
By the way, companies like Disney, in the words of Eisner, want to make stealing content off the web like stealing an apple off a cart. You could do it, but it would be wrong, and if you got caught, life might be unpleasant for, oh, an hour. But what Eisner and fellow cronies don't want is Everybody taking all kinds of stuff all day thinking there is nothing wrong with that.
The fact that a lot of people were doing it is two-fold:
1) They wanted free Britney so they were perfectly willing to subjugate their sense of propriety to get it; and
2) they harbor resentment and a Machiavellian attitude toward companies as per my discussion above.
Finally, and I suppose this doesn't matter, but I sure miss Napster. I never tried to dl one single song that you could get on an existing CD - bandwidth is precious to me, a modem user - but I got about 500 bootleg recordings of live stuff. How enriching was that! To think that all those rare recordings that I might otherwise never have heard could be mine, all mine for free!
heh, don't two wrongs make a right?
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
No. I don't think people generally want to take from artists, but they don't seem to mind getting what they can from 'the man'. When did this seem acceptable? At what point did a schism between people and corporations occur? I think it is borne from the abrogation of a social contract between corps and people. Once they were perceived to act in their most craven interests to the detriment of people, people turned on them. What the hell, Welcome to the Machine. I don't think corporations know how to restore people's faith in them; in any case it would be bad business. The best way to regain power, for the people, is to undermine that profit-driven system. It is an anti-capitalist concept, but it is not necessarily evil, though it may be a serious threat to the status-quo. For instance, the rise of communism was at least partially a result of the fears of Eastern Europeans about capitalists. If you read Das Kapital you will learn that the persuasive argument of Marx centered on stories of sweatshops and usury and indenture: basically human misery at the hands of capitalists. Only the sound of lady garment workers hitting the sidewalks reached the government's ears. My point is that people perceive corporations as being craven, self-interested, and dangerous, no matter how many "People Do" ads we see.
/. was one of hubris: "Those idiots can't figure this internet thing out like we can and we can always remain a step ahead of them." But I suspect that that attitude has been mollified somewhat, as the descending team of lawyers, entrepreneurs, con artists, and newbie hackers without a code, without loaylty to an ideal, took the net and re-made it into something I frankly should have, but didn't anticipate: a cultural wasteland as vapid as a TV with a mouse attached.
So we feel justified, nay, in fact Glorified! when we beat the system and stick it to The Man. Tell me: why is Courtney Love suing the RIAA? Why did Pearl Jam try, unsuccessfully, to stop Tickemaster's monopoly on concerts ticket sales?
What true artist who hasn't lost his soul to the capitalist ideal wouldn't attack the current system?
Here, I want you to read what Robert Fripp of King Crimson has to say: Go Here. And then try to understand why we believe that once the distributor is out of the picture, then the artists will be better off than ever.
The reason is, to use Marx's words, that the distributor once possessed the "Ways and Means of Production", whereas in this day and age we all possess them, on our desktops. So the threshhold should have come down. But corps somehow convinced our elected officials to be their personal pit-bull lapdogs. I hope that it is a case of a desperate and futile trying to hold back the floodgates that will soon prove too time- and energy- consuming for our government to continue to fight, but, when I realize that this generation has allowed for more of their rights to be taken away than any other, I have less hope for the outcome. People are losing power daily.
I remember when this Napster thing was in it's infancy, before the dotcom gold rush, the attitude here at
Well, heh, it's not all that bad just yet; the net is a great source of raw information, but I don't like the trend I'm seeing...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Since your plan sounds like Napster in Ogg Vorbis format, what do you do when RIAA sue you to hell and back for assisting copyright violations, and demand you install 100% effective filtering software? I'm sorry, but how in it hell this got a score of 5 I'll never understand. Sure an open format is good, but you're not solving ANY problems with it. (+5 Ment well, -10 Lousy plan) would be a more appropriate rating.. of course slashdot readers can't bash on a open source person :p
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
EVERYBODY start a napster service. They can't arrest everybody can they...
...
Oops. Maybe they can... After all they have before. Russia, China, Cambodia, Iraq,
Rats! I thought I was onto something.
See guys, this is what happens when you fork over hard cash to support a government. Eventually they buy big guns and take away your tunes, not to mention everything else you hold dear.
