Slashdot Mirror
CEO of RIAA Speaks at P2P Conference
Sarcasmo writes: "Hillary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA ? , spoke at length (PDF of Speech) yesterday, during the 'O'Reilly Peer to Peer and Web Services conference'. " Update: 11/08 02:15 GMT by H : Yeah, I removed the Rosen text. Sorry.
Anyone got a recording of his speech? I don't feel like readind today?
---
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
She makes a good point that artists should be able to make money off of their work.
Too bad the record companies screw them every which way from Thursday.
http://www11.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/02/napster.hearin g.04/story.hillary.rosen.jpg
Hillary rosen naked? No thanks... not unless she buried herself in under the money... ~shudder~.. mental picture
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
A factory of greed is not indiginous to the United States. Although, we are its best model.
Great. Now I'll never look at a big wad of bills the same way again.
From the Article :
But as long as you're looking for whom piracy really hurts, ask the guitarist
in the coffee shop, or the group scratching out a living touring in a beat-up van.
I didnt know she had that much compassion towards us poor touring artists. Now I know where I am gonna take my deadbeat van and my pothead groupies next . Right to her doorstep! Maybe she would tip us better..
Rapid Nirvana
She states that lesser selling but still popular artists have a hard time finding their fans in efficient ways, and fans have needed more direct access to their favorite artists and easy access to ever part of their creative output.
As far as I can tell, the RIAA is the primary obstacle to both of these goals.
No, it's also about stealing warez and getting pr0n! :)
Pages of propaganda and not a single sentance about fair use. Why am I not suprised...
If the music industry would focus on producing an entire cd's worth of good music, I'd be much happier to buy it. In these days of image before talent, it's easy to see why the public doesn't feel like spending money on a portion of a cd that they will enjoy rather than a rich listening experience that they'd call 'a good cd all in all'....
http://www.lesbiannews.com/Pages/feature/excerpt/r osen.html
I'll bet her family members use P2P...
She's babbling on about the evils of peer-to-peer and how "the public sees it" as an infestation of theives and porn and big evil computer viruses.
Why didn't she come right out and say that the WTC attacks were planned over a p2p network?
It's frustrating to see how the RIAA is taking advantage of the fact that it's not quite as commonplace as the phone to drum up anti-sentiment. This wouldn't be working if it was "hey, snail mail is peer-to-peer, they can steal our stuff!"
If I were you, I would try to stay away from any wad of Bill's. Ew. It's just unclean.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
Dear Ms. Rosen,
You make a good point regarding the differences in businesses, whether they play by the rules (major labels), or break them (Napster). Napster-like trading services have changed the way your business competes, and it is an unfortunate truth that your business will have to change in order to deal with that. I don't see how asking consumers to 'step up to the plate', or to 'cough up some money on that plate' are going to help your business be competitive.
Best Regards,
R. Hogaboom
until there are quarter slots in our car stereos to listen to radio play time. (Though the commercials will free ... what a bargain)
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
[tommorow's news]
A hacker known only as VA Software has been arrested today for attempting to distribute an illegal digital copy of Hilary Rosen's recent speech. The RIAA informed the FBI of the breach of copyright under the DMCA and immediately moved to arrest VA Software.
In other news, the hacker web site known as Slashdot was shut down and one of it's members was arrested for an attack on riaa.com. The attack has been described by sources within Slashdot's membership as the "Slashdot effect."
[/tomorrow's news]
But as long as you?re looking for whom piracy really hurts, ask the guitarist
in the coffee shop, or the group scratching out a living touring in a beat-up van.
Oh bullshit.
It's precisley these people that the wantonly open trading of music helps most.
I saw an interview with the Offspring a little bit ago. They were asked the question 'How can my garage band make it big'.
They gave several suggestions, but the one they harped on most was giving away the music to anyone who would listen to it, be it kids, dj's, or record executives. I think they were talking about free tapes and CD's, but it amounts to the same thing.
Look at Rammstein (sp?) with their hit 'Du Hast'. Rammstein would never have been as big in NA with a German-titled song without the power of MP3 piracy. Nobody knew who they were in the U.S. before their tracks started showing up on Scour, Napster, and Usenet.
Hillary Rosen is a lying bitch. She's not worried one little bit about money, for herself or for the artists. She's worried about the music industry losing control of their golden goose, which has already happened to a great degree.
Jack Jackster into the castle, has the singing harp and the golden goose, and now the evil giant Hillary has to keep him from getting out alive. Here's hoping she falls off the beanstalk and makes a big hole in the ground when she lands.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
*cough* Britney Spear *COUGH COUGH* Backstreet Boy *COUGH RRRRAHHH* Spice Girls ...
Actually, she's right, the works of "artists" is valuable ... to the RIAA : how else would they milk so much money from today's masses of artistically-challenged teenagers ?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Call me pedantic but I hate how the RIAA keeps calling the downloading of music files via p2p software piracy. It is copyright infringement. Period. It is closer to piracy what the RIAA does to "its" artists.
I know there are some artists trying to buck RIAA stranglehold but I'm waiting for the day when big artists (remember The Offspring's attempt to make _Conspiracy of One_ available for download?) get out from under the big studios and the RIAA.
Glad to see that story submissions are always un-biased on
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
They should have asked their lawyers what "work for hire" implied in their contracts.
*that* was intelligent...
I want all you brilliant gifted *thieving* developers to build me a better P2P network so I can make millions.
Not the way to make friends with developers.
-- Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money."
Hell, I could use a little roll in a pile of money myself right now... I sure wouldn't hold that against anyone.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
[insert satire]
Actually, it has to do with her desire to do nasty things with money.
[end]
Also at the very end she uses all of the open source buzzwords to make it sound like she is on the side of open source, etc. The BS detector blew a fuse on that one.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Despite the obvious negative energy most people have towards the RIAA, the woman does make a few good points in the speech.
Two wrongs dont make a right. If you do not like how the Record company handles things, boycotting them is fine but STEALING their copyrights through P2P networks is not justified. Buy from indy labels, dont buy from the big boys. However, you still do not have the right to take their copyrights.
Also, the RIAA is not anti-P2P networks. The question isnt whether peer to peer technology is good or bad. The question is whether these networks will be used with repect to what artists create just like the recording industry respects what business sponsors and sofware developers make. If the RIAA released a program to help warez software, you wouldnt like the RIAA either, would you. The RIAA is not anti-software developers, theyjust want to protect their monopoly.
There's a bit of a chicken and egg thing, though. Most rock musicians (I am one, so I can say this) just aren't very bright folks.
:)
I remember reading a story about how Lynyrd Skynyrd got screwed out of their royalties. They were all high school dropouts (they were named after the principal of their high school, who threw/pushed them out, Leonard Skinner) and when they were presented with the contract, they could not read. They signed it anyway (without going to a lawyer to interpret it for them) on the side of some interstate in Florida.
So who's worse - the band for being too dumb to know the value of education or to cover their ass, or the record companies for taking advantage of that? In their case, it's about equal, coming from their background. However, there are some artists that have never had a chance for an education, but they have this raw talent, and the record company just rapes them and tosses them out when they get old/fat/non-trendy. It's really a case-by-case thing.
For the record, Lars is an idiot, too
She is actually correct in all of her statements. There is an underlying context to her statements that I disagree with. All those issues she mentions are in the context (for her) of making sure the music producers and publishers make as much if not more money from p2p as they currently do.
For example, she talks about seemless use of music from desk to palm to car. Her context is a charge for each location of music. My context is one charge for the music and me listen to it anywhere (also might be thought of as fair use).
Of all the tactics to use this one is the most discusting. To make statements that she knows everyone wants to here and that the RIAA companies want but not to mention the context (make more money) is the lowest.
But I guess we should know that is their intent.
P.S. I didn't say they COULDN'T make money or that anything should be free. I am simply saying they they want to manipulate the situation to make MORE money than they do now.
Also, she states that all the money made by the producers is for investment for the production of future music. WOW. I would like to meet those investers and CEOs that don't expect to be paid.
She does not have the right to strip us of our rights.
Fight Spammers!
This is an interesting perspective. Although I haven't known many artists (or writers), the few that I have known would not consider making music a "job", just like many /. readers don't consider working with tech a "job".
Good music comes mostly from passion and dedication to the craft. And I suspect nearly all musicians are attracted to the idea of an instant worldwide audience via swapping of their art. If Michelangelo were alive today, wouldn't he want there to be photography allowed in the Sistine Chapel?
Of course, the problem with Napster was that the stuff got too freely distributed, cutting out the whole "pay the artist for thier work" step.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
...and you work for the RIAA, dontcha?
.mp3s (ok, so I have a closet fascination with bubblegum music), and feel not one whit of grief.
Sure, I won't pay for N'Sync and Britney
But if there *were* a way I could get non-SDMI compliant forms of songs directly from major artists themselves, while paying for the privledge, I most assuredly would.
All I can say is, "Go away, troll. You bother me."
There they go jumping on the terrorism bandwagon again. Can any one even make sense of what she's talking about here? Bin Laden is going to order Afghanis to clog up all the world's bandwidth by downloading the new Britney Spears album on Gnutella all at the same time?
Just click on the link above as much as you can. Slashdot them all to hell. here's a copy
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
> Nobody knew who they were in the U.S. before
> their tracks started showing up on Scour,
> Napster, and Usenet.
Not to mention EMMMMTEEEEVEEEEE!
a quote from the article
"Rosen and other leaders in the Web services industry shared their knowledge, experiences and visions for the future of the Internet at the informative sessions offered throughout the November 5-8 schedule....."
Excuse me? Since when... I mean since when was Hillary Rosen been considered a "leader" in the web services industry? Um... Hillary might be a leader of the RIAA, but the RIAA isn't considered a leader of technology, nor the internet.
Take this article with a grain of salt. It is short, and not very acurate. I'd say the author is a novice reporter, and must have been under the impression that if they report on a speech at a technical conference... it must be an important player in the internet industry. Too bad.
The RIAA is a good thing for small record lables...... they have a good sales pitch involving way to protect the assets of your artists... to the tune of if another music artist steals your lyrcs... you got protection... this is what the RIAA was built to do... protect song writers.... they are not a technology savy bunch... unless you think a cd-audio disc is high-tech.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
I have to object to the wording for the /. article. What is so wrong with trying to make money? It pays for my home, our school, doctors, roads, day care, etc. I have no problem with the RIAA, Microsoft, or anyone else trying to make money. More power to them. What I object to are some of the inappropriate ways in which they try to do so (read: abuse of monoplies). It hurts the consumers, and stifles progress because other smaller groups can only compete when the playing field is level.
--
go here and let them know how you feel:
http://www.riaa.org/Contact.cfm
Today Rosen also praised "David Economic Summit" for it's impact on California. She "appreciates their support for the health of the recording industry" and then boasts that in 1999 the RIAA was responsible for 5% of the national GDP. Give these guys a trophy! ...the artists that is.
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
Courtney Love gave a speech last year about the topic of music theft, and the roles that Napster and the RIAA play in that theft. A brief quote:
Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
The full text of Love's speech can be found here.
