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.
-- 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.
It's a much better investment plan than dealing with all those damn artists.
Sure it does. I'm at least certain you're familiar with the conversion rate... a dime a dozen.
[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.
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.
--
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.
If "innovative" involves "using other people's stuff without their permission", then yeah, I'd say it's been crushed.
Visit the
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
The week has been full of signs of the media giants' ascendance, looming over
You are so, so, so wrong. It's mainstream now. The Napster court cases inspired TONS of people to download and try Napster, Audio Galaxy, etc. Look at the number of nodes connected to Gnutella, Audio Galaxy, whatever. There are already more people connected than the # of geeks that EXIST.
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 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.
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.
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.
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)
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