Remember, the bully you hid from in elementary school, the one you got pounded on by in high school, went through the police acadamy and is standing outside your door, waiting to exercise his constitutional right to abridge your freedom.
Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
Nope, he got somebody to read the last sentence of the submission to him. Never overestimate the literacy of the average Slashdot editor!
nal 11
Napster was never for distributing unsigned bands. It was for stealing copyrighted material. That is why it has been shut down: it was illegal. That is why it is currently dead (all the criminals are going to places like Gnutella).
nal 11
Because the music surely has died. I know we have alternatives like Gnutella, etc....However they do not have a big enough presence to contain the obscure and rare things that I was able to find once upon a time in Napster land...when everyone and their grandmas were sharing everything from Abba to Zebra.
.com stocks doin?
And my.mp3.com was a great thing while it lasted in it's purest form. (I clicked through and purchased many CD's when I could get instant gratification with a listen right away before the snail mail copy made it's way...novel concept --- bad music business.)
see ya'll next time the circus is in town....Anything free that hasn't died yet???...Howz all your
Out.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
The week has been full of signs of the media giants' ascendance, looming over
In terms of the digital music revolution, we're talking about one or both of two different things; the overthrow of a ruling body (in this case, a combination of the Industry and the Man), or a sudden or momentous change in a situation: the revolution in computer technology. The latter will not stop. The former is a pipe dream that was made technically feasible by the latter.
I think the music industry should be reinvented from the ground up. How many musicians would make free, digital distribution a part of their marketing (and yes, moneymaking) schema if their record companies allowed/offered such options in their contracts?
If artists could be community-contribution-minded and still make money, we wouldn't be facing the polarized lawsuits and "moral" questions that the Napster (and other) cases make things out to be.
Do you mean that Slashdot is revolutionary? Or withering away?
Arguments could be made for both cases...
pinkNoise
When I was going to ASU (arizona) we had pretty lax enforcement of jaywalking till a few kids got killed. If I remember correctly the same thing happened at my old high school. It seems to me the only place they have ever enforced it in my exp is around schools and usually a few kids have to be killed in a row to spark off enough outcry to reach critical mass.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Seriously though, do you know how many news servers there are?
This might be one of the most interesting AC posts I've seen in a while. Laws which exist, but EVERYONE is breaking, generally do end up unenforced, or enforced so rarely that everyone ends up breaking them anyway.
Let's say that there is a P2P sharing system that becomes so good, so easy, that EVERYONE starts just using it. Easier than Napster, I mean everyone with a computer. Are 75 year old Grandmas's downloading Lawrence Welk going to be arrested? Probably not.
P.S. Next time login so you start at 1 instead of 0, so more people can see your interesting thoughts.
Wha??? Have you even SEEN Pearl Jam live? Maybe now they are getting kind of old and don't rock anymore, but I would say that 5 or 6 years ago, the CONCERTS were 100 times better than the ALBUMS.
Contract expire, and contracts are not for life. When major labels artists were nearing the end of their contract periods, they should make them an offer. Artists switch labels all the time.
Although it's probably no longer a feasible business model, Napster profitted from a shitload of banner ads both on their web site and in the Napster client.
No, everything in the online music world has been crushed by the stupidity of the companies that thought they could get away with ripping off what belongs to others.
To this day, I still can't believe that none of the online "music labels" (for lack of a better word) tried to go legit. That is, why didn't anyone try to sign some big names - example, Hole, Smashing Pumpkins, etc. and get the ball rolling with some music that DIDN'T come from the big 5 music companies?
Instead they just became part of the machine - distributing the same works that are produced by the cartel they claim to be obsoleting.
Absolutely NOTHING is preventing a .com (lord knows they had the $) from signing up independent artists and promoting and distributing their music. The only problem is that the majority of consumers don't seem to want that kind of music.
The obscure and fringe artists are the ones that need our financial support the most.
there's no better way to say it than that.
There's been a huge shift in public attitude towards the music industry. More people are aware of how much artists are often ripped off by their own labels. More people want artists to get more money. More people are not happy with the music industry in it's present form. More people are buying and listening to more music.
There are people who are also abusing the power of mp3s, there are always people who abuse the system. But right now, there's not a lot of alternatives. There will be in the future. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow... but it's coming...
Until then, put some support into places like Fairtunes.com, they're one of (surely not the only) the stepping stones to the future.
