RIAA, This Is Earth, Please Come In!

ccnull writes "You might remember George Ziemann as the musician who found his own music banned from eBay because it was recorded on CD-R. Now he's back with a new rant about the RIAA's statistics, which blame piracy for the dire condition of the music industry. What's to blame? Price hikes and fewer titles. The latest rant (including analysis of the RIAA's own data) is mainly circulating by email, here's a readable link. (As an interesting side note, Ziemann says that songs are really just ads for CDs, and thus should be freely traded.)"

Comments

yup

[xao gypsie]

songs are really just ads for CDs, and thus should be freely traded.)

most assuredly that is the truth. i have bought tons of cd's after getting a few mp3's. the RIAA needs to understand the marketing potential in filesharing......jsut my thought, at least

xao

re: yup

[hhknighter]

"most assuredly that is the truth. i have bought tons of cd's after getting a few mp3's. the RIAA needs to understand the marketing potential in filesharing......jsut my thought, at least"

Actually, I think they do. I mean they are suing a few kids for 97 billion dollars, that's more than the actual market value+potential, perhaps. For that amount, the marketing potential in filesharing is rather psychotically huge.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

If the copyright holders decided to give away songs freely as ads for CDs, then that's fine.

But what everybody keeps forgetting is that the choice is THEIR prerogative -- NOT yours, NOT anybody else's.

There's plenty of good free music at mp3.com and other legitimate sources.

Taking copyrighted mp3's off of Kazaa, Morpheus, or whatever is unethical -- yes, unethical:

If you don't like the price they charge, you have no obligation to purchase -- but you have an obligation to not deprive people of their income.

Re:yup

[Noksagt]

I do agree with you, but wonder if you think it is unethical to tape a song off the radio.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

Hey now, don't push your stupid backwards fundie morals on me. Whats right for you isn't always right for me, ever think about it?

Ah, yes, the personal ethics system -- your morals are yours, mine are mine. So you're telling me it's OK to stuff Jews in a gas chamber?

"Ah, but that's different!"

What I did in my previous post was put forward a logical argument. Your (lack of) an argument, however, just plain sucks. You can't just say I'm wrong because you don't like paying for things.

You need to use reason to explain why I'm wrong. You think that depriving people of income is forwards? Please, please explain yourself!

Re:yup

[DiSKiLLeR]

Ah, yes, the personal ethics system -- your morals are yours, mine are mine. So you're telling me it's OK to stuff Jews in a gas chamber?

"Ah, but that's different!"

Yes. Yes it is different.

One involes killing people, the other doesn't. Most reasonable people are against killing humans. But then you've got Saddam, Al Qaida, etc, who obviously see things differently and WOULD say that it is fine.

You need to use reason to explain why I'm wrong.

Um.. HUH? Why do i, or anybody else, need to explain and provide reasons why you are wrong? Your NOT wrong. You just have your own opinions and moral beliefs, and we are entitled to ours.

Just because your favourite colour might be blue, and mine might be violet, does NOT mean i have to argue and provide reasons as to why blue sucks and violet is a superior colour. That is just silly.

Just as people have different favourite colours, foods, different religions, they also have different moral belifes and different ethics.

Alot of older people don't like music by Eminem because of the language and the messages in his songs. Alot of the younger generation don't give a shit, and are fine with it. Alot of people find words like bitch, motherfucker, slut, and who knows what offensive. Others do not. Others just think its plain funny :)

Again, different moral beliefs.

D.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

There are differences between the two:

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's. While pirating, you can do a quick search and find what you are looking for on demand, whereas you need to "hunt and trap" what you are trying to find on the radio.

By pirating an mp3, you are getting CD-quality -- what you would be paying for in the store. By recording off of the radio, you are getting a lower-fidelity signal (noise and compressed sound), definitely an inferior product to that which you would be purchasing.

You can't easily take tapes of radio broadcasts and distribute them to the entire world via some p2p system, without first digitizing it (assuming you didn't digitize it on your initial radio recording) and editing the particular song/broadcast into a single file, and cutting all the commercials out. (And I would question the legality of that.) When putting your mp3's/computer on a p2p system, you are not sharing your tape with a friend or two, you are inviting the entire world to rip off the record companies along with you.

I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not, but it is obviously much less harmful given my points above.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

Yes. Yes it is different.

One involes killing people, the other doesn't. Most reasonable people are against killing humans. But then you've got Saddam, Al Qaida, etc, who obviously see things differently and WOULD say that it is fine.

OK, but depriving people of income isn't immoral? Try convincing the world of that one, genius!

Um.. HUH? Why do i, or anybody else, need to explain and provide reasons why you are wrong? Your NOT wrong. You just have your own opinions and moral beliefs, and we are entitled to ours.

So you're saying it's OK for someone to stuff Jews in a gas chamber if they want to? Because well shit, if one is of the opinion that Jews ought to be exterminated, they're entitled to that belief -- and if someone's entitled to a belief, who the hell are you to stop them from following it?

Alot of older people don't like music by Eminem because of the language and the messages in his songs. Alot of the younger generation don't give a shit, and are fine with it. Alot of people find words like bitch, motherfucker, slut, and who knows what offensive. Others do not. Others just think its plain funny :)

OK, but how does bad language deprive someone of the income to which they are entitled?

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

But by "taking" one of these songs/MP3s without the author's consent, aren't you forcing them to agree with your own particular brand of morals? Personally, I don't see you as having any real moral code (whether that made by yourself or by others), I just see you as being a selfish twat.

Re:yup

[mdielmann]

There are some differences. I've never heard a song played completely, without interruptions, from beginning to end on the radio. There is also the issue of degradation, but I think that's entirely a technological issue, not a copyright one. I don't know if songs aren't played completely for copyright reasons, but it's still there.

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a personal belief (and so does the oxford english dictionary) that "alot" isn't a word. Try using the two words "a" and "lot".

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

MABYE THE RIAA SHOULD FOCUS ON MAKING A PRODUCT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR?? if someone wouldnt buy a cd anyway how the FUCK does it hurt the artist if they download teh cd?

Re:yup

[syrinx]

When putting your mp3's/computer on a p2p system, you are not sharing your tape with a friend or two, you are inviting the entire world to rip off the record companies along with you.

So when does it become unethical? If you share it with 3 friends? 4? 5?

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

MABYE THE RIAA SHOULD FOCUS ON MAKING A PRODUCT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR?? if someone wouldnt buy a cd anyway how the FUCK does it hurt the artist if they download teh cd?

Because the artist makes royalties off of the sale of the CD.

And if you're not willing to pay for it, fine, but that doesn't entitle you to steal. Go find music that is being given away for free and listen to that -- there is PLENTY of good, free music available on mp3.com and elsewhere. I mean, shit, go out to a bar sometime and get a CD some local band is giving away for free, you will find LOTS of good music that way.

Re:yup

[pdan]

I agree with you but this time your argumentation sucks.

You somewhat attribute a very strong thesis to yout adversary which I doubt he believes in. There is no reason in this but rethorics.

In fact the case is not that simple. I agree that music companies are losing profit because of copyright infringment. I agree that it can be considered as a kind of theft. But these companies are a kind of monopoly (oligopoly) and this is wrong. The high price of CDs becomes almost like a tax. Taxes have a different nature though. Not paing taxes is a crime but not a theft. Why? Because, it is government that uses law and force to take our money from us with or without our consent. If somebody comes to you on the street and kindly asks you for your wallet or else... You can either give him your money or expect consequences but the choice is yours and both are morally equal.

Let anybody choose for himself if CDs have real market prices or have an artificial tax imposed on them.

Re:yup

[tuba_dude]

I beg to differ.

While mp3s are still at the same sampling frequency and bit depth of a CD, the compression algorythm is far from perfect. Almost every mp3 I've ever downloaded was encoded at 128 kbps, far from CD quality. As a musician and an audiophile, I've found that mp3s usually need to be at 256 or 320 kbps before they're accurate enough for long-term listening. Of course, this is all subjective, and if you're just listening casually, 128 kbps is probably plenty.

You're also probably right about the damage p2p can do to the RIAA, but if there are many people like me that find the mp3s floating around to be poor substitutes, it's about the same thing as tape trading, only with less legwork. In the end, the CD will probably be bought by the audiophile or musician if he/she enjoys the music sampled as an mp3. The cheapskates won't buy the CD anyway, they might even steal it off the shelf if it's good enough (costing even more). The average consumers are most likely to buy the artist's next album if they like a song or two.

All other arguments aside, people are going to do what their personalities dictate, filesharing just speeds up the process.

Re:yup

[X_Bones]

artists make the choice, either by themselves or via their labels, to put music on the radio, right? It's reasonable to expect that their songs will be taped. And I don't think they care too much since anyone who enjoys the FM-quality song will most likely pony up for the CD-quality version (ideally). But when people can freely acquire a near-perfect-quality version of a song that the artist has not authorized for sharing (and that the downloader is not allowed to possess since they don't have the CD it came from), I think there's legitimate cause for complaint.

Re:yup

[zcat_NZ]

Interesting persepctive for you to consider.

The Nazi Government was in power. Hell, they were even democratically elected by the people.

Once a government is in power they make the laws.

Texas and some other states say it's OK for the state to execute criminals. Nazi Germany said it was OK for the state to execute Jews. From a strictly legal standpoint there's very little difference.

So it really comes down to ethics.

Is it ethical to kill an entire race of people? Most people say not. We make some new laws to reflect this.

Is it ethical for a small group of companies (remember this is the RIAA member companies; the artists no longer own their own work) to lie about profits and losses, maintain a stranglehold over distribution, maintain artificially high prices, lobby to perpetually extend copyright, and keep 80% of art unavailable (depriving both the artists from potential revenue, and the buying public from legally purchasable content?)

If most people think not, then it's time to change the law. That's how a democracy is supposed to wor isn't it?

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

Is it ethical for a small group of companies (remember this is the RIAA member companies; the artists no longer own their own work) to lie about profits and losses, maintain a stranglehold over distribution, maintain artificially high prices, lobby to perpetually extend copyright, and keep 80% of art unavailable (depriving both the artists from potential revenue, and the buying public from legally purchasable content?)

Is it ethical for people to take things that are not being given freely and not reimburse those that provide it?

There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...

Re:yup

[Jardine]

Wait a minute, what kind of screwed up radio stations are you listening to that don't play songs all the way through without interruption? Do they stop for a commercial in the middle or something? Where I live, the worst stations do to a song is censor out the "bad words". Some stations don't even do that.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

Following your line of reasoning I should go to the gas station and decide not to pay for it because the price is too high.

No, it doesn't work that way.

If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, but you're not entitled to take something just because you disagree with the price. The price being charged is not your decision to make, it is the decision of the person providing the good or service, end of story.

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

One involes killing people, the other doesn't. Most reasonable people are against killing humans. But then you've got Saddam, Al Qaida, etc, who obviously see things differently and WOULD say that it is fine.

Yes, but this raises the question as the whether YOU want to argue that it is OK for them to kill, simply because they have a morality other than that shared by "most reasonble people"? If you think it is not OK for them to kill on that basis you would seem to have lost the argument the original poster was putting against moral relativism.

Re:yup

[pdan]

I'm just trying to show you a difference between price and tax. If you can find a gas station where you would only a price of gas without tax that's fine (such illegal gas station really exist in central Europe where people are poor and gas prices are like in EU - almost twice as much as in US) . Otherwise it's obviously a theft, because gas station owner bought this gas not to become a tax collector, but to sell it with a profit.

To answer your next message. There is no extra tax (like in gas) in the price of a CD (yet) but this price is artificially inflated by a monopolistic organization.

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not

Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright. In fact in some jurisdicitions playing the radio in a public (or sometime not so public) area counts as a public performance of copyrighted material and is also a breach of copyright.

... but it is obviously much less harmful given my points above.

I don't see how the fact that more effort is involved reduces the harm. Either you agree with the statutory monopoly set up by copyright law, or you don't. If you do, then any copying, not matter how easily this can be accomplished, must be seen as an illegitimate inteference with the owners exclusive right to copy the material.

Re:yup

[devilspgd]

So MP3 in bad quality format should be legal then, as long as you make it challenging to download, not as simple as just typing what you want and downloading right away?

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

but this price is artificially inflated by a monopolistic organization

OK, so a lawsuit should be the thing to do, in the traditions of Microsoft, Bell Telephone, et al. That would be the right thing to do, as opposed to petty thievery (or "copyright infringery", if such a word exists, which I'm sure it doesn't. :-)

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

OH NO, Dont deprive the artists of the pennies on the CD!!! Why, they'll be starving!(har har)

Re:yup

[Noksagt]

Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright.

So does the Sony-Betamax case not apply to radio? This decision is what allows you to record television shows.

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

So does the Sony-Betamax case not apply to radio?

The fact situation is unlikely to occur with regard to the recording off the radio. But you are right, I should have written "In almost all jurisdictions this constitutes a facial breach." Clearly there are 'fair-use' (and other) exceptions.

Re:yup

[Noksagt]

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's. While pirating, you can do a quick search and find what you are looking for on demand, whereas you need to "hunt and trap" what you are trying to find on the radio.
I've argued in the past that the ease of "consumer copying" should increase the burden to prove piracy (i.e. with intent to profit). But I don't know how hard it is to tape a song, especially when you can call in and make a request.

By recording off of the radio, you are getting a lower-fidelity signal (noise and compressed sound), definitely an inferior product to that which you would be purchasing.
So, let's say you tape digital radio, off of syrius or xm or the music channels on digital tv, etc.

I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not, but it is obviously much less harmful given my points above.
I would argue that the Sony-Betamax case should apply to radio just as it does to TV, which means that you can tape radio for personal use. Selling those tapes would obviously be illegal, but I do think there is a real gray area when you start to give them away, either physically or on the net.

I would definitely say it was a stupid, round-a-bout way to get your music, but I think that it can be done legally. If ripping and sharing is copyright infringement (it is...), then where do you draw the line between the two?

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

One involes killing people, the other doesn't. Most reasonable people are against killing humans. But then you've got Saddam, Al Qaida, etc, who obviously see things differently and WOULD say that it is fine.

And, of course, George W. Bush.

Re:yup

[mdielmann]

Usually they cycle the first few seconds while doing the intro and/or cut off the opening instrumentals and/or they'll leave off the last part of the song such as closing instrumentals or repeating closing lyrics. Then there are the shortened, made-for-radio mixes...

Re:yup

[geekoid]

more effort? you mean pushing the record button? Befor wierd al made his first album, he had some song played be doctor demento. I used to have them on 8 track. that was in the 70's, and somehow I don't think its more difficult today.

MP3 is not cd quality, even it its maximum bits. it doesn't come in a case or on a disk. No art work, no lyrics, no stickers.

Yes, it ould be difficult to broadcast free music through the air..I mean if you could do that it would destroy the music industry. Or be a billion dollar a year industry...

No one gets harmed with music trading. Everybody who has done actualy studies come to the same conclusion. Music swaping increases sales.

Napster sisn't cause in loss in the music industry, poor music chose, and a major global event hurt there sales.

Re:yup

[zcat_NZ]

Don't confuse laws with ethics.

Abortions might be legal, but a lot of people don't think they're ethical. Dope might be illegal, but a lot of people smoke it anyhow. Alcohol was illegal for a while, but many people distilled, obtained or drank it illegally anyway.. Was that unethical? did drinking suddenly become OK again when the law got changed?

I personally think the DMCA and perpetual extension of copyright are highly unethical. I think that the recording industry's stranglehold over radio and store promotion is unethical. I think that the resulting lack of competition, unfair contracts, and artificially high prices that result are also unethical, but apparently they're mostly legal too.

I think that deliberately crippling your own sales and profits short term (as the RIAA member companies have clearly done) as a strategy to kill a possibly competing distribution channel and maintain that stranglehold is stupid, dangerous, and highly unethical.

However it looks like long term this strategy won't work. I think the RIAA may have seriously shot themselves in the foot this time. They're not going to kill internet distribution, and the harder they continue to try the more they set themselves back.
.

And I don't think it's ethical to share stuff the RIAA owns because (ironically) I think that would actually help them in the long term. I don't think they deserve that.

Re:yup

[ATMAvatar]

MABYE THE RIAA SHOULD FOCUS ON MAKING A PRODUCT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR?? if someone wouldnt buy a cd anyway how the FUCK does it hurt the artist if they download teh cd?

Because the artist makes royalties off of the sale of the CD.

So, instead of getting 8% of $0.00, the artist gets 0% of $0.00

Your logic is faulty, as it misses the expressed point of the parent - if people have no intention of buying a CD, regardless of whether or not they download mp3s from that CD, there is no income. You cannot deprive the artist of money that doesn't exist. You can only say that downloading music deprives the artist of income if you can successfully prove that a person would buy the music in the absence of free mp3s.

The problem is that we are not dealing with tangible objects. Stealing a song in the form of an mp3 only harms an artist/label as much as the money a person would spend buying the song. If the person would never buy the song, there is no loss. If you were to steal a CD, though... there would be a loss. The artist/label would have lost the cost of the CDR used to make the CD, as well as the jewel case and printed material. Thus, stealing a CD is a bit different than stealing a CD's worth of mp3s.

But, that's beside the point. The ethics lie not in the loss that theft incurs, but in the basic idea that you *should* pay money for music you enjoy. The artists and labels choose to distribute their music through sales of various media, and it's only because someone chose to disrespect and circumvent those distribution channels that you are able to get songs for free online. The moral obligation here is to either pay for a song (buy a CD/tape/record/etc) or not listen to it. Artists ought to be compensated for their work.

On the other hand, if you honestly believe that the big problem in the music industry is lost income for artists, your primary objective probably should be the dissolution of the RIAA.

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

I would argue that the Sony-Betamax case should apply to radio just as it does to TV, which means that you can tape radio for personal use.

Maybe I misunderstood the case, but my impression of the Sony-Betamax case was that it was a case concerning 'authorization,' that is, whether in selling VCRs, Sony was encouraging its customers to the infringe copyright. It was in demonstrating a legitimate use for the technology, that the court decided that 'time-shifting' (the pre-recording of programmes for later viewing), constituted a fair-use. IMHO, nothing in that case gives people a blanket right to copy broadcasts (TV or radio) simply "for personal use."

Additionally the court found it significant that in choosing to watch a particular TV broadcast at a later time (presumably with all the adds in tact), the broadcasters (and/or creators of the show) were suffering no financial loss. Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.

Re:yup

[macpeep]

"No one gets harmed with music trading. Everybody who has done actualy studies come to the same conclusion. Music swaping increases sales."

Could you please point us to some of these studies? Thanks!

Re:yup

[Noksagt]

You've got it mostly right and can read the decision thanks to the EFF.

IMHO, nothing in that case gives people a blanket right to copy broadcasts (TV or radio) simply "for personal use."

This is true & future cases fleshed out some things that people CAN'T do. But you can tape unecrypted broadcasts and collect them. Interestingly, both the Sony and Universal indicated that people were accumulating tape libraries. This is why you can use a PVR. The networks do still argue that you can't skip commercials or share your recordings on the net (see, for example, the replaytv case), but they don't complain that you've taped something and keep it.

Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.

It isn't clear to me. The Court actually said that broadcasters would have no objection to expanding their audience. I think this holds true to radio broadcasts.

One standard they cite is that the recordings aren't made for personal gain. It is very clear that selling the tape you made would be infringement. It -might- be infringing to trade broadcast tapes with others (as you're benefitting by expanding your collection. I don't see the extra benefit you get on top of time and space shifting.

Setting the law aside & looking at it pragmatically, I don't know how you would say that the person is taping a song so that he doesn't have to purchase it. In some ways, the author of the article is right, but possibly in the wrong medium. Copyright holders intentionally allow their songs to be broadcast to increase their audience--the songs on the radio are ads. Expanding that audience probably wouldn't raise any hackles.

Re:yup

[fucksl4shd0t]

Ah, yes, the personal ethics system -- your morals are yours, mine are mine. So you're telling me it's OK to stuff Jews in a gas chamber?

I don't know about that guy, but I say "from a certain point of view." Fact is, though, that a group that will stuff Jews in a gas chamber is dangerous to the world at large, and when it comes down to it, I'll chose my survival over your survival if need be. I don't have to oppose a point of view to eliminate the people that have it, I only have to show how their existence and practices will damage/destroy the rest of the world.

Re:yup

[fucksl4shd0t]

There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...

If the law is unjust, what should you do about it? I"m thinking Boston Tea Party, myself...

Re:yup

[fucksl4shd0t]

If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, but you're not entitled to take something just because you disagree with the price. The price being charged is not your decision to make, it is the decision of the person providing the good or service, end of story.

That's not entirely true either. A purchase is made only when both the buyer and the seller agree on a price. At that time, they then both exchange something of value.

Now, I realize this doesn't entirely defeat your statement, but many of your statements are starting to come off as sounding like the RIAA makes the rules, and we can either accept them or do without. I realize you've also offered alternatives, but I don't know that mp3.com is an acceptable alternative. I recall some bad shit with them happening, but I don't remember exactly what. Something unethical, for sure, though.

Anyway, the point is, the market is supposed to influence the price, and the price would then be an agreed-upon amount. I do not agree to pay the prices of CDs (for a lot of reasons, not just because the music sucks). But even if they made the CDs for a reasonable price, you know what? DO YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT?

If you read this article, you'll find that if you actually want to support the artist, you'll steal the music and pay for the concert tickets.

As I hinted at before, this is a way of protesting the way record companies treat their musicians. It's also a way of protesting an unjust set of laws (or rather, an unjust abuse of a set of laws that were created with good intent).

Re:yup

[zcat_NZ]

Is it ethical for people to take things that are not being given freely and not reimburse those that provide it?

According to the Constitution, Copyright exists "to promote the sciences and useful arts". If 80% of recorded music is simply unavailable for purchase, then argueably the current situation is 'not promoting' a fairly substantial amount of art. If indie music can't get air time because of the 'payola' system, then the current situation is not promoting the arts.

Is it ethical for large corporations to pervert a law that was intended to promote the arts, effectively doing the exact opposite in the name of 'profit'?

There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...

The constitution does not read "In order to promote corporate profit and monopoly control.. "

The law needs to be changed. The DMCA and perpetual copyrights promote corporate profits only, they don't promote the arts. That 80% of older music that the pigopoly won't release should already be public domain!

Re:yup

[bugbread]

Think about this corollary: A friend of mine bought a CD in Malaysia that had about $3,000 worth of software on it. A software representative would probably insist that because of this, they lost $3,000. But this was a friend of mine during high school. His total yearly income probably wasn't even $3,000. If it weren't free, he wouldn't have bought it. And I suspect that a majority of downloaded files fit that bill.

Re:yup

[xeniten]

So, instead of getting 8% of $0.00, the artist gets 0% of $0.00

It's your logic that's faulty. The very definition of the concept of "copyright" states that whoever holds the right to copy the product in question, has the EXCLUSIVE right to copy, if YOU don't hold the copyright on the product yet you make a copy of it anyway you are in violation of the copyright act. The very act of copying a song into an mp3 or ogg vorbis format and then sharing it on a p2p network is a furtherance of the violation of copyright.You may never intend to actually buy the product but that doesn't give you the right to violate copyright. What if I decided I didn't like the GPL, would I then have the right to violate the GPL? No I wouldn't, I should rightfully expect to get sued by the FSF. You simply can not break a law or a license or an agreement simply because you don't like it or the people or organizations that it supports.It's unethical.

The problem is that we are not dealing with tangible objects. Stealing a song in the form of an mp3 only harms an artist/label as much as the money a person would spend buying the song.

The definition of the word "tangible" is according to Merriam-Webster : 1. perceptible, especially by the sence of touch,palpable 2. substantially real : material 3. cabable of being appraised : syn appreciable,perceptable,sensible,discernable.

So according to the definition of the word tangible music is all of those things, I can appreciate it, discern it, percieve it, feel it, sense it and it's real, real to my sense of hearing and my mind.

Music and the resulting mp3's from it are very much a tangible thing.

Re:yup

[fucksl4shd0t]

I'm not in the right branch of the thread for this, but here:

Study that shows that Napster users bought more CDs

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

> Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.
It isn't clear to me. The Court actually said that broadcasters would have no objection to expanding their audience. I think this holds true to radio broadcasts.

OK firstly, the non-objection of broadcasters (or the other owners) was a matter of evidence (fact), not a point of law. In the case of Radio broadcasts of music, the artists, record companies and the RIAA might, as a matter of fact, have some objection. The point the court was making in Sony v Universal, was that some of the timeshifting was actually authorized by the copyright holders. So in the case of radio broadcasts "this" does not hold true.

One standard they cite is that the recordings aren't made for personal gain.

Indeed, but allow me to quote the court as to what criteria then come into play:
A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.
In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting (my emphasis)

People don't usually tape songs from the Radio, not for the purposes of time-shifting, but merely to have a library of songs. Such a library of songs then takes up exactly the same ground that purchasing recorded music inhabits. "Some meaningful likelihood of future harm" would seem to be much easier to demonstrate in such circumstances. More than that, you can be pretty sure the RIAA have done their homework on gathering 'evidence' for such harm. They certainly are doing so in regard to file sharing.

Re:yup

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

> you're calling abortion baby killing?

Well, unless somebody finally implemented fetal transplant/adoption without telling me, abortion usually involves killing and removal of the fetus. And a pregnant woman who loves what she is carrying (your average "good mother-to-be") calls the fetus "her baby" or "her unborn child". So, yes, "abortion" and "pregnancy termination" are usually euphemisms for killing unborn babies. After all, your average abortion clinic is a business promoting a service, and nobody wants to go get their baby killed; they want to end their pregnancy.

Yeah, I'm against abortion, mostly because if my natural mother had believed in it, I would never have been born (I'm yea olde handicapped bastard child of an unwed mother that's considered to be just begging for an abortion). But that's just my view, and I don't have any power over what others choose to do.

> So stealing is OK but abortion is wrong?

Copying an mp3 and giving copies to 10 friends is exactly the same crime (or lack thereof) as copying an article off the web (or photocopying one in a paper magazine) and giving copies to 10 friends. At very worst, it is copyright violation (under US law), and whether it is a violation or fair use depends on the law and the courts' interpretation thereof (IANAL). It is not stealing.

> I'd love to see the ethical system that justifies this load
> of horse shit

Me, I'd love to see the ethical system that justifies the big five labels turning artists into wage-slaves, taking their copyrights, price gouging, and then treating their customers as potential thieves. I don't practice file sharing myself, but it has always struck me as pretty petty compared to what the big labels are up to.

I agree with you about the gray area between fair use and file sharing, and between file sharing and actual counterfeiting for profit. You could have chosen a far less emotionally charged gray area.

"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).

Re:yup

[1u3hr]

Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright.

I don't think so. Copyright basically prevents unauthorised publication, not the act of copying itself. If you sold or eevn just gave away copies you certainly would be vio;ating copyright. Making a "backup" for your own use is exactly the same as time-shifing TV shows, which "in almost all jurisidctions" is legal.

Unless some fascist interpretation of the DMCA has changed this, of course.

Re:yup

[Noksagt]

OK firstly, the non-objection of broadcasters (or the other owners) was a matter of evidence (fact), not a point of law.

True. Sorry for the imprecision.

In the case of Radio broadcasts of music, the artists, record companies and the RIAA might, as a matter of fact, have some objection. The point the court was making in Sony v Universal, was that some of the timeshifting was actually authorized by the copyright holders. So in the case of radio broadcasts "this" does not hold true.

Perhaps. I'd imagine there have been bands and labels and DJs who have said they want people to tape their material. Not all bands, labels, and DJs need to do this, just as not every network came forward and said "tape everything you want!"

People don't usually tape songs from the Radio, not for the purposes of time-shifting, but merely to have a library of songs. Such a library of songs then takes up exactly the same ground that purchasing recorded music inhabits. "Some meaningful likelihood of future harm" would seem to be much easier to demonstrate in such circumstances. More than that, you can be pretty sure the RIAA have done their homework on gathering 'evidence' for such harm. They certainly are doing so in regard to file sharing.
Well, I'm not sure that having a library of songs is such a horrible thing. Libraries of self-recorded TV shows aren't that horrible. Perhaps a better argument would be that they are "space shifting" the music. They can dump it onto a CD to listen on their disman that has no radio, for example. This kind of thing was supported in the Rio case.

After looking into this a bit more, it is now obvious to me that I shouldn't have argued from Sony v Universal to begin with. I should have cited the Audio Home Recording Act, which says that consumers can make digital audio recordings of broadcasts. The catch is that digital audio recording devices need to be registered by the manufacturer and royalties need to go to recording artists. RIAA gets money for every sale of a DAT tape, for instance.

