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."

Comments

Interesting?

[Evil Adrian]

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...

Re:Interesting?

[Threni]

It's odd, isn't it! He likes music...and yet he doesn't want musicians to benefit from its creation! It truly is a topsy turvy world.

Re:Interesting?

[kp833]

But a name which will be unfamiliar to many is that of Karlheinz Brandenburg
With a name like that no wonder, he is unfamiliar to many

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Interesting?

[ticklemeozmo]

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?

Re:Interesting?

[gilesjuk]

They want the artists to get paid yes, but not the smegging RIAA.

Re:Interesting?

[God! Awful 2]

I am damn tired of everyone saying "artists should get paid for what they do." No $hit!. We all feel that way. 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.

Okay, let me make an extension to that statement. I want artists to be paid for what they do using a free-market system in which consumers are forced to pay for the music they listened to, and not a charitable system in which they donate to the musicians they feel sorry for.

(I also thing the labels deserve to be paid, and probably a lot more than people here give them credit for.)

-a

Re:Interesting?

[dildog]

Sure. But I don't think they should be paid more than say, teachers. They deserve to be paid as much as, say, a musician is worth.

Re:Interesting?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Interesting?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's odd, isn't it! He likes music...and yet he doesn't want musicians to benefit from its creation! It truly is a topsy turvy world.

Correction, we like a lot of things that we don't want to pay for. I like sunny days and nice green grass and trees, but you have to be willing to pay to get it.

Re:Interesting?

[dildog]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Interesting?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

Re:Interesting?

[Uber Banker]

That is the point.

You said "should". Why should they?

Economics is not a state of the world (nor does it underly the state of the world) - political points of view - capitalism, communism - each embrace some set of economic principals or arguments, but not them all.

Economics is the world - economics in nature is called biology chemistry or physics, economics inside your head is called psychology.

Economics embraces all.

Re:Interesting?

[NIN_INCH_NAILS]

I'm tired of hearing this bullshit rhetoric put out by the RIAA and the Record companies.

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 .50cents to 1.00dollar per album.

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.

Re:Interesting?

[wavedeform]

Lots of professions are paid more (or less) than any subjective scale might dictate. How much is a musician worth?

Should programmers be paid more than teachers?
How about sanitary engineers?
Should university professors be paid more than elementary school teachers?

Re:Interesting?

[dildog]

You said "should". Why should they?

Economics, left to its own devices, does not guarantee quality of life. It may guarantee that those with lots of money have extravagant lifestyles. But it surely doesn't make the world a 'better' place for 'most' people.

Neither does "Britney Spears", "The Bachelor", or "The Real World: Your Mom".

Our collective human mental wasteland is growing exponentially. That's the way it goes. I'm not saying that there's any way to stop it, or that we should stop it.

Sadly, economics is often short-sighted, as the long-term welfare of the human race (hundreds of years) is not profitable in the short-term (our individual lifetimes).

In fact, I'm not even convinced the rest of you humans actually exist. When I die, the whole world will go away, and nothing that I've done will matter, really.

Yours truly, in complete and utter cynicism,

--dil

Re:Interesting?

[inode_buddha]

Well, duh. I think he's right. So, yes I agree with you *and* him.

It just *bugs* me how long it took for this to get out...

Re:Interesting?

[iamacat]

Sure, we all want artists to get paid - once, for creating or at least a performance. I don't know about you, but I get paid for writting code, but don't get any additional money if someone still uses it 10 years later. I don't see why an artist, RIAA or my employer should be any different. I promise I will not pirate any concert tickets.

Re:Interesting?

[Uber Banker]

You are talking about capitalism and business, not economics... did you read a word I wrote (or the great-great grandparent of this?).

Communism is a form of economics (all have the same money). Capitalism is a form of economics. Economics existed in a barter economy before there was money. Corruption of communism or capitalism is a form of economics.

Economics is not long term or short term... it is a method of analysis.

It is sad you cannot see what is in this 'world' (or in preceeding threads).

I will leave you to have the last word as I think you'd like that.

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

"...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.

Re:Interesting?

[dildog]

I will leave you to have the last word as I think you'd like that.

I'll take it, since you offered. I was about to dump a big ol' incensed rant here, but I suppose this will do:

All I was sayin', was that as we become a worldy people (yay internet), if we enforce ignorance by making proper, worldly, education difficult to obtain, then we will suffer, since to most people, the survival of the race is ephemerally unrelated to our daily actions.

Think 'point derivative' and 'local minima/maxima'. It's really easy to look at short term economics to dispel ethical issues regarding our decisions, but it's also the long term effects of those decisions that we must consider, regardless of the immediate cost-benefit.

Anyway. Thanks for the engaging discussion!

Re:Interesting?

[Kwil]

Sure you do.

Every time your code sells another copy, you get paid for it. Or rather, your company does, and they pay you.

Now, if you write your own code, and you sell it to a company who resells it without getting some kind of royalty deal, that just implies you have no business sense.

Try to remember that use is different from distribution.

Re:Interesting?

[PylonHead]

but the common man can not download a fuckin mp3?

Mon dieu! Until this very moment I hadn't realized it was all a vast government conspiracy to prevent us from getting music without paying!

Here I was worried about wars and lies, oil and terrorism.

Re:Interesting?

[AstroDrabb]

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.

Re:Interesting?

[arose]

I should declare myself an artist too, so I can shit and get paid for it.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

Who says it's about price?

I don't know. Certainly not I, the word "price" didn't appear in anything I wrote.

Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that.

Excuse me, nitwit, but again you've misquoted me, put words in my mouth, and put the cart before the horse. I said that when I've said artists should be paid for their work, I have been flamed. I've drawn the conclusion from that that Slashdotters, as a group, don't believe they should pay the artists. That's a perfectly legitimate conclusion to draw when you say things like "People who make use of an artists work have a moral obligation to live up to the terms under which that work was created in an environment where there are copyright laws" and you get blasted back with "I'll use whatever the hell I want, I don't see why artists should have any special rights".

I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the abuse leveled at anyone suggesting that copyright might actually (a) be a reasonable compromise (if badly implemented at present), and (b) that in an environment where people expect content they produce to be bought by those who use it, and therefore have every right to expect to be able to support themselves through their works, that they should be paid for what's used.

And I think it's perfectly valid, once you've suffered that level of flamage, to draw the obvious conclusions about Slashbots and their views on copyrights. It is CERTAINLY valid to draw the conclusion that the vast majority of Slashbots are ripping-off artists when they argue that they have no moral duty to pay artists anything for the creations they use.

Fight back againt a monpolistic entity and get labeled a thief. Fun.

I've never labeled anyone a thief. Fair use isn't fighting "againt" a "monpolistic" entity FWIW. And non-fair-use, which I have been arguing against, making use of others works you haven't paid for without their permission, is generally screwing the artists, not screwing the RIAA.

By all means reply, but if you make a criticism of what I've argued without quoting something I've actually said that reflects that criticism, I'll draw the conclusion you have no argument. Pretending I've said things in the past that I haven't may be a way to score points, but it doesn't change minds.

Re:Interesting?

[SN74S181]

You're certain free to go out and seek patrons and maybe even a distributor who will enter into a contract to distribute your shit for you.

I suspect you'll just find yourself playing around with your own shit in the end, though.

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

"I don't know. Certainly not I, the word "price" didn't appear in anything I wrote. "

Here's what you said:

"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 were no clearer than that. You also mentioned 'stooge of the RIAA'. You have no reasonable expectation that I could have known what you really meant. My misinterpreation of your quote was a direct result of your own inadequate explanation of what happened.

"Excuse me, nitwit, but again you've misquoted me, put words in my mouth, and put the cart before the horse."

Honestly dude, grow up. Your original post reads that way, that ain't my fault. Spare me the name calling.

