MP3 Creator On Sharing Music

Interesting? by Evil+Adrian · 2003-07-13 08:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Interestingly he comments that he doesn't like Napster, he thinks that people should have easier access to music but that artists should get paid for what they do.

How is that "interesting"? I think anyone with a sense of decency wants the artists to get paid...

--
evil adrian

Re:Interesting? by squiggleslash · 2003-07-13 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think anyone with a sense of decency wants the artists to get paid...
You haven't been on Slashdot long have you?
Call me embittered, cynical, and pissed off, but when I've posted something similar, I've tended to get flamed as a "stooge of the RIAA". I guess it may be that the average slashdotter want the artists to be paid...
...as long as it's not the listeners who have to pay them.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Interesting? by dildog · 2003-07-13 09:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

You might try reading

I said 'should'. The current state of the world, and its underlying economics, is obvious.

My post was a judgement call, and offering an opinion. Education has value. Music also has value. It's too bad that we value education so much less than entertainment, that we can't afford to pay teachers, but we can pay for extravangant lifestyles for entertainers.
Re:Interesting? by NanoGator · 2003-07-13 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

"...as long as it's not the listeners who have to pay them."

Who says it's about price? The same people who want P2P also throw lots of money at neat little devices such as iPods. Money's not the focus here.

"Call me embittered, cynical, and pissed off, but when I've posted something similar, I've tended to get flamed as a "stooge of the RIAA"."

I can only speculate, but I think you get 'stooge of the RIAA' label because they make harsh assumptions about people's behaviour. "I'm a pirate simply because I own a CD Burner? I downloaded a song because I've never heard this band before and I'm a thief? WTF?" If you're telling people (like you did in your post here) that they're unwilling to pay for anything then I wouldn't be a bit surprised that you've been labeled that way. The money is there ready to be spent on artists who supply what people want. The demand is there, now where's the supply?

Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that. If anything, people are avoiding being overcharged. There is no middle ground here. You can get it free off P2P, or you can pay too much money for an album containing stuff you don't want. Until the RIAA brings on the supply, the people are going to fulfill their own demand. That's why they're sensitive about it. Fight back againt a monpolistic entity and get labeled a thief. Fun.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Interesting? by AstroDrabb · 2003-07-13 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exactly. Americans make up only 5% of the worlds population, yet we have 50%+ of the worlds wealth. (Not that I am proud of that greed). However, the one concept that the RIAA/MPAA doesn't seem to get is that Americans love to spend money. We work all week, then get paid. We then pay the bills, put a little away and then want to treat ourselves to some entertainment. Maybe a movie, or dinner, or clothes, whatever. Give the people what they ask for and we will be glad to pay for that service. Treat us as thieves, assume that the only reason we buy a cd burner is to "pirate" and continue to attack us in this manner and you WILL get this type of backlash. I have no pity for the likes of the RIAA/MPAA anymore. If they would just make a service where people could get the music THEY want at a FAIR price using the OS, web browser that THEY want, then the problem would be gone. Sure there will always be a small portion of the population that wants to steal. There is NO way to handle that except on a case by case basis. Go to Walmart, HomeDepot, Lowes, etc. They have a lot of items on display OUTSIDE without anyone guarding it. That is because the feel that the average person WILL pay for goods/services and not steal. The few who do, usually get caught and are handled. However, if Walmart, HomeDepot, Lowes were to treat all thier customers as thieves, then they would not be as large as they are becuase that is not how a customer wants to be treated. Those three large corporations know that they are making a customer for life. In that life time an average American might spend $10,000, $20,000 or more at those stores. It is not worth losing that revenue by treating everyone as a thief to stop those few peopel who are going to steal $50 dollars in goods. If the RIAA/MPAA would wake up and see how much the average American spends on thier goods in a LIFE-TIME, then those few stolen cd's/downloads are not worth it. Except in the case of the RIAA/MPAA, they have assumed that we are all thieves and are trying to stop us all. They charge us taxes on blank media because they think the only use for the media is to pirate. They want to tax burners because they think the only use is to pirate, etc. This type of treatment is what is causing all the backlash. We the customer will not put up with it.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison

if only... by dfj225 · 2003-07-13 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

there was a way to download music and pay the artists and not the RIAA.

--
SIGFAULT

Re:if only... by gantrep · 2003-07-13 08:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

They would still be unauthorized songs because the label holds the rights to the songs, and rights to distribute them, not the artist. However, unauthorized is not the same as unethical.
Re:if only... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-13 09:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

But there isn't. In almost every system you could imagine, without implementing DRM of any kind, the following scenario is likely to occur:

1) Band creates a webpage in which MP3's may be bought online, completely unprotected.
2) Extremely loyal fans buy these files online to support the band. The much larger group, that of people who just want to listen to the music regardless, will wait until one of these buyers decides to share out these files as a release "group" in an IRC channel.
3) These files will eventually make their way to anyone who feels like downloading them; hence, the band receives the equivalent of one sale for hundreds of thousands of listeners. Even if each MP3 cost around $100 or so, which no one would buy, it'd still be a huge loss.

No matter how virtuous you or I might be, there's a million more people out there who would rather save their money and steal the songs. That's just the way it works. DRM is the solution, but companies like Microsoft and so on envision using it for far more devious, anti-competitive purposes. The problem is a double-edged sword.

Re:That article was very short on real content by ari_j · 2003-07-13 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone hates Napster. Because it's gone. We hate technologies we can no longer use to get all the music we want, and so on. Other examples include FM radio and dance clubs.

Artists... by TWX · 2003-07-13 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, I believe that the artists should be getting paid for what they do too. This is why I don't bother buying CDs, since they don't get paid for what they do anyway, the RIAA gets paid for what they do...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

No, he just doesn't like piracy. by tunabomber · 2003-07-13 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actual quote:

"I don't like the Napster idea that all music should be free to everybody."

I don't think he means he doesn't like the idea of Napster technology, but rather the ethics (or lack thereof) of the people who use filesharing networks.
Shortly after this, he says that record companies should find a way to use technology to better serve both the artists and listeners.
In conclusion, the tone of the article makes it sound like Dr. Brandenburg isn't against filesharing technologies, but rather just people using them as an excuse for partaking in an orgy of piracy. Seems like a pretty moderate viewpoint to me.

--

pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...

Does this sound P2P friendly? by BillsPetMonkey · 2003-07-13 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

From Frauenhofer patent enforcement available here:

To make, sell and/or distribute products using the standard and thus our patents, you need to obtain a license under these patents from us.

In the past, we have licensed several companies under different models for different products, e.g.:
- Software encoder licenses against a per unit royalty starting at $ 25,00 and decreasing for high volumes; and
- Pay-audio licenses against a royalty of $ 0,01 per song or 1 % of the selling price.

And now after interviewing MP3 standard's inventor, there's this revelation that he doesn't like P2P?

Come on slash eds - this aint news!

--
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax

What did you expect? by Realistic_Dragon · 2003-07-13 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unlike the creators of Ogg, the guy who created MP3 did it for profit, not fun. You have to pay an insanely huge license fee to use it, even if you write your own implimentation.

I bet he isn't best pleased that hundreds of thousands of people are neglecting to pay him a massive pile of cash, let alone the RIAA.

--
Beep beep.

Darkness... by Dodge+This · 2003-07-13 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

On a (very) loosely related note, I'd just like to comment about how new DRM copy protection schemes are actually hurting the music industry. I know that not everyone is the same but I certainly won't be buying any CDs that have copy protection included.

I've just bought an original copy of the "The Darkness" album, fantasic album, sad that I can't listen to it as I want.

Firstly it does work in my PC and doesn't crash it, you may not be so lucky. When I got the CD I was shocked to find the copy protection. I don't have a stereo and I don't have a personal CD player, this means that I might not've been able to use the CD at all, and hence had I have known this in advance I wouldn't have bought the CD at all. Fortunately my PC *does* read the CD, but I can't store the CD on my HD as OGG/MP3, I can't listen to the album on the move in my portable MP3 player, I can't make a genuine backup, and I'm only fortunate that it doesn't crash my PC.

The music industry shouldn't be able to sell you a product that doens't work. How would we all feel if we went to the petrol station to fill up, and after paying for it we found out our car wasn't compatible.

I am now forced to search the internet for illegal copies which I can use in my MP3 player in spite of the fact I have a legitimate copy. I'll reiterate once again I wouldn't buy a CD with copy protection. Hence damaging the industry.

Yeah but the middleman... by Manhigh · 2003-07-13 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm all in favor of paying the artist. But I think technology is at the point where the middleman (record labels) is irrelevant.

--
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright

Re:Yeah but the middleman... by Comsn · 2003-07-13 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Back in the time when the dinosaurs ruled the earth, and the RIAA was not around... bands would travel the usa and play at bars or taverns or at the local community center, without any exhorbant prices, without any 'middleman'. they seemed to do just fine.

now the middleman is the internet, there is no need to promote things. websites like http://www.audioscrobbler.com are popping up, watching what you listen to, what other people listen to, matching them and you up and giving you reccomendations.

with programs like soundforge and others, anyone with a moderate pc plus musical instruments can record music.

nowadays no artists can rent a stadium if they arent signed because they cannot charge enough to meet the rent. eliminate the RIAA, and the concert halls will have to start taking chances, and lowering prices.

part of the problem also lies with clearchannel, you cant have 200 people telling 300million what to listen to, clearchannel wont allow airtime to any indie artists, hence we cant listen to them

clearchannel and riaa must go :V

Middle Finger To /.ers! Support the RIAA & CC by novacrook · 2003-07-13 09:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

1.) RIAA going after p2p users doesn't matter: they don't put out anything worth downloading. The best music right now, especially lately, is coming from indies that aren't part of the RIAA...at least according to the list on boycott-riaa.com. Aside from maybe Radiohead, the White Stripes are easily the current king & queen of rock 'n roll--they've hit the cover of every rock mag this year--and guess what? Their label, V2 is an indie, not part of the RIAA. OK, there are good artists on major labels, but the majority of interesting new music is on indies. 2.) Your giant record collection doesn't count if it's on your own CDRs; your songs aren't real unless they're on vinyl. 3.) So what if the RIAA closes down p2p networks and clear channel gobbles up every radio station in the country and all you can hear on the radio is the latest TRL (is taht still on?) crap. Who cares. It just makes good music that much harder to find and people who have it will be that much cooler. People who aren't willing to go out and hunt for interesting new music (and there's plenty of it out there) will be stuck listening to the crap they deserve to hear.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-07-13 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:A real artist refuses pay. by Kwil · 2003-07-13 11:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ah.. I see then you feel the amount of time it takes to create a decent recipe is comparable to the amount of time it takes to create a decent piece of art or music.

Similarly, I expect you feel the time it takes to come up with a new scientific theory is about the same amount of time that it takes to find out a basic fact about the universe. Yet somehow, even though nobody claims ownership of these facts, we're still discovering new ones, so why should we bother paying researchers to actively hunt them down?

Damn, you're right.. it'd be great if some researchers, and some scientists, can manage to eat and pay bills by exercising their craft. However there are worse indignities than having a day job.

Get a clue. Putting to work as a car manufacturer might be beneficial to society in a small way, but by taking away time they'd otherwise use for creativity, we're harming to society in a much larger way.

Your arguement suggests that giving talented artists the free-time to create what they do is actually just a waste of their potential to be building fences or some such. Most people who think about it realize that it's actually the other way around.

--

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

Re:A ral artist refuses pay. by NanoGator · 2003-07-13 11:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The primary goal of an artist should be to create art works by all means necessary...To worry about if an artist gets paid or not is pure reactionary bullshit. If the individual had no intention of paying in the first place, who cares? The art exists and is accessible, an artist is happy. "

Perhaps, but that's only one flavor of artist. Some use their creative skills in order to make a living. Art is not simply a manifestation of self-expression, it is also used for entertainment, something people pay quite a bit for. There is demand for entertainment out there, and people like musicians fill it because it is something they are talented at.

You do have a point, but it's only limited to a segment of the artist population. If they set out to entertain, and they accomplish that, there's nothing wrong with them expecting to be paid in return.

It's a pity that the RIAA doesn't compensate the artists like they should.

--
"Derp de derp."

Rinse. Repeat. by NeverEnough · 2003-07-13 12:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

I work as a publicist and producer in the pop music industry. And was the first person to implement the Ogg Vorbis format at a commercial record company.

OK, so what? So, I've read the same, tired posts, over and over, about P2P on Slashdot. Three things has become abundantly clear:

1) No one here seems to have a fucking clue about the music industry.
2) Nearly everyone here has a hyper-inflated sense of entitlement.
3) People seem to equate feeling strongly about something with being knowledgeable about it.

The music business is very complex. Record companies are not always "middlemen." Artists depend on them for many things. You don't -- that doesn't mean they're not important. And just because they sometimes rip off artists does not provide justification for you to do so. Blah blah blah.

Bill Evans

21 of 231 comments (clear)