Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Bits
HardYakka writes "The New York Times writes that record industry executives who are adamant that file sharing is stealing are not above stealing themselves." The NYT also has two other stories on file-sharing today: one with emphasis on musicians, and an opinion piece about the internet. Also floating around: this humor piece and an EFF petition.
The news these days is filled with stories of stealing by the RIAA.
What else can you call people being forced to give money to the RIAA through the use of threats?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
While I like the irony implied, of the music industry's hypocrisy in accusing file-sharers of stealing when they, in fact, are stealing themselves, I think the two ideas of intellectual property stealing do not mesh quite so easily. The file-sharing theft usually committed is one of profit-deprivation; users download and share for personal enjoyment, depriving the industry of sales money. The theft committed by artists, publishers, recording studios, authors, and the like in unauthorized use of other's works in their own, as much as it may be argued to be a form of innovation, aims to boost one's own profits. This difference, while alleviating some of the irony of the situation, does not paint the industry in any better of a light...
And the other: Takes one to know one. I mean, come on, these people would sell their own mothers (or at least it seems) to make themselves a dollar. They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights. They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best. (And this makes the thing above seem all the more curious.) They steal from the distributors, in the form of very low margin on CD sales. So...this whole thing isn't that surprising to me, or anyone I hope, it's just business as usual.
We need tighter legislation NOW!
Congratulations RIAA keep up the good work, I hope you proceed to the next level which is taking the elderly out into the middle of a street for a public stoning from unsellable cds.
Perhaps putting children to work in your cd factories might teach them that each song they steal is worth not the 1 cent it's pressed on, but thousands of dollars.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
cutting and pasting from the Internet is just one part of a broader shift toward all copying, all the time.
If you are copying and pasting your paper like Frankenstein, don't the professors notice that your style of writing and word choice are varying wildly from one paragraph to another?
Between the RIAA and SCO, plus ongoing Microsoft FUD, I think we're starting to see the fraying edge of a maturing "Internet Economy", and some companies are clinging to really ancient buisness models that will not work in this era.
The RIAA member companies failed to get together to innovate a new buisness model when the InterNet came along, and transferred this problem to the RIAA, which became their personal pitbull. Everyone's blaming the RIAA for this latest round of should-be-RICO-prosecuted behaviour by this company, but let's not forget at the same time the recording industry labels support these chuckleheads - where's the boycott against the labels?
SCO is *really* the leading edge of "my buisness model failed" along with Microsoft - the pair of them are like the old IBM of the 90's, except instead of the hardware buisness, they're in the software buisness. Remember PS/2's, proprietary hardware, and IBM almost incredulously holding on to a market that was churning out clone PC's by the millions?
SCO & Microsoft are like this - dinosaurs in the software industry that think you can still lock a customer in with a proprietary product and control their innovation path. Take a fresh look @ Microsoft as the IBM of the new millenium and it starts to become clear - Microsoft is nothing more than a proprietary product with a lot of market share trying to protect that marketshare with intimidation and borderline legal tactics.
There's another two boycotts we should tell the Anti-Trust folks about in California & New York enforcing the decree on Microsoft anti-trust actions. Tell them the TCPA and security certificate scheme Microsoft is developing along with LongHorn represent another way Microsoft is trying to deny people access into their code - that "trusted code" argument is reeking all across it.
And could someone please expose how much the US Government spent this year on inferior Microsoft product? I'd like to know how much insecure RPC crap my Congress-critters managed to purchase this year...
"In a sense, Internet technology is a metaphor for the new morality. As long as you can get it, it doesn't matter how."
I don't get it.
via http://www.unix-girl.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_ id=1130
Comment by insin
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/thumbs_aloft/ffi/ffi1.htm
To summarize it:
- Filesharing is copyright infringement at best, which is a civil offence ("at best" meaning, if you forget about fair use and stuff like that)
- Stealing is a crime
The above link contains some rude words, but is to the point.
Breaking the law is bad. But so is working to take away our rights. The RIAA is an organization which exists to work for record labels, in order to maximize profit. It is basically an organization which works for the industry, against the customer (or "consumer" which we are today).
Perhaps it is time to take matters into our own hands and really strike them where it hurts the most. If they don't make any money, they can't afford lawsuits and lobbying to take away our rights as individuals and as customers. They cannot spread lies about P2P and other useful technologies.
If as many people as possible spread music for free as much as possible, fewer would buy music. That's right, we are fighting this fight by breaking the law. We are trying to force the RIAA out of business.
A normal argument from RIAA apologists is that it is "morally wrong" to "steal music". I would say that the only morally right thing to do is to fight for one's rights! And this fight must be taken on a number of levels. From nice petitions that most likely will not make a difference, to breaking the law. Standing by and accepting that one's rights are taken away is a true sign of a "morally challenged" individual!
With several angles of attack, maybe the RIAA will eventually disappear.
RIAA should realize that tor many people, this is war. And wars are dirty. But it would benefit everyone except the RIAA members if it died, including the artists!
Would it be a good thing to form an organization with a single purpose - distribute as much as possible for free to prevent money from ending up in RIAA members' hands? The RIAA is already spreading lies and deception, so we don't really have much to lose do we?
Clever signature text goes here.
I know how we can defeat the RIAA. Go to their main office building and ask to see someone. Make sure to take the coffee they offer you. Spill it in your crotch. Sue the RIAA for a million dollars.....