" I said that when I've said artists should be paid for their work, I have been flamed. I've drawn the conclusion from that that Slashdotters, as a group, don't believe they should pay the artists. That's a perfectly legitimate conclusion to draw when you say things like "People who make use of an artists work have a moral obligation to live up to the terms under which that work was created in an environment where there are copyright laws" and you get blasted back with "I'll use whatever the hell I want, I don't see why artists should have any special rights". "

Finally, some detail.

I haven't seen your other posts, so I can only speculate here as I mentioned in my last post. First off, your assumption is ill-based. That's probably why you're getting flamed. "Slashdotters don't want to pay the artists" reads like "people are basically dishonest", and "people have an obligation to live up to the terms and conditions of sale" reads like "accept your copy restricted CDs like a good little sheep." That's probably not what you wanted them to read, but I guarantee you, that's an extreme likelyhood. I've seen plenty of people modded up for delivering the same message you have about observing the artist's ToS. Conincidentally, they didn't come to extreme conclusions about Slashdotters.

There's a very good reason why people don't like the ToS of CD buying. It's called consumer demand. And because the RIAA has a monopoly on this particular market, they don't have to do anything but sell what they like, which happens to be at a premium. They don't respond to demand. As a result, people aren't getting what they want.

I agree that there are some people who don't want to pay anybody for anything. However, just remember that only the people who feel really really strongly about something are going to post. I mean seriously, all those people who read your post, and only one or two flamed you for it... does that really mean that the whole Slashdot population doesn't want to spend money? Piece of advice: Never use the number of loudmouthes to measure anything. Certainly don't apply their values to anything I've said, I didn't vote for them to represent me.

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I don't want to argue you about who wants to compensate who for what. I don't think I can convince you to see my side of it. I just want you to understand why you are probably getting flamed. You're drawing conclusions and making harsh assumptions about people, a lot of them with tons of albums sitting in their closets. Maybe you could get your view out there to be a little more understood if you'd be more tactful in your posts.

"And non-fair-use, which I have been arguing against, making use of others works you haven't paid for without their permission, is generally screwing the artists, not screwing the RIAA. "

Not that I want to get dragged into this type of debate, but what people want here are services like Apple's iTunes. Fast, high quality music downloads with a decent codec. (iTunes would be a dream if it supported Mp3). The huge success of that service really should tell you something. It should

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

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."

Sorry, where does it say anything about price in the above? I can't see it. I can't see anything there suggesting price comes into the issue at all.

You have no reasonable expectation that I could have known what you really meant. My misinterpreation of your quote was a direct result of your own inadequate explanation of what happened.

Oh really. I believe what I said was that I had made the statement, in the past, that artists deserved to be paid for what they create, and had been flamed. You chose to make up an explanation rather than take what I said at face value.

Of course, if you were that desperate for an explanation, my recent posting history would have sufficed. You can find a fairly recent thread here. While the "root" of this discussion is not on my most recent 20 postings, my replies most certainly are.

But no, apparently if I explain that I was being flamed for merely advocating artists getting their due, that isn't enough and you're prone to make up reasons rather than click twice to investigate. Is this the way you usually argue?

First off, your assumption is ill-based. That's probably why you're getting flamed.

Go back and read what I just wrote to you. I'll ignore the rest of your response and give you the benefit of the doubt (God knows why):

My assumption is based upon the fact that I was flamed. The flames occured BEFORE I made the assumption. Geddit?

Read. Then reply.

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

"Sorry, where does it say anything about price in the above? I can't see it. I can't see anything there suggesting price comes into the issue at all. "

So what did you mean then? You're saying they don't want the money to go from them to the artists. What motivation is for that to take place if they don't want to pay for it? Even if you have some rationilization, how can you expect that people wouldn't default to the commonly held belief that if people don't want to give money to the artists that they don't want to pay the price?

Honestly dude, this is your failing here.

"Oh really. I believe what I said was that I had made the statement, in the past, that artists deserved to be paid for what they create, and had been flamed."

You originally said that Slashdotters don't want to pay for it. The only thing you said about the artists getting paid is that you think Slashdotters want them paid as long as it doesn't come out of their own pocket. I'm sure you didn't mean it to come out that way, but it did. To just about anybody reading this forum, that reads as "nobody wants to pay for music" because it's a commonly held argument here. Common sense should dictate that if you hold an inflammatory point of view you should be careful about how you present yourself.

"You chose to make up an explanation rather than take what I said at face value."

Right. Put whatever spin you want on it, interpretation is not the same as making things up.

"Of course, if you were that desperate for an explanation, my recent posting history would have sufficed."

Perhaps. However, twice you have had the opportunity to point everybody at the thread you were referring to. You had to be challenged twice in order to get that. Communications failure? Yep, I think so. Couldn't just say "people flame me for having a perceived pro-RIAA view, here's a thread where it happened so you can see what I mean"? You'd think that somebody who is as misinerpreted as you claim you are would be more descriptive.

"But no, apparently if I explain that I was being flamed for merely advocating artists getting their due, that isn't enough ..."

Shoulda said that originally, which is what this discussion is about. I understand what you mean, now that I've had to drag the explanation out of you. You're still failing to understand that your original post was too vague. I'm not the least bit surprised you get flamed. If you leave blanks open, people will fill them. Can't expect them not to, nor can you push your failings onto them.

" and you're prone to make up reasons rather than click twice to investigate. Is this the way you usually argue?"

Interpretation is not the same as making things up. If somebody draws a circle and somebody comes along and says "nice ball", they can't be accused of making stuff up if the person who draw it had the sun in mind. Would you like me to point out that your debate style involves discrediting me instead of listening and pointing out where I'm wrong? Would that get us anywhere? Nope. It'd get us into an argument.

"My assumption is based upon the fact that I was flamed. The flames occured BEFORE I made the assumption. Geddit? "

Yeah, I 'geddit'. You said something vague, the blanks were filled in, and you think that's everybody's fault but your own. Now, if we can just get you to see that you could learn from it and make posts clearer so you don't get flamed.

"Read. Then reply."

Practice what you preach.

Re:Interesting?

[arose]

So why don't I get a cut of audio-cd sales like the shity artists of RIAA?

Re:Interesting?

[Mostly Harmless]

I agree that the artist should get paid. There's no reason why we can spend $5 for a hot dog at a baseball game, or $15 for popcorn and a soda at a movie, but we refuse to pay for music. The difference is, however, that music is more universal, especially since it is more readily available and easier to pirate than other things (it's pretty hard to steal a baseball game). That's not to say that some common ground can't be reached. Why not tax CR-R/RWs the same way that VHS tapes are, with a percentage of the proceeds of sales going to the recording industry? Or tack a tax onto ISP charges in exchange for the ability to download music? If my access charge went up a dollar or two a month so I could download music, you wouldn't hear any complaints from me.

Re:Interesting?

[Renli]

"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?"

I don't know about you but where I lived MP3's were in use long before CD-Burners had an affoardable price.

Re:Interesting?

[KjetilK]

You're not by any chance reading at Score: 1, are you...? :-)

Re:Interesting?

[Znork]

I'd love to see the artists getting paid. The RIAA companies, through a clever combination of slavery contracts, racketeering, payola and deceit are the main thing preventing artists from getting paid. For most artists it will be a cold day in hell before they get a single cent out of any CD sales.

Then again, nobody accuses the RIAA of having a sense of decency...

Re:Interesting?

[Znork]

"Secondly out of a fifteen dollar album an artist would be lucky to get .50 cents to 1.00dollar per album."

Dont forget that those 50 cents to 1 dollar per album gets discounted from the advance which is used to record the actual album (in the company owned price-inflated studios, of course). So after selling maybe 500k to a million albums, then the artist may begin seeing those lucky .50 cents, rather than "You've sold 250k albums. Your part of that makes 125k dollars. You now only owe us 375k dollars.".

Not that many artists ever get any money at all out of the CD sales.

Re:Interesting?