It is an interesting read, particularly if you contrast it with Rosen's (ahem) desire to protect the artists and ensure that the artists are fairly compensated...
I wonder if Hillary was able to keep a straigh face during her speech!
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
(Please save your flames until you've read the whole post)
She does have some legitimate points. Personally, as a musician, and one who plans to make music a career, I want to be able to have the same opportunity to make money as anyone else. I don't want to be rich, I just want to be able to live comfortably.
However, the foundation of her argument is flawed. Artists get a ridiculously small percentage of CD sales, and this isn't changing even as CD prices close on the twenty dollar mark.
Artists get most of their money from concerts. Albums are basically just advertising. File-sharing programs are more effective advertising (People like free things). If more people are listening to their music because the price barrier isn't there, then more people will go to their concerts, putting more money in the artists' pockets. This is a good thing.
The only artists who are speaking out against file sharing programs are artists that A) don't need any more money, and B) don't understand that this actually helps less mainstream artists.
Basically, what it comes down to for me is this: If I'm dinking around on Limewire, Napster, Morpheus, or any other music-swapping program and I come an mp3 of one of my songs, I'm not disappointed. I'm not feeling the money fly out of my wallet. I'm elated. I'm absolutely ecstatic that someone would take the time to download my music and keep it on their hard drive. They've done this because they like it, not because of money or any other impetus. That's half the reason that I want to be a musician (Incidentally, the other half is that I hate/suck at everything else): to create something that people like - that touches people. It's a wonderful thing when this can occur outside of a corporate environment, outside of the store. If my music was flying all over the 'net and I was living in the street, that would be a different matter, but that's just not how it works.
Anyway, that's just what I think...
(Does anyone else find the Gates-esque overuse of the word innovation and derivations thereof rather disturbing?)
Ok, is it better if I screw some little old lady out of her pension by promising her a great return and getting her to sign over her money to me and then pointing out some bit of fine print that allows me to keep all of it, or if I just steal it all out from under her mattress? Which one makes me an asshole? More specifically does one make me a bigger asshole than the other? This also leaves out the part where record sales were climbing greatly during the P2P peak. Maybe those downloading were still buying?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I can't stand when the RIAA talks about paying atists more. The RIAA's solution to low paided artists is to try and stop music piracy... that is not the solution.
...and no production costs are not so huge that RIAA lables are forced to do this. It all comes down to greed.
The RIAA pays most artists jack squat. If your contract gives you 10% of album sales you are one lucky SOB. Mosts artists get under 5% of sales.
God I hate the RIAA. I hate the greed and I hate the lies.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
this got modded *down*?!?
/. comming to? (Or is there a mod with a secret crush on her? ;-) )
What is
Get in bed with enough politicians, and you start sounding like one.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Look at Rammstein (sp?) with their hit 'Du Hast'. Rammstein would never have been as big in NA with a German-titled song without the power of MP3 piracy. Nobody knew who they were in the U.S. before their tracks started showing up on Scour, Napster, and Usenet.
It didn't hurt to be featured on the Matrix soundtrack either.
Having Hillary Rosen speak at the P2P conference is so absurd. It's as if Craig Mundie (of Microsoft) were allowed to speak at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference.
Oh. He was. I think I see a pattern here and it sucks.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Of course, that doesn't prove the "would never have been as big in NA" but I seriously doubt the didn't have significant exposure before then. I had certainly heard of them long before Napster (can't say about Usenet, never tried to get mp3s from there).
Sure, giving away music is a great strategy for a new band to gain exposure. However, that's "giving away" music, not "let's get pirated."
Long Live Anime and Video Game music!
This comment...
I want to get the lawyers out and the innovators in.
I think that this was slightly edited... I'm sure that the original read...
I want to get the lawyers out, and the innovators in jail.
Clearly she means "Get the lawyers out" in the same sense that a gunfighter would say "get the guns out."
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
if the prices of CDs were lower (and the quality of the material better) they would make MORE money
the more product you make the less the product cost to produce, if one person will by a product at 20.00, four will buy it at 15.00 and 20 will buy it at 10.00
not factoring in production cost reduction if the product costs 2.50 to produce, then the sale of the one at 20.00 will net them 17.50, the 4 at 15.00 will net 50.00 and the 20 at 10.00 will net 150.00...
so the lesson is lower the price, and MORE people will buy... and you will get more money to pay the artists... oh wait thats not what this is all about is it...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
That they're not valuable? Apparently it's just because you don't like them.
Okay, let's have a couple of very basic lessons which most of the "Of COURSE I should be given it for free, DUH!" bozos around here seem to need.
1: Does recording a new Britney Spears (or another artist you may actually like) album cost money? You betcha. Recording time, session musicians, studio staff, blah blah blah, not to mention all the promotion for the album, design costs, etc. It all adds up to thousands or even hundreds of thousands in many cases.
2: Is a new Britney Spears album in demand? Maybe not for you, but several million teenagers think you're wrong, and who are you to say you've got better taste than them? First lesson of economics: demand = value. Amazing how many people forget this.
3: The way you talk, you'd think that all commercial music was Britney and Spice Girls. Oh, right, I'm sorry, I forgot that there are no commercially-produced CDs in your collection. Well, if I'm wrong, surely those CDs have some value? Right? Or are you going to say that the tons of good work that gets produced by thousands of recording artists every year is worth nothing?
As much as I hate what the RIAA is doing, arguments like yours make me want to side with them. I care about music because it makes my life better. If music has no value to you, I don't know why you even care whether you can download it for free or not.
-- Yoz
this article says that 366,272 copies were sold last week... P2P is hurting sales? why didnt they all wait to download it?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
"stealing from a successful person is just as wrong as stealing from a struggling one"
I and the State of Texas disagree. We have in place over our state's independent school districts what's known as the "Robin Hood Plan". Basically the state taxes progressively said districts. When funds are then redistributed poorer districts get a relatively larger chunk of the wealth.
Interesting that what a lot of folks consider a backward reactionary state has such progressive ideas as wealth redistribution. Take that France! Haha.
No, seriously, this is a more fundamental ethical argument. Consider:
"Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!"
I rest my case...
sig
> From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both
> with her love of money and her desire to roll
> around naked in a pile of money.
From what I can surmise, the replies will all consist of Slashdot users' love of free music, wrapped by claims of freedom and fair use.
I downloaded the matrix soundtrack off gnutella a long while back. Heard du hast on it. Have since bought 2 Rammstein CDs. Never would have happened w/o gnutella. Hmmmmm.
I guess I'll have to post this anonymously just to make sure I don't get arrested for copyright infringement that lead to me paying them $35.00...
I know some of you are going to *really* hate me for this post. Mod me down if you feel like it but I think the point remains.
I think it is obvious that Rosen would have a bias for the RIAA's stance. Slashdotters have a strong bias against the RIAA's stance.
Is there any sort of remotely middle ground reporting anywhere?
Basically Slashdot discussing the RIAA or the RIAA discussing Slashdot is going to have a lot of blood involved, each side is going talk from such an incredibly biased viewpoint that there is an increasingly diminishing chance to pick out the truth among the propaganda. It is much like political parties talking about each other. They might all agree on a private level about something but simply disagree because they hate each other.
To me, it is obvious to me that a person commenting a Rosen speach as being about "rolling around in cash naked" has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Give Napster back to me!
F*ckiiin Metallica!!!!
I first discovered Rammstein in 97 or 98 via Hotline.... So there!
There is a moderately successfully band not under RIAA control, of course they ARE an exception.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Geez, what an insightful, informative writeup.
Taco, I've been reading since the site was run off the server you were adminning at work, and had expectations consistent with your scale of operations. But if you're implementing paid subscriptions, you might also want to apply some of the standards normally expected of professional journalism. In this case, that would involve a writeup that doesn't rate a -1 Flamebait and filing the story under Music, which I have blocked because I simply can't stop myself by flaming every one of these hypocritical file sharing stories, rather than The Almighty Buck.
(Yes, I understand the difference between the submitter's text and the editor's additions. An editor's job involves -- get this! -- editing!)
Hillary Rosen says,
Note that she doesn't claim that they in the recording business respect artists or their work themselves. Courtney Love's rant on the piracy of the recording industry makes for educational reading. Later Rosen says, And of course they are. Look at the profits of the major labels. The problem being of course, is that this is monetary value, and further, they are much more valuable to the labels than the artists once the rights have been signed away.The language in the speech is emotive, as is to be expected. But the kiddie porn quote is surely beyond the pale,
And the very companies that the RIAA represent publish and promote music with hate-lyrics.We also have the old chestnut of referring to illegal copying as theft. Repeatedly. This should be plain enough, but many people seem to have bought the lie. Illegal copying is just that. It may well be damaging to the creators of the material (which is probably wrong) as well as to the distributors (which is not necessarily wrong - people don't have a right to make a profit, remember!). What it is not though, is theft. Let alone piracy. The debate on intellectual property is muddied enough as it is, without resorting to misleading language.
I think the most poignant quote though is,
This is so true. Sadly, it's the piracy of the recording industry - which has, among other things, managed to have artists' work reclassified as work for hire (!) - that is responsible for artists living in poverty while simultaneously having millions of CD sales. The term piracy is much more applicable to this sort of action; what these labels do is not illegal copying, but the wholesale transfer of rights from the artist to themselves using the big stick of exclusive access to mainstream distribution channels.If you have an interest in the music industry and not yet read the Salon article linked above, you really ought. It's very educational.
PS: If you do want to support artists, there is always Fairtunes.
What I want to know is, is Hillary hot? Are there pictures of her on the web? "Naked and Petrified"? That "rolling around naked in wads of cash" teaser has left me wanting more!
Hilary Rosen speaking at a P2P conference is like Satan giving a sermon on Christmas.
Is it just me that remembers that the Major record labels lost a price fixing suit just a few years ago. How can they say they are the ones playing fair? If two wrongs don't make a right, let the record companies send me some money back...
Aging musicians who can't tour anymore should do what ditch diggers and automobile assembly workers and engineers and pretty much everone else does: Save up for their retirement during their working years!
Why should artists (and the corporate scum who exploit them) be the only people who continue to get paid for years and years, for work they did once? If I stopped producing new intellectual creative works (of engineering) today, my gravy train would be cut off tomorrow. No residuals, no speaking engagements, no MTV retrospectives. Why the hell should artists be different?
this may be as off-topic, but oh well.
this whole argument honestly has nothing to do with copyrights. the riaa tries to turn it in to that because the law is on their side in that department. the only reason the record companies exist is because small artists don't have the means to get their music to the masses on a large scale. they don't have in's at large record store chains and other places where people typically get their music. so the only way to stardom was by getting a record deal.
then an 18 year old college student replicated their distribution network with a relatively simple software application, and others followed suit. now, theoretically, someone could get noticed by the public without having to go through a large media conglomerate. what a concept.
ah well. i bet it'll go down the same path cassettes did and everything will stay electronic and uncopy-protected. i'm not worried.