The right to space-shift has been recognized as extending beyond those devices that need to pay royalties under the act by the Rio case (Rios aren't digital recorders because the song must be copied from the computer to the device).

The DPSRA and DMCA and NET did put further limits on this--it is definitely not OK to distribute copies of copywritten material electronically, even if you don't make a profit--but I believe that it is still completely legal to tape audio broadcasts.

Re:yup

[sebi]

Strange things happen. Whenever the technicalities of music compression are discussed you will find a lot of people claiming that mp3 is indistinguishable from the original CD. When it comes to downloading everyone will say that the compressed music is vastly inferior...

Re:yup

[trezor]

If you noticed how effective the antitrust case against Microsoft was in real, practical life, you might wanne choose civil disobedience instead.

Just a thought.

Re:yup

[dmaxwell]

When I encode mp3s from my own vinyl and cd collection, I use the --r3mix settings of Lame. This produces a VBR encoded mp3 that gives the highest quality possible without being overly greedy with storage. (I'm aware there are other Lame presets meant to accomplish similar goals. --r3mix works for me.)

Almost every mp3 I have seen on the trading services is 128kbit encoded and many of those were done with inferior encoders such as the old Xing encoder. What you are seeing is not hypocrasy. A clueful ripper uses a good encoder with wisely chosen settings. Such mp3s sound very good even if some audiophiles insist they aren't quite cd quality. The vast majority of mp3s aren't these high quality ones. I also think many traders don't understand the filesize/quality tradeoff and just get the smallest file to download. This means that the lowest quality versions of any given track propagate the most.

Both statements are true. Good mp3s are indistinguishable from cds for most people. The quality of most downloaded music is inferior for the most part; quality mp3s with few exceptions are not traded.

Re:yup

[the_rev_matt]

>>Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's. While pirating, you can do a quick search and find what you are looking for on demand, whereas you need to "hunt and trap" what you are trying to find on the radio.

By that logic it should be perfectly legal to hack into military computer systems, because it's difficult.

Your argument about scale does have merit, however.

Re:yup

[operagost]

Funny, when you do the math, MP3 is inferior. Period. Nothing strange about that.

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit! Of all the days to leave my mod points at home...

Re:yup

[nolife]

Some people find compressed music acceptable to some extent, some do not. What makes you think these people are changing sides?

Re:yup

[Rick.C]

MP3 is not cd quality, even it its maximum bits. it doesn't come in a case or on a disk. No art work, no lyrics, no stickers.

Everyone is different, of course, but groups of us have similar characteristics. My wife is a "visual" person. She's likely to say, "Yeah, the music's OK, but look at the cover art! The colors are just awesome!" She'd rather watch a video of the song than listen to just the audio.

Some people are more aural. They don't care if there's a case or cover art or even a CD. As long as the music is playing in their ears, that's all that's important.

Others take it one step further - they don't even need the sound in their ears. After they've heard a particularly good song a few times, they can mentally reproduce the important features without hearing the sounds again.

I know this to be true because I'm somewhere between the last two types. (For those telepathics out there, Blue Danube Waltz seems to be playing in my head right now if you care to tune in. It's the Vienna Philharmonic's version and they do it rather well.)

So what is the RIAA trying to protect? The artwork and physical CD? No problem. They can keep them.

The songs in my head? Good luck chumps, those are mine.

The sound waves? Ahh, now we're into one of those gray areas. The exact data on the original masters? Yep, they own 'em. Me, trying to sing "Sk8ter Boi"? Nope, (and they'd probably pay me royalties to stop). How about a third or fourth generation cassette tape? Maybe.

Legally, it's hard to define, but operationally it's easy: they claim anything that resembles their copyrighted property that has monetary value. High quality MP3s fall into this category because people 1) accept them as substitutes for the CD (which has value) and 2) many people have said they would be be willing to pay for MP3s. That third or fourth generation cassette tape probably has zero value, so the RIAA likely doesn't care.

File trading of low quality copies is certainly in the music industry's best interest. You hear a song you like and you want a copy that sounds good so you buy the CD. Trading high quality MP3s is different. The copy is good enough and if the rest of the CD sucks (a whole 'nuther issue) you're not going to buy it. It's the whole carrot-and-stick thing. You want that carrot, but you don't want to pull their damn wagon. Most people feel insulted when put in this kind of a position, and rightfully so. Maybe that's why everyone is so passionate about file sharing - we take the insult personally.

So it seems that trading low quality MP3s of individual songs (not the whole CD) puts you on fairly firm ground ethically, especially if the music industry is putting out great music. You'll tend to buy the product and the copy can be viewed as advertising. If the music mostly sucks and you're just picking the gems from the rubbish, you're depriving the music industry of their livelihood. The fact that their livelihood is based on a flawed product does not give anyone the right to steal it.

I've heard "Check out the indies" many times here. That's our ethically correct option. If the RIAA's product mostly sucks, go find another product. If the RIAA's music is good enough to steal, then maybe it doesn't suck all that much, huh?

Re:yup

[nolife]

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's.

Penetration, however slight, is still penetration!

Re:yup

[Joey7F]

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's. While pirating, you can do a quick search and find what you are looking for on demand, whereas you need to "hunt and trap" what you are trying to find on the radio.

So let me get this straight, the reason why it is not as immoral is because you have to work harder to do it? So I guess by that logic, if you kill someone with a gun that is extremely immoral but if were to slit your victim's wrist and let the blood ooze out slowly, it is somehow less immoral because it took longer?

No doubt the RIAA sees it like this. They only raise objections when it becomes convenient to pirate.

They realize that taking a hardline with people taping a song off the radio will get them no where (ie people feel they are entitled to do that, much like taping a tv show).

--Joey

Re:yup

[AdamD1]

My take on this whole spiel

If you're an artist, and you are signed to a record label, the label advances you $ to record and promote the recording. In most cases - talking more than 75% of recorded works released by major labels - that is all the artist will see from the label. Unless they have a string of successful albums, meaning more than two albums end up in the top ten anywhere in the world, the artist usually owes the label, not the other way around.

So the reason I have zero problem with downloading as much music as I like is: it's music which is already paid for anyway. By that I mean: when you see the video for a song on MTV / MuchMusic / M2 / whatever, that's paid for by advertising. In Canada, the videos are often paid for by grants *and* advertising. The artist sees income from the actual airplay (if they actually wrote the song.)

If you hear a song on the radio, that's also generating income for the artist. You can tape it if you like since there really *is* no legislation in place to stop that from happening. But the bottom line is: it's already paid for.

If, however, I see an indie band on stage, I am much more tempted to buy their cd. The reasons are obvious. They probably only sell their music at the shows, or via very small indie stores, or online through various sites (CDBaby being the most prevalent.) I feel *zero* sympathy for record labels. They're the ones that put this whole system together. I think the last time a music video was actually relevant to *generating* interest in a band was possibly 1986 or so. By that I mean: most videos these days if they show up on MTV or any other station: it's because the single is already a guaranteed hit or has already been approved to place very high on most charts. Again I say: already paid for.

The bigger artists like a Michael Jackson, a Sheryl Crow, etc.: they probably *are* losing some money due to downloading, but not enough to warrant cutting back on bloated music video costs or independent promotion costs. The day it is announced that several artists had to be dropped because of *quantifiable* statistics that show that an album was downloaded rampantly but not sold in stores: I'll stop downloading. So far the exact opposite has been the truth. The Eminem Show was downloaded in its entirety for a month before it came out and still debuted at #1 in sales, selling just shy of 1.2 million copies it's first week. Britney Spears continues to sell despite notable mass copies being available online. The demand is still there. If the RIAA prefers to believe their own numbers, based on outdated concepts of supply and demand, using a system which is so outmoded that it really should be wake up time for all involved: fine by me. I choose to ignore them. If the RIAA didn't like it, they should have thought about all of this when they approved the CD and CD-R formats years ago. Or they shouild have investigated indie promotion in the radio industry more closely, since that's where a ton of money conveniently gets spent as "promotional" expenses. Guess who owes that money at the end of the day, whether the single gets charted or not? Not the label.

I have worked in the music industry for years in numerous capacities including dealing with radio, distribution, indie bands and grassroots marketing, and major label marketing and production. I do know whereof I speak. :)

Thanx for reading,

ad

Re:yup

[usotsuki]

There's a different can of worms when you talk about singing "Sk8er Boi" (damn that lame attempt at leetness!), which infringes on the copyright on the *song itself* as opposed to the *recording* of the song. ;)

-uso.

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Your entire post is a red herring. It doesn't matter who is making or losing money because of illegal file trading. The point is that no one should be making non-fair-use copies of copyrighted material. Period. No one has to prove that it's harmful to anyone (though it helps).

Re:yup

[evilviper]

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's.

Since when did the effort required change the legal and/or moral status of your actions?

Yes your Honor, I stole his car and then killed him, but it was really difficult

and editing the particular song/broadcast into a single file, and cutting all the commercials out.

So hitting the stop button before it records the commercials is then illegial/immoral?

but it is obviously much less harmful

Only if you take it for granted that having a copy of a song is harmful. I certainly don't.

Re:yup

[gmack]

No it's not indistinguishable and that's the reason I tend to buy a lot of cds. For me, downloads are at best a short trial or at worst a stopgap measure until next time I can budget in a few cd purchases.

Aside from the lower quality downloading also tends to be a huge pain. There are many problems: Unlistenable bitrates, maxed out servers, songs with parts missing etc. To make it worse there seem to be people out there who download so they can see how large a collection they can get and never actually care about how mangled the files are that they happen to be serviing because assuming they have even listened to it(they may not have) it's something that only shows up once a month on their playlist and they just don't want to go through the trouble of finding it. And that's only if I can actually find what I want . Most of what I listen to tends to be on the hard to find end of the scale.

Re:yup

[HiThere]

If I "should" pay for listening to music I enjoy, should they pay me when I'm forced to listen to music I despise?

If not, there's something drasticly wrong with the assumptions.
If so, where's my money for all the garbage I've had to listen to?

Perhaps that is not a sound basis on which to operate.

Re:yup

[poot_rootbeer]

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's

So? There's nothing in copyright law which makes a distinction between things that are easy to copy and things that are difficult to copy.

By pirating an mp3, you are getting CD-quality -- what you would be paying for in the store.

I'm no audiophile, but even I don't agree with this. MP3 is a lossy codec. Any MP3-encoded file is of lower quality that the source file.

There is also nothing in copyright law regarding the quality of a copy.

I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not

No, you don't. And it weakens your arguments about the legality of other, similar actions. Putting "obviously" in the summary of your argument doesn't make it obvious, nor correct.

Re:yup

[DickBreath]

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's

Let's suppose it didn't. Then what do you think?

Let's imagine some hypothetical time in the far distant future when we might have hard disks that could hold, say, many gigabytes of information.

Now suppose you had a simple program you downloaded for free. Let's suppose this program, Pirate Radio Unethical, is purposely designed to allow evil people to deprive others of their income by using a convenient user interface.

It uses your tuner card and tapes everything off the radio all day and night. It has a very convenient user interface that allows you skip forward by 30 sec, 1 min, 2 min, 3 min, 4 min, 5 min, etc. Now this would make it very easy to find the begin and end of each song. Mark those points, and the program conveniently extracts the song for you into a seperate file. This way, you can sit down once each day and in a few minutes of your time, extract all of the songs that interest you.

Is it unethical that the telegraph deprived the pony express people of their income? (I know this is not the same as mp3 filesharing, but my point is that business models become outdated and we need to prevent progress in order to protect some dinosaur's business model.)

Re:yup

[OscarGunther]

...maintain artificially high prices...

What do you mean? Isn't the seller free to charge what the market will bear? If it costs a penny to create a CD and the point of equilibrium between the supply and demand curves is at $100 per unit, then why should the record companies do you a favor and sell for less?

If the service the record companies provide the artists is such a bum deal, why do the latter continue to sign on the bottom line? Unless they're all idiots or spectacularly ill advised and misinformed, there must be some reason all musicians doesn't just decide en masse to distribute their music on mp3.com.

The digerati are generally thought to be more libertarian than not, but you have to apply your philosophy across the board. If the market is the sole mechanism by which commodity prices are established, then let the market function without interference. If you don't like the prices, don't buy the product.

Re:yup

[JackMonkey]

Furthermore, where do you draw the line? If you are making a home movie and the radio is on in the background, could that be considered copyright infringement?

Re:yup

[Angst Badger]

Strange things happen. Whenever the technicalities of music compression are discussed you will find a lot of people claiming that mp3 is indistinguishable from the original CD. When it comes to downloading everyone will say that the compressed music is vastly inferior...

It could be in part because people tend to listen to MP3s with crappy PC speakers or equally crappy earbud headphones.

An MP3 encoded at 128kbps -- when played on quality audio equipment -- sounds noticeably different than the CD original if you are paying any attention at all. Some kinds of music sound worse than others, depending on the predominant waveforms and the particular encoder implementation. Music with high levels of distortion seems particularly prone to really noticeable encoding artifacts.

To me, the difference disappears somewhere between 256 and 320kbps, depending on whether I'm actually listening to the music or just using it as audio wallpaper. Consequently, whether the MP3 is an incentive to buy the CD depends on how I listen to it. If I really like the artist and actually sit down and listen to the music without doing anything else, I'll buy the CD. If I don't care that much and use the music as wallpaper, I won't buy it.

I should note, however, that for "wallpaper" music, I wouldn't buy the CD even if I couldn't get the MP3. OTOH, there's a lot of music I like enough to buy that I never would have heard of if I hadn't listened to the MP3 first.

But I digress. Pump a CD track through a good stereo system, and then play the 128 or 192kbps MP3 version. MP3s are definitely not CD quality, at least not at the bitrates at which they are commonly encoded.

Re:yup

[angle_slam]

Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright.

Not in the US. It is specifically allowed by the Audio Home Recording Act.

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. Copyright basically prevents unauthorised publication, not the act of copying itself.

Copyright governs Copy Rights; i.e., the "right" of the "copyright" owner to restrict "copying" of their works (except, of course, in the case fair-use rights). Copyright says nothing about "publication" (except to the extant that that involves copying a copyrighted work).

Making a "backup" for your own use is exactly the same as time-shifing TV shows, ...

You can't make a "backup" of something you don't own. Time-shifting TV shows has been considered by the court (as I understand it) as an example of "fair-use", not "backup".

Arguably, taping a song falls into a gray area. It could be considered similar to time-shifting and fall under fair-use rights. Or it could be considered an example of unauthorized copying. We could argue back and forth forever, but it would literally take a Federal Court to decide the legality (I am not familiar with any actual caselaw (#include IANAL.h)).

Re:yup

[shotfeel]

A lot of that depends on how you're listening.

If I'm using your basic $10 set of earphones or the speakers many people have connected to their computer (me included), the mp3's are indistinguishable from the original (for the most part).

If I'm using my home audio system with decent speakers or good headphones, there's a world of difference.

So I have mp3's on my computer for convenience (not the least of which is keeping the CD drive free for other things) and use the CDs for everything else.

Re:yup

[AdamD1]

Your entire post is a red herring. It doesn't matter who is making or losing money because of illegal file trading. The point is that no one should be making non-fair-use copies of copyrighted material. Period. No one has to prove that it's harmful to anyone (though it helps).

What's a red herring is that the labels always fall back on the "this is killing our artists" argument. The argument postulated by the email in the original post is that the RIAA is out of its league in going after this guy who is selling CD-R's of his own works online via eBay. My feeling is: that's correct. It's also correct that folks should see an MP3 file - no matter what the quality - in the same light as they see radio play, since at the end of the day both of them can fall through the cracks (artists typically don't get paid on most radio play either.)

If an artist is not going to get paid for the sale of a record anyway, I don't think it *is* a red herring when I say "they aren't making money from labels in 75% of cases." Nor is it a red herring when I say the whole point is moot if you're signed to a label: you get your advance, and that's usually it.

Consumers should do a lot of things, yes. We should pay for music at some point. However think of allll the other instances in your life when you have heard music for which you have not paid? I'm talking when you go to a restaurant, when you're at a friend's place, at a party, listening to the radio. These are all "free" also, but subsidized in some form (in the case of radio, nightclubs, etc.) Since we can all agree (and in fact there are actual quotes claiming so) that "fair use" is no longer in common usage in copyright law, where do you draw the line? Labels want us to pay for music even if we here it incidentally. I for one do not agree with that, but especially not when I know how little the artist makes out of the deal anyway (unless they do what the original poster was trying to do in the first place.) .... But everyone's entitled to their opinion. :)

ad

Re:yup

[LineNoiz]

What do you mean? Isn't the seller free to charge what the market will bear? If it costs a penny to create a CD and the point of equilibrium between the supply and demand curves is at $100 per unit, then why should the record companies do you a favor and sell for less?

There is a flaw here. Yes, a firm is allowed to charge whatever it wants for a good. Seeing as the music industry is an oligopoly (i.e. the top 4 producers produce more than 40% of the good), it is subject to certain laws. One of these laws says that they may not collude to keep prices high. A number of RIAA membership companies have been found guilty of this practice of price fixing. It is an indisputable fact that they conspired to form a cartel and artificially inflate prices.

You might then state that the market should be responsible for preventing something like this from happening. For example, if $20 is too much to pay for a CD, then nobody would pay for it, and they would go out of business. The problem with that idea is that when looking at supply and demand curves, you should note that at a higher price, less people would buy it, not no people. This would create a surplus of goods, and a shortage of consumers.

So, how does this fit with the RIAA? Well, first they collude to inflate prices. This raises the price of CDs, thereby creating a shortage of consumers (i.e. less people buying CDs). Now, in order to justify this practice, they claim that they are perfectly capable of selling at these prices. Their losses are not the result of them charging too much, but the result of pirates stealing their product.

Seeing as they are but the poor helpless victims of widespread criminal activities, it is not their business model that needs adjusting, it is the laws that support it. So, they get the guvment to make new laws that will allow them to make even more money than they should, by striping fundamental rights from us.

In short, they are manipulating the market. Unfortunately, the guvment won't fix it, because they are buying into the hype that the RIAA is producing (in other words, they are manipulating the guvment too). Conversely, the market can't fix it because the market is nothing but a bunch of dirty rotten stinking theives.

just some semi-random incoherant thoughts...

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me crazy, but the independant artist should create a blank cdr business. They should then sell these blank cd's boasting that the profits made from the cd's are distributed amoung the artists who formed the company. I dunno about you, but I'd pay extra for the cdr's knowing that the money goes back to them. Its kinda crazy, but I think its a great idea.

Ancodia

Re:yup

[Planesdragon]

So when does it become unethical? If you share it with 3 friends? 4? 5?

42?

Seriously, though, the Napster model wasn't "sharing with friends." It's "sharing with strangers."

If you need a line to draw that isn't "when the copyright holder objects over their unfinished songs showing up on your network," I suggest you use "when you share with strangers".

Re:yup

[kni52]

That is assuming that the artist earns royalties. What royalties, if any, depends on the contract they sign. Many new artists opt instead for an upfront lump sum because royalties may take years to add up, if ever. If this is the case the artist might not make any money from radio play, CD sales, etc. Royalties that artists do get are often $0.75 per CD or so, and often don't start accumulating until they've sold a certain number of copies (something like 200,000). Divide this between a 5 person band and you have $0.15 per person. Unless you're a single person superstar or a band like Metallica, touring and merchandise sales are where you make your money in the music biz.

Re:yup

[TheLink]

"Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright. "

Ah a US citizen... :)

Re:yup

[spoons67]

This is my third post in a row doing such, but I feel it is my duty to invoke Godwin's Law.

Why can't people on Slashdot just stop making so many Nazi and Hitler analogies?

Re:yup

[Nucleon500]

The question becomes: what is the largest moral ratio of copy bitrate to original bitrate? (1378kbps::128kbps? 1378kbps::64kbps?)

It's probably better to make up your mind and stop being so wishy-washy.

Re:yup

[Wraithlyn]

So... you're basing your ethical delimiters on how much work it takes? Or what kind of quality you're getting?

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

I shouldn't have argued from Sony v Universal to begin with. I should have cited the Audio Home Recording Act, which says that consumers can make digital audio recordings of broadcasts.

You most definitely should have! OK, so in the US, recording off the radio is cool.

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

Copyright basically prevents unauthorised publication, not the act of copying itself.

Bzzzt!

Making a "backup" for your own use is exactly the same as time-shifing TV shows, which "in almost all jurisidctions" is legal.

In which jurisdicitions, apart from the US federal jurisidiction, is time-shifting TV shows legal?

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

Not in the US. It is specifically allowed by the Audio Home Recording Act

Cool! Thanks for the reference.

Re:yup

[matrix29]

So when does it become unethical? If you share it with 3 friends? 4? 5?

42?

Seriously, though, the Napster model wasn't "sharing with friends." It's "sharing with strangers."

If you need a line to draw that isn't "when the copyright holder objects over their unfinished songs showing up on your network," I suggest you use "when you share with strangers".

Honey, the WHOLE WORLD is my buddy. Just don't have them ask me to help them move furniture, house-sit, or loan them money.

Re:yup

[Planesdragon]

Honey, the WHOLE WORLD is my buddy. Just don't have them ask me to help them move furniture, house-sit, or loan them money.

Don't go there. You DON'T want the lawyers having to spell out who is and is not your "friend."

(Of course, that wouldn't necessarily be that bad--leave it to the lawyers (Courts), and it'd likely be something like "a relationship that a reasonable person would recognize as a friendship." The bad part would be Congress getting into the picture, which would invaribly get hotly contested debates and debacles and numbers...)

Re:yup

[paynter]

Copyright basically prevents unauthorised publication, not the act of copying itself.

That's exactly wrong. Copyright restricts copying, not distribution. Once you have legitimately obtained a "copy" of a work, you may (generally) redistribute it. You may not make a second copy and redistribute that, however.

If you sold or eevn just gave away copies you certainly would be violating copyright

Yes, but it is making the "copies" that is illegal, not the redistribution.

Time-shifting is an explicit exception to copyright law (in my jurisdiction, at least) so this is quite different from making a backup. In some juristications there are also explicit exceptions for making a single backup (the U.S. is not one, I think).

Note that none of the above applies to (most) software, which is distributed under a license, so copyright law does not (usually) apply.

Re:yup

[byron150]

Where do you draw the line, because something is harder to procure, it therefore becomes ethical?

Re:yup

[1u3hr]

Copyright restricts copying, not distribution.... it is making the "copies" that is illegal, not the redistribution.

Making a copy in itself is a technical violation, but if you don't distribute it no harm has been done to the owner of copyright and if a case were brought, most likely no damages would be awarded. The act of publishing makes it a much more serious violation -- in assessing the penalties the court looks at actual or possible losses of the owner (I have had occasion to look into the case law of this as I work in book publishing).

Note that none of the above applies to (most) software, which is distributed under a license, so copyright law does not (usually) apply.

Copyright still applies; any licensing is additional. However, previously a compiled binary was not held to be copyrightable. (Source code or scripts or any associated artwork are certainly copyrightable.) I believe that it is under recent amendments (the infamous DMCA) though.

Re:yup

[OscarGunther]

Fair enough. So how would a good libertarian deal with this monopolistic situation?

My point is that there are alternatives to signing with these record companies. Other distribution channels, such as mp3.com, exist. Even if the RIAA were to persuade Congress to pass laws against copying music so draconian they would make the Taliban stare in shocked admiration, that still wouldn't keep you from getting music legally--as long as these alternative channels aren't outlawed.

Musicians sign with the big record companies because that's currently the only way they can get a sufficient amount of exposure to the public. That's the real barrier: you can't make a splash without selling your soul. The solution is to develop the visibility of the alternative channels to the point where they become viable alternatives to the promotion machines of the bigs. I don't know how you do that, but I'm guessing that having a few big names announce they'll distribute exclusively on mp3.com (or whatever) wouldn't hurt.

Re:yup

[richardww]

Can anyone actually point me to any double blind tests on mp3s? Everyone says they're inferior but I believe its all just a psychological effect, including that the lower bitrates cant be listened to. I want to see evidence but I think that its all crap, and I think audiophiles are just people who decide that they know more than you about sound reproduction.
Sure theres differrences in an mp3 file, but can you actually tell and does it ruin the experience of listening, I doubt it but I want to see some GOOD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Re:yup

[matrix29]

Don't go there. You DON'T want the lawyers having to spell out who is and is not your "friend."

(Of course, that wouldn't necessarily be that bad--leave it to the lawyers (Courts), and it'd likely be something like "a relationship that a reasonable person would recognize as a friendship." The bad part would be Congress getting into the picture, which would invariably get hotly contested debates and debacles and numbers...)

It would make one hell of a comedy skit.

"Our lawyers officially have declared that your friends may only consist of:

Detached Family Members
Strangers that you have formed a geographical closeness to.
Children which you have gained a detached relationship by forced school association.
Co-workers and drinking companions.
"Fuck buddies" and other folks of a purely sexual relationship.
Anonymous strangers which you have exchanged phone numbers with after meeting in darkened park areas or restrooms.

All other relationships are now legally declared invalid in all courts of law. This order is binding in all states, townships, temporal dimensions, and fantasy delusional states. Defiance of this order will be met with infinite TORTURE and enslavement in the perilous sidecar racing (otherwise known as "Sidehacking") tracks."

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

If a law is unjust, you fight it -- IN COURT FIRST.

Boston Tea Party came after things were done through British courts, brush up on your history.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

According to the Constitution, Copyright exists "to promote the sciences and useful arts". If 80% of recorded music is simply unavailable for purchase, then argueably the current situation is 'not promoting' a fairly substantial amount of art. If indie music can't get air time because of the 'payola' system, then the current situation is not promoting the arts.

Is it ethical for large corporations to pervert a law that was intended to promote the arts, effectively doing the exact opposite in the name of 'profit'?

How are you going to promote the sciences and useful arts without money? If you can't make a living doing what you're doing, you do something else. If these artists don't get paid, they won't make music for a living. It's not really perverting the spirit of the Constitution at all -- they are trying to make money to keep it going.

And before you say "people would make music even if they didn't make money", yes, I know that, but not as much as they do now -- and certainly it would be much harder to wade through all the crap and get to the good stuff without record labels. If this were not true, people would not be pirating good, commercial music through P2P networks every second of every day.

The constitution does not read "In order to promote corporate profit and monopoly control.. "

Corporate profit == more money to promote the arts and useful sciences. Did you notice we're in a capitalist society? Without corporate profit, there is no personal profit. Without either, the society we have would not exist.

The law needs to be changed. The DMCA and perpetual copyrights promote corporate profits only, they don't promote the arts. That 80% of older music that the pigopoly won't release should already be public domain!

I agree RE: the copyright extensions.

So quit bitching about it on Slashdot -- take it to court instead of being a petty criminal and pirating mp3's. Let's not be lazy now.

Re:yup

[fucksl4shd0t]

If a law is unjust, you fight it -- IN COURT FIRST.

Boston Tea Party came after things were done through British courts, brush up on your history.

I take it then that these laws haven't been fought in court? What was Napster all about, then? Eh? Isn't this story about RIAA suing college kids? It has been fought in court, it will continue to be fought in court. In my assessment, it's about time to protest with civil disobedience, to continue bringing the matter to court or to incite further oppressive measures that may result in a catalyst capable of motivating enough people to actually overthrow the establish.

But yes, absolutely, this has been fought in court first and foremost, and that requirement of yours has been met. Thanks for pointing that out for me, I had failed to notice it so far.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

RIAA sued Napster for running a service which they knew was being abused (i.e. people are pirating shit all over the place) and refusing to report people that were breaking federal copyright law and ripping the record companies off.

RIAA is suing college kids that are distributing thousands of mp3's illegally and breaking federal copyright law and by doing so ripping record companies off.

So, really, I don't see how the time is nigh for civil disobedience when, really, all that is going on here is that RIAA is suing people that are ripping them off, or knowingly aiding and abetting those that are ripping them off.

Re:yup

[fucksl4shd0t]

So, really, I don't see how the time is nigh for civil disobedience when, really, all that is going on here is that RIAA is suing people that are ripping them off, or knowingly aiding and abetting those that are ripping them off.

And now we come to the basis of our disagreement. You say that the mp3 traders are ripping off the RIAA, I say they're not, they're exercising "fair use rights", and that if federal law restricts those rights, then the law is unjust. That's all. Nothing big. :) Just the reason we began the discussion is the same place we ended up, traversing the entire circle and failing to convince one another of our own subjective points of view.

Unless you have any objections, can we consider our discussion at an end? Since we just wound up back at the beginning...

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

How is it "fair use" to take a copy and not compensate the copyright holder?

Answer that and we're done.

Re:yup

[fucksl4shd0t]

How is it "fair use" to take a copy and not compensate the copyright holder?