[basingwerk]

You don't have to be proud. As well as 50% of the world's wealth, North Americans have 60% of the world's debt, and it ain't all in Canada!

Re:Interesting?

[MacGod]

The money is there ready to be spent on artists who supply what people want.

While I agree this is in general true, it isn't true of many demographics. I was at a party recently, where we were watching a Music TV station, and somebody commented that they couldn't remember the last time they'd paid for music. Yet this person had a full library of tracks.

Now, before the flames start, let me make myself clear: I think the RIAA has overstepped and has treated the majority of their users unfairly. I think DRM and crippled CDs are a blasphemy, and I do pay for the overwhelming majority of my music. I don't think music listeners are inherently thieves, and I think good, legitimate services (likes the iTunes Music Store) will do very well, because they will let people avoid "casual piracy".

That being said, though, I think we do have to remember that some people use Kazaa et all in lieu of purchasing music. While the RIAA has gone too far in many respects, they do have a point. There are a lot of people out there who pirate music instead of buying any.

This is not the only situation where a few bad apples ruins a good thing for the rest of us!

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

how can you expect that people wouldn't default to the commonly held belief that if people don't want to give money to the artists that they don't want to pay the price?

So, basically, you read into my argument something that wasn't there, and you're blaming me for that?

I didn't say anything about price. I said Slashdotters don't want to pay, period. The end. It's not a matter of price, it's a matter of paying something at all. 1c, $100.

And don't blame me for your assumption. I made it clear nothing I'd said was about price. You quoted some random line which said nothing about price, and didn't explain why you read "price" into that.

You originally said that Slashdotters don't want to pay for it. The only thing you said about the artists getting paid is that you think Slashdotters want them paid as long as it doesn't come out of their own pocket. I'm sure you didn't mean it to come out that way, but it did.

I did indeed say that, and I stand by it. That has nothing to do with you putting the cart before the horse and claiming that that belief predated being flamed.

I said in response to "I think anyone with a sense of decency wants the artists to get paid." that when I've posted similar statements, I've been flamed. I then drew the conclusion above.

It's really quite simple. Cause and effect. Only, despite having it explained to you twice, you decided to read it as Effect then Cause. It was pretty clear in this:

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.

that I was concluding from the fact that I was being flamed that the average Slashdotter doesn't want to pay the artists. But you, for some reason, decided to join the ranks of the moron flamers and claimed, despite no evidence to the contrary, that I'd been flamed after I drew that conclusion. There's nothing in the above that suggests that. There's nothing in the above that implies I'd ever expressed that conclusion.

Put whatever spin you want on it, interpretation is not the same as making things up.

Indeed, so spare us the sophistry and stop pretending you were "interpreting" my words. You weren't. There's no way any of what I wrote can be "interpreted" as implying either that I felt the price was an issue (where the f--- did that come from?) or that I'd been flamed because I'd told Slashbots they weren't willing to pay the artists.

"But no, apparently if I explain that I was being flamed for merely advocating artists getting their due, that isn't enough ..."
Shoulda said that originally

I DID FUCKING SAY THAT ORIGINALLY. How the hell is my original message supposed to be interpreted other than that? Let's break down what I wrote:

First, I quoted the view of my respondent:

I think anyone with a sense of decency wants the artists to get paid...

My first sentence suggests that the respondent may be wrong about assuming "anyone with a sense of decency" agrees:

You haven't been on Slashdot long have you?

Do you need that one explained to you? No? Ok, let's continue. My next sentence explains how I've expressed a similar view in the past, and been flamed for it:

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".

That's all it says, and for the life of me, I can't read anything else into that. It's a simple sentence. It says I've posted similar comments before, and been flamed as a "stooge of the RIAA". Really, that's it.

I then draw a conclusion from this:

Re:Interesting?

[pfurlong]

I agree with the observation that Home Depot leaves items outdoors without overt monitoring, but I have to disagree with including Walmart in it.

Whenever I enter a Walmart store, the greeters make attempts to apply stickers to any bags I may be carrying. I guess they feel this will decrease the chances that I'll shoplift. It does, however, make me feel that they assume I'm going to start filling my bags with their merchandise if there's no sticker on my bag. So, they make me feel like a thief without any prior history of my being one.

As much as I prefer to buy many items from Walmart (given their prices), I end up being seen as an irritable sot who gives their greeters dirty looks whenever they try to apply their stickers. And I won't let them.

Re:Interesting?

[Mage Powers]

Correction, we like a lot of things that we don't want to pay for. I like sunny days and nice green grass and trees, but you have to be willing to pay to get it.

yes but its not like we need Mr Burns to MAKE sunlight for us to enjoy

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

"So, basically, you read into my argument something that wasn't there, and you're blaming me for that? "

I didn't read past that. If you can't accept the idea that you left too much to the imagination, then I really don't see a whole lot of point in reading anything else you say. Honestly dude, this Rimmeresque 'blame everybody but yourself' attitude is hard to deal with when one has a head cold.

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

"That being said, though, I think we do have to remember that some people use Kazaa et all in lieu of purchasing music. While the RIAA has gone too far in many respects, they do have a point. There are a lot of people out there who pirate music instead of buying any."

There are some people like that, no argument there. The question is whether or not a lot of them are. I don't think that question is so easy to answer. There are a few more interesting questions too:

- How many people are downloading songs that they already have CDs to?

- How many people are downloading songs they've heard on the radio?

- How many people are downloading replacement songs, i.e. songs that they had a long time ago but were stolen or something.

- How many people are downloading songs from albums of bands they've heard of, but were never interested in buying a full album to?

- How many people are downloading just that one good song out of an album because the rest are garbage?

- How many people are downloading music because the RIAA pissed them off and they refuse to do business with them anymore?

= How many people have downloaded a ton of Mp3s that they've never played before, but never listen to either?

I don't mean to imply those are all legit, but I think understanding the various reasons people download music in the first place is crucial to both measuring the true damage due to piracy and to understanding what the RIAA could be doing to save itself from it. If people are downloading music because their media is damaged, shouldn't the RIAA be looking at a media replacement program?

In any case, I see your point and respect it. (no flames here! ;)) But I do think that understanding these questions I've asked would be rather enlightening for all. They also explain why people get pissy when the RIAA calls them thieves.

Cheers

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

Hey! Look at this It's somebody who can explain their point of view! You should read that.

Re:Interesting?

[Anonvmous Coward]

You are defending the price aspect of that discussion way too hard, to the point of silliness I might add. You are claiming that you never said anything about price, yet the meaning of what he said is pretty much in line with your point.

I read your responses and I think "Man, this guy doesn't take a good rebuttal very well, does he?"

Simmer down. He didn't put words into your mouth, but he did point out evidence to the contrary of your point. You really should consider discussing with him instead of arguing.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

I didn't read past that

You don't really read anything I write, do you?

Why don't you simmer down, read the thing you just ignored, and then explain how your putting words into my mouth and your decision to repeatedly ignore what I've written and claim it said something different was fair?

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

I'm sorry, I don't see the relevence to this discussion.

How does the fact that you believe you understood what he had to say relate to your attempt to paint:

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.

as meaning

when I've posted that Slashdotters are thieves, I've been flamed as a stooge of the RIAA

Truth is I don't think you have an argument. If you had one, you'd respond to what I've written, not what some strawman has said.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

You are claiming that you never said anything about price, yet the meaning of what he said is pretty much in line with your point.

No, it isn't. I said that Slashdotters don't believe people should pay for music. Price isn't an issue, Nanogator insisted that I'd suggested it was.

Either way though, that's not the major thing that pissed me off: what pissed me off was the fucking slanderous suggestion that I was running around calling Slashdotters thieves and then whining about it when they flamed me. I've never done anything remotely like that. Nanogator insisted that my original message said exactly that - it didn't, and I felt obliged to defend that.

He didn't put words into your mouth

YES, he did. See above...

but he did point out evidence to the contrary of your point.