Why has the corporate world suddenly been filled with female equivalents of Don Quixote? It seems no matter how much comedians skewer these tawdry wenches they keep coming back (without husbands) for more.
Bill's aim in life seems to be acquiring control, and measuring that control by the number of bills he can lay hold on with it.
Bill's strategy to remove his anti-trust albatross seems to be dragging it on and on until everyone's thoroughly sick of it, then rushing through a quick settlement - to almost everyone's relief - then trading heavily on that relief.
Hillary's strategy with her greed albatross seems to be waving it in people's faces. Ugh.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It doesn't seem that you got what he was saying. He was attempting to address the notion of "value" as being something that does not necessarily include monetary worth. If you define value to be only about how much it will bring in the market, then everything you have said is correct. If, however, you include actual quality in your definition of value, then the original poster has a point, however poorly he may have expressed it.
Actually it sounds as if she's comparing P2P networks with a Ddos. Of course everyone knows that napster was the major influence in the code red/nimba/etc virii.
if there was an organization called CIDA (Computer Industry Developers Association) and here is how it works. Every piece of software develop for computers goes through them. They own all of the distribution channels, copyrights, and they pay you a small royalty for all sales of your software. If you try to sell your software without going through them, they use their power and money to sue and your stop you. Basically, you can't get a piece of software out into the world without going through them.
Personally, I think this type of sytem would really blow.
They're just doing their own version of what the Jesuits do... get your people into as many key positions as you can, then get them to violate the trust inherent in their respective offices.
Perhaps we should ask them to rename themselves to the Humanist Rights Campaign?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
if thats what seperates people who have a true passion from money grubbing jackasses - count me in the dumb pile
Ok, I just don't get why the hell anyone uses that damned pdf format for ANYTHING - scrolling acrocrap text is like flipping pages with a fan, and (although this file was an exception) 95% of all the files made in it are too screwed up to even load. Someone please explain to me any sane reason for using this bletcherous excuse for a format.
You state "one person at 20, twenty at 10.."
You offer absolutely no evidence that consumer buying would be higher based on a lower price. In fact, to support those numbers, the average consumer would be buying TEN TIMES AS MANY CD's just due to price. Thats just not realistic.
Also consider that businesses aren't driven by total sales. Anything publicly sold (on the stock market) is driven by profit levels. By lowering the price per unit, they reduce profit levels to increase total sales.
Most economics professors would tell you that only generally happens in two situations: A business desperately needs to keep its market share against an aggressive/superior, or A business desperately needs to grow its market share to justify angel funding.
The music industry is nowhere near desperate. They have a full monopoly (at least 90% of sales I would imagine are fully in RIAA-member groups). When you have a full monopoly you dont cut profits to get increased sales.
You do everything you can to KEEP the sales you have, and MAXIMIZE profits.
And that's precisely what they are doing.
The lesson is you shouldnt post theories about economics without any knowledge nor support for your (non-traditional) concepts.
Not to mention, that with lower profits, a smaller cut ends up in the hands of the artists, who already get VERY little (beleive it or not).
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Just because a few bands "made it" in full view of Napster doesn't mean Napster made it for them. Rammstein may or may not have done as well without Naptser. The fact is, no-one knows. Your argument is pure supposition.
And even if it could be proved to have helped this one band, it doesn't mean that the majority of bands would be better off if their music was traded without their permission. Your conclusion is unwarranted.
No doubt there are bands who truly feel that the Napsters of this world can help them make it. Those bands are free, as they always were, to give away MP3s of their music license-free in order to build a fan-base. Or they are free to start their own recording label and self-publish. That's what freedom is. We all want to give artist's freedom, right?
The point here is that this freedom is taken away from them. The choice is made for them by the people who trade their music. That's Rosen's point, and it's impossible to argue with. You can call her a lying bitch, but your supposition and conclusional leaps are no match for her logic. Provided you agree with the basic premise - that artist's freedom is important.
I used to work retail, I know how this works
1 item sat on the shelf for a week with no body purchasing it (15.00 profit margin), the next week we had a sale on the item (NOT advertised) we cut 5.00 off the price (10.00 prifit margin) we sold all 20 copies... so you do the math
0 "profit" or 200.00 "profit"
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Unfortunately, just because she's against the RIAA doesn't mean she's in favor of P2P.
For those that chose not to read the speech in its entirety:
"I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side, in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable than the one I saw today."
A wise man once said, "From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money."
Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to get paid, but let's be clear about where Ms. Love stands.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
She makes her own CDs with her own label, Righteous Babe records. Moderate success there,too...but again, an exception.
Wesley Willis is independent, too. Rock on Chicago!
***
The music market is so large, the only way I'm introduced to new music is either radio, music tv, or mp3. Guess which 2 are RIAA controlled?
When I listen to mp3.com's top artists, it introduces me to new bands/music. When I watch gnutella searchs go by, I see groups I never heard of, and listen to thier music.
You only have a few moments a day, the people who control those moments, control your direction. If you only have 2 choices, and both are controlled by the same person, its pretty obvious your going to buy from them.
When they got to the Matrix soundtrack, they were already quite succesful around the world. I think the real credit for their introduction to the non-german-speaking people must go to David Lynch, who used their music in Lost Highway soundtrack.
Of course music sharing might have been a big help in spreading the word about them, but I don't think that any band can make it by just giving away their music. There must be some reason to make the band interesting to the listeners.
1. It is the songwriters' and the artists' and the producers and the record company' s job to create that music, bring it to life and to market. That comment summed up the problem right there. Placing the Record Companies on an equal footing with the people who actually make the music. How many of us would have as big a problem with the RIAA and its activities if the percentages were reversed: That is, the artists receiving 95%+ of each sale and the record companies receiving <5%. That seems a lot more fair to me.
2. God, I hope the new slashcode includes a "moderate newscomment" option -- 'cause "From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money." deserves a -1, Flame. What's next, first-post comments and/or goatse.cx links on the homepage?
Does anybody expect slashdot to be taken seriously at all with a writeup like that?
Making personal attacks like that is what i would expect from 14 year old warez d00ds.
And this horrid introduction just follows with the lame comments, i.e. RIAA is evil, blah blah blah., which inevitably gets modded up.
I am in disagreement with the RIAA, but this entire thread is totally unreadable.
The sick thing is that after only four replies, I'll bet the metamoderators can no longer tell which "Bill and Hilary" we were talking about.
Some trusted, independent survey company really needs to do an RIAA client survey. Call 1000 of their clients, chosen at random from their listings. Ask them:
* Do you credit the RIAA with enabling or assisting in your success
* Do you feel that the RIAA protects your artistic rights effectively
* If there was a competitor to the RIAA, would you: a) remain with RIAA, b) evaluate both then decide, or c) switch immediatly
... and similar questioons. See if the RIAA is really representing the artists or not.
Probably cost around $150,000 to run, but would be useful when RIAA issues come up.
A.
It seems that with the advent of digital technology, either you loose the abilty to enforce compensation, or you loose civil liberties. Any time you give someone the ability to view your digital data, it is only a matter of time before anyone could view that data, legitimately or illegitimately. It seems the only way to enforce that would be through a loss of privacy (or what little we have left).
I guess we need to decide which we prefer, and I don't think that I would choose enforced compensation if it meant loosing my freedoms.
This doesn't mean compensation wouldn't happen. Sure people could rip others off blindly, but I'd like to think that there are still people out there who would be willing to pay for something of value knowing that it would help the creator continue to create. Especially if they knew the money they were paying was going solely to the creator, not lining the pockets of a bloated and outdated institution.
What right do you fear losing? The right to steal?
Ever see the movie Lost Highway? It featured several Rammstein songs in the movie and on its soundtrack and was popular in the US long before online music trading became popular.
Somehow I'm not concerned. I think we can take the load.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
220 x 168 JPG of Ms. Rosen, courtesy of cnn.com
140 x 114 JPG of Ms. Rosen, courtesy of pbs.org
The RIAA has no choice but to speak out against P2P software. It has no choice but to enact litigation against the makers of that software. They see all of this file sharing as costing them money (though some would debate this point, it's an understandable position.)
What do you expect? That they should just say "Sure, ok, we'll let you undermine our business"?
No! Enacting litigation against makers of this software is a perfect catalyst for their whole pro-intellectual property campaign. The litigation gives them a justifiable reason to make speeches denouncing the use of this P2P software. Not only does the RIAA force their opponents to spend massive capital defending their software, but the RIAA gets a free soap box to preach their values.
We criticize them for being so harsh, but its just a well thought out business plan.
--
"Everybody wants a rock to wind a piece of string around." - They Might Be Giants, "We Want a Rock"
In the music industry, Artists get paid sweet FA, they obviously don't have a union, and they don't go on strike to get a better deal when they are being done over.
Ao what Artists need to do is form a union, and unite against their employers, the recording industry. If they don't do this, then they don't deserve any more money.
The fact is, P2P music copying:
1) Gets music spread around more - increasing the chance of it being purchased legitimately
2) Doesn't mean that without the P2P the music would have been bought
3) or that a sale was lost as a result of the P2P download
4) Sure, some people will download music and not buy CDs as a result. These people are a significant minority who previously recorded their friends' CDs onto tape anyway
The fact is, the RIAA exist for the artists for several reasons - to provide recording facilities, and to advertise the artist. P2P does the advertising, and thus takes away one of the reasons for artists to use a major record label. The other one is less necessary as computer technology improves to the state where a personal music studio is a few thousand dollars, and can match a professional music studio from a few years ago for features.
The RIAA really need DVD Audio, with videos to differentiate their products from P2P. P2P is a competitor, and they want this competition legislated out of existence. For example, the Static X song, Black and White (kicks ass) is available on DVD with the (kick ass) video, and other videos of the band. This is worth buying as a reasonable price.
Maybe it really wouldn't make a difference -- but I don't really think that these high-profile executives are really all that hard-skinned. They revel in the attention. Confronting such a public figure with your distaste for them is an important political statement. And they don't deserve to feel good about themselves.
And there's something comforting -- as in a passion play -- when a group of people can agree and express their common opinion of who is good and who is bad.
Check this out. all u need. http://www.zeropaid.com
riaa.ORG? Was not .org supposed to be used for NON-Profit? Last I heard RIAA makes lots of money that does not go to the artists.
Where did the money go when the RIAA wins a Lawsuit?
What Does the RIAA pay their staff? Or their headhunters on the net? and where did they get the money in the first place to do this?.
My 2 cents worth
Shortpier
You think having a Saturday job in K-Mart makes you an expert on economics? Jeez ...
But the pdf says,
"...peer-to-peer technology is getting bad rap." (page 5)
Maybe if the record companies would stop suing people and start creating some decent music, then we we could get *good rap* from our peer-to-peer technologies.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Well, music IS now easily distributed with p2p, so the record companies don't need to spend money to distribute anymore - people distribute amongst themselves, unless they stifle p2p - but then don't cry about your investments please - you're doing it to yourselves.
