MP3 Creator On Sharing Music

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

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

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

--
evil adrian

Re:Interesting? by kp833 · 2003-07-13 08:25 · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Interesting? by ticklemeozmo · 2003-07-13 08:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

but that artists should get paid for what they do

I am damn tired of everyone saying "artists should get paid for what they do." No $hit!. We all feel that way. That was an extremely predictable comment. No one in the public eye would ever say "yeah, I'm glad I steal music, screw those commie bastards and their wussy space station" (South Park reference).

Seriously though, this is a form of laziness. Everyone wants something, but hopes that someone else will do it for them. A message to everyone who is in the public eye: Do not only say you support things, for you have power and influence not only in your words. Support things with your person or pocketbook.

We, as consumers are getting screwed and do not have the resources to do this. THIS is charity. We are close, help us reach the top so we can help others.

How can I convince you that by helping our cause you will not only create less people that need to be helped, but more people who will be able to help?

--
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
Re:Interesting? by dildog · 2003-07-13 09:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

You might try reading

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

My post was a judgement call, and offering an opinion. Education has value. Music also has value. It's too bad that we value education so much less than entertainment, that we can't afford to pay teachers, but we can pay for extravangant lifestyles for entertainers.
Re:Interesting? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-13 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

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? by NIN_INCH_NAILS · 2003-07-13 09:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

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? by iamacat · 2003-07-13 10:16 · Score: 2, Funny

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? by NanoGator · 2003-07-13 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:Interesting? by SN74S181 · 2003-07-13 13:23 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

well.. by waspleg · 2003-07-13 08:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

iTMS by BWJones · 2003-07-13 08:24 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.

Re:iTMS by Hawthorne01 · 2003-07-13 08:39 · Score: 2, Informative

According to Macrumors.com, iTMS is soon to be found in Canada as well.
Let the currency exchange jokes commence!
;-)

--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Re:iTMS by mrpuffypants · 2003-07-13 08:57 · Score: 2, Funny

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)

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

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

--
SIGFAULT

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

They would still be unauthorized songs because the label holds the rights to the songs, and rights to distribute them, not the artist. However, unauthorized is not the same as unethical.
Re:if only... by tunabomber · 2003-07-13 08:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

[if only...] there was a way to download music and pay the artists and not the RIAA.

There are tons of artists that do this- they have albums that are self-released or released on indy labels. Some of them just publish their MP3's on the web and ask for donations.
There's just one catch- they're small and you probably haven't heard of them.
For any artist to become popular, they usually have to rely on the pimps at the RIAA for promotion & marketing. Yeah, there are a few exceptions- Ani DiFranco, NOFX, Fugazi etc. But the general rule is that if you hear some big-name artist on your local ClearChannel clone station, it's safe to say that an oil drum full of cash has been used to get them on the radio.
So, if you want to pay artists in a more direct manner, you have to shun paying attention to any mass-media advertising, because if you do, you are (and should be) supporting the major labels' promotional infrastructure.
Instead go to local shows and get to know the artists in your area. Most small bands make more money from touring than they do from selling CD's. Often, they will be selling CD's for $6-10 at their concerts if you decide you like them. On top of that, it's just a much more rewarding way of experiencing music than from the big media feeding tube.

--

pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...

Interestingly? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-13 08:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by thedbp · 2003-07-13 08:29 · Score: 3, Funny

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 by ari_j · 2003-07-13 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone hates Napster. Because it's gone. We hate technologies we can no longer use to get all the music we want, and so on. Other examples include FM radio and dance clubs.
Re:That article was very short on real content by Blikank · 2003-07-13 09:45 · Score: 2, Funny

I HATE 8 track tapes

MP3 creators were never friends of P2P by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-13 08:31 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

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

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

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:Artists... by TWX · 2003-07-13 09:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's the thing, though. I just don't bother at all with it anymore. I'll go to a coffee shop to listen to the live performer, or I'll go to a dance with a live band. They'll get tipped at these locations. Granted, they're not making a lot of money, but they're doing something that they like to do for an appreciative audience.

I used to listen to the radio, but the ClearChannelification of the radiowaves doesn't make for good music.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

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

Actual quote:

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

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

--

pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...

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

From Frauenhofer patent enforcement available here:

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

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

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

Come on slash eds - this aint news!

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

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

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

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

--
Beep beep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Yeah but the middleman... by DoorFrame · 2003-07-13 09:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

How exactly do you think you'd hear about new music without a middleman? I don't think that there are very many artists out there with enough startup capital and personal clout to get themselves heard by ANYONE outside their immediate family. To get yourself produced and heard you need money and you need power at your backs... individual artists have neither. If we cut out the middle men tomorrow, the only music that would be produced would be currently established artists, children of already established artists, and celebrities from other industries crossing ranks into the music biz.

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

Sorry.

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

clearchannel and riaa must go :V

Re:Ogg or WMA? by AntiOrganic · 2003-07-13 09:09 · Score: 2

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.

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

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:A ral artist refuses pay. by Tim+C · 2003-07-13 09:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Even real artists have to eat, and pay bills.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Re:A real artist refuses pay. by po8 · 2003-07-13 09:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by Mawbid · 2003-07-13 10:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
"Derp de derp."

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Evans

You know, the BBC should know better.... by Build6 · 2003-07-13 12:59 · Score: 2, Funny

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!!!

Why don't the artists get paid? by Evets · 2003-07-13 13:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

42 of 231 comments (clear)