Slashdot Mirror
Don't Sever A High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians
Licensed2Hack writes "Janis Ian, who provided this slashdot interview last September, has written this editorial in the Los Angeles Times. Janis says, "After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%. They're still double what they were before the MP3s went online." And the RIAA's stated goal in preventing this type of activity with their lawsuit against Verizon is to increase sales..."
I'm all in favor of free downloads (not only do I believe in it, I practice it!). But to be fair, her sales probably don't reflect the average struggling not-so-famous musician since she's in the spotlight because of the whole mp3 controversy. I bet if she hadn't come out about mp3s her sales wouldn't be doing any better.
Of course, I just realized, her sales probably went up before she even made any public statements about it. Hmm, interesting.
1) people sample music
2) they like it and buy the cd
3) profit
spacial incident?
someone bought a desk thats too big for their room?
Thank you for this insightful commentary.
tcpa SUX!!!!
At the moment, most people only have dial up modems. A dial up user can download an individual song, but it is too difficult to download a whole album without alot of time and effort. A dial up user will download a single Mp3 from an album, and then go out and buy the album - it's kind of like free advertising. The RIAA knows this. But the RIAA is thinking ahead.
In a few years time when broadband is standard, that same user would instead download an individual song, like it, and then download the whole album in less time than it takes a dialup user to download a single mp3.
Song-swapping encourages album purchases because it's still too difficult for many people to download whole albums with their slow connection speeds. This will change with the arrival of broadband. And when downloading a whole album becomes dead easy, album sales will fall off, alot.
This piece really hits the mark in a very roundabout sort of way. The RIAA is not, by any means, interested in "sales" or "artist's livelihood." What the RIAA is interested in is keeping a very tight rein on what is seen as cool, what is heard on the radio, and what makes their profit margins exceed their own expectations.
RIAA wants to stop peer-to-peer through actions like its lawsuit against Verizon because those actions threaten their stranglehold on commercial music. As I've often said before, plenty of people think that radio and music in general truly suck in these days and times (how many people do you know that haven't bought a "new artist" cd in the last five years, perferring to spend $11.98 on "Skynard's Greatest Hits" or what ever?)
sig not found
I agree! If it weren't for sites like MP3.com, my band Flailing Kitten would have never gotten off the ground; the 'industry' would never accept it. :) The RIAA is afraid of losing control of music in general and the profits that follow; that's what's got them so scared.
Couldn't artists who use online file sharing as a form of advertisement sue the RIAA for curtailing their activities?
I know the law in the US allows them to disable file sharing computers without worrying about damages, but would it protect them from damage it causes other people with secondary effects such as that?
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Is accuse someone of pirating music, and the "machinery is set in motion."?
Well, I have a short list of people who I believe have been pirating music:
Hillary Rosen
George W. Bush
William Jefferson Clinton
Gandhi
Carrot Top
Ann Coulter
Jesse Jackson
The Dell Dude
mathew lesko (The question mark guy selling the book on how to get free government money)
Rick Fox (from the Lakers...)
What she's talking about works great with small-time musicians. When I was in a band, we tried to distribute our mp3s to anyone who would want to listen. Then we got a hot designer to make our merch, and that's how we made the mainstay of our cash.
However, I don't think her example is valid on a multi-platinum level. We get enough exposure to bigger bands through mtv and radio where we already know if we're gonna buy their shirt and concert tickets.
'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
Since the article obliquely discusses the death of radio and the rise of the MP3 (or other music file format) as a distribution method, it seems another progression might emerge.
At one point it seemed everything had an AM radio built into it - lamps, planters, kitchen appliances. You can find these kitschy, unenlightened objects in thrift stores nowadays, or tucked embarrassedly in people's basements. A while before that everything had a lamp built into it (culminating in that grass-skirted hula girl lamp you just can't get rid of), and before that it was a clock (you know you've got one of those elephants too). Whatever technology is just past the cusp seems to get built into everything as a cheap add-on (as long as it's simple enough, anyway - making toast, for instance, is a dedicated task).
Now people are asking for MP3 players in cellphones and PDAs - is this the kitschy inclusion of the future? Will alarm clocks and stoves and fridges and (dare I hope) toasters of the future all include a de rigeur network interface with an IPv6 address and an MP3 codec? It seems likely they will.
Could I interest anyone in some toast?
If the musician posts, he/she has control over what songs, and the distribution. If the users post the music, the control is lost.
My fellow Americans, we must not let the soverignity of hard-working American musicians be blatantly and wantonly violated by hooligans and rebellious thieves who commit theft in the name of technology.
Thank you and God bless America.
George W. Bush
President, United States of America
If you're interested in free music, go here.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Janis's stance on MP3's is admirable, but it was probably the reference on "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" that had the largest impact on sales...
They took radio along with Clear Channel -- let's not let them take the net.
Karma whorin' since 1999
mp3's are wonderful for the lesser known musicians out there for two reasons.
First of all, keep in mind that lesser known musician's mp3's are much harder to find than better known musicians. While it may be easy to download a few songs, downloading a whole album is almost impossible. You download a few songs, and if you like them, you buy the whole album. Good for the musicians.
Also, they are good for lesser known musicians because we don't have to spend our money on bigger name bands. For example, say I got the new DMB album on Kazaa. I can now spend the $15-20 I would have spent on the album on something a little more obscure. Or perhaps I could spend it on tickets to the DMB show. The point is that there is a good chance that I will spend it on music.
mp3's are great for the music industry. CD sales went down after Napster was shut down, not before. By obsessively trying to control digital media, they are only killing the goose that layed the golden egg.
"After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%"
The entertainment industries are controlled by people so blinded by greed that they are completely incapable of comprehending any business model that does not revolve around iron-fisted totalitarian control of their product. The list is lengthy and has been repeated many times:
Jack Valenti wanted to outlaw VCRs, saying they would destroy the movie industry. Instead, they have produced billions in profits.
The MPAA claims that they are currently suffering enormous harm from the trading of movies on the Interent. In reality, box office receipts in 2002 were up 11% from the previous year and the number of movie tickets sold was the highest in 50 years.
In 1981 the RIAA was making the same claims that they are today about lost profits due to "piracy". Back in those days, CDs, Personal Computers and the Internet didn't exist. The villian, according to the RIAA, was cassette tape recorders. People were allegedly taping their friends records instead of buying them. But studies showed that people who owned sophisticated home recording requipment spend 75% MORE money buying records than people who didn't.
The list goes on.......
The greed and stupidity of the enterntainment industry goes on....
The irony here is that time and time again the entertainment industry has had to be saved from itself.
They want to make sure independent artists don't start getting too big for their britches and therefor don't need the help of the RIAA or the big 5 recording labels??
Case in point....Ani Difranco has sold nearly, if not MORE than 1 million albums....ALL ON HER OWN!! And that's just ONE WOMAN from that musical hotbed of Buffalo, NY *sarcasm*!!
Imagine that, if you multiplied that more than 100x with talent from around the world! The labels would not be able to compete......
Anyone care to put forward some suggestions on how a musician can distribute their work, receive payment, hold copyright and get people to license their work? I have a close friend who has recently put some of his work closer into the spotlight online (but still very far from it, in a very targeted place) and his bandwisth limits loom if he were to actually promote his music whatsoever. He's considered dumping lower quality versions (the present audio is 256kbs mp3) into p2p apps but is unconvinced that it is a good thing to do. He's had a number of offers in the past few weeks for deals for 1 or 2 tracks (people haven't seen or heard much of his music but he's been writing for over a dozen years). I'm think he should charge a minimal worthwhile credit card charge for his work, allowing people who buy return for up to a year to download new audio he writes, offer standard deals for record labels where they can download lossless files and run with them. Of course I want him to use free codecs, and I think he might be convinced (on the possibility of hearing from fraunhoffer et al demanding cash). Any ideas the best way to go about price, bandwidth and the artists interests? What about "simpler" things like hooking up a shop to downloads securely (and simply for the end user) without having to go to your bank to setup a merchant account and without having to loose nearly all of a reasonable sized transaction in costs?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
The RIAA represents the recording industry..
Not Artists.. Not music consumers..
doesn't that feel better?
There actions may drive you nuts , but what can you do. Your not paying them. They're defending the "Recording Industry" The fact they have the influence they do isn't there own fault. If you don't like it don't buy the music they produce..(I'm not advocating stealing it either by obtaining it and not paying for it..)
Slashdot shouldn't jump every time the RIAA does something..
...but the decision to publish music on the web must be made by the copyright holder, not the public. Many cry that fair use rights are being taken away but by the same token, p2p services are taking away the rights of ALL artists, whether they are backed by large corporations and organizations or are struggling to make it on their own.
This should come as no surprise to those of us who actually pirate MP3s. Yes, I have 60 gigs of music on one of my hard drives. No, I did not pay for most of that music. However, if it hadn't been for Napster and its successors, I wouldn't have bought most of the 150 or so CDs I own. Most of my friends download music from the Internet, yet I know of no one who has stopped buying CDs just because they can get everything online. Instead, the Internet serves, as it does in all aspects of its use, to expose people to new things--and then, predictably for denizens of a consumer society, we buy those new things.