Here's a bit from a song "Pretty Boy Floyd" which says it all about abuse of the "legal process":
"Now as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen."
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
There were estimates a few years ago that the capacity was over two million. Part of me doesn't want to know what their capacity is currently.
The camps were set up as a part of operation Rex84 (search) in the 80s, established on the reasoning that if a mass exodus of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.
Now that the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II move to establish anyone that breaks any law as a potential terrorist, it makes you wonder what they've got planned...
There's a lot of info on the net about these and other operations. A lot of the websites play the 'paranoid' card a little too strongly (*cough* alex jones*cough*), but I highly recommended you check out available info!
Some links:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htmm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/concentration.ht
http://www.c0balt.com/egg/insane.shtml
I'm not trolling, this is some serious shit, America!
In my opinion, the RIAA has every right in the world to see that their material is not passed around illicitly and quite frankly I don't see why anyone has a problem with what they're doing.
Take a hint: pop music sucks. Go on with your lives and stop listening to it so much.
"Take a hint: pop music sucks. Go on with your lives and stop listening to it so much."
It really doesn't exist as a type of music: the term "pop" is a vague term that has something to do with how much it sells. The music type is really rap, rock, disco, hip-hop, etc.
Just to be technical.
Stealing is taking by stealth. Robbery is taking by force. Extortion is taking by threat (Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage).
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
"I'm not trolling, this is some serious shit, America!"
Is whether or not you think it is serious somehow proportional to how many layers of tin foil you have in your hat?
I know about these detention centers. There is one in my neighborhood. Those sneaky bastards: they made it invisible. I think Elvis is the warden, and they are using it as a hotel for Martian tourists in order to make money before they have to fill it with Americans.
...courtesy of google: not above stealing themselves musicians internet
Please, submitters - take a few seconds to look up these links - it'll save those of us who block cookies and/or are always on public computers and so loathe having to reregister for every single story (for whoever remembers their password for throw-away accounts?) quite a bit of time.
I'd never, ever downloaded music nor accepted a copy of a CD from a friend until the RIAA started issuing the subpoenas.Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes the second wrong (the RIAA actions) piss off the honest folks so much that they side with the original lawbreakers.
I wonder if anyone else, like me, has been driven to a life of crime - or at least a life of acts of civil disobedience - by the RIAA goons?
computerlady - a brand new Slash-daughter - alone, but no longer invisible, in the
Illegally copying a copyrighted article about illegally copying copyrighted articles.
Oh, the irony.
"Colon's American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]"
Someone's colon is posting a web log? Now I've seen everything. Emphasis on "log".
If you're not a Salon subscriber, you can click the free 'day pass' link for the full articles.
Personally, I'd like to hear more specifics about alternative systems, and less about how the RIAA is the Great Satan.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
*Sigh*
That is on US soil & human rights would eventually be enforced. They should have learned from the US government and located the facility in Cuba, I gather that there is some spare space in Camp X-Ray.
Well, that would have been one way of improving the story!
In general, the conversation about P2P misses the constitutional point entirely. Forget about the filesharer's rights and think only in terms of the author's rights. This is purely a conflict between author's rights.
There is music out there which the author wants shared. There is music out there which the author doesn't care if it's shared. There is some music out there which the author wants protected by copyright. The problem is that it is impossible to tell which music is which.
The filesharer is simply a hapless bystander who is caught-up in a legal quagmire. If the filesharers assume the work is protected by copyright then they are infringing the author's right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. If they assume the work is an act of free speech then they might be infringing the author's limited commercial copyright.
The question, then, is this: Ought the filesharer assume the work is a constitutionally protected act of free speech, or ought the filesharer assume the work is protected by an obscure federal statute giving limited commercial protection from copying?
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
This fucker put a goatse redirect up!
The parent is not a faithful reproduction of the original article. The mostly correct, the poster has seen fit to insert references to certain recurrent off-topic themes which, if made more explicit, would certainly earn him a -1 moderation within seconds.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB
- I cannot be prosecuted for "filesharing" since I am myself a victim of theft. There's no law saying I have to secure my bike, and similarly there is no law saying I have to secure my server.
- There is no way for the record companies to get involved. They are not a victim in any way.
- You can only be prosecuted for stealing that one album, worth maybe 25 euro's or so.
Looks good, doesn't it? Let's campaign for filesharing == theft in the future...
If they are happy to download the music to see if it belongs to them, consider the mistake if it did not.
If someone has a name similar to that of their artist (or not), records some copyright material to mp3 and then puts it on the network. The condition is it is free for anyone to download, except the major record labels, their employees, agents, contractors or affiliates. By virtue of their copyright laws, they are not allowed to download it (aka steal it) and are subject to $1500 or $150,000 fine if they do.
All we need to do then is monitor the downloads of this mp3, and then sue the RIAA when they download it. If there is more than 216 of us doing this, then we can easily outweigh their laws and settle this similar to how the large companies settle patent lawsuits, you lower your weapons and we lower ours.
Do you get off on this? You be having no life, yes?
No 'yo mamma' jokes either, please.
From the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Everyone was rich and nobody wass poor. At least, no one very important
How does this idiot woman think she would ever hear of the poor (ie, failed) rock stars? In this month's "No Longer Rolling Stone"?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
BTW, why the links to the google news isn't posted with the article itself, it's aways posted and tagged informative.