You mean the one who signed away his music so companies can charge $15 a CD so no one will want to take a risk to listen to spend the money? You mean the artist who's best chance at being heard to become popular is the ability to people to share music with each other, which RIAA is making sure won't happen so people can continue to not hear and not buy it, and the artists are bound not to share their music on p2p systems? This argument is a vague and potentially unfounded as its opposite counterpart. But then "I'm sure you'd like to believe its really the struggling artists who are really losing out."
How about: "morality is sufficient ground for putting a stop to IP". It all depends on a person's viewpoint. Please RIAA, don't presume to talk to me about morality, when you want to stifle the freedoms upon which the US ideals were built.
So then why is RIAA always trying to change the laws? If you really believe the current system is working, why are you still meddling with it?
So RIAA builds a complicated system, then whines about companies not being able to navigate it, and as a result expect people to foot the bill? Well, that is both a clever and "legitimate" business model, i must admit.
Uh huh. Was at a talk the other day and the speaker said the same thing, albiet somewhat ironically: "Napster made music so abudant and prevelant on everyone's computer, I was afraid music would go extinct": the more of something you see, the more likely it is to disappear. Like computers - everyone's got one so in the future we'll probably have less.
And finally, I generally resent the rather simple argument of "legitimacy" and the interpretation of "legitimate": only those to whom RIAA gives its blessing. Its the very typical argument: "If you'd just do everything exactly as I say and like, we'd have no problem. Why are you causing so much problems? Lets `work togther': i'll stop everyone else from doing things which make me lose money, you start thinking up ways of making me more money."
It's precisley these people that the wantonly open trading of music helps most.
Damn right! As anyone who bothers to go out and support their local music scene knows, 99% of "garage bands" just want to play music, and the more people that hear their music the better. I was just talking to my friend this morning about how he had run into the guitar players for one of the hardcore bands around here over the weekend. The guitar player had been really nice and insisted that he take one of their demos (the only merchandise they have) for free so he would know the lyrics next time my friend saw them play.
The more I hear about these major labels and their bands whine about money, the more it makes me glad that I'm a part of the local independent music scene. There's a lot of absolutely incredible bands that I cannot believe how good they are and yet no one outside of the maybe 200 people who show up every weekend to go to shows knows about them. Come on people: if you're so sick of these major labels raping artists, and the artists bitching that their new CD is only selling a few million copies and that you owe them something, go out and support your scene! There are plenty of incredible bands in your area that would be more than happy for you to just come and hear them play.
And if you're in the NC area be sure to check out NCMusic.com for show listings or NCPunk.net for punk/emo/indie rock show listings and resources. And you must get off your lazy ass and see Beloved, Aria, Hopesfall, One Six Conspiracy, One Amazin' Kid, and Near the Never.
"popular"? The MP3 trading scene has been around for longer than four years....
Unlike Star Trek (tm) where holographic docters, even though they are computer programs, cannot be backed up or copied (making the entire plot of several episodes meaningless) in the real world data can be copied any number of times.
I have long time made a simple vow - i won't buy music cds. Its a very simple thing to grasp: Refusing to buy cds is my legal right, as is for example refusing to buy anything coloured purple. Seeing as i won't buy cds, anything i do has no effect on my cd-buying potential. And causes no money to be lost. Therefore, downloading music off the internet is acceptable seeing as i was not going to buy the cd of it, so i will either: a) download and listen to some music or b) not listen to that music ever. A similar thing happens when you listen to the radio - as the radio station has no way of knowing when _i_ am listening to them, i can for example, turn of the radio for 30 secs everytime they go to commercials. The radio station compiles its listener base from other sources and therefore gets payed for the adverts if i am watching or not.
This moves on to another point - seeing as in America and Europe, speech/expression is legally free, and music is speech/(expression), restricting what musical content i can access or express on the internet is restriction of my freedom of speech.
If i was to perform some original music and put it on the internet that would be fine, but, if i was to perform an existing 'copyrighted' piece of music to such perfection that a court could not tell the difference between my performance and the original performance, than that would be restricted speech/expression, but, seeing as no speech/expression can be restricted if it is all free, i have the right to listen to anything regardless.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Bananarama?
Oh, so you think my joke was in poor... taste...? Maybe I've bitten off more than I can chew? (-:
On a side note, I've always wondered about the banana and anchovy pizzas favoured by UU's Librarian.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Did anybody else notice that the speech had several glaring spelling and grammar errors in it? You'd think an entity like the RIAA could afford to hire and editor, geez...
--
Todd's Law: All things being equal, you lose!
But doing that will make it inconvenient or impossible for some people to (legitimately) access the music which will result in lower sales.
So... the RIAA pulls out the big guns, sue napster, threaten everyone in sight, call them terrorists, communists, and infringe on THEIR RIGHTS to share information based on the theory that p2p communication should be illegal because it CAN BE USED to infringe on RIAA copyrights.
Well this hammer i've got COULD BE USED to do all kinds of illegal things, but i've still got a right to drive this nail.
Boycot MPAA/RIAA hard. So what if it hurts the entertainment industry while the economy is hurting. I don't think it's valid to include music/movie sales in GNP anyway. It's about time we (the U.S.) starts producing more STUFF THAT MATTERS like housing, food, medicine, etc.
Pdfs suck dick....
Hilary Rosen
O'Reilly Peer to Peer and Web Services Conference Speech
November 6, 2001
Thank you for that introduction, and for the opportunity to be here today.
I'm going to share some thoughts with you today on the current
excitement in the music industry over our opportunities; the philosophy that has
driven RIAA activities on-line to date and then I want to address the role of the
peer-to-peer technology in these efforts.
For the last several years, the music community has recognized the
amazing opportunities offered by the Internet. They have been obvious. Our
traditional promotion and marketing efforts have been choked holed at radio and
retail for some time; lesser selling but still popular artists have a hard time finding
their fans in cost efficient ways, fans have needed more direct access to their
favorite artists and easy access to every part of their creative output; and music
lovers have needed the relational and community experience of finding new
artists they love and sharing that experience with their friends. So the question
isn't whether music is going to be commercially available online. It is and it will
continue to grow. It must -- because it's great for consumers, and I fervently
believe it is still a good opportunity for the multitude of entrepreneurs and
technology developers who share a passion for serving this important need.
The question isn't whether peer-to-peer or any other particular technology
is good or bad either. The question is whether they're going to be used --
whether they'll respect what artists create just like we in the recording business
respect what the business sponsors and software developers in this audience
create. And that's the challenge I want to place before you today. As I do, I'm
going to be frank with you, and -- while I doubt you need the invitation -- I hope
you'll be just as frank with me.
The RIAA has taken on quite a public role in the last couple of years. We
used to be a quiet trade association serving the business interests of the music
community in fairly simple ways with basic anti-piracy enforcement on the
streets, supporting copyright legislation in the Congress and of course certifying
gold and platinum records.
The digital revolution changed all that. Now we are at the heart of an
exciting and sometimes contentious debate about the future of music ? indeed all
on-line entertainment and the expectations of creators, fans and businesses
alike. So let me tell you what drives us each and every day. First, there is the
love of music ? and then there is the faith that in order for our country and our
world to continue to have access to an amazing diversity of musical genres and
exceptional artists, there must be reward for those who devote their lives to creating music and those who invest in their work and bring it to life and to
market.
I want to avoid some of the traditional he-said she-said stuff that is often in
this debate. And I don't want to tread too much on old ground. But I do think it is
important every once in a while to return to the fundamentals so we can
constantly re-evaluate where we are going.
It is the songwriters' and the artists' and the producers and the record
company's job to create that music, bring it to life and to market, and it is RIAA's
job to protect it once it gets there. Therein has lied our central challenge over the
last several years. We have had a three-part approach to the task: public
education, enforcement and litigation. All of these approaches have worked
together with one simple goal ? to support the development of a legitimate on-
line music market for everyone.
Are the works of artists valuable? The answer, in my view, is a
resounding YES. I think most of us agree.
Morality is sufficient ground for putting a stop to the theft of intellectual
property, but it isn't the only reason. I can think of two more.
The first is that, for new business models that take advantage of changing
technology to flourish, we have to support a legitimate licensing structure. Why
would artists and record companies continue to invest heart, soul and money into
new digital opportunities when they have no hope of return for their effort?
People have often asked me over the last two years why record companies took
Napster to court instead of just licensing them. Well, the reason we were and still
are in court is because they have taken the legal position that they don't need a
license. So do many of their counterparts. After all, you tell me -- can a
legitimate, licensed company, one that's paying royalties, compete on a level
playing field with those who aren't? I often wonder now that Napster says it
wants to get licenses why they would continue to take the position that they don't
need them. It seems to me that if they succeed with their business, then they will
be competing with others who don't have licenses and take the same position
Napster used to take. What a waste of energy this whole exercise might be.
Unfortunately, unless people step up to the plate and make their businesses
legitimate form the start, you will never avoid litigation in the marketplace.
Second, intellectual property isn't just important for this medium. It's vital
to the health of our economy.
Intellectual property lies at the core of American competitiveness and
economic growth. In fact, it's our Number One export.
Foreign sales and exports of intellectual property are bigger than
automobiles, aircraft and other manufacturing.
U.S. copyright industries achieved foreign sales and exports of more than
$80 billion last year. The same year, these industries accounted for nearly 5
percent of GDP -- adding more than $450 billion to our economy.
Intellectual property is a foundation of the U.S. economy. And copyright
law is THE foundation for intellectual property.
Now, let me try to pre-empt an argument I hear quite a bit when I make
the case for protecting intellectual property. And that's that many developers and
users are not in this market for profit. Some peer-to-peer networks have been
created for the pure joy of it ? the love of the game -- the service to others. They
don't expect to make a dime off their creations and aren't looking to.
I understand that. And I respect it. But it sure is nice to have the choice,
isn't it? Artists and songwriters don't have that choice. Their work is just taken.
Even those that give their work away often and freely in the analog world are
entitled to control in new markets if they choose. Their patience stops when
systems are created and supported that provide wholesale misappropriation that
takes away their choices.
You also may hear and think that copyright law stifles technology. In fact,
we have the most thriving economy in the world and we have it precisely
because we have found the right balance between innovation and protection.
The hue and cry from some corners of the world suggesting the dismantling of
intellectual property protection are, in my view, short-term thinkers looking for a
popular cause. They won't change the pace of innovation and they won't create
a marketplace. Some have suggested that the music should continue to be a
free for all on-line and artists can find other ways to make money. Well, you
should know that a very small percentage of artists tour. Older artists who
depend on royalty income rarely can or do concerts. And importantly, the
songwriters, musicians, producers and many other creative contributors who get
paid when music is sold do not get paid in a world where the only income from
music is by live events. And frankly, the artists' touring income derives directly
from the popularity of their recordings that require a significant amount of
financial investment from the record company to make happen. I saw that there
is a session later today on other ways to allow creators to make money and I
anxiously await the outcomes of their discussion.
And let's be clear: A lot of people would like to think this is just about
record labels rather than artists. After all, it's easier to see a depersonalized
record label to justify an action.
