Slashdot Mirror
Napster Calls MusicNet Monopolistic; Judge Agrees
MattW writes "Yahoo is carrying an article from the AP about a development in ongoing Napster litigation. Several major labels and RealNetworks formed MusicNet. Napster complained about an anti-competitive clause in the contract they signed with MusicNet, and Marilyn Hall Patel, best known to this community for her stern condemnation of Napster, agreed, stating that MusicNet had all the hallmarks of an anticompetitive business. The article goes on to state that, "If the recording industry was found to have misused its copyrighted material, it might not be able to successfully pursue an infringement claim on those works.""
What right does Napster have to complain about ANYTHING? It was a business built on piracy, and I'm sorry, but I'm falling out of my chair laughing on this one.
Well it looks like we will never be able to download music on the internet. First it was because we weren't paying the artists, just shipping the music to each other, now it is because we have exclusive contracts with the artists to only use the one service that pays them...
I Want my Net-TV (to paraphrase Sting from a Dire Straights song)
From the article: "Napster's attorney argued to the court that an agreement reached earlier this year between MusicNet and Napster contained a provision unfairly giving MusicNet the right to terminate the contract if Napster sought agreements with other labels."
This seems like something that Napster should have dealt with or drawn attention to during negotiation of the contract. It makes one wonder why they would even sign a contract of this nature. If nothing else, calling attention to it earlier may have helped them in ealier litigation. The only plus for them in signing the stringent agreement is that they have rights to the music now, and may be able to strike this part of the contract to enable them to gain rights to other labels' music in the future.
We can download audio from Robin Williams!
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
If the recording industry was found to have misused its copyright material, it might not be able to successfully pursue an infringement claim on those works.
That seems a pretty heavy statement. I wonder how much of it was reporter/editorial speculation and how much of this was actually discussed by the judge.
Considering the "BMG, Warner and EMI" are probably over 50% of the commercial music world already, a finding that they can't pursure copyright infringement claims could be monumental.
sometime in the future....
me: Man, I just can't get than new Madona song out of my head.
BMG-Warner-EMI-Borg: You owe use $2.11
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
but it looks like big music business and the RIAA have been given all the rope they need to hang themselves.
um, what's a napster? i used to know...
I'd mention them, but I'm sure people know what they are. And I don't want them catching any flak by my account.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Exclusivity deals are quite the hot topic right now. Intel is taking heat from the EU for exclusivity provisions it has with computer distributors. my boss and I were wondering why someone like Coke or Pepsi is allowed to ensure exclusivity with its distributors (fast food chains, etc)? Whats the difference?
"Old man yells at systemd"
napster actually won a court battle?
If the recording industry was found to have misused its copyright material, it might not be able to successfully pursue an infringement claim on those works.
Could this be new life for Napster? Some of the public has noticed this, that the labels act in a form of cartel, especially since they are investigation for anti-trust violations. They have also been successfully sued for price-fixing in the past as well.
The judge should have noticed these types of actions sooner.
It seems Napster has figured out that when members of a market collude (act in concert) they are in fact an oligopoly. This in many cases is more powerful than a monopoly. The number of companies with the resources to promote and distribute music is very small. That means that by antitrust definitions they have the most influence over price as well as the ability to create unfair barriers to entering the market.
What this means is that someone finally has figured out that the way to fight the situation isn't to attack record companies for protecting their works but instead, attack their methods of controlling the market.
You and I can in turn support this effort by not buying music from those colluding in this market. Quit complaining about the record companies and the way they handle Napster and Morpheus--just quit buying their products. Buy independent label artists, listen to the radio, pick up an instrument and play it. Let the file trading companies fight the antitrust battle...
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
Perfect case of Dog bites human. I hope Napster gets a good bite out of the recording labels. Pitt bull any one?