Revolutions like this don't happen overnight, but when there's a market for something, eventually someone will pick up the ball and run with it...
Well, if they're unsigned, I guess they don't have to worry about lawsuits.
Like what? Napster? That's the only thing I can think of that you could have meant by that. And Napster is hardly "innovative in the music world." Innovative, bleeding-edge music, song, dance, etc is not really in danger of being "crushed by lawsuits."
When you're forcing them to do it to support themselves financially, yes. Don't forget that some of the best rock and roll of the last century was made by the Beatles after they had stopped touring altogether. Who knows -- by forcing them to tour, your scheme might have sapped their energy to the point that "Helter Skelter" would have never existed. The current system, where the record companies screw both artists and consumers, is not perfect (not by a long shot), but at least musicians are free to focus on what they think is important, whether that be touring or studio work. Forcing everyone to go live to support themselves could very well have a negative impact on the quality of music that is made available to us.
The me-too college kids and music industry types have had their ideas fail. Those looking for a quick buck aren't investing money anymore. That is the real reason mp3.com's summit attendance is down from the insane attendance a year or two ago.
But that is a good thing.
The revolution is well underway by those who aren't jumping on this week's stock bandwagon. Much like the death of much commercial online "content", the people who are REALLY revolutionary are increasing in popularity while the pets.com's of the world are withering away. Witness slashdot.
Much like people who dump stocks when the markets are low, business stay away from technologies until everyone is already doing it. In reality, the BEST time to invest is when the marekts are low. Likewise, the best chance for a real revolution is when the market isn't crowded with every MBA starting an online "audio delivery" service.
This is the best time in the short history of recorded sound to be in the audio business. The difference between Joe Blow record exec and the next revolutionary is that the revolutionary understands that and seizes the opportunity.
Uninnovate - Only the finest in engineering.
If you want an example of music without the taint of big record labels, take a close look at jazz. Jazz is a flexible musical community dedicated to innovation and improvisation. The head and chords of good tunes become standards, played for decades to come. Musicians use each other's work, playing it with their own spin, building on what they learn from each other, and always trying to push the envelope a little further.
I saw Shelly Berg (a jazz pianist) last week at a show. I talked to him after the first set about his playing. Have you ever talked to Britney Spears?
To put it simply, in jazz, you don't do well unless you're a good musician. Nobody cares what you or the cover of your record looks like. Good jazz musicians stick around, they arent one-hit-wonders like in other genres. Dave Brubeck is playing near here next month, and he's over 80 years old. Now that's what music is all about.
Anyways, I also think that article has a strange slant on this situation. Of course Napster et al has had an impact on the turnout for the convention, but the real reason is that this is the first year people realize that the internet isn't a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end. Take away all the people at a convention like that looking to get rich, and you're left with revolutionaries and those that are still struggling to hang on to what they have.
Also let me say that free music is certainly not dead. Free music has been available online years and years before napster and is still going strong. I remember the first CD I was prompted to buy because of online music was a SoundGarden album, and theyve been gone for years. Honestly, if you can't find free music online, you just don't want to look or don't know where to start.
Nonetheless, punk still thrives in the underground. Unlike rap, the most popular punk continues to be independant. I'm not sure about trance, but I think that is also very popular. punkbands.com has a lot of bands featured. Most people would like punk rock (I think; though I'm sure there are many people who would not at all). There are so many kinds, people need to find one that appeals to them. Ska, pop, hardcore, etc. Most people like the Dropkick Murphys, because it makes you feel included in their singing. Their concerts are a big singalong. Operation Ivy also catches everyone with their fast energetic beat.
I think many people don't like punk because they have a negative connotation, but the fact is that punk is so varied and diverse it can not even be defined. go to punkbands.com, use your favorite mp3-getting utility, and find away! There are intellectuals, liberals, anarchists, even conservatives... but of course most punks (me included) dislike conservatives and many others. Nonetheless, I practically guarantee your search will be fruitfull http://www.punkbands.com/lyrics/bands/
The Do-It-Yourself (DIY) spirit has created practically an entire separate culture. No matter what the industry does to undermine, manipulate, or use the scene, it will always be there (25 years so far), and despite how it evolves, no one will ever own it until it dies off.