He didn't address my point, he addressed a point I never made.

You really should consider discussing with him instead of arguing.

Thanks for the advice, Captain Obvious. Two problems: arguing is a form of discussion, and if we're going to discuss something, we need at least to be discussing the same thing. If one person says "I think the sky's blue" and the other says "You're a moron, how can you possible say that only the sky is blue and nothing else is?", then there's not really much room for discussion until the second person is willing to address the point of the first person, rather than make crap up.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

On the "putting words into my mouth" front, just in case I'm really wrong, and my simple English sentences really mean something ludicrously different to what I've said, perhaps you can find anything I've posted ever (and remember NG was only responding to the messages in this thread) that matches:

Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that.

I can tell you I've never written anything knowingly that matches the above sentence. The nearest was the comment I made that in conclusion after being flamed, I felt Slashdotters do not want listeners to pay for music. That is, however, far removed from the above comment, that in any case in context actually proposed that I was running around being flamed for posting with such views.

That comment is the big one. It's the one that made me respond to Nanogator to correct his misapprehension and avoid others reading his comments and assuming that I was running around saying these things.

The reason I'm being flamed, in all honesty, and why Nanogator insists on misrepresenting my views, is, I believe, because I'm saying something unpopular - in this case, that I believe the contract between society and artists expressed through copyright law should be upheld, that a good artist whose work is popular enough for people to want it should be able to make a living or at least make the calculations necessary to make that judgement from the work they do.

That's not popular on Slashdot, and I have numerous flames to prove it.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

Hey, as you didn't read it, here's a repeat of the annotated version of my original posting, you know, the one you believe implied I was running around posting that Slashdotters are a bunch of freeloaders. I post this because you clearly feel some explanation is order:

-----
First, I quoted the view of my respondent:

I think anyone with a sense of decency wants the artists to get paid...

My first sentence suggests that the respondent may be wrong about assuming "anyone with a sense of decency" agrees:

You haven't been on Slashdot long have you?

Do you need that one explained to you? No? Ok, let's continue. My next sentence explains how I've expressed a similar view in the past, and been flamed for it:

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".

That's all it says, and for the life of me, I can't read anything else into that. It's a simple sentence. It says I've posted similar comments before, and been flamed as a "stooge of the RIAA". Really, that's it.

I then draw a conclusion from this:

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.

Note how the sentence comes after the comment about what happened when I posted similar arguments. Note how it starts with the words "I guess it may be that...", implying that I'm drawing a conclusion from that comment.

That's it. It's a really simple, short, comment. It means exactly what it says. It does exactly what it says on the tin. And you've read into this the following:

1. That my argument is about "price". The word "price" isn't mentioned. The comment made is that Slashdotters don't feel the listeners should have to pay the artists.
2. That my conclusion is actually my cause - that actually what I wrote was that Slashdotters don't want to pay anything, and that's why I was flamed. Again, that doesn't come into it.

And, if you genuinely were looking for more information, and I certainly didn't need to provide any, clicking on two links (the word "squiggleslash" above my article and then a likely posting - maybe one to a thread with "RIAA" in the title?) would have brought you that. But whether you needed the additional evidence or not, you certainly had no right to conclude that I'd posted that Slashbots are a bunch of freeloading arseholes, and been flamed for *that*, because I never posted anything remotely implying that.

So, tell me, what's so hard about that? Why couldn't you have just read what I wrote in the first place, and responded to that? What lead you to make something up?

Re:Interesting?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Price isn't an issue, Nanogator insisted that I'd suggested it was."

Not exactly. I'd argue with you about it, but you and he have already had that discussion. Frankly, I'm not interested in the argument anyway. NG's response was understandable. (And no, he did not put words in your mouth.)

The real reason you're so focused on the 'price' aspect of the argument is that you found a weakness in his original post (a bad choice of words on NG's part, never mind that the rest of his point doesn't support your view of what he said) and are trying to discredit him so you don't look defeated. It's really as simple as that. I really cannot say I'm impressed. You could very easily have just said "I think you misunderstood me, let me clarify" but instead you went off on a rant and tried to insult him.

Suddenly, the reasons you get flamed come sharply into focus.

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

" read the thing you just ignored, "

I don't see the point. You're intent on arguing with me on a detail that has no bearing on the outcome of what I said.

I have taken a little time to think about where you're coming from though. I reread my original post, and I have one regret.

"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."

Wish I had been a little more tactful there. I'm sorry about that. I was thinking about why you'd get so shitty with me in the first place and it occured to me that you've probably gotten all sorts of hostile babble from some of the Slashtrolls, and what I said there probably sounded just like that. I've been there. I failed to take that into consideration.

Oh well, life goes on.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

I'm not focussed on the "price" aspect, I've barely mentioned it except to mention it. I still don't understand what either of you have seen in my posts that implies that I think price is an issue. As I said, I haven't even used the word "price", and the one sentence NanoGator has quoted on the issue doesn't appear, to me at any rate, to raise any issue about price levels.

I'm focussed on the suggestion that I was flamed after posting comments to the effect that Slashdotters are a bunch of freeloaders.

Well, I didn't. And to date, there's not been a single bit of evidence posted to suggest otherwise. Not something I've written, intentionally or otherwise. And you know why? Because I've never, before this thread, written anything of the sort.

I don't see how I can respond to NanoGator when he's responding to a straw man and insisting that I've been doing something I haven't. He's arguing with me that I'd be flamed less if I didn't go around telling Slashbots that they're stealing music. I'm not going around telling Slashbots that they're stealing music. As an "independent", perhaps you'd like to quote an example, except for the origin of this thread where I've very clearly drawn that conclusion from the flames, where I've said anything of the sort.

If I really am running around saying stuff I don't intend, I'd like to know about it. But for the life of me, I can't see a single case where I am, nor have I seen anyone quote a thing I've said and explain how it can be interpreted to match the arguments of NanoGator's strawman.

Re:Interesting?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I still don't understand what either of you have seen in my posts that implies that I think price is an issue. As I said, I haven't even used the word "price", and the one sentence NanoGator has quoted on the issue doesn't appear, to me at any rate, to raise any issue about price levels. "

Before we go any further, can you please explain to me how you're seeing his price comment? I think you explained it already but I want to be 100 percent clear. Do you think he means that people don't want to pay too much and you're saying they don't want to pay at all?

I'll be happy to respond to the rest of your comment after I am 100% certain I understand what you mean. (at least give me credit for trying to understand)

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

BTW, on this:

NG's response was understandable. (And no, he did not put words in your mouth.)

I'd love to know why you believe:

Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that.

is either "understandable" or not putting words into my mouth.

Ironically, that exact sentence he's expressing regret over above. Unfortunately, just about 50% of the response of which it was a part expresses the same opinion:

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.

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

The rest is challenging an argument I didn't make, that the members of the RIAA's prices are fair and reasonable and people have no reason to want alternatives.

Re:Interesting?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I can tell you I've never written anything knowingly that matches the above sentence. "

Ah, okay, I see what you mean now. Never mind my last question. It's kind of hard to keep track of everything you post, heh. (I'm not entirely sure what your latest was...)

He apologized for that senetence. Catch that?

"I believe the contract between society and artists expressed through copyright law should be upheld"

You did not say that in the original post. You may have been thinking it, but you made no mention of that. You *only* said that slashdot visitors don't want to pay the artists. That's what he was responding to.

To make a long story short, I think it's just a misunderstanding. You could have been clearer and he could have been more inquisitive. I think if you both had been a little more level-headed an agreement could have been reached.

I have a piece of advice for you. He's home sick today. He's not feeling very good, he's a bit scatterbrained on ICQ right now. Cut him a little slack, will ya? He's a nice guy who can admit when he's wrong. Give him a chance to be civil? Please?

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

"...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.