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
You mean that ANTI-TRUST law applies to the music industry??? Howdidd 'at happen? Have to get that outrage corrected right away - "Senator Hollings!".
sPh
bear with me. napster by itself -- wrong. but napstering the products of a cartel -- at least it brought to light the cartel that is the RIAA. hope something is done about the cartel. until then i have boycotted 'em by not buying any music (yeah, yeah, what difference can i make? right? well, you're not getting my $16.) no i don't steal it either. i just play what's on radio (that's still legal right? even tho i don't pay for the content 'streamed' to me thru my radio...) in other words, i have done away with the concept of owning any CDs or tapes. we don't 'own' them anyways right?
my $.01. what can i say, the economy is shit and i can't afford $.02 for this crap.
So a joint venture of the music monop^H^H^H^H^H labels is monopolistic, but an organization of them that's been known to fix prices and is deadset on receding Joe Average's rights so as to unnaturally force customers to stick with their now-antiquated business models isn't?
Hopefully this is a step in the right direction, not a has-been corporation throwing pebbles at a media giant-by-design.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
or I hope so! These days, we always see the _Big_ corporation/organisation (you can replace _Big_ by the name of your choice) winning over the little one in court battle. This time, I hope that MusicNet will be found guilty, this will show people that the giants in the record industry can't do whatever they want with their copyright toys...
It wasn't judge Patel who said "smells bad looks bad is bad", that was napster's own counsel. The good judge referred the question to experts, and accepted that the argument might be valid.
I dunno, when are the editors going to stop playing up and exaggerating stories? I don't understand sometimes. You know I only read slashdot because it has this wonderful user base and excellent moderation system, which makes it the most readable "news" site on the net.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
I'm completely in favor of an examination of the whole beast, but how can a judge use one case to open up another entirely separate ball of wax? Without something like a class action suit against MusicNet or maybe Commerce or someone in enforcement beinging an action, isn't she pretty much hogtied to only rule on what Napster is doing?
I dunno, it would appear to me that Patel did actually say that.
All the potential users for such a service are already using MusicNet. Go ask Hillary Rosen and Lars Ulrich yourself if you don't believe me...
You can bet that the music monopoly will now concentrate its lobbying effort to bribing congressmen into softening antitrust laws to fit their needs.
None. It's restraint of trade in all cases.
I always think it's amusing that Coke is somehow perceived a symbol of "rampant capitalism" when they are so strongly opposed to free markets.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If nothing else, calling attention to it earlier may have helped them in ealier litigation
Only if they had a crystal ball. Napster DID counterclaim for misuse, by the way, albeit on other grounds.
But your facts are way off. The agreement did not exist at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, so it couldn't have been raised at the time. Facts not on the record (that is, not adduced in the earlier injunction proceedings) are not relevant to the appeal, which is what we have been watching the past 18-24 months.
It couldn't have helped them on appeal. It can only help them going forward. They will use this, and already have.
Boycott all major label artists, even if you like them. Buy nothing that comes from an RIAA affiliated label and they will waste away. They survive and abuse you over and over again only because you collude with them by buying their product. Artists collude to be ripped off too by signing recording contracts with the illusions of stardom that the industry promotes to gather more slaves. Artists must revolt. Consumers must revolt. That's the only way to break the monopoly and free yourselves.
And everybody (most-especially me, to get any self-interest out of the way) wants to be the middleman. The question artists and consumers should be asking themselves is, "what kind of middleman do I want?" The current middleman/men? is what I call a quintopoly (a five-way monopoly) which has survived up to now largely because of the difficulty artists have had in directly reaching their fans through traditional means. The quintopoly is top-heavy with management who are used to (as Courtney Love put it) lots of trips to Scores and other perks. Life for the artists (even when they "make it") is therefore not nearly as lucrative as many imagined before Courtney's rant, which appeared in Salon a while back.
s t-5.html
s t-6.html
The internet changes (or should change) all that (and yes, I hope that the change will benefit me). How can music consumers make sure that most* of the money that they spend on music goes to actual musicians instead of non-producers? Well, I have a few ideas, but
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-5/ic
and
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/ic
show some cartoons that explain things visually better than I ever could in this rant. Enjoy.