-----
I think the hippy/punk relationship is now like punk/rap. Punk is often seen as wussy and old. A lot of kids who would probably be punks now become the gangster folk. The music doesn't particularly appeal to me, andthe overexposed stuff is pure crap. Though I see rap as very similar in attacting youths, I dislike many elements I see (probably biased here). It's somewhat accepting the system (so many sellout to corporate support and reliance) despite their rebellion. The cops still go after them a lot and don't care about the punkers so much anymore. Much of punk is so pedestrian. Nowadays people make cute little buddy-buddy jokes about my mohawk. You've got Green Day in the doctors office today.
-----
"Regardless, despite all the depression and pessimism by the small companies looking to make a buck off the music revolution, the end user hasn't had it better, and there's still places to innovate independently as long as you're not trying to get rich quick."
The COMMERCIAL Music revolution, IS over. Some companies rebelled, and decided to try new business models with music distribution. The RIAA, head firmly buried in the sand, crushed them and won that war, deciding that music *companies* would remain in the past. All this means is that companies will stop trying to turn a profit off the "magic" of mp3's. All this means is that the myth that Napster was something amazing, and Fanning had some secret business savvy, has been exploded for the bullshit it was. Music listeners remain determined to move into the future.
The only way to stop the eventual changeover to free replication of audio files (and e-texts, and we can already see the publishers tooling up for THAT war...), the only way to stop this replication technology is to utterly destroy it or utterly control it. Destroying it is out of the question at this late stage (if it was ever possible), and completely controlling it? That's the music industry's new goal. They've realized finally that they can't destroy it. From now on, or at least until we nuke ourselves into the Stone Age, there will always be the potential for free replication technology, making scarcity an obsolete business model for all things replicatible! So, with content protection schemes and watermarks, they will try to control it. They will enforce scarcity. Then I'm sure they have some half-assed scheme of embracing and extending, MS-style, to stamp out the "promiscuous" audio formats that let anyone copy them. I'm sure they intend to do this by convincing the unwashed masses that their formats have better sound, or are smaller, or whatnot.
The only revolution that has ended, was a small revolt by some companies who had other plans. They've been duly squashed, and now the RIAA et al are moving ahead with their plans with new determination. Fortunately, we still have the nice folks working on Ogg Vorbis. =)
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Ever since the Bormann Organization took over they've been looking for ways to increase profits. I'm not suprised the summit would seem more organized, they probably through out a whole boatload of workers and replaced'em with their own.
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
I have some bootlegs of stevie ray vaughan on tape (live@bluebird in Ft Worth TX), these will never see a store shelf and they are better than anything I've ever heard recorded of his. I'm sure not many people have actual tapes of this it would be a shame if I didn't preserve them. I would hope fans of his music would agree. In any case the demise of free music have been greatly exaggerated.
Then there are these projects essentially based on various guest musicians (e.g. Ayreon) who have their own bands and so simply can not be performed live; it would be quite difficult to get all those singers and players together on a gig. And yet the guy behind the project tries to make a living out of it.
Most artists do not earn that much a concert. How about those artists that don't draw full stadiums but rather bars full and yet who'd rather spend time making records? Let us not forget non-mainstream artists, please.
How would that model work in countries like India where live performances are not common at all?
"everything innovative in the music world has been crushed by lawsuits." erf.. make that: "everything in this world is being crushed by lawsuits." now i go sleep and wake up happy tomorow. -huph
There seems to be alot of talk about how the music industry is corrupt, and bands are selling out.. blah blah blah. Well, prior to the 90s, there was independant music, and mainstream crap. In the 90s the music industry latched onto a couple independant genres, cannabalized them, removed any anti-corporate/motivational things from them, stuffed them with crap/boob jobs/pretty boys, shrink wrapped them, and mass marketed them. (Examples: rap,punk,trance)
The independant music scene still thrived, but was under closer watch, and a bit frightful of good bands selling out. Now, finally, the music industry has moved on to concentrating on pop.
Independant music is still thriving. Mp3.com only added a new vehicle for independant bands to release music. Overall, though, the independant bands on independant labels will have to continue to work the bar/club scene, gaining followings. Thats just the way it is and will be. Thankfully.
The music revolution IS over. We won. I can get any music I want still..
But what the RIAA accomplished in it's demolition of Napster was the removal of an icon that people knew about, that they associated with free music. No more Napster? No more free music.