Ok, I'll answer, but I don't think that's gonna finish the discussion. :)

Copyright laws were created to allow the creator of a creative work to be the only one that can make money off his work. For anybody else to make money, they need his permission. Fair use was created as a compromise, to allow people to use the work as they see fit, within certain limitations. Under the fair use clause (ignoring case history for the moment) we're allowed to make copies and distribute them, so long as we charge at most the cost of materials. I.e. we can't make a profit, only the original creator (or his approved affiliates) can do that. So, if you come over to my house, listen to a CD, and like it, I'm authorized under copyright law to copy it for you and give it to you.

Morally, yes, you are under an obligation at some point to actually purchase the CD yourself or get rid of your copy. From a practical standpoint, that may or may not happen. Assuming availability of the CD, then it's safe to say that the rule (not the exception) is that you will purchase the CD or not, but you will almost defnitely either throw the tape away (or CD, this is a new day, after all) or record over it, or give it to someone else, thus passing on your moral obligation to buy or destroy your copy.

The reason for this moral obligation is to maintain the spirit of the agreement implied by the fair use clause, which is that we need to make sure the artist is compensated for his work. However, and I wish I still had the link, if you google for "courtney love does the math" you will read an article that explains that the artist does NOT get compensated. In the end, the RIAA-affiliated labels actually totally screw over the artist. Under these mitigating circumstances, the moral obligation to compensate the artist is best taken in a different venue, i.e. by buying a ticket to the concert. I do not know how ticketmaster rips off the artists, but I hear there's similar problems over there. But when we can be certain that the artist won't actually get our money when we're attempting to fulfill the morality of the agreement, then the obligation is to be fulfilled differently. But as far as the recording goes, we no longer need to purchase the CD.

It's important to keep in mind that I'm only talking about known RIAA labels. There are indy labels that also take advantage of the artists, and it's up to the individual to determine that. But I understand that your money has a much higher likelihood of reaching the artist if you support indy labels than if you support the mainstream establishment, in which case you would still be under obligation to purchase the CD or destroy your copy.

And everyone that receives a copy of the song is under this obligation, morally. The only exception is when you know (as in my case with pretty much all the music I've downloaded) that it's either impossible to compensate the artist (the band broke up, music's out of print, etc.) or that you have already given them plenty of money, and you are likely to again (as in the case of all the Anthrax I've downloaded). In the second case, it's part of the relationship you have with the band. If the band wishes to cancel that part of the relationship, then you might want to consider canceling your part of the relationship, like I did with Metallica. They may not care that I'm never giving them money again, but I've spent hundreds of my hard-earned cash on them in the past.

Is that answer sufficient? It's clear that I don't support stealing from the artists either, and that I feel that we should live up to our obligations. If you don't want to live up to an obligation, don't create it.

Re:yup

[tuba_dude]

Sorry buddy, it's all relative here. Musicans, audiophiles and others who live for music/sound almost always notice a difference. It *all* depends on who you talk to. As a musician, and having friends in the field, I can say most of us *hate* lossy compression. Most others don't usually notice a difference and can get by just fine with mp3s at 128 kbps or oggs at 64. Individual experience, taste, and knowledge are the determining factors. Nothing scientific about it.

Nitpick

[transient]

Let's face it, an mp3 is an inferior copy.

I disagree pretty strongly with this statement. Although MP3s are technically inferior to their uncompressed counterparts, I think the vast majority of people consider MP3s equal to CD audio. As a casual listener, I can't tell the difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and the CD I ripped it from.

I'm sure there are audiophiles and other music enthusiasts who disagree with me, but I'm also sure that those people compose a minority among music listeners.

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you disagree with the statement? It is a fact, as you even put it, that it is an inferior copy.

The fact that you do not care doesn't matter. It is not an opinion you can 'disagree' with. It is a statement of technical fact.

Re:Nitpick

[transient]

MP3s are technically inferior, but not experientially. Technical inferiority only matters to people like us.

Re:Nitpick

[heli0]

I have a pretty decent setup;

Paradigm Reference Studio 100's
Bryston 4B ST Amp
Adcom GFP-750 Pre-amp
ROTEL RCD/971 CD-player

and I can honestly say that I can not discern between a good 192kbps mp3 and the original cd when listening to non-classical music, which is 99.9% of what the RIAA peddles.

"I'm sure there are audiophiles and other music enthusiasts who disagree with me"
Don't worry about them, these are the same people who say that you need to keep your cables suspended in the air.

Re:Nitpick

[Cid Highwind]

The fact that you do not care doesn't matter. It is not an opinion you can 'disagree' with. It is a statement of technical fact.

Yes it does, and yes, we can disagree.

"mp3 files contain less information than uncompressed cdda" is a technical fact.
"mp3 encoders tend to cut off frequencies above 20kHz" is a technical fact.
"mp3s are inferior to CDs" is a value judgment, and while it is based on facts, it is not in itself a fact.

Re:Nitpick

[antiMStroll]

The vast majority of people don't care and are perfectly happy to spend the day listening to highly processed, equalized and distorted AM and FM broadcasts which don't sound like CDs either. Sonic accuracy isn't decided by vote.

Re:Nitpick

[haggar]

Although MP3s are technically inferior to their uncompressed counterparts

Didn't you just say, with this very sentence, that MP3s are essentially inferior copies? What are you bitching about, then?

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

you might want to have a look at the responses to the other guy who can't see past technical specifications. thanks for trying though.

Re:Nitpick

[Casca]

And clean all of your contacts with alcohol once a month, because you really can hear the difference.

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy better cables.

Re:Nitpick

[nathanh]

And wipe down your power cables at least once a week with virgin olive oil, because then the electrons won't rub against the plastic sheath and make noise.

Re:Nitpick

[ldspartan]

What about editing? I design sound for theatre, and I can't keep any of my source material or product in MP3 because I don't know where its going to end up. If I keep everything in MP3, then any source material in a given effect might get compressed four or five times before the show opens. The artifacts inherent in MP3 (and most other lossy compressions) make it useless for a lot of things. It may sound good once, but after the third time, christ.

--
Phil

Re:Nitpick

[surprise_audit]

And it's a fact that a large percentage of folks listening to MP3's are doing it with tinny little speakers or tinny little earbuds, not 100's of $$ of hifi equipment. The difference between an MP3 and a regular CD is negligible for that kind of setup.

Yes, the original CD is technically better.
Yes, the MP3 is lossy.
No, it doesn't matter when the equipment used to make either one audible costs $19.95 in WalMart...

Re:Nitpick

[transient]

Are you serious? No sound editor in their right mind should be using lossy compression. In any case, your application is hardly relevant to the discussion.

Re:Nitpick

[surprise_audit]

Your situation is different - as the middle man, so to speak, you can't afford to go chopping out whole bands of frequencies, and I sincerely hope nobody expects you to.

On the other hand, most of the folks using MP3s don't have the same quality of equipment as a sound editing studio ought to have, and the difference in quality is near enough inaudible to the great majority of those folks. I mean, hardly anyone using MP3's is doing it in a quiet, acoustically neutral environment. They're doing it in offices and cars, with enough background noise to mask the artifacts generated by the compression.

Re:Nitpick

[inode_buddha]

Bummer, I *do* enjoy classical. Used to play it even (piano). Decent setup you have BTW, but I still prefer Klipsh horns and 2A3 triodes, fed by Teac (analog) tape. But that's just me.

Re:Nitpick

[10Ghz]

And you must install green LEDs under the CD in the CD-player because it "makes it sound better"

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

I have:

Magnepan MG-1.6s
Plinus SA-150 (upgraded)
REL subwoofer (don't remember the model)
Harman Kardon DVD-25

I can hear the difference on nearly any source material (percussive brass is the worst, bass sometimes get muddy).

However, I can hear a difference on headphones, computer speakers etc. I find it quite strange that you can't hear the difference between a $700 CD player and output from a lesser quality MP3 source.

Now, in most cases it doesn't really matter as MP3s to me are a portable format and any degradation doesn't really matter since outside noise pretty much overwhelms any type of high quality input.

Perhaps you should have gotten less expensive equipment as you cannot discern these types of things.

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't have spent money on a nice stereo if you can't tell the difference between mp3s and the source CD. If you're not an audiophile, why didn't you just get a boombox?

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

1) "MP3s are technically inferior"--you said it yourself, and then rely on fictions to avoid facing that fact.

2) 192kbps MP3s. Are they the norm now? I still see lots of 128's on usenet. Mp3.com, other vendors, do they have 192? Don't think so. This exposes your "casual listener" as a fraud--the listener you want us to imagine uses a higher quality product than the norm.

3) audiophiles and music enthusiasts *do* disagree with you. Yes, they are a minority. But the pertinant ratio concerns the degree to which they outspend your casual listener. Music lovers represent an extremely important market segment to the future of the recording business, and they are being ill-served by all this drm anti-piracy nonsense. As a casual listener who enjoys mp3s, you should recognize that it is in your interests to understand where other music fans are coming from, They are not your natural enemies.

So, please, face it. The claim that mp3s are perfect replicas is untrue. Why quibble? So you can say in such and such circumstances with such and such degree of accuracy you can say it is true for you, casual listener, and meanwhile your blithe acceptance of industry hype is turned against you and cited as the presumptive foundation of a legislative stripping of your rights.

For the kinds of music listeners you marginalize, the situation is truly outrageous. We, music lovers, argue that mp3s sound okay, but we would still pay for higher quality recordings. Faced with a choice between corrupt cds and lossy compressions, we gladly choose vinyl.

You see, for us cds were already a compromise. What they offered was compactness, the convenience of moving between home and car, stereo and portable and computer. We never thought they sounded better. We rebought our favorite album titles because they were handy, and we could afford it. Mp3s were also a compromise. What they offer is great convenience at the expense of sound quality. And they're on the internet, which means there's like a huge library of the world's recorded music at your fingertips. These are precisely the features that the RIAA is striking against.

So when you hear some audiophile complaining that mp3s are not all that and a bag of chips, stop to consider what that means to you. Are they stomping on your rights? Are they trashing the internet? Are they making it harder for you to listen to music? Are they artificially fixing prices? Are they limiting your choices in any way?

What they are guilty of is attacking the sacred cow that digital is better than analog. Ha! they probably also prefer live music, and on acoustic instruments. The nerve. Listen, the preference for raw sound does not make one a technophobic anti-digital luddite. Let's look at what all of us who listen to digital recordings and who use the internet have in common. That's what the RIAA is attacking and it's the key to empowering us to fight back.

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

So unless you're a pretentious asshole who talks utter crap about technical aspects of electronics you cannot possibly understand, you can't have a decent stereo? You're one of those audiophile "use Oxygen free cables that cost $20/ft", arn't you?

Re:Nitpick

[DarkVein]

I think it's ironic. The RIAA [supp. Music Oligopoly] makes music that most easily and losslessly compressed by any lossy compressor. The best part is that MP3 is a sub-band encoder, and most of this pop-trash is composed in frequency ranges. That is, you have the base in the low band, the instruments in the mid-band, and some whiney boy/girl in the high band, with some techno-esque "WEEEoooooooeEEEEE" special effects laced in. Honestly, you couldn't intentionally make a better sample for MP3.

Throw a singer in there with some real vocal range, and MP3 starts crying.

I've got an SB Extigy and some Sennheiser HD580s. Admittedly, the headphones are more than a bit audiophile. I can't hear the difference between pop MP3s and pop CDs. However, I don't like simple accoustic. :) I like rock or metal where you can actually hear the harmonics playing between the guitar strings, which is an attribute you usually find in classical. MP3 trashes that kind of delicate interplay. Ogg Vorbis, however... =D

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay.. 192kb stream for mp3 sounds like cd-audio....

isnt cd-audio 150kb stream?

am i missing something here, or is it that MP3 needs a higher bitrate to sound "close" to cd-quality?

Re:Nitpick

[Rich0]

CD-Audio is:
44100 samp/sec x 16 bit/samp x 2 chan =
1.41 Mbp = 176.4kB (note the capital B).

You are confusing bytes with bits. Also - the 150 kB probably comes from the data transfer rate of a 1X CD-ROM. A 1X CD-ROM can play CDs at 176kB, but can only transfer data at 150kB. The reason is that the audio format does not include nearly as much error-correction, since an error in an audio stream is usually imperceptible. Microprocessors cannot handle any errors at all in the instructions they execute, so the error-correction data is significantly beefed up for data recording. This means that when the CD rotates a given distance, the total data read is the same, but less of that data is really data since more of it is error-correction code, so you get a lower bandwidth. The reason CDs need so much error correction is the penalty for re-reading a sector is very high since the disc spins so slowly (compared to a HD). Also, a CD is removable and gets a lot more wear than an HD does. CDs use a lot of other tricks as well - the data is all interleaved - a sector on a CD spans probably half-way around the disc - intermixed with other adjacent sectors. This way a scratch running outward along the disc corrupts small parts of many sectors rather than a large part of a few sectors - the error-correction code in each sector can then repair the damaged data.

If you recorded an MP3 at 1.41 Mb you would in theory lose no data (though I doubt this is the case in practice), but would have no compression either. This is why a 128kb MP3 is about 1/10th the size of the same file in lossless format.

Re:Nitpick

[SatanicPuppy]

Heh. I agree completely, especially with the "non-classical" part. I'd love to see the statistics on the sales of classical music in recent years. Seems like that would be revealing.

A fair compromise?

[ABetterRoss]

How about the released-for-radio-play singles as 'ad's for the album'... they should be considered 'liberated' from thier albums and free to trade.

Re:A fair compromise?

[DarkGreenNight]

Usually those released-for-radio-play singles are the reason people buy the CD. If Feel (by Robbie Williams) was free I would have had no reason to buy that shitty album that I cannot copy to my MD because it sends New Track digital signals every 2 or 3 seconds.

RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[product byproduct]

The essentials are missing:

• Number of active pirate ships.
  
• Number of CD shipment boats attacked per year.
  
• Number of CDs per boat.
  
• Number of pirates per ship.
  
• Number of parrots per ship (if available).
  

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[SN74S181]

This isn't the 19th century any longer. 'Car' doesn't mean what it did in the 19th century either.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[Lord_Slepnir]

The essentials are missing:

* Number of active pirate ships: 0
* Number of CD shipment boats attacked per year: 0
* Number of CDs per boat: 0
* Number of pirates per ship: 0
* Number of parrots per ship (if available): 0

Despite what the RIAA et al would have you beleive, copying music is NOT piracy. Piracy is murder and robbery on the high seas. Piracy is if a group of people armed themselves, charged into a record store, and stole CDs while shooting at employees who tried to stop them. It is unfortunate that most people equate this with now with copyright infringement. The reason people do is decades of the recording industry telling us that copying music is the same as direct robbery and murder.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It is unfortunate that most people equate this with now with copyright infringement. The reason people do is decades of the recording industry telling us that copying music is the same as direct robbery and murder.

No, the reason people equate the term "piracy" with copyright infringment is that the language is a fluid, evolving thing where word meanings change over the years. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "Na, na, na" and ignoring this fact makes you sound like someone who would rather argue over the terms used and not the matter at hand.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[cpt kangarooski]

Centuries, you mean. That sense of the word pirate dates back to 1668 -- which was decades _before_ copyright law, incidentally.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[shepd]

>'Car' doesn't mean what it did in the 19th century either.

And that's why we must fight to stop bad corporations (like the RIAA) from rewriting our language.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[2short]

But "piracy" does still mean what it did in the 19th century, and the 18th, and the 17th. That's how far back the "unauthorized copying" meaning goes.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[gmp]

okay, all together now: "piracy=copyright infringement" dates at least to 1769. See e.g. Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303.

No case of a prosecution in the Star-Chamber, for printing without a license, or against letters patent, or pirating another man's copy, or any other disorderly printing, has been found. ...

But it is certain, that down to the year 1640, copies were protected and secured from piracy, by a much speedier and more effectial remedy, than actions at law, or bills in equity.

You might also check out Bouvier's law dictionary, 1856 edition.

PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[Noksagt]

Dates back even further....

From the OED:
"[1668 J. HANCOCK Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.] 1701 DE FOE True-born Eng. Explan. Pref. (1703) 6 Its being Printed again and again by Pyrates. 1709 STEELE & ADDISON Tatler No. 101 1 These Miscreants are a Set of Wretches we Authors call Pirates, who print any Book,..a soon as it appears.., in a smaller Volume, and sell it (as all other Thieves do stolen Goods) at a cheaper Rate. "

"1706 DE FOE Jure Div. Pref. 42 Gentlemen-Booksellers, that threatned to Pyrate it, as they call it, viz. Reprint it, and Sell it for half a Crown. 1754 Connoisseur No. 38 6 To prevent his design being pirated, he intends petitioning the Parliament"

"1697 tr. C'tess D'Aunoy's Trav. (1706) 77 One day, as Meluza came from Pyrating, he brought [etc.]. 1727 A. HAMILTON New Acc. E. Ind. I. xii. 140 The English went to burn that Village and their pirating Vessels. 1731 GAY Let. to Swift 1 Dec., I have had an injunction for me against pirating-booksellers. 1737 BYROM Jrnl. & Lit. Rem. (1856) II. I. 133 To put out a pirated edition."

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[SN74S181]

at the Merriam Webster site the third defintion fits the 'modern' meaning: "3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright"

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[BHearsum]

In other words, a philosopher? :o) (Espcially one who's main field of study in language)

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[fishbowl]

I was thinking about this, and decided that the RIAA does not use the word "piracy" to represent copyright related crimes, nearly as often as slashdotters do. We are reinforcing the même more than they do. Nobody in the record industry has ever made a serious claim that copying music is equivalent to robbery and murder. They have gotten as far as calling it "theft", which is not altogether unreasonable. Congress went too far with the DMCA, but that's more your and my fault than the RIAA's.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Many marineers in the Chinese and South American seas would strongly disagree with that modern meaning of the world. Piracy is still alive and well, and diluting the meaning (Stealing, killing, raping and destroying on the high seas, essentially) with copying some music, is just a joke.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

O.K, I'll accept the definition of pirate as used by the RIAA/MPAA. I'm happy with that. The odd thing is, in all the hundreds of "discussions" on Slashdot about this, no one had posted this until today. Hmm.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[SurgeonGeneral]

You might also ad that at the time BOTH of those were written copyright law provided very little protection for the creator of a work and was a tool employed by the publishers for their own gain. Only a few, like Dickens, managed to make a profit, and their publishers made alot more then they did.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[SN74S181]

The modern meaning doesn't detract from the older defintions.

People here are just playing sematic games because they don't want to be associated with stealing.

Oh, and you're not 'copying some music' if we're going to get all fancy and go back to original meanings. You're just copying recordings of somebody performing some music. The distinction is, you're being a lazy slob, compared to someone who copies sheet music and then plays it themselves on a musical instrument, or sings it. Kinda like loafing on the couch while your mom makes dinner.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, and I thought they were just trying to be funny. It worked for me till I read your post. Thanks for ruining a little bit of entertainment.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[2short]

The point is, it's not a 'modern' meaning. Both meanings go back similar hundreds of years. Complain about the dilution of the word "stealing" if you like, but "piracy" has the same meanings it has for quite some time.

I read the article...

[blake213]

..and I don't think he has much of a case. Even though mp3's are inferior compared to uncompressed CD-audio, many people don't have the ears or the brains to notice otherwise. And I know lots of people who download entire cd's, and haven't bought a CD in years.

Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it? If they lost no money, it would be a great marketing scheme. But they lose money. Not as many people buy CD's.

Re:I read the article...

[UtucXul]

"if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it?"

That is insane. That is like saying that just because Microsoft says Windows is secure it is. Even if you think that the RIAA doesn't lie to you (a real dangerous thing to believe) doesn't make them right.

Re:I read the article...

[mokiejovis]

So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

But that's the thing: if you go out to buy a current CD, the costs are going to be closer to $20. When people can get DVDs for that much, why would they pay for a CD? The consumer has started to question the quality of the work they're shelling out (big time) for.

Re:I read the article...

[c4Ff3In3 4ddiC]

Do please tell me where I can find the newest Queens of the Stone Age album for $12.99? And I don't want used.

Re:I read the article...

[rco3]

But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music.

And I suppose you think that the record company pays for those costs, right?

Last time I checked, most contracts for smaller artists included studio time and promotion as recoupable costs. In other words, they are fronted by the record company and the recouped out of the artist's royalties. That's right, the $1 per disc (if that) that the artist gets FIRST goes to pay back the costs of making the recording in the first place, and (usually at least part of) the costs of promotion, etc.
You're right, those things are expensive. But the label is just loaning that money, not giving it. And if the label happens to own the recording studio, do you think they charge the artist at a discounted rate? Ha! How about if the artist buys discs, at distibutor prices, from the label to sell at shows? Guess what - they don't get royalties off of those! Nor do they get diddly-squat ($0.05?) for those Columbia House discs.

Fact is, even if your first album goes Platinum you probably wind up owing your record company a shitpot of money.

Cry for the RIAA if you want to, but you're a sucker if you do.

Re:I read the article...

[Ptahian]

Maybe this has been mentioned previously (grin). The reason the RIAA is scared is that their business model depends on their being the gatekeeper of what is 'hot' or 'good'. Once they lose that (and they already have lost it, they just don't know/accept it yet), they can't make more self-declared 'stars'.

The music will be free. It's just information after all.

-Ptah

Re:I read the article...

[ejaw5]

Not as many people buy CD's.

Could it be that music pumped out today isn't worth as much years ago. I thing before my time people were much bigger fans of KISS, U2, Eagles, The Who and the like more than the teenie-booper followers of today's music listeners. How about the fact that pop music (which seems to be the biggest trend nowadays) is played so much on the radio that by the time they stop getting airtime people dont want to hear it anymore, thus not purchasing the CD.

IMO, new music today isn't made because of "the music", but more of appeasing people in suits (think american idol, et al). So good sounding music isn't as important as dance routine and sex appeal. How anyone can appreciate those while listing to audio is beyond me.

Re:I read the article...

[fiftyfly]

..and I don't think he has much of a case. Even though mp3's are inferior compared to uncompressed CD-audio, many people don't have the ears or the brains to notice otherwise. And I know lots of people who download entire cd's, and haven't bought a CD in years.

An important point - an 'mp3' isn't some sort of magical music stealing container. The music I've ripped for my iPod doesn't get the same treatment my audio books do, mp3s are not all created equal. The biggest difference between and mp3 & a competeing cd has nothing to do with 'acuostic quality' and everything to do with form factor

Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution.

A note, distribution is often not a large expense - it's the promotion that kills the bottom line. This is stupid though, real 'money-burner' should be creation. It's not all that hard to sell a good product. When the costs to convince me to buy your crap outweigh the costs of getting someone to produce said crap for you you know you've got a problem. Think of paying an artist somewhat like paying for R&D. If prmotional costs where higher then R&D costs for, say, I don't think I'd be too interested. It works, or it doesn't. I sounds good (and has a market) or it doesn't.

Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

No, millions are spent on raio & tv time so people can hear what $radio_exec wants to sell. There's a difference. When you (pretty much) have to give up all rights to a creative work for the chance that said $radio_exec might put some of their promotional muscle behind it there is a problem. A record company is not in the business of making music, they're in the business of selling them and a very small number of said firms have a strangle hold on nearly the entire industry. It seems to me that using a promotional monopoly (ok, oligarchy) to force content creators to give up creative rights smacks of abuse.

Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it?

Why do I care if they lose money? life happens, you compete or you don't, yay market forces

If they lost no money, it would be a great marketing scheme. But they lose money. Not as many people buy CD's.

Losing money != theft. If I stole a cd, yes then a sale is 'lost', a song is stolen. If I hear a song on the radio and don't immediately run out to buy the albulm there is no theft, there is no lost sale.

Re:I read the article...

[Superfarstucker]

id love to agree with you completely here but it simply isn't the case. Most producers in the electronic scene never see commercial success, yet a slew of them have made it, how, you ask? Live performances. Isn't that ironic, in the most technologically embraced side of the music scene, where they do EVERYTHING ass backwards, they have learned to subsidize themselves by LIVE performances (I.E. DJing). My word on the situation is half these worthless fucking artists deserve to fall off the face of the planet, what good is a rock band if they can't play a banging live show etc etc? their business model is clearly broken (live on the fat of a cd.. if you make it). Granted there is a place for good production work, but I am afraid it doesn't happen to coincide with being an artist.. The entire music industry is backwards.. and its quite funny

Re:I read the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes they made less money in each year for the last 5 years.

but then again, they also produced less albums. so google for the stats, but their profit margin INCREASED. so they cant cry to me that they made less money when they made less products.

besides that, here is a nice idea. why does the record industry believe they are exempt from the economy. gee, the last 3 years the economy has had troubles, why should record sales be ANY different.

people are buying less of everything. cd's are and always will be, a LUXURY. people need the necessities first and foremost. i know the brain dead coked up record execs cannot wrap their mind around the concept that CD's are not a necessity of life. they are a nicety.

so i HOPE the RIAA (members of actually) goes out of business. they are greedy people. they STIFLE creative work.

Re:I read the article...

[Mitreya]

many people don't have the ears or the brains to notice otherwise

I think it is just the ears actually. Most of us are smart enough to tell the difference between an mp3 and an uncompressed wav on the hard drive.

But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD.

I might agree with you if you answer one simple question for me. How is it that an audio tape costs less for the *same* exect album? The marketing of the music is irrelevant of the medium on which it is sold. Thus if a tape costs 12.99 per albom, a CD, which by now is far cheaper to make, should cost less. or same.

So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

Where have you seen a new albom for 12.99? Unless it was on tape? I think it is more of 14.99 to 18.99. The soundtrack of the movie often costs *more* than the DVD of the same movie. Honest.

Re:I read the article...

[Alsee]

Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it?

Independent labels and artists that put out their own music are not counted in sales figures. Independants are seeing double and triple digit growth in sales. RIAA figures are seriously doctored.

-

Re:I read the article...

[surprise_audit]

Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it?

Are you sure you read the article? In it, George Zeimann, says:

"the record labels began to reduce the number of releases BEFORE the Napster hearings. When they went in front of Congress to complain about downloading, Hilary Rosen could confidently state that sales were going to suffer."

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot shooting yourself in the foot, then handing the gun to your opponent so that when the police arrive, you can point to him and say "He did it! Lock him up!"

According to George Zeimann, they're losing money because they deliberately sabotaged their own sales....

Re:I read the article...

[zerocool^]

But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music.

This just got easier, by the way.

Surf to CD Baby.

Check it: Record album on your dime. Create CD's on your own dime. Pay CD Baby $35. Send them any number of your CD's. Sell them at whatever you want, CD Baby keeps $4 of each sale. CD Baby retains no rights to the music, the name, the distribution rights, or anything. All they are is hella-cheap internet distribution.

Case in point: You're a punk band, not interested in making a lot of money. You produce your CD on your own time, pay for the recording. Then you buy a truckload of cheap CD-R's and cases. You use your friend's 32X burner to burn 100 copies, and you print out the inside case label. Say it costs you $1.75 per CD. You send them in, charge $7, and you make $1.25 per CD, after costs.

That's cool. Distribution has always been the problem.

Or, there are other people, like Ian Mckay of the DC/mathrock scene and Dischord records. His solution is this: No written contracts. Just handshakes. He pays for the recording and mastering of your band's CD. He distributes the CD. All out of pocket. When it's done, he keeps all the proceeds of CD sales until the debt is paid off, and then the band and the label split it 50/50. He doesn't touch merchandise or touring profits. If a band ever gets into a disagreement with Ian and want to screw him, he hands them their master and tells them to get the fuck out, deal off, and they lose him as a contact and gain him as a bad reference.

So, I think slowly, music is changing. Attitudes are changing. The industry is changing. If I was to say one band has given me more joy over the course of my lifetime, I would have to say it was Less Than Jake. However, I'm seriously considering not purchasing LTJ's new album, because it's being put out by warner bros. records.

I honestly think, in the long run, there are too many people willing to eat what they're given by the RIAA, and pay $21.99 for a CD. But the number of people who know what major labels put bands through and aren't willing to put up with it is increasing all the time.

~Will

Re:I read the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

I'm rather tired of hearing arguments like this. You're trying to justify the extortionary prices of the RIAA who was found *guilty* of price fixing by trying to make up a lot of costs to sell CDs?

If the RIAA hadn't been price fixing, the market would have behaved much different. By fixing the price, all consumers of CDs were hurt. Not only directly by paying more, but those who didn't value the CD at the fixed price wouldn't buy CDs. The punishment for this agregious act was up to $20 off *another* CD purchase? The point of copyright is to promote the arts and sciences. Any cartel which price fixes reduces consumer surplus. Less consumers *cannot* promote the arts and sciences. It seems pretty clear the RIAA should have been disbanned and each company fined severely.