"The coffee was 40 degrees hotter than most other restaurants keep it - close to the 212 degree boiling point."
So? This was how the customers wanted it. 700 complaints of too-hot out of millions of cups sold. That's low. Now that the coffee was made colder, they get lots more complaints about the coffee being too cold. And, no, it was no where near the boiling point.
"There were 700 other burn claims against McDonald's before this injury, yet no action was taken."
No action should have been taken.
"The victim offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but McDonald's refused to settle"
Rightly so. This was extortion, and McDonald's had no reason to pay, as they were not at fault.
Your facts and falsehoods do not change the fact that this lawsuit was frivolous. We need tort reform so cases like this never waste the court's time. If you spill hot coffee on yourself, you only have yourself to blame.
"Read all about it here [mattenlaw.com]."
Matten Law is a firm that enriches itself in frivolous lawsuits. Nothing they say should be believed unless you check it against facts.
Because of that big annoying distracting ad that was larger than the article itself! (btw, the lameness filter is LAME. It wouldn't let me type that in all caps for emphasis) I think I got through a couple of sentences before giving up.
"Cool, so you'll be like the German citizens who failed to let themselves believe that the soot coming from the buildings over there is actually bodies being incinerated. Surely it couldn't happen to us!"
Just because it can happen does not mean it is happening. There has to be evidence. Imagination just does not cut it.
"Well, you don't sound like the 'thinking'"
No, I am the "critical thinking" type. Discernment. Logic. Try it sometime.
"so Ashcroft probably won't bother with you"
He hasn't bothered anyone except for terrorists. It is a myth that the Patriot Act damages civil liberties. Far more harm has been done by the recent Campaign Finance Bill, which says that the First Amendment does not apply if you are criticizing politicians.
Can I just say that linking to a copy of an article is rather amusing given the content of the article in question?
And fullfill the authors desires. I found an interesting one at Sourceforge called iRate.
It downloads independent songs and you rate them.
There's more to it, and I recomend anyone who's tired of the RIAA to at least take a look.
Some of the downloads are a little slow, and it's an early version but I've already found some indie stuff I like.
This may be the direction we need to go.
Artists could get feedback and people are exposed to new music (minus the $20 per DECENT song tax;-)
What kills me about every RIAA article is that I then turn on my TV to see an ad for a new MP# player from SONY. I wonder how their marketing people are making out with the balance of "Stealing music is bad" and "Buy an MP3 player to listen to Stolen Music" directions that Sony and other companies seem to be taking...
There is nothing in the definition of sharing that implies that there can only be one object. Sharing is about disribution and not necessarily evenly. With a filesharing utility you share your files and other persons shares theirs with you. It definately is sharing but it also is definately wrong. I agree with the original comment that it most certainly is not stealing as there is no intention to permenantly deprive the owner of the object, therefore it cannot be seen as stealing. It is only wrong in that at some point, someone bought a copy fairly and decided to distribute it unfairly. That is where the wrong occured. That wrong was not criminal, just a civil crime and should only be seen as such. The record industry is seeking to make the public see it as theft so that they can seek harsher penalties. That does not make it so.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
So, anyone know whether they are running Linux in the RIAA offices? Maybe we could get McBride onto the scent and turn him loose. Sic'm boy!
Any programmers at SCO download any music?
This could be fun.
The copyright holder is the owner of exclusive rights.
If you take on the execution of one of those rights for yourself and make a copy then you have taken away from the exclusivity that they own.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I was thikning that too. Or maybe just as long as people link to the google copy
is that with all the sanctimonious condemnation of file sharers as thieves, so far no one has dwelt opon the truly egregious thievery going on by the RIAA. That is, that they stole and continue to steal CONGRESS from the American people. (Not to mention the executive and judiciary, I mean come on people, Dubya? Scalia? Thomas? Ashcroft? Rumsfeld?)
They effectively take you and me out of the loop and expect us to have any respect for the laws they pass? Check your local copy of the Declaration of Independence for a take on what a "Good American"'s reaction is supposed to be to that.
Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
the fact that a media exec "pirated" a Forrester report doesn't surprise me in the least. several years ago i was temping at one of the major record labels [something i swear i'll never do again]. quite literally about 2/3 of the people there had file sharing enabled on their machines giving anyone access to all the mp3s they had. of course, most of these people will probably claim that because they're on the other side of the fence that they have every right to share files to their coworkers in the name of "promotion".
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
I am a monkey. This is slashdot.
I wrote an essay for a music advocacy site. Sharethemusicday.com
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
I'm setting up a freenet node on my machine and making my extensive collection available. Freenet's not perfect, but this is a political fight more than a technological one; and it's good enough to make a statement.
Sigh. So when you search freenet and get 999 hits for porn, and 1 for music, that one'll be me...
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Few, I thought I'd have to suffer through another dismal selection of my favorite tunes, culled from years of bombardment by media morons. But Ms. Frank is above having trained herself to use media, as the widely varied music that mtv plays for me will most definitely make my day so much better.
No thanks
http://monkeyserver.com --- weeeeee
First NYTimes article WITHOUT registration
The Internet is meant to for the hassle-free sharing of ideas amongst people to promote the general knowledge of its users. Let keep it hassle free with no more registration required sites, shall we? The Slashdot crowd would be the happier for it.
Trust me, give this idea a shot, you'll like it.