JMR
* - anyone promising artists "all" the money is probably lying.
Speaking ONLY for myself!!!
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
You know, this all looks to me like a pretty clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits "agreements, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade." If RIAA and MusicNet aren't a combination in restraint of trade, I don't know what is!
sulli
RTFJ.
"If the recording industry was found to have
misused its copyright material, it might not be able to successfully pursue an infringement claim on those works. If the recording industry was found to have misused its copyright material, it might not be able to successfully pursue an infringement claim on those works."
I have two problems with that sentence.
First, it is purely editorial, and
not derived from the facts of the story. Judge
Patel did not say anything so strong.
Secondly, it bothers me that the subjunctive case
has nearly been lost in the English language, even
among journalists. That sentence should start
"If the recording industry were found..."
As it is written, it has a possibly different meaning than the writer intended. Forgetting how
and when to use the subjunctive limits the range
of verbal expression when a distinction is needed
between events that have happened in the past and
hypothetical events.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Go see live music.
YACC - Yet Another Anonymous Coward
At the very end, the article says that the judge "said she may appoint a special master to examine all documentation, including artist contracts" (emphasis mine) before ruling.
Including artists contracts...
I find this very interesting. What's the latest on Courtney Love's suit against the record companies?
Aside from the (questionable) joy of explaining cryptography to suits and explaining licensing requirements to geeks (Harry Fox helps throw a real monkey wrench in there, administering rights for song-writers), one of the things that came up time and time again was anti-trust issues.
SMEI and WMG were well-aware that together they represented about 30% of the market (they split that up, flip-flopping every year over who has the most based on who had bigger hits). Their expectation was that a joint venture between them would attract BMG, Universal, EMI and whoever was number six at the time. Then independents would simply have to fish or cut bait and join up as well.
Everyone was very careful to avoid using words and phrases like "controlling", "domination", etc. at least in written materials. People would verbally joke that they needed to make sure those words weren't written down, in case they ever got subpoena'ed for anti-trust, but everyone knew that the objective was making the HBO of electronic music distribution. You see, they recognized that HBO had the movie companies by the short and curlies as far as cable distribution of films went, and didn't want the same to happen to them in a new media distribution - the film companies have been worrying about this for themselves for electronic distribution for a couple of years now.
Of course, Napster beat them to it, so they beat on Napster legally. One of the funniest things about the timing of these things for me was SDMI being announced just after MP3 hit the cover of Time Magazine, when I'd been working on it for years prior. And of course they got the DMCA passed in the meantime, making cracking even the stupidest of copy control schemes illegal. Of course, every crypto expert they talked to at the time (myself included) emphasized that no scheme was foolproof and you should be sure to design the system to minimize damage in the case of a crack. Being powerful executives with lobbyists on retainer, a legal solution was obvious.
So, all in all, I'm pleasantly amused that the music companies got just a bit too eager and slipped in one phrase too many.....
-----
Klactovedestene!
Whatever, 2415867
This was perfect timing - suddenly point out that the RIAA are in fact not the copyright owners and that they are a monopoly.
The same thing happened in the MP3.com case I believe.
The RIAA's members have been misrepresenting copyright ownership for years --- look at a cd does it say "© 2001 insert band name here"? - no it says "© 2001 insert really big record company name here".
Now go look at the copyright notice in a book - it shows the author as holding copyright doesn't it ?
In the same way the artist owns the music and the record industry licenses certain rights from the artist (unless they have an express agreement transferring the copyright to the record company - this may be the case with smaller newer artists but anybody who knows the business isn't going to assign their copyright to a corporation for life).
And don't tell me that the music is a "work made for hire" because neither the courts or congress believe in that fairy tale so the record companies can't claim ownership that way.
Oddly enough the RIAA don't even own the rights to publish the music that is owned by the music publishers. All the RIAA owns is the "mechanical rights" in the CD,tape or whatever. Or at least that's what the licenses I used to have for public performance of recordings say.