Re:I read the article...

[McPLUR]

It is not about marketing, etc...

It's about control.

Re:I read the article...

[BHearsum]

I thing before my time people were much bigger fans of KISS, U2, Eagles, The Who and the like more than the teenie-booper followers of today's music listeners

Your partially right. All the bands you listed above were popular for a _long_ period of time. Long, that is, compared to 'pop sensations'. Sure Britney Spears is still around after 4 years, but there's been many replacements for her. (Lopez/Aguilera/Shakira/etc.)

I do agree that overplayed songs cause people not to buy stuff, which is true on all radios stations except ones that don't focus on modern music. (ie. 'New Rock', as well as Pop).

In regards to the last comment, that's referring strictly to pop music. The ones that don't write music, or dance routines, or lyrics, but are paid to learn them. (Which could explain why they don't last long.) There _is_ some good new music out there, Dream Theater is a good example. (Though good is subjective.)

Re:I read the article...

[rco3]

I'm curious. What part of my comment did you disagree with?

If you're saying that many electronic artists have appreciable net income despite comparitively few record sales, I'm perfectly willing to agree. This is, however, a very non-standard case. Several reasons:

1. Album production costs are minimal, and often are borne completely by the artist in the artist's home studio. Fair enough. This also works because much of the actual engineering was done by the people who a) played and recorded the original music which is sampled and/or b) designed and programmed the synths, etc. It's much easier (and thus cheaper) to produce a release-quality electronic album than it is to produce a release-quality rock band album.
2. Touring costs are also minimal. Box of LP's, couple of turntables, a smaller mixer than your average touring keyboard player, and the house PA. You don't need a pile of mikes and cables, FOH mixer, monitor mixer, road crew, props, etc. Much leaner touring, more money into artist's pocket.
3. Practically non-existent promotion by the record company. Word of mouth. No airplay, no MTV. (No big loss, if'n you ask me.) Record companies tend to leave electronic artists alone, if they sign them at all.

All of that is great. I heartily approve of this business model (unless you're sampling my stuff!). Without getting into the question of whether a DJ is a musician, I will just say that the first two are practically impossible to pull off with a band which contains multiple members playing acoustic or amplified instruments. And once you've gone to all the extra expense of having those pesky instruments involved, going without promotion means MUCH more trouble turning a profit.

Q: How many of the "producers in the electronic scene" you refer to actually have recording contracts with RIAA-member music labels? Rough percentage is fine.

Re:I read the article...

[tnak]

But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution.

distribution is a high expense??? I don't think so. Distribution has gotten cheap. Proof: if distribution is so expensive why are blanks so inexpensive? shipping companies charge less for a blank cd than a pressed one??

Hmmm. I listen to classic rock and old jazz (among other genres). I would think it fair to say that the studios aren't promoting acts that no longer exist. ditto for studio costs.

The real kicker, though, as far as I'm concerned is the cost of cds versus cassette tapes. All of your criteria apply to cassettes as well. In addition, I think that we can all agree that a blank tape costs more than a virgin cd. It actually has to be assembled. So why is the cassette cheaper than the cd?

Re:I read the article...

[natmsincome.com]

It's easy once you see the natural progression.

I've never been into buying music but my brother is but over the last couple of year WHAT we buy has really changed. We used to CD that we'd listen to on the radio. He'd buy them so we'd have the same CD as his friends. About 2 years ago we got cable Internet before that we had some MP3 but we'd get those from LAN parties our own CD etc. Once we could get song quickly things changed.

Before if someone told us about a new song it would "cool" but you wouldn't bother following up unless they made a really big deal now we go home download it and check them out. We now check out ANY music we like the sound of here's some examples:
For about 6 Months after we got cable my brother kept only downloading stuff that wasn't on the radio or in stores (Australia) He'd burn it to CD and show it off to all his friends how told him how cool it was and where ask where he got it from and he'd enjoy bragging about how we had cable and that you couldn't get it in Australia.
Opening song for Roswell - Dido: We bought her CD about 3 months before it went mainstream (Australia's a bit behind). We told our friends about it and then all of a sudden it was on TV radio everywhere.
Opening song for Lain - Boa: I haven't been able to find there CD ANYWHERE for sale (Australia, US, Uk - it's sold out and on indefinite backorder) but they're really cool. As soon as I can get it in Australia I will. Also found out about another BoA with the same name but Korean, which was an accident, but cool anyway.
Opening song for Malcolm in the middle: No idea. I personally never would have checked them out even though it's a cool song but one of my brother's did and they have some really weird stuff but it's cool.
Went through a phase of checking out (Armature Music Videos) and found Rammstein and a couple of other band.
There's also a lot of spoofs, parodies that we've got:
OpenBSD - http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
Counter Strike - I will Survive - http://www.punkassfraggers.com/mp3s.shtml

Got the picture yet. The main point is that how we get music and how we find music has changed. We don't listen to the Radio anymore at home - we have over 1000 songs most of which we have CD of OR can't buy locally OR can't buy because they are one off's like the Counter Strike MP3. Sure we have some MP3 they we didn't buy the CD for and at the start we had more of those than the other but now it's the other way round. I listen to the Radio on the way to work and most of the time I realise how spoilt I am at home. It's not that the songs are bad most of them are good but they are songs that don't offend anyone. If the drive was much longer (10 minutes) I'd probably be bother setting up the Car kit for my IPOD (held out for 1 year)

The radio has no "Weird Al" no "Rammstein" (German) or "BoA" (Korea) or random quotes from "Monty Python" and while I don't listen to them all the time it's nice to have a variety.

I know lots of other people have said this already but that's what they are afraid of: People having a taste in music rather than having a taste based on the music they hear on the radio which the media companies (RIAA approved) can influence.

Re:I read the article...

[xixax]

Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution.

Which cost nothing under a p2p model (as far as the record labels are concerned). Why should they be owed a living when everyone else gets to wither on the vine when technology makes their job obsolete? P2P is more efficient and cheaper than the large, costly, management intensive middle tier it is replacing.

Xix.

Re:I read the article...

[Melibeus]

I recently saw the movie "24 Hour Party People"
Ian Mackay'scheme reminds me of The Factory's no contract contract, signed in blood. The Factory managed to lose heap and heaps of cash...mainly through the nightclub they owned. Still they had a good cash flow. Wothout the sink of the Factory nightclub they might have actually made money. With bands like The Cure, Happy Mondays and Joy Division being successful should have been easy.

Re:I read the article...

[fucksl4shd0t]

There _is_ some good new music out there, Dream Theater is a good example.

How old are you? Dream Theater's been around for like 15 years, dude.

Re:I read the article...

[DeBaas]

But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

So if I start selling french fries for 15 US$ per portion you consider this fair because I ran ads during prime time TV, making each my french fries so expensive. And furthermore it's fair to send have some agency claim that my competitor that didn't run the ads is pirating as he sells them for less?

Of course he can't sell my fries, but charging more than what consumers think is a fair price is bad business and there being punished by lower sales. If you're prices are to high because of the costs: reduce costs!

CD's are to expensive. Why? Because I don't want to pay 20 Euro (prices in Europe are a lot higher) for a CD. I just don't buy them. But I don't download them either! I listen to older CD's (cheaper) radio etc.

Re:I read the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

So why Beatles CD's still cost 14$ sure not because of the studio time spent recording the CD and I haven't seen Beatles promotion for a long time now.

Re:I read the article...

[fishbowl]

"I know lots of other people have said this already but that's what they are afraid of: People having a taste in music rather than having a taste based on the music they hear on the radio which the media companies (RIAA approved) can influence."

It's not at all a new phenomenon. I think we went through an entire generation where everyone besides record collectors realized this. The whole 1970's was about supergroups and then disco (And it also supports my point, but...) when I was collecting records from the 50's and 60's, it was a continual frustration to routinely find large collections of "the records THEY wanted you to buy" which do not happen to be the songs worth collecting.

They've been steering the public towards a limited catalogue since records were first mass-produced. Sheet music collectors say that the whole record thing was just an extension of the sheet music model.

Re:I read the article...

[StrawberryFrog]

His solution is this: No written contracts. Just handshakes

Oh, that's a brilliant idea guaranted to prevent disputes. Not.

Re:I read the article...

[realkiwi]

And $18 or $19?

That is why I don't buy music. And with a "you steal music" tax on each and every CD-R I buy I would be stupid not to "steal" the music that I have already paid for...

Re:I read the article...

[Registered Coward v2]

But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

So if I start selling french fries for 15 US$ per portion you consider this fair because I ran ads during prime time TV, making each my french fries so expensive. And furthermore it's fair to send have some agency claim that my competitor that didn't run the ads is pirating as he sells them for less?

Production costs do not determine selling price - demand does. If someone is willing to pay $20 for a Cd, and there's more profit in selling x copies at that price than X+Y at $15, then companies will (and should) sell at $20.

Or more simply:

revenue - cost = profit
so a company needs to minimize costs and maximize revenue - and to mximize revenue you balance the sales volume and price. If you can't charge enough to cover your costs, you lose money.

Do I think the RIAA is wrong and making some pretty outregeous statements - yes, but they're an industry shill and I expect them to do that.

Of course he can't sell my fries, but charging more than what consumers think is a fair price is bad business and there being punished by lower sales. If you're prices are to high because of the costs: reduce costs!

Exactly - if you don't like a product's price, don't buy it. If enough people stop buying, the price drops or the product dissappears from the marketplace.

Re:I read the article...

[bmj]

So, I think slowly, music is changing. Attitudes are changing. The industry is changing. If I was to say one band has given me more joy over the course of my lifetime, I would have to say it was Less Than Jake. However, I'm seriously considering not purchasing LTJ's new album, because it's being put out by warner bros. records.

I generally stick to independent record labels when I purchase music (and I do purchase quite a bit), but the industry is not changing. Perhaps a few more people are exposed to indie music, but there will still be thousands and thousands of people that listen to the crap that the RIAA puts out. I don't think that'll ever change...not with ClearChannel controlling the airwaves...

I honestly think, in the long run, there are too many people willing to eat what they're given by the RIAA, and pay $21.99 for a CD. But the number of people who know what major labels put bands through and aren't willing to put up with it is increasing all the time.

Why is it that people think that CDs are supposed to be $17 at national chains? WTF? You can buy a burner for $60, and a truckload of blanks for next to nothing, but people still want to pay that much for a CD. I don't understand. Some indie labels are getting right, though. Check out the Jade Tree records site....CDs are $10, and you don't pay shipping. This is the sort of thing the indie labels have to do to prove to the RIAA that you don't have to arrest college kids for filesharing to make some cash and distribute your product.

Re:I read the article...

[DeBaas]

Production costs do not determine selling price - demand does. If someone is willing to pay $20 for a Cd, and there's more profit in selling x copies at that price than X+Y at $15, then companies will (and should) sell at $20.

Or more simply:

revenue - cost = profit
so a company needs to minimize costs and maximize revenue - and to mximize revenue you balance the sales volume and price. If you can't charge enough to cover your costs, you lose money.

That's exactly my point :-) Demand is low because of the prices. And there not compensating by reducing cost or balancing price and volume. They blame someone else.

Re:I read the article...

[Shimbo]

But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

Distribution isn't the problem. In fact, the problem the RIAA has is that distribution is getting too easy, and difficult to control.

Promotion is probably a much bigger expense; however, it relies on the laziness of people. One or two acts I've followed in the past have broken off from big company contracts, and reduced albums on their own labels. The sad thing is that most of the time, even when I *know* I like the artists, I haven't checked out their indie albums. If I was less lazy, I would spend more time hunting reviews/samples down.

In the end the Net has a lot of promise for connecting people to what they want. And maybe the future holds a mixture of bulk, low-margin resellers of content, like Amazon, and small shops where there are people who know and love books or music; and the big high street chains will melt away.

Utopian, perhaps. Next time, I'll be putting my money where my mouth is, though. And I hope you will, as well.

Re:I read the article...

[Patersmith]

Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it? If they lost no money, it would be a great marketing scheme. But they lose money. Not as many people buy CD's.

My theory is that they know what the future holds for them. Their real concern isn't sliding sales, it's that they are doomed to irrelevance. Delivering music to the consumer is their job and they're facing the same fate as the millions of people who have suffered the same fate - their job is being eliminated by technological automation.

It used to be difficult to move music from the artist to the consumer. That is why they existed and that is the value they presented. If they no longer present value, they should not be allowed to exist. Nobody weeps for the buggy whip makers. They are trying to use legal means to enforce the status quo but nobody can stop the clock.

Their days are numbered.

Re:I read the article...

[br0ck]

Here or take your pick at Froogle.

Re:I read the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a copy of the newest QOTSA album ot Target for $10.99. Even came with a bonus DVD.

At those prices, I would probably buy more CDs.

Re:I read the article...

[zerocool^]

Oh, that's a brilliant idea guaranted to prevent disputes. Not.

See, that's the thing. Of course it has the potential for abuse.

But if the band abuses the agreement, in the end they hurt themselves. If you're in the indie punk world, and Ian Mckay is not on your good side, your band is pretty much dead. He's pretty influential (he's in Fugazi, after all).

But the agreement is based on trust. If either party betrays the trust, the deal's off. And keep in mind, it's a much better deal than any band could ever find on a record label: Keep the copyrights, keep the merchandise profits, keep 50% of CD profits. That's just insane.

~Will

Re:I read the article...

[glacial23]

The Cure were never on Factory! They were on Fiction. Perhaps you were thinking of New Order?

Re:I read the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the RIAA treats artists is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE from that of illegal music trading. I wish people on both sides of the argument would stop bringing this into it. It doesn't matter who makes or loses money; even if there were no money at stake, it would still be illegal for anyone to distribute music in this way without explicit permission from the copyright holder.

Re:I read the article...

[StrawberryFrog]

Of course it has the potential for abuse. But if the band abuses the agreement, in the end they hurt themselves

Actually I was more worried about the other way around, ie this bit: he keeps all the proceeds of CD sales until the debt is paid off. Who says when the debt is paid off? In a dispute, possession is 9/10 of the cash. How many times have I heared musicians complain that the record label is witholding money that is really thiers, using some accounting malpractice.

I don't like pages of smallprint legalise, but if the deal is easy to explain in spoken words, it is also easy to write down in plain english and sign at the bottom. You don't have to get lawyers involved, just keep a record of the deal.

Admitedly I don't know the person you are talking about, so it seems what you are saying is that he's also staking his (immaculate) reputation on it.

Re:I read the article...

[evilviper]

if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it?

Why is the MPAA hell-bent against clean-flix, and other companies that edit then resell movies for one reason or another? You can't possibly claim they loose money. In fact, it's a matter of common sense that they would actually make MORE money if they just let people buy editied versions (rather than not buying a movie at all).

How about asking why media companies want the "broadcast flag" in the HDTV standard. They've publicly stated that it will not slow down any serious attempts at copyright infringement.

The answer seems to be "control". They are firmly implanted in their business models, and will do anything they possibly can to make sure they get to decide how, when, and where you will see/hear their content, and anybody else's content for that matter. If P2P is allowed to continue, unsigned artists have a very good outlet for their media, and they don't need to sell their souls, or sign over 99% of profits to RIAA (or MPAA for movies).

Re:I read the article...

[lazn]

Tell me is a DVD more or less expensive to produce?

Because I often see GOOD movies for sale a Fry's for $9.99 to $15.99 this includes more content, often has music videos as extra's and is STILL CHEAPER than the soundtrack for the same movie.

If DVD's can sell for that price, than the way I see it CD's should be $5 to $10. That price I would pay.

==>Lazn

Re:I read the article...

[Scrameustache]

But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music.

Yeah, and I don't want to be the one to pay for the promotion of every stupid pointless formulaic boyband out there!

The RIAA should pay ME everytime I hear an N*SYNC song...they should seriously give me 12 dollars everytime I hear a stupid annoying catchy tune I do not want to hear. They want me to pay for promotion? I want them to die DIE DIE DIE a horrible death.

Its like if spammers were charging us for every spam they send! Its not right dammit! Its just not right.

Re:I read the article...

[cardshark2001]

Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

Whatever dude. The Beatles have made a mint for the record industry, paid for themselves and 5000 other bands already, yet their CDs are the most expensive. Try $17-$20 for a 30-40 year old album. That's just outrageous, and maybe a little out of touch with reality. I'd reluctantly pay half that, but I'd rather listen to my old moldy tapes and LPs than shell out that kind of money. Screw them and the horse they rode in on.

Re:I read the article...

[PCM2]

But if the band abuses the agreement, in the end they hurt themselves. If you're in the indie punk world, and Ian Mckay is not on your good side, your band is pretty much dead. He's pretty influential (he's in Fugazi, after all).

Jesus, man ... so when you sleep over at Dischord House, do you get the left side of the bed or the right?

Re:I read the article...

[sbillard]

So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

Then why are cassette tapes $7.99 or $8.99. Linear media with moving parts is far more expensive to produce than a round piece of plastic with a hole in the center.
Oh. Demand you say? Nobody buys tapes anymore?
Then why haven't CD prices come down if the RIAA is experiencing slow sales?
The RIAA has been screwing us for years. They aren't interrested in giving the people what they want. Hopefully, they will suffer the fate of the corrupt middleman - which they are. Those prices you mentioned are not fair. The popular music being released is not worth it.
The artists are entitled to compenstation for their works of art. The producers are entitled to compensation for production. The stores/sites are entitled to make a fair profit. But $13 or $14 is not fair. Not even close.
The system will work itself out and the RIAA will end up very different than it is today.

Re:I read the article...

[danila]

I never bought a CD. I bought only a couple of audio-casettes a LONG time ago (most of them pirated). But I do download pirated music. So what? I don't _need_ music. If it wasn't freely available, I would not listen for it. I would really (honestly) be able to (gasp!) live without it, as I still regularly do for long periods of time.

To me the song isn't worth 1$. May be it is worth 0.01$, may be even less. So by not buying them I am not depriving anyone of any significant income.

Re:I read the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, with the first I-dunno-how-many Dischord releases, ALL of the money made from the discs went back into the label to help fund other bands. however, now, i think that the profits from any given Fugazi album (buy them all) and the Minor Threat discography basically keep the label afloat. plus, you don't just sign up for a dischord release, ian actually has to like your band, and you have to be from the DC area. Dischord's been around since like 1980 or 81 and functions quite well, putting out great music with great production and, well not being insanely profitable, like the RIAA labels, Dischord's still around.

frankly, maybe this is the end of the old "multimillionaire rock star" concept. maybe people really dedicated to music will just register an mp3.com account and get normal jobs. it works for me. mp3.com will press your CDs for you, put them together and ship them out to a buyer (for a cut of the price).

that's not to say there won't still be record labels. i run one myself. there just won't be huge, unstoppable corporations like sony and warner in the biz anymore. it just won't be profitable enough for them anymore. lack of profits never stopped any musician i can think of. long live music, not corporate welfare.

Another artist who has been banned by Ebay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Veronica Moser is also another artist who could not sell her own merchandise on Ebay, but her story has not been as publicized as Mr. Ziemann's. Her plight is very interesting, to say the least. Hopefully with a recognition from a website such as this may help her in her situation.

Re:Another artist who has been banned by Ebay.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe I've seen some of her work?

Re:Another artist who has been banned by Ebay.

[Anonymous Coward]

for gods sake, look at the link before moderating!!! nice troll btw :P

Songs? more like singles...

[nfg05]

I wouldn't really say all songs are ads for CDs, singles are ads for CDs. An advertising practice of giving away your product would certainly help boost your units shipped, but as for the revenue ahhhh.... no. This is a great idea tho, imagine if you just got some free McDonald's food whenever the burger commercials came on TV. I mean after all that burger is just an advertisement for errrr.. the burger so jus give it to em right?

Re:Songs? more like singles...

[Anonymous Coward]

Singles aren't ads for cd's, they're usually the only thing worth listening to on the album.

Re:Songs? more like singles...

[slycrel]

Doesn't Krispy Kreme give out free samples? (IIRC, free glazed doughnuts...?) I'm pretty sure they're not hurting for it. Not that it's a fantastic comparison, but still.

Re:Songs? more like singles...

[tfoss]

I mean after all that burger is just an advertisement for errrr

Ironically enough, your example is a good counter-example. When I did my fast-food time at mcd's, I asked the manager about this. 'How can you make money on those deals?' (it was $0.25 for a big mac deal specifically). He told me that the sandwiches are there mostly to get people in to the store. They make the majority of their profits on drinks & frys.

-Ted

Advertising?

[cperciva]

that songs are really just ads for CDs, and thus should be freely traded

By the same logic, rental cars are just advertising for the automobile company, so we shouldn't have to pay to rent cars. And apples (the fruit, not the computers) are just advertising for apple trees, so we shouldn't have to pay for apples.

Re:Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your skills at logic are not astounding.

Re:Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can copy a car as easy as an MP3, let me know.. actually let the auto companies know, they are DYING to get their manufacturing costs down.

Your apple tree analogy totally went over my head though, care to elaborate? I have an apricot tree in my back yard, am I depriving the apricot growers of america their income? No, on second thought, don't answer that.... the laws are so fucked up these days....

Re:Advertising?

[mountain]

Your logic is equally flawed.

In the case of copying a song, after the fact we have n + 1 copies of a song.

In the case of tangible goods, after the fact we have n - 1 tangible goods.

Re:Advertising?

[BrainInAJar]

FUD watch time.

"rental cars are just advertising for the automobile company"
No. Rental cars are like rental movies. You're paying to watch it for a limited time in it's whole glory. More appropriate, Test driving is like mp3's. Shitty quality (some smelly dude in a cowboy hat riding shotgun w/ you), and you don't get the whole deal (try taking a test drive up to 160 clicks... they don't like that).

"apples (the fruit, not the computers) are just advertising for apple trees"

Okay, what the hell are you talking about? Let me try to get some kinna logic out of this
...
Okay, so apple trees produce apples. And bands produce music. So if the music is advertising for the band, you shouldn't have to pay for it (the band). I dunno, but have you ever tried to buy a band? and i mean an entire band, not just a CD... Why not walk up to Lars Ulrich and say to him "lars. I want to buy metallica. Yes. the whole band.". He'll probably break your teeth. So the apples thing makes no real sense. Apples are the product, CD's are the product. You aren't getting CD's for free, you're getting shit quality samples of the CD, sans cover art, etc.

Re:Advertising?

[unsinged int]

By the same logic, rental cars are just advertising for the automobile company, so we shouldn't have to pay to rent cars. And apples (the fruit, not the computers) are just advertising for apple trees, so we shouldn't have to pay for apples.

Rental car companies don't sit their cars out on the street with the keys in them and invite anyone to drive them. If I'm driving a rental car you cannot be driving the same car. If I eat an apple, you cannot eat the same apple.

But in the case of music, they put songs on the radio so everyone can listen. As heard on a radio, the songs have inferior sound quality to CDs and are essentially advertisements to go buy the CD. The mp3 quality is somewhat higher, but still not equal to that of a CD. I could also record directly from the radio. Songs really are ads to convince people to go buy the high-quality CDs.

Re:Advertising?

[PunchSix]

Rental cars and apples are physical product. Data is not. Data is ephemeral like the concept "chair".
Data duplication approaches free. The comparison does not work.

Re:Advertising?

[rainmanjag]

You ought to check your logic again.

Songs are intellectual property and sensory experience. Both can be infinitely replicated with near-perfect fidelity at *zero* cost. Thus the cost of duplicating a song (either by digitally copying it or by playing it for somebody else to hear) is zero or at the least negligible.

Rentals cars are not intellectual property. It costs money to buy each and every one they rent to you. It costs money to insure them. It costs money to maintain them. Thus the cost in using the car is *not* even close to zero. Apples require labor and resources to grow, harvest, distribute, etc. Their production and reproduction cost is also not zero.

-jag

Re:Advertising?

[geekoid]

"try taking a test drive up to 160 clicks... they don't like that"

man, don't I know it.

Not sure what freaked the guy out, drivin 160 clicks, or the fact that I did it in 20 minutes.

Re:Advertising?

[BrainInAJar]

0-160kph in 20 mins?

Lameass car. No wonder you didn't buy it.

Re:Advertising?

[moncyb]

By RIAA logic, the internet is just a device for copyright infringement, so it should be banned. A CD burner is a device for copyright infringement, so it should be taxed by them. Encryption is just a device to hide copyright infringement, so it should be banned.

Unless of course they want to use those devices to run their businesses or for a DRM censorship system, then it's okay.

Re:Advertising?

[r00tdenied]

I think he was refering to clicks as in distance.

Re:Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

" (try taking a test drive up to 160 clicks... they don't like that). "

You have a reality assumption there that I tested once and was disappointed when it did not hold. I went to a bmw dealer looking like a hippy. More or less as a prank. But I got the exact same treatment I would expect if I'd been wearing armani. After letting them xerox my license, I got to take a 5 series for a hard test drive. The guy encouraged me to drive it hard. I understand why people like their bmws now -- it's not just a trademark; the suspension is amazing.

Re:Advertising?

[MartinB]

Um... car companies *do* sell their cars to rental fleets at a discount, in part to ensure exclusive fleet deals. Whether or not the rental companies pass the discount on to you, nothing to do with the car company.

I've certainly bought (and emphatically *not* bought) cars based on my experience with rentals (or as I call 'em, extended test drives on $employer's dime).

Re:Advertising?

[91degrees]

I think that if you were offering car rental for free, or free apples, the apple growers and car manufacturers would let you.

I would be impressed with a business model of how this could be achieved.

Re:Advertising?

[Mordaximus]

"By the same logic, rental cars are just advertising for the automobile company, so we shouldn't have to pay to rent cars."

That's hardly a fair analogy. Something more to the point would be test driving a car before buying it; You have to bring the salesman along. It's a watered down experience compared to what you could do once you own it. But it is 'advertising' the product. When's the last time you paid to test drive a car?

"And apples (the fruit, not the computers) are just advertising for apple trees, so we shouldn't have to pay for apples.",

The company that sells the apple trees probably wouldn't object to giving a prospective customer a free apple before the customer has to commit to buying the tree.

Funny thing is though, and hardly off topic, if the RIAA were in charge of apple trees, we'd all have to buy an entire apple tree even though we only want one apple.

Re:Advertising?

[cperciva]

Something more to the point would be test driving a car before buying it

If the RIAA could give out free "test drives" of their songs, they would. That's part of the motivation behind DRM -- they want to be able to let people test drive their product, without actually giving away the product itself.

In the case of both rental cars and apples, we have a case where an unlimited supply of the "advertising" eliminates the motivation to purchase the "advertised" product. Self-rightous slashdotters aside, *most* people would not go out and buy a CD once they already have the unlimited ability to listen to all the songs from that CD.

Re:Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck kind of crack are you smoking?
Wait.

Rosen?! Is that you?

Re:Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators:
Lay down the bong.

Re:Advertising?

[Firedog]

Better get a license for that apricot tree.

"In 1941, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates completely. A farmer named Filburn was fined by the federal government for growing 461 bushels of wheat, when the Agriculture Adjustment Act allowed him only 222 bushels. Even though Filburn used the excess only on his own farm for feed and for his families needs, the Court ruled that he affected interstate commerce, and therefore came under Congress' regulatory jurisdiction." - Source: http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0063.html

This is also the legal foundation for the Fed's "authority" to criminalize marijuana, by the way. Other than this interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, the Fed has no constitutional authority to regulate or prohibit marijuana produced and consumed entirely intrastate.

Re:Advertising?

[Firedog]

In Europe, I have seen rental cars that have advertisements for the rental agency all over them, and while they're not quite free, these do rent for much lower rates than normal rental cars.

The agency name is easycar.com (and since I'm providing free advertising for them via this post, I expect a commission check shortly.)

Re:Another artist who has been banned by Ebay???

[hhknighter]

I might be entirely out of the loop here, why would Veronica Moser or other artist banned from selling on ebay? If the music is their's and the creation is copyrighted to them, what's to stop them from selling or giving it out for free?

I am not sure I understand the entire situation...

Exactly...

[Stalemate]

I think that's what I was trying to say above before I ran out of stack space :)

you CAN'T HEAR the diff b'twn an MP3 and a CD???

[Anonymous Coward]

who are you kidding????????

Actually, no...

[Stalemate]

The word inferior is subjective, so the idea that mp3 is an inferior copy is an opinion and anyone is free to disagree. One may find mp3 to be superior because there is no noticeable difference in quality while there is a huge savings in space.

It is all subjective.

If you'd like to learn more about P2P software

[bigberk]

I recently wrote this paper for a university class, describing the basic architecture of Gnutella and Freenet, to offer some technical insights into how these P2P networks tick. I think it's a good read, if you have a chance :) Personally, I gained a new appreciation for these systems while doing the research. Conditions of use and abstract here.