For that matter, it should come as no surprise to people who know the history of VHS. The movie industry was up in arms when tape recorders came out, saying people would no longer go to movies because they could just pirate a friend's copy. Today, most of the movie industry's revenue comes from sales and rentals of video tapes and DVDs. The VCR caused a boom in the movie industry, and if it weren't for a) the current economic slump and b) the RIAA's stubborn opposition of new technology, P2P would be causing a boom in the music industry.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
I believe CD sales have to be maintained by offering added-value. For example, the latest System of a Down CD did not have a cover booklet, but rather had embedded the pictures, lyrics and credits on the CD itself, only to be unlocked by an application downloadable from their website.
...
....
That's added value. The CD itself has more information and value than the collection of the same songs on mp3.
An album is not just the music that it has; it's a whole piece of art, expressed in the music, in the cover art, in the packaging, in the booklet, etc
Such albums would make me want to buy the CD instead of just having the mp3s
What did Gandhi ever do to you?
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
I just posted a rather lengthy reply to the article below, then read yours and realized something: Brevity can be a virtue.
Well put, sir (or madam).
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
i have a feeling posting porno and offering free beer will increase your sales by 400%
I don't get the logic here. Artist posts MP3s on a website, and sales go up. At any time before that, anyone could have ripped her CDs, and distributed it on napster, kazaa, gnutella, etc. etc. Why didn't sales go up then?
RIAA's stated goal in preventing this type of activity with their lawsuit against Verizon is to increase sales
The suit against Verizon involves someone who made music illegally available, i.e. the copyright was held by a RIAA member. It does not involve someone making available music that no RIAA member held the copyright to. (damn, what a messy sentence). RIAA didn't go after the biggest file sharer - they went after someone they could win against. Garage bands are safe.
Listened to music with his non-copy-protected ears. He heard music for free!
If I work for a union and the union is offered a contract that will significantly increase my salary, but also reduce the number of union employees, it is very unlikely that the proposal will be accepted (even when the staff reduction is done via attrition).
Similarly the RIAA's interests have nothing to do with artist's best interests, so why the surprise? Artists (like misreprested union employees) need to realize when the people they pay (very well), are no longer working in their best interests and move to find new representation.
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
If they'd just make everything (Everything, not just a small selection of stuff) available with some huge amounts of bandwidth for a small fee per song, I'd find it much more convenient than trolling through a bunch of lame slow connection via Limewire. But no, they are just pulling the ostrich routine...
Pretty much any new consumer electronic device that can read a DVD or CD can play MP3s. This includes my new DVD player and my new stereo. Of course this isn't lamps and planters, but it does signal a shift as you have noted.
MP3s are popular and MP3 support is so easy to add, why not add it? And this is a good thing because the more people who are exposed, the harder it is to stop the whole thing.
Brian Ellenberger
The only way we are going to get things to change is to tell the artists directly what we think.
We should take the time to contact our favorite artists and let them know that we are not going to buy their music until we can purchase it in a format that we want. Let the artists themselves put some serious pressure on the recording companies.
I personally have not bought a CD since 1996 despite wanting to buy a number of almbums. For me, CD's are simply not worth their current prices. The latest moves by RIAA have just hardened my resolve.
When I can buy high quality MP3's or FLAC encodings online, for a reasonable price, I can easily see myself spending a couple thousand dollars buying the music I want. Until then, I simply don't listen to music. I won't download it because I don't believe that is fair. I will, however, exercise my rights as a consumer not to purchase their music.
-sirket
I'm not quite sure it's so difficult for the folks on /. to see why the RIAA is against MP3s, file sharing, etc... The whole reason record companies exist is to burn CDs and advertise. It's actually quite easy and inexpensive(Meaning not M$, but K$) to setup a nice recording studio and then burn A CD. File sharing takes care of distribution and the relitively cheap cost of advertising on a website takes care of well.. advertisement.
The problem is that the recording companies can see a "free market" in the future, which means their relitive profit will probably come close to zero.
In Ellen Fiess-ese here's the senario:
"So the RIAA guy was like, 'Ah, like, I was doing my homework, and like,,, if these, like people start using mp3s, they will, like, stop buying CDs from us
So I was like Nooo Waaay!, so I made the switch from opressing music artists to suing and getting court orders to ransack small buisinesses trying to establish file-sharing on the internet.
I'm so totally pleased in my desision to broaden my circle oppression, cause, like, I feel so much more totally secure.'"
-- All your sig. are belong to us
1) people buy the cd
2) people are pissed off and return it
3) ???
4) profit!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
There's a running list of probable music pirates being created here. Each person listed has admitted to music piracy, and is offering themself to be taken to Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Oh dear. :) Gandhi wasn't actually sposed to be in that list. I stole that list from my a thread on my website (it's a list of the top five people you'd like to punch in the face if you saw them on the street. Gandhi doesn't actually belong in THAT list either...)
To: spamvictim@aol.com
Subject: MAKE EASY MONEY AT HOME
After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%. They're still double what they were before the MP3s went online.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
That list of 10 names is from the list of the top 5 people you would like to punch?
Man, U dumb.
For the stuff out of print, I can't buy it, so no loss to the industry.
For the new stuff, if I like it I buy the CD, if I don't I delete it and would have never gambled the price of a CD anyway.
And I'm especially pissed about the stuff out of print. They are screwing both the artist and listener by having a business structure that can't be profitable with small run/demand items. Rhino did a lot to rescue some catalogues, but there are many others languishing out there that a smaller and smarter business could profit from.
The music industry wasn't destroyed by the MP3, it was destroyed by the bean counter and the corporation. They will die, and I hope it will happen soon, because then new business will spring up in it's place, dedicated to the music, and serving both artist and listener.
Sales were up, then napster got shut down and they started dropping, so of course they blamed the drop on all the other P2P networks.
may not be good for Punky McGarageRock.
I appreciate her point, but you cant generalize about every artist and the entire entertainment industry based on one or two anecdotes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
www.machinaesupremacy.com allow people to download their music for free. although they have no cd's out atm I know if they did I would gladyl buy it and support them. but thats just me I find by sampleing the music I am more apt to buy it.
This was the whole point of why IUMA.COM got started so many years ago. Cut out the record companies, and let the artists go direct to the customers.
I remember discussing this over and over again at the time and how everyone was sure the companies wanted to destroy IUMA. Then Napster came along and made them forget about it.
Whoever modded this down either didn't read it or didn't understand the point he was trying to make. The Record companies DO want control over the music and how it is distributed. File Swapping takes that away from them. They don't want a bunch of small tiny artists selling directly to people who take away sales of their mega-bands. They just want Mega Bands, and a cut of the profits these mega bands make.
And the recording companies don't even have to get involved in the whole Payola issue, amazing.
Then again, once they realise you can *gasp* tape things off the radio that'll all be outlawed too.
Most artists make there bucks from touring and merchandise already.
And I recall the RIAA was started to stablize and standarize the phonographs so a single record could play on any machine.
I recall seeing a set of equipment at WBAA at Purdue (around 1976) that was old enough to have been designed at a time when things like equalization were unstandard, so the preamp had something like a couple of dozen settings to account for any disc the radio station could have had come in at the time.
RIAA unified all that.
Honesty.
She's saying "I'll give you my music for free, and if you like it, please support me", instead of having people just downloading it from some p2p client. Its the same philosiphy as freeware.
Yes he does...
I'm sick of hearing him held up as the poster boy for nonviolence...
He should have tried it with the Nazis...
The British were bad in their day (read: Ireland and Scotland), but by the time they got India, they were washed up and their government too scared of public and international opinion (not to mention the sheer population size of India which meant pissing people off was not going to help matters and even the Brits could see that...) to do the sort of things they did to the Irish and Scots...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You know, in times like this it might be nice to have a free place to stay and free food. I even here you get to watch alot of free tv and read alot of free books.
In prison that is.
The article refers to any mp3s he releases will infringe copyright law. However if it was his own work and he released it to the public domain how could the RIAA intervene? As I understood the rulings in the past, the RIAA's authority only extends to labels and artists they represent. How would this affect smaller artists who -choose- to put their music online?
see.. now I thought that was funnier...
I think I have a feak who isn't trolling.... fuck I must have said somthing reallly bad that time!
There is evidence of dissent and a twinkling of enlightenment about file trading in the recording industry. I strongly recommend that you read the Wired article that was the subject of this Slashdot thread about 12 hours ago - it is well worth your time.
You know what would be really scary?
If parent's poster really was his nick.