At my high school, everyone used Napster. I have not heard anyone but the geeks mention any of the alternatives on your list. The music industry didn't win the removal of the ability to get free music.. they just removed the one way most people knew about - which is all that matters.
Reality is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced fantasy.
I never downloaded anything over the 'net. I know that popular artists get spanked by their contracts, but I got 1 (one) CD from a friend who had made a compilation CD for me. I checked my collection and I legally owned that burned CD.
For obscure and fringe songs, sure, let it be free. For popular songs, give the artists (NOT the distributors!!!!!!) some bucks! Then they can make more good music. Just skip the middle-man of the big distribution houses.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
What kind of music exactly? A company with enough $$$ to effectively promote in competition with the big 5 would (I submit) quickly become no different from them. They could only afford to promote zero risk, focus group oriented teeny trash.
I suggest that the problem here is the amount of money that gets spent on promotion, and on only a few new tracks. Step 1 towards fixing that is to punish them for pushing Britney clones on us. However, they seem to have just helped us with that by killing the best source for back catalogue stuff, Napster. Now it's easier to get Metallica than Stan Rogers. Nice move, RIAA>
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
FOAD= Fuck Off And Die
Exactly. Support the artist by buying $35.00 concert tees.
These sites like mp3.com allow me to also hear new artists who may only get to play in the local bars but with the internet can be heard by thousands of people
*quote*Gee, that's awfully friggin' generous of you. Let me guess, you don't have a recording contract, do you? */quote* My brother is a professional musician
People have had their taste of free music now. The record companies really cannot continue ripping both the consumers _and_ the artists off for much longer. I read recenly in the British press that for her recent gigs in the UK Madonna made over £1million (thats $1.5mill us) per NIGHT and she did 6 gigs. I am sure other bands (cough metallica) make roughly the same. Now madge is big and probably doesn't get screwed over record deals but recently in the UK Hearsay sold 1 million singles and only got 22thousand pounds each! along with sales from millions of albums they get almost nothing (say 5% of sales profits) if you really support an aritst see them live they get the money.
Recorded music should be a form of advertising an performance for the fans a way of making money. As for mp3.com they have really pioneered the way music is transfered over the internet. Yes the big traders will use message boards, ftps and irc but for the general public napster was it. I personally have seen 2 bands live now since i got a track from mp3.com (which IIRC they get paid for as well)
Lately, I've been listening to the legions of geeks and technoweenies bemoan the fact that government is totally clueless when it comes to anything digital and/or Internet.
What have we done to fix it?
I've been toying with the idea of having a workshop or a set of workshops, directed towards out government representatives, with the intent of giving them a bit of an education on the workings of digital media. Everything from the Internet to Micro-broadcasting, but communicated in the legalese that congresspeople and lawyers are so familiar with.
Is it practical? I dont know. But it's something that should at least be considered. I would think that the relevance of such a workshop would give our representatives some incentive to attend.
Thoughts?
McDoobie
It doesn't matter though, the precident has been set. Mp3's are "illegal". It is just a matter of time.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Dude, before you go flaming the editors, check the byline. That's not timothy, that's michael. Nice try.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The American Revolution was not won by direct confrontation, but by using guerilla warfare. Hit and run, stay hidden while you attack, do the most damage, with the fewest casualites. Rather than confront head on, nibble away at the edges, distract the enemy with action that draws them away from the battle into skirmishes that weaken their main battle force. Force the enemy to react rather than to act. Attack on multiple fronts, forcing them to dilute their armies to the point they can no longer defend their position.
From the Zdnet article:
... unauthorized as opposed to the use of the word illegal copying and transfers of music ... remember the word illegal which was being promoted by the RIAA and their coherts in the not to distant past ?Which brings me to another question .... who is the authority and who elected them to be?
..
:). Others like the Stones went through the same motions and then, when the money dried up, they tried to comeback which is rarely successful. Most artists sell out the the RIAA early in their careers and live to regret it.
.. to put it gently. In the 1970s, he created Pumpkin Records and distributed his own music. He was a music revolutionary 25 - 30 years before the term got popular. He hardly got any play on mainstream radio and his music was largely unkown to the masses. BUT, he got huge play underground (univ. campus stations and by word of mouth) and sold millions of albums.
.... it certainly isn't the end of the road for music.