What I wish people could see is that P2P networks don't have to be about illegal content, just as FTP and IRC are not just about warez. Reliable P2P can become a core internet technology of the future. Imagine fast downloads of just about any large media (e.g. slackware CDs, public domain broadcasts/recordings, etc.).

Re:If you'd like to learn more about P2P software

[UnixRevolution]

We need not imagine. This article shows that P2P can be better than real downloads. Red Hat 9 subscribers paid $60/Yr to download the ISO's directly from redhat, and were recieving them half as fast as those who used the free P2P client BitTorrent. Yay for P2P!

Re:Another artist who has been banned by Ebay???

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure I understand the entire situation...

She's a "scat queen"; ebay doesn't sell porn. What's not to understand?

You are icky

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really.

The real reason for the music industry's sales

[mabu]

We all know why the music and entertainment industry is in a slump. It's not P2P or piracy...

It's the public's insatiable appetite for BOY BANDS and VIN DIESEL MOVIES!

We need more! These fine artists are simply not producing enough content to satiate the public.

There are still a few television shows that have not been made into feature-length movies. There are still more country tunes that need to be written about rodeos and lost love. How about an epic triology featuring Garfield? What's with the lull in "rogue cop" screenplays? I need MORE talking animal movies featuring Eddy Murphy! It's been almost a month since Tupac released an album! Hollywood! Are you listening??

Will the industry get it? I guess time will tell.

Re:The real reason for the music industry's sales

[cranos]

How about an epic triology featuring Garfield?

This might not be a bad thing, it's either this or another bloody three Star Wars Movies. Episode Nine - The Price Gouge.?

Re:The real reason for the music industry's sales

[The Zody]

actually with the release and popularity of chicago, i think the movie biz is going to be undergoing some changes...Tupac as the phantom of the opera anyone?

Re:The real reason for the music industry's sales

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Tupac as Blacula? He's dead enough to play the part.

Re:The real reason for the music industry's sales

[evilviper]

How about an epic triology featuring Garfield?

Now that one, I LIKE!

How many times

[djupedal]

Do we have to keep going over this?

• The RIAA is just a shill for the music industry at large.
• This is an industry that is used to gouging customers and wielding strict control over releases.
• They consider themselves at the top of the food chain, and fight anyone that intrudes into their territory.
• They consider customers as sheep to be shorn.
• They consider themselves above the law, even so going so far as to believe they can make the law.

Anyone that hasn't grasped the fuedal relationship between the music industry and it's customers by now, isn't going to get it at all, so further 'evidence' that there is a problem is just so much more sand on the beach.

Stop buying music from retailers, such as Virgin & Tower. When those art deco shelves start collectiing dust, the retailers will scream and the predators will be forced to acknowledge the problem. Until then, things won't change....regardless of how many more anecdotes we have about who/what/when/why piracy exists.

Re:How many times

[Steven Blanchley]

They consider themselves above the law, even so going so far as to believe they can make the law.

They can make the law. Ever heard of the DMCA?

Re:How many times

[Technician]

I think it's funny they still haven't tried to find the sweet spot of bang for the buck. They have been out of my league for quite a few years.

I like yards with hot tubs and decks, but I am also doing without that. Like many people, I'm on a budget. I shop for value (quality at low price, not cheap junk). I want quality. I don't buy something just because it's cheap. My test equipment is quality. Many overpriced non-essentials are left on the shelf. Piracy has nothing to do with it. Given the choice of a 1 hour audio recording, or a 2 hour prime movie at the same price, the audio recording lost. The movie industry found the spot the audio industry refused to look for.

Re:How many times

[1029]

Wow, this is scary. The exact same points can be re-written slightly to describe our (US) gov't.

- The President is just a shill for party politicians.
- This is a govenment that is used to gouging citizens and wielding strict control over freedoms.
- They consider themselves at the top of the food chain, and fight anyone that intrudes into their political gain and power.
- They consider citizens as sheep to be shorn.
- They consider themselves above the law, even going so far as to believe they can make the law.

Well ok, that last point is only half scary, they are supposed to pass laws, just not consider themselves above all the laws. But the alarming trend is that they make laws to keep themselves in power, not to help the public.

Anyone that hasn't grasped the fuedal relationship between the music industry and it's customers by now, isn't going to get it at all, so further 'evidence' that there is a problem is just so much more sand on the beach.

s/music industry/government
s/customers/citizens

Guess it only makes sense the music industry (and others) act this way. They see the government do it every day with great effect, and the people of this country are yet to do jack about it.

Re:How many times

[fishbowl]

"Stop buying music from retailers, such as Virgin & Tower. "

I think we did do that. That's why they're screaming. It may be that they have found a false cause in the internet file trading culture, or it may be that they are right.

The only thing that will force "Them" to address other causes, would be if a competing industry overtakes the record industry. Poetic justice would be for that industry to be born from file swapping networks! But it would be sufficient if many independent productions would become more successful than anything represented by the RIAA... It would be a nice coup d'état if they were explicitly anti-RIAA...

But that's a pipe dream... I mean, if you could make a 250 horsepower alternative fuel car, you would see the oil industry collapse. If you could compete with the record industry on another playing field altogether you could overtake it...
But is it going to happen? Who's actually working on it?

Re:How many times

[fishbowl]

>Ever heard of the DMCA?

YES! That was proposed, passed, and ratified by people you and I have elected at various times during the last 30 (!!) years.

Didn't vote in every state, local, and federal election since you've been elegible? Guess what? YOU ALSO ELECTED THEM! Didn't take every opportunity to contact them WHILE THEY WERE LOCAL POLITICIANS WHO ANSWER THEIR OWN PHONE? Don't expect them to listen to you in Washington if they didn't meet you at home.

Re:How many times

[albanac]

• They consider themselves above the law, even so going so far as to believe they can make the law.

Accurately. One of the downsides of 'democratic politics' is that politicians require funds to work, and can therefore be bought. The RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, Oil interests, etc, do make law.

~cHris

Re:How many times

[Anonymous Coward]

All good points, but how does any of this change the fact that it is illegal to make non-fair-use copies of copyrighted material without permission?

Re:How many times

[realdpk]

They require funds to get elected - not to work. The government funds that once they're in, eh? I mean, it pays their salaries and their assistants salaries and all that.

PARENT LINK IS SCAT PORN! MOD DOWN! THNX!

[Anonymous Coward]

How does RIAA influence CD/DVD sales?

[stj]

Has anybody done any research how the rate of CD/DVD sales increase/decrease changed after RIAA started its actions?

I understand that the purpose of RIAA is to increase the multimedia industry (the big ones) profits. Now, in my opinion they didn't start very well:

They started off with lawsuits against students - are they really counting on those students paying off any possible sentences? Com'on - they will file bankruptcy (if they lose that is) right after walking out of the courtroom.

I believe those lawyers at RIAA charge quite a bit for that stuff - does it really increase the profits?

Who is actually gonna be encouraged to buy anything from those guys (that is CD/DVD business) if everybody has a hangover after their actions?
Somehow I don't see those bilions of dollars flowing into the industry crooks' pockets...

Re:How does RIAA influence CD/DVD sales?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been boycotting new RIAA releases since January 2000 (with fewer than five exceptions). I used to purchase at LEAST a CD a week (making me one of their better customers if I go by their own revenue statistics), and often more.

That's what SDMI and similar "initiatives" did for them.

Re:How does RIAA influence CD/DVD sales?

[Giant_Pepperoni]

The real reason for the existence of the RIAA is to file lawsuits. They are not a music-protection union, they are a lawyer-work-generating mill. They file suit for everything. They draw up legal contracts for new blood^H^H^H^H^H artists, they file lawsuits against everyone and sundry, they draw up contracts to get J-Lo and Britney to whore Pepsi and Blockbuster, they are NOTHING BUT A MAKE-WORK LAW FACTORY.

Once you understand this concept, the RIAA behaviour makes sense. Lawyers do not CREATE anything, their only means of EXISTENCE is by the SUFFERING of OTHERS. Like the mosquito, flea, tick, and other parasitic organisms.

Everyone shakes their heads in amazement and says "why didn't they change their business model?" When the answer should be obvious. They CAN'T because that's NOT WHAT THEY DO.

They sue Napster. Napster has no money, it folds. They sue ISP's. Some money there, but they have lawyers too. Now they sue Universities (who hate bad press, so they pay up) and students. HEY STUDENTS! YOU BOUGHT HILLARY ROSEN'S LUNCH! HOW? GUESS WHERE THAT TUITION FEE INCREASE WENT!

Cater to the public? Give them what they want? Please. These cretins brought us Vanilla Ice for god's sake. Thinking they'll change (even to make money!) is like getting a hyena to give up meat. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

I'd also like to point out that LEGAL FEES are a SIGNIFICANT part of any artist's "expenses" in dealing with a label. Forget the studio techs pulling in $80,000 a year, how about the weasel who charges $250 an hour to get you to sign your soul over? You realize at that rate he gets paid $8 to take a PISS? $12 if he washes his hands afterwards...

Re:you CAN'T HEAR the diff b'twn an MP3 and a CD??

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hear it, but don't think that the difference is worth $19.95 for 45 minutes on a media that is a real PITA to use.

I hope

[arvindn]

... that this guy gets a lot of publicity, and more people buy his music, sending a signal to other artists that there are a lot of people out there who don't buy the RIAA's BS. Of course I'm not saying anything about sending a signal to the RIAA, because those thickheads have repeatedly shown that they can't take a clue even if it jumped up and bit them in the face.

Re:I hope

[mabu]

Interesting that you say this, because Michael Moore in his latest rant claims that the "backlash" from his Oscar comments have resulted in more sales of his products and greater attendance of his movies. He also says the same thing happened to the Dixie Chicks, in contrast to the media reporting boycotts.

Riaa exempt from the economic downturn?

[Ksigpaul]

Has any one else noticed that we are currently in an economy where consumers don't have much trust in the market and therefore are saving their money? I have, but still I hear about Riaa being upset about not getting every sent they think they should because people are file sharing. Last I checked, they still have artists going platinum. People like me still buy CDs regularly to support artists. Platinum means the artist sold a ton of copies of the CD.Profits = ((million * 10.00) - bottom line And we know artists only make money on their concerts b/c the recording companies take all profits from CDs. So what's RIAA's problem? Fact of the matter is people just wouldn't be listening to the music if we had to pay 15+ bucks for a CD. Not many people can afford 5 cds a month for a bill of about 70 bucks. We're in a crappy economy and the music industry still has millions of dollars worth of sales. Sounds to me like they are just greedy, but I guess I just don't understand accounting.

Re:Riaa exempt from the economic downturn?

[SystematicPsycho]

s/sent/cent

Indeed the economy would have something to do with it. This works in two ways, investor says music sales are taking a hit due to the sluggish/hawkish economy. RIAA says music sales are taking a hit because of P2P etc. The RIAA might as well use sluggish sales as a weapon to go after P2P regardless of it being true.

Re:Riaa exempt from the economic downturn?

[r00tdenied]

Well this is what they have done in the past. During the height of Napster they claimed they had been losing sales but the truth was that they had more CD purchases than ever.

Re:Another artist who has been banned by Ebay???

[mesach]

Thats what this whole arguement is all about. the fact that these artists are selling THIER copyrighted music on CD-R. Ebay is banning them purely because it is Music on CD-R and it "must be pirated, there is NO other reason to have music on CD-R!"

NOT SCAT PORN, BUT ARTISTRY

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post of this is sorely mistaken.

another thing: convenience factor

[Scudsucker]

I like having instant access to my music collection and I hate swapping cds. I can hear any song I want in a couple of seconds, or play my whole collection constantly for a couple of months without hearing the same song twice. Reaching that capability with a computer is very cheap, but very very costly if you want to be able to do the same thing with cd changers.

Re:another thing: convenience factor

[fucksl4shd0t]

I can hear any song I want in a couple of seconds,

Must have a pretty small collection. ;)

Re:another thing: convenience factor

[Scudsucker]

Yeah yeah, so 60 gigs is nothing to write home about these days. :)

why CDs cost so much

[dirkmuon]

Ziemann wonders how he can manufacture new CDs at Discmakers for $1.89 each, yet the record companies charge $12 wholesale and still claim to make no money.

I don't doubt that making CDs cost the big companies a great deal. Read Mixerman's diaries to see why.

The music industry has inherited from the movie industry a fetish for "technical" (studio) perfection. "Smithers, fly in that mastering engineer from New York to work on those two tracks." The level of waste is mind-numbing. It is a culture that conceals the scarcity of creative ability in the companies represented by the RIAA.

One can spend millions of dollars to produce an album which will probably be a commercial failure. One could also have handed Lennon a guitar and turned on the cassette recorder. Then you'd have something worth buying.

Re:why CDs cost so much

[schnits0r]

The reason it costs so much is demonstrated by a simple equation.

12.00
-.25 (artist royalties)
-.50 (Blank CD)
-.25 (To make up for piracy loss)
______
$0.00

What? The math doesn't add up? But it worked for Enron.

Re:why CDs cost so much

[geekoid]

" One could also have handed Lennon a guitar and turned on the cassette recorder."

is that a soviet russia joke in disguise?

Re:why CDs cost so much

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree record companies sometimes waste wads
of money on pointless stuff when making an
album. But, I think you have cause and effect
backwards. Companies waste money producing
albums because of the high price of albums,
not the other way around.

With today's technology, if you really want
to, you could make an album of stunning
technical quality for $50,000 actual
engineer costs.

As for the high-priced producers, etc.,
if that's part of what the customer wants,
then fine. I personally would rather have
an acoustic guitar singer-songerwriter
tune than some crap analog
modelling synth dance tune, but others
would disagree. And, since music is an
aesthetic experience, I would prefer
that acoustic guitar tune to be recorded
with close to the best possible audio quality.
Lennon on cassette recordeder would be good,
but Lennon on 24-bit, 96kHz with a good
mic preamp and really good quality
microphone (and/or pickup) all run
by somebody who takes a few minutes to
experiment with mic placement, etc.,
would be way better.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

OE©Ü½BfO[ÅB

Idiot moderators!

[jonr]

Take a look at that link before you moderate, you idiot!
J.

Why I buy less music

[Pofy]

I know why I buy less music than, say, 10 or 5 years ago. The reason is simple, I buy more DVDs and I go much more to the movies. In addition I find myself going to a few more concerts now than back then. Al in all, I have a limited budget for entertainment and if I spend more on one thing, I have to spend less on something else (well, my budget IS a bit larger these days, but not big enough).

I recently read that DVD sales were up a LOT here in Sweden, no wonder something else goes down. BUt that can't have anything to do with it, can it?

I know how the RIAA can make money

[sandbagger]

Get a nice, big, fat US government contract estimating how many weapons of mass destruction there are in Iraq.

(PS MP3s are for convenience, not quality. I have no trouble paying for a CD because I get to hear a good quality recording as opposed to an Mp3 with half the information missing.)

Re:I know how the RIAA can make money

[CrazyDuke]

I think they are planning on getting the former Iraqi minister of (mis)information to head the RIAA after Rosen resigns this December.

On music and 'advertising'

[freeweed]

Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music.

Huh. In the good old days (and golly gee, today even!), people found out about new music through things like the radio, MTV, and (when you get a little older) what's playing in the clubs.

All 3 venues require payment to the copyright holder in order to play the music.

No thanks, I'd prefer not to be paying $14.99 per CD just so some marketdroid can install a 20' high cardboard sign telling me that the new Britney Spears album really IS the hottest album in the US.

How RIAA does stats

[hhknighter]

Stat Person: "How many Britney Spears CD did you buy?"
Consumer: "None, I don't like her songs"
-Marked as pirate

Stat Person: "What is your current occupation?"
Consumer: "Student"
-Marked as pirate, twice

Stat Person: "What was your last Xmas gift?"
Consumer: "a 32x CD burner"
-Marked as pirate, 32 times

Stat Person: "Why are you returning that CD?"
Consumer: "It won't work on my computer or my Discman"
-Marked as pirate

Jokes aside, Filesharing obviously does put somewhat of a dent into business. Given, there are people out there unwilling to buy regardless of source. However, not being the extreme, it is possible to capitalize on this massive market. Given at a reasonable price and great availability structure, I can vision people buying their music in ways of files rather than CDs. I am convinced that it's their persistance to resist the trend that led to their losses.

Filesharing is a catalyst, not a problem or solution. If they can harness the idea into a structure, it's a solution. If they continue to ignore where technology is going, then it's a problem (on their end). Someone else will capitalize on that market.

Re:How RIAA does stats

[stj]

Right, only current technology is somewhat flawed. Let's see - I can buy and download copyrighted content, then I have to download the key. If I lose the key, sometimes I can recover it within a short period of time after the content was sold to me, sometimes I can't. Who wants to buy into stuff like that?

So, to protect myself I'd rip that content right away after getting, so if I happen to reinstall Windows because of some stupid bug in it, and happen to have the copy of the content, I can still play it. Also, I can play it then anywhere I want (like I can now with a CD that I own) for my pleasure.

So, they happen to kill that with DMCA. Great...

Before we get a copyrighted content distribution system that doesn't require all that hassle, forget it. But there is no existing solution that would be scalable to millions of users and achieve availability of CD. In short words, the days of copyrighted protection by the way that originated from printed books is over. Either we come up with a different system of supporting artists (that doesn't necessarily rely on the very good will of the customer), or the industry can say bye bye to profits from CDs. They will still have DVDs (because that barely pays off to rip) and royalties from broadcasting. Is that really so bad?

Re:How RIAA does stats

[geekoid]

"Given, there are people out there unwilling to buy regardless of source"
then how is that a loss? If I copy a song I would not, or could not, buy, how much has anyione lost?

Re:How RIAA does stats

[hhknighter]

"then how is that a loss? If I copy a song I would not, or could not, buy, how much has anyione lost?"

I guess then the question can be thrown back at you this way:
How much did you gain? Nevermind how much I lost, how much more do you have than the second before you obtain a copy? Since your question is rather vague in terms of just sheer gain versus loss.

Re:How RIAA does stats

[fucksl4shd0t]

If I copy a song I would not, or could not, buy, how much has anyione lost?

I lost my car, I lost my tree,

Because you stole my cash from me.

Yeah, nerkle-boy, I can play the Dr. Seuss game too.

CD Baby / Half.com

[Landaras]

It was mentioned prominently last time we discussed the RIAA, so I'll throw it out again.

Support independent music you can listen to before you buy at cdbaby.com.

The great thing about CD Baby is that most artists there have at least four streamable songs (in mp3) per disc. You get to listen to the first two minutes of each song, and I don't have a problem with this (as opposed to the full song). Why? Because the indie artist doesn't make me feel like I'm the enemy for listening to their music before paying for it.

A feature that I also like from CD Baby is that you can search for indie artists that are similar to a national artist you know. That helps get you moving in a direction you're comfortable with.

For those of us who are trying to wean themselves off the RIAA but haven't yet kicked the habit, I recommend half.com (owned by Ebay). As an example, I recently got into Tori Amos. (Regardless of how you feel about her music, you do have to admit she's talented and original.) I picked up her latest CD a few months ago because it had 70 minutes of music and it cost me $10 new. I found myself really liking it, and willing to look at her other work.

Now, I could go to Best Buy and drop over $100 picking up the major discs of her backcatalog (5 discs plus a 2 CD-set), or I could go to half.com and get the same discs (albeit used) shipped to me for a grand total less than $30. As long as I can get a decent rip off the used discs, I don't care about their condition.

Between CD Baby and half.com, I really don't see myself buying many new discs from RIAA artists.

Waiting for CDR Tariffs.

[penpen]

At the moment I don't pirate anything as far as CD or software goes. But I'm waiting to see if a CDR tariff gets imposed in Australia, since "everybody" pirates music there should be one imposed.

When they do so, I'm going to pirate every single one of those cd's from those record companies that get revenue from blank CDs. After all I think it's only fair that if you live in a country that has these "taxes" on blank CDs that you get the music that you rightfully own since you're actually paying for it.

Re:Waiting for CDR Tariffs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse: what about when you have to pay the recording industry for music that YOU wrote and YOU own? This happens at my church. We have a great band (music director got tired of touring, but has a platinum album), and many in the band have written original tunes. We sometimes record performances of the original tunes with a CD recorder deck, but if we do we have to use the special audio-only CD-RW's to do it.

That's right, someone writes an original tune and wants to record it to CD, and because of the rights-restriction "feature" of the CD deck we bought, we MUST PAY THE RECORDING INDUSTRY A FEE TO RECORD OUR OWN MUSIC! Because, obviously, the only music worth recording would be something that came from the recording industry. Right? Of course. It's entirely impossible that someone super-talented might just want to record their own stuff to CD. So they can listen to it later or play it for their friends, you know?

The thing that really pisses me off about this (other than the fact that my church has to shell out cash to some greedy folks in Hollywood just to record our own worship tunes) is the arrogance. The assumption is, basically, that nobody can produce something worthwhile without the help of the major players in the recording industry. That's just wrong. It's a lot like people who tell you about some great software, and you ask whether it only runs on Windows, and they don't even know what that question means. It's ignorance (willful in the RIAA's case) that any alternatives even exist. It doesn't just apply to churches, either. It screws indy labels and indy bands too.

New Video Game Statistics...

[dnevins]

I just heard on NPR that video games sale just surpassed CD sales, which I would say is an important consideration. I know I spend more time playing video games than listening to CD's and just a few years ago it was the other way around!

Songs Are Ads for Albums .... For Sure!

[aSiTiC]

Notice to all Recording Companies!!

In my case, and to many I know, I download songs and based upon my opinion of them I by entire albums. I don't know why the RIAA hasn't hooked on to the mp3 as a commercial idea yet.

But, I actually have they want to prop up all the terrible artists... don't want to name names, but there are many, many obvious choices.

Just remember...

[interactive_civilian]

If your pirate ship uses some sort of steam powered engine instead of sails, it is actually counted as 4 ships.

Ships with nuclear reactors count as 8 ships.

Re:Just remember...

[Saeger]

Ooo.. ooo.. what about my nuke-u-lar catamaran?

--

One word: BitTorrent

[Styx]

Ok, I guess that some might consider that two words, but ever since I downloaded RedHat at the maximum speed of my ADSL, while RedHat servers were overwhelmed, I've been a fan.

Take a look at f.scarywater.net for BitTorrent goodness.

Read the whole argument for what it is

[eighthevachild]

before refuting it. "Depriving people of income" is worlds away from slaughtering Jews. No matter what personal morals a person may have, most people follow the code of ethics dictated by society. This includes the shunning of those who would kill others, but is a little fuzzy on things such as stealing things electronically. When the imposed societal morals catch up with the times, maybe then everyone will share the same views on mp3 sharing, but right now, this falls under personal morals, not the umbrella of the ethics of society.

Re:Read the whole argument for what it is

[Evil Adrian]

When the imposed societal morals catch up with the times, maybe then everyone will share the same views on mp3 sharing, but right now, this falls under personal morals, not the umbrella of the ethics of society.

So enslaving black people in the pre-Civil War era would fall under personal morals?

Re:Read the whole argument for what it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, EA, you've gone through three levels of argument, and in each case your logic has been impeccable. You have provided three logical conclusions to which your opponents' arguments would inevitably lead.

Unfortunately, it appears that your opponents are incapable of thinking logically. Thus they can't see that, in principle, their conclusions are the same as your examples, and the differences are only a matter of degree.

But your original post was correct. The creation belongs to the creator. If a musician wants to share his music for free, then that is his right. And if he doesn't, then that is also his right.

These "I make my own rules, and I'll take what I want" turkeys would return us to the law of the jungle.

A car is not the same as a song

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are using a car, no one else can use that car.
But if you are using an mp3, that does not preclude other people from using it.
Maybe you should use the preview button.

Songs as Ads.

[serial_crusher]

The argument that songs are ads for the CDs is incredibly stupid. Take movie prviews for example. Sure, that 45 second trailer is an ad for the movie. But is my 2 hour DivX file an ad? No.

By the same accord, One or two songs can be considered as ads for the CD if the artist and lebel agree to it. But when all songs are available illegally with little consequence, morality is the CDs only advertisement.

I think Americas ISPs should be required to deny service to users at the copyright holder's request. Then just have a big machine that searches for various songs, downloads them from all possible users, compares the downloaded file to the actual song, and sends a DoS request if the file matches.

I'm not talking about the RIAA DoSing them in the traditional "ping them to death" sense, but rather they could just send a letter to the ISP saying "This IP address is a criminal, please deny their service."

Such a system could easily be designed with a very small probability for false positives (and in the event of a false positive, the RIAA would give you a pretty fat check as an out of court settlement).

This will encourage people to use file sharing services responsably. Love it or leave it. You steal from us, you get no more internet access.

Re:Songs as Ads.

[UnixRevolution]

First, i don't necessarily agree that a song is an ad for a CD, but just as a 45-second clip of a movie is part of a movie, even a FULL song is only part of a cd. that having been said, how could your IP system work? where would this machine look for songs? How would it download them from a user without having the connection drop/having the user be suspicious that all 400 of his mp3's are being uploaded at once? Where would the RIAA get this kind of bandwith? How would it compare the mp3 to the actual song? would it decompress it to WAV? would it encode the actual song to mp3 at certain bitrates and search for that? and as for IP, that works until the IP of the user is changed, which if you're on dialup is about every 10 minutes. Then you get a new ip when you sign back on. unless you mean it looks for that person's UID with their ISP...and i don't even know if that's possible. Oh, and the whole settlement check thing, i thought the idea of the RIAA was to make money, not to hand out thousands to people for wrongful internet access denial. not a troll or flame, just a request for clarification.

Ummm...the economy?

[suzerain]

Excuse my French, but why the fuck doesn't anyone ever talk about the economy?

It seems to me that the RIAA's sales drop also seems to coincide with the dot-com bubble burst, the Terror attacks, and the lack of sunsequent economic resurgence.

I know that, as a resident in New York, freelance work has shriveled up -- if I hadn't had personally satisfied past clients who wanted to work with me again, I would have had to move. Quite frankly, we just don't have money to piss away on CDs right now, even if we didn't want to boycott the assholes at the RIAA.

I just want one reporter to, like, ask them why they think the economy has not had a deleterious effect on their business?

All this bullshit about MP#s being an ad for CDs, and so forth is just that: bullshit, IMO.

Two things are going on: (1) the economy sucks; (2) CDs are becoming obsolete.

Either way, the RIAA has no argument.

Re:Ummm...the economy?

[The Cydonian]

Actually, the RIAA has done some pretty interesting research on downturns and entertainment. A few days back, I was at a seminar by a media tech professor who was also a Bertelsmann consultant, and he told us this:- industry research suggests that music-buying goes down just as the economy is getting out of a recession.

Which, technically, should be good news for people like you and me. Just that, important to remember that the RIAA isn't complaining a decrease in sales; it's complaining of a decrease in growth of sales. Similar sounding, but entirely different.

Re:Ummm...the economy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you mean:

>> Excuse my freedom, but why the fuck doesn't anyone ever talk about the economy?

Re:Ummm...the economy?

[jimbo00000ooooo]

I think the problem is one of economics and reproduction.

I think the entire RIAA could be eliminated tomorrow, leaving only the recording artists, equipment manufacturers, studios, and listeners. I think that would reduce this excessive profiteering and make the world better for everyone...

except the employees of the RIAA. All of them are getting paid to do a job that does not NEED to be done, from a global standpoint at least. Their children are fed off of their salary. I think that the job they do creates no virtue in this world, and improves the quality of life only for themselves, their families and other RIAA employees.

There are plenty of other obsolete jobs in this country, that could have been replaced long ago by automation or computation. Think about cashiers or clerical workers. This is not to say that the workers of such jobs are in any way inherently inferior to anyone else, but the jobs they are doing are USELESS. In the short term, from a government's perspective, the decision makes sense to keep them employed, as it keeps our GNP higher.

But in the long term, you have to recognize that we are killing ourselves here. We are filling landfills with useless garbage that nobody wants. THIS SHIT DOESNT FALL FROM THE SKY, WE ARE CREATING IT!! There is a giant stain of brown shit emanating from New York City. It's visible from Sandy Hook in NJ. Its half as big as the horizon and cannot be denied. It is a direct result of misapplied economic power. Here are some other examples of such power misapplied:
-- war
-- the white cardboard in twinkie packs
-- sneakers with lights on them
-- every goofy useless plastic toy(get your kid a basketball or something)

Keep this up and our landfills will become our homes, then our graves.

It is absolutely up to us to change our own fate. Do what you can, value your own work, hear and be heard.

And please try to reproduce sparingly.

No link?