The truth is, since all record companies do with their profits is keep people
employed to invest in new music, this is about artists as much as anyone.
Especially struggling artists. It's also easy to say a millionaire rock star isn't
going to be hurt by stealing a recording. In my view, that isn't really the point --
stealing from a successful person is just as wrong as stealing from a struggling
one. But as long as you're looking for whom piracy really hurts, ask the guitarist
in the coffee shop, or the group scratching out a living touring in a beat-up van.
Dreams are made for fans and artists alike with new artists selling their music for
the first time.
We envision a day- one not far off- when the consumer experience
transcends technology altogether- when digital music is a seamless experience
for fans- from the tops of their desks to the palms of their hands to the
dashboards of their cars and beyond. It has been a somewhat bumpy road,
these last two years but I am more optimistic about the future than ever.
It is clear that record companies haven't been as quick as some have
hoped to get online. Maybe that encouraged piracy -- not excused it, to be sure,
- - but encouraged it by not filling the vacuum of consumer demand.
But I hope you'll acknowledge this as well: Building a legitimate business
model from scratch -- one that involves literally hundreds of millions of copyrights
and interlocking creative rights, navigating incompatible DRM's and players and
building customer service and ease of use that music fans have always enjoyed
-- isn't quite as easy as people might think.
Some have argued for government intervention. I think that would be ill
advised. The pace of the marketplace is too fast to accommodate such
regulation. And who would want to dictate a "one-size fits all" business model?
The proposals being circulated for legislative action would stifle innovation,
competition and consumer choice.
The music industry's assets are in its music. To you they might be just
files, but each one represents significant creative and financial investment.
Getting the right business models and the right security and matching it with the
right technology and the right customer experience is important. Believe me, no
one wants to get this done faster than the recording industry. Given how few
businesses have succeeded and how much money was lost in the last few years
in the on-line space in so many other markets, it is hard to argue that the music
industry has been imprudent in its caution. And the claim that so many
businesses could have thrived if only record companies subsidized their
development by giving away their core assets makes no sense. There are a
multitude of companies who are working with the recording industry as partners.
This collaboration is happening and it is essential for the development of these
new businesses.
If we had it to do over, I think the recording industry would do it differently.
Technology development and innovation might not have been left to the
consumer electronics and IT industries as it was by the recording industry in the
80's, leaving our companies less than fully operational on that level when the
wave of new opportunities hit again in the early 90's. But it is clear -- our
member companies see an enormous opportunity here and now and are working
diligently with technology partners to seize it.
New subscription services are being launched in the coming days and
months. Virtually all RIAA member companies are participating in launches of
these multiple services. I think the initial offerings will be very good. But they will
get better as technology develops and the desired consumer experience has
better definition. A lot of progress is being made and more will be done.
So where does peer-to-peer technology fit in with all this?
In the public's mind, peer-to-peer technology is all about stealing music
and increasingly stealing movies. As I said before, I know that you are here at
this conference because you know that is a limited view of the technology. The
problem with peer to peer is not the technology, but how it is used. The multiple
exciting applications for P toP that are being discussed over these few days
show the limitless potential of the technology in multiple ways. The ability to
achieve cost savings on storage and bandwidth, the web tools, the meeting
applications, the communications applications, the customer service applications
are all extremely exciting.
The fact that I was invited means that someone out there knows that peer-
to-peer technology is getting bad rap. Not just for trading unauthorized copyright
files but for many things:
Increasing security concerns and even national security concerns at this
delicate time. Peer-to-peer will get attention because of the soldier risk in denial
of service attacks, the spread of viruses that endanger national computer
network infrastructure and other things of current concern.
The fact that it is also used as a transmitter of child pornography has not
gone unnoticed by many federal and law enforcement authorities.
Unless the legitimate peer-to-peer community addresses these problems,
proactively, the fundamental benefits of peer-to-peer will always be limited.
So here's my challenge: The peer-to-peer c ommunity must recognize
these problems and work to fix them. If you do, there isn't a doubt in the world
that companies want to work with you. Many have asked me why the record
companies have given up on peer to peer. In fact the opposite is true, they
haven't even gotten started. I am confident that if the fundamentals I discussed were really addressed by the brilliant people in this room, then peer-to-peer
technology will be an important factor in the equation of the digital entertainment
business.
Right now we have lawsuits and cease and desist orders; we have no
security, not a single legitimate business offering for music, no security, no sound
quality or creative control over the look and feel of the files and a large segment
of the development and user community who never want to see these networks
be required to have licenses to trade copyrighted works. Frankly, that benefits
no one, not even the users who think they are getting a free ride.
Because in the end, if the people in this room and the people I represent
can't make a return on investment both in terms of money and energy, then
these networks and this technology will never reach its full potential.
Instead of more technological development we will have less, instead of
more new music, we will have less, instead of new opportunities; we will be
pushed to stay with the status quo. And that won't work.
Obviously, in a free market, our approach isn't the only one, nor, for that
matter is peer-to-peer. What we seek -- and what I hope you'll embrace -- is an
open market in which everyone competes with mutual respect on the value of his
or her creations.
That doesn't mean we're stopping our legal efforts. We have no choice
but to continue them as long as copyrights are being infringed. But we also know
legal efforts won't get music online.
Legitimate business models will.
Consumer demand will.
Technology will.
I want to get the lawyers out and the innovators in.
The question today is: Will peer-to-peer be a part of that process? Will
you join us in a legitimate market? Will you protect the incentive to create? Will
you provide the same respect for artists' creations that you deserve for your
own?
I hope the answer to those questions is yes. I believe it can be . Some
people might say I'm in the lion's den by being here today. But I think they're
missing the point -- and that means they're missing an opportunity.
They assume that because we might not share all the same views - - that
we don't share any of the same values -- and can't share many of the same
goals. But I disagree. I think that just about any two parties that start from the
same principles and are headed toward the same destination can find a way to
help each other get there.
And I think, in many ways, we do -- or at least we can. Because we have
a lot more common ground than most people think.
Each of us is in the business of innovation. Like many of you, the
companies I represent are on the cutting edge of online technology.
But innovation can also be the creation of an artist's vision.
I'm talking about making something with your own mind that's valuable to
others. You're here because you've done it. I obviously deeply respect that
talent ? your talent.
So a love for innovation is where we must begin and it is also
where we must end up. There is no end to the possibility of technology and there
is no end to the dreams of an artist. Let's work together. Thank you.
>Bill's aim in life...
>Hillary's strategy...
Are you sure we're talking about the right Bill and Hillary in the context of a 'wad'?
Hilary Rosen is a well-known and well-respected lesbian feminist womyn. I suppose you would like all women to be kept barefoot and pregnant.
Rosen talks about problems the p2p community has to fix (quote brough to you by pdftotext):
Increasing security concerns and even national security concerns at this
delicate time. Peer-to-peer will get attention because of the soldier risk in denial
of service attacks, the spread of viruses that endanger national computer
network infrastructure and other things of current concern.
The fact that it is also used as a transmitter of child pornography has not
gone unnoticed by many federal and law enforcement authorities.
Unless the legitimate peer-to-peer community addresses these problems,
proactively, the fundamental benefits of peer-to-peer will always be limited.
I think that this is ridiculous - how is that a problem of p2p or specific to it? Child pornography is delivered with good old snail mail all the time, the #1 source of virii is email, but nobody asks responsible parties for these two useful services to fix the problems to make mail and email less limited.
The problems are inherent to the services. Information is delivered, and that information may be "flawed" (child pornography, virii).
Go to Borders or the library and just read the book. It's about Nirvana. They sold millions of records, and only made pennies on that. What WAS the cash cow, tho, was the tours. Read the last four chapters. Gold Mountain was pushing Kurt to tour, which would have meant hundreds of thousands of dollars in their(Nirvana) pockets, for just working three months. No, artists only make approx. $0.35 per album, outta the $14-$20 that I paid for a CD of "Nevermind". Sure, album sales do bring some money, but not nearly as much as touring does.
C Pungent
what happened to the end of the summary...the bit about rolling naked in a pile of money? that is one of the funniest lines i've seen on /. lately...what gives?
YHBT. HAND.
Yes, it's true that Hilary Rosen is a woman and a lesbian. Please don't make fun of her just because of that. Make fun of her because she is part of an evil, greedy corporation called the RIAA. It won't help matters if gender-specific and sexual-orientation-specific comments from this site make the headlines at other news sites instead of the truly meaningful and insightful comments.
Peer-2-Peer pressure perhaps?
-- The Hoss Man
"The truth is, since all record companies do with their profits is keep people employed to invest in new music, this is about artists as much as anyone."
So let me make sure I understand this. All the profits that a record label makes goes into the pockets of their employees so that they can dump the money directly back into the music industry? I'm sure Hillary's got the mother of all CD collections considering how much she's got to be making.
>>>...when digital music is a seamless experience for fans-from the tops of their desks to the palms of their hands to the dashboards of their cars and beyond. Here the RIAA apparently advocates the ability to freely use music wherever the user wants. Why is it then that they are pushing DRM crap that would force me to buy 3 copies of the music to use on my desk AND in my hand AND in my car?
What happened to the text of the article:
Her speach dealt both with her love of money and
her desire to roll naked in it
Just curious...
Look in the dictionary under contradiction and you'll find a picture of Hillary.
... and the government shouldn't get involved because everything's moving too fast for them to keep up ... but despite the fact that everything moves at this break-neck speed they haven't started.
"Getting the right business models and the right security and matching it with the right technology and the right customer experience is important. Believe me, no one wants to get this done faster than the recording industry."
"Some have argued for government intervention. I think that would be ill advised. The pace of the marketplace is too fast to accommodate such regulation."
"Many have asked me why the record companies have given up on peer to peer. In fact the opposite is true, they haven't even gotten started."
To summarize:
Nobody wants to get it done faster than them
Riight. That would explain, then, why the last concert I attended -- performed by two guitarists in a coffee shop (Peter Mulvey and Erin McKeown, if anyone cares) -- both artists encouraged people to record and spread the show itself, and even went as far as to say "Copy our CDs for your friends. Tell 'em that if they like it, they can pick up their own copy at our websites."
Even ignoring the terminology ("piracy"), it seems that those two starving-artist types are interest in (wait for it..) people hearing their music. What a novel idea. Too bad Hillary will never get it, nor does she want to.
Are you sure we're talking about the right Bill and Hillary in the context of a 'wad'?
I don't think Bill will be shooting a wad at Hillary anytime soon.
-20 Sick & twisted
Reboot macht Frei.
Miles Copeland rebukes the super rich record company myth.
If you read the article above from 'Miles Copeland' you'll see that Courtney Love is the exception in that most (19/20) albums don't make there money back.
If you read the 'Courtney Love' article you'll see that artists like Don Henley feel that fewer new artists should be brought on board
I think folks should be very conscious about what they ask for here . . . bottom line with napster is that the artist was not getting compensated!