BTW IANAL
CDs list for $17.00.
Cassettes list for about $10.00.
CD media is one piece, no replication time because it's stamped. CDs are SOOOOO cheap that they're the AOL distribution method of choice.
Cassettes have between a half dozen and a dozen pieces that need assembly, and even though they're thermally dup'ed much faster than the 1 7/8 ips they're played at, there is still a duplication time. As soon as possible, software makers got out of the cassette business.
So cheap cost = expensive price, so much for this being anything but a marketing exercise. The cost appears to have NOTHING to do with the price.
CDs came out over a decade ago at about the same price, when they were a novelty. At the time, one figures these are computer-stuff, and prices will come down as technology gets better. They haven't.
Moreover, we have many recording labels producing CDs, but there doesn't appear to be ANY significant competitive pressure. Just about any other industry would get strung up for 'collusion' or something like that, in this situation.
Napster wasn't just people cheating because the technology became available. IMHO we all know we're getting ripped off. That doesn't make Napster right, but also IMHO this puts the current situation into a more Prohibition-like setting. The current situation allowed/required by the law is STUPID and WRONG.
IMHO whenever crime reaches the epidemic proportions of Napster (or Prohibition, or drugs) something needs to be done besides simply enforcing and stiffening the law. In the case of Prohibition, it was repealed. IMHO in the case of drugs, the collateral damage of drug financing and attempts at enforcement are worse than simply controlling drugs like alcohol and cigarettes. IMHO for Napster, serious examination of pricing and collusion are necessary, combined with a review of copyright provisions. (My kids are Beatles fans, and last I know Michael Jackson gets the revenue. How does this encourage the Beatles to produce more music this many years later?)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Napster complained about an anti-competitive clause in the contract they signed with MusicNet
Question: Why would they sign such a contract?
Like many other consumers I can't stand the idea of the large recording industry's strangle hold on the market because of inflated prices, exploitation of green artists, and copy protection (who else is dreading the advent of copyrighted CDs which are already here, SACDs, and DVD-As?). At first this disgust led me to use Napster like a maniac, thinking (like many others did) that it would be a good way to combat the industry. Instead, I fear that it has gained the big labels sympathy within the legal system.
So now I ask you. What other ways can we combat big labels and put the power back in the hands of the artist and the consumer, while still getting the music that we love? I'm very interested in hearing every suggestion possible. Currently I can think of the following.
Buy From Independant Labels
Buy used CDs (I love my local used CD shop :D)
Write a letter to 'the industry'???
Does anyone know of other avenues to these goals? Is there some sort of organization that people like myself can support to help remedy the situation?
Please if you know anything...let us know!
--I hate big sigs.
>"Patel said MusicNet appeared to have the hallmarks of an
>anticompetitive business enterprise that ``looks bad, sounds bad and
>smells bad.''"
Does this mean that the RIAA and the others are follow the example of Microsoft and bitch about Patel's comments to the Supreme Court also?
It looks like Judge Jackson is becoming a very popular role model.....
Pot calling the kettle black..
.com vs established monopoly.
no, napster was never in control.
Horse of a different color?
No,
Shoe's on the other foot?
Kinda.
The shoe's on the horse's other foot for calling the kettle black?
Yeah, uh-huh.
Remember kids, only you can prevent metafires.
score: +1 interesting, +1 funny +3 dumbass.
{laff...snort}
Moose.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Is that "Napstar Lives" will join "Amiga Lives" as a commonly occuring topic on Slashdot...perhaps new ghost icons should be chosen from these back from the dead-like stories....
That's one of the cool things about posting as an AC on Slashdot.
You are more free. It's those loggedd-in stiffs who are the numbers.
Damn fools, gathering their precious karma like schoolgirls collecting the tabs from pop cans....
(Markup on a Pizza was close to 5000%)
So a $10.00 pie costs less than twenty cents to make? Damn, we should be dropping Pizza Hut on the Afghans, it'd be a lot cheaper (and tastier) than those $5.00 HDRs they're dumping now!
