MP3 Creator On Sharing Music

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

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

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

--
evil adrian

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

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

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Interesting? by 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 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 AstroDrabb · 2003-07-13 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

--
SIGFAULT

Re:if only... by 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 ...

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. ;)

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.

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.

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

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

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

17 of 231 comments (clear)