[zzzmarcus]

What? No link to RIAA.com in the article? geez y'all are losing your touch...

Missed a free chance to try to Slashdot their servers again.

What really got me

[lvdrproject]

Quoth the article:

So think about this. As the original research I conducted indicates (and has been verified by SoundScan via BusinessWeek.com), the record labels began to reduce the number of releases BEFORE the Napster hearings. When they went in front of Congress to complain about downloading, Hilary Rosen could confidently state that sales were going to suffer.

Because it was engineered.

I don't understand why nobody's commented on this yet. This has some pretty big implications, doesn't it? I'm sure they can shoot it down just as easily as anything else, but if this can be proven somehow (or even if just a couple respectable firms agree on it), this would make a nice dent in the RIAA's argument, and might even get the unwashed masses to start thinking about the people behind that shiny new Britney Spears CD.

Old Song or It's all about control

[DeadWizdom]

People don't realize that durring the explosion of radio the recording industry went nuts as well, citing bad sales and tried their best to destroy radio entirely. Once they embraced it, however, they got richer and richer and richer...

But the issue to them isn't really the money that they claim they lose; it's the control. You see the recording industry is trying their best to keep us all in a world dominated by the MTV, not the MP3. In the world of MTV they can rely on certain things that will sell, they can even go so far as to control fads to control what will sell. With the MP3, that's all out of their hands.

Ofcourse the first record company to figure this out gets the capitalist prize!

I never buy CD's anymore unless

[BigBir3d]

I think it has something truly worthy / interesting. Something like the Johnny Cash cover of Hurt. A great song (NIN originally) done by a great artist. The newest Britney or Justin or whatever the RIAA tells me to buy? I ignore that stuff. It's the same junk that has been spewed out since I was a kid. Think about "alternative" music... how can it be that if everyone knows / buys the album? I realized a while ago that most new musics sucks, and I have reacted accordingly.

Re:I never buy CD's anymore unless

[brundlefly]

That was a Nine Inch Nails song? Cool!

I'd just kinda figured NiN had recorded a Johnny Cash cover twelve years before he decided to sing it.

Example from another industry

[ArtHack]

It's interesting to take a look at another industry that is dealing with similiar issues... that of book publishing. While I don't think that eBooks are quite as popular as MP3 and other digital music formats, publishers are still grappling with the question of "piracy" and deciding what affect that has on book sales. One publisher, Baen (publisher of SciFi and Fantasy) has been experimenting with making selected volumes of their library available freely (in a fairly wide selection of formats), going so far as to package free eBooks on CDs with some hardback editions of popular authors. Many are available free on their website

You can read the details at their website, but what they did was allow authors to voluntarily put books in the "free library" and they seem to be happy with the results. Oddly enough, people read the free eBooks, and wind up either buying the paper copy or other books from the author once they determine they like it! Surprise, suprise... There's also a good article comparing what Baen is doing with the record industry also.

Re:Example from another industry

[riflemann]

Remember - any concerns over "book piracy" are vastly less worrying than that of CD copyright infringement. Anyone who obtains music illegally can very easily listen to it via the same means as the legal copy - with headphones via a burned cd, etc.

OTOH, not many people want to read a book on a screen - it's much better reading it in a bound paper copy, and few consumers have the means to create these from something they downloaded. Or at the very least it's time consuming and expensive.

Re:Example from another industry

[albanac]

An example from personal experience. I discovered the author David Weber by browsing Jim Baen's free library, and reading four of David's books. By the time I had finished the second, I was convinced, but couldn't afford new books just then.

My finances resolved, and shortly after that 9 Weber novels showed up at my door.

Ebooks work.

~cHris

conspiracy theory...

[kidlinux]

Maybe the RIAA has purposely slowed their own sales by hiking prices and signing fewer artists. This gurantees slower sales and RIAA starts using filesharing as a scapegoat. Once all filesharing operations are shut down, RIAA steps in with a for-profit system; since it is now the only shop in town, people just go with it and pay for music on a song by song basis. RIAA charges more inflated prices but customers don't notice since one song appears much less expensive than a whole album.

I find it difficult to believe that they havn't clued in on how filesharing would make a good business model.

o_O

He's right - MP3s are just ads

[dalangalma]

Mp3s are ads - and they're what small bands need. Small bands typically get heard in the following way - people hear them at shows. Then their CD gets bought at the table. That means that only people who live in the area (and attend shows) hear stuff.

In contrast, a band with a web site and free downloads means that anyone wandering by can hear what they sound like, and hopefully order a CD off their website. That's what's happened to my band, The Girls - We've gotten fans in ways we never thought possible given the relatively few gigs we play in the Pittsburgh area. For example, a friend of ours posted a link to one of our free MP3s to his MMORPG message board - within a day we had lots of new CD sales and signups to our mailing list. We get random emails from people from all over. That couldn't happen if we only got exposure playing live, and it certainly couldn't happen if we didn't offer people completely free downloads (no DRM or anything).

Limiting resources

[Anonymous Coward]

The one single problem is that the government and corporations of America do not understand that the world is not the same world it was 40 years ago. The introduction of computers and widespread use of the internet has completely changed the world. There's a small excerpt from a paper (on McLuhan) that I wrote a while ago, and I think it describes what's happening fairly well...

The lack of specific moral guidelines for media is a problem, though, especially because information is increasingly becoming a prime commodity. People are forgetting, or not realizing, that information requires participation and completion to have meaning, and are beginning to think in terms of incompleteness. Intellectual Property (IP) is the term used to 'mark' an idea as belonging to someone - but exactly what can be coined as IP is incredibly vague. The concept of labeling information as valuable property is a validation of 'the content is the message', and only serves to limit the exposure of the content. This is because the digital age has allowed one to copy and alter seemingly anything. The moral dilemma of 'stealing' is no longer an issue, because nothing is being removed - information is simply being copied.
The digitalization of media has therefore enabled people to spread information without having to worry about the initial creation being depleted. Essentially, digital media allows the production of never-ending resources. Copyrights and claims of intellectual property can be seen as artificial limits on resources, a way of maintaining a capitalistic view, where the ruling class can limit the use and creation of information. Thus, the usage of digital media has quickly reached the step where executives and corporations are attempting to direct the flow of information, realizing the potential the media has to drastically alter our perceptions of the world and ourselves.

RIAA

[NoRemorse]

im just waiting for them to go after people using the legal p2p services such as napster ....

Record Labels Announce Anti-Piracy Breakthrough

[ShamusYoung]

Record labels have a new secret weapon that will make piracy impossible.

I have also noticed

[teamhasnoi]

when sales are down in the auto industry, there is not talk of outlawing walking.

Why does the RIAA get special treatment/attention/laws passed in their favor? They KNOW what people want. People want:

Good songs
The abillity to pick and choose individual songs from a huge diverse catalog.
The abillity to listen to those songs on their chosen device.
The abillity to backup, create mix CD/tapes/8-f'intracks, and store/index their songs.

I'm sure there are a couple more, but that's what comes to mind. The RIAA KNOWS this. How can they not?

And yet there is no 'solution' in sight other than lawsuits. Sure, there are a few sorry tries - all held back by expense (1.50 song?) and value (oohh - 30 artists from the 70's!)

As a musician, when mp3s were first rearing their head, I recall thinking, "Wow. No more Rock 'n' Roll Stars." and being tripped out and scared by that thought, as that was what I had devoted myself too.

Now, I realize that there are still ways to make $$$ being a musician, it's just different.

The RIAA enjoys its stature as *the* place to go for music. Rather than compete with value, they have taken the low road with lawsuits and poor laws.

Sure, there are some issues with copying, but then again there always were. I used to get tapes from some 'records for a penny' club, copy them and send them back.

I don't anymore, but there isn't really anything worth copying. I buy vinyl at garage sales. Most music from the RIAA is rehashed from earlier times; I own the albums that influenced most of the good artists of today. I don't buy CDs (and haven't for 5-7 years), even though my wife works at a place where I can get many for 5 dollars. I don't have a giant mp3 collection. Perhaps one or two songs from 20 artists (give or take). I don't support the RIAA, with $$$ or otherwise,and since they aren't troubling with supporting an artist's career longterm, why should I be so worried about what happens to them? How many records from the Backstreet Boys will you see at garage sales or thrift stores in the next few years? Compare that to Beatles records.

Supporting the artists means sticking with them. You cared enough to sign them, where are you when the first record doesn't do as well as you hoped? Sure, it didn't go multi-platinum, but is that the artists' fault or yours?

Someone posted a great post right before me, lambasting the 'lowest common denominator' music and movies we as the lucky public are allowed to see. Read it after you're done rambling with me.. ;)

Buy the Jayhawks new record. (it's great) And make it your last.

Re:I have also noticed

[ShamusYoung]

Yes, asking for new laws to deal with people pirating music is like Wall-Mart demanding the national guard come in to search shoppers to deal with rampant shoplifting.

Sorry you're being robbed and all, but stop messing with my rights as an individual and a consumer.

But, as has been pointed out all over this thread, this website, this community, and the whole stinking internet: sales are not down due to piracy, they are down because the quality of the product is low and people now have access to other sources of music.

And because I think it's funny, I'm mentioning this again: New UCD is ultimate weapon against piracy.

Re:I have also noticed

[Turbyne]

when sales are down in the auto industry, there is not talk of outlawing walking.

I remember hearing somewhere that during the automotive boom in the early 20th century, GM was buying up trolley lines and immediately shutting them down. In the past you could get to any Boston suburb by train/trolley. Now it's either a car or a 3-hour walk.

Re:I have also noticed

[DarkVein]

• Good songs
• The abillity to pick and choose individual songs from a huge diverse catalog.
• The abillity to listen to those songs on their chosen device.
• The abillity to backup, create mix CD/tapes/8-f'intracks, and store/index their songs.

Okay, I'll bite.

I think anyone with at least a modicrum of IQ understands this. The direct problem is that corporations do not have IQs, they have people who run them, and the big-cheese of the RIAA have a lot of people that run them.

To put it another way: Musical recordings, songs, lyrics, accompanying video, and trademarks, are all potentially valuable intellectual property. That is, they're valuable assets to the rich, potential income, retirement collateral, virtual wealth. The Big-Five own a lot of this IP. Copyright extensions mean that this vault of IP wealth has aquired a deep-rooted stability. Consequently, a lot of wealthy people invest in these corporations, to build their asset portfolios. The result? The Big-5 are million-headed hydras, who can not control their own assets. Beside the point, I feel I should point out that many of these assets physically rot before the copyright expires, because IP is percieved as eternal-until-public-domain.

So, my point is that you have two things impeding these corporate mammoths from mobilizing in the face of change. First, these corporations do not have the power to act independantly of their shareholders. Second, IP is the backbone of rich fools, and they deathly fear anything that can undermine the value of their assets.

As to the second, you can see where laws like the DMCA and the Canadian (and soon to be American) Media Tax come from. The rich, mostly unorganized and unenlightened about technological improvements, finance and lobby for laws that will [not] protect American financial assets (IP), and thus the economy closest to the average politician, who is an almost always an investor.

This is a "natural" course of events in a capitalist society, but it's about as natural as a blood clot or a cancer. Idealy, such a situation will kill itself off. When the stock market crashed [which it has done repeatedly since it came into being], each time, a massive number of novices invested poorly, without interest in the material of their investments, and without vision of what they were investing in, beyond money. This is what has happened to the massive backbones of the RIAA. Now see, the few bright people running the big-names have very little control over their company's policies, and more agile, privately owned companies are springing up to fill the economic void the corporations are physically incapable of ever delivering. What will prevent a stock market crash is that 1) these companies will probably go public, and 2) Music IP is still not the live vein of the US economy, despite what lobbiests want believed. I believe these smaller corporations, cdbaby and theendrecords, for instance, will save both music and that domain of the economy. Musicians couldn't care less about the later, despite the unfortunate dependancy.

I'd like to advance another theory, while I'm at it. As I said, normally a healthy capitalist society would eject such a malady as the present Music Oligopoly. Each of the Big-5 aquired telecommunications companies in its past. Telecommunications companies posses government-granted monopolies. Economists fear monopolies because of how drastically they damage capitalist economies, and there is good evidence to support that fear. Monopolies were granted to telecom industries to advance both public and economic welfare. Those companies were aquired by companies whose profession is the buying, selling, and leasing of limited monopolies [IP]. I think there's a very important fact to be had here, it deserves a study. Aside, I think it's obvious enough tha

You don't deserve a reply, but here it is...

[eighthevachild]

are you daft? Your comparisons make absolutely no sense. Society progresses through the realization of past mistakes, and no, the enslavement of Africans was a matter of societal ethics. All matters of morals and ethics is subjective to the times you live in, as I see this as horrible, but people in the south pre-civil war saw it as perfectly normal and essential to their way of life. This has absolutely nothing to do with mp3 sharing/pirating, stop making absurd comparisons.

Re:You don't deserve a reply, but here it is...

[Evil Adrian]

How is it absurd?

people in the south pre-civil war saw it as perfectly normal and essential to their way of life

While I doubt most people see mp3 trading as essential, they CERTAINLY see it as perfectly normal, with utter disregard to the rights of the copyright holder.

Society progresses through the realization of past mistakes, and no, the enslavement of Africans was a matter of societal ethics.

So millions of people participating in what amounts to a giant scam isn't a question of societal ethics? Then what the hell is??

Re:You don't deserve a reply, but here it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

> All matters of morals and ethics is subjective to the times you live in...

That is one of the most frightening and evil ideas I have ever heard.

In some parts of India, women are thrown alive onto their husbands funeral fire. But since it's part of their tradition, you are saying that it's all right.

In some parts of China, girl babies are drowned because boys are preferred. But it's part of their tradition, so you are saying that it's all right.

Lynching a black man in the old south? Killing white farmers in today's Zimbabwe? Imprisoning children, and torturing men and women to death in Saddam's Iraq? All okay by your standards.

It may or may not surprise you to learn that your "all morality is relative" idea is what German philosophers were teaching prior to the rise of Naziism. Thus, when bad things happened, the people were intellectually disarmed -- all they could say was, "I wouldn't do it, but who am I to argue with society?"

But the West was originally founded on a different philosophy. Our rules of right and wrong -- as exemplified in British Common Law, The American Bill of Rights, and so on -- were based on the idea that morality is rational.

If you start with the idea (perhaps an axiom) that the life of an individual human is important, then it leads logically to ideas like freedom, justice, a prohibition of violence (except in self defense), trial by jury, free speech, and so on, including property rights.

So your philosophy scares me, because it would mean an end to our civilised rule-by-law society, to be replaced by a brute force "anything goes so long as a large number of people feel the same way" society. You would replace the jury with the lynch mob.

But what scares me even more is that I know the schools are teaching the same moral relativism that you espouse.

Re:You don't deserve a reply, but here it is...

[KiahZero]

Wow... your abilty to take something *completely* out of context is absolutely amazing.

Context is what this is all about, btw. Basically, the whole point of moral relativism is not that all moral systems are equal (what you seem to propose), but rather that you cannot judge the absolute morality of a situation from within a different moral system.

For instance, your example about India. I believe that is a horrible thing to do. Is their a possibility I'm wrong? Of course.

Another example: Is it entirely possible that I'm wrong, and Christianity is right? Of course.

It is *impossible* to see absolute morals from within a moral system. There will always be distortion... remember: the truth doesn't have to be logical.

I respect musicians...

[PompousAsshole]

...but to be honest, i wouldnt listen to music very often, if at all, if i had to pay for it. I understand the ethics of the subject, but the argument that record labels are loosing money from piracy doesn't hold for much of the pirating population. If the music industry wouldn't make any money off of me because i wouldn't buy cd's how are they loosing money from me now... since i wouldnt have given it to them to begin with.

I often see that people argue the point that others are not like me and would have purchased these disks had they not been downloaded, but what about the music that was purchased because of people file trading and services like audioscrobbler [audioscrobbler.com]. The RIAA wouldnt ever consider factoring that into their statistics before congress, so why should we as consumers respect their demands.

Furthermore, the portion that the artist/group recieves from record sales is pennies on the disk. If for every cd you downloaded and enjoyed you sent a five dollar bill to the musician and not the record label you'd be doing the artist/group a big service. Now, again i already hear the cries of those who will say that the labels deserve the money too, but i say that they can afford a little studio time, and what they do make off record sales far from breakes even. Lets face it... those profiteering gluttons deserve a smack in the face for their raping of the nation.

Once again, I ask Slashdot

[teamhasnoi]

to make the out-of-date, taking up space, obsolete, unrewarding Radio Section that has not been touched since

Friday, June 29th 2001

into a wonderful place to review and discuss new and old music and artists that *do not* support the RIAA.

It seems that every /.er listens to music, and would welcome the chance to push their favorite band, song, or albums available on the net.

Besides, as a place that is (usually) current, shouldn't the sections reflect that? Perhaps /. could even get a kickback...(wink wink nudge nudge)

Who's with me?

Re:Once again, I ask Slashdot

[buzzcutbuddha]

Alright, I'm in. I'd welcome the chance to find out about more musicians who are download-friendly, and|or against the RIAA.

Music reviews would be a good thing too. We have book reviews, why not music reviews?

Re:Once again, I ask Slashdot

[_xeno_]

Probably because the Radio section is devoted to the Slashdot radio show Geeks in Space - which is dead. (They can't produce it any more since they no longer live in the same states any more.)

Hense, the section has effectively been retired. I suppose it could be repurposed, but I somehow doubt that will happen. Besides, a new section called "music" would make more sense.

Part of the problem....

[telstar]

I'll leave the "is downloading illegal" argument alone, but part of the problem is that the music industry has failed to introduce any notable download service to compete with what consumers have come to expect as a way to obtain their music.

I'd guess that music companies currently spend millions, if not billions of dollars, trying to figure out how to get their music in the hands of consumers ... yet here the consumer is telling them that they want the ability to download electronic copies of the songs. Out of fear of what the impact of such a service could mean to their bottom line, the music industry has failed to answer this demand ... and instead, has reacted with lawsuits. The result -- Consumers continue to download, since there's not a legal alternative answering their desire to get their music online.

I'd guess that if the RIAA's strong-armed legal tactics were introduced side-by-side with an affordable online music-download service, they'd see that a large population of users wouldn't mind paying for a well-marketed digital distribution service. Right now they'd rather spend their time trying to get the genie back in the lamp instead of cashing in on what the consumer is telling them they want.

Re:Part of the problem....

[kamapuaa]

I'll leave the "is downloading illegal" argument alone, but part of the problem is that the music industry has failed to introduce any notable download service to compete with what consumers have come to expect as a way to obtain their music.

I don't think this is an insightful comment. Pay music download sites have been a huge flop. One could argue that it's because the music range wasn't as large as could be asked, but people still use Gnutella, and the music range on that is ridiculously small. It comes down to, there's no possible way to have a sucessful for-pay music download service, when users download the same music for free.

Music sites aren't crazy. And the history of media shows, the best thing that can happen to profits is people buying the White Album on a new format. If it was possible to make money selling MP3's, they would.

Re:Part of the problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay music sites have never been widely promoted, nor had the same selection of artists that you can find in a store or on a free MP3 network. Why would somebody shop at a store (or worse yet, pay a subscription fee) to a service that only has a fraction of what they're interested in?

before napster...

[eevoo]

people traded music, i got started with FTP and IRC then napster came along and all of a sudden everyone is doing it. Before it took someone who knew how to use FTP and IRC and where to go to find things, now that all these P2P programs are out there any idiot can get music or what not. No matter what happens to the P2P programs people will still trade music, it will just be the people that did it before all the P2P crap.

I do believe slashdotters are finally waking up

[almound]

****Here's what I wrote a few centuries back (11/02):

Reading the replies here, I begin to see now why the tech bust hasn't been over long ago. If you let the company use you like a whore, you will be treated like the whore that you are and you shouldn't expect any better treatment. Unfortunately, the replies to this inquiry confirm that some people don't mind being scabs (i.e. temp workers brought in to obviate the need to hire workers full-time).

Consulting is one thing, but I draw the line when the client is the company that layed me off in the first place ... then discover that they really do need somebody around to actually do the work (an indian, not a chief). And as for consulting, well, the fees are pretty stiff.

We made a ton of money back during the 90's. Use the freedom that that doe gives you to resist this kind of exploitation. I do.

Otherwise, it will just be more of the same old, same old. You can count on it. Stop being a whore and think like a responsible human being. Make the companies understand that there are consequences for their actions. That when they hire you, it is a partnership which requires some responsibility to you on their part.

Stop acting like a co-dependent spouse (you know ... "battered spouse" syndrome). Have a little self-respect, otherwise the tech industry will never develop into a profession, on a par with other engineers and architects.

****But my words were all in vain ... and now those who wouldn't listen are chiming in, agreeing with me when I wrote (02/03):

The honeymoon is over, people. Unfortunately, I am coming to the realization that the battle is lost already.

...

I was a fairly well-paid computer professional from 1994 through 2000. But a sickness overtook the computer industry. It is a sickness imposed by forces which during the same time period tried to impose similar types of maladies on the health care and legal professions. Unfortunately, the computer industry (being in its infancy) was more susceptible than the others. Without strong professional organization and fraught by endemic sabotage by mega-corporations from within, the computer industry was doomed to succumb.

Currently, I am enrolled in a mathematics course of study which will degree me in Statistics, and am changing my profession out of the computer technology field altogether. For those still brave enough to tough it out under the current conditions:

May God have mercy on your souls.

****Read 'em and weep, people. Or else, organize. But you're too cool to be doing that. So, go code yerself an egg.

However, you may still be asleep.

[teamhasnoi]

I think you posted this in the wrong thread. ;)

Feh

[Srin Tuar]

Just because there is precedent doesnt make it any more right.

Comparing copying to piracy was as stupid back then as it is now. It was likely done for the shock value of the term pirate, which was probably an even more loaded word back then.

Youve just proven that its both old and stupid.

Dissemination of ideas can never compare to annexation of physical matter.

Re:Feh

[DragonMagic]

In your logic, it's stupid to consider something evil "sinister". After all, it originally meant that pertaining to the left, or left-handed. Because using your left-hand predominantly centuries ago was alike casting out God and accepting the devil. This is how sinister came to be "evil" and "wicked". So, since it's not the original meaning or intent, but just twisted, we should stop using it because it's stupid and old.

Or, you can realize that languages evolve, add meanings, drop meanings, and otherwise grow as people accept terminology. And piracy was a term meaning infringing of copyright or patent long before you were born. Accept it.

Re:Feh

[scot4875]

Languages evolve over time. Deal with it.

Or are you going to insist that all geeks find a different moniker for themselves, because 'geek' is a derogatory term?

--Jeremy

Re:Feh

[fishbowl]

"Just because there is precedent doesnt make it any more right."

Well... actually... under the US system of laws, the precedence is indeed what makes it right.

Perhaps it does not make it right for your own ethical system, but I'm afraid it does make it right, legally.

"Dissemination of ideas can never compare to annexation of physical matter."

But the analogy is not that simple, and that statement does not actually sum up the spirit of copyright law. Do you mean to suggest that there should be no laws respecting ownership of creative content?

I agree that the word "piracy" is not a reasonable characterization of the issue, but I also think it would be better to focus your energy on the actual issues, instead of following the red herring of language idioms.

Re:Feh

[radish]

I know, I mean comparing a highly addictive derivative of cocaine to a thin gap running down your bedroom wall, or for that matter a part of the anatomy is just plain silly. It's probably done because of the shock value associated with shoddy building practises. And as for free beer and free speech, well don't even get me started.

Words have different meanings - it's a fact of life. Sometimes those meanings are related sometimes they're utterly unrelated. Sometimes you can see why the same word ended up being used for both things, sometimes you can't. But (and this is the important bit) the meaning of a word within a language is whatever the person reading it takes it to mean. If it says that illegally copying CDs is "piracy" in the OED (and it does) then for most people, that's a valud meaning of the word. It does NOT imply any relationship between that and any other use of the word.

Re:Feh

[HiThere]

I have never, and never intend to, eat a live chicken.

So I can't be a geek. It's not worth the entrance exam.

Re:Feh

[evilviper]

I know, I mean comparing a highly addictive derivative of cocaine to a thin gap running down your bedroom wall, or for that matter a part of the anatomy is just plain silly.

In all fairness though, there is quite a difference. First of all, with the word "crack", you can easilly tell the meaning by the context. If someone says that they were arrested for selling "crack", there's very little room for interpretation. "Piracy" is a legitimate term, that can't really be used anymore, because the slang term has been used so often, and is used in the same context as the real term.

Re:Feh

[Anonymous Coward]

When a slang term gets used often enough, it ceases to be slang. That's simply how languages evolve. And since the 'Arr matey!' variety of piracy isn't quite so common anymore (of course it still happens, but you get the idea I hope), the assumed meaning will be the 'slang' version. Quite correctly 99 times out of 100, I'd bet.

This is all as pointless as the hacker/cracker arguments. Despite what the MLA might think, language is defined by the masses. If everyone starts using the word 'bumblesloops' to refer to ducks, then they are bumblesloops, not ducks. Disagreeing with the new standard will eventually render you unable to communicate with others...which is the point of language, I believe.

Re:Feh

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you can realize that languages evolve, add meanings, drop meanings, and otherwise grow as people accept terminology.

Try telling that to your English teacher when you use the word "they" as a gender-nonspecific 2nd person singular pronoun (that is to day, using "they" instead of the more correct "he or she").

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either all words have well-defined, unchanging meanings, or English teachers would agree with you.

Re:Feh

[radish]

Slang? It's not slang, it's been used that way for longer than the USA has existed, it's in the OED - neither of the uses for piracy we are discussing are slang.

And as for telling the difference, try this:

"They were arrested for selling crack". Could be drugs, could be prostitution.

"The pirated CDs were seized by the police". Plainly the copyright version of piracy.

"The ship was taken by pirates". Ooo-arrr me hearties!

Both are equally confusable/not confusable IMHO.

Tupac is in witness protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Tupac isn't dead I see him all the time. The government has him put up in a small town in Tennessee. I saw him at the county fair eating funnel cake and he got powdered sugar all over his face but he didn't have a napkin. Then he lifted up his shirt to wipe it off and there was the "Thug Life" tattoo. My jaw nearly hit the ground.

I went up to him and was just chit chatting to see what he did for a living, etc... Just trying to draw out information. He claimed to have recieved an inheritance and moved from chicago to live on a farm in the country. I finally gave up my rouse and told him I knew who he really was. At first he was a little set back and claimed people told him he looked like that guy all the time.

I was finally able to assure him that I would not be posting this to slashdot (sucker) and he owned up to being Tupac but I should continue to call him Mitch. He has been making recordings since 6 months after his death through a studio in Atlanta.

He seemed like a nice enough guy...

Re:Tupac is in witness protection

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me of the time I met Natalie Portman, and it turned out she was an 83 year old Puerto Rican man with *lots* of makeup. True story.

CDBABY

[Gulthek]

C'mon people, get with the program!

CDBaby is one of the few online stories that really get it.

• They give musicians a big cut of their sales
  
• they have awesome recommendations
  
• you can listen to 2 minutes from 4 tracks of the CD
  
• you can return the CD if you aren't happy with it!
  

I left RIAA music behind a few months ago, why not try and do the same?

Amen to that!

[Steven Blanchley]

I make music currently as a hobby, and I am amazed to what lengths even independent musicians will go in order to make every sample sound exactly correct. I have known them to spend hours making changes that are hardly even noticeable to me, and I have neither subaverage hearing (at least not significantly) nor poor speakers. Sometimes the final mixing actually makes things sound worse.

True story: I once challenged an independent-music-making friend to remix a certain song within 30 minutes. When the time was up, he sent me something, but warned me that it was very rough, and he was going to work on it some more later. I listened and thought it sounded great. I told him it was awesome but he insisted on fine-tuning it.

More than two hours later, he sent me the edited version, which had a zillion new effects added and all the instrument sounds changed slightly. The new version sounded awful! It was completely bland and flavourless. That wasn't only my opinion; I sent the rough version, which I had saved, back to my friend and he even agreed that it was better!

So 30 minutes of work created an excellent product, and two hours turned it into total crap. This is what happens on an extreme scale in the music industry. No wonder they're losing money.

Why CD sales are down

[Animats]

The surprising thing is that CD sales are only down 9%. Consider:

• Music now competes directly at retail with DVDs, music videos, and video games. Most stores that carry any of those carry all of them.
• Most of the radio stations in the US are now owned by Clear Channel or Infinity Broadcasting, which play the same old music over and over again.
• Everybody has already converted from analog vinyl to CD.
• We're in a recession. All discretionary spending is down. Cars and air travel are doing much worse than music.
• Concert attendance is down about as much as CD sales are down.
• Rock music tanked a while back, and nothing since has a similarly broad appeal.