So somebody tell me which is better:
1) not getting paid at all for a recording
-or-
2) getting a small percentage of a bigger pie which is shared between the recording artist, songwriter, executive producer, & distributor? This is a very sad situation, but again you've manipulated it. Artists have the right to be independent and don't have to sign every contract that's put in front of them. The flip side is that without a big labels marketing and promotion its very difficult to get decent market penetration. Let's take 'Ani Di Franco' she doesn't have any crazy contract that she's signed but I doubt she wants her music freely distributed without receiving compensation for her hard work. She's got some great verbage on her cd's saying something like while copying of the material may some times have cause its never the 'best' choice.
We all make are choices and they all come back around.
Listen to Reality!
(War over religion) You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. -Yassir Arafat
;)
Not quite sure how that got attributed to Arafat (do you *really* think he'd say something like that?) but that's a line from comedian Richard Jeni. I mean, it certainly would be more interesting if it came from Arafat, but I'm hoping you don't really want help distribute patently false urban myths. The Internet's got way too many of them as it is.
Private property created crime. If they really want to end theft, then abolish private property. I can't see THEM doing that though.
All those greedy corporations can suck my schlong.
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
Artists have the right to be independent and don't have to sign every contract that's put in front of them.
Them blackamoors was happy in the old system, they even rattled their chains musically with they worked, don't you tell me they wasn't happy.
I don't know if they're independent or not. But everyone should realize that just because a band is signed to an "independent" label doesn't mean they're *really* independent. Many so-called independent labels are actually subsidiaries of the big RIAA labels.
While I can't produce any evidence that it would actually increase sales to the point that would make it worthwhile, it's silly to say that reducing prices cannot increase profit.
Reducing prices will certainly decrease profit per unit. But if sales increase sufficiently, then total profits increase.
If you sell 10 CD's at $20 a pop with $10 profit per unit (yes, the numbers are totally bogus), your total profit is $100. If you sell 25 CD's at $15 a pop, you make only $5 profit per CD but $125 total profit.
The trick, of course, is to set pricing to maximize profit. I don't *know* that the music biz could set CD prices lower and increase sales, although I do suspect they could. It's obviously also possible to set the price on your product too low and not make any profit
Competition is another factor here. IIRC, various music biz entities were sued recently for conspiring to set CD prices and lost at least one round of that case. Anybody know what happened with the rest of the case?
Piracy is what? Stealing or taking without permission? How is downloading stealing?
What am I stealing if I download a copyrighted song? Am I going to a warehouse and grabbing a CD? NO!
Am I grabbing the artists money I found in their wallets? NO!
Am I stealing anything?
Speech (like music and computer programs) are just ideas. You can not steal ideas, only share them. If you BUY a CD then you are supporting the maker. If you COPY a CD then what I am stealing? I legally bought a blank CD-R. I didn't steal anything!
If something is stolen that means it is gone. Copying something leaves the original intact and unchanged.
Copying does not equate to theft!!!
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Why are you here Mr. AC? To get the respect that you feel you truly deserve? You think that because
The only possible reason I can see for anyone really wanting
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
It's understandable that some people can't take a joke, but either accept it or reject it. I submit a lot of stories with stupid remarks, and that's probably why I have so many rejects. I would also guess that at least 1 out of 10 of them are almost as stupid as remarks some of the editors make after a quoted submission. I made a joke, big deal. But for the record, I'll add a note to my submission saying that you can edit out parts if I feel like getting the story out to people is more important than my brilliantly humorous opinion. I didn't do that, and I didn't get an email asking if I would allow that to get the story posted. So I fart in your general direction.
Before copyrights, we got Mozart and Bach. After copyrights, we get Britney Spears and N'Sync. I think the argument that copyrights are necessary in order to create great music are a little thin...
This will never happen, but!
The RIAA adds what value to an artist? Very little. It is Michael Stipes who writes the songs and creates the music. Picture an REM recording. Now take away the Rolling Stones ads and the jewel case and the Mtv promos. Now put the CD on your player and 'just hit play'. What do you hear? A very beautiful rendition of "Everyone Hurts".
See, the internet was Supposed to do away with no-value-added middle men who control the Ways and Means of Production (and Distribution), but those middle men with their campaign finance contributions are making legislators bend over backwards to accomodate them.
Now, the Natural Future of this - the result of a Natural Progression - is a world in which the promoters exist at mp3.com and the artists are debuted there and people either like them or don't. Their popularity is measured by number of unique downloads, but they make no revenue from their music per se. They make their money by selling the one scarce commodity that is left: their concerts.
Music becomes free, the Free Market dictates the price of the concerts, the artists make money through promoting their work themselves (they decide how much to pump into their shows and ticket prices subsidize that), and the only ones crying are members of the nefarious RIAA.
The real difference is in the distribution of wealth. There are less numbers of Rolling Stones (blockbuster megastars), but many more Harry Chapins (5,000 seat moderate successes).
My vision of economic freedom as brought to you by Al Gore.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Hilary whitters on about morals, IP, innovation (deja-vous?) but she does not address fair use. I might be sympathetic to her position if the RIAA had not turned the screw on both artists and consumers. The fact is the recording industry enjoyed a huge windfall with the advent of the CD as consumers replaced their aging vinyl collections. I can't think of another industry where people pay for the same thing multiple times. In the bad old days of vinyl (yes, I'm *that* old) my favourite records would get scratched to bits and I would go out and buy the same thing again. I've probably purchased Abbey Road more than 5 times in various formats. I would like to ask Bitch Rosen whether she thinks paying for the same thing over and over is part of her "legitimate market". As I understand it fair use would have permitted me to seek Napster delivered digital replacements for my vinyl tracks if there had been such a technology. Of course the record industry of the 1980's would have laughed at you if you asked for a replacement record for the price of the media. Even Microsoft will quite happily mail a new CD if the orginal has a problem. When it comes down to it, downloading music via P2P is not considered illegal/immoral by most people. This is because most of us have been getting reamed by the record industry for years. Remember how they promised the price of a CD would drop dramtically when the technology matured? Well, it's 20 years now and all we have seen is price increases. Up to now the record industry was able to turn the screw on consumers because it had the upper hand, now the playing field has been levelled and like any incumbant, the RIAA et al is shit-scared of falling off the gravy train. I recommend that you all go out and use P2P technology. If you have pruchased the music in the past you have a legal right to download and use that music using any technology. Rosen wants you to purchase a copy of the same music for each device you own. Her Utopia is a world in which all content is locked down, all audio hardware is RIAA approved and the "play" button is replaced with a "pay" button.
The real problem is that many Slashdotters seem to have double standards when it comes to the whole IP issue.
Its OK to steal (IP) from the RIAA because they rip off their artists. However the minute anyone breaks GPL terms, even if it was unintentional (and the company is really trying to embrace the GPL, though bungling a bit!), they are up in arms and talking about the oncoming lawsuit of justice that will destroy the company.
Having such a double standard on display is pretty negative for the whole Open Source movement... It really makes it look like the point, once you scrub away all the rhetoric, is that Open Source supporters just want everything for free (as in beer).
I'll say one more thing:
Hilary, MORALITY has NOTHING to do with this! Copyright is just an arrangement between the Government and the people to keep the creative juices flowing. Think of it in that way, please. I hate the morality argument. Just because you decided to put a bunch of money into something doesn't give it a higher spiritual weight. And just because something was legislated doesn't give it moral weight.
The law of the internet should prevail, or we will fail to see the promise that is the internet. It is like the law of the jungle: the situation has changed, and your industry is a dinosaur. You and your senatorial bed-mates really ought to open your eyes and see that. Or you dinosaurs will kill the New World.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
So instead of whining about it, the RIAA should play by the rules of capitalism and figure out a way to capitalize on it. The P2P networks are not defeatable in a meaningful way. They will always be ahead of the RIAA, which will hire squadrons of monkeys to track everybody's IP addresses and file complaints with ISPs until stealth P2P comes around, etc.etc.etc.
This is just stupid. Napster did the RIAA a HUGE service. They showed them where the market is. So open a god-damned for-subscription service where I can share music in the same way I did with Napster. I'd be willing to pay a subscription fee, say 10 dollars a month, plus say 25 to 50 cents per song I download in order to reward artists for making music I like. That's what it's worth to me, and I think a lot of others who like downloading and controlling the music they listen to would feel the same way. It's really no different from radio, except the money is coming from me instead of from advertisers and I have control rather than the station managers.
If you don't like this business model, come up with another one that's palatable. But don't try to sue us back to the Stone Age or to put the genie back in the bottle. He won't go back in. The internet isn't going away. Deal with it. Furthermore, though two wrongs don't make a right, the reality is that the second wrong here is not screwing anybody out of any money. CD sales have generally been up, and people will still buy CDs especially of lesser known artists to support them.
I'm sorry, but while in the abstract it may not be "right" for me to download lots of MP3s, it's not "right" for me to pay 15 dollars for a CD with one song I might or might not want, and it's not "right" that 30-40 cents of every CD goes to the artists who make the music, and as I said above, this is a capitalist world and a capitalist society, and if you aren't selling something, somebody else will come up with a way to provide it, and if they can provide it for free, people will take it. And if you try to use the legal system to suppress that, the technology will improve until it's unregulatable - these aren't physical goods, and they can't be thought of as such.
What's funny is that I used to buy the music I actually liked. I'd download it through a P2P, listen to it for awhile, see what else the band had and almost always, I'd end up buying the CD. Not only that, but I usually bought other CD's they had released besides the one which had first caught my attention. In fact, my purchases of CD's increased, because I could buy the CD's knowing that I would like the content, instead of paying $18 for two good songs and 12 tracks of shit.
Then the RIAA and MPAA started in on everything and became the most absurd Nazi charicatures that it wasn't even funny. Guess what? I haven't bought a CD since then -- it's been at least a couple of years. I download all my music online and/or share it with friends. If the artists get the industry off their back and find a way to bring their music to me, I'll pay them for it. But as it is, I'm not going to pay for their music if profits are going to the RIAA. I don't care if that's money that would be going to fund their grandmother's liver transplant at this point. If a dime goes to the RIAA, I'm not putting my dollar down.
I think everyone has missed the point. Hardware and software that makes it possible (and easy) to illegally distribute copyrighted data is not a problem. The problem is that people (yes, us) use these networks and applications to distribute data illegally. Napster didn't do anything wrong. The people using the service did. They don't need to breach our freedom to stop this. They need to bring charges against the people who are breaking the law. It's not a difficult thing to find someone who is sharing files on a P2P network, especially if you can get search warrants for server rooms and things of that nature. Leave my rights (digital and otherwise) alone.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
I'm yet to see any numbers of any kind (statistics, annual revenue, etc) that depict a drop in RIAA sales due to P2P sharing and MP3 technology.
Surely these should be absolutely ESSENTIAL to the RIAA case for proving that the artists are being ripped off. Why has the RIAA not produced these figures? Or have they, and simply not publicised them?
If anyone has info on this i would be particularly interested.
Thanks for your comments!