The RIAA is acting as abusively as trusts did early in the 19th century and our current president is certainly no Teddy Roosevelt. They have proposed a nationwide charge of all ISPs to "compensate" them for "lost profit", they jack up the price on blank CDs to compensate them on "lost profit", and they overcharge for regular CDs at the expense of artists then have the nerve to try to criminalize any and all competition to release through their outlets to recompensate for "lost profit". The abuses by the RIAA are bordering on violation of freedom of expression and freedom of speech, never mind the already flagrant violations of privacy. Has anyone considered a lawsuit against the RIAA for abuse of monopoly power? I propose that an entirely free service supported through advertising be set up where artists submit samples/songs for free downloads. No hitch, no subscriptions, no catches, just free music submitted with the intention that it be distributed freely. If there are already multiple out there, consolidate them under one or two sites to increase their exposure to the general public.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
stop hearing about whathernutz ian? .. nobody .. the Only reason
knows or cares about her work
you post this shlock is because shes just about
the only one that still wants her music ripped
off. granted, i've purchased more music since
napster came along due to exposure, but most of
it had to be ordered from what were probably
non-RIAA distributors, in one form or another
(used, indie, whatever)
lbah ola bloof foo
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are thoroughly confused. The RIAA is an association of music publishers: Sony, Vivendi, etc. No actual musicians are involved. The article you cite is about ASCAP and BMI.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
A lot of people who listen to mp3s rarely buy cd's for two reasons. First of all, the people who listen mainly to popular music can find mp3s for most the tracks they want online pretty easily. Finding specific jazz, classical, or other not-so mainstream stuff can be difficult and is easier to get by buying a cd. Second, many people's ears aren't good enough to hear the compression in mp3s, or simply don't care enough. People who can hear the compression are generally annoyed by it and buy cds for higher-quality audio.
Please stop posting in TT.
and I find it pathetic that I'm forced to scour the playlists of various radio stations in obscure markets around the country, then download the music to sample it and also find myself listening to Internet stations in small towns because radio in the LARGEST MEDIA MARKET in the world doesn't have a radio station I like! The record industry should be HAPPY thay have a loyal customer like me who WORKS HARD to find titles to buy. Instead, they call me a CRIMINAL! Is this their idea of giving the customer what they want? Frankly, I'd love to own a record company. It's easy to make money. Even if you can't market yourself out of a paper bag, don't worry! Congress and the courts will help you be the ONLY GAME IN TOWN, because after all, this is how the marketplace is supposed to work!
I had this problem recently, and your solution sounds good to me.
The tingling sensation means it's working, right?
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
If you think the RIAA is worried about all these people downloading songs for free and pirating music
Their NOT.
Free downloads can actually help sales in the same way that radio does. And the pirates who have 1000's of mp3's probably would not have paid for any of that anyway.
So what are they worried about?
Distribution. Their greatest fear is that artists will start releasing music on their own, side stepping the recording industry and their slave like contracts. Once an artist can release music (without the record company) through the Internet. The record companies will cease to exist. End of story
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Nah. That would put the "Information just wants to be free" crowd out of work. And how do you expect us to get back at "da man" if we do that? And I'm not a "pirate", I'm a "Free-Loader" :)
As a musician and recording engineer, I can attest that, yes, it isn't cheap bringing recordings to market.
However...
What we're really talking about here is the notion that one must fork over a monetary sum and wait (maybe minutes, but sometimes days, sometimes years, depending on a recording's availablity and rarity) to hear it. P2P cuts the wait and the inconvenience of "real" shopping, and is (currently) free.
The price of a CD is justified through the reward of owning a physical media that is as close to the original master as is possible, given mass-production's capabilities. Fairly-priced CDs ($5-$15) are a good bargain in this regard. If you know that a recorded work is required for your library, then ONLY a legitimate copy of that thing, with full audio quality, is an acceptable solution to that need. MP3s won't cut it.
MP3s are merely "near-CD" facsimiles of an actual, valuable thing. They, in and of themselves, have *NO* value. Even the highest quality MP3 files suffer from degradation, and can't be replicated without further degradation. Without hard-media backups, they are prone to instant and irrecoverable loss or corruption. They provide none of the tactile rewards of real media (quality artwork and printed liner notes are, indeed, worth something) and are even incapable of replicating the CD listening experience in certain cases (where tracks flow one song into another, seperate files for each track result in gaps).
Some might say these are minor things, but I feel strongly that no one would ever settle for having MP3s of a work that they truly love.
So the real question is: why should people feel pressure to pay for the privelege of auditioning works that they may not actually desire to have in their physical media library for the long term?
I don't think they should.
Readers can audition nearly any book at their public library without a financial transaction taking place. I feel that P2P applications are roughly the audio equivalent of public libraries, and, as such, are beneficial for the public's musical education.
As a musician with works in release, I do not fear downloading, because anyone who would download my record and be content with that piss-poor representation of my work wasn't going to buy it anyway. But, perhaps, through having heard it in it's entirety, they might learn to love it and need to purcahse it. Or, if they don't like it, they might recommend it to someone who *would* like it, and they might purchase it.
And another thing: if we're going to be upset about P2P music trading, why aren't we upset about used CDs? Artists don't get a *dime* from those transactions, and those transactions lead to the purchaser actually obtaining the thing of real value - a physical copy!
Yes-s-s-s, that is the key word....
You might know all the Pink Floyd hits from Careful With That Ax Eugene to the more recent masturbatory epics but for an 18 year old, that's a whole new world.
I was listening to a Yes live video (the one with the young girls in the symphony orchestra) with an older inlaw and our 15 year old niece who is a budding musician came down to the basement and went Wow!...what is that song?
"Uh.....its called Roundabout and Ive heard that song about as often as Freebird and hotel California"
What's Freebird she asked?
When her friends came by to check out some of my 70's stuff recently, it was an amazing revelation, for them and me. Songs that I had OD'ed on were new and fresh to them.
Mind you it helps that these kids were all interested in playing music so their tastes were not limited to the prefab top 40 stuff.
Hell, if you want to play music and get to hear
the Allmans Brothers Live at the Fillmore East for the first time, it will mark you, no matter when it was made.
zack
Publicity is significant to Janis Ian's case.
She is famous among the "filesharing" community because she is on their side.
Drawing the conclusion that "filesharing promotes sales" from her case is drawing a false conclusion.
Drawing the conclusion that "filesharing reduces sales" is also false, but that's not the point, here.
I'm sick of hearing him held up as the poster boy for nonviolence... He should have tried it with the Nazis...
I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but since I've heard similar idiotic sentiments in meatspace I'll take your comment at face value.
I'm what you'd call a pacifist of convenience. I'll go out of my way to avoid physical violence unless I'm not given any choice. I'd like to be a pure pacifist, but I unfortunately don't think it's practical in the real world. Sometimes you're confronted with a force so evil--I hate using that word, as it's been cheapened by the retards in charge as of late--that it seems like committing violence is actually the moral course of action.
I've always thought that men of action were put on this planet to protect those who couldn't fight for themselves: the old, the weak, the nonviolent. How wonderful it would be if the most powerful country on Earth would not only act with violence when necessary but at the same time aspire to the teachings of men like Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK.
Instead, we have a nation full of yahoos like yourselves (I'm assuming you're a fellow American) who seem not only willing to use force, but are actually downright eager about the whole thing. Almost like it's a game of, "yeah, all you other countires, check this out! wow, that's an amazing amount of whupass we're bringing out to our enemies, isn't it? our cocks are just soooo huge. go ahead, say it! are cocks are fucking huge"
As to your point that you'd have liked to see Gandhi use nonviolence against someone like the Nazis, I'm wondering exactly what you mean by that? If you're saying nonviolence wouldn't have worked in that instance, then I'm in agreement with you. However, if you were at all implying that Gandhi would've been scared to stand up to them, then you'd be dead wrong. It's not like there weren't a lot of death threats before he was finally assasinated, you know. Being a highly vocal messanger of peace isn't exactly the safest occupation in the world.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
Not to nit-pick, but Janis is a woman.
Recently, I attended the Consumer Electronics Show and Janis was on a panel with Dan Gillmor from the Mecury News, Steve Wozniac, Scott Dinsdale (a weasle from the MPAA), a mega-weasle from the RIAA (the "little pischer" from Courtney Love's rant), and someone from the HRRC. Janis daid a lot of interesting things, including talking about a blind kid who had his computer wiped out by a copy-protected Celiene Dion CD.
Anyway, Dinsdale was asked about Jon Johansen and the right to watch legally purchased DVDs on the computer system of one's choice. He replied (I wish I had this on tape) that just because someone was stupid enough to use the wrong operating system, they didn't have the right to watch anything they wanted. Yes, I'm serious...he called Linux users "stupid". This should be on the recording of the CES "Supersession on Digital Downloading" of the 2003 CES.
To repeat, a legally authorized representative of the MPAA called Linux users stupid. This is true. This is NOT a troll. There were several hundred people in the room.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
a fascinating if somewhat dated article
That article is very interesting. It makes me feel sickened to read about ASCAP and their lawyers. They are using intimidation to protect and continue their business. Not many judges around these days willing to risk their life going against ASCAP. The only hope is that musicians pull their greedy heads out of their asses and tell ASCAP to piss off. Of course ASCAP is intmidating them too. It's going to take someone with real guts to turn the tables against ASCAP. I suppose informed consumers can help. I think what we're really going to see (as some else eluded to) is that the music industry will go through an upheaval and it will never be the same again. People are not getting their music the way they used to and the music industry is too heavy on their feet to do anything about it. But I sure don't care. I have essentially stopped buying music. I have enough already.
http://tinyurl.com/3t236
Did you get that from Dave Barry?