I'm seeing his argument as suggesting that this is about price and he, quite rightly, arguing that it isn't (much.) - ie he's saying I'm arguing that Slashdotters would be more willing to pay if the price was lower. I don't see how that can be read into my statement

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.

which, to reword it, in case there really is some serious wording flaw in the above (and I can't see it):

I guess the average Slashdotter wants to see artists paid, but feels as a matter of principle that listeners should not be obligated in any way under any circumstances to pay those artists

(Of course, that's now more open to misinterpretation than the original in some ways - an artist may chose a business plan that provides the music to listeners for free, such as the advertising model, but the bottom line is that if an artist feels that anyone who wants their own copy of the artist's work should pay the artist for that, then that's a reasonable thing, especially in an environment where the existance of copyright law implies an agreement between artists and society that artists will have that control over their works, should they choose to use it, in exchange for them creating new and wonderful things.)

Re:Interesting?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I'd love to know why you believe... is either "understandable" or not putting words into my mouth. "

I was focused on the 'price' aspect of his post. I did not realize you were referring to that. Sozz. :)

"The rest is challenging an argument I didn't make..."

Take it to him, not me. I'm only playing diplomat, not judging a debate contest.

"that the members of the RIAA's prices are fair and reasonable and people have no reason to want alternatives."

Stepping entirely out of the debate you and NG are having, do you believe that bit? Just curious. You've said before that you feel that people should respect the T&C of music that the artists put out, I'm curious if that means you believe they have no reason to want alternatives or not. Actually I'm really after a more fleshed out explanation of your view here.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

I certainly believe people want alternatives, and to some extent the existance of P2P, be it its origins in IRC, through Napster and the various systems that have built on Napster, show that people really want systems that provide a large quantity of different types of music that's on demand and "worry free". The apparent success of the iTunes Music Store shows that a significant part of that, the non-worry-free aspect, is enough to win over a lot of people.

One thing I've posted repeatedly in other threads is that I believe the person who's built the most effective system for producing diverse, worry-free, domains of creative work is Richard Stallman. In his case, the GPL has ultimately created an infrastructure that allows people to build new software systems upon free software systems, and that infrastructure has had enormous impact and created a domain that challenges the closed alternatives. Music ought to be next: there are enough artists who want to be heard and really either are not doing it to earn a living or see a benefit in at least providing some of their stuff without controls, there's a variety of physical infrastructural systems available to distribute such content, including the oft-forgotten World Wide Web, and all that's really needed are two things:

First, a realization that the RIAA and the music produced by its members is not critical to the success of a free music model. If that looks unrealistic today, ask how realistic the creation of a free, open, operating system with capabilities exceeding that of standard minicomputer fare looked in the late eighties.

Second, momentum.

I believe that, even under the absurdly over the top restrictions of modern copyright law, it's possible to achieve an environment where there's a signficant body of uncontrolled music. But in order to achieve that in a society that has copyright laws - and, in my view, copyright by itself is not immoral - this has to be done with the consent of the people producing the content.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

Ok, poor wording in the above:

The apparent success of the iTunes Music Store shows that a significant part of that, the non-worry-free aspect, is enough to win over a lot of people.

The apparent success of the iTunes Music Store shows that providing a substantial part of that, iTMS ommitting the worry-free aspect (ie it costs money as you use it), is enough to win over a lot of people.

Re:Interesting?

[squiggleslash]

I could possibly have avoided terms like "moron flamers" and "nitwit", and for those I most certainly apologise.

Maybe, as he suggests elsewhere, I've been flamed just a little too often recently to not be exasperated. I'll go boil my head.

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

"I'm seeing his argument as suggesting that this is about price and he, quite rightly, arguing that it isn't (much.) - ie he's saying I'm arguing that Slashdotters would be more willing to pay if the price was lower. I don't see how that can be read into my statement "

Hmm. Actually I was trying to make the argument that people would pay if the price was more reasonable. I was under the impression that you're saying people don't want to pay for it at all. If I thought you were saying "people would be willing to pay some but not as much as the RIAA was asking", my response wouldn't have been a rebuttal, but more of a supporting statement.

That clear things up a bit?

Re:Interesting?

[NanoGator]

I think we'z all clear now. :) Thanks for puttin up with me. Wish I'd been a little nicer.

Re:Interesting?

[aphr0Scorp]

YOU COULUD POSSIBLY AVOID COSKCS!?!??? aslkdjfalkjd alkjsdlkjad lkajldkj sdlkjsldkj aksje 2l3lj2jj 2nans,d wjekljw eiioiusbe bwbe,m waoiuwelk webahselkj wej wekuszuosub3b2 2bbb2 2bb2b2 2bmsne.faggot

well..

[waspleg]

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

Re:well..

[EpsCylonB]

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?

The dude lives in germany (AFAIK).

Re:well..

[waspleg]

you act like americans odn't sell music there

and that germans don't have similar laws

i'm willing to bet that german p2pers could have lawsuits brought same as anyone else.. remember this is the age of the New World Order and One World gov't where there is no appeals process and only one world oligarchy run by the extremely rich err i mean 'democracy'

although i admit to not knowing anything at all about german law

Re:well..

[yintercept]

It could also be that a lot of the old time programmers (1989) still pretty much shared a belief in the capitalist system and saw software and music as something people would invest in and trade.

It is not unbelieveable that the creator a music format has different beliefs than the creator of a file sharing system. I would be more shocked to find that they believed the exact same thing. My experience is that just about everyone in the world thinks different thoughts...counter, of course, to Schopenhauer who thought there was only one conciousness.

BTW, I think the original MP3.com site that allowed all artists from every music genre to upload and share music was the best web site ever created. Too bad they wasted the company on a stupid copyright battle.

iTMS

[BWJones]

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.

iTMS anyone?

Re:iTMS

[gantrep]

"The iTunes Music Store requires a Mac equipped with iTunes 4 and Mac OS X Version 10.1.5 or later."


But yeah, something LIKE that would be great. Hopefully Apple will eventually make it more accessible for everyone

Re:iTMS

[CptChipJew]

iTunes is currently being developed for Windows. It will support the iTunes music store. This isn't secret information. As well, they plan an expanding it into Europe. Of course, that's not EVERYONE, but it's a good start.

Re:iTMS

[Hawthorne01]

According to Macrumors.com, iTMS is soon to be found in Canada as well.

Let the currency exchange jokes commence!

;-)

Re:iTMS

[mrpuffypants]

iTMS uses AAC from Dolby.

Evil! Evil! Not MP3! Not OGG!

just kidding, I love and USE iTMS. Apple gets far too much of my money (looks at 3 day old 30GB iPod)

Re:iTMS

[Chicane-UK]

I'm sure its an excellent service....... if you own an Apple Mac!

As soon as they release iTunes for Windows, I will at least give this service a look!

Re:iTMS

[Jugalator]

Too bad I both use Windows and live in Europe. :-P

I find it surprising that they haven't even opened the service for europeans on *Mac's* yet. I wonder what the difficulties are? I mean... No sane person could willingly delay the release of iTunes on both Windows and in more parts of the world. Apple's income right now would seem like nothing in comparison.

Re:iTMS

[Phantasmo]

Hmm...

no GNU/Linux support, but Windows support is on its way.

So, wait for iTunes for Windows, emerge winex, hope to God that the Windows port works, fork over your CC number and start downloading!

Not so easy. :(

I prefer sending money orders of about $5 to the artist/band - skip the RIAA, skip the greedy record company, give more money to the artist and save $20!

if only...

[dfj225]

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

Re:if only...

[xactoguy]

Well, about the closest way that you can get to doing that, legally ( technically, if you download the mp3s, and then send the cheque, you still have unauthorized songs on your computer until the money is sent ), is to use iTunes Music Store. The one problem being with that - you need a Mac ( at least for now ).

Re:if only...

[gantrep]

How would you send a check to the artist? Not home address, would you send checks made out to the artist at the address of their record label?

Actually, that's a neat idea.

Re:if only...

[gantrep]

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...

[tunabomber]

[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.

Re:if only...

[90XDoubleSide]

But on iTMS, the artists get equal representation no matter what label they publish under, and there are several independent labels that will put your music on iTMS for a flat fee and let the artist keep all the profits. If iTMS becomes a major distribution channel, artists might decide that they'll make more money selling on iTMS and keeping all the profits than they would selling CDs and letting the labels keep most of the profits.

Re:if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

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:if only...

[ev0l]

eMusic

Re:if only...

[kamapuaa]

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

This is a commonly made point that doesn't add up. It's already possible for artists to sell their music directly via, say Amazon , MP3.com, or even to get their self-released music on the shelves at major record stores, on the strength of good reviews.

Artists *choose* to sign with major record labels, because only they have the power of promotion to get the music on MTV/Clearchannel, and make the bands into common knowledge. Or, to finance the expensive recording studios/production techniques/hire hot producers. There's lots of *excellent* music which isn't associated with the RIAA, that in general, is ignored.

If it wasn't that the music was RIAA-promoted, chances are you wouldn't even be interested in the music, or at the least, that it would exist in a more cheaply-created fashion. So not paying the RIAA would hardly be fair. If you don't like it, buy some of the 90% of music, often well-reviewed, that isn't RIAA.

Re:if only...

[shakey_deal]

Like this you mean (been discussed here before):

Live Phish

What are Live Phish Downloads?

Live Phish Downloads are an extension of the multi-CD Live Phish series launched in October 2001. As with the CDs, the downloads feature complete, unedited, mastered shows from Phish's extensive archives. The download format is a natural progression for the serious collector and the new fan alike, offering an opportunity to listen not only to older shows, but to shows from a current tour very soon after they've happened, mastered directly from the soundboard.

How much does it cost?

The price of each show is based on format and length. Each show is available in two formats: MP3 (standard) and FLAC (premium). Most shows are two sets, but some (like New Year's Eve for example) are three sets.

What do I get?

After completing the purchase process you may download the entire show in the format you've chosen. Individual tracks or sets are not available as separate purchases ?you may only purchase shows in their entirety. For those who wish to burn the shows to CD, we have created printable PDF files for the CD labels, booklet and tray liner.

Re:if only...

[Znork]

A huge loss compared to what? Even a few people paying will still give them more money than they'd get out of a RIAA contract.

Interestingly?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That article was very short on real content

[thedbp]

Jeez, you'd think if it was posted to /. it would have more meat to the story. I'd like to see an "Ask Slashdot" with this guy, perhaps a more in-depth interview, but this article was really lackluster.

And he doesn't like Napster. Go figure. I guess he prefers Kazaa, where its easier to get apps and movies too. ;)

Re:That article was very short on real content

[ari_j]

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.

Re:That article was very short on real content

[Pig Hogger]

How about 8-track tapes???

Re:That article was very short on real content

[Blikank]

I HATE 8 track tapes

RIAA

[phaetonic]

I think comments relating to his stance on the RIAA would be more interesting

what the hell

[Kizzle]

How is this news?

he thinks that people should have easier access to music but that artists should get paid for what they do."

Come on, this is such a tired argument. Someone thinks artists should get paid. Holy shit I've never heard that before.

MP3 creators were never friends of P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, Fraunhofer IIS-A charged hefty fees for developers to incorporate mp3 compression technology. Hence OGG and an (effectively) reverse engineered open and free implementation.

Come on slash eds, this is not a revelation - read around the topic before posting an article.

Re:MP3 creators were never friends of P2P

[iamacat]

Yes, but remember that OGG was developed AFTER mp3. It's always easier to copy something that has been proven than to be the first one with a new concept. Perhaps, OGG users don't have to, and shouldn't pay to MP3 consortium, Linux users don't have to pay AT&T or SCO and so on. But they can still say "thanks".

Re:MP3 creators were never friends of P2P

[six809]

Actually the original post doesn't claim that Vorbis is a result of reverse engineering, although it could be phrased better. Look for the word 'and'.

Artists...

[TWX]

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...

Re:Artists...

[bj8rn]

That's exactly why the artists don't get paid what they do - because people like you (and me - I do buy CD's sometimes, but I have pirated a lot more, so it's not an excuse) don't buy their CD's.

Re:Artists...

[mrpuffypants]

If the RIAA gets paid to fuck the artists then can we bring them up on charges of prostitution?

Re:Artists...

[TWX]

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.

Re:Artists...

[Pig Hogger]

No, for that, the artits would have to fuck the RIAA.

Re:Artists...

[SN74S181]

You're confusing cause and effect.

You're growing older, getting close to middle age.

You are not far from the 'those nutty kids and their NOISE' stage.

Go ahead and pretend it's that music isn't any good anymore (tm) but you're only fooling yourself.

No, he just doesn't like piracy.

[tunabomber]

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.

Does this sound P2P friendly?

[BillsPetMonkey]

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!

Hmm.

[gantrep]

Cool.

What did you expect?

[Realistic_Dragon]

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.

Re:What did you expect?

[f0rt0r]

I agree with you 100%. Any standard for data storage/transmission should be free and open. This will benefits everyone by making information accessible to everyone and at the same time leaves room for competition in implementing the means for storage/transmission. The other (closed/pay for licensing the standard ) only benefits...well, you read the article about one of the people it benefits. Which way do you think is better?

Darkness...

[Dodge This]

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.

Re:Darkness...

[norite]

Hi, I share your hatred for this copy protection nonsense. You are correct; it is now a disincentive to buy the CD, and more of an incentive to download it illegally. However, this "copy protection" is very easy to get round. Here's how:

1) Set up your wave recorder to accept input from the CD-ROM Drives' digital audio output. (my wave recorder software came with my soundcard)

2) Put the CD in the Drive, press play, and hit the record button on the waverecorder.

3) When the entire CD has been recorded as a single *.wav file, use a wave editor to chop the file into the tracks, which you can then encode into mp3 format. (I've got a *.wav file editor program that came with my soundcard)

4) Make a copy of the CD, and send it in to the record comany, with an anonymous note telling them that their copy protection doesn't work!! :o)

-------------------

Yeah but the middleman...

[Manhigh]

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

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[DoorFrame]

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.

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[Comsn]

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

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[novacrook]

no middlement. see: punk rock.

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[Blikank]

Ani DiFranco did it. She Played and played and played and played.

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Whatever happened to playing gigs? Isn't that how most decent bands/etc get started?

Once you get popular locally, you can easly burn off a some CDs, or give a few songs away free from your site, or get it played on the radio. Combine it with word-and-mouth advertising, and if you do have talent, you're on your way.

Without the middle men, you just won't hear as much commercialisd crap.

Talented groups only sign up with big labels when they are already on their way to the top.

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[Kwil]

Once you get popular locally, you can ... get it played on the radio.

Bzzt. Thanks for playing. Please try again, but look up some of the articles and information regarding ClearChannel before you do. You might, if you're lucky, get it played on some college station.

You won't get it played on any station with national distribution until it becomes so big through word of mouth that it doesn't matter anyway.

It's a chicken&egg situation, with the RIAA being the cocks that make it possible at the moment.

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[NiTr|c]

Without middle men, you'll never have a music industry becuase you'll never hear anything new.

Bullsh*t. I don't listen to the radio to get my music, because it's not played in America. So how do I find new music? There's sure no middleman for me to rely on. I do, however, go to shows and see who the latest band is that plays the style of music that I enjoy listening to. Most bands I prefer are European (Germany, specifically), so what do I do? Research the band and find, through a bit of work, bands that sound similar. Now, it may not be as EASY as just turning on a radio and hearing something new, but as far as "...never have a music industry..." That's a load. You'd be surprised as to how many bands actually try to give props to startups in the area. I can go to the websites of at least five of the bands I listen to that have been around for a while, and they all try to play up a smaller band in the Links or Associates, etc sections.

