Slashdot Mirror
MP3 Creator On Sharing Music
EpsCylonB writes "The BBC has an article about Karlheinz Brandenburg, who is one of the creators of the MP3 music format. 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."
if he had said, i'm so glad i created mp3's so that they would topple the music industry (pinky finger) don't you think he'd ahve RIAA lawyer's being airlifted by blackhawk to his house to litigate him and everything he owns into a smoking crater?
somehow i would have called his stance extremely predictable
He helped create a format, why would that lead to the conclusion that he'd probably like it used for copyright infringement? I am aware that legal sharing was probably going on on napster, but we all know that the majority of transfers were illegal.
but that artists should get paid for what they do
I am damn tired of everyone saying "artists should get paid for what they do." No $hit!. We all feel that way. That was an extremely predictable comment. No one in the public eye would ever say "yeah, I'm glad I steal music, screw those commie bastards and their wussy space station" (South Park reference).
Seriously though, this is a form of laziness. Everyone wants something, but hopes that someone else will do it for them. A message to everyone who is in the public eye: Do not only say you support things, for you have power and influence not only in your words. Support things with your person or pocketbook.
We, as consumers are getting screwed and do not have the resources to do this. THIS is charity. We are close, help us reach the top so we can help others.
How can I convince you that by helping our cause you will not only create less people that need to be helped, but more people who will be able to help?
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
Ahh.. the idea that things have inherent value. You might try reading some fundamental economics books to explain why famous musicians get paid more than teachers.
[if only...] there was a way to download music and pay the artists and not the RIAA.
There are tons of artists that do this- they have albums that are self-released or released on indy labels. Some of them just publish their MP3's on the web and ask for donations.
There's just one catch- they're small and you probably haven't heard of them.
For any artist to become popular, they usually have to rely on the pimps at the RIAA for promotion & marketing. Yeah, there are a few exceptions- Ani DiFranco, NOFX, Fugazi etc. But the general rule is that if you hear some big-name artist on your local ClearChannel clone station, it's safe to say that an oil drum full of cash has been used to get them on the radio.
So, if you want to pay artists in a more direct manner, you have to shun paying attention to any mass-media advertising, because if you do, you are (and should be) supporting the major labels' promotional infrastructure.
Instead go to local shows and get to know the artists in your area. Most small bands make more money from touring than they do from selling CD's. Often, they will be selling CD's for $6-10 at their concerts if you decide you like them. On top of that, it's just a much more rewarding way of experiencing music than from the big media feeding tube.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Paid? yes, but YO DOGG I GOTZ PHAT PAID! No.
There is no reason why, in any world governed by logic, that they [most "artists"] should make that much money.
CDs are full of filler tracks with 1 or 2 "good" songs. And by good, I mean listenable. Not innovative or original, just listenable.
Someone is obviously still buying music since guys like puff daddy, who in any rational world would be out on their ass, are still rolling blunts with $100 bills.
So do I want artists to get paid? Yes, but mostly no. I don't think britney spears deserves any [more] money.
They will get paid according to whatever the market will bare. A teacher doesn't get $1 million because there's tons of teachers, likewise an average musician doesn't get $1 million because there are tons of average musicians. The irony is that we've created an entire class of iconistic "heroes" that we're willing to pay thousands of times more than average people. Why? I couldn't say because I don't know. Is Madonna's music any better than any of the thousands of nameless faceless musicians around? Not really, but she's "famous" so she'll get it.
How exactly do you think you'd hear about new music without a middleman? I don't think that there are very many artists out there with enough startup capital and personal clout to get themselves heard by ANYONE outside their immediate family. To get yourself produced and heard you need money and you need power at your backs... individual artists have neither. If we cut out the middle men tomorrow, the only music that would be produced would be currently established artists, children of already established artists, and celebrities from other industries crossing ranks into the music biz.
Without middle men, you'll never have a music industry becuase you'll never hear anything new.
Sorry.
--
RumorsDaily
That's the thing, though. I just don't bother at all with it anymore. I'll go to a coffee shop to listen to the live performer, or I'll go to a dance with a live band. They'll get tipped at these locations. Granted, they're not making a lot of money, but they're doing something that they like to do for an appreciative audience.
I used to listen to the radio, but the ClearChannelification of the radiowaves doesn't make for good music.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I'm tired of hearing this bullshit rhetoric put out by the RIAA and the Record companies.
.50cents to 1.00dollar per album.
You know just think about whats really going on in our society. Tapes 1st. Easily re-recorded just had to sit down and spend the time to copy a tape, soon they came out with high speed dubbing. People bitched but nothing like this outrage happened.