Hold the pepperoni!
Doesn't RICO also mean asset forfieture?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I was wondering about this a couple of years ago. However, I think I agree with The Register on this one.
Napster fans hoping this will get the company off the hook are likely to be disappointed. MusicNet is an independently run joint venture of three music companies - EMI, BMG and Warner - and RealNetworks. Well, independent of the labels, at any rate, but not of RealNetworks, whose CEO, Rob Glaser, is also acting CEO of MusicNet.
As such, it can be argued that the labels aren't responsible for the actions of MusicNet, and since they, not the distribution company, are the ones suing Napster, it's questionable how relevant the exclusive deal is to this case.
A quote from this page
Rarely used in America until recently, forfeiture has flourished as a weapon in the war on drugs. However, there are over 100 different federal forfeiture statutes, both criminal and civil. They range from the forfeiture of animals seized from animal-fighting impresarios (11) and cigarettes seized from smugglers (12) to property gotten from violations of RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). (13)
Recording Industry Association of America. Industry usually means corporations and not the artists themselves. So the RIAA is looking out for exactly the entity that it always has.
Many here on Slashdot have wondered why the RIAA and the collective labels aren't considered a racketeering organization, considering they have consistently engaged in racketeering like behavior. This may very well be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I am not a lawyer, but if it's true that you lose your rights to copyright if you engage in racketeering behavior may have some serious ramifications -- especially since they've been lobbying to keep it pretty much in their control forever.
I wonder if this means that the songs have to go back to the artist or if they immediately slip into the public domain. I also wonder if they will pursue other legal action in light of this behavior. At the very least, it should be the first thing in a long time that should make the RIAA reconsider it's actions, as well as the MPAA and other organizations with a vested control in copyright.
Give 'em just enough rope to hang themselves, it's never been truer.
-------------------------------------------------
www.real.com is the consumer side of RealNetworks and
www.realnetworks.com is their business side.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with them.
Just my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation)
There's parts of the law that causes them to forfeit all rights to any "intellectual" property that they abuse in a monopolistic manner.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I mean, they've obviously slept around with everybody, right?
Copyright and Patent can be revoked if used in an inappropriate manner by anything monopolistic. If they are in violation of the antitrust laws on this, they could lose rights to anything that was provided on the MusicNet service.
This is one of those things I've been wondering about for a while- why don't you go after RIAA and/or MPAA for being a cartel and thereby using an effective monopoly position to fix prices. If they're guilty of it, all the "properties" involved with the violations (which would be pretty much everything...) would cease to be the propery of their members.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Independent ventures backed by the players doesn't hide the "trust" aspects of antitrust- they had such beasts out there when the laws were crafted, they were crafted for that very reason.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
A comment like that, by and of itself, wouldn't be enough. Jackson shot his mouth off to the press, etc. after the ruling.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Covered in sinners and dripping with guilt..
Making you money from slime and from filth!
Parading your bellies in ivory towers..
Investing our lives in your schemes and your powers!
You got to watch them - be quick or be dead!
Snake eyes in heaven - the thief's in your head!
You've got to watch them - be quick or be dead!
Snake eyes in heaven - the thief in your head!
Be quick.. Or be dead!
Be quick.. Or be dead!
See.. What's ruling all our lives..
See.. Who's pulling strings..
See.. What's ruling all our lives..
See who pulls the strings!
I bet you won't fall on your face..
Your belly will hold you in place!
The serpent is crawling inside of your ear..
He says you must vote for what you want to hear..
Don't matter what's wrong, as long as you're all right..
So pull yourself stupid, rob yourself blind!
You've got to watch them - be quick or be dead!
Snake eyes in heaven - the thief in your head!
You've got to watch them - be quick or be dead!
Snake eyes in heaven - the thief's in your head!
Be quick.. Or be dead!
Be quick.. Or be dead!
You've got to watch them - be quick or be dead!