Slashdot shouldn't jump every time the RIAA does somethining....
Yeah, we should jump on their fat asses every time the RIAA so much as sneezes.
If the RIAA had their way, I would not have my iPod, they would hack your computer on suspicion of mp3 piracy with impunity and they'd haul your ass in a court just filing a piece of paper with a court clerk.
Due Process? Innocent before proven guilty? That as much as chance for survival as a plate full of food does when Hilary Rosen goes to Old Country Buffet.
If all the RIAA did was focus on the criminals that resell bootleg recordings for profit and stick to solely music related devices, we wouldnt complain about the. The minute that overfed egotistic anachronistic trade association decided it would be in the best interest of their bottom line to reprogram our computers and turn back the clock AND bludgeon us with lawyers, they declared war on the IT community.
Just look at how the USS RIAA is doing by looking at the cover of Wired Magazine:
RIP MIX BURN -- The Death of the Recording Industry.
I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Almost all of my friends have Cable or ADSL. I can only think of a couple people who DON'T have broadband. I'm including people who have the shit ass 'broadband' at 128/128. Otherwise about 80 percent have 2Mbit+ connections!
More people have broadband than cable packages... many ppl have basic cable with 2Mbit connection.
Everyone downloads music illegally. Everyone still buys cd's.
I have learned of so many GOOD bands that I would never of heard of had I not downloaded music for free. I couldn't even name all of the music I've discovered!
But do I still buy CD's? OF COURSE. Do I buy as much as I used to? MORE. Because before I had bought cd's which SUCK ASS... but now that I can sample music I only buy things I know I like.
Before,
Everyone blows a gasket, just keep in mind:
- I have the right to produce a piece of music that is as crappy as I want.
- I can "publish" it in any manner that I see fit
and "retain" the copyright to it.
- I can also frivolously accuse any and all RIAA executives of copyright infringement. I don't have to prove anything. I just have to submit to the ISP of, lets say, Sony and accuse one of their executive employees of offering my music without my permission.
With enough of the above scenarios I would think the RIAA guys might get the message.
Turn the tables on them guys.
VS
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
It's logical for the corporations to discount the benefits of freely availible media.
>>she's in the spotlight because of the whole mp3 controversy
'Round here, we call that the Slashdot effect...
But this time, used for good, not evil!
It's all well and good to talk about people who listen to music and the buy, but I flat out don't buy CDs. If I can find it, I'll just download it and listen to it indefinitely. CDs are too expensive for my budget.
I mean, thousands of slashbot geeks who would never even consider giving an old-skool female folk artist a second look probably became instant fans of her just for visibly being on the white-hat side of the whole MP3 debate.
It's kind of like how we were all willing to forget how much we hated Wesley Crusher when Wil Wheaton turned out to be "one of us." Our objectivity has been skewed a little regarding public figures who turn out to be good eggs.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Oh, for crying out loud.
Copyright is all about the control of the aritst. They (or whomever they hire to manage / sell the rights to) decide who can and cannot make copies of the copywritten work. P2P, for the largest part, is used to circumvent this right.
Take away every P2P file-transfer protocol in the world and put in the harshest DRM possible--and small acts can STILL choose to give away their music for no cost. And they'll have the added bonus of interlocking their name in with the file, thus elminating faulty ID3 tags.
RIAA has every right to lobby for and get laws passed that enforce copyright. Fair Use can flow through the analog hole just like it did before MP3, and those who want to give away the MP3s will still do so.
You missed Steve Ballmer.
Just last night he was on KaZaA looking for stuff by Miami Sound Machine.
Of course the RIAA doesn't like MP3s. They make no money if the artists makes profits off of non-music sales (T-shirts, etc). So what if the artist does.
The RIAA represents the interests of big stars, making proffits off of selling lots of CDs. I doubt many people have decided to buy a Britney ablubm because they downloaded a song off of it...
slightly off topoc, but i like npr far better than any magor music out there. it's just a little more sophistied than some of the stuff that passes for music these days.
Dear Janis, I must say I was shocked by your article in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncomme ntary/la-oe-ian2feb02,0,2630989.story?coll=la-head lines-suncomment)
I too am a musician, engineer and a journalist, and have what I feel is a firm understanding of music law. The article you wrote fails to make one very important point: it is one thing for an artist to offer their music up as a free download (provided they have the rights to it) and its a very different thing for people to download something that the artist has not authorized. There are many musicians who offer free downloads on their websites, which is a great promotional opportunity. Buy peer 2 peer services offer the potential for people to get any music they want (for free) without the artist's consent. A good analogy would be a market giving away free samples, and then saying since that increased food sales, all the food in the store should be free.
I highly suggest you write a follow up to your article as it is perpetuating the notion that music should be free.
Matthew Good's new CD, Avalanche, will be a dual-format disc, and will contain the music videos of their two new singles. In addition, you will get a key code with the CD, which will let you order a pretty cheap remix of the songs.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
what is the point, music is no longer the real thing, what once was expression of an artist became "intellectual property and has since lost all value and meaning". Charles Ives had profound ideas in the 19th century that were met by redicule, now those ideas and the thoughts behind them will be lost.....forever
Yes, she saw her sales go way up. Why? Cause she just got a bunch of FREE PUBLICITY. Publicity is the cornerstone of marketing.
How do record companies make money? Off their Big Ticket artists (the Britney's, N'Syncs etc.). The other 90% of their artists don't really sell enough albums to make any money.
Those Big Ticket artists have major publicity partly because the public loves them, but mostly because their record companies see them as worth spending millions of dollars a year on marketing. Record companies BUY them publicity, by promoting the heck out of them. In general, the public isn't that picky. They tend to buy who's ever getting a lot of publicity. Look at Jimmy Ray. Here was some looser with a crappy album, BUT his record company decided to promote him like crazy (calling him the Next Elvis and crap like that, cause he had nice hair or something). Even though his songs were terrible and he only had one half-decent single, this guy sold tons of records.
Ok, so what am I getting at? Bottom Line. Record Companies make $$$ on 10% of their acts, loose $ on the other 90%. They only keep these 90% around, cause they gamble on some of them eventually becoming part of the 10%. They know full well that mp3's and online music (cause they provide good free publicity) will really help out those 90% of acts that don't make much money. But they're scared to death that mp3's will EAT into the sales of their 10% money maker artists. Which they clearly do! (In short, record sales are all about supply and demand. Having mp3's around increases vastly the supply of those major artists cause so many people have their CD's in the first place to rip and mp3 them, making vast supplies of those mp3s. So mp3 trading satisfies some of the demand for those records that would have gone to CD sales.)
For that reason alone, they're way too scared not to attack online music trading with everything they've got. They're trying to protect their golden eggs.
Not sure whether to laugh or cry, but I sure feel icky having you within 200 of my UserID.
Anything else I have to say will break Godwin's Law and about 4000 corollaries, so I'll shut up now.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
ok this is mr fantasy talking .. but how about this.. what if everyone just stopped downloading all music for like 3 months.. and then when no one actually hear anymusic they have never heard before and donest go out and buymusic becuase they arent gonan spend 20 bucks on some crap they dontknow what it is.. and the RIAA hemmorages a spleen for a quarter and Hillary ODs because the master plan fails....yaddya yadda yadda...
That doesn't explain similar results for Baen authors who put their books out for free in anelectronic library.
I think we're starting to assemble enough data points to be able to say with some confidence, putting out free stuff helps sales of both the rest of the IP portfolio and sales of the free stuff as well.
Never mind their stated goal. Their real goal is to keep things just as they are.
Artists like Janis Ian scare them to death.
Even scarier is the prospect of artists banding together to form their own distribution and marketing system with the help of some geeks who're out of work.
The RIAA companies "own" lots of artists who are not big right now. Only so many artists can be "big", and the recording insutry has made the deliberate decision ot only push the "big" ones.
Now I'm pulling numbers out of my hat below, just to make a point. But I'm sure youcan find real numbers to back up the argument.
The recording industry decided that since people collectively will only be buying 300 million CDs per year, then if they only run 30 marketing campaigns to push 30 artists, they would still sell 300 million CDs - but spend a heck of a lot less than they would pushing say 3000 artists.
The problem which they are unable to recognize is that not everyone likes the 30 artists that are being forced down our throats. So they are not seeing the 10 million CDs per artist that they expected. But since nothing is being done to promote the other 2970 artists, they might just conceivably want to see some additional sales - but that would involve online distribution of their music.
But wait, their music is "owned" by RIAA members.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
As a musician I have a need to play. It's something I just have to do and will always have to do. It doesn't matter if any one hears it or not. It's in my head and I have to find a way to get it out.
As a music fan I have a need to hear the voices in the heads of other kindred spirits who I can connect with via music. I'll get a hold of that through what ever means is available. Most of the music in my collection is special order. There is, make that was, a great deal I was never able to aquire until the internet united us all whether it be purchasing cds directly from the artist's web site or just downloading a mp3.