I call BULLSHIT! Obvious this person is either lying straight out, misquoted, or an complete asshat if she works at MTV and doesn't understand what is going on. First, I'm willing to bet that kids (just like me) do research to find artists they like: especially the trend setters. Those that don't spend the time finding the good stuff are the sheep: they follow the trend setters. Thus, peer influences are going to be the biggest factor - and yes, MTV tries very, very hard to pass itself off as a peer, or at least showing "peers" watching and listening to the crap they play on MTV.
Thirdly (and most importantly), what the f8sck is wrong with people listening to the artists they choose themselves? The quote is implying that the kids aren't listening to what we told them to! "Whaaa! How can we use marketing to control people that make their own decisions!?" This is a great example the NYTimes doing what it does best. Here is an example of something really positive - people chosing what they like - and the Times spins it like it is some sort of terrible limitation. Unless the Times has replaced The Onion...
Complexity Happens
You are all perverts! Just like me. Shake it, Lara! Shake your money maker!
These are what you call "contingency plans." Sony is trying to do everything they can to be in a good position, no matter how the matter with the RIAA turns out. Also, they realize that mp3 players are popular, so they market them, because they are profitable; and if they eventually move to a digital release structure for music, then they will have a loyal userbase.
We went to a baby and toddler products consumer show yesterday. One booth was selling CDs of music with your child's name in a number of songs.
It was a small booth and they might have had 20 CDs on display of the most popular children's names.
However, if your child's name wasn't on any of the disks they already had, you simply paid $20 (Canadian) and within an hour, you could come back and they'll have burned a disk and have a laser printed clear label.
Presumably, the owners had access to a studio, did a one time creation of a few instrumental tracks and sang/recorded the songs thousands of times.
Perfect example outside of writing software code on how this model works.
We're just emulating the example of our President. If you don't like something, blow it to pieces and declare "Mission accomplished". Building a replacement can be left to, well, your replacement.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Salon, you just lost my patronage permanently.
Go bankrupt or something.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
"Personally, I'd like to hear more specifics about alternative systems"
.
I think any notion of a successfull alternative system co-existing with an RIAA that remains dominant in the industry is absurd.
Step 1: Burn down the music industry as it stands today.
Step 2: Let a profitable system for digital distribution emerge from the unregulated ashes. Assuming one can.
Of course maybe music wont be profitable (except for live performances) ever again.
wow, art for the sake of art. What a depressing future.
"While you're online, visit a blog with links to published movie gossip and use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends."
Who uses a pirated email program? Web novices use a preinstalled Outlook Distress or equivalent, while experts use Mozilla or derivitaves. And corporate users use whatever the corporation installed.
Maybe some of the other allegations are true, but this one is just silly.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
You (and everybody else) should have a chance to see the details of the alternatives and, then choose what you like best.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Not that trading illegal, its how its being addressed by RIAA.
That many of their actions are illegal, immoral and invasive, and don't have any comparison with the reality of the situation.
Also, the argument is that the copyright laws are not current and should be invalidated/modified, but that is a 2ndary issue.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Here some great lines from the NYT article:
use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends. Uh, what? Who the hell pirates an email program?
If this is the democracy of the copy, it is enough to make one long for the elitism of creative genius. This is annoying in oh so many ways. OF COURSE people copy what artists create. It's normal behavior. In fact, it's normal for artists to copy other artists too. I'm really getting fed up with this idea that "creative genius" pops out of nowhere and isn't itself somehow a copy or a derivative.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Why should anything be put in its place? Contriving answers to such problems never works anyway, take a look at the history of communism for proof.
Just kill the status-quo, and let the market determine the solution.
Is your suggestion that musicians, authors, coders, photographers, and so on deserve no protection? The EFF certainly isn't arguing that.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
No double standard, it's called "covering A$$es". These are what you call "contingency plans." Sony is trying to do everything they can to be in a good position, no matter how the matter with the RIAA turns out.
Talk about doublespeak! I found this post just downright amazing. I was flabbergasted!
It is a double standard. What you describe is exactly a double standard. When someone is supposedly so against something, at least in front of their peers, but then they support those who do it, or at least condone it, this is the very definition of a double standard.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
You mean like artificially keeping CD prices high by using your power as a monopoly to steal more money from people who like music? I'd say the record industry has been stealing from all of us for many, many years. I will not shed a tear about their tiny loss of profit that is probably more due to their inability to put out good music and alienating their customers than file "sharing".
today is spelling optional day.
Personally, I'd like to hear more specifics about alternative systems, and less about how the RIAA is the Great Satan
I don't understand why _we_ are the ones that are supposed to come up with a business model for the RIAA...? Do we have to come up with a business model for every failing business that sues us when they lose money? That's _their_ job, not ours.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
"The jury who heard all the facts in the case disagreed"
No, they did not hear all the facts. The process typically prevents juries from hearing all the facts.
" I would have too"
Then you think that people who are not to blame should pay for the mistakes someone makes?
"There was no reason to serve coffee that hot"
Yes there was! Because the customers preferred it that way. Now they get all kinds of "coffee too cold" complaints.
"while people expect to get minor burns when spilling hot coffee, nobody expects to get burns requiring $20,000 in medical bills."
If they pour it into their crotch, this can happen. Next time, do not pour it into your crotch.
Are you one of those idiots who would sue Fiskars if you fall and stab yourself because you ran with scissors?
"And since when did "customers want" coffee that was that dangerous?"
Your question does not apply, since the coffee was not dangerous.
Somebody should sic the BSA on the RIAA and find out how much software they've copied themselves.
I'm a firm believer in making sure your own closet is free of skeletons, before you go poking around in somebody elses looking for them.
You aren't necessarily going to be the one to come up with an alternative, but you do deserve a chance to see if you prefer that alternative, regardless of who offers it.
This isn't really about a new business model for the RIAA. Under current copyright law, they have every right to sue people for distributing their works.
If you want the lawsuits to stop, there needs to be a new system (or people need to stop sharing RIAA files).
The EFF is trying to present alternatives, and I'm suggesting that people should look at these alternatives, consider the pros and cons, and see how they compare.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
My suggestion is that whatever protection is devised should be specific to human behavior and not attempt to restrict technology or the flow of information based on the mere potential for misuse.
Realisticly, this would destroy the current business models surrounding mass produced music and video because short of some orwelian surveilance system there is no way to effectively police human behavior.
So yeah, they deserve protection, however they do not deserve protection to degree that sacrifices anyone else's rights. In the end if technology and inate human behavior deny musicians and artists a living, then they should take it as a clue that their product has no real market value beyond it's inherent artistic merit and that merit is equivalent to money. Art for arts sake, to hell with the rest.
No copyright - Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert. Copyright - N'Sync, Britney Spears, Eminem.
oops. meant to write " NOT equivalent to money.
Funny that you should invoke Orwell. Take a look at the EFF's alternative systems -- some call for the govermental to track downloads in order to compensate musicians from a new tax.
That sounds more Orwellian to me than what we have now.
The problem is that people are so accustomed to hating the RIAA, that they aren't bothering to look critically at the details of alternative systems being pushed to replace what we have now.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Fine, but don't forget Copyright also protects -- Jonny Cash, Ween, Marvin Gaye, The Clash, Brian Eno, Funkadelic, Charles Mingus and countless great people.
Just because you don't like some music doesn't really make your point. If you dont like N'Sync, Britney Spears, and Eminem just don't listen.
Back in Mozart's time, only a very tiny minority of artists could support themselves by being an artist, and that generally meant finding a rich benefactor. Are you telling me that's better?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Actually that alternative authored by the EFF (and other similair alternatives) was what I was alluding to.
This is why I find the proposing of any alternatives as abhorent, as they all invision a system which incorporates control beyond the standard legal protections.
No, no alternatives should be proposed beyond a playingfield that does not restrict technology on the basis of it's potential misuse. That is the system. Let individuals be held accountable for what they do with the technology. If the law proves to be unenforcable, then clearly the law is standing against the natural current of history.
Ms. Frank, the MTV executive, noted the limitations of unlimited customization, even amid unlimited access. For young Americans, she said, "because of the way they've trained themselves to use media, they never have to be exposed to an idea, an artist, or anything that they did not select for themselves."
Yes, because people that d/l music and such live in a cave and never come out. Thy must make their own food and clothes too, because they are never exposed to an idea they did not select. I can't walk outside my house without being exposed to ideas I did not select. My neighbor's clothes, billboards, branding on food at the store...I am forced to look at these things just to survive. I don't really want to at times...
I think she should have said "They haven't been exposed enough to our ideas, our select artists, or all our other marketing campaigns because they feel they have freedom of choice."
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
Yeah, another "solution" that no-one will use or agree to.
I'll bet you a wheelbarrow full of Flooz and a pocket-full of micro-payments on this one.
While you're online, visit a blog with links to published movie gossip and use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends.
Because when faced with the choice of downloading untold numbers of movies, music, or expensive software like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office, the humble file trader always opts for that hot new copy of Outlook Express...?!
Watch out for this John Leland guy. He's in the know.
That sounds more Orwellian to me than what we have now."
you: "Actually that alternative authored by the EFF (and other similair alternatives) was what I was alluding to."
And all I'm suggesting is that people take a closer look at these alternatives, rather than just accept them because "the RIAA sucks."
Why replace Orwell with Orwell...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
How dare you speak out against America like that! If you don't like the way things are run here why don't you move to China where you are free to disrespect our laws on intelectual property. You know that in places like Iraq (before we fixed things over there) you would be shot for saying something like that? In my opinion you should be!
YACA
(Your Average Clueless American)
You don't think that these people (or people exactly like them) wouldn't have become popular w/o copyrights? They (and their parasites) might not have made as much money (and would've had to work harder), but the main reason their music became popular was because there was a big enough audience _ready_ to listen to their kind of music. They would've become popular even without copyright.
Your classical artists didn't need copyright since copying wasn't possible at the time. Even when mass production devices became possible (audio recoding, printing press, ...) almost costless replication and distribution didn't exist until the last few years in the Internet. Trying to compare classical's (or even 1960s rock's) situation what the modern musician faces isn't possible.
People want to constanly claim how the Internet is changing everything, yet they sit in denial of how these changes require legislative changes to protect a culture of creation that would disappear.
Besides, I would take Eminem over over Motzart. Classical music is from a time past that doesn't appeal to me. Just because you don't like the music (dare I say too bigoted to even listen to it without bias) doesn't mean it sucks.
Ownership of music seems to make sense in theory (don't artists have the right to their creations?) But in practice, it just doesn't work -- the general public wants free access to their culture. The only answer is a compromise, involving limited terms for limited rights.
This is not a new idea; in fact, it's in the constitution ("limited terms to promote the arts"). But it failed, simply because the rights holders demanded longer terms. The only way we can counter this is demand shorter terms.
Hence, my battle plan:
Create an amendment to the constitution, granting a 10 year copyright. Term is not subject to extension, ever.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
Who would you rather have monitoring your music? The government or the RIAA?
Really, put aside your "oh no the government is out to get me" views for a minute, and consider whether anyone in the government honestly gives a shit whether you are listening to RATM or not. Remember, the RIAA has declared itself immune to the protections under the bill of rights...so if Rosen's your queen, you have no right to free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and so forth.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
I don't file share anymore, mainly because there's nothing worth having as afer as I'm concerned. I don't listen to this Sh*t that's common on kazaa etc.
I'm waiting for the next fight.
The BIG ONE.
When are they going to say that my use of stuff like Streamripper to record streaming staions is illegal. Its the most analogous thing to taping the radio, which is legal.
Bring it on RIAA.
We'll get "a chance to see if [we] prefer that alternative" whether we invent it or not. So far these plans have failed because they all ask us to give up freedoms we don't want to trade away. The idea that we had better come up with an alternative profitable plan is the RIAA's clients way of stating their entitlement to remain in business. Studios are not owed business. They are lucky the public is engaging in this debate on their terms as far as it has gone.
That's right, it's about getting RIAA's clients to devise a new business plan. Society needs to realize that just because someone has a legal right to do what they're doing doesn't mean what they're doing is ethical or likely to give them the money they want to stay in business.
Or the RIAA needs to stop suing people. Nobody is being sued for "sharing RIAA files" because the RIAA doesn't hold the copyright to any of the files they're suing people over. Understanding this is crucial to understanding why the RIAA's amnesty program is a sham for the public.
I think the public should consider:
Digital Citizen
Let me say this as loudly as possible: NEITHER!!!
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
What you're missing is that they pursued a career in music in part because they believed that they were good enough to make a living doing it, and they believed that they could help support a family.
You argue to make that harder.
I have absolutely no dobut if musicians have less hope of making a living, there will be fewer musicians. Perhaps you don't care, and think 'good riddance' -- but that's not how I feel. I think we should protect and encourage art, and not just toss it all away so people can get stuff free.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
"The fact that they served coffee that hot to someone sitting in a CAR makes them partly responsible."
No, they are not responsible at all for someone missusing the product.
"McDonald's has the stink on them and what you fail to see is that if the same accident happened with ANY OTHER vendor's coffee, that lady wouldn't have suffered the injuries she did."
Wrong again. Coffee a little colder, which McDonald's serves now, STILL causes burns if you pour it into your crotch as she did.
"Besides, super hot burnt coffee sucks, you dumb ass."
Most customers, including myself, preferred it BEFORE the frivolous suit.
"If you are aiming for law reform, at least pick cases that would prove your point"
When you know the facts, this case shows very strongly the need for reforms that prevent such cases from ever reaching the court.
Sunday's Userfriendly.org Cartoon on the $2000 Settlement with Brianna the 12-year-old file-sharing criminal.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"because of the way they've trained themselves to use media, they never have to be exposed to an idea, an artist, or anything that they did not select for themselves." Thank god i have the power to choose what advertising-laden clothes all the poeple i come into contact with wear each day. Thank god i can control every comercial, billboard, radio announcement, flyer on my car, piece of junk mail, inbox full of spam, and loud-ass-bass-riddled-noise-assualt coming from the car next to me. Praise the lord for the omnipotent he hath given us through the internet!!!!
itadakimasu
EXACTLY! This is the first genuine popular movement we've seen in a long long time. Debate is quickly usurped by the fat cats and you end up with some half assed compromise. Real change comes from the streets.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It appears that this RIAA organization is mainly
composed of just 8 large megacorporations and
a few hangers on. It is really a cartel in
restraint of trade as defined in the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act of 1872
Think about it. They control prices that
consumers pay for all kinds of media products.
They also control most of the mass media..
radio, television, newpapers in the whole
country among members of the cartel. Being a
monopoly, they can dictate prices to the artists
who create both the money they ill use and the
pride and arrogance they show to the public.
It comes as no surprise that they steal even
now! Can the leopard change its spots. Ask
Charlie Parker and Billie Holliday, artists
who were cheated out of their work a long time
ago by the ancestors of the same barbarians
that run the monopoly today. At that time
they were cheated for the 'crime' of creating
artistic work of generationally lasting value
while being black!
Even now, look at how much these same folks
pay the website creators of 'BigChampaign.com
for data on music downloaders so that they can
direct more profitable music promotions, while
at the same time they talk out of the other side
of their mouths about those downloaders and their
services having no use or value. Forty thousand
dollars a month for data on downloads speaks
a lot louder than their propaganda spewed through
their mouthpieces like AOL/Time Warner owned
CNN...... masquerading as 'news'.
What we need is another of our historic
'housecleanings' The last time that we did
this effectively, not counting the scouring
of the republicans during the depression was
during the time of Theodore Roosevelt at the
turn of the 20th century. Our wheel of karma
turns about once in a hundred years, but hey,
we are a big country and the wheel DOES turn.
No doubt it's a popular movement, but it's basically saying: "let's toss away copyright just because we hate the RIAA" and that's just bad thinking. It's not meaningful unless you're looking at the details of what you'd be replacing it with.
Did you read into article to get to the free speech and privacy problems introduced by the government instituted alternatives?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Let's all remember the RIAA as we observe National Talk Like a Pirate Day. TLAP is September 19th.
Sept. 12, 2003 | As the record industry prepares hundreds of lawsuits targeting people suspected of illegally copying music over the Internet, a broad coalition of leading academics and civil libertarians is standing up for "file sharing" with the intention of ushering in a new copyright system.
Case in point: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, longtime defender of free speech and privacy online, is sponsoring an advertising campaign with the slogan "File Sharing: It's Music to Our Ears." Seeking to recruit new members who are "tired of being treated like a criminal for sharing music online," the ad's message is clear: It's cool to copy music, regardless of the copyright status.
The EFF's goal, like that of many legal scholars, software coders and media pundits, is a new system of compensation for copyright holders that would legitimize file sharing, generally through some new tax on Internet use that would be redistributed to content creators.
But the tacit endorsement of copyright violation seems intended to force the change rather than open it to debate: The more people engage in file sharing, the stronger the case that it can't be stopped, and that our current system of copyright must therefore be scrapped.
This is a bad idea propagated in bad faith. Rather than cheering on file sharing, the EFF should be presenting us with the details of its alternative so that we can measure it against our current copyright system, and collectively decide which system we prefer.
The major record companies -- mostly in the guise of their lobbying group, the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA -- have been widely criticized as being heavy-handed in their response to file sharing. But the tactics and goals of those leading the charge against them have generally avoided scrutiny. It's time to take a closer look.
Music industry critics would have us believe that their objective is to rein in an evil cartel, but there's much more to it than that. Their intention is to dictate new terms to all digital authors, regardless of whether they are working for an oligopoly or toiling away in a garage.
As an independent software developer, I don't much appreciate the effort to recast copying others' work as a cool and revolutionary act. What's worse, civil liberties advocates are promoting alternative systems that compromise free speech and privacy, bedrock principles that we have traditionally relied on them to defend.
The first thing to note is that this debate isn't just about music, it is about copyright in general. All leading file-sharing applications are designed to copy any kind of file. If the goal is to legitimize the activity over these peer-to-peer (P2P) networks through a new tax, then we should expect such a system to apply to all digital works -- not just music, but also movies, software, photographs, ebooks and so on.
So how is free speech compromised?
Under these alternative systems, compensation for cultural expression is shifted to governmental control -- the government collects the tax, divides it up, and pays the artists. But this is also the same government that has a long record of denying public funding for "offensive" art.
As a simple example, consider that pornography makes up as much as 40 percent of file-sharing traffic. Are we to believe that those copyright holders would receive their proportionate share of the P2P tax? It seems far more likely that the government will instead decide to exclude "adult" works, drawing a line between art and offense.
This isn't just about porn. The FCC regularly censors the infamous "seven dirty words" from public airwaves, and it's a safe bet that the trend will continue with P2P payouts -- certain works will be deemed not worthy of compensation by public funds.
There is no reason to believe that the First Amendment would apply here -- after all, nothing would
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It doesn't have to be this way. There are alternatives. That's why EFF launched the Let the Music Play Campaign, to create a showcase for reasonable solutions that don't involve endless lawsuits. None of them is perfect; all of them have flaws and drawbacks. But all of them are preferable to thousands of lawsuits against individual American families. A good solution will get artists paid, while protecting the privacy and free-speech rights of fans.
Some critics worry that changes made in the copyright law for music may be detrimental to changes in the copyright law for software, books and other copyrighted works. This is a perfectly legitimate concern and has been addressed in several of the plans on our site. For example, the "voluntary collective licensing" plan is specific to the music industry and does not apply to software or other copyrighted works. Just as ASCAP and BMI collect blanket licensing fees from radio stations today, so could similar organizations collect fees from P2P users for file-sharing music. No other copyright owners would be affected by such a plan.
Another solution might be compulsory licensing -- Congress could step in and force the record labels to accept file sharing in exchange for reasonable compensation from file sharers. This is what happened with webcasting. It is also how cable companies and satellite companies pay for TV programming. These historical solutions have only affected specific industries; there is no reason that we cannot limit the P2P solution as well.
Copyright law has always been a patchwork quilt, treating different works in different ways. For example, there is a specific compulsory license for making a cover song. If you want to record your own version of Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone," you don't have to get Bob's permission. A specific section of the copyright law allows you to simply go ahead and record and sell your version -- as long as, in return, you pay Bob eight cents for every copy you sell. This special exception doesn't affect any other copyright holders, just songwriters. Of course, if other industries such as the book, movie or software industry like this idea, they could adopt it as well. That's the beauty of having reasonable alternatives. Everything is on the table; consumers and content owners can negotiate via the marketplace and Congress to ensure the best plan is worked out.
Privacy and free speech are certainly considerations that we must take into account with any proposed solution. But consider the ways in which the current copyright system is already costing us privacy. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), any copyright owner can issue a "secret" subpoena to your ISP and force them to reveal your name, address, e-mail, and personally identifying information simply on the basis of a "good-faith belief" that you are infringing one of their copyrights; they don't even have to file a lawsuit or go before a judge for approval. It is true that on the Internet we are all copyright owners. Every e-mail, every Web page, every comment post is copyrighted. While government surveillance today is as scary as ever, we must also protect ourselves and our privacy against reckless copyright owners who wish to snoop on our activities as well. A system that legalizes file sharing also immunizes file sharers against DMCA subpoenas, since copyright owners would no longer have any basis to obtain file-sharer names. Given that the RIAA h
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
For young Americans, she said, "because of the way they've trained themselves to use media, they never have to be exposed to an idea, an artist, or anything that they did not select for themselves."...as opposed to selected by the MTV executive. Clearly this must be stopped!
I honestly disagree. I doubt that the number of musicians will decrease. Actually, I think the number of musicians will probably increase, since there will be less control over what they are allowed to play.
Granted, a lot of them will probably be be live bands mostly playing songs composed by someone else, but as long as they're not claiming they wrote the songs, it's an honest way of making a living. They might not be able to make megamillions, but they'll be able to make a reasonable living like any working stiff, by providing a service (playing music) in return for compensation.
There will still be big shows for big sponsors - it's good advertising (and if your ticket sales are good enough, it might even pay for itself). Heck, if the public thinks there's a music shortage, our representatives can use some of that taxpayer money they're currently wasting and pay composers to produce all kinds of popular stuff (i.e., commissions), thus giving money _directly_ to the artists (instead of to large non-music-producing corporations), and creating a large body of public-domain work that society can benefit from (I'm sure some people would consider this welfare for artists).
Music has been a basic part of cultures since mankind figured out how to hold a pitch with their voice, and long before copyright ever existed. The only thing copyright has done is allow a smaller number of people to control the mass distribution of certain creative works, allowing them to make money without having to produce continuously (unlike any normal job).
You said it.
I have a completely different explanation for the NYT phenomenom. (read the article). It's the group mind, The speed of sharing ideas is accellerating rapdidly and it 's so much easier today than it was yesterday to absorb and reprocess information from so many sources. you can pick and choose your sources so much more carefully. This copying is actually the creative process of interpretation happening at a much higher speed and much greater scale.
simon
home page
Exactly. People like musicians, authors, coders and so on expend considerable effort making some new work. Nobody is paying them to do this, and they hope that they can make something that worthwhile and that enough people like, and hopefully they'll be able to make some money, pay life's bills and create more works.
That's a good thing, for them and for the people that come to enjoy their work.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
"Fine, but don't forget Copyright also protects -- Jonny Cash, Ween, Marvin Gaye, The Clash, Brian Eno, Funkadelic, Charles Mingus and countless ..."
How does it help Johnny Cash, Marvin Gaye, Charles Mingus, and all those great *dead* artists?
If the intent of copyright is to promote arts, then how does it "encourage" a dead artist to protect his/her work?
Answer: It doesn't. Copyrights today are simply a corporate entitlement. They don't help most artists, let alone dead ones.
Your argument is nice *in theory* only.
Only a handful of artists (musicians, authors or coders) can make a living from selling copies of their works.
For example, most jazz musicians must constantly work (play gigs, teach etc) to make a reasonable living.
The same for authors. Only a handful can make a living from writing and selling books. Most have to have a "day" job.
I've been a coder for a long time and I haven't yet received a single royalty payment. I have to get up every morning and go to work.
So, we are trying to create draconian systems to fight against the natural property of digitized information - the ease of copying and distributing = just to protect the livelihood of a handful of people?
Adapt or die. I'm not worried about the lack of music or art. There will always be people who want to create it...
...richie - It is a good day to code.
ah, GPL! ;)
I can see why you're qualified to provide financial advice to other artists...
"Adapt or die. I'm not worried about the lack of music or art. There will always be people who want to create it... "
Actually, I agree that people will always be creating new art. It's just that I think that should be rewarded, and even the EFF agrees with that.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
werd.
Where pirates all are well-to-do;
But I'll be true to the song I sing,
And live and die a Pirate King."
-Oh, Better Far to Live and Die, Gilbert and Sullivan's The Pirates of Penzance
A file-sharing anthem.
The problem with copyright protection is that it's not a problem to people who start music from a love of music - ask Radiohead, Prince, The Foo Fighters or Courtney Love what they think of file sharing. They know that their music will still sell, that their tickets will still sell, because they have talent and fans who are dedicated to their music.
As for a tiny minority, It's the people who manage the discardable trash that have the most to lose. And losing them would be no great loss.
Most corporations would much rather have Intellectual Property (whether that be brands or patents) than do day-to-day graft of making better products in a competing marketplace.
Back in Mozart's time, only a very tiny minority of artists could support themselves by being an artist, and that generally meant finding a rich benefactor. Are you telling me that's better?
A thought just popped into my head (insert joke here). That's really not that different than what we have now. Most of the people who are musicians do not support themselves full time in that manner and probably spend more on their career/hobby than they make. Most of the few who do have contracts with record companies (of wildly varying sizes), giving them in effect, rich benefactors (who may be trying to screw them). Sony == Emperor of Austria, while indie label == Prince of Tinyhaven. Of course, irking the Emperor means you may lose your head, while irking CEO of Sony means No Contract For You. Just a thought anyway.
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Did anyone see the latest issue of Wired's article on p2p data mining?
a re .html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/filesh
Looks like the industry is actually using the data from the p2p networks they are litigating against. For example, finding out where a certain band's downloads are hot, but radio time for their latest tune is low. I found this really ironic, but not entirely surprising.
i think people forget that when we download for free we are stealing...the riaa may be too hard but it is their money we are stealing...how would you feel?