Snake eyes in heaven - the thief's in your head!
You've got to watch them - be quick or be dead!
Snake eyes in heaven - the thief in your head!
Be quick.. Or be dead!
Be quick!
- Iron Maiden: Be Quick or Be Dead
(I'd find it ironic if I suddenly had RIAA lapdogs sicced on me for posting copyrighted lyrics.)
This Slashdot story from July 2000 lays it all out. This is exactly the strategy he described.
The idea that Judge Patel is going to blow the record companies out of the water is tantalizing. And her reference to "massive discovery" must make the record executive's blood run cold.
Well, colder.
Do any of the US readers here know the limits of her mandate to look into things like artist's contracts?
must be feeling better winning a court once ...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Nice job Napster! But next time, wait for them to dig themselves so deep into their mistake that it will be easier to just bury them alive than to dig them out =)
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Many artists are not dependent on their craft for their livelyhood. They have jobs that may or may not be related. They work for wealthy patrons and institutions. They do all sorts of things and consider their crafts luxuries. Some people even make things for the people they like, without looking for a reward. Anyone can do this if they want, you don't have to be wealthy to water paint. People painted, sang and made cool things for each other before money was invented.
It is arrogant to think people like that can not develop their crafts as fully as those who have to hussle them. D'Vinci was mostly a military advisor and party planner. His society was as capitalist as they come. In fact, artists who are indepenent of their craft are the only ones who can produce the artwork without editorial constraint.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I refu5e to post anything on Sl3shdot! I r3fus3 t0 post anything on Slashd0ot! I refuse to post anyteing on Sl4shdot! I refuse to post anything on Slashdot! I refuse to post anything on Slashdot! I refuse to post anything on Slashdot! I refuse to post anything on Slashdot!!! I refuse to post anyth11ng 9n Sl4shdot! I refuse to post anything on Slashdot! I refuse to p5st anything on Slashd0t! I refuse to p0st anything on Slashd00t! I refuse to p0st anything on Slashdot! I refuse to post anything on Slashdot! I refuse to post anything on Slashdot! I refuse to post anything on Slwshdot!! I refuse to post anything on Slashdot! Eye r3fuse to post any6hing on S1a5hdot! I refuse to post an2thing on Slashdot! I r3fuse to post anything on Sla5hdot!!!!! Eye refuse to post anything on Slashdot! I refuse to post anything on S1ashdot!
(This piece of shit made it past the filter. You're welcome! The big purple dog penis tattoo on William Fucking Shatner's will make you lose sleep.)
Personally, I come here to loose my mind. But the awful spelling and grammar may cause me to lose (what is left of) my mind. Teyn Cipot Ffo
See, copyrights are not granted to "protect" or benefit "owners". They're granted to increase the amount of useful sciences and arts which are available to the public. Ultimately, to increase the public domain. That's the justification behind them. _Not_ classical property law. Now, if a copyright holder does certain things to restrict the availability of their products to the public (and this includes things like price-fixing), then they are undermining the reason why we (i.e. The Govt.) give them special monopolies. If a monopoly is found to be abusive, then the govt. has the right to rescind it, break it up, slap it on the wrist, whatever.
The monopolists (RIAA) have a right to complain that Napster (as a file sharing company) is violating their monopoly.
But Napster (the would be fee-paying download site) also has the right to complain that the RIAA is abusing their powers.
No contradiction here. Just two different legal violations.
(btw, if your sense of laughter was sparked by the fact that Napster was found guilty and so has no rights to sue the RIAA for _anything_, then perhaps you should also have been laughing when the RIAA, which was previously found guilty of abusing it's monopoly (i.e. MAPS) and yet had the gall to sue Napster afterwards. There is plenty of dirty laundry to go around.)
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
This is not a test on the emergency broadcast system
This is the real thing
Sit back watch it crumble, see the drowning watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it, that's sarcasm, let it burn
I'm gonna make at toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass abuv my heart
Then someone shouts that's what they get!