My personal feeling is that the RIAA is fighting to save itself under the guise of protecting it's artists. Technology has made the old system ( as ineffective as it was ) obsolete. Artists can now deal directly with their fans no matter how distant they may be. The Industry tried to ignore the technology, but the musicians and the fans created the system they wanted instead. Now the Industry is on the outside looking in.
USA!! USA!!! USA!!!!
Fairly-priced CDs ($5-$15) are a good bargain in this regard
I'd say $5-$12 is a good bargain, anymore than that, I will buy a DVD instead.
On CNN: RIAA website hacked again
In another latest news:
An amateur astronomer in San Francisco has captured five strange images of Columbia shuttle just as it was re-entering the Earth's atmosphere before dawn, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The pictures reveal what appear to be bright electrical phenomena flashing around the track of the shuttle's passage.
"They clearly record an electrical discharge like a lightning bolt flashing past, and I was snapping the pictures almost exactly . . . when the Columbia may have begun breaking up during re-entry," the photographer, who was not identified, said.
The pictures were taken with a Nikon 8 camera on a tripod. He will not make them public immediately.
The Chronicle reported that the pictures show a "bright scraggly flash of orange light, tinged with pale purple, and shaped somewhat like a deformed L. The flash appears to cross the Columbia's dim contrail, and at that precise point, the contrail abruptly brightens and appears thicker and somewhat twisted as if it were wobbling".
The photographer said: "I couldn't see the discharge with own eyes, but it showed up clear and bright on the film when I developed it." He refused to speculate what it might be.
Well, it takes a good bit longer then 4 minutes to read a book. I can and have found songs by artists where I like that one or two songs by them, but I can't stand the rest of the album, or in fact, the rest of their body of work.
Whereas, most books take at least an hour to read, if not more (some books, much more), and quite honestly, after reading a couple books by Grisham, I have no desire to ever read anything by him again. Same with several other authors. Yet I will still listen to all kinds of music.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
...it's something you can't get unless you buy the album.
On the other hand, putting that information on the CD in a what's probably a DRM- and spyware-laden proprietary format is just a pain in the ass. It would probably be more convenient to wait for someone to convert it to open formats and put it on Kazaa...
Music videos and stuff, where it's easier to pop in the dual CD/DVD than mess with downloading them, are 'added value'. Making you boot up your computer and download something from the internet just to see the liner note pictures is just a shoddy gimmick to save the 2 cents it costs to publish the liner notes.
everything has a fscking clock in it these days!!! lessee, here's why I HATE daylight savings time:
3 computers, 2 calculators, microwave, convection oven, coffee maker, shortwave radio (2 clocks there actually), 3 cars, sprinkler timer, 3 bedrooms, cute road runner & coyote clock in living room, stereo amp, VCR, TV, camcorder, 2 film and 3 digital cameras, 2 GPSes... nobody in the house wears a watch!!
300%? So that's like 9 CDs now?
In addition, you can listen to music while driving, working, playing video games, etc. Music is pretty much a 'background' thing, whereas reading is much more of a 'foreground' thing.
live(free) || die;
If it were not for mp3's and the internet I would have really starved last year, and certainly would not have gotten as far with my musical project as I have.
In 2002, I received about $4000 in paypal donations from complete strangers who happened to stumble across my site. Whilst this was in no means a real salary, it kept the wolves from my door and the taxman fed.
It sickens me that the RIAA and the greedy fat record executives are trying to prevent anyone who does not produce 'commercial music' a chance to live off of their talents....
-- 7 string electric violin + live loop samplers
Downloadable music doesn't increase sales. It doesn't decrease sales either. It regresses sales to the mean.
For unsigned artists, it increases sales because they get global exposure which they can't get through some other medium.
For big name artists who are already known worldwide it decreases sales because the people who might otherwise knuckle under and pay will just download instead.
The people who argue that downloading increases sales for *everybody* are just trying to find arguments to support their desire for free downloads. Likewise, the people who argue that it decreases sales for *everybody* are just trying to protect their business.
Now obviously attacking the format, be it MP3 or whatever makes no sense at all. If the bigtime copyright holders want to persue illegal copying that's fine, but attacking P2P systems and the file formats makes no sense.
As much as many don't like it, the old bit about "when you're downloading MP3s you're downloading communism" has a kernel of truth to it. Socialist systems often regress people to the mean. Usually, the mean ends up lower too although command economies sometimes distribute resources towards one particular aspect of society and exceed the mean of that particular aspect under capitalism (see, Sputnik, Cuban Health Care). In a sense, the MP3 people have risen up and redistributed the wealth from large copyright holders to computer companies and smaller artists.
This presents me with a moral quandary. On the one hand, I dislike the Leftist revolutionary attitudes that some have. I don't believe people can justify the taking of something just because they think they should have it. On the other hand, the manipulation of the government by the corporations offends me equally. A pox on both their houses! When one side buys the law, and the other side breaks the law, the framework of society begins to unravel.
Our laws are supposed to be formed on the basis of civilized debate, not the outcome of a slugfest between thieves and scoundrels.
So for now, what very little music I buy, I buy legally; I haven't downloaded music very often, and when I did I felt like I was being a hypocrite, since I have argued in favor of IP rights. Of course, I'm mostly in the "radio is good enough" category of listener. If I were really, really pasionate about music I'm not sure what I'd do.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The position the RIAA should be trying to get in is selling services to ISP's, then music trading over P2P becomes part of the ISPs' bottom line. This could also more easily demonstrate loss of income for the RIAA in real dollars.
Creating a fine system for copyrighted materials could be a nightmare, but then again your talking about computers. I don't think it improbable for an ISP to keep a record of file transfers with CRC-->only obtainable within the boundaries of the court. With a court authorized structure; after presedent has been set, the fine structure becomes more viable. The nice thing I find in a fine system is that it still allows for compulsion, depended on incurring losses.
I'd be happy to pay 5? o 10? a month for unlimited commercial free music in my home.
It wouldn't stop me from buying cd's or converting them to mp3's for my house or car.
The RIAA may do well to get with Creative, I can think of a lot of local bands that could do well with some higher quality, cheaper recording methods, plus the RIAA may find themselves in a better position to offer the "soap box" to some of these bands. While they're at it take a look at the buffer on the newer cards, a group of wires from my network card to my sound card may do nicely(but that may be better serve MPAA).
I don't want to see P2P go, I've used it for to many legit reasons, and the 'user' content is growing.
Who else is succeeding like her?
She's current, independent, and wildly popular with her fans.
She has succeeded without the RIAA and without ClearChannel.
Who else? We'll need these to counter the RIAA.
Sidenote: I downloaded her songs from gnutella,
got hooked, and bought her three latest albums.
Then took my friends to her concert. God bless P2P!
I havent bought one album, cd, vinyl or tape. And neither have you, have you.
Suck it bitches!
Did anyone else read that first sentance as " The Recording Industry Assasins of America," or is it just that I haven't had my coffee yet this morning?
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
Anything else I have to say will break Godwin's Law [...]
Godwin's Law
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Obviously, this law is only breakable by an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention Nazis.
You must have an awful lot of stuff to say, sir. *g*
Free as in mason.
Whew, I feel the tension draining away. If the RIAA wants to lock in the data on my computer, twist law to their benefit and criminalize a large segment of innocent citizens, I can take solace in the words of Bobby Mcferrin: Don't worry, Be Happy :) :) :).
As long as the RIAA doesn't hear me actually saying them
And this will work in the short term. People are supporting her, because she is bucking the system. If every artist tried to do this, would people be as supportive, or just start to take it for granted that musician's products are availible for free on the internet? (as some are already doing)
At some point, won't the artists have to treat recordings as simply free advertising for their concert tours... Nothing more?
But to be fair, her sales probably don't reflect the average struggling not-so-famous musician since she's in the spotlight because of the whole mp3 controversy.
;) and the record companies would be making less money than they would like. There would be more musicians being able to do what they wanted for a living because of the masively improved margins available.
:D
The RIAA's interest is it's members: Recording companies not artists or music(except when it's convinent for buisness).
Their current way of doing business is largely based on publicity and they have lots of control over the media they use.Competition from independant artists via the internet is not in their interests (obvious parallels here with M$), so to eliminate this competition they are using the indirect tactic of trying to lock the use of the net down by lobbying for apropriate laws.
If a larger chuck of commercial music was done by artists independantly, online, then there would be more focus on that group from the public - it would become a decent sized market (bazaar
So just like M$ they are trying to use their lobbying power (Money without ethics..) to preseve their buisness model from it's impending doom.
The standard of music should go up too
It's kind of like how we were all willing to forget how much we hated Wesley Crusher when Wil Wheaton turned out to be "one of us.
Wil Wheaton is gay?
perhaps they're only worried about THEIR sales as opposed to say, everyone else's who are all MAKING MONEY off MP3, and related distribution. The problem is the Music Industry (note that I hate this term, music should never be an industry) decided they wouldn't embrace the Internet, and when they did this the same decision was to squash anyone who does use the Internet. This is basically the same strategy our friends up at Redmond have been using, and debating the finer points of in the American court system for some time now.