...). The arts are regarded as culturally valuable, and as such need to be supported. However the recording industry only rewards those whose work is wildly popular. The market is not the best solution to this particular problem, as it typically rewards the least offensive rather than the most valuable; relies on artificial protections to be viable; and when it does reward, does so out of all proportion to the energies that went into creation. Alternatives and their discussion are, I feel, too important and long to be discussed in a quick slashdot comment though.
As the article you linked to states, it certainly is a high-risk field for new entrants. However it is hard to deny that those major labels that have survived, are profitting. The article itself states that the profit comes from their back catalogue - of the music which those companies own. I stand by my statement that the music itself is indeed a valuable asset.
I don't think I've been unfairly manipulative of the description of the current state of the music industry. When a few large companies hold the keys to commercial success, they get to make the rules. One of these rules is that artists no longer own their own creative works. Artists may have the right to be independent, but it's a very tough choice given the current situation. As you say, marketing and promotion are hard without a big label's backing.
Importantly though, I think you should be careful not to make a false dichotomy. The current system can be reprehensible while the alternative can be better than 'not getting paid at all for a recording'.
Many people engage in creative work, and many of these people create things that can be freely (if not necessarily legally) copied at little or no cost. Most do not rely upon huge popularity and royalties for recompense (for example, scientists, academics, visual artists,
obviously the Ms Rosen either -
.0000001%)
A) hasn't heard of fair tunes
or
B) chooses to ignore it because it's undercutting record company profit (by
there are a vast number of business models that are far superior to the current one. fair tunes is one.
a large part of my work is dealing with music licensing for radio. our station pays a set amount per year, which is divvied up amongst the artists that we tell the licensing company that we play.
radio was once seen as bad because people could hear music for free. radio nowadays is a huge market for getting new music out to the people.
now, people are turning away from radio to the internet to hear weird obscure bands that the commerical stations don't play. this can only be a good thing.
but wait - how are people going to hear the band in the first place? does the RIAA really expect that people will buy an album that they haven't heard just because of marketing spin?
in times to come, i expect that we will see more time-limited/crippled/encrypted audio that gets limited to just the major artists again.
and on it goes, until the next method of distributing smaller, unheard bands is discovered.
You know, we've had musicians for thousands and thousands of years. These professionals always historically have made their money through live performance. Recently, the introduction of technology allowed a few to capitalize and exploit the talents of musicians for a while, making them money from people that they never actually performed for. Yet this line of work has endured the ages.
What happens when music no longer can be sold as a commerical product? The artists make their money from live performance, as was the case for all of previous eternity. This isn't a case of technology changing reality, its more of technology coming back to reality. Recorded performance art only should serve as an introduction, and advertisement, if you will, to the work of an artist.
I find the idea of paying for a metallica song just as repulsive of the idea of paying for euclidian geometry, though I would equally pay money to hear metallica as I would to learn geometry. Its a contribution to mankind, not a sales item.
What I find funny is that what was said is almost a valid point and it may even be believable except that the RIAA has shown time and time again that all they care about is money. Just watch one VH1 "Behind the Music" and you're sure to see what the RIAA is all about. Almost every single one of the artists that the shows feature had to file for bankruptcy or was in serious financial trouble and had to consult attorneys to get them out of their slave contracts. All I can say is that despite the partial validity of the statement, it's still all a bunch of big business crap.
I'm reading this speech, and the whole time, I'm thinking of Mark Antony, as he said the following"
"Here! under leave of Brutus and the rest! For they are all, all honorable men..."
Half expected to see a war where Octavian Gains the throne, and Mark Antony ends up in Egypt.
Nonetheless, She did make some really good points....
Fish
Music artists: you're unknown? you want to get known? fuck RIAA, if you're too little, they won't care, if you're big, you're probably screwed already with a 1000 pages contract.
/disk than what ANYTHING THESE BIG RECORD LABELS WILL EVER OFFER YOU.
The hell with anyone who claims MP3 traders make artists starve. With the price of CD-Rs right now, an artist would make far more doing a burn production by a little nerd in a basement and going to sell his stuff and probably making a much bigger profit
Who cares about exportation, it's not them that will get you known, it's the quality of your content and the ear to ear, distribute your music, get popular, and CASH IN with shows, tshirts, and maybe someone with big courage could emulate (was it a part of CDNOW's buisness model?) the idea of having online music a la mp3.com and a burning CDs service to which you'd get royalties. and make the CDs cheap, 4$ each MAXIMUM with maybe a minimal quantity buyout (so better price to cut shipping and encourage to buy even more, etc etc) and not converted from Mp3 but original stuff. 4$ for ~10 songs minus 1$ for a good quality CD (in quantities you can get a fairly decent price, we're talking about a buisness anyways), that would come to 30cents per song, give 5 cents per song to the service, get 25cents per song sold, if you reach 100,000 people that way, that's an EASY 25K$, that will be way more than what you would have gotten with RIAA, because you need a lawyer for X contract, you need an accountant you need to payback X/Y of the advertizing you need to pay this and that fee, screw that, my model benefit BOTH the consumer (cheaper CDs) and the artist (you're good, you'll get paid accordingly), 100,000 may seem big, but when you consider the amount of stuff swapped per month (don't remember the numbers) even if only 5% of that total traffic goes to a legit buisness like I've proposed, it'll be way enough.
And like I said, there's always Shows, merchandise, etc.. There's a way to circumvent the current system for the people that aren't tied in a bigass contract.... I just hope they'll be smart enough.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Who says it has to be freely distributed? Dont forget copyright law *also* prevents you from selling copies with out the copyright owners permission.
An author could in fact have distributors bidding to sell their work on a P2P like distibution network, (that is if that author has a proven record to sell well). Just like the stock market, or any other *real* market, someone has to speculate about whether something will sell well if at all, then buy and sell to see how much they make, if the author has a proven track record and a good enough fan base, then distributors will bid to be the first distributors (on the P2P network). They will then resell their copies to other distributors (fyi I refer distribution servers as distributors), normal people who want to buy music can give their computer a price they are willing to pay for music, the higher the price they are willing to pay the sooner they will get it (if they pay a high enough price its possible for them to make their money back and even make a profit off of reselling copys), the lower the price the longer it takes to get it or the quality is a bit lower or is mixed in with advertisement. Authors who are just starting off will have to give away their work at first to reviewers and internet radio stations to get attention. The whole point is that a P2P system could literarly be built to sell information (almost like mojonation, except with out the ineffeciencies mojonation uses to hide information), this will create an real information market, and distributors will be competing, cartels like the RIAA would be afraid of this because they cant control whos music gets distributed and how much people pay for music, the market controls this and the market is composed of competing distributors of which anyone with a server and bandwidth can buy and sell information products and make money. Only 2 things stand in the way of this, 1) copyrights, 2) technology. Its even a sort of chicken and egg syndrome, what should come first, the information market, or the technology to drive the market. No technology is available that can accomidate it yet, most technology focuses on distributing freely, versus getting paid for distribution. The information market could be developed, like I said its not so diffrent then today, RIAA and the studios could invest their money in such a network, by creating servers and the technology with in their own infrastructure and then later open it up to the public (it would give them an advantage against new distributors who enter the market), but the way the RIAA seems anti-technology, its very doubtful they would do such a thing.
disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
Bjork has been selling millions for at least 5 years. She doesn't need gnutella.
But I think there is unlikely to be a solution that also preserves freedom. The solutions the RIAA and crew come up with end up taking away fair use. We are faced with a choice between freedom and control.
When people use replicators in Star Trek, no one runs up and sues them. The ability to copy at such low cost is a deeply important advance, and restricting it in the ways the RIAA proposes via DMCA et.al, because it hurts certain business models, is contrary to the progress of the useful arts, which is the whole basis on which copyright law is based in the constitution.
The National Academy of Sciences has covered this Digital Dilemma in a thoughtful way: http://books.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/exec_sum m.html
--Neal
Go IETF!
Hmm. That reminds me of something I saw one time. ;-)
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
I'm sure there's an "Association of Petroleum Marketers and Sellers" or something along those lines.
They can't collude directly and say, "OK! Everyone! Regular at $3.00 a gallon!", but they can do things like share marketing strategies, or the trade organization can make a statement like, "We'd like all contracts to look like X."
So technically, yes the RIAA and MPAA *ARE* legal, but I'll be damned if they don't fly in the face of the *spirit* of the law.
Sublime was independent and had earned over a million dollars prior to signing with a major label. Bradley was dead when the record came out though.
.10/ea off of 1,000,000 . . . one of the general licensers gives you major distribution but you don't have to sign with one to make it. http://www.indiebiz.com
I am fairly certain Ani Di Franco has some commercial success, but I don't know if she's signed yet.
Would you rather make $2.00/ea off of 100,000 albums or
Think of books for example. O'rielly technical publications is independent and they do well! The record industry is no monopoly . . . highly consolidated yes, monopoly no.
Listen to Reality!
at least nsync and britney spears fans won't be suckered into dvd-audio and sacd.
no no no. go back, re-read what i just said, and savor its wisdom.
this is a sad ignorant comment . . . the tragedy of slavery so dwarfs this issue its not even comparable.
Listen to Reality!
She continues to propergate the myth that most artists depend on copyright to earn their money. That is crap.
Here is a thought experiment. Think of all the artists that live in your local community and who earn their living through music. Initially most people this of artists like Brittany Spears, but she isn't local. The people on you list end up like this: the piano man at the local upscale restaurant, the music teachers who teach your kids at school, the city orchestra, the performers who play at weddings, the band at the school prom, the buskers in the city mall, the national anthem singer at the local football game. Now how many of those people depend or need copyright to earn their living? Unless you live in a big city the answer will be none. If you live in a big city you may have a band or two who has hit the big time - and then the answer will be a few percent.
If it is like that in your community it is going to be like that in most communities. Ergo most musicians don't give a rats about copyright. In fact most of them would make a better living - tyey would have to fork out less royalties if there were no copyright.
Perhaps you are having trouble believing this. Try the same argument with software. Most people on slashdot will know many more programmers than they know musicans. They may develop commercial packages, they may do in house work, they may write scripts to maintain networks or web pagesCopyright only effects those that develop commercial packages, who are a small percentage of the total. But how many of those people who develop software commercial packages actually depend on copyright to protect their income? Well I work for a firm that has developed several such packages. Like most such firms we developed a software package for a particular industry. The people in the industry know nothing about software or computers, so we don't just sell the software, we install and configure it, and then supply ongoing support. For the majority of our customers the software without this service would be useless. Ergo I and my fellow programmers don't need or depend on copyright.
Now there are of course programmers who work microsoft, borland, or some such company who this does not apply to - without copyright they would be out of a job. But you know what - I personally don't know any. In fact I can't think of a single software company in the state I live in that does depend on copyright. Its a small state - just 2-3M people. Within Australia there might be a couple of hundred programmers who do depend on copyright for their jobs. A couple of hundred out of 10's of thousands.
The argument based on the "poor struggling artist" is all hand waving and bullshit. Don't be sucked in.
I think the right way to battle (?) against p2p technology and the fact that people steal (as he so vididly talked about) musicians works. Sure - people steal or consume the music without paying for it. Why are they not paying for it?