Hopefully the middleman does get thrown out, then people like you might actually start to figure things out for yourself. You might see that there is a whole other area of music that you probably don't even know exists due to the fact that you consistantly rely on the "middleman" to tell you what's new and available.

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Sorry, I was talking idealisticly.

Re:Yeah but the middleman...

[Znork]

Without the middleman that wouldnt be a problem. The middleman today is what makes it expensive to get heard because they'll pay for ensuring that only their music gets heard.

It's far cheaper to produce decent quality material these days; well within reach of most smalltime bands.

Without the RIAA, maybe those radio djs would have to go back to making their own playlists by doing some research or listening to mp3's sent to them by the artists... oh, horror of horrors.

Middle Finger To /.ers! Support the RIAA & CC

[novacrook]

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.

Re:Ogg or WMA?

[AntiOrganic]

OGG is a fairly new compression format, and hasn't matured enough yet to be as fast as MP3. Duh.

Do you remember all the old MP3 encoders from back in the day, such as BladeEnc (damned slow) and XingEnc (more reasonable, but still nowhere near what we've got nowadays)? Technology, and the algorithms that drive it, take a good many years to mature and develop.

Re:Ogg or WMA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you WMA fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Windows XP box (a P4 3200 w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to encode a 3 minute song file ripped from my cdrom drive into wma. 20 minutes. At home, on my Athlon 900 running Linux, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Windows XP box, encoding into ogg would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this encode, Windows Media Player will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even playing 4'33.wav is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Windows XP machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Windows XP box that has run faster than it's Linux counterpart, despite the Windows XP machine's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram can encode oggs faster than this 3200 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Windows XP is a "superior" music encoder soloution.

WMA addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an WMA over other faster, cheaper, more stable codecs.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Ogg or WMA?

[Dodge This]

If it did take 20mins to rip OGG files nobody would use them. The fact is that I can rip and compress an entire album in less than 20mins using OGG. It's compression is slower than MP3, but that's the small price to pay for far superior sound quality.

Can't really comment too much on WMAs but if it takes you 20mins for a 3mins song on a 3200mhz CPU there must be something wrong with your machine. SURELY YOU CAN SEE THAT.

I'm not making a point about MP3/OGG/WMA being best here I'm just saying it's probably your PC or settings to blame.

P.S. I do use OGG out of preference but I'm not making any claims about quality. I like the Open Source nature of the format and I really prefer the quality to MP3.

Re:Middle Finger To /.ers! Support the RIAA &

[Lordfly]

You're assuming, of course, that the RIAA is just the Big Five... but if you mosey to the website, you find like 300 labels that are affiliated with the RIAA.

Re:Snob

[novacrook]

my bad: your songs aren't real unless they're on vinyl or special limited edition cd packaging.

Re:Ogg or WMA?

[Carrot007]

Please this is a troll, do not feed, ogg encodes plenty fast enough (faster than real time on my 1.8ghz athlon).

Names

[TCM]

Minor nitpick, but his name is Karl-Heinz Brandenburg. It's composed of two names that can also be used separately. You don't usually write it as Karlheinz.

Re:A ral artist refuses pay.

[Tim C]

Even real artists have to eat, and pay bills.

White Stripes are RIAA...

[bert33]

according to riaa radar...

Artist:White Stripes
Album:White Blood Cells
Label:V2. / Bmg

RESULTS:

Warning!

This album was found to have bene released by a member of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Re:White Stripes are RIAA...

[d34thm0nk3y]

yes she is... try the riaa radar again

Re:White Stripes are RIAA...

[doktor-hladnjak]

Ya, they're not just an RIAA member, but actually partially owned by a subsidiary of BMG (Bertelsmann, one of the major labels).

Also interestingly

[doinky]

96% of general population also believes artists should be paid and that downloadable music should be cheaper. World also continues to rotate on axis, although this is considered less interesting.

Re:A real artist refuses pay.

[po8]

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.com

[Mawbid]

I'm surprised emusic.com doesn't get mentioned in every music story around here. Can it be that few Slashdotters know about it?

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. ...And spread the word!

Re:EMusic.com

[d34thm0nk3y]

I agree. E-music is the only option out there that looks even remotely acceptable.

Finally he gets to clear his name

[digitalgimpus]

I read a similar article when the whole Napster deal was taking place. Everyone back then was saying the mp3 format was created for the sole purpose of p2p transfer. Finally, it appears he's getting to tell his half of the story.

mp3 is a great format. There's no doubt about it. There might be better formats now. But mp3 still has it's place. And has.

Unless everyone is willing to work for free, recording artists shouldn't have to either. I code for cash, I'm sure many others here have day jobs as well. Open source is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't put food on plates.

If your willing to work your entire life, and not accept any payment of any form. Download away.

If you have a job. Or want one. Your a hypocrite.

Re:A real artist refuses pay.

[Kwil]

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.

They DO get paid

[serutan]

Musicians get paid to perform, not from record sales. Despite the record companies waving the flag of artist protection, all the downloads in the world don't take a cent away from musicians. Record companies have been ripping off musicians for a century by writing recording contracts such that the musician rarely sees a penny. What musicians get out of record deals is fame, which enables them to charge more from performances.

Musicians are starting to learn how to promote themselves by distributing their songs on the Internet for free, making the record companies redundant and perhaps obsoleting the very notion of selling recorded music. We could do nothing and let this process happen, or we could invent all kinds of technology and pass all kinds of restrictive laws to preserve the record industry's business model so musicians can use it themselves. I vote for option one.

Re:Ogg or WMA?

[MyHair]

Dear Mr. AC Troll,

Please remember that you still need to plug the PC in, even if it has Linux.

Sincerely,
MyHair

Re:A ral artist refuses pay.

[NanoGator]

"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.

I agree.

[Inoshiro]

"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."

That's exactly why I want the RIAA and recording companies struck down. They don't allow easy access to the music, and the artists aren't fairly compensated. Instead you have a group of crusty old middlemen who market singers to the majority based on trends, not unlike movie-licence games (Minory Report, The Hulk, Enter The Matrix) which also suck.

Logic?

[TalMaximus]

who said this world was governed by logic?

Rinse. Repeat.

[NeverEnough]

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

Re:Rinse. Repeat.

[tc9]

Well, Bill, let me describe a father's perspecive based upon what multiple teenage girls in the house do with music and downloads. - Become interested in a name/artist style - Download a CD-s worth of random tunes that fits their search - Make copies of that sample CD t for thr gang. Listen for a week - until the girls dcide that one or two artists on the sampler are cool. - All buy the CDs from thiose artists. - Repeat They used to compete to find hot sounds before the radio did. Now its too hard and they don't bother. What has been the effect of tightening up on on-line music in the last two years? My teen-age daughters make fewer sample CDs. They also buy fewer commercial CDs. Without the thrill of getting their first, they listen to less radiop, too. Was this the effect you (and the RMAA) were hoping to aschieve?

Re:Rinse. Repeat.

[NeverEnough]

Thank you -- interesting perspective. What you're saying rings true.

I'm not sure why you feel I am aligned with the RIAA, though. Looking back at my original post, I should have been more clear on that issue, though it was never my intention to "take sides."

For the record, I support people downloading songs to see if they like them, or sometimes just keeping them. I advise my clients as such and have never found disagreement.

Bill Evans

Re:Rinse. Repeat.

[NeverEnough]

Well...I think your alias pretty much is my response, but I'll respond all the same. That's my job.

> are you sure you have been reading Slashdot? You have a "low" user number....hmmmmm

Yes, I'm saying I read Slashdot.

> Everyone here understands the arguments perfectly, from both sides.

Of course. My mistake.

> You are a typical old model industry SLAG, and youre "i implimented ogg" Johnny Ryal BS doesnt wash at all.

I'm 28 years old, and don't see how you could know more than I've said in my post. As for my Ogg creds, I suggest you check with them before casting doubt.