Yeah... but... umm...
There's that little Perjury aspect of the DMCA.
Piss off a big fish with a DMCA notice, and you're bound to be held to the "under penalty of perjury" clause by one of them.
As for the big fish with money (like RIAA, most of the people on your list, $cientology), you don't really scare them, and they'll be happy to sic a group of hound dog lawyers on you (or $cientology might just kill your hound dogs off), bleed you dry of all your money, and then send you up the creek without a paddle.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
lol. I didn't want to take the chance, considering I wasn't sure which way the thread was swinging. I also didn't realise the infinite consequences of undertaking this task. :)
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
I discovered during Napster's short lifspan 2 great bands(Shamall and The Gathering Field, they both have online site/shops/samples) that the RIAA has missed, since they do not belong to the organizaion, are they also going to be infringed on by the RIAA??? Seems to me the B/S the RIAA spreading about losses of revenues on artist and spreading the load between all artists in their stable is really stinking load of manure. Since Metalica and the RIAA have taken arms up on the mp3 downloaders and servers, I have not purchased a single new CD to, in my way a silent protest of their actions, I have bought thru 2nd hand sources(i.e. pawn shops, used music, goodwill and others). I have purchased a few new CD's, but from only direct artist site(non-RIAA), but until the RIAA(Major labels included) withdraw their persecution of end users(which is the same thing they are doing legally also selling new CD's at outrageous prices), I for one will not support them in their legal fund. Purchase Direct from the Artist, not the RIAA and their Stooges. Boycott the Bastards!! -=ô;ö=-
are also famous for not having money, and leaving university thousands of pounds/dollars in debt. I think the year before they go, when they are sponging off their parents, is probably a better time to extract money from them.
Readers can audition nearly any book at their public library without a financial transaction taking place. I feel that P2P applications are roughly the audio equivalent of public libraries, and, as such, are beneficial for the public's musical education.
Only a library is not completely like P2P. If I borrow a book from the library, there's a set time-period in which I am allowed to have it. If I keep it too long, fines will accumulate, presumably with the money going back to the library to buy more books and such. I must return the book, then, or go and buy my own copy from a book store if I want to keep it. I'm skipping over the issue of "what if I keep signing it out?" because it then begs the question of convenience, sharing with others, availability of the book, etc.
With P2P, you can download a song much like you sign a book out of the library. The difference, though, is that there is no real time-limit associated with current MP3s. I do not need to go t a bookseller if I want to keep the file -- I just don't delete it from my computer. Nobody calls me up charging me $0.25 a day for my overdue MP3.
Liquid Audio was doing some work with time-limited music files, but I've not heard from them in ages now.
at least in the UK
As Britney is on the radio regularly everyone can tape her there. So nobody really needs to download mp3s to burn cds with her songs. So the RIAA won't achieve much for Britney even if they succeed in stopping mp3 downloading.
On the other hand less known artists will lose exposure and sales if mp3 downloading is stopped.
Of course, we wouldn't have a multi-billion dollar music industry if the kind of thinking you and your "friends" had prevailed at the birth of broadcast radio. Would anyone in the 1920s have been able to pay CARP style royalties at the birth of AM radio?
Why are you RIAA types (no, working for a record label PR department doesn't make you a "musician" any more than looking at an Apple ad makes me Steve Wozniak) trying to hard to kill the goose that's laid all these golden eggs for you all these years?
I advised a friend in EU who wants to promote her alternative metal albums via distributing MP3 tracks on Kazaa that she needs to have a friend local to her who's providing a Kazaa server do this because none of my friends are willing to take the legal risks involved with being a Kazaa content provider in the current legal climate.
I gave that advice about 30 seconds before I posted.
If you were a real working musician, you wouldn't have to be told that music without public exposure makes no money, or that if nobody knows about your recordings, nobody's going to buy them/
Tech Public Policy stuff
Tell that to Eminem, and he'll laugh his ass off at you. His entire new album was unofficially downloadable a week before its official release.
He's laughing about "piracy" all the way to the bank.
I'm now wondering if he took matters into his own hands and ripped and uploaded the MP3s himself.
If so, whatever you think of his music, he's certainly ahead of you.
Then, of course, there's Phish and the Grateful Dead... who also have profited via letting people tape their concerts instead of trying to put people in jail over downloads.
Take off your tin-foil hat, shitcan your RIAA-fed conspiracy theories, and join the real world. Reality is bad enough without letting RIAA memes dominate your consciousness.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Plausible explanation:
Scenario 1: People are curious about Janis Ian's music, download mp3, hear it, like it, and decide to buy.
Scenario 2: People are curious about Britney/Nsync/Michael Jackson's music, download mp3, hear it,...
(Can you complete this picture? What happens to all those promotional dollars?)
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
Correct, but you forgot to mention: even if I couldn't download it, I wouldn't pay for the album. Britney Spears simply is not worth paying for.
There's a lot of crap out there - if I can't get it for free, I don't get it at all.
Edit this part:
As long as Z (X*Y)
To:
As long as Z (X*Y)
eTrade SUCKS
Live concerts are rather enjoyable things to go to. Having recordings is great, particularly when you can't get to these concerts so often, but music lives when it's played, not when it's converted into a bitstream.
The Grateful Dead encouraged lived taping of their shows and the swapping scene that this created. I doubt it did their ticket sales or their album sales any harm.
Finally, it's worth noticing that most artists make far more from their live shows than from their recordings. FWIW.
[FUCK BETA]
Rubbish
I'm reading a book right now
while driving my car and writ
I think we're starting to assemble enough data points to be able to say with some confidence, putting out free stuff helps sales of both the rest of the IP portfolio and sales of the free stuff as well.
Why else would McDonalds give away toys with their happy meals if it wasn't because it sells more burgers?
I think it's important that the entertainment industry stop thinking they're "special", and start acting like any other industry. And in any other industry free stuff sells goods.
You're not watching enough MTV, you LOSER!
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Yeah, but most people want to either burn a CD or listen to the MP3 on their computer .. if that's the goal, it's easier to download the song than tape it off the radio then figure out how to get it from tape on to the PC. Also, the downloaded MP3 would probably have better sound quality (and no DJ talking over the beginning!).
Grab those media execs addresses and phone numbers, head on down to your local clerk of court and start filling out those forms!
Just like back in the days of those analog magnetic tape recorders, friends and I would swap collections. After a while I got sick of the static, siblings tapeing rude comments over my favorite tracs, and broken tapes. So I would go out and buy the CD. Why? As far as my ears (and several electrical engineering principles) it is a perfect recording. Unfiltered, unaltered, un-everything from when it left the mixing booth.
Why haven't I bought a CD in a while? For starters, I can't really think of any new music that has been worth buying. Hell, two top selling albums of last year featured artists WHO HAVE BEEN DEAD SINCE I WAS AN INFANT. I don't really get exposed to new music on the radio:
Damn, I remember the days when you would see a new video on MTV and go "I have to own that album." I can't name the last time I've actually SEEN a rock video on MTV. These days it's all quiz shows and psuedo journalism.
The industry as a whole stopped taking risks long ago, and in the process they have lost the novelty factor that WAS their business.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Hell, half the reason book stores have coffee was an industry study that found people bought more books.
Why? Well they drop in for a coffee, and since this country has the attention span of a ferret on expresso, we grab a book to keep our attention for the 10 minutes required to down our caffiene. Leaving through the first few chapters we find that we like the thing, oh look the paperback is only $9, and BAM you have a sale.
(Also interestingly enough, the lemmings in the world by more product on sale if you say "Limit X.)
I say this with a bit of self-depricating sarcasm. I AM the sort of guy who walks in for a cup of coffee and walks out with 3 books. It drives my wife nuts.
Now, if public libraries would start selling coffee...
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I don't think that the RIAA is being dumb here. They don't really care about little artists and the consumer having the most choice.
What they care about is getting the most money out of their investment. I think that it is more profitable for them to limit the number of successful acts out there. They can more carefully target their money and get a bigger return on their investment because there is a lot less risk. When there are only about 40-50 songs on the radio at a time it is much easier to control. If there is more choice for us then it raises their risks. Where do you put your money? You are likely to back a lot of acts that ultimately don't go anywhere. Right now if they get a song on the top 40 station, they know that they will make money on it.
They are obviously scared by all of the file swapping. If people have a lot of choice then the money gets spread around too much and they don't have control. They are trying to keep control of things as they have it now where they don't have to risk money to make money.
I believe if you investigate it you will find that up until the party issuing the letter that says "penatly of perjury" files in court they are under absolutly NO RISK.
The other party doesn't get to use it against them.
ah lawyer speak. It's all bluff and bravado.