With all this, it's surprising that CD sales aren't down something like 50%. We may yet see that happen.

Re:Why CD sales are down

[hhknighter]

Amen to that

"* Music now competes directly at retail with DVDs, music videos, and video games. Most stores that carry any of those carry all of them"

Seriously. 17 bucks + tax for a Justin Tumblefake CD Frisbee and target board/booklet, I might as well as buy some classic games where the replay value is greater than 1

"# We're in a recession. All discretionary spending is down. Cars and air travel are doing much worse than music."

Very true. Although I definitely would like to see the Travel business blame piracy for their financial downturns.

I might go as far as add another point, the RIAA has gone real far in terms of getting their voices heard. And partially, I think that has turned quite a few people against them. That's just speculation; but I see more and more people aware of them in a very negative way, and that might contribute somewhat...

Re:Why CD sales are down

[puetzk]

well, widespread piracy would surely be bad forcruise lines :-)

Re:Why CD sales are down

[tuxedobob]

You know, I really wish I worked for a travel company, because that's a great idea. I'd love to see an airline saying that people are stealing airplanes and that they should look on college campuses to find them. Or ground all the "independent" flyers, citing lost revenue for commercial airlines.

Re:Why CD sales are down

[ahrenritter]

Weekly Piracy Report

The solution to boost sales: lower prices!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi

Small addition to the common 'CD's are too expensive' rant.
Since I live in Hong Kong I buy CD's again. Mainly VCD's (movies), and I buy lots of them.

VCD's: including American movies, cost me just over USD2 per film (usually double CD). Or three for US$4.88. Truly legal copies, as far as I can judge. I am pretty sure they are legal as HK does enforce copyrights, and it is bought in the shops. They are technically same as normal CD's, same case and everything. Top-films are more expensive, US$6-8 per VCD. Buy them on DVD, and you have to double this price (US$15-20).
Mind that the cost here might be a bit lower, it is still including of recording, promotion, distribution and everything!

CD's: US import costs here USD15-20. I don't buy those, only second hand. Chinese pop music on hte other hand costs USD2-6 per CD. And that is including recording, distribution, promotion (they promote heavily!) and everything. US and EU of course are more expensive, though USD3-8 per CD is realistic I think. It would easily triple CD sales, thus cutting the cost of promotion and recording on a per-CD basis.

Then we go across the border to mainland China. The infamous pirated CD's and DVD's. Yes, I sometimes buy a DVD there to see if it is worth watching the film in cinema (nothing beats the really big screen). Usually that American crap is not worth it. Even the latest James Bond did not pass the test.
Cost of a CD: USD1.5-2. That is production plus distribution plus retail margin (they are sold in the normal shops). The cost between the pirated and official copy is obviously the cost for "recording and promotion".
Cost of a DVD: USD3-4. They are obviously more expensive to produce. Mind that the competition is strong (there are at least five versions of every film in the shop), so these prices are really the rock bottom. Production of DVD is obviously higher than of a CD.

Maybe the US cartel police should have a look in China, and see what the true cost of production and distribution of a CD and DVD are. And then look back at the record companies. And wonder what makes up for the high prices...

Wouter.

The problem is not free-ness, it's quality

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is not afraid of someone hearing the music for free. They do that already. They are truly afraid of higher quality copies circulating.

Back when Napster started many people were still on 56k connections and the quality of mp3 encoding technology left music garbled and undesirable.

Now that we have faster lines and bigger hard drives we can get digitally perfect copies of the music in the same amount of time. A whole cd encoded with lossless compression only takes up about 500 mb. I download that in an hour on a good day. With bittorrent it's assured. With a few 200gb hard drives that's nothing, I can fit several full quality cds and not even notice I got them.

Now in warez channels they're not uploading 100mb copies of movies they were doing 3 or 4 years ago, they're uploading full DVD isos, ready to be burned on a now $1 DVD-R.

When there is no difference in quality between the authentic and the hack, when there's no difference in quality between the digital master and the consumer copy, the problem is not so simple anymore. There needs to be a digital distribution system, but it cannot be in the hands of the people at that point.

what an example

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

What a shame, that album was otherwise full of croaking post-mortem monotone.

Glad I didn't buy it (a co-worker of mine had that "pleasure")

Re:what an example

[Anonymous Coward]

get a life, kid.

Re:what an example

[BigBir3d]

That is why I made no mention of the rest of the album :(

RIAA's members don't sell music

[thogard]

They are selling CDs (and soon DVDs). Their aim is to move large amounts of cheap plastic into the stores. Thats all they care about. No one here buys stuff from the RIAA members, they just buy it from the record stores who are the customers of the RIAA members and what they want conflicts with what the end customers want. Now that anyone has the ability to edit music in a home studio that will sound better than most of the well done stuff made in expensive studios before the 1980s. The result is there is too much music for the record stores to deal with. Remember, they don't sell music, they sell small bits of plastic. They have to inventory them and arrange them so customers can find them and deal with moving out old stuff to make room for the new stuff and there is just too much new stuff. For example a radio station in Melbourne Australia had a contest where any local band could enter and 3000 bands sent in entries. If there are 3000 bands in listening area of 4 million people, I'm guessing that there is 3 bands per 4000 people that can make a CD per year. Now how many unique cd's are in the local record store? They can't cope with that many new CD's every week. Thats the problem that needs to be fixed. Come up with a way to do a record store were you can have more than 100,000 albums in stock and then the current RIAA cusotmers dry up and they will go away.

Not that law...the other law

[djupedal]

The one says that demand will encourage supply....not the other way around.

Like where Ford makes one less SVT Lightning pickup than consumers want, and price it so it will sell.

Oops, I must have hit the wrong reply-to link

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post was in reponse to post #5725679 by eighthevachild.

DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where DRM comes in. Maybe we should have a system like napster but all files are basically encrypted (please not time limited I hate that crap). You download a song from it then using the metadata in the file your computer can contact the micropayment agency you deal with and route the 8 cents mechanical royalties from your account to the copyright holders account. The only way this works is if it's not time limited, you don't need net access to listen to the music. Unfortunately the file will probably have stay encrypted the entire time so that when your friend wants a copy you can send him the song and he can pay for it too.
Basically for $20.00 you'd get 250 songs. MPEG-21 and XrML are coming out and expect more of this. As long as we can copy our key to other devices everything will be fine. Just don't send the key to your friend. Or each key could be personalized to your devices ids or something ugh.

Clarification

[MacWiz]

Hate to interrupt here, but I'm George Ziemann. I'd like to correct a small error in the original post. What I said was that mp3s were ads for the actual recording. They ARE inferior because they only contain 10 percent of the original data. Maybe YOU (that's a very non-specific "you") can't hear the difference between a 128 bps mp3 and a 44.1kbps 16-bit recording, but I can. And it doesn't matter if you think it's immoral or not. It's my music and I should have the option of being a total moron and giving away crappy copies of my music for free if I want to. I can reach a global audience at a cost of $20 a month. Once I've made a CD, the mp3 costs ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to produce. As a result, I no longer need a record company. Record labels were invented to help the artist connect with their customers. Now they merely stand in the way. We don't need them any more, unless they successfully criminalize the sharing of mp3 files, in which case they gain complete control over my ability to make a living as a recording artist. Again.

Re:Clarification

[hhknighter]

From eBay's stand point (not a seller there), wouldn't it be hard to tell how "authentic" the CD is? Given, it's your work, but how can eBay verify that?

Aside from that, I do not see any, and I really do mean ANY problems or legal concerns that one artist, or any other type of creator, to distribute, sell, lend, etc their own creation that they own. Furthermore the intervention from a 3rd party is solely up to the creator of the product. I fail to see the concept "our(RIAA) way or the highway" legal or acceptable.

I do want to see them outlaw mp3 format. As soon as they tread towards this idea, I can hear many, and I mean MANY, companies up in arms against them. At that point, they would probably outlaw many games, applications, and multimedia material.

Re:Clarification

[MacWiz]

My ads said that I was the copyright owner. Every time. The way that the copyright law is written, I don't need to prove it unless I am accusing someone else of infringing upon my copyright.

Remember that I do not even have to register a copyright to gain protection under the law. All I have to do is put a date and the copyright symbol on it. Registration merely provides me the extra legal option of punitive damages.

Shouldn't someone else have to prove that I DON'T own the copyright? Why should the burden of proof fall on the accused rather than the accuser?

Re:Clarification

[Ari Rahikkala]

Maybe YOU (that's a very non-specific "you") can't hear the difference between a 128 bps mp3 and a 44.1kbps 16-bit recording, but I can.

Dunno. I've never tried listening to a 128 bits-per-second mp3, but I do believe I could hear the difference between that and CD-quality ;).

Re:Clarification

[Brian Blessed]

They ARE inferior because they only contain 10 percent of the original data.

This is a common misconception. Less data doesn't necessarily mean that there is less informational content which is why non-lossy compression methods work.
MP3's are lossily compressed of course, but they are still more sophisticated than just removing 90% of the information.

- Brian.

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA owns you. All of you. Get over it and move on. ClearChannel for life!

Re:Clarification

[acroyear]

Actually, you no longer need the date either. The dates were originally standard practice because copyrights expired based solely on the work's own creation time. With the extensions, its now based on the author's death except in cases of "work for hire" for corporations, which are of a limited time but keep getting extended (i.e., the Sonny Bono act done to keep Mickey in the hands of Disney). (actually, i'm sure you already know this). Keeping the date in the clause now serves the purposes of personal record keeping, adherance to the tradition of dating the work (from when dates were required), and personal protection against infringement by later copycats. Its not necessary, but still useful.

Re:Clarification

[shoppa]

and I really do mean ANY problems or legal concerns that one artist, or any other type of creator, to distribute, sell, lend, etc their own creation that they own.

The problem isn't legal, it's strong-arm tactics.

The problem is that the RIAA strong-armed E-bay into stopping artists from selling their own works on CD-R. In most any other industry this would be clearly anti-competitive; the RIAA isn't making a dime on the sale so they want to shut these sales down. And they *did* shut sales down through that (E-bay) channel.

Re:Clarification

[MacWiz]

I can hear the loss of quality when I go from my 48k 24 bit audio tracks down to CD quality. By the time my songs end up on an mp3, they barely resemble the original.

Once again, it doesn't matter if you can hear the difference, because I can and it's my music.

And I think it's morally wrong to expect people to pay for an advertisement.

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? If they want to pay for it, then why not let them? I know plenty of people who want to buy Fubu shirts, which are valuable only because of their brand and their cost - they want to become walking advertisements. Is it wrong for companies to feed this demand?

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when there's more bandwidth available to the average USian, and we start sharing lossless rips from your CDs instead of MP3s? Will you want legal defense then?

Re:Clarification

[bzipitidoo]

Not quite true. Making an ogg file costs absolutely nothing. If you're dealing with mp3's, there's Fraunhofer to consider. I think their position is that you're suppose to pay royalties for EACH mp3 file you create, not just to write your own mp3 encoder.

Are you all so busy sweating over the piracy of copyrighted works that you walked right into a patent minefield without realizing it?

Re:Clarification

[MacWiz]

What minefield? They want 2% of the revenue I have realized from streaming mp3 media.

Since I charge nothing for users to access my mp3s, I would happy give them 2% of zero.

There is no charge for end users. They are interested in software developers and people using mp3 files for profit.

Like the record labels.

Re:Clarification

[MacWiz]

"Is it wrong for companies to feed this demand?" Not if it's the customer's choice. By when you legislate the medium to the point where it is the only option, I think that's over the line.

Re:Clarification

[MacWiz]

Absolutely not. I already have to downsample my mixes to get them on CD. I record at 48k, 24 bit. CD format is 44.1k, 16 bit.

By the time you can pass around those CD files, I'll be recording at 98k, 24 bit for DVD surround-sound audio, with videos.

I'll say this everytime...

[silverhalide]

The music distribution business as we currently know it is now obsolete. The music industry needs to accept this and move onto the new format, or be left holding the scraps of what people won't buy anymore. MP3 is the new de facto standard, and it's here to stay. Adapt or die. No matter what format you use, there will always be piracy. There was with VHS, tapes, CDs, and now MP3s. Yeah, it gets easier. That just means you have to make better music that's worth buying. There are indie labels out there still making money despite all this "piracy". Here's a thought, If I were in a band, I rather lose money from people stealing my records than fizzle out and die because noone heard me!! Nothing is worse than death through obscurity, and the internet is helping to revolutionize that endo of the business. I can't imagine how many talented musicians have failed simply because people couldn't hear their music. These are the people that play for ridiculously cheap rates just to get exposure, and they can't wait for people to trade their music. Just to get heard! [/rant] I will admit my music purchases have significantly declined since MP3s came about, but I look back at the CDs I bought before that and most of them are CRAP. I still occasionally buy a CD that's REALLY good and full of good songs, but those are very few and far between.

Boy bands etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it, the whole music industry is setup to make money, just like any other business.

Problem is, we don't have a say in having to pay our hard earned cash to a company which may spend part of it promoting the latest teenie pop sensation!

These companies spend our cash on lavish parties and huge tour buses....why can't they use public transport?!

Ultimately they are protecting their HUGE incomes, which must be disproportionately high for the ratio of work/parties they do!

I have bought my fair share of music in the past, and continue to buy songs I listen too alot. However I also download songs that I'll listen to very infrequently. I look at this as listening to the radio, or watching Satellite/Cable music channels. Yes, I know they are paying money back to the artist via adverts.

Perhaps this is all masquerading something?

Maybe expecting a career as a music artist without a global company to back you up is too much? For every one band who makes it there must be thousands who don't.

I work a long day for an average salary. I refuse to sponser the next boy band (and some executives Ferrari) by paying over the top prices for a CD which I may only listen to once. And if it sounds like I'm bitter, maybe I am? I'd love a Ferrari too!

Mobile Phones

[Anonymous Coward]

I was attending a motivational talk with a man from England speaking on how to boost sales. He mentioned something about a study conducted in Australia (if I remember correctly) into the decline in sales of CD's etc.

Basically the study found one of the main reasons was the rise of mobile phones. Instead of some kid going out and spending $20 on music, he/she would go out and spend $20 on topping up their pre paid mobile phone. Seems fairly plausible, especially if you see the amount of children/youth with mobile phones these days in .au

Re: Indie distribution - Mixonic has no cost

[sweetleaf]

Mixonic is worth checking out - they've simplified pressing and distribution for musicians by allowing you to upload your cd and then pressing copies on demand. No physical inventory aside from bits.

They keep $4 per cd of your profit charge no startup costs. It's an attractive business model.

out of print music

[very]

what about music that has not been available in years, be it on cd, tape, vinyl, or 8/4 track.

Wonder if RIAA would try to stop the distributions of the out of print musics.
Definitley there would be no loss revenue if the music itself is nowhere for sale.

What would RIAA do?????
What would RIAA do?????
What would RIAA do?????

Re:out of print music

[Anonymous Coward]

sure they would.. because in the very moment they realize that they could charge money for it you're fucked..

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

if I hadn't had personally satisfied past clients who wanted to work with me again, I would have had to move.

Wow... looks like it's gotten pretty bad out there, eh?

Re:Not the same quality, and it's MY income,

[gnoshi]

Ahh.. kinda OT but your numbers are wrong.
CDs are 1.4112Mb/s
Most mp3s are 96Kb/s - 192Kb/s
Just being a pedantic bastard

Piracy is illegal (excluding real fair use) no matter how much the media companies are screwing you. Not to say you shouldn't do it, just that eventually you need to bite the bullet, accept it is against the law, and decide you don't care.
Though I know you weren't disputing the illegality of it.

Of course, in this case I can understand the guy's frustration - getting distribution must be very difficult when you are getting problems like this because of a giant media conglomerate... especially given that they are your competition.
Maybe thinking about it in the 'competition' way it all makes a lot more sense... hmm.

gnoshi

Relevant piracy related song:

[Viking5150]

"The RIAA was born on a pirate ship"

Someone had to eventually say it.

A darn good read

[teamhasnoi]

Here is a link to an RIAA rant that is specifically about the lawsuits against the college students, but also sums up a lot of what has been said in this thread.

Why don't I sleep?

Digital radio's gonna be an interesting topic..

[Newer Guy]

At the NAB, the buzz was IBOC-FM digital radio. It has a 96k data rate, which with proper coding will sound damn good (XM and Sirius are both 64k). I wander how the RIAA's gonna handle this? Will they demand content protrection? Will the decades old practice of taping songs off the radio disappear? Right now the FCC only allows simulcasting of the main channel audio on digital, but that'll change beofre too long. Does this mean that they'll be an analog/digital divide with regards to radio where the analog stations can be taped yet the digital ones can't be? Clear Channel has already upset the music companies by basically banning 'pay for play'(IE: Independent promoters) effective June first. It's surely gonna get interesting.....

But they're not pressed, either

[Styx]

They are "just" CD-R's, with inkjet printing.

Much like my own idea....

[unclethursday]

Or, there are other people, like Ian Mckay of the DC/mathrock scene and Dischord records. His solution is this: No written contracts. Just handshakes. He pays for the recording and mastering of your band's CD. He distributes the CD. All out of pocket. When it's done, he keeps all the proceeds of CD sales until the debt is paid off, and then the band and the label split it 50/50. He doesn't touch merchandise or touring profits. If a band ever gets into a disagreement with Ian and want to screw him, he hands them their master and tells them to get the fuck out, deal off, and they lose him as a contact and gain him as a bad reference.

I have a simmilar idea for a record label, provided some things go right this summer. I advertise the CDs, the bands use their own studios (or mine at a set hourly rate) to make the masters. Then we split sales of CDs 50/50. Sell the CDs for fairly cheap ($7-$8) and split it down the middle.

The bands own their masters and all copyrights. We don't produce tons of extra CDs, more or less print to order (keeps storage overhead way down).

I think it could work, with a little more refinement....but until I know if I'm going to have the money to start the venture, I'm not going to get totally into schematics of everything.

Re:Much like my own idea....

[zerocool^]

I seriously, whole heartedly, wish you success. If the world had more people willing to get to know the artists and give them a hand, rather than finding ways to fuck them, we'd be in a better world, musically.

Good luck, sir.

Where the money goes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I for one can understand why the record industry needs to charge outrageous amonuts of money for a CD. Hell, I'm not sure how many million bucks they would need to spend on commercials to brainwash me so bad that I would actually go out and by an n'Sync record... Why don't they want to sell me what I want to hear?

Whenever I find music that I really WANT to buy (that I listened to at Live365.com, downloaded off the Internet or got from a friend), it is close to impossible to buy. As I live in a small, over-taxed country far away from the US, ordering from other countries is very inconventient - and expensive. Paying 23% VAT + a substantial amount needed by the tax people to tax me... It simply isn't worth it.

By the way, mp3's ARE very often inferior to "legal stuff", as songs are of varying quality, many miss decent ID3 tags, they have varying names and introduces both work and HW from me.

How nice would it be to trade legal mp3's, where you need NOT have a TB disk in the basement and copy/move/rename/add id3 tags etc all the time??? 15 bucks a month for free p2p sharing of high quality mp3s? It's even hosted by customers, so what's the cost???

Recycling is RIAAs advantage

[Krumme]

Noone I know is buying cds, listening to them and THEN deciding to sell or keep it.

Think about it, if you bought a new DVD player, but decided that it sucked, would you just throw it away?
I know I wouldn't, I'd try to sell it again - but when I buy a cd that sucks, I'll probably keep it anyway.

My point is, that this is to RIAAs advantage - if everybody just kept the cds that they liked and sold the rest, new cd sales would probably be down more than the 15% attributed to piracy..

My guess is that piracy and extra sales generated from used cds NOT entering the market again probably evens each other out..
Just a thought - but there are some fine balances involved in this game, and if it suddenly became everyones business selling used cds, the RIAA would have something real to complain about.

So this guy is better than a major label why?

[raehl]

So this guy will pay for your recording costs, then keep the money from sales until his costs are paid.

A record label will pay for recording costs, pay for mega promotion, give you a fat advance check, and then keep the sales profits until those costs are paid.

Why is one more evil than the other?

Re:So this guy is better than a major label why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Ian Mackaye is indie and anti-corporate and that makes him cool, even if he is a prick. There are subtle differences but you are on point.

Re:So this guy is better than a major label why?

[richie2000]

Why is one more evil than the other?

Because one of them adds bogus costs like charging extra for "experimental media" until there's almost nothing left and then takes your copyrights, claiming you did "work for hire" for them. That's why.

Re:So this guy is better than a major label why?

[zerocool^]

Why is one more evil than the other?

Because Ian doesn't retain rights to the record.

Because there's no contract w/ Ian. Just a handshake and an understanding of mutual goal: the release of good music.

Because No record label in the world would ever give any band 50/50 on records, even after they have recouped all their costs. 90/10, mabey, if the band is lucky.

~Will

Here is earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, everybody knows the RIAA is a child of the U.S.M.$.

And god is my witness... I don't want them to return to earth...

The danger of piracy

[james_gnz]

Covert terrorist activities now uncovered in Iraq were far more serious than even the staunchest Bush advocate could have feared. US Marines in Baghdad today (Monday 4/14/03) uncovered secret bunkers containing many tens of thousands of illegal copies of works of American intellectual property.

Captain Pitalist of the US Marines commented on the seriousness of the situation: "Saddam's regime has already defrauded the American recording industry out of billions of dollars, without us even knowing it. Had this been allowed to continue much longer, the entire US economy would have been in ruins."

Said a spokesperson for the Whitehouse: "We expected to find a few WMDs, hell, maybe even a nuclear missile or two, but this... All I can say is we're lucky... we're all damn lucky this was caught right now. It doesn't bear thinking about, how many livelihoods would have been lost..."

No your wrong

[autopr0n]

If I'm not willing to pay for something, but I download it anyway, no harm is done. If you steal gas from the gas station, then the gas station has X number of gallons less that it can no longer sell.

Here are three examples to illustrate my point.

1) I like the music, and I am willing to pay for it. The RIAA gets $15. The RIAA is happy.

2) I don't like the music, but I'm not willing to pay for it. I don't download it. The RIAA does not have $15, the RIAA is sad.

3) I like the music, but I'm not willing to pay for it. I download it. The RIAA does not have $15, the RIAA is sad.

The outcome for the RIAA is the same either way. If I'm not willing to pay for something (say, because I can't stand the artist as a person, such as Eminem) then the RIAA loses absolutely nothing. No harm is done to them in any way.

I don't know what value system you're using, but in mine immoral acts are acts that harm people. Since no harm is done, the act of downloading music I'm to cheap to pay for is not immoral.

Re:No your wrong

[jeff_bond]

Here are three examples to illustrate my point.

1) I like the music, and I am willing to pay for it. The RIAA gets $15. The RIAA is happy.

2) I don't like the music, but I'm not willing to pay for it. I don't download it. The RIAA does not have $15, the RIAA is sad.

3) I like the music, but I'm not willing to pay for it. I download it. The RIAA does not have $15, the RIAA is sad.

Conveniently for your argument, you left out the fourth option:

4) I like the music, I'm willing to pay for it, but instead I download it because I can. The RIAA does not have $15, the RIAA is sad.

In this case, the act of downloading the music for free does harm the RIAA.

Jeff

I don't see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I could get the whole CD on MP3, I wouldn't buy the CD. Plain and simple.

1. the ``inferior quality`` doesn't bother me, I can't tell the difference. (maybe because I have some pretty cheap speakers)
2. discs are boring because you only get to listen to the one set of songs. i much prefer a randomized mp3 list
3. even if i bought the cd, i would just rip it into mp3s to listen to (see #1 and #2)

Anyway, the argument that a song is an advertisement could be true if modified slightly:

If I play a song from the CD for you, but don't allow you to replay it, then it is an advertisement for the CD. If you can replay the song, it's already yours and there's no reason to buy a cd.

Free speech

[gengee]

"I feel that the guideline which prohibits me from mentioning more than one musical influence is ludicrous, inducing to false advertising, an unnecessary obstacle to my ability to describe my product or compare it to others within the advertisement I am paying for, and a violation of my constitutional rights."

I am so sick and tired of people who claim their "Constitutional rights" have been violated when some group won't let them speak their mind.

Excuse me? Did I miss the ammendment which gives me the right to say whatever I want on eBay?

Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want everywhere you want to say it, George. It gives you the right to say it without government interference. And that's it.

Re:Another artist who has been banned by Ebay???

[Melantha_Bacchae]

mesach wrote:

> Ebay is banning them purely because it is Music on
> CD-R and it "must be pirated, there is NO other reason to
> have music on CD-R!"

Which is exactly the RIAA's position. "Piracy" here does not mean solely file sharing, but anything that would deprive them of their divine right to as much of your money as they want. Poor indie bands and fair use also use CD-R for music, and they are just as much a threat to the RIAA as file-sharing. Every time someone downloads an mp3 file, buys from a competitor outside their cartel, or burns a backup instead of buying a new CD, an RIAA member is being deprived of "their" money.

The RIAA members are sharks: very greedy, and very, very delusional. Thump 'em on the nose (figuratively, don't go punching out CEOs however tempted), starve them by buying from nice indie bands, or, worst case scenario, call Mothra (she hates their kind for being mean to her fairies). Whatever you do, don't feed them!

This technique is working, as the big five labels are on a loosing streak, and indie labels are selling more.

"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).

Everything should be freely downloadable

[rjforster]

Every single piece of recorded music that exists should be available for free download.

This can either be anonymous download, registered download with access to recommendation features (if I like X and Y and you like Y and Z then I'm likely to like Z), or even what I term postal download, where I choose a CDs worth of files that gets auto-burned and posted to me for not much more than cost. Whatever suits my net connection.

This includes being able to choose individual songs, whole albums, or even the band's entire back catalogue.

The missing piece of info so far?
Data rate/music quality.

I want it to be shit. I mean mono, medium wave radio kinda quality. This makes for quicker downloads but does not stop me being able to tell if I like the song or not.

Then if I hate the music I'll delete it and won't buy the CD.
If I only like one or two songs and the CD costs 17UKP (not uncommon UK price) then I probably won't buy it.
But if I like it all, I'll buy it. And in the end that is what it comes down to.

Outlawing walking

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that it was outlawed in Los Angeles... and a capital offence. :-(

Re:Outlawing walking

[TechnoSpud_001010000]

And what exactly does that bit of information have to do with the RIAA? Their dictatorial tactics are the bane of a lot of people, not just traders. I think that the RIAA needs to either be taken to federal court as Micro$oft was, since at least that will (hopefully) make them rethink their position on "anti-piracy". Besides, according to the definition of piracy, it is the act of stealing FOR A LIVING and not simply selling or giving away a couple of CDs or video games (or downloading hundreds of "copyrighted" files for your personal use, and maybe sharing with friends). Scratch another one up for the corporations who utilize power and money to quash the free-thinkers in this supposedly "free and democratic" society.

Don't think these things can't be changed

[djupedal]

Before barcodes came along, distributors told the grocery store chains which products they would buy...when they would receive them and where they would place them in their stores. This was the 'system', and no one considered it would change.

Along came barcodes, and with them, the data that was suddenly accrued meant the stores were in a position to tell the distributors what was selling, and thus what they would buy...and when they wanted it and where it would be placed inside the store, etc. The distributors moved down on the food chain, and the buyers moved up.

When enough consumers bypass the mall, and buy/barter their music directly from the artist, the landscape will most certainly change.

Re:Nitpick [getting OT]

[RussGarrett]

You hit the nail on the head there - you're probably just comparing the quality of the source equipment, and not the actual media. The only way to compare an MP3 well with a CD is to play them both through the same source - i.e. a computer with a decent sound card.

Anyhow, the question with compression is not whether you can hear the compression artifacts, but whether you can tolerate them. I am perfectly content with MP3 192kbps (VBR) or Vorbis q5 for normal listening - for the most part I don't notice the artifacts unless I'm actively listening for them.

In other news

[panurge]

The haymakers association announced that sales were down as a result of illegal use of roads by the so-called "autos" of Henry Ford. For many years, horse cart owners had to use their product in order to travel. The association owns the concept of putting fuel (hay) into an engine (horse) to permit travel to take place. The association is lobbying Congress for a tax on each auto and can of fuel sold, to be paid directly to the Association. It also wants all mechanics, engineers, auto workers and executives to be required to pay damages to them for loss of income, estimated at $10 trillion over the next 100 years.

Re:In other news

[SuiteSisterMary]

The ironic thing here is, that happened. At one point, cars were required to stop at any crossroads, the driver had to dismount, fire a pistol into the air to announce his crossing, and so on. Many many stupid laws were inacted to try and prevent these newfangled horseless carriages from upsetting the status quo.

I buy the stuff I find worthy of my mony!

[TheRealBlueEAGLE]

I must admit that I do not listen much to music. My cd-collection can be counted on two hands actually and the mp3s that I've got totals to less than an hour of playing-time.

Yes I've d/l-ed music off kazaa, but this was to sample stuff. To see how good it was.

I might be at fault for not paying for the things that I am curious about, but I do not see why I should give up my hard-earned cash for a product that I don't like and won't listen to. It's kind of like shareware where you are given the opportunity to try before you buy. ..and I rarely buy stuff that's on the radio or the telly because these are mostly one-hit-wonders or music that might be cool for 14-year-olds.

In short: I (and I believe many with me) prefer to know what I buy befor I buy it.

This also applies to computer software. I pay for the games I play but I refuse to pay for things I try because people tell me it's geat. If I like it I naturally pay for it.

It is my belief that this is what made Doom the biggest game ever. It distributed a taste as shareware but you needed to pay to complete it. After playing throught the shareware version I instantly went to get the remaining episodes.

What it all boils down to is how unethical it is to d/l something to try it before you go out and buy it... or decide not to.

major label's don't imply good music

[1ccfGcs]

I know the most important thing for me with music is quality. Ideally, I want to listen to the music that most fits my interests. One argument that the RIAA and major labels use is that without them there would be far less 'good' music around for our listening pleasure. I've heard many rumors about labels signing bands simply to drown them out, so that there is less competition for their 'good' and more expensive bands. Everybody knows that if you're a band about to sign a contract, you'd better read all of the fine print! While I cannot site any examples at the moment (and would be very interested if any of you could), based on the boy bands/spears clones/branch crew, I would not be surprised if this were the case. While I still listen to some bands that are currently signed with large companies, I think that most of the bands that I've been listening to recently are signed with smaller labels. I think there may be a reason for this, not coincidence!

Royalties

[turgid]

The "artist" i.e. record company, has been paid royalties if the song is played on the radio. In effect, they have sanctioned the use of this song to adverties the band and their albums. It is played on the radio so that people can hear it. It is assumed that some people will tape the song from the radio, and this is factored into the royalties. Although it's illegal, it's tolerated. When did you ever hear of anyone getting sent down for recording a couple of songs off the Top 40 to listen to in the privacy of their own home or car? I agree that free music is the best way of advertising albums. I've bought many an album from songs I've heard on the radio or TV, and latterly the internet. I think it's up to bands to distribute two or three songs per album (or whatever's appropriate) freely to promote their materieal. Every time I've bought an album on recommendation without hearing it first I've been severely disappointed. I'll never do that again. Finally, maybe if mainstream music was worth paying for it wouldn't be "stolen" as much. Hint: RIAA start promoting some real talent instead of TV "talent" contest winners.

Re:Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>It is assumed that some people will tape the song from the radio, and this is factored into the royalties.

Royalties for broadcast and public performance precede affordable home recording equipment. The royalties were not designed to compensate artists for crappy teenmade FM recordings.

>>>Although it's illegal, it's tolerated.

Although the RIAA would like you to believe it's illegal it falls under fair use. The only reason its tolerated is because you have a right legally to record publicly broadcast materials for your own use.

Take some time to understand your rights so you don't lose them.

Re:Royalties

[Noksagt]

Exactly right. Thanks for responding. The Audio Home Recording Act made it OK for consumers to tape broadcasts & that right hasn't been taken away. I haven't even heard RIAA argue that consumers can't tape radio broadcasts.

Re:Royalties

[orim]

OK, I'll bite. I see that discussion has gone from "Is it ethical?" to "Is it legal?" Two completely different things.
While it may be my right to copy songs off the radio, if I go through the effort of doing so, *and* I like it enough to listen to it again, I do feel like I have to compensate the artist in some way for the entertainment he provided me.
I think it's only fair.
Then you get into the whole question of buying a whole album for one song, paying the record company instead of the artist, etc, etc... which *are* things we should work to change. Not on looking for loopholes to pay nothing for the music we enjoy (not that parent was going down this route, but some people definitely have this line of thinking here on /.)

Re:Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, maybe if mainstream music was worth paying for it wouldn't be "stolen" as much.

If mainstream music sucks as bad as everyone here says, why do so many people download it? Is it just because it is free? If somebody was giving away free turds would people line up to get them?

Re:Royalties

[Noksagt]

You're right about ethical vs. legal. I think that the law already redresses any ethical violations. The artists are getting royalties when their songs play on the radio & they're getting money when you purchase digital recording devices or media. I don't really think they see a big enough share of these royalties, but the fact that our recording media costs a little bit more and the fact we have to listen to more ads is indication that we ARE compensating artists.

Re:Royalties

[docwhat]

Royalties are not paid to the artist. The artist pays for airplay. At least that's the way this reads: Don Henley's Testominial.

Ciao!

Re:Royalties

[turgid]

If somebody was giving away free turds would people line up to get them?

LOL!

If they were horse turds and I was a keen rose cultivator, then, yes, I'd have your free turds.

Re:Royalties

[WhiteDragon]

It is assumed that some people will tape the song from the radio, and this is factored into the royalties. Although it's illegal, it's tolerated.

In the United States, it is expressly legal to record off of the radio. The law is called the Audio Home Recording Act

ads for concerts

[AssFace]

I always thought of them more as ads for concerts, and then the record companies saw the concerts as ads for the cds as well as the overall image that the band portrayed.
have an image that sticks and people buy the merchandise in order to cover themselves with the image - not just visual, but images more in the sense of idolism.

hell - it has already been shown that songs are just ads - Limp Bizkit has already shown us that when they (well, their recording label) brought back a form of payola to the radio stations with a new twist.

Please download my MP3s absolutely free

[MichaelCrawford]

I am one of those indie musicians who wants everyone to download their MP3s so their music can become known.

Please feel free to download and share the MP3s for my album:

• Geometric Visions

The album consists of me playing my compositions for the piano.

You can feel free to share these with your friends, but I would prefer that rather than sharing them with strangers over the Internet, that you link my page from your own homepage or weblog. That will help others to find out more about me when they download my music.

Re:Please download my MP3s absolutely free

[satterth]

When i first read this, i though holy #$%^. This guy is playing his music for a piano, this i got to hear.

But then i realized he is playing a piano. Not quite what i was looking for, but still, its good none the less.

Re:Please download my MP3s absolutely free

[kknm_fixxxer]

Downloading you music now, thanks for making it available.

Just a side note: how about using Ogg Vorbis instead of mp3? It has superior sound quality and it's royalty/patent free. I think every decent software player supports it these days, so compatibility shouldn't be an issue.

// fixxxer

Re:Please download my MP3s absolutely free

[Anonymous Coward]

Ogg is supported by several players, but not all. Is it supported on your sony walkman? No. Your car stereo or any of the other hundreds of devices that (finally) play MP3? Rarely. MP3 is the way to go to reach the widest audience. Using Ogg will restrict who can play it where and that is the exact opposite of what he said he wanted to do in his original post.

Re:Please download my MP3s absolutely free

[kknm_fixxxer]

1. Seems to me that his main goal is to put his music on file sharing networks. Using Ogg Vorbis doesn't prevent him from doing so.
2. Being compatible with hardware players isn't his no 1 priority right now, on this stage of his quest for world domination ;).
3. If someone really wants to listen to his music on a portable device, conversion to mp3 is easy as 1-2-3.
4. Portable devices capable of playing Ogg are coming.

// fixxxer

Well, for one thing...

[metamatic]

If a major label decides you're not making them enough money, they just refuse to release anything else you create. But you're still under contract, so you can't release it through anyone else, or record for anyone else without their permission, until the contract expires. The usual expiry period is 8 years. During that time, anything you create is owned by the corporation, and goes into their big pit of never-to-be-released recordings.

(Yes, I know someone whose career was ruined this way.)

Lennon and McCarthy

[metamatic]

Back in the USSR John Lennon plays you.

RTFA....

[MonoSynth]

He states that an MP3 with 128kbit (inferior) quality is just an ad for their music, and that real fans will buy the cd if they love it, because of the better quality.

Too bad that 99% of the audience don't hear the difference between an 128 kbit mp3 and a cd, and that the same 99% don't understand that it costs money to create/promote/distribute a cd, and that at least a couple of thousands of people must buy a cd to enable the band to make another album.

Professional Music

[MartinB]

The ethics lie not in the loss that theft incurs, but in the basic idea that you *should* pay money for music you enjoy.

Given that some individuals choose to make a living by performing music, this is necessarily the case, and has been for many hundreds of years since the emergence of professional musicians. In European history, this goes back to bards, seannachies and troubadours.

While you may dispute the value of having professional musicians (and if you do, you also accept that you'd be listening to music made by people who live in your neighbourhood), to be able to support professional musicians, someone has to pay money - directly or indirectly (through buying advertised products).

In previous times, this would have been through patronage of rich individuals or the church, but the result was what the patron paid for. The only reason why you can hear Handel's Fireworks Music is that George I wanted to have some music for his fireworks party.

Starting (mostly) in the 18th Century, composers turned to the general populace - particularly the growing middle class - for the source of their income. Mozart wrote operas which were at least in part funded by ticket sales. Chopin and Liszt wrote pieces for their own concert tours.

Much of the raison d'etre of popular music is that it sells to the public. Would you be able to hear The Joshua Tree if U2 had stayed a local Dublin band, playing in pubs? Of course not.

That's the thing that so many people forget about the music business - it's a business. That's the point - making profit. Talk about the real production cost of CDs is entirely irrelevant, other than to ensure that it's low enough compared to the sale price to make it worth investing money in.

And when it comes down to it, the one thing that any professional musician wants is to be paid.

war on drugs?

[chocolatetrumpet]

something here smells like the war on drugs... people can't get the stuff legally, so they get it illegally.

Re:yup--NOPE

[gadlaw]

Differences in degree, not in kind. In either event you are doing something that you have always been able to do which is to record music that you can hear. If it's more efficient than it was in years gone by well then that's just progress for you.

A Notable Download Service

[MartinB]

Apple to buy Universal.

Boycott

[BECoole]

Doesn't the RIAA understand that they are being boycotted? I refuse to buy anymore products associated with them and their sleazy tactics. And I find most music & motion picture artists to be disagreeable too. It's going to be a long time before they get any money out of my pocket!

They're not stupid...

[Thedalek]

The RIAA isn't really stupid per se. They're just faced with the following scenario:

Mr. Big Bucks: My record sales are slipping. Make them better again.

RIAA: Well, there's a few things affecting your sales. There's your own high prices and lackluster quality...

Mr. Big Bucks: Are you planning on getting paid?

RIAA: ...And... uh... There's Internet Piracy! Yes, that's it.

Mr. Big Bucks: Guess which one we can do something about.

RIAA: High prices?

Mr. Big Bucks: You are clearly delerious from the lack of money in your pockets. Here's a few million. Feel better now?

RIAA: Oh, we go after piracy?

Mr. Big Bucks: Excelsior.

Re:terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

umm, no

Tripple-up-yours gibberish

[trezor]

entering RIAA-mode:
"Listen here now boy! This sounds mighty like independent thinking, and we don't want any of that around here!"

People are wrong when they say the RIAA are getting it both ways. They are getting it in three ways.

1. "You dont buy the CD, you buy a license"-WhyYouCantDoWhatYouWant-gibberish
2. "You dont buy a license, you buy the media"-NoReplacementForYou-gibberish
3. "You pay taxes because you steal, but you are not entitled tto steal, even though you paid for it"-gibberish.

If I was to loose all moral standards, I'd actually admire the guy who accomplished that list of achievements.

But really, it's just perverted and sad.

You can't steal music

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is it ethical for people to take things"

Its honestly not clear what the moral wrong here is...

I like a song and I listen to it on the radio. That's okay.

I like a song and listen to it from a friend's CD. That might be okay.

I like a song, download it from Napster, and listen to it. That's not okay.

There's a really funny set of laws that say what is and isn't okay. A space alien from an advanced race would be thoroughly confused, because the humans themselves can't explain the rationale for what is and isn't "allowed".

Re:You can't steal music

[Evil Adrian]

There's a really funny set of laws that say what is and isn't okay. A space alien from an advanced race would be thoroughly confused, because the humans themselves can't explain the rationale for what is and isn't "allowed".

Yes, we can:

If you possess a copy, you pay a licensing fee for that copy, based on what you are doing with it (personal vs. broadcast usage.)

Exactly how is that a confusing concept??

re: Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

" Following your line of reasoning I should go to the gas station and decide not to pay for it because the price is too high."

No, that would be stealing.

Its closer to driving up to the gas station, copying down the prices and then posting that information on the internet.

They did look before moderating

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, Germans get mod points, too.

Re:terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

"Terminating a pregnancy" is the euphemistic equivalent of "file sharing" -- relatively innocuous language, which has the effect of obscuring certain unpleasant realities. "Killing babies" is the equivalent of "piracy" -- pointedly inflammatory language designed to cloud the issues with emotion. It's probably not worth arguing with anyone who uses either one of these tricks.

Re:terminology

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

It's probably not worth arguing with anyone who uses either one of these tricks.

well said.

Everyone ? You sure ?

[aepervius]

I got the feeling that a minority will say that compression is so good you can't differenciate from a CD, another minority will say it is poor quality, wheras the majority will shrug their shoulder, continue their download and not care what both camp says.

Re:Everyone ? You sure ?

[letxa2000]

You got that right!

I used to be a CD nut. I had to have it in CD format and, as a result, I have about 500 CDs in my collection--99.5% of them purchased prior to about 1995. I detect things (flaws) in music that most people don't (although many here probably do, too).

That said, I'm fine with MP3 quality. If it is just normal pop music, 128 bit is usually plenty. If I download a 128 bit version and I'm bothered by the quality I might go back for a 192 or 256 bit version. If I'm downloading Enya or a symphony I'll go straight for 320 whereas if it's a comedy act I'll be happy with a 64 bit version (I've seen half-hour comedy sketches recorded at 320 bps. WTF is the purpose of that??).

Point is, one size doesn't fit all. It depends on the person AND the type of music. But for most people, downloading "normal" music at 128 bit is going to be just fine.

Well

[Srin Tuar]

I agree with trademarks.
Otherwise, no, copyright and patents are immoral.

At one point patents made sense, in that they were a tool to ensure certain knowledge wouldnt be lost forever.

Since then, theyve become a tool to ensure the exact opposite. (The are obfuscated, and typically dont contain the real secrets, and they can be indefinitly extended by patenting obvious derivitives.)

Copyright never ever made any sense. The French experimented with dropping copyright, but they recoiled when tabloid newsrags emerged. Silly, they didnt realize that they were temporarily 300 years ahead of their time.

Re:Well

[DragonMagic]

Copyright and patents weren't enacted to make sure that ideas were never lost. They were in the Constitution itself in the US to ensure that people who created new inventions, devices and arts and sciences could have a limited State-sanctioned monopoly as incentive to innovate and create.

Because corporations abuse the system does not make them immoral, due to you seeing them as what they aren't. Do remember that Copyrights and Patents were included in the Constitution, and your rights to free speech, press, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and for the individual States to enact their own laws not invoked by the Government itself were amended many years later. Whether or not Copyrights or Patents are less important, they were first on the block as guaranteed, and the Bill of Rights came several years later.

Re:Well

[Srin Tuar]

Copyright and patents weren't enacted to make sure that ideas were never lost. They were in the Constitution itself in the US to ensure that people who created new inventions, devices and arts and sciences could have a limited State-sanctioned monopoly as incentive to innovate and create.

Well now youre just full of it.

Patents are an alternative to trade secrets, and are ostensibly to prevent the loss of knowledge. The incentive is in exchange for disclosure, not for "creation".

Copyright have no such excuse. They existed to benefit the big printers, not the authors. In its original incarnation, the copyright was assigned to the printing house and not even the author!

As to this crap being in the constitution, well so was slavery; which by the way, I consider quite analogous to copyright's and patents: They are slavery for your mind.

Al ideas are derived, all inventions build upon what came before.

Once we realize this as a society, we can accelerate progress simply by ending the practice of slowing it down.

Re:nope mp3 != WAV...you moron!

[Lord Custos]

By pirating an mp3, you are getting CD-quality -- what you would be paying for in the store
Goddam, I am soooo sick of hearing this *MYTH* again and again and again.
Please stop with this ...mp3 == digitial == exactly the same... nonsense. It bears absolutely no relation to actual reality. MP3s are NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT CD quality. This is because mp3 is NOT an audio format...it's a very lossy compression algorhythm. Its job is strip data from a stream.
The mp3 encoder strips out 30-90% of the actual data out of the audio stream, flattens it at both ends, destroys alot of the stereo separation (actually, most mp3 have NO stereo separation.) and 10% of the mp3s out there are missing part of their outros.
Even a 236-bitrate MP3 is merely a pale shadow of CD quality sound! (Most mp3s are only 128-bitrate, and so they sound much less impressive.)

If songs are just ads ...

[Ra5pu7in]

why would anyone buy a compilation of ads? In other words, what content on the CD are the songs advertising? Not the actual CD-Rom sans content, obviously.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if that argument will work when i test-drive that gorgeous new car. "Sir, this test-drive vehicle is just an ad for the other cars on your lot, so it should be free."

no right to exist

[geoff lane]

The music industry (as opposed to the musicians) have no god given right to exist. They have ignored technology and now find that their product has little or no value to their customers. The savy musicians will soon start selling their music directly over the internet and may even find they make more money from that than the disgustingly small percentage they get from the industry.

Ethics and the Public

[OugadasBob]

Democracy works by the will of the people, and the law is not absolute. For example in the majority of states, there are blue laws regarding what sexual acts you may perform, even with a spouse. Nobody really gives a crap. They will do what they want. Laws only work so far as people decide they will live by them. If the vast majority of people think it is ok to do something, then they will do it, government and law be damned. The bottom line is that Joe and Mary Public of Regular Person Drive are going to decide what is right and wrong for themselves, and while politicians and laws can be purchased by global corporations, public opinion of what should be legal and what should not cannot be purchased. Want to arrest us, fine. Better start building prisons now because you'll need to round up all the artists from the 80's that made thier millions due to the fans they acquired from bootlegs. Grab everybody who has ever worked for, bought, or sold a CDRW. Send a SWAT team to the house of everybody who has hooked up 2 VCR's to dub a movie rental, and call the FBI on my neighbor who likes to sing Britney Spears in the shower. I'm not sure how you're going to pay for those jails though, as you now have a country full of convicts and nobody left to pay taxes. Wonder what these MegaCorps will do then, when there is nobody left to purchase their overpriced plastic crap made in China? Sometimes I get really tired of living in the Corporate States of America. Every time I hear an advertisement I can't help but hear "Consume like the rest of the sheep or DIE!" in the background.

Completely Off Topic: White Stripes/Citizen Kane

[angle_slam]

This is off-topic, but is related to copyrights and music, so I thought I'd post this here. The White Stripes are a fairly popular group, whose previous album featured a song, The Union Forever that contained lyrics from the movie Citizen Kane. (You can view the lyrics here.)Now they face a potential lawsuit from the unauthorized use of the lyrics.

From a legal standpoint, it is fairly clear, The White Stripes copied the lyrics and gave no credit and no royalties to the actual author. What is interesting is the moral or even economic dilemma: The White Stripes almost certainly did nothing to harm the movie Citizen Kane. In fact, they probably inspired some people to watch the movie who otherwise would not have watched it. Economically, the products are non-competing, as one who wants to watch a movie will not susbstitute a song for the movie, and vice versa.

Just curious as to /.ers opinions on the matter.

Begs the question. . .

[PhxBlue]

What happens if you don't go platinum on that first album? Who eats that debt? The artist can declare bankruptcy, but the label is stuck with whatever cost they put into the artist.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to try and defend the RIAA; but at least try and keep some perspective on at least some of the reasoning behind their practices.

Re:Begs the question. . .

[rco3]

Well, now, two good points have been made here. One, copyright violation is copyright violation, regardless of how the artists themselves are being treated.
Agreed. I did go off on a rant, there. Point that I buried in there somewhere is this: Claiming that $14.99 for a CD is reasonable because the label has to cover recording, promotion, and other costs is a false statement. The artist bears those costs, not the label. Does that mean copyright infringement is OK? No. Is the argument that the RIAA is protecting the artist's right valid? Not at all.
Which leads us to the second point, the risk factor on the part of the label. Yep. Correct again. Album doesn't sell, label loses money. Album does sell, label gets all that money back PLUS the profits on the sales. Band gets profits after label gets paid back for costs that Blake213 thinks the record label is charging for in the CD price.
Yes. The RIAA member companies risk a large amount of money in expectation of most bands failing, and a few hitting it really big. That's fair. What's not fair is how the profits are shared.
Still doesn't justify copyright infringement, and I never said it did.
Frankly, the whole issue of artist-label interaction is much more complex than is reasonable to describe here on Slashdot. I just wanted to point out that of the $14.99-$20.99 being charged for CD's, only the first $1 actually goes to studio or promotion costs, and that, effectively, the artist is bearing those costs and not the label.

Vorbis?

[roothorick]

I'm amazed that in a discussion like this nobody ever brings up the Vorbis codec. Even if it's not perfect, it's pretty damn good, even at ~64kbps. Oh yeah, and what about FLAC? FLAC, being lossless, is ***PERFECT*** in terms of sound quality. A lot of people trade in a lossless codec like FLAC. What the hell happened to talking about them?

It's not about just MP3s. People just tend to use MP3 as a poster child. When we look at the big picture, at FLAC, at Vorbis, throw in MP3 and WMA for good measure, and hell, throw in Shorten too, and we examine each one analytically, based not only on quality but the size of the file and the time it takes to download on a typical residential broadband connection, THEN we'll have a really good idea of just how good online-swappable audio is and just how much of a threat it could be to the record companies.

While I'm ranting, why don't we discuss independent labels? PEOPLE, ORDER CDS FROM INDEPENDENT LABELS. The independents are losing money out the brick walls because the artists' listeners are converting to piracy to get their music fix, which is due to resellers refusing to carry independent labels. The Big Five aren't threatened. The Little Thousand are.

Re:Vorbis?

[alphastar]

"I'm amazed that in a discussion like this nobody ever brings up the Vorbis codec. Even if it's not perfect, it's pretty damn good, even at ~64kbps."

So true. I use Ogg Vorbis for encoding exclusively. Not only is it slightly superior to MP3 as a compression format, it is also open source, which means that the public can help make it better.

"Oh yeah, and what about FLAC? FLAC, being lossless, is ***PERFECT*** in terms of sound quality. A lot of people trade in a lossless codec like FLAC. What the hell happened to talking about them?"

Short answer; in fact, your answer: "People just tend to use MP3 as a poster child." Simply put, most people only *know* about that specific format. It's a shame, in a way. With all the other formats, the one that is most controlled is the most popular.

"While I'm ranting, why don't we discuss independent labels? PEOPLE, ORDER CDS FROM INDEPENDENT LABELS. The independents are losing money out the brick walls because the artists' listeners are converting to piracy to get their music fix, which is due to resellers refusing to carry independent labels."

I couldn't agree with you more. Since I listen largely to the Metal genre, most of my labels are either independant or Europe-based, so they don't (with a few exceptions) fall under the RIAA umbrela. Independent labels and self-producing artists usually *don't* have the money necessary to take needed actions towards reclaiming lost revenue, at least on the scale that RIAA labels do.

I suppose I should give a point to this post, so here it is: Help bring the lessers into the forefront. Too long have just-as-good-as-if-not-better encoders Ogg Vorbis and FLAC (now both under the Xiph umbrella, by the way) sat in MP3s shadow, emerging only for those who are truly interested in moving forward in the audio world. Also, support independant artists and labels.

Some info links:
http://www.vorbis.com/
http://flac.source forge.net/
--

Re:nope mp3 != WAV...you moron!

[shotfeel]

Please stop with this ...mp3 == digitial == exactly the same... nonsense.

Next you're going to tell me that 600 MB copy of LotR I downloaded isn't just as good as the original DVD!

BTW, I don't understand why everyone raved about the cinematography in LotR. It looks pretty crappy to me.

The Poodle's Core

[nikster]

The music industry, due to their own incompetence and lack of creativity, is unable to provide people with what they want - easy, reasonably priced access to music.

Instead of seeing this as it is and doing something about it, the music industry has entered a self-destructive pattern of denial and blame. The RIAA's arguments are akin to the emperor's new clothes: Nothing at all, backed by enormous power.

But, in the long run, all the power in the world cannot keep alive the network of lies, distortions, and lawsuits. We are in a transitory period.

Sooner or later, a service or company will emerge that will give us what we want. For me, a $5-download-album@256k music service would be sufficient (sorry, no 95% profit margins). Easy. Convenient. Good quality. Give $2,50 to the artists, divide the rest among the distributors. Doesn't sound hard, does it?

George Ziemann asks what we can do: The answer is: Nothing. All we have to do is sit back and wait for them to collapse. And share files with friends in the meantime.

Hello, Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the RIAA. Send money. End Transmission.

The only problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA represent a huge moneymaking organisation and they don't want to give it up. They have no way to provide a substitute to the free (illegal) filesharing networks. 'Current' popular music appeals to a certain age-gap, and the RIAA would like to get their disposable income instead of it being spent on another product. Free music does not have as big a following as the music promoted by the media. How is a teenager supposed to convince a group of more/less popular peers that what he/she is listening to is better quality or has more meaning to life and should be listened to ?
The media control the advertising channels, and the garage bands don't advertise with the mainstream media. It's about being popular and global. The media have deep pockets and can provide sparkly music videos.
Until a garage/independant/free music organisation punch a hole in the way kids think, they're still going to sell $298 a year or sell out to RIAA. It's economics.

Y'all wanted capitalism and democracy! Stop whinging!

Stats in Oz

[krenskeoz]

Here in Australia we had newspaper reports of a 5% drop in sales of CD's. In the article they had an interesting list of stats including the fact that the CD sales had dropped by X amount. Later in the article and in an attached table they also mentioned the great rise in music DVD sales. The M-DVD sales increase was actually greater than the drop in CD's. Maybe in that article they missed the fact that if you already own a (expensive)music DVD you may not buy the equivalent CD.

They also lumped the Singles in with the albums sales, which I believe is a mistake as they also mentioned that there was less singles released in Australia last year. I think that this fact alone means the total number of CD's sold would drop, as not all single sales would convert to album sales.

Now the article could of been simply wrong but the stats mentioned logically give a spin to the raw statement that 'CD sales are down'.

Rotel (was: Re:Nitpick)

[nowonder]

It's his CD player. Rotel just plainly suxx. They are trying to change the musics "temperature" to make it sound better. And so everything sounds the same - Rotel.

It comes to me as no wonder that the author of your parent cannot discern MP3s from CDs on that setup.

Re:Tori Amos

[Anonymous Coward]

(Regardless of how you feel about her music, you do have to admit she's talented and original.)

I don't have to admit jack about that slagheap of a virgin-harlot whore-nun!

Gee, lets see, she complains about being used as a sex object, but, err, she sells herself as a sex object? How does that work again?

Oh yeah, self denial. That's what they called it.

...kat and gurl...

Re:Completely Off Topic: White Stripes/Citizen Kan

[TW Burger]

As an author, I was upset to see some of my work on the 'Net without my permission. Then I thought: "Well, I have been paid for the first publication, no one else is demanding my old work to be exclusively displayed and the exposure is valuable."

I believe it's the same for musicians, copying the music makes them more popular and enhances demand for touring dates. They do not get any money for the records they sell anyway.

Ogg Vorbis coming soon

[MichaelCrawford]

I should have said that I do plan to provide Ogg Vorbis files soon. I'm well aware of Ogg's many advantages. It's just that I haven't had time to deal with it yet, and I felt in the limited time I had to deal with it I could reach more people with MP3.

I strongly support what Xiph.org is trying to accomplish with Ogg and their other formats.

Re: Nope

[Evil Adrian]

Not really. It's closer to taking the gasoline.

Because the gas station's sign is not what makes the profit, it is the sale of the gasoline.

What your arguments boil down to:

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you don't physically take anything from the artists, it is ok to steal their music.

What will you do when payday comes, and your boss tells you that you didn't physically give anything to the company, so they aren't going to pay you.

Recorded music should be free, and artist earn a living for live performances: who pays the song writer?

idjits

Re:nope mp3 != WAV...you moron!

[Lord Custos]

Next you're going to tell me that 600 MB copy of LotR I downloaded isn't just as good as the original DVD! Of course it isn't. If you have a large screen tv or very good eyesight you'll see artifacting and color problems. Rent the DVD and compare the picture on a big tv in a dark room and you'll see the appalling truth. Lossy Compression kills.