.. they just aren't under the tight grip of the RIAA and those that would sing the praises of per subscription downloads. It's just not going to happen and I think the poor attendance at the summit said it loud and clear. So let the Yahoo's and the Sony's and the M$'s go head on with their utopian plans for per subscription downloads and let them flop.
... free MP3 distribution and slow steady progress to the top. Only the really good artists that are in it for the long run will survive and the consumers will win too in the end.
But executives from both [Pressplay and MusicNet] have reiterated that the music in each--at least in the early stages--would be "tethered" to personal computers, in large part to prevent unauthorized copying and transfers of music.
Does anyone else see the flipflop in this statement? One word jumps out at me
From Imperial Tacohead
Don't forget that some of the best rock and roll of the last century was made by the Beatles after they had stopped touring altogether
The Beatles were young and ambitious. They did the same thing every other budding artist (group) does. First they did the club scene (The Cave for those of you who don't remember), then they made one or two good albums, then they toured, then they made some more albums and toured less and less - enjoying the spoils of their labour
However, there are exceptions to this rule. One such exception was Frank Zappa. He was the artist that couldn't get play because his music was politically incorrect
Zooming ahead 20-30 years, I see the same sort of revolution taking place. This time though it involves the majority of mainstream artists and has mass consumer support. The article on Zdnet states, in part, that there was little turnout for the party they gave (summit). Well, why would they expect there would be? The music has gone underground! It's the end of the road for the RIAA as it pertains to business-as-usual
MP3s are alive and well
MP3s for free is not the only issue here. People will always want high quality (cough) copies of their favorite music in cd format. They will buy their music, but they will not buy garbage filler cds any longer and they will demand to preview artists before buying. MP3s for free allow for that and it's way too mainstream now to reverse. Consumers will start demanding that record stores distribute artists consumers want to buy. The stores will comply or go out of business. The RIAA are fighting mad about the loss of control they've suffered over MP3s, but they will come to grips with widespread distribution of a myriad of artists' music or they too will go out of business. Newer and better recording labels will appear and startups will have a shot at REAl success. The key
All of this is, of course, is my personal opinion and completely without prejudice.
"Also, killers usually serve less time because they get paroled. Drug offenders often serve long sentences "without possibility of parole".
:P.
But but but drug offenders will have a good shot at parole when they move them out to make room for the MP3 pirates
Hehehe.
Sure, they can do that now when they have nothing to lose.
One hell of a statement.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Don't blame the industry.
Blame the people who obviously WANT this stuff.
After all it is a free society, one can simply refuse to pay for stuff he/she doesn't like ( mosly)
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Remember that episode of 'Married with Children' where Al couldn't remember the name of a record of a tune he had stuck in his head? He kept asking everyone if they knew where `"go with him..."' was from, but no one knew.
Wasn't MIT working on something like this? Some kind of fuzzy waveform pattern recognition?
(There's still the same old problem of needing legal access to ALL recorded songs known to man, in order to have a complete search domain.)
Power to the Peaceful
You mean the "mainstream music world"! I still got my copies of Pink Floyd and Iggy Pop albums. Music is in no way dead for me. I still hang out with my friends and discuss music and still play the guitar. So what if the music on MTV is being "crushed by lawsuits"? I think that's a good thing! While the corporate musicians go at each others throats i can sit back and listen to the music i like
---
------
Sig
There are new and interesting product being developed all the time. Just take a look at http://www.onebigcd.com. This company has software that will let you listen to your digital music collection from you house, with out installing apache or some other webserver. As for the lawsuits, they have just solidified that there are only two groups (I'm simplifing, I know) that can do anything with music. First there is the copyright owners. These are general the record lables and the publishers. The second group are the consumers that have purchased a CD or piece of music. Consumer do have a number of fairuse rights. Thought the copyright owners would love to limit these. Consumer do have the right to make copies of music for thier own personal use. This includes space and time shifting. This has been up held a number of times by a number of courts. However, companies can't act as agents for the consumer. That is, a company can't make a copy for a consumer. But that consumer may make a copy for himself. And then listen to that copy whenever, where ever, 0r however they choose. Like I said a the beginning, check out http://www.onebigcd.com for an example of inovation that allows the consumer to use their digital music collection in a new way, while not violating any copyrights. Cheers!
I think you mean "ridiculous". I would correct your other mistakes, but they are outside my domain of expertise.