We used mp3.com and a a Canadian-Music site to help promote our band. http://www.canadian-music.com/homeband.cfm?tagname =T&ID=2538&band=THROATMOTOR&nav=a&URLName=showband .cfm
Its hard to even get listened to these days, especially with a new sound that we are going after. Bands with talent are overlooked more and more for stuff that can be molded into the 'machine'
--m
"The entertainment industry has a long history of trying to shut down new technology. Most often, it has imagined that new products and services threatened industry sales. It's been proved wrong time and time again; it fought home video tooth and nail, but videotapes and rentals now bring in more money than movie releases. Music history is littered with record industry campaigns against reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, minidiscs, music videos and MTV."
THIS is the main thing we need to address, the FEW people using Bribery(lobbying) and lawyers to STEAL from the many. The many citizens, listeners and artists. There needs to ba a law crafted t eliminate these types of leeches who's sole purpose in life is to bleed the public, and artists dry. Such activities should be outlawed, and have a provision in the law forbidding any attempts to change the law! No RIAA, etc. They are front organizations with no real use. Politicians who attempt to change th law should suffer the death penalty, their families should die too, they need to watch what the home's provider does for a living. Give them a stake in the process. Checks and balances. Strong penalties for attempting to pervert the law and fairness it could bring. Organizations who attempt to change the law...same deal. Death!
There are too many assholes trying to steal from the majority! The majority needs to kick sone ass and remind the bastards Who owns this country. We MERELY allow them to do business in OUR country. (We employ gazillions of people screamed Jack Valenti, he lied) All the BIG businesses in America are a small count when compared to the back bone of the country, the small businessman. Fuck big business.
Everyone over 40 I know has been the same, up till now. Now, it's next to impossible to listen to anything that's not top 40.
The only people who buy new music these days are the ones the RIAA are targeting, 12 year old girls.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Public library in my town has a Starbucks in it ;) And the one where I lived before had a coffee machine as well.
Now, if public libraries would start selling coffee...
Granted, they might have a problem with coffee damaging the goods, but if a nice, local coffee shop (ie, with good, non-burnt beans) opened up in a library, and especially if said library had early hours, that would rock!
Anyone know anywhere like that?
Except that concerts in and of themselves are not usually a profitable venture. Artists tour to promote album sales.
At least it didn't take a civil war to make us ban slavery.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
She has succeeded without the RIAA and without ClearChannel.
Don't get me wrong - Ani has done amazing things and I love her, but her label Righteous Babe Records is in the RIAA.
Just making sure our info is straight.
... photocopiers should be banned because they can be used to infringe the copyright of book producers (and the artists of course, don't forget the artists).
Cameras, videocameras and again those pesky photocopiers should be banned because pgotogrpahers and painters'work may be copied with these evil tools.
Do not dare to forget VCRs, those tools of the devilm becaus thay can be used to copy movies.
And the tape recorders please! Those that have destroyed the music industry!
And the pen and pencil, because they can be used to reproduce other people's ideas. Dangerous stuff, I am telling ya.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Why not use Ogg Vorbis?
---
eeww, I'll have a crab juice.
I believe daddy had something to do with this.
Yes, I'm serious...he called Linux users "stupid".
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
THE basically misses having the power of a mob boss. Musicians won't need thier services anymore. The Record Labels won't have the power to make or break an artist. This is what they fear. They fear the future. I for one would like to see a future where artists can promote themselves. I believe if we stop the DMCA and
the RIAA, and all the other related laws that threaten to propel us into the digital dark ages,
we will see a future where we will not need the RIAA, where we would no longer need the MPAA.
Musicians can upload samples of thier work to public servers and we could buy track of what we like. Clips from movies can be viewed and if we like the movie we can buy the DVD online and burn our copy. I think Hollywood , Disney and the like knows what is comming, they are scared and what to propel us into the Dark Ages.
I say we should start an Entertainment Underground. Promote Artists that are great and don't have a label, and educate the public that
Disney is evil.
Kind of awesome being that close to greatness, isn't it? :D
Damn, is that my problem? I need *exposure* to catch the Britney virus??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I personally like this article (in Spanish though). A fast excerpt: the writer's group sold barely over 10.000 copies of their (then) last album in 2001. Only 0.7% of the musicians/singers/etc. that released something that year sold more. Yet, his part of the profits amounted to a meager EUR3000 ($3200 aprox?) for a three years' worth work, or about EUR80 per month, from which he has yet to discount the rent for an rehearsal(?) location. At each concert, he bags from EUR90 to EUR360, depending on attendants sponsors). Doing the math, he would rather have 100.000 pirate fans at his concerts than 10.000 legit ones.
With the court's decision, the RIAA didn't just defeat Verizon, the Internet service provider that the RIAA sued. It damaged the viability of recording artists who don't conform to the mainstream musical tastes of the moment
So the RIAA may be riuning a legit business and income model for that artist. I say sue. Althought they might be downloading legit music it may alienate or parranoi some people who beleive downloading any music is illegal.
-Foxxz
Even worse: The current business model of selling 1-2 "good" songs on a cd padded with crap for $16.95 is totally fucked.
Downloads of individual songs for 99c a pop are the music industries biggest nightmare.
Now for the good news: Their days are numbered...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
While that is true, the Dead might be a poor example of the new Internet-friendly model for selling/distributing music. As Janis herself stated in her slashdot interview:
In this case, one counter-example may not be sufficient to disprove the argument made by the RIAA...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I'm so very sick of reading this argument....
Does the massive distribution of music via any means (most notably internet file sharing) increase or decrease sales of the same music? It DOES NOT MATTER from a legal and/or philosophical aspect.
If I manufacture widgets, and they are the best widgets in the world, and I own the IP on them, I have every right NOT to sell or distribute them, and to decide how they are sold and distributed, regardless of whether or not that increases or decreases my profit (a case can be made that certain things, for example, medicines are exempt from this claim...but music is clearly not necessary in the same way that advances in health care are).
My point is simply that the big argument about whether file sharing increases or decreases sales of the music in question is a moot point: the owner of the IP in that music still has the right to decide how that property should be distributed and sold.
I bought a Janis Ian vinyl LP at a flea market for $1 (US). I had read and appreciated her take on the MP3 issue; but had I not read it, I still would have bought the LP because I collect 60's and 70's. The LP contains her hit "At Seventeen". It also contains about ten other songs--most of them beatiful, if a bit sad. There's only one song I don't like. Janis wrote every song. She also played guitar and piano on several of them. How refreshing is that in the days of Britney and her ilk?
I don't know for sure, but I bet "At Seventeen" was released as a single and the other songs weren't (it would have taken more money to release more singles). That means the other songs had virtually no radio play. Whether any of them would have been hits, we will never know. With MP3 album releases, every song is a potential hit as a "single" in its own right. And the fans pick the hits instead of some record exec. A fan who has heard and liked five of Janis' songs is much more likely to buy a "Best Of" CD than a fan who has only heard one.
There are very few deep-cut radio stations, so radio still has the limiting influence of the "singles" system. When it comes to letting the fans pick the hits, only MP3 releases offer that advantage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When you listen to Britney's latest, you get the songwriting talents of some fat middle-aged man (SFMAM), the instrument-playing talents of SFMAM, the recording talents of SFMAM, the mixing talents of SFMAM, and some of Britney Spears' voice, filterd by SFMAM.
Guess what? These fat middle-aged men, in most cases, can do everything you say, and more. They can play fusion jazz like Tom Scott. Did it ever occur to you that they write pop songs because they *like* it? "Baby One More Time" is a hella good song. Everything about it is done with such skill and perfection, and it's all thanks to these middle-aged men who have been working in the industry for god-knows-how-long, and have honed their skills as sharp as a razor. If you really appreciated MUSIC, you'd be able to see this. Why don't they say the album is by "Rob Reverb" then, featuring Britney on vocals? It should be obvious. Would you buy an album with a picture of SFMAM on the cover? Furthermore, I'd bet these guys are happy and settled down; they don't want to go touring.
Fusion jazz "excites" a lot fewer people than pop music. I'm a big fan of all genres, and I pretty much can't stand it, aside from some Miles Davis. It's like these guys are mastrubating to their Berklee degrees. Please. You don't need to impress me with diminished 9th hooey. It's boring.
But fusion jazz artists like playing it, and there are people who like to listen to it. So where's the problem? Stop being a music nazi.
c-hack.com |
Why is everyone concentrating on P2P as the problem. As I see it, Kazaa provides nothing more than a tool, no more wicked than http or ftp or for that matter the internet itself. No one's running around saying that we have to shutdown the internet because someone might use it to transfer copyrighted materials. What these users choose to share is their business. If they happen to be sharing copyrighted materials then go after them. On a side note, have you ever watched the commercials for broadband. It goes something like "Download movies and music faster than ever before". Seems like the ISPs benefit from P2P
File sharing is primarily a "young" thing. How many young people (25 and under) had heard of Janis Ian before she started getting involved in the digital copyright thing?
Here's a hint: in the previous stories on Janis, look for all the "huh? who's she" posts.
Of course, once Janis herself started sharing MP3s, her page would start showing up on Google "mp3" searches. Bingo! Instant new fan base.
The point is that there are experiments being done in the artistic field and guess what, it works. Some are trying it with music, others with books. I'm sure that the a significant chunk of movie people will eventually go to short serials, giving away a few chapters from the beginning.
The RIAA doesn't want people to have knowledge, they just want to scare people away from this new style of business because it unlocks the death grip they have over popular culture.
"...And the RIAA's stated goal in preventing this type of activity with their lawsuit against Verizon is to increase sales..."
Excuse me, but doesn't the editorialist own her own work? Meaning, that she is the copyrightholder. Therefore, she is perfectly within her rights in posting her MP3's anyway she wants.
However, networks like KaZaa et al, don't own the Copyrights therefore they have no distribution rights.
Competition from independant artists via the internet is not in their interests
I just had a thought... has anyone compared sales of Indie-label records over the past few years to those of RIAA-label records? The RIAA blames digital music and the internet directly, but consider this:
Napster, MP3's, KazAa, etc... expose more indie artists to a wider audience - this is indisputable. If Indie-label sales have increased, while RIAA-label sales have decreased, then MP3's are hurting the RIAA, but not because of illegal copying, as they claim. It would be due to the fact that more people are buying real music (from indipendent labels) as opposed to manufactured music.
I would love to see stats of indie-label sales compared to RIAA-label sales to see if this really is the case. If anyone has any data - PLEASE post!
**I'm a member of a small band that indipendently produces its own CD's, so this debate has always hit close to home for me**
akad0nric0
This sentence no verb.
Sales went down after they shut it down, therefore, it's all the pirates on other P2P programs.
Reminds me of the global warming debate, no matter what the data says, you simply can't lose the argument.
-------------------------------------------------
free advertisement of your music... how can this hurt?... you know most people download songs they never planed on buying, and most of my friends at least support the few surviving bands they appreciate with cd purchases (they perfer the higher quality on the good stuff) record companies blamed rampant "taping" for sale declines in the 80's... turned out once music got out of the rut it was in sales went back up... without any measures to prevent further taping
You're confusing SLASHDOT with the real world? All a mod to 5 tells me is that 3 moderators were out to lunch when they got their moderator points, and that isn't exactly uncommon around heer. I try to do a better job when I get moderator privileges.
The real world is the one where musicians use P2P to boost their record sales whether they're #1 on the charts or not even on a chart yet. Not the one where P2P doesn't make a difference.
The appearance of Eminem's latest record on P2P networks a week before release and that record's going to #1 are both verifiable facts. You claim to be an economics major and you don't know how to use google to check the mass media?
Grow a brain. Get a life.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Your "logic" is typical of people writing press releases for the RIAA. Is that your day job?
If you aren't on their payroll and you're trying to make propaganda for them anyway, you are an idiot.
School won't help you, you need to check into Dr. von Frankenstein's clinic for a brain transplant. Tell him to make sure the brain doesn't come out of the "abbie normal" jar.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I bought about 600 albums over the last 15 years. I think I was similar to most older listeners who were artificially inflating current-year sales by buying backlist to replace their vinyl. (Hey, Elvis didn't hit #1 just now for nothing - even if he was a little before my time.) That's over now. I've pretty much done that now, so I'm not buying.
A lot of the songs I would like to get, I got from Napster-Kazaa-Aimster becuase I didn't want them badly enough to buy the $18 CD for one song. I ahve bought a number of compilation and too many "greatest hits" CDs.
Modern "music" is pretty much formulaic and abysmal - sort of like white pop before Elvis. God help us if rap is the solution, but I think music is due for a shake-up, not just in distribution.
So where is my money going? DVDs! A lot of people's serious disposable income is now being spent to build a personal video library from film backlists. DVD's are hot. When a classic is released, it's big news and it gets snapped up.
Of course, 5 years from now, when almost anything is available on DVD and anyone who wanted a classic movie has bought it, sales will slow down. Watch for the MPAA to complain that movie trading and DVD burners are destroying their sales. (Oh, wait, they're doing that now.)
I have no illusions that what I do with Kazaa/Napster/Aimster is theft of some sort - maybe it's "fair use". But I fall in the category "never going to buy it" for a lot of what I downloaded. Memorable singles from the 60's and 70's (or even the 80's) are worth listening to, but certainly not worth buying the entire CD at $20 each. In the good old days, I could buy the 45 for 66 cents (I had 300 at one point...); today, a CD single isn't much cheaper than an album.
If the RIAA wants to keep selling, then they have to find the price-convenience point that matches their customers' desires. That's free market.
At some point, won't the artists have to treat recordings as simply free advertising for their concert tours... Nothing more?
Currently artists treat recordings as way to go into indentured servitude for the recording company who "hires" them. Frankly if recordings were simply free there'd probably be a lot of happy artists out there (including TLC as an example).
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Man, you've got quite a career ahead of you in Thesaurus writing. :-D
So, I applaud your efforts, were you able to do this off the cuff or did you have to go to a thesauras for some of your punditry?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If certain labels had a way for me to listen to streaming audio of their back catalogues, I'd probably tune in once in awhile. My favourite indie label has a lot of MP3s on their site, and I'm going to buy that Causey Way CD eventually...a band I never would have heard of if I hadn't been browsing their catalogue listings and seen that MP3 and thought the title looked interesting.
However, the RIAA is not going to listen. No amount of cranks make a consensus here, to paraphrase Harlan Ellison (who also should stop cutting off his nose to spite his face).
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
In Canada, where broadband is much more widespread than in the US, album sales have apparently dropped off by 20% over the last year due to consumers downloading albums instead of buying.
People keep debating about whether the downloading of music increases or decreases sales. But why does that matter? Let's pretend that you could *prove* that downloading music increases sales. Does that make it morally ok to do so when the copyright holder has forbidden it?
If a band wants to record a great song, then lock the tape in a box and never profit from it, then they have every right to do so! They don't lose copyright just because they made a bad business decision.
Don't like it? Go buy a guitar, put together a band, and make your own music. Then if you want to offer your songs for free download, you can do that, and the RIAA can't stop you.
You're OK. I didn't have to see MTV to know that Britney Sucked. Heard a song on the radio *once* and ran away screaming...Later happened acrossed a video which only confirmed my worst fears.
Britney is an Air Born Virus; fear it.
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
Oh? Care to explain why Micheal Jackson's album tanked? Mariah Carey's? Both had so much money thrown at their marketing they should have debuted at #1. Both sank without a trace.
MJ called Sony Music execs racist instead of accepting blame for producing an album the public didn't want to hear. MC's record company paid her millions just to get her to go away so they wouldn't have to put out another one of her albums.
Tell me again about how P2P sunk those albums. Please. I really want to know.
Half the reason I read /. is for the entertaining analogies. You, Some Damn Guy, just made this whole week's worth of /. reading worthwhile.
How does one see this article... Could someone post it here please? I cannot "register" from here, and have no other way ot seeing it. Anyone want to post their username and password?
Why do people make reference to articles like this when there are so many unable to register?
For example, I'm trying to buy some albums put out by an Australian jazz singer (Nina Ferro), but there aren't any US distributors for her music. In essence, she doesn't exist, despite the fact that she's one of the hottest Australian jazz acts.
If you're after Australian jazz, you might want to check out cyber-jazz
I did a quick check and they only have one Nina Ferro CD listed (Tender is the Night), but if you email them, I'm sure they could get others in.
Leave Rick Fox alone.. he's Canadian! ;)
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
You misspelled "Air Head Virus" :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=51788&threshol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=98&mode=thread&cid=51540 02
This was a pretty good posting, stating how it is pretty much in the music industry's best financial interest to keep selling albums full of crap music than allow people to purchase the one good song they want.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
LOL! You are right; my mistake!
I hope they make a vaccine for it..
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
Re read the Courtney Love article. The big tour expenses help but the average "big new thing" in the hole. Stadium rentals, roadies, promoters, extra kick backs to promoters (don't be naive to think it isn't stadard practice), bus rentals, hotels, etc. All theses things cost big money. That money comes out of the band's pocket. The only band that consistantly profited from touring alone was Led Zepplin. And that was a long time ago, baby.
You are of course entirely wrong about my attitude toward the US. I do not support the US government or the United States people, for that matter. I could care less about Iraq or Al Qaida (as long as they aren't blowing me up, of course.) Nor do I support US policy in practically any instance you could name, most likely.
My comment on Gandhi is simply to point out that his methods wouldn't have worked against a more ruthless government. OTOH, it is possible that the Nazis, faced with the massive population of India, would also have backed off from suppressing Gandhi as ruthlessly as they might otherwise have done.
I am not a pacifist, nor am I a believer in any form of "first initiated" coercion (although I do believe in preemptive assault where needed.)
And I don't doubt Gandhi would have stood up to the Nazis - it's just that they would have killed him early on, most likely, and you'd never have heard of him...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Rereading my post, I think I can see where you got the notion that I support government behavior.
You read my comment as being supportive of the British actions against the Irish and the Scots. That was not what I meant at all - I merely referred to the fact that the British were brutal to those two countries but less so to India (at least as far as Gandhi was concerned).
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!