> You should be reading Slashtot very carefully so that you understand the
> strong feelings that are going to put you out of a job.

Somehow I think I have a good grasp on your feelings.

> It's also clear that you understand nothing about what is really happening in the marketplace.

It's true. The artists, labels and fans that depend on me have been scammed. And your highly-scientific survey of 500 people has near infinite external validity.

But more interestingly, where in my post did I state my opinion on the causality of P2P in regard to music purchasing?

> Everyone is entitled to fair use rights

I was looking for your specific response to my stated opinons on fair use, when I suddently realized I never made them. What are you talking about?

Question about music industry...

[Thinkit3]

Why can't just one somewhat popular act put out a song (not with lossy compression), and ask for tips on that song? Copyright it, and stipulate in the copyright that some notice of where to send tips must always travel with the song.

Re:Question about music industry...

[NeverEnough]

I think that's a cool idea. If an artist decides that's what s/he wants, then great.

Often, more popular artists have a lot of expenses to meet, such as promotion. Say 1,000 new CDs are released each week. How do you separate yourself? The artists that I work with have often spent 1-2 years just working on that release, and s/he wants it promoted. That falls to the record company and sorry souls like me. This gets expensive quickly, but the artist needs to earn a lot to earn a living. Otherwise, they can't make music.

On the flip side, I've seen artists blame their labels for poor sales, when IMHO their album bombed because it simply wasn't very good.

You know, the BBC should know better....

[Build6]

What this article does is, it states clearly and distinctly WHO is responsible and WHEN/WHERE it happened that MP3s came into existence... .

We better hope the RIAA doesn't send something back in time and Terminate him before he creates the standard!!!

Also on video

[__aafkqj3628]

BBC World's ClickOnline program (a load of crap IMO), also has the interview with him, but in video form.

Re:A real artist refuses pay.

[SN74S181]

There are one hell of a lot of trade secret recipies. Even things as ubiquetous as Coca-Cola have recipies protected by Trade Secret policies.

You won't find published recipies at many of the best Bar-B-Q houses. You will find them selling their 'secret sauce' in bottled form.

Why don't the artists get paid?

[Evets]

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.

Re:Why don't the artists get paid?

[NeverEnough]

> 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?

The problem is with your logic. If you simply download the music, then the artist doesn't get paid. Your justification is you think artists are paid poorly, so...why pay them at all? You're not making any sense.

Everyone keeps talking about paying artists like they're these innocent victims who need our support. Do you think they care about you? Many artists are paid very well, and complain they're not paid enough. Who doesn't?

This is not to say that the RIAA isn't ripping off everyone, but things are much complex than you lay them out to be.

Re:I agree 100%

[NeverEnough]

And please tell us, what, exactly do artists do?

Many artists want the "middle men." So they can focus on their music, and other people can go about selling it. You may not put much value on that, but rest assured, they do.

Re:Ogg or WMA?

[NeverEnough]

I master to Ogg for record companies, and have been doing so for a long time. I also use MP3, MP3 Pro and MP4. I would never and have never used WMA. Nor have I been asked to. Ogg is excellent; I've had no problems with it.

Re:Ogg or WMA?

[NeverEnough]

> This is not about artist, it is about the record
> company....artist make money touring

Many artists prefer to focus on recording and do not tour at all. They depend on recording sales for all their income.

well so have any tried the gift economy?

[Thinkit3]

I'd imagine a label would be pretty confused when asked to put out a cd at-cost and put in notices of where to send money (donations). But I suppose an artist could just drop the artist share and the label might agree. But why hasn't this been tried? Maybe tips just work better when there is a personal connection, like a server at a restaurant.

Again and again it must be said

[Catbeller]

"but that artists should get paid for what they do."

Again and again it must be said: Artists are not getting paid for their music -- not the vast, vast majority.

The music corporations are eating all of the money. And the artists cannot, by law, force their publishers to open the books to check the accounting -- a singular exception to normal business law.

The latest in such gall is the news that the music companies are now demanding a part of the concert income -- up to now, the only way a musician can really make any money. Why? Music piracy, of course! They demand to make up income "stolen" from them by pirates by grabbing a percentage of the concert take!

Even BusinessWeek is babbling about the music industry's loss of cash from piracy -- without giving a thought to the ideas that 1) we're in an economic meltdown, and 2) the recording industry cut production in the last two years, so of bloody course they have lower sales!

Artists are the very last people to be paid. Paying for a CD rarely pays an artist -- you're just feeding his jailor. If you want to support an artist, go to a concert.

Downloading MP3's isn't hurting the artists one damned bit. It's hurting the thieves that are robbing them of all their labor. Simply put, downloading doesn't hurt anyone important.

Re:Ogg or WMA?

[wolverine1999]

Use BeSweet to convert to Ogg. It's faster than what you describe...

Tip of the iceberg?

[TenDimensions]

Isn't all this talk about music sharing really just the tip of the iceberg?

With the boiling down of information into simply ones and zeros and the birth of the 'Net, intellectual property is going to be a debate of the next twenty years.

How do you properly compensate the creators of anything that can be boiled down to just a unique series of ones and zeros that can be easily copied to millions of people with the push of a button?

It seems to me that all these guys like the RIAA, the MPAA, and others should be concentrating on coming up with a brand new paradigm that fits this problem rather than focusing on their little corner of the world. One quick look at the big picture shows that everyone dealing in information is in the same boat. We really haven't seen the start of the MPAA entering the controversy because movie sharing hasn't quite gotten to be a real major threat, but it will be with more computers in your entertainment center. And don't forget about books - once decent digital books with removable media in the binder become common place you'll see people trading novels, college texts, whatever, over the same P2P networks.

The real solution is a complete paradigm shift towards something that benefits everyone. In fact, someone should come up with that new business process and patent it and... uh... wait, forget everything I just said.

resistance is futile!

[ReallyQuietGuy]

it doesn't matter if you stop the RIAA this time! they'll be back!

It's all in the delivery

[Trolling4Dollars]

Oh sure, you'll get a few people who say thy want it all for free and don't want to pay anyone. But they're unreasonable and illogical idiots. Personally, I buy all the music I want even if I think the prices are overinflated. Since I tend to like obscure stuff a lot of what I own is on minor labels and mostly import. THEN I rip them to MP3s or Ogg Vorbis for my own personal pleasure. For me, the MP3 and Vorbis files have replaced cassettes. At present, this is the way most logical and reasonable people approach electronically packaged music. They package it themselves.

The only reason to call someone a "stooge of the RIAA" is if you take some kind of pro-business stance. I don't . I think that the RIAA and most of the music business needs to evolve or die. What people (good, honest people) really want is the convenience of music stored in a LONG PLAYING, portable and flexible format. Only the frat boy idiots and wiggers want stuff "fo free".

Re:A ral artist refuses pay.

[smithmc]

The primary goal of an artist should be to create art works by all means necessary.

Um, says you. Who are you to decree what motivation an artist, or any person, should have, so long as it isn't criminal?

Re:A real artist refuses pay.

[Moofie]

Trade secret!=copyright.

They're SECRET, which means that nobody except authorized persons have access to those recipes. If they were out in the open, they would be unprotected (and unprotectable).

this is all such a pile of crap...

[KevinJoubert]

Personally, I don't have a problem with going back to the days where musicians had to sing for their supper.

The greatest classical composers of all times were nothing more than "kept men". Some member of some royal family would sponsor one of them... provide them with a place to live and some spending money in exchange for creating some music. They all died as underappreciated paupers, but they made music because they loved it... not to get rich.

Honestly, in a world where people like firemen and school teachers are financially treated like second rate citizens... the fact that J-Lo or Eminem is going to make 1 million instead of 50 doesn't bother me one bit.

Sure, everyone should be fairly compensated for the work they do... but does anyone honestly think that the amount of money tossed around in the music industry is only FAIR???