Along comes cds. Cds can be fairly easily and quickly copied. So they didn't complain about that cause they could lobby and get money tacked on to blank cds and they could drive album prices up to try to counter it. Along comes mp3; oh shit how are we going to tax it? How are we going to get our cut? Oh shit we aren't! Lobby to ban it, regulate it, sue for it. It's bullshit!
Any artists knows that this is really about the record companies. First of all there has been a law suit against the record industry to return money to the public based on the fact that they unfairly inflated the price of music cds and blank cds. Secondly out of a fifteen dollar album an artist would be lucky to get
I for one would stick to my guns in saying that I would dish out from 3-5 bucks an album for an artist I appreciate by ordering it off their website. At that rate along with cutting out the record industry the artists would make much more money. A number of artists have done this with some success. Cutting out the middle man works.
Having said that, I think we as Americans need to think about what is being done in our country righ t now.
Information that is freely and publicly available is being restricted why, because of ease of access and use. Gov. Agencies and big business are sueing, restricting and limiting our access to information based on the fact that information has become too readily available and to easy to compile. If I'm not mistaken that was the whole point of the Technological Revolution?!
So they want to be able to use all the tools we create and all the benefits of efficiency and ease of use to make profit and make weapons, but the common man can not download a fuckin mp3? Now their latest insult is suggesting that Record companies cut into Artist Tour profits to make up for the loss of cds sales. They have no fuckin right to do that! If we don't do something soon we are going to loose our freedom. We are creating the tools for a totalitarian state ruled by evil dictators who use our own creativity and innovation to watch over us like big brother, to restrict us like wardens and to limit the very creativity , the very lust for information and progress that is responsible for their enourmous and terribly intrusive power and authority.
We must protect the essence of our country which is freedom. And if the government and big business is going to oppress freedom, then we must find ways to create new freedoms and new technologies that are not inclusive toward big business and gov.
Did you know that recipes are not protected intellectual property under US law? One would expect that in this situation, there would be massive "recipe piracy"...and indeed there is. One would expect that most folks who create recipes would be unable to make a living at it...and indeed they are.
Yet, somehow, there still seems to be no shortage of recipes in the US. Every amateur cook I know has books and books of the things clipped from magazines, copied from friends, hacked up to suit their tastes. Nonetheless, more arrive all the time.
I think it is great if some cooks, and some artists, can manage to eat and pay bills by exercising their art. However, there are worse indignities than having a day job.
Emusic is the kind of online music service I think most of us want. You pay a monthly fee to download high quality MP3s. No DRM, no embedded advertising. If they had all the music you might want, there would be nothing more to wish for.
And that's the main thing, of course. They don't generally have the name bands, so your satisfaction with the service depends on you being open to discovering lesser known music.
If that's what you're looking for, you'll find plenty. Go check it out. Also, there are some things there that you may already want, and you could maybe get a good deal by signing up for the minimum term and downloading, say, just the Pixies and a truckload of comedy albums.
It's probably too much to hope for, but if they continue to grow, they may expand their catalog to the point where most music is available from them, free of restrictions.
Unfortunately, it's not all wine and roses, but close enough for me. Here are some things that may turn you off:
-
They recently angered their Linux-using customers by making their closed source download manager mandatory. The Linux version sucks rather badly. Some customers can't download at all.
-
Use the service excessively (in their view) and they cut you off. There's a 2000 track/month limit.
-
The download manager only allows you to queue up 45 tracks. Limiting this is probably the reason they made the DLM mandatory. Why they don't do this on the server side, I can't imagine.
-
Some albums are only available to US subscribers.
-
You have to commit for 3 or 12 months.
-
If you have extreme audio quality demands, the VBR MP3s (about 192kbps average) may not be enough. I've heard warbling in a couple of files. I listen with Sennheiser HD600's.
Now, I don't want to hear any more whining about the RIAA being evil and not producing anything worth listening to anyway. Whine about either one seperately if you want, but if you were about to whine about both, go to emusic instead.Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
All of the anti-p2p pundits cite the fact that the artists deserve to get paid for their work. Since when have artists ever gotten paid for their work? Since the beginning of commerce, artists have gotten paid a pittance of the value of their work compared to what the resellers, pimps, agents, distributors, etc. make off of the work. Let's call a donkey a donkey here. This debate is really desk jockeys with lawyers versus teenagers with 20s. We're all rooting for the teenagers, but we all know they don't stand a chance.