For all the years of hit and run for all the piss broke bands on VH one
Where did all their money go don't we all know
Parasitic music industry as it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be
Music written from devotion not ambithicin, not for fame
Zero people are exploited there are no tricks up or sleeve
Were gonna fight against the mass appeal
Were gonna kill the seven record deal
Make records that have more then one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die and I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be there to watch the fall
Prehistoric music industry three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good
If you think anyone will feel badly you are sadly mistaken
The time has come for evolution fuck collusion kill the big five
What ever happened to the handshake whatever happened to deals no one would break whatever happened to integrity
It's still there it always was for playing music just because
A million reasons why all dinosaurs must (will) die
--NOFX
--
Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
Gee, shouldn't Napster drop the axe on every other online music site? This is just a freedom fighter, now in power, who is complaining that another freedom fighter has come along to take its place.
Interesting comment. I'll try not to be arrogant.
I agree (and I think Scott would, but I'd best not try to speak for anyone but me) that many -- probably most -- artists aren't at all dependent for their livelihoods on their art, but I think what he's trying to say is "if you want more of this stuff, that means I'll have to cut back on the ol' day-job, but somehow I'll still need some scratch." There are also those who argue that artists like DaVinci, Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso, and others should benefit more from their art within their lifetimes, as opposed to estates seeing huge increases in value long after the artist dies.
That means money-to-artists, and money -- for better or worse -- attracts middlemen. I don't think I've implied that artists who make less can't develop their crafts fully, but clearly, if you have to work your art around a 9 to 5 job and someone else can concentrate solely on the art, that someone else is likely to have an advantage in quality & quantity over you. Money may not be the main goal, but it's a goal when you don't have any for a professional artist.
I'd also disagree with your idea that "People painted, sang and made cool things for each other before money was invented." Money's a pretty old concept, especially the yellow stuff. Collecting gold nuggets (nature's art) for a while has made me believe that money probably predates many things. People want them, because nuggets are amazingly beautiful (it's almost a shame mankind makes so many bullion coins and bars with the stuff).
When early man found a nugget, it's almost certain he/she kept it, and later use as trade/barter/art/money/adornment was a natural. It's almost certain that the yellow color and unusual appearance of a pure (mostly) metal in nature (often ocurring along with quartz, which can also be quite beautiful and pure-looking) reminded him/her of the sun, which he/she probably worshipped at the time. Some of the ideas in this paragraph come from conversations I've had with money-artist J.S.G. Boggs who -- like me -- has experienced having very little money.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Or Second Conditional?
Basically, Edison's company invented the movie projector, and held the patent on the projector. Edison's company also made films.
In order to use the projectors, a theatre owner needed to get a patent license. (Remember, in order to use a patented article, you need a patent license? This is an example.) Edison, of course, happily licensed the projectors. However, a standard clause in the patent license was that the theatre owners sign an exclusive contract with Edison's film company.
The theatre owners protested. Edison's films were not that good. And they won: although I can't remember what the remedy was, I think it may have been just the striking out of that clause in the contract. The rationale was that Edison was trying to use the patent in a way that the legislation did not want him to. Also, the film contracts did not expire with the patents, which was seen (correctly) as an attempt to unlawfully extend the term of the patent."
Mod parent up. This is realy interesting.
I can here the Judges booming cynical voice now. "Objection sustained. So Miss Rosen, you didn't pay much attention to the courts insights into Edisons movie theater licencing. Can you explain how this is different than your DVD restrictions. Then you will please explain your relationship with the orginiztion that created the DVD standards...I'm waiting."
Along the same lines, does anyone know of cases where resale of printing press plates and acompinying licences to print their content were found to be fair to be resold?
How about a business on trial for using a printing press patent to licence(enforce cough *choke*) content restrictions?
How could I donate to fund such research? I think I might write the EFF on this.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
That seems reasonable. If it is true, then shouldn't Microsoft lose copyrights to Windows and IE?
Could also lose patents that were abused?
------DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE------