Slashdot Mirror
BBC In Trouble Over Free Music
Take a Byte Out of Crime writes "According to this article, British classical labels are claiming that the BBC giving away the these symphonies, which were performed by the BBC Orchestra for free, constitutes unfair government competition. Apparently all free music really is illegal these days, or soon will be, public domain be damned."
is that corporations will sue private citizens giving things away for free, claiming "unfair competition by [those people who damn well should be] the buying public."
Corporations = have rights.
Anyone/thing else = "with the terrorists."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Is it for the protection of the original ideas?
Or the protection of individual performances?
===
Can you play only public domain songs, sell it, and then have people trading your performances withouit purchasing them be pirates?
Does anyone know?
[I legitemately don't but would like to]
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
They'll be banning MIDI in soundcards soon.. Cant have MIDI reproducing music without loss.. holy crap..
Its time to get your handbaskets organised people, cause we're all about to go to hell..
-- Jim.
-- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
I don't understand how giving something away for free could be seen as competition. It's not like you can buy the exact same thing from a someone else. On the other hand, if this was something like Mozart/Bach/any|other|classic|artist where no one owns a copyright, then I guess giving it away while someone was selling it could be seen as an unfair buisness practice.
I still take the side of BBC on this one, though. They recorded the music with their own in-house orchestra and therefore should be able to distribute it any way they like. Period.
Software is like sex. It's better when it's free. -Linus Torvalds
First of all the music industry is consipiring to strangle the very human instinct of music. It is in us, and we are genetically programmed to appreciate it.
The reason this industry is fighting so hard is greed. Pure and simple greed.
They have a way of life/business model that can't addapt to the quickly changing digital world around them so like vultures they are clawing at their food supply.. namely your dollars.
So whats to do? Namely the copyright holders of each song/piece of music ulitmately control if it is placed in the public domain. Currently most are being greedy.. or are just clueless.
Its pyrimid ponzi scheme of artistic and corporate collusion, and its only getting worse.
They are the music nazis, and if you want it you must join their party and play their game.
We need to continue to encourage folks to step up to the plate. Bands, artists, songwriters of all flavors should make thier stuff availible online with one CC stipulation.. It can't be sold/profitted from unless the copyright holder changes the license.
Most of the stuff from the big labels is corporate shit anyway.. the only reason folks buy it is they are told its cool.
So those of who do make music cause you frelling love it, and not because you want a damn easy check fight on.
Live it, love it, make it real.
Even if you suck its better than canned spam coming out yer radio.
Peace, D
I'm sure many of us understand how the BBC works, it's funded in majority by the license fee we Brits have to pay per household every year. I think I paid 130UKP last year (220USD).
The argument about value for money is a can of worms I'm not going to touch, however, it smacks a little bit of unfairness if my US based cousins can enjoy what is arguably the best part of the BBC (BBC Online) without having to contribute a penny.
BBC Online should be protected in-line with the rest of the BBC, the content should be un-lockable via entry of my license number.
The same goes for the recent deal done to broadcast Radio 1 on Sirrius. Presumably the profit goes back in to creating the BBC, however, I'd prefer it to go back in to my already stretched pocket.
that might work if they had something obvious that made it a parody before they were "In Trouble Over Free Music".
anyways, they (BBC) are giving stuff away for free that was performed by the BBC Orchestra. if it was someone else's product being discounted by the govt then it would constitute unfair government competition (imho).
and what does the "claim" mean? that if anything in any form ever had a cost, no one can ever give it for free? or just not the government? in either case, that's just sad (and VERY VERY stupid).
A French bus company sues cleaning ladies who carpool.
Guardian article here.
What is up with Europe these days? We were glad when they rejected software patents, but these sorts of legal actions? They make the US look like a country where nobody ever sues anyone without reason ever....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Since the BBC (radio and TV) broadcast their programming for free and without advertising, all their works, past and present, constitute "unfair government competition."
Nevermind that they are essentially the vanguards of British culture the world over. That's not important at all.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
To the above three posts, from reading the /. post, aren't the specific performances in question ones that were given by the BBC symphony for free? Thus, don't they have the right to release them for free?
Laughing aside the argument that giving away something provides a justification(1) for stealing, lawyers could argue the following:
So, is this like when Microsoft first gave away Internet Explorer, in an attempt to shut down Netscape, which ultimately succeeded. What happened to them? Well, the Justice department decided that Microsoft was a monopoly and was unfairly using its monopoly powers. In the end, in spite of being found guilty, no punishment was enacted and the give away of Internet Explorer continues to this day.
This argues that BBC should be allowed to give away music.
Your opponent might then argue that BBC is a government entity and that private music producers have to compete against an entity giving away product subsidized by taxpayers money.
You could then counter and compare it against the situation where a government gives away medicine in an attempt to wipe out a disease affecting its citizens. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any cases where giving away medicine in such circumstances has been prohibited. There are even case of patent violations where countries have copied drugs (I seem to remember this has occured in South Africa and Brazil) in order to reduce the cost.
In this case you might argue that the drug is music and the disease is modern culture.. but let's not start up that old argument.
In any case, this also argues that BBC should be allowed to give away music.
-----
(1) Think about the free product samples you see in stores occasionally. Do you think that this makes people believe that they can take home large packages of the same product being offered for sale without paying?
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
I sure am glad the Berman Hack-Back bill went down to defeat, because I downloaded all of the symphonies. Wouldn't want someone from the RIAA going into my network because they think I'm taking bread from the mouths of RCA Red Seal, Deutsche Grammaphon, or whatever classical label you'd care to name...
I mean, really...the Beeb does this to get people interested in Classical music. They certainly succeed, too...when this first appeared in Slashdot downloading was impossible for the next 48 hours after the article appeared. It was only thanks to archive.org and a few other sites that I was able to glom onto the whole set.
You can bet there won't be a "repeat performance" of something like this from the Beeb. Thanks a lot, pigopolists...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The french... a bus company is suing some commuters for car. pooling.
The world is badly, badly b0rken.
err!
jak.
Making food for useful people since 1972.
"There ought to be but one large art warehouse in the world, to which the artist could carry his art-works, and from which he could carry away whatever he needed. As it is, one must be half a tradesman." -- Ludwig van Beethoven, January, 1801
And, as for tough competition, last time I looked The Guardian, a small circulation not for profit UK newspaper, had a website which has more page views than most of the rest of the UK newspaper industry put together, and competes with the BBC given far less resources. The truth is, Murdoch, Rothermere and Sullivan between them have reduced the UK newspaper industry to such low grade sensationalist crap that they cannot compete with anybody who does a half decent job, at least where the audience who can read and write are concerned.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
And since i pay my TV licence that pays for the BBC that should mean that it's my recording so I should have access to it.
If they get anoyed about this what are they going to say when the BBC archive goes live online?
Reinventing the wheel since 1979
(C) 1812 - No Rights Observed. Reprinted without permission from "Master MBA 101!", published by AOL Press.
Record companies are well aware that certain artists, orchestras, choirs, etc. draw far better sales than unknowns. This fact alone makes their point fairly mute. They gladly put out whole new recordings simply because $conductor's name is on it and charge a premium.
In addition, there are so many variables for "classical" music, you would have a hard time labeling it a commodity. Not to berate pop music, but there is simply more to something like a Beethoven symphony than the latest $band single.
For example, I have three copies of Handel's Messiah. One is a great recording in the style of Handel's time period (the choir's enunciation is extremely distinct, for example). Another is an Americanized version with fewer instruments, mellowed diction, and a very clear recording. The third one has strong diction, full accompaniment, lackluster performance, average recording quality, and a few modern twists (for example the soporano is a male).
Each of these recordings sounds incredibly different. Everything from the dynamics to the recording quality itself significantly add to the experience. And I'm not even an audiophile. I intentionally bought different interpretations of the music because I enjoy Handel's work through the ears of different artists.
In the UK, Levi's used Haendel's Sarabande from his Suite in D minor for an ad back in 2002/2003. The piece was relatively unknown by the general public, but as a result of the ad the largest classical radio station kept getting huge number of requests for it for months, many of them just for "that song from the Levi's ad", and whenever they'd play it, they'd refer to Levi's as well.
To this day I'd expect most people in the UK who recognise it to think of the Levi's ad and most of them likely won't know where the music is from.
All Levi's would have had to do to capitalise of that was to - in at least some of the advertising slots - include a URL that hinted that you could get the music there, and they'd have a great opportunity to both spread it and to get people to watch more of their promotional material.
Add to that tagging the music with the URL and a mention of Levi's and the ad, and put the ad itself for download on the same site and they'd get a significant boost over the ad by itself - in cases like this, where the ad was actually very good by itself, you might even find a significant number of people would like to see the ad again.
(For an interesting take on this particular ad before it started running, see this article in the Telegraph)
First I need to know how the post above can get a "Score:5, Informative" rating? I get the impression the poster doesn't know what he's talking about.
Actually, yes they do.
Not necessarily.
This is about government funded activities competing with private ventures, and is actually a big problem for many companies. A friend of mine who owned a restaurant was put out of business by a neighbouring restaurant financed by tax money.
Morally, I can't tell who's right in this case. Legally, the "idiot cry-baby" is making a valid point. The problem is, where do we draw the line?
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
Well
1. These files were played on the radio. I could have recorded them at roughly the same quality and owned them for nothing in first place.
2. As far as quality goes they are 128Kbit fixed rate encoded MP3. Any classical audiophile will puke at the idea of using it for anything but commuter or office noice supression. Further to that as far ast the 9th goes (I have yet tofind time to listen to the rest) the vocals are relatively lame and the conductor lacks the necessary level of fashism to conduct it the way it is supposed to be conducted. I have listened to 9th under the stick of Herbert von Karajan and compared to that the BBC recording smacks of amateurism.
3. It will not stop people who are in fact audiophiles and classics fans from buying proper recordings. It will not decrease the music labels revenue. So why don't they just go blow and get a clue about their market.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Like if I were to get some Motzart sheet music, and then make a MIDI out of it, rander that to digital using synthesizers, I'd own the copyright.
I can't resist pointing out that if I also created a MIDI that I would own the copyright on my version. In fact my copy and your copy can be bit-for-bit identicial. If someone else then publishes that bunch of bits it is impossible to tell if that is perfectly legal or if it infringes your copyright or if it infringes my copyright until we find out where the got the bits.
What Colour are your bits?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I don't think this is the same group that attacked "popera". The people complaining are the music industry, the people most interested in recordings with star names and things like crossover. The problem with out-of-copyright works for them is that it all comes down to the quality and interpretation of the work, which means that they have to work in a free market. Which means that they have to compete with guys like Naxos who sell recordings that are often excellent, and good enough for the man in the street.
The recordings were issued as part of the BBC's fantastic Beethoven season, which included the broadcast of his complete works on Radio 3 and some terrific television programmes. This is what we in the UK pay our licence fees for, and I felt that this season well and truly earned my entire licence fee for 2005! The record execs are (1) barmy, and (2) entirely unjustified in their attack on the Beeb. What next, should we pay royalties to reveal news stories by word of mouth to our family and friends?
I thought that the BBC collected the fee themselves, they include the costings for collection on how they spend the fees.
My understanding is that (legally) the license fee is "separate" from what the BBC get paid. People with a TV have to pay money to the government which "happens" to match what the BBC get paid by the government.
Of course, we all know that this is nonsense, but I guess it (for one thing) avoids problems such as people who can't get decent BBC reception suing the government on that basis.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The performance is certainly copyrightable, and copyrighted. If you actually downloaded and listened to the symphonies, the audio file is prefaced by a BBC announcer stating that the file is available for free download from the BBC, for a limited time, and they request that the files not be redistributed, and a few other terms of the offering.
Either the BBC is the copyright holder, or authorized by the holder, which if it is not the BBC it is likely the Philharmonic Orchestra, to host the digital files of that performance on their web server and offer them to the public for free download.
It's perfectly within a copyright holder's rights to give away their own copyrighted work for free.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
things that he and his associates are trying to sell
What's more, people in his line of work have (had?) a habit of going to Iron-Curtain principalities to get their orchestras to record the classical works so they could just pay them a couple thousand dollars for all rights to the performances and then never pay royalties or share of profits, which western orchestras would require.
Check out the credits on the typical classical CD's in the record store next time you're in.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Industries that behave the way the entertainment industry has deserves to die. Rather than adapt to the changing nature of their audience they are willing to attack that audience to preserve it. Kind of a cull I guess in their twisted logic.
There is a certain danger for people who sell stuff that people don't "need" pissing off the people who might buy their products. I haven't bought a CD or DVD in five years, partly because there is so little stuff worth having and partly because every time I hear something from the industry, it just pisses me off a little more. Over time, I have found out I don't miss the stuff. I listen to music on the radio and on discs I already own, as well as watch TV, but beyond that I do other stuff that does not contribute to their bottom line. I don't boycott anyone directly, I just don't make an effort towards any of these offerings and have found I can exist quite happily without them. Plus I have more money for when I do want to indulge myself.
Companies that feel they are entitled to a level of profit from the public will do more damage to the economy that any group of terrorists.
Recently in Iowa City (my hometown) there was a guest editorial in the local newspaper complaining that allowing the city's firemen to give one another free haircuts deprived local haircutters of their livelihood. The Mayor and the City Council got on it right away and banned the city's firefighters from giving each other haircuts. (True story.)
So anything you do for somebody else that could potentially make a profit for anyone who is in business is now illegal? You can't give a buddy a free beer, because that deprives the local bar of business. You can't have friends over for dinner because they might have gone to a restaurant for dinner. Heck, you probably can't even have sex with your significant other, because they might have gone to a prostitute!
I hate the 21st century. I think I'll to out and sue somebody.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.