Well, it is quite expencive with records now a days. I am from sweden an here a record is somewhere between 18 and 20 dollars when going for full price. I think its around the same in the US - maybe alittle lower. Not sure. But anyhow its pretty expencive. So why spend a shitload of money for music with the only additional stuff you get apart from the music is a printed book and a plastic (or in some cases paper) case for the CD.
So, for the solution *clap* *clap* - How would they battle it?
This is my solution and I think it is quite a good one. But I guess you have to be the judges for that.
Lower the price of the CD's to about $5 or maybe $10. But not above that. And make the CD part music CD and part CD-rom. Lets make i a 700Mb CD. Put the normal audiotracks on the first 650M and then you put all the tracks as mp3 on a cd-rom part on the last 50M's. Ok, you can stop laughing now. The mp3's should be in a moderate format like 96Kbps maybe. So its ok for listening in a portable mp3-player etc. If you got the record with the case and superb audioquality on the audiopart and ok quality for you mp3-player. Then I guess the large part of the p2p cutomers (dial-up customers) would stop p2p-ering since it takes time is boring. You get broken songs etc. And instead of paying for the modemconnections you spend thoose pennies on CD's for you collection.
I think even a large part of broadband customers would buy CD's to get away from the hazzle of finding the tracks they want and the make sure the whole album is in nice quality etc. etc.
And five bux is what you spend on a lunch. Not a bigtime fanncy dinner like 18 bux is.
-L
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
Makes perfect sense, thanks.
I've seen a lot of people say, that either it's good to rip off the RIAA by pirating music, or to give these bands exposure by sharing their music.
Has anyone bothered to stop and think about the artists here? Most artists are not dimwits, even though they have entered into contracts which steal most of their rights just so they can have a CD. If bands really want to give away their music, they can do it today.
Macs or low-end PCs are cheap enough and have access to software to make mp3s, and internet access is nearly everywhere in the world, there's no reason that an artist can't make his own works available if he so desires. If he doesn't want it traded around, isn't that *his* decision, not his fans?
Take a look at how bands like They Might Be Giants, who are still touring and making albums, decide how they will share their music. They put out a full length studio album, and promote it by releasing a few free mp3s to tie people over until it hits the shelves. They decide what they want people to pay for, and what they'd like to be shared.
In 2001, I'm fairly sure most artists know about p2p solutions and sharing, and if they did a bit of work, could get the necessary hardware and software to make their own mp3s, or could have someone act on their behalf to do so, if they wanted to do this. However, bands often do not. So when I hear people say that they're trading mp3s of these bands for the benefit of their music, it's just as bullshit as Hilary saying she cares about the bands.
Let's not forget that the bands are in the middle of all this, and they are the ones who should make the decisions.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
What ever happened to the old dictum - If you can't beat them, join them...??
If just one of the larger record companies actually set up their whole catalog for download at a reasonable cost, say about $25.00 to get in, and that gets you 50 activations on songs, maybe we would be looking at the benfits of guaranteed quality and repeat access with a more open frame of mind.
Yes, I want the artists and engineers to get paid... But only the people involved, not record company folks who aren't involved with the music.
Hearts, Love and Honour - The Headstones
Not likely, since MP3s were first widely used around spring 1997. The format itself had been around for sometime, but it wasn't until 1997 the possibilities of the format were discovered by the masses.
Perhaps somebody had fun making mp3s before that time, but far too few to make a 'Scene' out of it.
(feel free to prove me wrong..)
at least nsync and britney spears fans won't be suckered into dvd-audio and sacd.
no no no. go back, re-read what i just said, and savor its wisdom.
Maybe so, but you're forgetting that N'Sync and Britney Spears fans, for the most part, wouldn't know and/or appreciate a decent quality recording if one came up and smacked them in the head. Even DVD Audio , HDCD or SA-CD couldn't salvage an N'Sync or Britney Spears recording. These are often the same ones who think that crappy-ass 128kbit MP3 radio rip is "CD-quality" when in reality, the only thing that's truly "CD-quality" is the CD itself? It's actually the Mozart and Bach fans who tend to be the discerning listeners that can appreciate the good-quality recording that comes with formats like HDCD, DVD Audio and SA-CD because they have real hardwarer (like Bang & Olufson systems, Mirantz CD players and JBL speakers) to listen to it on, not some cheap-as computer speakers. But it's all a matter of perspective, I guess.
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
You have to look at what she says in context with what the RIAA does. She says she wants to improve access to smaller artists. The RIAA has worked hard to make sure this never happens. But, let me be clear: they're all for access to smaller artists as long as they continue to be able to manufacture "#1" artists at will. They want to keep the cake they have while eating it.
She also says that the people writing such things as Gnutella don't understand that they have the choice to make money or not on software, but music is just "stolen" (infringed to the rest of us). Of course this ignores the decades of warez precident and the BCA's role. This is a totally hollow argument. We write software. We sell it. We get paid. Some poeple will never be willing to pay. We know. None of that means a damn when Microsoft starts alienating their own customers with tactics like the licensing of XP. Even good, faithful customers look for an out in another product. The RIAA has the same problem.
She comments that she's excited about the possibilities of P2P. Heh, even in the client-server model of digital music, the RIAA freaked out when artists started putting their own music up for download (members did, that is).
Bottom line: read my lips, music sharing will happen. Movie sharing will happen. People will continue to share what they believe (rightly or wrongly) to be theirs. What the RIAA should be doing is coming up with a better way to take advantage of that momentum. Create a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. The corollary to that is that if you just stand around yelling at the manufacturers of poor mousetraps, you eventually get ignored.
So in other words, record companies never have any intention of letting artists profit from record sales.
-- "" - Harpo Marx
I can't believe that people at slashdot are biased... I actually thought this was a legit news source.
... I wasn't really sure if it was sarcasm or not since it was an incorrect script.. It never started with therefore my browser did not translate it correctly....
On another not the original posted who used the
One more note: Yes the Bill Gates looks like a borg... But isn't he? I'm still waiting for the slashdot filters to take the word Microsoft and change it to a link just like xp. so now when I write it it looks like this
Microsoft
Take it all with a grain of salt, because too much salt is bad for your health!
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
You might catch something from them...ugh...
Technically, copying an artist's song w/o paying for it isn't stealing. It's infringment.
It's no more theft than if I were to take a few pictures of you having sex, sell it on the web, and ship them to you and your parents.
It might be wrong or criminal, but it's hardly theft. It's just called that to get the point of it being wrong across.
Now, RIAA might be disgusting slime--but they still are the ones who have the disgusting job of making sure the artist (and all the other creative people who help make an album!) get compensated for their effort.
umm... thats what i said...
oh, you were agreeing with me, my mistake
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Please look @ the (bene)factors in this mp3 case:
Many people earn money by litigation in all those piracy/copyright cases and I think thats why the problem isn't solved.
It makes perfect sense to me to end all this bs about downloading music/videos and just give some % of ISP traffic income to RIAA/MPAA and settle the problem for good.
__
L.
1) The copyrights are given by the people of this country to artists and journalists because we receive a benefit - the increased production of content. Unfortunately, the founders of our country did not anticipate the music industry, who take advantage of both the musicians and the people who pay for music. The government created this situation, and they need to correct it. My suggestion is a complete elimination of ALL media copyrights on the internet (meaning movies & music) for a period of 5 years; after which the government can come up with a new, fair, law.
2) There are restrictions on what is and isn't legal in a contract. Clauses that are obviously unfair should be thrown out in court. To use an extreme example, if Microsoft puts in the license agreement that you can't use Front Page to work on a site that has negative things to say about Microsoft, that is a completely unfair clause that shouldn't be permitted by the courts. Unfair contracts to musicians (particularly the whole works-for-hire deal) should not be allowed.
Mark
Rosen talks of integrating P2P with "legitimate business". Why should consumers pay subscription fees to these corporations to share bandwidth among eachother? That is rediculous.
Sorry, but "Du Hast" came out long before Napster/Scour, and Usenet hardly brings new music to the masses. Radio stations decide what to play, not listeners.
I don't think the point the guy was trying to make was that bands should be encouraging piracy (huh, is it piracy if the copyright holder wants you to do it?). I think he was saying that bands ought to use the power of free distribution to attract audiences, and not to be concerned with potential lost sales. Odds are, the new fans will make up for the slightly lower average per-fan expenditure.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Just finished reading the Rosen speech. Very interesting. She makes some good points, even if she is maybe slightly misguided. Let me start with an analogy.
I think that eveybody would agree that advocating the ban of kitchen knives would be absurd. However many people get killed or injured every year by other people attacking them kitchen knives.
Attacking somebody with a kitchen knife is illegal. Using that same knife to prepare food however is perfectly legal. A knife is just a tool - it's down to individual people to decide how they wish to use that tool. The same applies to any tool or technology.
Nobody is suggesting that the kitchen knife industry takes a long hard look at itself and redisign their products so that they cannot be used to injure or kill people, yet this is Rosen's position with respect to P2P software. IMHO this is patently absurd.
Having said all that, any decent person would be upset if a kitchen knife company marketted their product on it's ability to kill people, yet this is essentially how Napster advertised their service... This was an incredibly stupid position to take and was bound to provoke action.
However the position of the recording industry have taken by failing to adopt MP3 and calling P2P users pirates is possibly even more stupid. This approach assumes that all their customers are theives. This is very bad for PR, and is of course why the online community hates the RIAA and the major record labels.
It's always been easy to pirate music; MP3 just makes it a bit quicker.
The sensible thing for the music companies to do would be to adopt an open digital music format, and sell the files cheap, passing on the savings gained by digital download to the consumer. If they also provided lower quality versions for free, allowing users to try before they buy, then there would be very little reason for anybody to use the likes of Napster (a service that I found to be very unreliable).
I'm tempted to rant on about the flaws of DRMs, about how consumers will get upset when they upgrade their computer and can no longer play any file from their $2000 music collection, about how non-Windows users will be out in the cold, but I think I've probably said enough.
Offtopic?? He did say that the RIAA sucked, didn't he?
I don't think Bill will be shooting a wad at Hillary anytime soon.
He will if the SSSCA is passed and Microsoft DRM is chosen as the music protection device of choice.
QED
This is probably something like what you're after.
Buckets,
pompomtom
"There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
Folks, this is wrong. P2P networks like Napster and Limewire are slowly bleeding the recording industry to death. Many, many years into the future, they may no longer be able to survive. And that's a cruel and immoral way to treat your fellow man.
So go fetch a gun and shoot as many record company executives as you can right this minute. (That's right, if you're a secretary at A&M, grab your firearm NOW and GO POSTAL.) It's simple, it's relatively painless - for you anyway - and it puts them out of their misery quickly and humanely. Folks, it's the kindest thing. Don't let them linger on.
You know it makes sense.
Ade_
/
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
He might even get to tattoo her posterior, in the best Microsoft tradition. It'd be enough to keep her a banana buddy for life - even though she's publicly stated that she'd like to lie down with money, because she probably meant female money.
.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing