Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"

bogess writes "Yahoo! Music General Manager Ian Rogers recently gave a speech to some music executives about the future of the Internet music business and promised his company will not be involved in Digital Rights Management anymore." Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now followed Radiohead in ridding themselves of the labels and going independent.

Comments

Poor MAFIAA

[CoolVibe]

Everyone is jumping ship on DRM. Boo-hoo. The consumer wins!

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Romancer]

I will gladly pay the protection money to Yahoo to keep DRM away. Give me high bitrate and lossless choices and watch my downloads soar!

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Korveck]

Not so fast, but RIAA and its beloved DRM will fail, within the next few years. RIAA still has control over majority of the music market. Not everyone is well-informed to know and seek for better alternatives. Some are happy to follow whatever the record labels throw at them. Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. What RIAA fails to realize is that a successful business is all about what the customers want, not what the company wants. There are countless examples of failures because the company lost touch with the people. And here we are just witnessing another failure in making.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Stormx2]

Nine Inch Nails were never on the "other ship". Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) publicly hates his label, and has leaked every NiN release so far. This isn't some sudden turn about. Check out quoteunquoterecords.com for another example (donations based).

I hear a lot of shit on the radio that "this would never work for lesser-known artists", which is a total load of rubbish. The independent artists have been doing this more than the big bands. Of course I'm happy that we're moving away from the fat cats to a clearer artist/listener relationship, and I'm also a radiohead fan, but this whole thing is totally overegged.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[h4rm0ny]

Amen! I'm over in the UK and I'm just waiting for Amazon or Yahoo or someone to start selling me quality downloads. I'll spend £40.00 on the service the first night it goes live, I have no doubt. I've bought a few albums from 7digital.com but a good portion of their stuff is still in WMA and they're also more set up as an online music service than a store for streaming your music wherever you are. (Everything you buy sits in an online basket that you can never get rid of and for Linux there's no convenient way of downloading your music except clicking on slow file downloads - takes fifteen minutes of clicking to get your files).

I can't wait until services are actually selling me this stuff properly.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Hymer]

...and poor Microsoft who has totally fucked up Vista (and delayed it several times) just to implement a "unbreakable" DRM system... instead of fixing some of Windows' real problems.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[tsa]

Haha that's a very good point. Poor MS. ;)

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Petrushka]

The consumer wins!

Speak for yourself! For my part, I am a customer. Potentially.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[dotgain]

Not everyone is well-informed to know and seek for better alternatives. Some are happy to follow whatever the record labels throw at them. Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. Most of them are bound by contract to the labels for a certain time or number of releases. It's not that they don't know to switch, but that they can't.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

And a comment of this attitude directed at Linux would be considered offtopic and flamebait.

Oh, Slashdot, you card.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

Amen! I'm over in the UK and I'm just waiting for Amazon or Yahoo or someone to start selling me quality downloads. Amazon already does, at least as high quality as they can get with going mostly indie (as most labels won't distribute their music DRM-less).

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Kasracer]

Your statement makes absolutely no sense. The ONLY DRM system that has been added to Vista is required by all operating systems (this includes OS X and Linux) if they want to display Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content in high definition.

Vista is actually a very large step forward for Windows. The UI is now driven by the graphics card, the drivers are now in the user space (where they belong), the kernel and many core components of the OS has been re-written to remove legacy code and to improve updating. Microsoft has done a lot to "fix" the issues with Windows.
 
Your statement is complete FUD

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon already does, at least as high quality as they can get with going mostly indie (as most labels won't distribute their music DRM-less).

What on earth are you talking about? What, indie artists can't use lossless formats?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[SenseiLeNoir]

WGA is a very big DRM..........

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

If this wouldn't work for lesser knowns, how come I know who Tay Zondee is (not that I'm looking forward to any albums..)

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[griffjon]

We'll see what happens. Yahoo has enough clout and a big enough war chest to stay afloat where others (AudioGalaxy) have failed, even though they focused on independent labels and contracts with RIAA companies (but still ended up getting sued to pieces). Yahoo of course will have full control over the content they post, so while they have to foot the bandwidth bill, they'll be in the clean (unlike AG, despite its fingerprinting technology).

The long-term question will be if Yahoo can get through the iPod barrier to start attracting business of online music consumers who don't know/care about DRM, and show them the light.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[SpecTheIntro]

And a comment of this attitude directed at Linux would be considered offtopic and flamebait.

While I generally frown on the virulent anti-MS sentiment running rampant through teh slashdotz, I don't think the OP was guilty of succumbing to its siren call. Microsoft really did spend an inordinate amount of time DRM-ing the living bejesus out of Windows Vista to satisfy content providers, and if the consumers succeed in forcing said providers to stop being Nazis, Microsoft will have effectively wasted millions of dollars implementing a system that will be useless. That money and time could (and should) have been spent making Vista a more streamlined and stable OS. I use Vista Ultimate at home, and it does a lot of things right (Media Center is a joy to use), but it does plenty wrong too. (I don't want to turn this into a Vista bashing thread so I'll leave it at that.)

It really is unfortunate how short-sighted the record labels and movie studios are. This entire mess could have been avoided if they'd done market research on how to effectively combat piracy, rather than throwing around ridiculous figures of "cash monieZ LSOT to teh PIRATZ ARRRRRRR" and assuming that some single mother with a handful of MP3s is the source of their lost revenue.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[TallMatt]

Not so fast, but RIAA and its beloved DRM will fail, within the next few years. Not everyone is well-informed to know and seek for better alternatives. Some are happy to follow whatever the record labels throw at them. Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. What are the better alternatives? What is the best way for up and coming bands to gain exposure if they are going to try and ditch the big record labels? I am not arguing on the side of the big labels, but what better services are out there?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

Aaaah. I thought he meant quality of the music itself, rather then the quality of the music file.

Although its interesting to see people say how they demand DRM-less music (all the while pirate mp3s) and then demand DRM-less music in a high quality file format (all the while pirating mp3s). I'm guessing some people just want an excuse to pirate and will never be happy.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Lossless digital audio? It doesn't work that way.
A straight PCM file sampled at 44khz is also lossy, but it cuts out frequencies humans obviously (one could argue) can't hear, so people don't mind it at all, and for some reason consider it lossless.

I've never heard anyone complain about .jpg images at 90 quality, demanding lossless versions of the same image, except for people who use the image as source material in other productions, yet for some reason it's cool to pretend to hear things that aren't there.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Kasracer]

WGA is included on XP as well... again, not only a Vista issue

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[SpecTheIntro]

The ONLY DRM system that has been added to Vista is required by all operating systems (this includes OS X and Linux) if they want to display Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content in high definition.

This is just patently false. It's not just Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content--it's ANY content in high definition. It extends to the mess involving CableCARDs and QAM tuners as well. Also, spend some time messing around with Windows Media Player 11, and the new schemes they use to protect WMV and WMA. You can no longer back up your licenses, period--so if you lose the device to which they are tied, well, sorry, time to purchase again.

I would suggest you take your own advice and simply google "Vista DRM."

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I will gladly pay the protection money to Yahoo to keep DRM away.

Not me. I not only want downloads to be free of DRM, but free of cost. MP3s should be the same as a commercial - they cost the band/label/company a small sum up front, but result in later sales.

If my friends can get you to listen to their stuff, you're likely to like it and go to their shows and buy their CDs. Buy their CDs, not "license" them. Unlike the RIAA labels and the bands (and bands' copyrights) the labels own, most indie musicians (including my friends) aren't thieves.

As Michael Crawford pointed out several years ago on K5, there are Tens of Thousands of free, Legal Music Downloads on the internet, which he linked in his article (I believe he has the story mirrored on his own site).

As I pointed out on my site, Yahoo sucks! If you use their "music search" (unless they've fixed it; the linked blagh entry is from Oct 2005) their only links are to music download sales. Free music isn't listed at all! I won't redundantly go into detail in this comment as I ranted enough two years ago. Where'd those horse bones go?

What's worse, "do no evil" Google is no better. Despite the fact that the love of money is the root of all evil, money is all they're about. Google's "advanced search" lets you search for specific file types, but not MP3s!

Yahoo (and Google) are on the side of mammon. Our internet (yes, fellow nerds, OUR internet) that started out as a free repository, free as in beer and free as in speech, has been nearly 100% co-opted by the god of Mammon, so badly that none of you remember the old internet, where we would bitch and moan and threaten boycotts of any site that dared es much as showed a banner ad (yes, even I've caved somewhet, having Google ads at the bottom of pages).

Now the internet is nearly 100% about commerce, with only a few truly free places. Yay sites like Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia. The Onion is another; they do commerce, but they don't shove it in your face and even have fake ads that make fun of internet advertising.

But these places are few and far between.

Someone needs to make a REAL music search; one where you can find not only The Station's CDs and paid downloads, but SHNs and Oggs of live shows. You can find them, but it ain;t easy.

This has no value at all to me. I don't buy downloads (OR bottled water, fools). MP3s are and should be free. When I buy music, I buy CDs from the bands at their shows. If I want RIAA dreck, I can get MP3s free off of the radio.

Buying MP3s, buying bottles of the same water that used to come free from drinking fountains, what's next, buying air?

-mcgrew

PS: Get off my lawn you damned stupid kids. And take your WMAs and bottled water with you!

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[MightyYar]

I don't see the inconsistency.

1. I'm grateful for whatever I get if it is free.
   
2. I won't pay for crap.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[j_sp_r]

I only pirate FLAC files!

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[CastrTroy]

You can always break a contract. They can't force you to produce a record. Of course there would probably be consequences to breaking said contract, mostly monetary. It would be a nice kick in the pants to the RIAA to see a bunch of bands just cancel their contract, regardless pay the breach of contract fine, and just go it on their own. It may only be financially possible for the really rich bands, but then again, if they lose enough really popular bands, maybe they will start to change their ways.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Gr8Apes]

Actually, DRM is only required for HDCP enabled systems by the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD patent owners. There's nothing inherent in either system that requires DRM. The only thing you'll lose is the ability to play DRM'd content if the system doesn't support the appropriate DRM.

I'm fine with that as I'd like nothing more than to be able to store my entire collection of photos on a single backup disk more than I care about playing movies back in either format.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[eric2hill]

I just configured a new Lenovo Thinkpad T60 with Vista and the first thing my client asked me to do was to play a movie. I popped a DVD into the drive, media player started automatically, then Windows threw up an error message that it couldn't validate the video path with DRM.

I found out that the graphics driver that shipped with the laptop wasn't "ceritified" to run with Vista. I had to download the 30MB+ graphics driver update before I could play a DVD.

Microsoft, you're really fucking your users over with Vista.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[argux]

You're absolutely right! We need more people speaking out on the DRM enforcement that's deeply rooted in Linux, making it slower than any OS has ever been, and as stable as Britney Spears' sanity.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

I must be an oddball then. Despite my being technically sophisticated enough to download pretty much anything, I still mostly buy my stuff - software and movies included.

Why? That's the legal way. As long as they don't screw stuff up, I prefer being legal.

I've dropped literally hundreds of dollars at webscription.net, which not only allows me to buy DRMless books, but to redownload them whenever I want to. It doesn't take two minutes and an internet connection to open them. It'd take two bookshelves to hold them all if I'd bought physical copies. I appreciate the saved space.

Basically, don't try to sell a product that's measurably inferior to the pirated version. I've heard everything from 20 minutes of unskippable ads(a disney DVD), condescending 'don't steal movies' ads, music with DRM so computationally expensive that playing them on a portable player sucks out half of the battery life, unable to play on average(or even top of the line) systems, installs root-kits, huge hassle when you change computers, etc...

*I'll normally download cracked executables for games even though I purchased it, that'd make for an interesting court battle when they claim I pirated software and I produce a receipt from before they say I downloaded it.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

...and poor Microsoft who has totally fucked up Vista (and delayed it several times) just to implement a "unbreakable" DRM system... instead of fixing some of Windows' real problems.

I laughed when I saw the Tribune story (sorry, bugmenot required) "Buying windows costs priest post">.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

There is no inconsistency. However by moving the goal posts each time they're reached simply reveals the true motives.

After the file format is changed the excuse will be the music itself isn't good enough to pay for.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

> The ONLY DRM system that has been added to Vista is required by all operating systems (this includes OS X and Linux) if they want to display Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content in high definition.

I won't be buying any HD* content until this DRM is borken.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[russotto]

They can't force you to produce a record, but they can prevent you from producing a record without giving them all the proceeds.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[viper66]

I've never heard anyone complain about .jpg images at 90 quality, demanding lossless versions of the same image, except for people who use the image as source material in other productions, yet for some reason it's cool to pretend to hear things that aren't there. I think the same reason applies to audio. People want to use the files for 'other productions' (burning CDs).

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

I've dropped literally hundreds of dollars at webscription.net Thanks for the link.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[somersault]

I actually don't pirate MP3s, I buy albums. I may buy them directly rather than via CD if I could just download 192kpbs DRMless MP3s/anything-but-wma direct rather than rip them from CD..

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

I once worked with an aspiring artist and figured out that you could get a couple thousand professionally pressed CDs, complete with four color art in jewel cases with insert for about a dollar each. While financing would be a concern, even mastering costs are limited today - any home PC can do most of it today, and for ~ thousand you can get quite a bit of pro, or at least semipro equipment. This doesn't include instruments, of course.

Buy two thousand CDs @ $1/each, add in producing costs of ~$1k, total cost $3k. Sell the CDs for $10/each at gigs, after the first 300 it's pure profit*. $17K worth, as a matter of fact. See if you can get the CDs into some of the local indie stores(be sure to get a UPC barcode). Sell ten a show, three shows a week, 50 weeks a year, that'd be 3.5k CDs sold a year. Add in a neat t-shirt design(be careful about copyright infringement, original art only, please).

Of course, I told him that I wasn't a music critic or fan, so it was up to him to be good enough to sell them. ;)

*excepting taxes, of course, but at that point you're running a business, and something like a band is will probably have lots of deductions.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[badasscat]

There is no inconsistency. However by moving the goal posts each time they're reached simply reveals the true motives.

I think you're confusing "moving the goal posts" with taking things one step at a time.

If we all demanded everything we wanted right off the bat, we'd be labeled as nutjobs and nobody would pay any attention.

If you ask for one thing at a time, it comes off as more reasonable. It's the same approach you take to any big problem. You're not going to solve world hunger by tomorrow through one big air drop. It takes baby steps.

Yes, the quality of music will be the next complaint. Or pricing. That's nothing new. That's not "moving the goal posts". These are all things people have been saying for a long time, but first things first - DRM is the more important issue at the moment.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

I've never heard anyone complain about .jpg images at 90 quality, demanding lossless versions of the same image, except for people who use the image as source material in other productions, yet for some reason it's cool to pretend to hear things that aren't there.

128kbps MP3 isn't just lossless, it's also low enough that many people with decent-good systems can hear the differences.

Sure, it's fine for most portable/computer purposes, but it's more like a 50% .jpg image rather than a 90% one. It's just fine until you go to print it out, but then it's all fuzzy. A 192 kbps MP3 would be like a 75% quality one - good for most hifi stereo systems, and 256kbps would be getting into 'golden ears' territory, especially if they go back to the masters to do the encoding.

And I am by no means a golden eared person, but I could easily hear the difference between a CD and the 128mbps mp3 when I hooked my computer into my receiver. Sure, somebody might come along and say it was my encoder, but at that bitrate there was simply a lot missing.

Still HD space is cheap, and the higher quality can always be downcoded for usage in a player. It can also be billed as a selling point - better quality than the pirates.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

well, if you want to be lazy: webscription.net

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

You say "If you do X I'll stop pirating your music." They do X, you don't stop like you said you would you instead come up with a new X. Seems like moving the goal posts to me.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

There was no sarcasm in my post, I really was thanking you for the link. I can see how you might have read it as if I were being sarcastic, but I in fact copied and pasted the link myself and then even bookmarked it ;) Honest: No sarcasm intended.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[mo^]

Wouldn't that technically be Lenovo's fault for putting an OS on hardware with no driver support?

Sure MS have their faults, but they dont install every machine

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard anyone complain about .jpg images at 90 quality

How many people do you know that buy jpeg files?

I don't complain about music that is offered for free, but if I pay for music I want it equal to CD quality so I can encode it in the format and bitrate I want without losing more detail then necessary (which could occur when encoding from one lossy format to another) and I also want to be able to re-download it again just in case I lose the original download (if I had a CD I could just re-rip it).

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Saxerman]

NIN signed with TVT Records originally, and Reznor certainly hated that contract and the control the label had on him. The aggressive sound of Halo 5 "Broken" is a direct result of his angst over the label. He eventually managed to escape from that deal to form Nothing Records. Nothing Records was still under the umbrella of Interscope, but Trent was basically given control to do what he wanted.

Nothing Records eventually falls apart after Reznor has a falling out with his partner John Malm.

Shortly after the fall, "With Teeth" still goes out under the Nothing label, but his next album "Year Zero" goes out directly under Interscope. And again, Trent hates the label control.

What I don't know is if Trent went back to Interscope after Nothing fell apart, or if he was still stuck with them after the lawsuits finally ended?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Orange Crush]

but RIAA and its beloved DRM will fail

Has DRM ever succeeded?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[MightyYar]

Well, I don't know how I can be any clearer than:

"Why should I pay for an inferior product than I can download for free?"

So far, the only answer is "for convenience", and that site (allofmp3) was shut down.

This is not a moving goal-post. Give me cheap, easy, and high-quality downloads (like allofmp3 had) and you will have at least one ex-pirate. Oh, except that I will still share with my friends. Ooops! I guess they'd better keep making new music and not rely on that back catalog!

Nothing is going to stop file sharing - it's easy, fun, and most of us don't feel in the least bit guilty about it. What is at issue is, given that fact, how are they going to make money? The answer is to give the consumers what they want at a price the market will bear.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Artifakt]

Company says "CDs will cost $5 more than LPs or Cassettes, but that's just until they stop being experimental - then the price will come down". CDs become the default medium, price doesn't drop.

(And company still gives artists lower royalties per unit for CDs using the same argument).

Company says "We will continue to market CDs, but we need to get the CD standard and definition changed."

I'm not saying you're wrong to characterize what some listeners are doing as moving the goalposts, but that's some listeners, while others do come back to the market and buy music if their particular complaint is addressed. Meanwhile, the RIAA has been moving the goalposts on its own in various ways, and until recently, it hasn't been some members, it's been a totally unified 100% action.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

Meanwhile, the RIAA has been moving the goalposts on its own in various ways, and until recently, it hasn't been some members, it's been a totally unified 100% action. Oh I agree. I also don't buy any RIAA music (although to be fair I buy no music. However the RIAA has soured me to such a degree that if I were to begin buying music again, it would only be from non-RIAA sources).

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[miskatonic alumnus]

I was about to be clever and say "Just pull a Lou Reed on 'em", but after searching for some amusing links I discovered that labels apparently have a MMM clause in the artists' contracts to prevent exactly that. Oh well.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[OmniVector]

If only there were some alternative operating system / computing platform that had DVD support out of the box and was easy to use.

Oh well... </me goes back to using his macbook pro>

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Repossessed]

6000 is the figure you're looking for for the semipro recording equipment. Quoted to me by an independant artist who set up shop in his apartment. It included the instruments too.

For comparison, it used to cost 20-30 grand to *rent* that kind of equipment long enough to make an album. And that was when 20 grand meant a lot more.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[ShatteredArm]

I can think of a really easy way to get out of the contract.

Release nine greatest hits and live albums.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[metamatic]

Microsoft, you're really fucking your users over with Vista.

Well, clearly you're gonna bend over and take it, so why should they care?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Grishnakh]

Not really him, but his brainless customers. As long as there's tons of customers willing to bend over and take it, why should MS care?

Personally, I don't think MS has gone nearly far enough in abusing their customers. I think they should triple their prices and screw over their customers even more. Most of them will happily bend over and take it, and the vastly increased profits will far outweigh the few that defect to alternative OSes. I think MS is completely missing a big opportunity for increased profits here, and in doing so, screwing their shareholders.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[msormune]

But it was not Microsoft that actually made the graphics driver, or the underlying hardware? Why are you blaming them? Oh wait, this is Slashdot.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just patently false. It's not just Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content--it's ANY content in high definition.

Exactly what is happening on your Vista system when you try to play "ANY content in high definition"?

If you have first hand experiences instead of web references that would be great, because the system sitting right in front of me doesn't seem to have any of the problems "reported" and commonly "accepted" as the truth when it comes to Vista and HD DRM. It will DRM protect a HDCP protected BD/HDDVD movie, but so will OSX have to or it won't be able to support playing the movie.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[flitty]

I'm sure a lot of you know about this already, but if you want an MP3 search... skreemr.com

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[king-manic]

The story was that John Malm embezzled a large portion of nothing records assets. Trent was left with a defunct label, no money, and no means to publish a record on his own. So he signed with interscope to build up his financial situation so he could self-publish again or at least have creative control.

The validity of this story is vague as I only got it from blogs/forums. I can't find official bits on it.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[dangitman]

Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. Most of them are bound by contract to the labels for a certain time or number of releases. It's not that they don't know to switch, but that they can't.

Uhhh, what? Most music consumers are bound by contract to a certain vendor? Wow. I just buy from wherever I like. I never heard of anybody signing a contract that says they can only buy their CDs or downloads from a particular place.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[eric2hill]

No, because the machine came with the correct driver on it out of the box, and Windows "updated the driver" to the generic non-DRM version. This is *not* a Lenovo problem, but a Microsoft problem.

I actually bought 3 machines on one order. Two T60's, and one T61p. Only one of the three (one of the two T60's) had the problem.

It's the inconsistencies that are going to hurt Microsoft's bottom line.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[eric2hill]

Real nice. Because I have a problem with a Microsoft product, I (and my customers) are brainless. You didn't get accepted to the debate team in high school, did you?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anaerin]

Okay, how about pulling an "Artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince" on 'em. That is, after all, why he changed his name - To get out of his contract with Warner Bros.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It's just incrementalism - the same strategy used to get people accustomed to DRM in the first place.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Grishnakh]

You're just a contractor, so it's not your fault your customers make stupid choices. I have a job too, and have to use some tools I think are crap (namely Rational Clearcase), and support products I think are crap (namely, the chips we make), but I'm not going to quit my job because of that. I can't help it if my employer makes stupid decisions or makes faulty products; I just do what I'm told and collect my paycheck. This job is temporary anyway, just like any job these days. In a few years, I'll probably be working somewhere else.

However, if your customers experience ridiculous problems with MS products, and continue to buy them, then yes, they are brainless. The other poster had a very correct and succinct point: if MS's customers are willing to bend over and take it when MS sells broken software (especially because of all the DRM BS), then what incentive does MS have to improve? None! Honestly, I don't even know why MS tries as hard as it does (not saying they're doing a great job, just that it could be even worse than it is). No matter how much they abuse their customers, the customers will not abandon them. So why bother trying to make a decent product?

I just hope for your sake that you're properly charging your customers when stupid problems arise with MS software. If you have to spend lots of extra time fixing those problems, then the customer needs to pay for that.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

6000 is the figure you're looking for for the semipro recording equipment. Quoted to me by an independant artist who set up shop in his apartment. It included the instruments too.

I'm curious: How much of the $6k was for the instruments? Was it for new or used stuff?

The case I had was that the guy already had a band and was playing at various bars around town. They already had instruments and at least some sound equipment. They needed a mixer, recorder, and a few other pieces of equipment, none of which were too expensive to meet his needs.

I used prices for new equipment - except I figured on him using his own computer, microphones, and instruments(which he stated he already had). I pointed out that he could buy used, but then it's his responsability to make sure the stuff is still servicable.

So, for a new studio from scratch, including instruments, $6k sounds quite reasonable.

Depending on requirements and fiscal sense of the band - I could see the studio cost varying by an order of magnitude. Whether or not you have the studio professionally remodeled or simply staple up a lot of egg cartons, for example. The sky's the limit as far as costs go(as the $1k/foot speaker cables show).

The important part of that is that it's more or less a static cost. Until you feel the need to upgrade, it'll work*. While you need to order 2k CDs to get the price for the first order down to ~$1 per, you only need 1k CDs for subsequent orders from the company(they already have the glass master). If you buy another 2k, it'd be something like $.87 per, 5k, $.74. Sample site.

*well, unless something breaks, but that should be years down the road. Might be a good idea for such a band to invest $1k or so each CD release on upgrades - it's tax deductible as a bonus.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

...and ? Let's see: it is mine PC, it is mine DVD but Microsoft tells me that I am not allowed to see my DVD on my PC ?
...and that is OK in your universe ?
...and btw. who has given them the right to deny me this ?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[MikeFM]

I have the vindictive habit - any movie I've bought that has those annoying 'downloading is stealing" ads gets ripped and shared just because their ads make me angry. I usually rip my DVDs for my own use anyway just to remove annoying ads, menus, etc. I want my damn DVD to play when I put it in the drive and not require half an hour of watching ads and clicking buttons first.

I also can rip and use my own copies of movies while keeping my originals safe because funny enough even though I'm supposedly buying a license for the movie, and not the physical disc itself, when I buy a movie they still won't provide a reasonable price for a replacement disc.

I feel no more like a criminal for downloading or uploading media than I would for breaking laws forbidding spitting on the sidewalk or taking my giraffe for a walk up main street. It's stupid, out-dated, laws.

If NIN and Radiohead have donation boxes on their website I may contribute something. I'm only mildly a fan of their music but I support the step they've taken. If bands I like better would take the same move I'd post bigger donations to keep them in business. As little as the actual artists are paid from the labels I wonder how big a donation I'd have to give per album for them to make as much. They don't even have to pay for bandiwdth since I'll download using Bit Torrent. Seems they could make out pretty well this way.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

I also can rip and use my own copies of movies while keeping my originals safe because funny enough even though I'm supposedly buying a license for the movie, and not the physical disc itself, when I buy a movie they still won't provide a reasonable price for a replacement disc.

I believe that this has actually gone to court, it's just that the media companies merely keep quiet about it.

It went to court 'It's a license, not a physical sale'
- Court determined that it was a physical sale because the selling company wouldn't provide replacement disks
It went to court 'It's a license, not a physical sale'
- Court determined it was a physical sale because the selling company charged as much/more than the selling price of the software for replacement disks, so it was effectivly another sale.

If they want to keep the 'license' arguement media companies have to sell you replacement disks for not much more than what it costs them to keep a system in place to send you replacement disks if you prove you own the media in question.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Kasracer]

You have got to be kidding me. This is just Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content. I cannot tell you how much HD content I've watched on my computer perfectly fine.

You're spreading FUD. For someone who is suggesting that I search Google regarding the DRM systems in Vista, you really should have done the same.

First off, who cares if WMP does not allow you to back-up your licenses? Now it works exactly like iTunes in that it requires you to retrieve the rights from the company you purchased the song from. I didn't hear anyone complaining when Apple did this, why complain about MS? Besides, Microsoft has lost Urge and will be combining the Zune store into WMP which will include over a million songs DRM free.

Secondly, the HD DRM applies to ONLY Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and if OS X or Linux wants to play these movies, they also _HAVE_ to incorporate it so it's not Microsoft's fault. You can watch whatever else HD-DVD content you want without issue. The issues with CableCards is more of Patents and IP and you'll see the exact same problems when/if they start working in OS X and Linux.

Labels Wising Up?

[wdr1]

What record labels are finally learning is that just because they can steal, doesn't mean the majority of people will.

-Bill

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[tomblag]

Tell that to NBC Universal!

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Records labels have learned nothing. They just try not to disappeared.

Internet makes them redundant since Artists want to reestablish a closer relation with their public and they are tired to see their revenue eaten by overinflated marketers.

Thank all these people whom have uploaded/downloaded music/movies for years. They are the true freedom fighters against the evil corporations.

Now if you want to reward artists go to their concerts.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[arivanov]

Actually, it even more pronounced than this:

Some people will always steal and you are not going to succeed selling to them. They will always find a way to cheat even if you force them to buy the product through legislation. The percentage depends on geographic location, society, culture, etc. Usually these are a minority.

The rest will avoid stealing if they can. They will however steal if you force them by making the "legitimate" product unusable for them. These are the majority.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[richie2000]

What record labels are finally learning is that just because they can steal No, as soon as the record labels get a chance to steal from the artists, they will.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[DigitAl56K]

I don't agree with that completely, Bill, but I think you're heading in the right direction.

I think that given the opportunity most people will take something for free if they can and there isn't much risk involved. The real point is that the people who [i]would[/i] have paid for the content originally are still likely to pay for the content regardless of what everyone else is doing. Maybe they enjoyed the content enough to want to support it's creators. Maybe for this group of people having the opportunity to access the content using a nice interface that's reliable (in terms of service level and making accessible what they're searching for) is worth the expenditure versus the effort involved in other methods. Maybe they just want to stick to the law.

I think many of us would make the argument, for example, that we have a) used the Internet to discover content that we've later gone on to pay for, but also b) we've also downloaded some content "for free" that really we would have never seen enough value in to pay for anyway (although perhaps we might have, if we could have chosen to pay less for it than was asked). So for certain pieces of content we fall into category A, and category B shouldn't really have much impact on a business - if I wasn't going to pay anyway who cares? The only impact is if the number of people in category A decreases.

And that's where I think the problem lies. The recording industry in particular has shot itself in the foot repeatedly over the years. Many of us simply do not believe that the artists get a real share of revenues these days, diminishing some of the reason that might cause people to fall into category A. Some of us don't want manufactured pop pushed on us all the time, and this means less content in category A because that's mainly what the industry spits out (as far as what is considered "mainstream" and well known). If we're smart, none of us want to be locked into a platform via DRM that limits where we can take our music and what we can do with it (again, fewer people in category A). And most importantly, the RIAA can [i]not[/i] cause people to psychologically move content from category B into category A via lawsuits.

This all goes back to what we've all been saying for a long time:
* Compensate creators well so that as a consumer I know that when I spend my money I am really supporting the creator
* Build many platforms competing for my business. I shouldn't be locked into iTunes if I want a wide selection, and I should be able to choose a platform that serves my needs.
* Territory restrictions need to go away. If we want to get our hands on a piece of music and you refuse to sell it to us legally, guess what is going to happen?
* Don't use DRM. Why do I want to pay money for content I really only have the option to use with your permission, and that I can't load onto any kind of playback device I might own?
* Allow me to contribute to an artist at less than retail price if I want to. In the past few days we've seen certain artists trying this out. It's better than a category B (aka "I wouldn't pay retail for this anyway") decision.

Finally, remember that each of us has a finite amount of disposable income to spend on music, and a finite ability to discover new music over time. The act of adding DRM does not suddenly make these problems go away. Even if you killed 100% of all piracy tomorrow that does not mean that we'd all suddenly buy more music. Which takes us back to where I started - it's all about making sure the people who are buying now still see the value in buying tomorrow. Look after category A and you'll be fine.

I'm really tired. I hope this post made sense.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[howlingmadhowie]

i don't see anything offensive in the parent's post. do enlighten me.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[DigitAl56K]

Finally, remember that each of us has a finite amount of disposable income to spend on music, and a finite ability to discover new music over time.

Further thought: The more you combat piracy (remembering that category B is not a real loss), the more you inhibit discovery, one of the two key factors that influences our spending. How many DVD box sets do you think get sold because people get addicted to watching series on YouTube, or albums because fans get to link their friends to their idols performing?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[arivanov]

It is stealing.

While the current model leaves 95%+ in the pockets of the MAFIAA, it is the only means to reimburse the artist for the effort do we like it or not. I would much rather pay him direct and buy direct.

As far as the article headlines are concerned I would not jump up and down with joy hearing about yet another band going truly independent. This will make the market for pop music very similar to the one for classical. Classical music is quite different from the pop. While the all of the pop is priced at roughly the same level as a consumer good, classics prices are all over the place. A single CD with Beethoven sonatas can cost anything from 5£ to 60£. A collection of Beethoven symphonies can set you back by a 3 digit number.

Do we like it or not one of the functions of the MAFIAA is to consumerise the music. With them gone the market will very quickly stratify with the top bands asking extortionate prices for their work (Radiohead is a prime example).

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[QuantumG]

Just to confirm my theory, you have never had anything stolen, have you?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Aladrin]

"It is stealing."

Thank you! I was wondering if I'd ever see a post say this and be modded up.

I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it. They simply use it as an excuse to make themselves feel better about taking something that they have no right to.

Before the trolls ask, yes, I have stolen and been stolen from, both with physical property and IP. I don't like any of it. You don't end the day with a good feeling under any of the situations.

Most people do -not- want to break the law, and they do -not- want to take things they aren't entitled to. But it's also true that most people have desires, and if you put up too many roadblocks for their desire, they'll go around them instead of paying the tolls. If a person wants a CD and knows there's DRM on it and they won't be able to rip it to their iPod, they'll simply save the time, money, and hassle and download the songs instead. They could buy the CD and then download the songs, and I'm sure some do, but why give good money for something that doesn't fit your need?

I used to be a PC gamer. Then DRM started to get out of control with rootkits and nasty drivers that crash the system and games that had DRM that didn't work right and I had to download a crack to play the game I rightfully bought. NWN is a good example of the last. I bought it first day, and bring it home. I installed it and started to play, and it crashes a few minutes later. I start it over and over, and it always crashes a few minutes later. It was unable to verify the DRM on my top of the line system, and instead of telling me, simply crashed the game so I'd lose all progress. I ended up getting a cracked version and everything worked fine.

One last thought: Scare tactics. I have seen a TON of misinformation about cracks. Everywhere I go, I see people saying that cracks often have viruses. I have applied cracks for dozens of games (because having to have the CD in the drive is idiotic) and not a single one has ever had a virus. The problem isn't the crack, but where you get it from. Don't download EXEs from P2P. It's stupid.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[timmarhy]

No, it's NOT stealing.

it's infringment. there's a big difference.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Kierthos]

Check me if I'm wrong, but with your example of Radiohead, aren't they going to a "pay whatever you want" price format for their latest album as a download? Why yes, they are. Yeah, they're also offering a high(er)-priced "with all the extras" version if you want a physical copy. But they're hardly asking for extortionate prices.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[tzjanii]

--The recording industry in particular has shot itself in the foot repeatedly over the years.

It's worse than that. By this point, they may as well be wearing lead prosthetics.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Volante3192]

I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it. They simply use it as an excuse to make themselves feel better about taking something that they have no right to.

It's also important when dealing with little things like the US Code.

Funny thing, though, if it WAS actually stealing, the fines would be a lot lower. It would actually be in a P2P sharer's benefit for downloading "stolen" music to be classified as theft.

Just more proof that the scare tactic is working. Stealing: effective social scare tactic, tiny fine. Copyright infringement: pathetic social scare tactic, huge fine.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Technician]

The rest will avoid stealing if they can. They will however steal if you force them by making the "legitimate" product unusable for them. These are the majority.

Well put. For those who don't get what he said, let me give examples...

You are asked by a bride to put together a slide show, here are my photos and here is the music I want played.. Now try to get permission from the school photographer to scan and project the images on the screen. Now get permission to play the show with a public performance music soundtrack. Now get permission to burn the show to DVD and give them to the bride and extended family. Now get all the permissions (photo, music, songwriter, ASCAP etc) to put the mess on YouTube or MySpace.

Most of us can't do any one of the tasks to do any of the above required steps. We don't ask. We just do the show and hope nobody cares enough to sue. Unless you are a pro-video production company, your chances as an individual of not intentionally breaking someone's copyright is pretty slim. If you took the copyright violations in my last wedding slideshow and charged me $5,000 for each violation, the total would be in the mega millions. There was copying the music (bride provided, I didn't own) copying the photos (lots of school and sports photos done by a studio), public performance of the resulting package, and duplication and distribution for putting it on DVD. The show ran 15 minutes and used 4 songs.

When will the industry learn that outdated copyright is preventing use of the product. There is no outlet of the industries providing anyplace where I can obtain the license to use the products. As a result, I no longer use photographers who won't sign my work for hire contract which gives me the copyright. They either adapt or lose the job to someone who will. Copyright reform is required. It does not recognise how the products are typically used anymore.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Scruffy Dan]

I think the labels (or at least some of them) have realized that they have to compete with the free music available on P2P. The first step in competing with free is to increase the value for customers, and DRM does the opposite. DRM reduces the value of purchased music, it limits how the music can be consumed (ie play for sure wont play on your iPod) and eliminates fair-use.

The challenge facing the labels (or Bands that decide to go it alone ala Radiohead et al.) will be how to continue making a living in a world where music can be downloaded for free on P2P networks.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[kripkenstein]

It is stealing.

While the current model leaves 95%+ in the pockets of the MAFIAA, it is the only means to reimburse the artist for the effort do we like it or not. No, it isn't. Most artists make little money from records, and most of it from performances, etc. There are also several new business models these days (ad-driven, etc.), but it is too soon to tell about them.

Do we like it or not one of the functions of the MAFIAA is to consumerise the music. With them gone the market will very quickly stratify with the top bands asking extortionate prices for their work (Radiohead is a prime example). No, quite the opposite. One of the reasons we have a few acts making the vast majority of money in music is the RIAA, who through extremely costly and aggressive marketing make a few acts control the charts. If the RIAA vanish tomorrow, music will 'democratize' - more artists making money, fewing really big money-makers; prices will stay reasonable. This is a very good thing, and it is already starting to occur.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, Chandler.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Petrushka]

This will make the market for pop music very similar to the one for classical. Classical music is quite different from the pop. While the all of the pop is priced at roughly the same level as a consumer good, classics prices are all over the place. A single CD with Beethoven sonatas can cost anything from 5£ to 60£. A collection of Beethoven symphonies can set you back by a 3 digit number.

I see no problem whatsoever with this. If the sellers are sensible, they will price the product at the price the market will bear: people will pay more for things they particularly want. Sure, a set of Beethoven's symphonies can go for USD$ 18.98 if they're performed by the Dresden Philharmonic, or for USD$ 67.98 if they're conducted by Georg Solti or John Eliot Gardiner. That's absolutely fine: if people are willing to pay more for Solti and JEG, all well and good; if they're not, there's the Dresden Philharmonic. Same with contemporary music. If people are willing to pay $60 for an album by Celine Dion, well, it sucks to be them. Or maybe not, from their point of view: if they're willing to pay the price, clearly it's worth it to them. Personally, I'll be the one browsing through the Naxos CDs, more often than not, but that's fine.

Variation in pricing is a good thing, if the variation reflects demand for the product. You wouldn't expect to have to pay the same for an ersatz coffee maker as for a Krups; so why would you expect to have to pay the same for the Bavarian Radio Orchestra as for Karajan?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Digital Vomit]

I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Aladrin]

Or maybe you don't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
"2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[oliverthered]

since when was copyright infringement stealing?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[mpe]

The rest will avoid stealing if they can. They will however steal if you force them by making the "legitimate" product unusable for them. These are the majority.

The same holds if you make the "legitimate product" over complex/difficult to buy. e.g. Telling people you don't want their money because they live in the wrong country does tend to build good business relations.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[mpe]

I think many of us would make the argument, for example, that we have a) used the Internet to discover content that we've later gone on to pay for, but also b) we've also downloaded some content "for free" that really we would have never seen enough value in to pay for anyway (although perhaps we might have, if we could have chosen to pay less for it than was asked). So for certain pieces of content we fall into category A, and category B shouldn't really have much impact on a business - if I wasn't going to pay anyway who cares? The only impact is if the number of people in category A decreases.

Actually there is catagory C. People who would have bought the product it they couldn't get it for free. Those making a fuss about "piracy" insist of assuming that every downloader is in this catagory. What actaully matters is the relative sizes of catagorys A and C. The size of catagory B (probably the actual majority), even the total number of downloaders is simply irrelevent.
Only if catagory C is significently larger than catagory A is there an actual "piracy problem".

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Nigel_Powers]

I once read a comment that went something like this:

80% of people are mostly honest and won't usually steal;

20% of people won't steal under any circumstances;

the remaining 20% will steal anything that isn't nailed down.

Don't know if it's accurate, but it feels right!

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[m2bord]

actually...according to Sony's lead counsel in the Thomas trial, making one single copy of any recorded music/video is stealing and that includes copying a cd you own for your personal use.

they believe in the microsoft model of licensing. you must buy a seperate piece of media for every device you own.

so in your copying anylog, permission would not be given because Ms. Pariser believes that there are available copies of most titles available at competitive prices for you to purchase.

so in sony's perfect world, that leaves you with having to go out and purchase an electronic copy which would then be locked to your pc due to drm and then you would have to purchase another version that would be used on the presentation device ALONG with paying any ASCAP royalties.

essentially what we're dealing with is a group that is becoming more greedy and seething at the thought of users doing what they want with the media they purchase.

which leads me to this question...when did we get to the point in our world when we don't own the things that we buy?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Jafafa Hots]

Thing is, if you're arrested, they don;t use a dictionary in court to define your crime. They use these things called laws.

Under the law, it is NOT stealing. It's copyright infringement. VERY different.

Who says it's not stealing? The Supreme Court says its not stealing. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207: "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.""

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Incongruity]

Thank all these people whom have uploaded/downloaded music/movies for years. They are the true freedom fighters against the evil corporations.

No they're not -- I mean, I admire the spirit you're trying to paint them in and all, but no, they're (for the most part) just greedy people, just like the record execs, trying to get more for less, even if it's not legal. Freedom fighters implies some higher purpose -- most of the time downloaders are just out for themselves and don't want to take the time and cash to buy the CD -- I can't really blame them on either account, don't get me wrong, but it's still about personal greed rather than some larger principled stand in a strong majority of the cases.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Aladrin]

Maybe you didn't notice, but almost nobody here is a lawyer, and none of us are in court at the moment. You can pretend that it matters what the court says, but when speaking to people, you'll have to use the same language.

When you go to court, feel free to use the 'legal definition' of 'steal'. Here, we use English.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[aliquis]

For the first part of your comment I thought you where talking about the record labels and not the people.
Still made sense :)

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[aliquis]

"most people will take something for free if they can and there isn't much risk involved."

Personally I would only do it if noone gets hurt by my action.

So download programs are ok, using drugs would be aswell (could be discussed if it hurt people thought). Stealing someones mp3-player, bicycle and so on isn't.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[FLEB]

One problem is that, to make the scenario you presented 100% above-board, there'd need to be a lot of legislation involved that covered "gray areas" that would end up being just as lousy as the current legislation, chillingly vague, or imprecise to the point that it could allow "technically legal" damaging wholesale piracy. Something like a Founders' Copyright could help to mitigate the situation somewhat, but still, most of the above would still run technically afoul of that as well.

What we have now does decently well in filling in the cracks, in that for all their talk and bluster, few content producers would want to take on the cost and popular backlash of suing over most minor infractions. There's also Fair Use, which protects the free-speech use angle.

If we're still talking pipe dreams, though, the best solution would be a universal rights clearinghouse with sane royalties for low-volume reproduction. (I could even see an expanded statutory rate, with care not to trample on artists' rights.) The problem is that since royalty is so rarely requested in personal-use situations, there's no "customer base" for personal or low-volume use, and the pricing for licensing starts in the ballparks of large-scale money-making use.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

the only ones stealing are the labels

copyright is meant to serve the public, is supposed to be short term and is the path towards the public's domain

the actual truth is that these people in the music "industry" have purposefully corrupted the law and the market

in effect, they have stolen our music

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Except for the criminal record that comes along with having committed theft, sure.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[general_re]

I agree 120%.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Jafafa Hots]

I'm sorry, but steal=crime=legal issue. When bandying about legal terms, when making accusations of crime, I'm kind of a stickler in making sure that I use the legal term for the legal fucking term. Like, if I were raped, I wouldn't say I was murdered.

It's true that some people think of it as stealing - but that's a very recent development, and is a direct result of a deliberate propaganda and marketing campaign. The RIAA and MPAA routinely lie, make false accusations, and claim legal rights that they just don't have. They flat out LIE. They claim that there's no such thing as fair use when the law says that there is.

They deliberately misinform, and some people buy it. Gullible people.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[rizzo420]

the difference is that the file sharers are not getting caught for downloading (which is stealing in most cases). they are getting caught for distribution, which has a harsher punishment under the law. let's say i go and rip off a candy store for a $2 candy bar. that's stealing. now let's say someone else goes and rips off a candy truck on its way to deliver candy to the candy store. steals the truckload of candy and then sells it on the black market for below cost. the guy who is selling it makes bank because his costs were $0, while the candy store got ripped off because they end up having to pay for higher wholesale costs to cover the new cost of added security for the truck driver and the consumer buying from this candy store now has to pay higher retail prices because the candy store owner can't afford to sell at the same price, yet buy at an increased wholesale price.

if you go into a store and steal a CD, that's the equivalent of downloading an album of mp3's from the internet and not paying for it. it is not the same as going and stealing all the CD's from the distributor and selling them, keeping all the money to yourself (meaning no money gets to the record label (doesn't matter if it's RIAA or indie), which means no money gets to the artists themselves).

no copyright infringement is not stealing, it's much worse if you ask me and people who do it deserve what they get.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Others have pointed out some things, but I really feel they need to be emphasized.

1. Your Beethoven example. What you are paying for, in your above example, is not the Beethoven music, but the perceived value of the performers (conductor/orchestra) actually recording the work. The underlying work is still the same. I would not, for example, find it too difficult to understand that, say, a Led Zeppelin album, as performed by Led Zeppelin, would cost more than, say, a Led Zeppelin album as performed by My Chemical Romance. (Waits for heads to explode at that imagery)

2. Radiohead asking extortionate prices for their work. What extortionate price? Are you talking about the ~$80 for the discbox edition they're selling? That comes with a physical CD, a physical vinyl, artwork, lyric books, an additional CD of photos, artwork, and 8 other songs, a fancy case, and you still get to download the digital release. The digital release itself, as has been widely reported as "choose your own price". I don't exactly see what is considered extortionate here. You can get the "standard" album format (digital, in this case) for whatever you feel like paying, or you can get what amounts to a Super Collector's Edition for $80.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the RIAA just as much as the next guy, but "freedom fighters"? That's just nonsense.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[RegTooLate]

You are asked by a bride... Whoa, whoa buddy. This is slashdot. No one here is ever going to get close to a bride and second, I can't even understand this without a proper car analogy.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[arivanov]

Yes I have.

I have learned my lesson about "sharing" 20 years ago at the age of 17 when a couple of friends of mine "shared" the belongings from our family apartment at a party. It was further reinforced by being beaten up by a couple of payed henchmen into a nearly comatose state after the police shook out most of our stolen property from them.

Even if something is out there in the open and you can pick it up while walking by this does not mean that you should do so. It may be someone's livelihood and they may have worked hard to create it.

In addition to this, since that 20 years old adventure, I have had quite a few items and ideas pinched. In fact there are a couple of people out there sipping Daikiri on a beach in the Bahamas after making 200+ million off some of my ideas. There are a few others who have made a living and a career of claiming my work to be their own (for smaller amounts of money).

Despite that, I do not think that stealing people's work, ideas or property is justified. Ever.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

And we be making 'em walk da plank! Yar!!!

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[arivanov]

Fair point.

I will not. I have heard Karajan live in one of his last performances as a teenager and I am glad to shell out a couple of hundred for him conducting the Vienna Phylharmonic in a Beethoven performance.

Joe average consumer will. He has been trained that all twats are the same regardless of do you hit them again or not. He will balk at a CD priced at 60 pounds.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Fieryphoenix]

"I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'he did not die' and claim that means they didn't murder him." Ok, but seriously. You're not listening to us. It's all well and good to call this copying wrong and condemn it. But a duck is a duck is a duck, and what's going on is not stealing. It's something else that's bad. So stop calling it stealing, and start calling it what it is. Your desire to express repugnance does not make it into stealing. Nor rape. Nor battery. Nor malfeasance. Nor larceny. Nor parking violation.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[tinkerghost]

The copyright for the school pictures usually lies with the person who paid for them. They are considered 'works for hire'. The group shots probably belong to the school, but it would depend on the contract they signed.

The music however is an issue, the performance is legal under the mandatory licensing laws (you did pay ASCAP didn't you?), however the permanent copy is an issue - subject to a 3K minimum penalty.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Aladrin]

So then explain why the US courts have the right to set the defintion of 'steal' for the entire world? There are plenty of people on this site (let alone the internet) that don't live in the US.

And I don't think of it as stealing because the RIAA says so. The dictionary definition is good enough for me, and I felt that way before I looked it up the first time to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass. I think of it as stealing simply because it is taking something you have no right to and not compensating the owner.

Even if you don't call it stealing, it's still -wrong-. Anyone who thinks it's okay to 'infringe' has never created IP and had it infringed. It opens your eyes quite quickly.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[E. Edward Grey]

Records labels have learned nothing. They just try not to disappeared.

You can never expect someone to learn something if their paycheck depends on not learning it.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[thedohman]

Right or wrong, I applaud your movie reference. One of my favorites!

Inconceivable!

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think there is a piracy problem simply if honest people are paying for something but dishonest people are getting the same thing for free by breaking the rules. The system doesn't scale to everyone breaking the rules, which makes it unethical and selfish to do so while others playing by the rules do not.

Please note that this argument is based on simple economic principles, and is utterly unaffected by whether or not the prices asked are fair, the record labels are themselves breaking anti-competition laws, what proportion of illegally ripped material realistically constitutes lost sales, or any of the other make-me-feel-better excuses.

<analogy type="obligatory, dubious, car"> Copyright infringement is somewhat similar in effect to driving illegally up the bus-only/HOV/cycle lane to bypass the queue and then cutting in. You can try to rationalise it away by saying, "But the other guys would have queued anyway!" However, the reality is that those who play by the rules are indirectly damaged by those who do not, because it takes longer for them to get to the front of the queue, instead of everyone getting the same deal. Overall, it is a zero-sum game, because if everyone broke the rules, no-one would have an advantage. Queue-jumping wins only because you are taking advantage of the good nature of others who do not queue-jump. </analogy>

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were rightly modded "flamebait." I note the sentence "Before the trolls ask, yes, I have stolen and been stolen from". If the mods were wrong, it was modding you "flamebait" instead of "troll", you pathetic little troll.

I, too, have been stolen from; most recently by a whore who I stupidly let in my house (note to self: do it in the garage only!). I have also been widely Plagiarized. In fact I believe that several years ago (before your magazine started sucking donkey balls) my list of tested Quake cheats (I'd link to the archive.org copy which is NOT plagairized and is there with my blessing, but I'm at work and it's firewalled off), not just a list but explanations in my own words was IINM the most plagairized piece of work on the internet. People took it verbatim, including my (now defunct) site name and even its IP address but NOT including my name or copyright notice, and posted it loaded with ads.

This was still not stealing, despite the fact that they took my work and credit for my work, and MADE MONEY ON IT. It was copyright infringement. It was wrong (and I should probably sue the bastards) but it was NOT stealing.

Rape isn't stealing, either. Thieft is thieft, rape is rape and murder is murder. Neither murder, rape, or copyright infringement are the same thing. Note that in all four cases you may have lost something.

Lets stop calling a spade a "pointy shovel", shall we? IIRC one of the things that made me drop the subscription to your magazine was its slide into disingenuousness. Actually the disingenuousness was only part of the slide into utter mediocracy. Your pathetic rag became utterly useless, overtaken by its owners' greed.

I have been stolen from. My copyrights have been infringed. But they are NOT the same thing. As Will Muny (Clint Eastwood) said in Unforgiven about killing a man: "You take away everything he has, and everything he'll ever own". But it still isn't theift. It's murder.

And you are either a liar, or stupid.

-mcgrew

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Firethorn]

But we are nerds. Matter of fact, when it comes to programming language matters even more than it does in a court. Here, we're talking about stuff that could land you in court, so precise language is of benefit.

In a court of law, stealing requires depriving somebody of something more than a theoretical sale. It's only theoretical because there's no real proof that any given copyright infringer would have bought a legitimate copy if they hadn't been able to get the illegal copy.

Take one of the more stolen pieces of software: Adobe photoshop, $649 for the basic version. Would you be able to seriously say that a high school student would have purchased a legitimate copy using a whole month's pay(if not two!) from his part time job? When he's already paying a car loan, insurance, and gas from said pay?

Of course, you're probably one of those people who have no trouble calling a magazine a clip when it comes to guns. Or point at the monitor when you say computer.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[mo^]

Thankyou, couldnt agree more.

Been saying this for years.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are seriously saying copyright infringement is worse than stealing?

Wow. Just, wow.

By the way, is the RIAA hiring??

Tool.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[PMBjornerud]

They're neither freedom fighters now greedy.

It's fucking common sense.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[WaltFrench]

Most artists make little money from records, and most of it from performances, etc.

Or, in other words, virtually every artist is an absolute moron for going thru the "labels." That pimps exist only by illegal threats of aranging bad things to happen to "independents." That RIAA members, not known to force artists into signing contracts, don't actually exist in the real world where artists are at least approximately as rational as the rest of us.

In your world, on the other hand, a band is ("should" be) an integrated business instead of just a bunch of musicians who write, record and tour. They create all their raw materials, produce them into finished products (MP3s or CDs), package them, promote them without partners, and sell them directly to the end user. Never mind that this is unlike virtually every other business model on the face of the planet. Well, maybe the guy who grows tomatoes and takes them direct to his neighbors' houses, not thru an organized farmers' market where he has to pay for a booth.

Does it not occur to people who make such self-satisfied pronouncements that the current arrangements might actually serve some artists in some meaningful way? That every such contract was chosen voluntarily? Yes, several artists with whom I'm acquainted self-publish, but they find they spend a LOT of time finding studio and technology partners, managing the look and feel of a website thru learning about web design or working with somebody who needs specific guidance as to look'n'feel, dealing with online credit card issues, etc. Cuts into their music activities pretty heavily. Once they can, they're happy to subcontract that side of their business out, to... to the labels.

Individual band members may not like all aspects of the deal that they signed, or think that they get more customer allegiance by spouting off about their partners' practices, but at the end of the day, they chose those relationships in order to get paid for doing what they wanted to do.

Until somebody shows examples of contracts between labels and artists where the artist could not possibly gain any benefit (which, by the way, is a contract that courts would happily void), any broadside attack on the labels should be understood as an attack on the partnership of the labels and the artists. You don't have to like the labels, but until the artists, whose ass is on the line, choose to go to your model, anti-label arguments are just ego-gratifying claptrap.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[PMBjornerud]

Holy Newspeak, Batman!

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[rizzo420]

distributing works that you don't have the rights to distribute is worse than stealing because you are not making any money on it to give back to the artists. and those who are making money (such as the people on canal st in NYC selling bootleg movies and music) are not giving the money to the people who own the rights to the work. in effect, you are preventing the owners of the work from selling their works for the price they determined. because they are selling it for an unreasonable price doesn't make doing this right.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Sloppy]

according to Sony's lead counsel.. .. when did we get to the point in our world when we don't own the things that we buy?

We didn't. That was Sony propaganda, or perhaps someone's sincere(eh?) opinion at most. It has no bearing on what "point in our world" we're at. (Well, not until after the next legislative session. And at that time, the answer to your question will be: we got to that point when we became too apathetic to counter-lobby, and more importantly, vote against corruption or otherwise hold lawmakers accountable. Has any incumbent been replaced due to his vote for DMCA?)

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[uniquename72]

if you go into a store and steal a CD, that's the equivalent of downloading an album of mp3's from the internet and not paying for it. No, it's not. That CD cost the store $3 to $7, and now that you've stolen it, they can't recoup their cost for it AND they'll need to replace it with another copy in order to satisfy the demand for that item. You've taken money from them.

Downloading music doesn't deprive anyone of anything, unless you would have purchased the music had downloading not been possible (which may or may not be true).

There's a reason that the charge for this isn't theft -- because legally it's not; it's infringement.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[superbus1929]

Thank all these people whom have uploaded/downloaded music/movies for years. They are the true freedom fighters against the evil corporations.

I respectfully disagree, because I will tell you that 98% of the people that download music illegally don't give two craps about the RIAA. They don't even know if the groups are RIAA members, hell, they probably don't know why the RIAA is relevant; they just know "ooh, free music, $TORRENTSITE has that!", and they have one of their IT buddies make it as easy as possible.

There are a few people that are basically e-Robin Hoods; baron pirates in search of truth, justice and that hot new Talib Kweli album. These people are misguided. The RIAA WANTS an excuse to tighten the screws to average consumers who don't know any better, and these idiots are giving it to them. DRM has always been more about making new money than about protecting old money, but it's hard to say that with any justification with idiots like those around.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the "fucking pissed off" category. As a "consumer" of music, TV, and movies for nearly a half century, I can't begin to tell you how many times I've been burned by the record, tape or CD whose only good song is the one playing on the radio, or the trailer which includes all the high points of a movie because the rest is pure shit. And don't even get me started on cable, the entire selling point of which was that since I was PAYING for it I wouldn't ever have to see a commercial....

Then along came the internet. Try before you buy music in the form of downloads, the ultimate in time-shift for TV, and a thousand opinions on the crap that passes for films without having to risk my hard-earned money on the gamble of a trailer and a few paid-off movie critics who (aside from the late Siskel) often couldn't find their ass with both hands even if they weren't on the take.

Here's the funny thing. I buy a lot more music now than I ever have before in the past; there are so many bands I would've never had heard of without the internet. I still pay for cable every month, but the TV hasn't actually been on in about a year-and-a-half; why should I, when I can bittorrent commercial-free shows and watch them whenever I please? I could do the same thing by recording the shows the old-fashioned way and using the 'skip' button to zip past the commercials, but I don't see the point when bittorrent is such a time-saver (and an easier way of storing shows to watch again, over bulky tapes).

The only industry that's truly gotten the shaft on my end is the movie industry, since I've managed to avoid spending money on piece-of-shit movies for several years now. Heck, I can download the movies and watch five or ten minutes to see if they're worth going to the theater for, BEFORE I waste my money on yet another loser.

Is this greed? I don't think so. Vengeance over a perceived wrong I'll go with, combined with the satisfaction of sticking to the assholes who stuck it to me for all those years before the internet forced them to bend over and grab their ankles. Right or wrong, I find this situation both convenient and sweet, and I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for it.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Incongruity]

Is this greed? I don't think so. Vengeance over a perceived wrong I'll go with, combined with the satisfaction of sticking to the assholes who stuck it to me for all those years before the internet forced them to bend over and grab their ankles. Right or wrong, I find this situation both convenient and sweet, and I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for it.

You bet it is greed and want for personal convenience despite laws to the contrary -- your own word choice admits as much...

That having been said, I'm not saying you're "bad" or "wrong" you are breaking the law, but for consistency's sake, either you need to be wrong or the law does and I think it's clear that the laws surrounding all of this are horked (to get technical).

You may be vengeful as well -- great, you have every right to feel that way... that still wouldn't make you a freedom fighter. It'd just make you a normal, every-day person who's understandably interested in their own convenience and pissed off that a bunch of media companies have been sticking it to you for, oh, about as long as they have been able to.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[zeroduck]

If you're going to argue the definition of steal, I'll argue the definition of "take."

I think of it as stealing simply because it is taking something you have no right to and not compensating the owner.

If I take something from you, you no longer have it. If I download something from your computer, you still have it.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Technician]

so in your copying anylog, permission would not be given because Ms. Pariser believes that there are available copies of most titles available at competitive prices for you to purchase.

My point is why do I have to have the timing of the show screwed up by waiting for random CD access times. The 4 songs were on 4 CDs. The slide show was running in sync with the music much like the ever popular Christmas light show that was done to Wizards in Winter by TSO last year. The only way to reach that level of sync is to rip to hard drive. DRM files simply don't sync to a PowerPoint presentation as Microsoft Media Player simply won't play any DRM track purchased from Apple. (the show was years ago before the legal DRM free tracks appeared.) I may be wrong, but I don't think Itunes be embedded in a PowerPoint slide show. This measure would only cover being able to sync the CD to the slide show. This new license doesn't even touch the public performance at the wedding and reception. It does not even touch the crime of scanning the photographs into digital form so they can be shown on screen and again copied in duplicate on DVD's. Oh the crime of it all. Lock me up and throw away the key.

which leads me to this question...when did we get to the point in our world when we don't own the things that we buy?

Good question.. I hope the congress is going to work on that.

essentially what we're dealing with is a group that is becoming more greedy and seething at the thought of users doing what they want with the media they purchase.

I noticed that long time ago. I wanted to collect records and CD's and run the diso (many years ago) for receptions, school dances, and such. The wording on the back simply said "Licensed for home use only. Any copying or public performance is prohibited" These simple words restricting my use of the product is why I simply bought very little music. I couldn't use it. In the Disco years, I instead collected lights and ran the lightshow. I was perfectly legal running a public performance using the lights I purchased. Since most people did sound and few invested in lights, it was never hard to find a gig. It was best to work directly with the establishment instead of the DJ. Joining the DJ meant splitting the check as the venue would rarely see the added benefit from the extra part of the show. Offering the show as a light show, then it became a separate artist. A bonus as a separate artist, is if there was an ASCAP or BMI bust, I had nothing to do with the music or it's licensing.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[ShatteredArm]

I don't need a lawyer to tell me that stealing is taking something from someone such that the victim no longer has that particular item.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Technician]

Whoa, whoa buddy. This is slashdot. No one here is ever going to get close to a bride and second, I can't even understand this without a proper car analogy.

It happens. When there is a bride there is often a groom. the groom knows a couple geeks.. You know the guys that like gadgets and can work miracles with computers, is good with photos and music and such.. Check it out, engaged couples do talk to each other unlike married couples. The bride had a wonderful idea and heard of a geek that could make it happen and even had the equipment including a scanner and projector.

Ok time for a geeky car analogy. I bought a new car. It was licensed for private home use only. Any public display or copying of the car is prohibited. I understand why they don't want me to copy someone else's car and want me to buy my own copy, but I have trouble with it not having a license to drive it to work in a public place where it can be seen or heard by others. This restriction on use severely cut into my desire to collect cars.

  Does that car analogy work?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[naasking]

No they're not -- I mean, I admire the spirit you're trying to paint them in and all, but no, they're (for the most part) just greedy people, just like the record execs, trying to get more for less, even if it's not legal.

Run a poll of file sharers or record execs have you? Performed a psychological study perhaps? No? I find it interesting how quick people are to judge the motives of others from their actions. How about we keep pop psych judgments out of the arguments, and stick to the facts of the justifiability of copyright, the penalties for copyright infringement, the viability of music distribution given the spread of the internet, etc. At least then we'd be debating the facts on important issues instead of suppositions.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. School photos are not works for hire.

The photography company will take photos regardless of payment because the photos will be used in the school yearbook, IDs, newspaper articles and other school related functions in most cases. The only thing that kids and parents are paying for is a copy of the photo that the school arranged to have taken.

In most cases, the the photographer gives the school the right to use the image in their publications in return for the opportunity to sell pictures packages of those same images to children and parents.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[darkhitman]

Wising up? Learning?

...Are we talking about the same record labels here?

(You know, the ones that think copying music for your own use is stealing. Yeah, those guys)

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Thank all these people whom have uploaded/downloaded music/movies for years. They are the true freedom fighters against the evil corporations.

No they're not -- I mean, I admire the spirit you're trying to paint them in and all, but no, they're (for the most part) just greedy people, just like the record execs, trying to get more for less, even if it's not legal. Freedom fighters implies some higher purpose... What you say would apply to the downloaders, but not the uploaders/sharers. Some 'closed' communities have ratios and what-not, but the general world of filesharing is filled with millions of people who receive no direct benefit from their actions. At 'worst' you could say they benefit by building a robust community of sharing, but community benefit is pretty much what anyone taking a principled stand on any issue hopes to gain,.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Technician]

The copyright for the school pictures usually lies with the person who paid for them. They are considered 'works for hire'. The group shots probably belong to the school, but it would depend on the contract they signed.

Some of the shots were traditional school pictures. These may have been works for hire, but have you read the fine print on any of the kids school pictures lately. They don't seem to be works for hire as they threaten death to your firstborn if you even think of scanning one and e-mailing it to your long lost great aunt.

Other shots which were most likely traditional studio work is formal family portraits and such of the family growing up. These in particular are the photos which would bankrupt me at $5,000 per violation. Between the brides family and the groom, there were a bunch of these. Other pro photos included Winner's circle photos (He raced cars) and studio photos of babies and pre-school toddlers. I no longer have the show, but figure a 15 minute show with an average slide transition of once a second. Some persisted for several seconds and other's piled on a page in rapid progression. Of the snapshots I would guess about 5% were pro. The show had about 900 photos. About 45 were pro, not counting the school portraits. Just scanning the phots at $5,000 per photo is a $220,000 violation. Add in the 4 songs, the public performance, and then printing 20 copies of all that on DVD's and then passing them out. Oh the horror of it. Now do two more weddings....

The music however is an issue, the performance is legal under the mandatory licensing laws (you did pay ASCAP didn't you?), however the permanent copy is an issue - subject to a 3K minimum penalty.

What's so special about the music? Only 4 works were infringed. How is public display of commercial photographs and copying them any less protected?

ASCAP.. One wedding a year for 3 years.. Have you looked into getting the license. I looked into it and found it impossible.

http://www.ascap.com/index.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/paymentintro.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html
http://www.ascap.com/siteguide.html

I linked to the site as the site is loaded with don't copy notices all over it.

Nothing on this page covers playing a CD in public.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generallicensing.html

I found a whole bunch of junk on reporting copyright violations, sharing the profits of song witers and performers and even how to join ASCAP so I can register my works and pay dues. Finding the page to license the 4 music tracks for the public performance is very difficult to find.

Off to BMI.. Maybe I can find the rate to play 4 songs at a wedding..
http://www.bmi.com/

Aha, a link in the small print at the bottom of the page. Need a license?
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=footer
About Us
Music speaks to the heart. Music also plays an important role in thousands of businesses--from radio, television and cable broadcasts, to streaming music over the internet, to live and recorded music used in restaurants, hotels and retail stores. BMI Licensing clears the performing rights for thousands of business which rely on music to entertain customers and increase profits.

What does this mean for your business? BMI saves you money! BMI represents over 350,000 creators of music, the songwriters, composers and publishers of more than 6.5 million musical works! Licensing makes the process simple, easy and cost-effective to obtain the musical clearance you need.

Aah Ha.. Now we are getting someplace. Lets find the rat

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Reziac]

The most important words in TFA:

"Who needs middlemen?"

As to the "stealing" thing, free downloads have ultimately SOLD me almost every CD I've bought. Yep, that FREE advertising was what attracted me. I didn't see or hear any other form of ads, and wouldn't have paid any attention to them if I had.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[king-manic]

which means no money gets to the artists themselves

You misspelled "gets burned up in fake overhead for distribution expenses by the RIAA".

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Reziac]

To simplify your point:

ANYONE can legally record and distribute Beethoven's symphonies. No copyright on those notes!

But not everyone can make a recording that people want to hear, and more especially a recording that they want to hear more than once (ie. buy hardcopy of), or want to pay money to hear performed live.

So there is a strong selection toward paying *talented* musicians and conductors, and doing so proportionately to their skill and/or popular appeal, even tho the music itself is 100% FREE.

There's really no reason other genres can't make their musicians a living the same way, except that a bloated "star-making machinery" is gumming up the works.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Reziac]

Beethoven, Solti, Chicago Symphony. Crap, I think your post is going to prove expensive reading! :)

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[MightyYar]

The only reason it is "stealing" is because there is a law against it. There is no moral ground for copyright law.

Even if you don't call it stealing, it's still -wrong-. Why? Because it's illegal? Then lets have the law changed. Prior to copyright law, were the inhabitants of this planet all -wrong-? We've only become morally whole now that copying a song is illegal?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[jefreyisnotzen]

I agree totally with this. And what's more, even with litigation, and then further damages, even jail time, it's still not enough to turn them around. It takes a fundamental shift within the person for them to be legit, and that can sometimes come from the outside, but that is rare. Mostly, what we really can do is just protect ourselves as best we can. If they steal an mp3, we should shoot them, like old days, the wild west days, like we did with horse thieves on our ranches. I'd never shoot someone for borrowing my horse though, if I gave them permission to enjoy the experience...the IP of riding it. Oh wait, maybe I could rent it to them. Then I'd shoot them if they didn't pay for that. I may wind up being the only one left on earth to ride that horse, but at least I'd have my horse! Glad I picked a philly...them lonely AZ nights.:P

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[fallen1]

if you go into a store and steal a CD, that's the equivalent of downloading an album of mp3's from the internet and not paying for it

Errrrr, no, it is not. For the MP3s to be considered a LOSS, you would have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I was ACTUALLY going to purchase that CD/download full of songs in the first place - or at all. If I was NOT going to pay for the CD, ever, then a) taking the CD from the music store without paying for it IS stealing, since I deprived the store owner of a physical item which he paid for (there is a loss) but b) downloading the MP3s is NOT stealing, since I deprived no one of any tangible good that they paid for (there is no loss).

You can argue all you want that the music labels paid the artists (the artists would argue that point, I'm sure), they paid the producers, the backup band, etc, etc. but the fact of the matter remains - I was NOT going to pay for the music in the first place. Since I was not going to pay for the music, regardless of whether I stole the CD or copyright infringed by downloading the MP3s, then I did not "steal" the music when I downloaded it. I deprived NO ONE of anything by downloading the MP3s - the artist did not lose a sale, the music label did not lose income, and the person sharing the music did not lose their physical copy. Ergo, nothing was stolen. Now, walking out of a music store with the CD tucked into my hoodie did deprive someone of their physical copy - the music store - and as such, I should be punished for STEALING. I still wasn't going to pay for the music, but a theft did occur in that I deprived someone (the store owner) of a physical item which would have resulted in a loss of money for the store. The MP3s I downloaded resulted in no loss of money for anyone - since I wasn't going to buy the CD or pay for the downloads in the first place.

So, it all comes down to intent and perception really. Do you not agree?

By the way, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I do not promote copyright infringement in any way, even if I made a compelling argument (or justification rather) for it above. I managed a music store back in the day, and had fun doing it, but screw going back into retail hell again :-p

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your mythical student attends an accredited K-12 school, the student or parent of said student can purchase Photoshop (or any other Adobe product) at the education discount. Photoshop CS3 Extended EDU costs $299.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Firethorn]

Ohhh.... Half price!

Still a hefty fee when you consider that a home version of windows costs ~$100 retail.

I purchased my copy of office through the HUP program for ~$20.

$299 is still high priced for non-professional home use.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[cpt kangarooski]

If we're still talking pipe dreams, though, the best solution would be a universal rights clearinghouse with sane royalties for low-volume reproduction.

Maybe, but for personal use, I'd rather just have a blanket exception for everything noncommercial done by natural persons.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Digital Vomit]

No, actually I do. "2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." is not the same as making a copy of information. This definition refers to the act of passing off someone else's work as your own. That, in a sense, is "stealing" because the original creator is denied his rightful glory (for lack of a better word) since it is going to you instead.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[cpt kangarooski]

The copyright for the school pictures usually lies with the person who paid for them. They are considered 'works for hire'.

Seems doubtful to me. Works made for hire are defined at 17 USC 101:

A "work made for hire" is--
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a "supplementary work" is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an "instructional text" is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

The pictures probably don't fall under (2) -- most things don't -- so you have to rely on (1). But merely hiring an author to create a work does not mean that there is an employment relationship. The Supreme Court discussed some of the factors that go into determining whether such a relationship exists in CCNV v. Reid:

In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party. No one of these factors is determinative.

I'm going to guess that typical school pictures are not works made for hire. The copyright might be assigned by the author, but actually, I kind of doubt that too.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[cpt kangarooski]

the difference is that the file sharers are not getting caught for downloading (which is stealing in most cases). they are getting caught for distribution, which has a harsher punishment under the law.

Wrong twice.

First, downloading is reproduction, which is a form of copyright infringement. Second, distribution, another form of copyright infringement, is subject to exactly the same remedies under the law.

The only interesting differences between them is that uploaders are easier to catch and that they are a better use of resources (being closer to the head of the snake).

no copyright infringement is not stealing, it's much worse if you ask me and people who do it deserve what they get.

Are you saying that you are talking about copyright infringement, and that it is morally worse?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't need a lawyer

And that is where I disagree with you.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, whoa buddy. This is slashdot. No one here is ever going to get close to a bride You don't seem excited my little muffin ... brides often are, I'm told.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[FLEB]

That can still scale up to a damaging level, though. With that loose of a restriction, for instance, you'd get legal legitimacy on file-sharing networks. The practical price or value of any transferable content would be greatly impacted (save for the really rare stuff).

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhh... half price is wrong! Photoshop CS3 Extended retails for $999 and is $299 EDU. Regular Photoshop CS3 does not appear to be available via EDU.

As for whether $299 is "high priced for non-professional home use", it's not worth debating the value, uses, or price as it appears you're not the target market for the application. It sounds like Paint Shop Pro or GIMP is a better match.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[cpt kangarooski]

With that loose of a restriction, for instance, you'd get legal legitimacy on file-sharing networks.

Well, provided that the networks were noncommercial. I wouldn't want to see money involved directly or indirectly (e.g. ad-supported networks, trackers, etc.) in order to qualify for the exception. Nor could corporate entities, etc. be involved.

That can still scale up to a damaging level, though. ... The practical price or value of any transferable content would be greatly impacted (save for the really rare stuff).

So?

Copyright is not meant to help authors, nor to maximize the economic value of their works. It is meant to help society by promoting the progress of science; any benefit authors receive is just a means to an end. While I agree that there would be both beneficial and detrimental effects of this exception to society, I think that there would be a net benefit, and furthermore that, if coupled with some other reform proposals (e.g. strict formalities, shorter terms) that the benefit would be greater than we currently enjoy. Maximizing the public benefit is the point of copyright, after all.

Besides, I don't think it would have all that much of an impact. First, there is a huge amount of illegal file sharing already, and that illegality doesn't really seem to deter anyone. I don't see that there would be a significant number of people switching to piracy who haven't already. Second, merely because free alternatives exist doesn't mean that people will necessarily opt for them. Plenty of people buy copies of books written by Victor Hugo or Mark Twain even though they're in the public domain and can be easily had for free. Plenty of publishers make money selling those books, as well. Anyone can download television episodes, often even legitimately, but there are still plenty of people paying for cable and watching broadcast shows. Third, this does not touch the market for uses of the work which are in some manner commercial. People would still go to the movies, and the theaters would have to pay to show the film. Radio stations would still have to pay to play music over the air. Bookstores would still have to pay publishers to carry copies of books. Businesses would still have to pay to license works for use in commercials, etc. And non-copyright-related incentives for creating works would go untouched. Fine artists, for example, wouldn't notice this at all.

While there might be some reduction in the number of works created, I think that the benefit of freedom for the public that is gained here would more than make up for it. That's because copyright is also not about maximizing the number of works created, it is about maximizing the public good, and includes both the number of works and also the amount of freedom we have with respect to those works.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

While there might be some reduction in the number of works created, I think that the benefit of freedom for the public that is gained here would more than make up for it. That's because copyright is also not about maximizing the number of works created, it is about maximizing the public good, and includes both the number of works and also the amount of freedom we have with respect to those works. Good points for the utilitarian argument. I might also add maximizing quality. Perhaps there would be less filler, less also-rans who cannot be supported, but that would simply mean there was higher quality remaining, with less filtering needed to tap that quality. Fewer higher quality works would be more marginally famous. And fame is just as concrete a reward as money. Fame is easily converted into money: book deals, autographs, sex, commercials, appearances, you name it. Just the lottery reward of fame is incentive galore for mass competition even in a free distribution as commercial advertisement market. Girls make themselves look pretty even if nobody is paying them to do so. They pay for hair styles and make up themselves, even if people can freely look without copyright violations when they walk down the street. Fashion is a free market with natural incentives. That nobody can patent or copyright a new hair style hasn't ever prevented investment, innovation, and subjective value quality. And nobody is paying them to do this either. They are paying themselves to advertise themselves.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Incongruity]

Run a poll of file sharers or record execs have you? Performed a psychological study perhaps?

Actually, yes, my background is in research psychology and I am familiar with scholarly articles on this topic. (here's a quick couple one-off: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/adar/index.html or maybe: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00301.x. There's a lot more out there and the consensus is that basically, a very small percentage of people host a majority of the content and that "free-riding" is more of a threat to P2P networks than litigation.

Anyway, I have also spent enough time with a significant number of file sharing users that I did, in fact, feel that my statement was reasonably well substantiated by my own experience -- and clearly, it was a statement of opinion, albeit an informed one rooted in facts, but had I wanted to (or felt the need to make an airtight case), I would have gone into more depth.

I find it interesting how quick you were to judge my background and make your own suppositions while disparaging me for what you were assuming about me. Ironic, and not even in that Alanis Morissette kind of way. Good for you!

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[cpt kangarooski]

I might also add maximizing quality. Perhaps there would be less filler, less also-rans who cannot be supported, but that would simply mean there was higher quality remaining, with less filtering needed to tap that quality. Fewer higher quality works would be more marginally famous.

I actually stick to quantity, as quality is too subjective (particularly for government policy to be involved) and is too often confused for high production values. Besides, Sturgeon is basically right IMO, so the number of quality works, whatever quality would be, is basically proportional to the number of works total. The quantity where copyright is reduced likely will go down somewhat, but I don't think it would too much, as even aggressive reforms would still have authors be able to realize 80-90% of the economic value of works as they can now (since it's so heavily front-loaded; that is, works almost always only make money when new, if ever) and would also see increases in unauthorized derivatives (noncommercial at first, commercial rapidly) which would certainly help to keep the numbers up. And of course, as I said, quantity isn't everything.

Good point re: fashion, as it is a field where there is a lot of creativity, but no copyrights due to the utility doctrine. (Patents are more possible, e.g. design patents, but seem not to have caught on.) It has not appeared to hurt anyone in the industry or outside of it. It may contribute to fashions being ever-changing, but I suspect that they'd do that anyway.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[naasking]

There's a lot more out there and the consensus is that basically, a very small percentage of people host a majority of the content and that "free-riding" is more of a threat to P2P networks than litigation.

Neither of those studies correlates free-riding with greed, nor did you point to a study of records execs that correlates their actions with greed. In fact, no motives at all are ascribed to free-riders; the minority of hosts that share the majority of files might very well be technically adept people with computers that run 24/7, while the free-riders are simply home users behinds NAT firewalls who shut off their computers as soon as their downloads are finished because they just don't know any better; there's no way to know. Unless you can point to a more definitive study, your original statements are still suppositions.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Mode_Locrian]

I agree with your point, but I'm not so sure about the choice of example--the Bavarian Radio Orchestra has produced some damn fine recordings, actually. I recently found this (http://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-Symphony-No-Sergey-Aleksashkin/dp/B0007D0AUU/ref=sr_1_1/002-3144820-4888024?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1192111144&sr=8-1) recording of Shostakovich's 13th Symphony ("Babi Yar") which is really wonderful and (and this underscores your point) it was a steal too since it's not from a "big name" orchestra.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Firethorn]

Yes, but what's the word on people's lips when it comes to picture editing? Photoshop, of course. It's even entered our vocabulary. 'That picture's been photoshopped'.

Windows gained dominance, in part, because of piracy - people who weren't in the market to buy it, stole it instead. While microsoft didn't gain any money from that copy, it still increased the user base, increasing the amount of programming done for windows, increasing the number of programs available for the OS, increasing the value of using windows over other operating systems.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Petrushka]

Well, fair enough. I got burnt one time, that's all :-) More an issue with the mastering than with the orchestra itself, it has to be said.

Lesson for Apple:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience.

Let's hope Apple starts following this line too. iTunes/iPod domination allowed DRMd music to be accepted by far too many.

Let's leave it to MS to attempt to legitimize DRM.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[suv4x4]

Let's hope Apple starts following this line too. iTunes/iPod domination allowed DRMd music to be accepted by far too many.

Let's leave it to MS to attempt to legitimize DRM.

Yea, let's let's. But fitting Apple and Microsoft to prebuilt models in your head won't change reality. Apple has at least as (if not more ) interest than Microsoft in keeping the DRM on iTunes for most of the tracks.

Jobs wants more market control and more money. The rest is just the means he uses to get those two.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Microsoft have changed tack - the new Zune store has no DRM, and the only uses is the "squirt" function on Zunes, which I think is fair enough, frankly. It's taken long enough, and there's some way to go yet, but I think DRM is slowly but surely dying, and companies are waking up to the fact that whether or not they DRM-encumber music or not, it's an issue. On the other hand, it may just be slowly but surely replaced with digital watermarking... which isn't /quite/ so bad, but still isn't a good thing.

Even Apple have been making baby steps towards removing DRM, and I can't help but feel they helped start the whole industry trend, even if their competitors are two steps ahead of them now.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[nine-times]

It's not clear to me that any of this would be happening if Apple hadn't shown the viability of online music distribution. For those with a short memory, before the iPod, nobody really used portable MP3 players. Before iTunes, there were no examples of successful online music stores.

So all these companies are looking at Apple, seeing the success, trying to replicate it, and trying to beat it. Good for them. But let's not criticize Apple for allowing DRM this long. Apple accepting DRM for a couple years has loosened the stranglehold on music distribution held by the RIAA and Walmart. The whole time, Jobs has been complaining about DRM, and now people are getting the idea. Hopefully Apple will be able to remove all DRM from iTMS soon, but let's not forget that they still have to get the record labels to agree.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[Anonymous Coward]

If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo!

Thank you for reading TFA (so I don't have to). Your comment was well spoken, but I'd like to add a bit about the yuppified pseuso-language of TFA.

Language is meaningless when your words mean any damned thing you want them to mean. How in the hell do you whippersnappers communicate? First off, "licensing labels". The labels don't license anything; at least, not to the customer ("end-user" to the yuppified morons out there). They sell CDs and non-DRMed files, and rent DRMed files. If a band from label B wants to use stuff Label A has copyright to, then label A might license the song to Label B. But customer C doesn't license anything; if I had a license to all the records, tapes, and CDs I've purchased over the last several decades then I should be able to download any of it I want from iTunes and NOT PAY FOR IT (maybe two pennies for bandwidth), as I would already have a license.

I have no license. Sony-BMG licenses the music to iTunes, iTunes rents the music file to you (but not to me).

I am not a music consumer. You can't consume music. I consume food; I consume gasoline (via my car) but nobody can consume music. I can buy it, rent it, infringe copyright on it, and if I break into Sony's HQ and get access to the master tapes before they're pressed, I can steal it. Hell, even that's not stealing the music, only the master tape. If I stole the music, the original band would no longer have it. "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron.

But I can neither "license" nor "consume" music. Lets stop calling spades "pointy shovels". To paraphrase Shakespeare, a turd by any other name would stink as badly.

-mcgrew (sm62704)

PS: IMO there needs to be fundamental reform to copyright law:

1. Works not registered with the copyright office are public domain, as it used to be.
   
2. Works not bearing copyright notice are in the public domain, unless they are published by someone not holding copyright (plagairism) as it used to be.
   
3. Copyright should last no longer than 20 years, as it used to be
   
4. Non-commercial use shall be non-infringeing, as it used to be.

PPS: I hold REGISTERED copyrights, complete with ISBN numbers. I am not anti-copyright, but I believe the present system is ass-backwards from the original purpose of copyright, which was to protect authors from publishers.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[uniquename72]

The whole time, Jobs has been complaining about DRM No, he hasn't. He jumped on the bandwagon in February of 2007 because there was already a deal in place to release non-DRMed music on iTunes (for a higher fee, of course).

It was a marketing gimmick, and, judging by your post, it worked.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[dangitman]

Apple has at least as (if not more ) interest than Microsoft in keeping the DRM on iTunes for most of the tracks.

So, why did Jobs publicly rail against DRM, and removed it from the iTunes store when given permission by the one major label that agreed?

In fact, Jobs' stand against DRM is probably the reason that Yahoo (and others) are now saying the same thing. Apple was the first major company to take a public stand against DRM. I think that other companies are just following that lead. Without that, Yaho and others would still be trying to enable the record labels' DRM fantasies.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[dangitman]

Lets stop calling spades "pointy shovels".

Spades usually have flat ends. It's shovels that tend to have a point.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[dangitman]

No, he hasn't. He jumped on the bandwagon in February of 2007 because there was already a deal in place to release non-DRMed music on iTunes (for a higher fee, of course).

Bullshit. He opposed the hardcore DRM the labels wanted from day 1. But back before the iTunes Music Store opened, Jobs did not have the power he has now. So he had to accept some DRM - but he negotiated to make it more liberal than the labels would have liked. He saw it as a necessary evil to get the market started. Now that was so successful, he has a lot more sway to ask for even less restriction from the labels.

Enough with your revisionist history. Or rather, making shit up as you go along.

Re:Lesson for Apple:

[suv4x4]

So, why did Jobs publicly rail against DRM, and removed it from the iTunes store when given permission by the one major label that agreed?

EU has recently started investigating Apple for their monopoly on the mp3 market (same kind of monopoly as Windows, and EU is researching for the same problems) which their further by creating DRM exclusive to their hardware.

Before you jump on me for their conclusions, remember, it's THEIR conclusions. I suppose you cheered for EU when they sued Microsoft for the same thing.

EU may fine Apple 323 million British pounds if they conclude Apple is abusing their monopoly on the market. That's 656 million.

Steve Jobs kept refusing EU's demands citing requirements by partners and inability for interoperable DRM to be "kept secret", among others. Steve Jobs also refused for years the demands of indie music producers and labels to sell DRM free music iTunes.

The DRM was mandatory on iTunes, even if you want to sell it without the DRM.

Days after this announcement by EU that they are investigating Apple, Jobs released his well known open later, where he put the blame again on the labels (interesting, what about the indie labels he went against?).

Couple of months later he released DRM free tracks on iTunes from some labels.

So, make your own conclusions. Maybe you'll also turn 180 degrees and become first defendant of DRM-free music if you had the EU on your ass wanting nearly 700 million dollars in fines.

In fact, Jobs' stand against DRM is probably the reason that Yahoo (and others) are now saying the same thing. Apple was the first major company to take a public stand against DRM. I think that other companies are just following that lead. Without that, Yaho and others would still be trying to enable the record labels' DRM fantasies.

Emphasize mine. Emphasizing you're one sad, sad monkey for believing any of this crap.

Finally

[pedestrian crossing]

Some big names are willing to comment on the emperor's sartorial choices...

how about the unbox video service?

[DragonTHC]

How about removing the DRM on video content?

Re:how about the unbox video service?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbox is Amazon, not Yahoo.

Re:how about the unbox video service?

[rucs_hack]

hahaha!

You crack me up. Oh wait, you're serious?

That is so far from happening its not even funny. Never mind that almost all leaks and interweb releases of films are from cinema's, pre release versions or rips from already decoded dvd's

The thing is that so few people have even the slightest inclination to rip their dvd collections that people aren't feeling the inconvenience that music users felt over the drm currently in dvds. They won't until it becomes standard to store movies etc in electronic form only. That's a long way from happening, by which time drm, unless ultra unobtrusive (ha) will be a fact of life and very hard to dislodge.

Re:how about the unbox video service?

[DragonTHC]

whoops! Amazon it is!

you...

[cosmocain]

...never can have enough DRM. really! see... you can have a mp3 for 0.99 or a value added wma with protection against EVERYTHING. even listening! how great is that?

i, for one, would prefer the newest single by britney spears in a totally unplayable format.

Re:you...

[Chouonsoku]

You, sir, are a visionary. What better way to protect our children against the auditory abomination that is today's pop artists? I feel that DRM is a wonderful thing, we simply haven't been using it correctly and to it's full potential.

cosmocain fo prez.

Re:you...

[cosmocain]

i totally agree to you praising me!

Re:you...

[c]

> i, for one, would prefer the newest single by britney spears in a totally unplayable format.

I think you might have to settle for completely unlistenable. If you're really lucky, they might make it a Zune-only release.

Unfortunately, that'll be accompanied by a mental image of Steve Ballmer, on-stage, Zune in hand, monkey dancing (TM) to Britney Spears. Microsoft: you thought it couldn't get worse.

c.

Re:you...

[Korin43]

Clearly we need a better way to protect our children, as some people are finding ways to get around the DRM. Don't they realize it's for their own protection? I propose that all music CDs have a program on them that erases the hard drive of whatever computer it's placed in, and that all music on the CD be hashed to make sure no one can break the encryption on it. Let's see them listen to Britney Spears now!

Is it really that hard...

[RuBLed]

to link to a news site instead to a car-less skater guy's blog who had an issue with pigs and ponies.. ooohhh wait...

Re:Is it really that hard...

[Thwomp]

Insightful!? Come on mods, you're letting the side down! ;-)

Re:Is it really that hard...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even people with mod points can often be unstupid. The GP was right (even though he muss bee knew hear), there is no reason whatever to link to some asstunnel's blagh who is linking to some other asstunnel's "legit" news site.

If the blagh's writer has something new, original, insightful, to say (like, er, my linked blagh above =P) then link to the damned web log.

Link to the original source, dammit!

Oh what's the use? *slinks away dejectedly*

-mcgrew

The 'No DRM' card

[Gopal.V]

As much as the No DRM makes sense from a political & ethical point of view, the fact that people are recognizing DRM as a bad thing is starting to dawn on people. When Apple iTunes wanted DRM out of the way (for audio, though not for video), I thought of it as a win-win-win situation for everyone including the artists, APPL and the users (screw the RIAA).

Now Y! is doing the same thing and very intelligent of them too. Yahoo! music engine is not something I would use (or *could* use) despite getting a promotional offer (*disclaimer* as an employee) and tying down people to such idiotic client lockins (*cough* jukebox) is not working out well for it at all. If it would work well with Amarok or even the less popular Songbird, I'd happily use it over Last.fm (which streams directly into amarok happily).

Finally, it is a good thing that Y! is realizing that Convenience is a Feature++ - one way or the other.

Won the battle...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that in recent days, the draconian overlords of music (RIAA) have won a local battle, suing and winning from a poor woman over $240,000 for about a dozen songs, and lost the entire war. Consumers kicked them to the curb 5 years ago. Now artists are starting to do it. Artists know how much companies take and how much they get. Its very likely that artists getting paid directly by fans for music on the web may have a better payday than if they stayed with the company. In general, it seems they won the battle and lost the war.

Re:Won the battle...

[Quantam]

Despite all the sucking that the RIAA has been doing lately (yes, I hate, them, too), the RIAA still has a useful role left to play in the digital distribution age; at some point they're going to have to remember what it is, and get back to doing productive things. It's now possible for anyone, large or small, professional or hobbyist, to publish their music online without help from a record label. However, what independent bands aren't equipped to handle is legal action against large-scale commercial piracy and counterfeiting rings.

P2P makes noncommercial piracy (defined by me as downloading something and using it indefinitely without ever paying for it) easier than ever before, and all these RIAA suits aren't going to be able to stop it (and I'd wager if they tried criminalizing it they will fail just like prohibition did); it's just going to be a fact of life from now on. They can, however, tackle the commercial piracy organizations, and going after those is actually one of the purposes of the RIAA, and one which is not going to become obsolete in the digital age (although it will probably become less frequent, given how simple and easy noncommercial P2P piracy is).

guess I have some records to buy

[rucs_hack]

I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels, and nope, I haven't been downloading illegally either. If some of the big groups are going to divest themselves of their overlords, I'll be starting up with the purchasing again.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[mochan_s]

Actually, Radiohead in their interview are very supportive of large labels.

When their first album came out ( and before Creep blew-up ), they made no money but the label paid for a full tour of Europe even though the labels would lose a lot of money for doing the tour.

Basically, the label paid for a young band to play music and tour, sort of paid for their education.

They say that if they weren't on a rich label, the tour wouldn't have been possible, the exposure to get the song Creep heard wouldn't have been possible.

And, without big labels it's impossible for the bands to really invest in paying a decent studio to record, mix and master their CD and hire engineers by themselves. I just don't see how there can be a mega-band without a major record label company.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[Corporate Troll]

I just don't see how there can be a mega-band without a major record label company.

Sure, but do we really want mega-bands in the first place?

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[zippthorne]

There is a "Big-Band" sound that is impossible to produce without sufficient funding. Many here claim not to enjoy it because it's too plebeian for their sophisticated taste. But if there are people who do enjoy it, then yes, we want mega-bands.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[Corporate Troll]

Scared that the plebs is going to revolt without their hit of Britney Spears? Oh, come on, music has thrived for millennia without big labels. There is no reason by local bands couldn't be popular, played on the radio because the DJ likes them, and get famous worldwide because their music is spread by word of mouth and MP3s....

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[swillden]

There is a "Big-Band" sound that is impossible to produce without sufficient funding.

That was true 15 years ago. It's not true any more. These days, a few thousand dollars worth of audio equipment, a PC and some software can do what used to require a multi million-dollar recording studio.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[RNelson]

And, without big labels it's impossible for the bands to really invest in paying a decent studio to record, mix and master their CD and hire engineers by themselves. I just don't see how there can be a mega-band without a major record label company.

Note: This is all based on what I've heard and the very little that I know. I could be way off on some of the details, but the idea stands.

Mega's a relative term; after all, is a megabyte all that big?

Bands could do the recording themselves. I have a few instruments and some recording hardware (now I just need talent). All said, under $1500. Sure, the quality isn't nearly as good as using a professional studio and hiring people who know what they're doing, but it's possible.

If we drop the idea of record labels completely (as there'd be a "major" label or two even if they were all tiny relative to what's there now), advertising and distribution could be word of mouth, online advertising, and so forth. It'd be very possible for a band to gain a huge following. Note that just because we hypothetically go back a century or two to the idea of no record labels doesn't mean we can't use everything else (such as Google ads, personal web sites, MySpace and its Flash audio streamer, and so forth) that's around today.

Just because the massive support structure behind the bands disappears doesn't mean that we'd have no mega-bands. We'd just have many fewer and they'd have to work a lot harder, spend a lot more of their own/borrowed money, and/or have friends with the right know-how on various topics.

Would it be easy? Of course not. But it'd be possible with what we have these days. I'm not saying it should/shouldn't be this way, but it'd be possible. Of course, if every record label shut down overnight for whatever reason and the next day brought self-relient bands, sooner or later we'd end up back at the same place we are now. A dedicated (as in sole function) group of marketing people, lawyers, and the like provide bands with much more time to do the things that actually require their talent.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[Steve B]

"There is a "Big-Band" sound that is impossible to produce without sufficient funding."

"That was true 15 years ago. It's not true any more. These days, a few thousand dollars worth of audio equipment, a PC and some software can do what used to require a multi million-dollar recording studio."

This source of up-and-coming competition, not any legitimate concerns about illegal bootlegging, is the impetus driving the MAFIAA anti-tech agenda.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[aztektum]

That's a great story and worked really well for the early 90's and before. Now we have the Internet and home recording equipment that is "good enough" (and less costly) which can help people spread their music.

It still stands that just because the big labels were the right tool 15, 20, 40 years ago doesn't mean they're necessary now. It's a paradigm shift, however, so it will take some time to settle. I am pretty sure it will happen once musicians realize they don't need the RIAA.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[mochan_s]

Bands could do the recording themselves. I have a few instruments and some recording hardware (now I just need talent). All said, under $1500. Sure, the quality isn't nearly as good as using a professional studio and hiring people who know what they're doing, but it's possible.

That is a big misconception - it's the industry marketing saying buy an entire studio for $400 in this gizmo, buy the entire line of all classic guitar amps and effects in this box for $100. I did a lot of research on the product of small studios and they all sound like crap. No matter how much talent the artist has, if the sound has some faults (it's very very very easy to make those) it will be unlistenable.

Plus, no matter how cheap the software to record and the hardware to convert signals get, the most important part of a good sound is a good room and that is not cheap at all. Plus, the mastering station needs a very good listening room as well. Just not possible to make a good studio unless you spend a bit of money and have really talented engineers.

If we drop the idea of record labels completely (as there'd be a "major" label or two even if they were all tiny relative to what's there now), advertising and distribution could be word of mouth, online advertising, and so forth. It'd be very possible for a band to gain a huge following. Note that just because we hypothetically go back a century or two to the idea of no record labels doesn't mean we can't use everything else (such as Google ads, personal web sites, MySpace and its Flash audio streamer, and so forth) that's around today.

Then, it's the same old story. The band is well known not because of musical talent but because of marketing skill. We're worse off since the large music companies at least had the incentive to talent scout. Now, the biggest advertiser will get the biggest market share. And, they will aggressively keep new bands from coming up after they've made it.

interesting indeed.

[apodyopsis]

this is truly an interesting read.

shame I cannot get MP3 from Amazon yet as I am in the UK. :-( Boo!

but I will be buying NIN and Radiohead albums - not only do I like the music its very important that the artist and the RIAA get the message.

though I suspect (and hope) they will be getting two very different messages.

the important thing to realize is that there will be no quick change here - the RIAA has the majority of artists by the short and curlies because they are mostly currently locked into draconian contracts for fixed duration and no. of albums. currently only the lucky few who are nearing the end of their terms (or should that be sentences) can escape to artistic and hopefully monetary freedom.

truly, we live in interesting times.

Re:interesting indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

7digital will sell you some MP3s if you are in the UK. ( They also have DRMed tracks, but seem to feature what's on MP3 more prominently )

Re:interesting indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why can't an artist friendly label be created ? One that isn't part of RIAA ?
IMHO, the label should give 50% of a CD profit to the artist, the rest should cover their costs. They should be focused on the artist, not their shareholders/own profit.

Re:interesting indeed.

[Hatta]

but I will be buying NIN and Radiohead albums - not only do I like the music its very important that the artist and the RIAA get the message.

No, you're supposed to steal the NIN album. Trent said so. Buying it just rewards his label.

It's finally happening

[rossz]

Everyone, the retailers, the talent, the consumers, are starting to realize that when the record industry bent them over the desk for a serious buggering, it turned out to not be as nice as they promised. It is, in fact, a bit of a pain.

Re:It's finally happening

[jimicus]

when the record industry bent them over the desk for a serious buggering, it turned out to not be as nice as they promised. It is, in fact, a bit of a pain.

A pain in the arse, in fact.

Nice move, Trent.

[hawe]

I can't wait to start buying NiN's CDs now. Hopefully more companies will realize that their current way of doing things isn't working.

Re:Nice move, Trent.

[dbIII]

I hope the record companies Quake at this!

Bad pun, but back then I thought the idea of putting a lot of NIN audio tracks on a game CD at a time when CD burners were expensive was the least intrusive copy protection I have seen. I was probably more impressed because the thing was in the discount bin for $10.

Re:Nice move, Trent.

[deftcoder]

*recalls NIN logo on ammo boxes*

Ahh, such fond memories. :-)

DVDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA: "I'm here to tell you today that I for one am no longer going to fall into this trap. If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience. I will tell Yahoo! to give the money they were going to give me to build awesome media applications to Yahoo! Mail or Answers or some other deserving endeavor. I personally don't have any more time to give and can't bear to see any more money spent on pathetic attempts for control instead of building consumer value. Life's too short. I want to delight consumers, not bum them out."

So how about "pathetic attempts for control" like DVDs with CSS, region-coding, and un-fast-forwardable previews? Still going to be selling those?

Re:DVDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! And how about supporting proprietary operating systems like WINDOZE, huh? Still going to DINE WIF TEH DEVAL? Everyone knows M$ is in cahoots with either SCO, the MAFIAAAAAA and/or Satan the Prince of Darkness (depending on which article's drumbeat we're all collectively goose stepping to)

In fact, why even support MP3? THAT'S NOT FREE EITHER. YOU'RE TRYING TO LOCK ME INTO SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES MONEY FOR USE. HOW DARE YOU, YOU BASTARDS. I have read about the US constitution on NUMEROUS Wikipedia pages, and I can say with a certain degree of authority that the founding fathers would have wanted me to have all the music I want, for free, in OGG or FLAC. All who do not acquiesce to my demands are being closed and proprietary - FOR SHAME.

In fact, money is just BUSH and his ASSCLOWN cronies attempts to control THE FREE MARKETZ. WE MUST ABOLISH MONEY AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT DOESN'T FACILITATE MY DESIRE TO GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING AND THEN TRY BUSH AND CHENEY FOR WAR CRIMES AND HANG THEM AND THEN POKE THEM WITH VERY POINTY STICKS SO AS TO MAKE A MOCKERY OF THEM.

God, I hate you guys.

Good for NIN and Radiohead

[foo fighter]

It is great news that established artists are able to leave the big labels behind.

But has any music artist achieved anything like their success without the marketing power of a major label behind them?

I do understand that making enough money by playing music to have a decent standard of living and support a family should be enough for a real artist.

But is there even a remote possibility for an independent artist to win the lottery and make it to the big time without a major label?

If this has happened already, please enlighten me because I've missed it (I know who NIN and Radiohead are, but haven't heard of any, so you have some serious convincing to do.)

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[zygotic mitosis]

Try Fugazi. I know most people have at least heard of them. Kick ass tunes.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[cliveholloway]

I think the Bastard Fairies are doing rather well. It's been interesting watching them grow over the last year. Though they're not exactly after the stereotypical stardom level, so i don't know if they qualify for your criteria...

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[WarwickRyan]

> But is there even a remote possibility for an independent artist
> to win the lottery and make it to the big time without a major label?

Yes, the Artic Monkeys have certainly done well and they have never been involved with the majors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_monkeys

Signed to a fairly big indie label now.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[David Gerard]

New Order did quite well at it, and own every note they ever recorded.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[Papabryd]

Clap Your Hands Say Yeah is a pretty good example of a band reaching high levels of success without the backing of a label. Their stuff made its way onto the internet and was picked up at various places including Pitchforkmedia.com, a pretty big "indie" music review site. The mountains of positive press increased demand to the point that they had to repress their debut CD, all without ever signing a record contract.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider Feist, an indie artist who's tune "1 2 3 4" shot to the top following the iPod nano ad. Previous iPod ads always had big name artists (Paul McCartney, U2, Wynton Marsalis, Bob Dylan, etc.) and so it would seem a gamble that a relative unknown (no disrespect to Feist's following) would get a spot in an iPod ad. I can't help but think that Apple proved a point: the big labels aren't really necessary anymore.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[zygotic mitosis]

Saw them twice over the weekend. I was somewhat disappointed; they played all the s/t songs both nights, and just 5 off SLT. 3 songs played both nights, and one extra per show. One truly new song the first night "Motor Away", and a band version of "Telling the truth and going away" which was introduced as a new song. The second night was in a bar that got very hot very quickly, and Alec seemed annoyed through the whole show.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[HistoricPrizm]

The really funny part is that it went to the top of Amazon.com's bestseller list almost immediately as well. It's also $0.40 US cheaper at Amazon.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[korbin_dallas]

Somebody look them up, I can't, damn work filters...

The Cynic Project, and Ghost in the Machine

One of these 2 was turning over $100K US in cd sales alone, about 8 years ago on mp3.com.

The vitally important thing is that the IDEA of making on your own CAN WORK. Seems to me the only thing really lacking is a unified 'NetBoard' say from Google or Yahoo, that scans all the mp3 boards/sites and creates a top 100 per category.

In fact being an asshole, I would 1. create 'NetBoard' for google, then 2. bendover the RIAA for funding to KEEP IT OFF of google. :^)

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[foo fighter]

Ah, didn't realize they were indie. I'm a big fan and they're doing pretty well, so I guess they count.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, IIRC, NIN actually started off Trent Reznor's own label, the only reason he signed with a big label when he did is because his business partner fscked off with all the label's money, leaving Trent basically with no money to pay for the production of his next few albums.

Also, not sure on this one, but I'm pretty sure KMFDM runs there own label, one of the best industrial bands out there.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[GnarlyDoug]

Kate Walsh comes to mind. MySpace to iTunes to super-star with no record label behind her.

New bands

[forgoil]

Guys like NIN and Radiohead can go independent now because they already have made money. Prince can give away his music because he is already rich. What we need is new good acts that can stand outside of the horror that is the RIAA and still succeed. That will have some real impact. That will make way for changes. It shouldn't be about greed, it should be about music and fairness.

Re:New bands

[Chuck Chunder]

No doubt such bands already exist (and sometimes make a reasonable break into the "mainstream" and a boatload of cash in the process).

However in general they must struggle to make a mainstream impact when the big labels are spending a boatload of cash on saturation marketing for their artists (and then clawing the money back off the artists).

Perhaps the best thing about major artists leaving their stables will be a reduction of funds wasted on marketing so that new artists stand a chance of being seen. A return to (authentic) reputation and word of mouth would be great.

Re:New bands

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy got famous in the early '60s. Then he got a bit long in the tooth and the labels kicked him to the curb. He was lost in obscurity, playing for pittances in bars to drunken geezers.

Then the old illegal Napster came along and a new generation heard his music. He says it revitalized his career.

-mcgrew

PS: the lyrics to his song "Turn Turn Turn" (music © Pete Seeger) are in the public domain.

Re:New bands

[MightyYar]

Bright Eyes was never signed to a major label record contract, and they have been very successful, even topping the charts at one point.

Why?

[pedestrian crossing]

I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels

Geez, you've really been depriving yourself unnecessarily. One word: emusic.

If you all would switch....

[djfuq]

If you all would switch to listening to electronic music, especially from netlabels like Thinner http://www.thinner.cc/ you wouldn't need to worry about DRM. :-) Except that you probably don't enjoy free, and fascinating electronic music.... no you want David Hasselhof's new band "singing about love" - you know the neat band they play when your inside McDonalds, or ordering a coffee at Starbucks, or passing by a sexy shot of a model on MTV - oh wait that was a tampon ad.... yeah the lyrics are so unique that it just catches your ear so you download it to your Ipod because its so easy to give them your credit card number. God I bet the band really appreciates your help. To put it more bluntly, it is my experience that it is the type of music you listen to that will get you locked into money schemes like DRM. /love the minimal

Re:If you all would switch....

[dave1791]

Popular music that sucks gets DRM'ed. Music that sucks that nobody listens to... why even bother?

Re:If you all would switch....

[deftcoder]

I've recently taken an interest to electronic/house music (normally, I'm a death metal and classical kind of guy :P), particularly Daft Punk and Justice.

Unfortunately, Daft Punk is on EMI, so I can't support them by buying their albums. :(

Re:If you all would switch....

[Corporate Troll]

Daft Punk is on EMI, so I can't support them by buying their albums

Why not? EMI is the (only) label that sells the DRM free songs on iTunes called "Plus". Sure, a bit more expensive, but DRM free. I, for one support that....

Re:If you all would switch....

[nick.ian.k]

If you all would switch to listening to electronic music, especially from netlabels like Thinner http://www.thinner.cc/ [thinner.cc] you wouldn't need to worry about DRM. :-)

Which is all well and good if you're willing to merely exchange cliches. Some of us judge music on artistic merits rather than how well it assumes a genre-centric posture and don't have the option. Though that's probably better: less bad pseudo-political punk choruses and less samples of bad third rate soul vocals to give otherwise white music a bit of "soul" going 'round.

Re:If you all would switch....

[djfuq]

Yeah nobody listens to it, why bother -- I must be some kind of nut if I find it enjoyable

Re:If you all would switch....

[djfuq]

Actually my point is to illustrate that there is free music out there that is just as good if not better than commercialized music. And the genre you choose is up to you... I just happen to love sounds like thinner's. Believe it or not those guys enjoy their work and they get paid for their music even though it is free to you and me. I think this business model of "free" promotes actual innovation in music, not just high production costs. That's why I was blown away by the new and original sounds when I found that netlabel 4 years ago. If you don't contribute to the big dollar bullies of the industry they lose their power to screw you and these artists we love and appreciate.

Re:If you all would switch....

[nitio]

Well, although I agree with you in some points regarding pop music we see nowadays, you have to realize not everyone enjoys listening to a sample being mixed with another sampled in some tempo and whatever - I know, I know, there's probably more to house/dance/eletronic and these other styles but let's just leave at that - and would be offended by your way of disregarding other styles.

I enjoy listening to well constructed music - classical, progressive (rock|metal) and others - and even by that I like listening to some house that is available (I read a previous comment about a band named Justice, will search for it later if it's house).

To sum it up, someone already said to me: "Taste is like yout butthole. Each one has one and should care about his own only."

Re:If you all would switch....

[nick.ian.k]

...except you lead your post off with, "If you all would switch to listening to electronic music". You're implying that by switching to listening to electronic music, we're automatically freeing ourselves of some major-label imposed shackles, and that's a pretty ridiculous statement to make. You'd have been better off stating something more general, such as "buy independent music," not hawking a genre.

Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"...

[Wolfbone]

...but not enough broad and trivial software and business method patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Yahoo&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXThttp://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Yahoo&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/E/D/yahoo_144_70kb.pdf

NIN

[Potor]

Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now ...

and the enemy of my enemy is my ... friend? damn you, NIN!

Actually

[Rik Sweeney]

Radiohead's album will be out in the shops in 2008. I know I could get it now for free*, but I think I'd rather wait for the CD and rip it in the format that I want (it's available as 10 x 160kbps MP3s, probably encoded in the wrong version of LAME that leaves gaps between the songs).

*You can opt to pay nothing, but you still have to pay a 45p bank charge.

Re:Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

The bank charge is only if you actually want to donate an amount. If you put £0.00 it doesn't even ask for your card details.

Second thought about what Radiohead and NIN do...

[grumpyman]

...can't really conclude if this is good or bad, but one thing for sure is that the next up and coming 'big' act will need to sign away their life if they want to be on major label.

STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Emusic has been brought up so many times, is there anyone who visits /. who hasn't heard of it? I would be very surprised to learn that every single post is from a genuine fan and a not from some paid shill.

Signing up for emusic is selling yourself short as a consumer. You can't so much as browse their catalog without giving up your name, address, and credit card information. They use the anti-consumer "AOL method" of signing people up, by forcing people to cancel a free trial. Sorry, but I have no idea how difficult they'll make it for me to cancel, even if I were stupid enough to give them my credit card information without having any idea what they're selling. And since I can't browse their catalog, I'm betting most people won't be interested in most of their catalog.

To make matters worse, their subscription method makes absolutely no sense from the consumer point of view. What if I newly discover an established band and want to buy all their albums right now? What if I don't want to buy anything for a couple of months? Their subscription method only makes sense from their point of view. They can manage their books a bit easier and get free money for consumers who don't use all their downloads.

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC

[pedestrian crossing]

Emusic has been brought up so many times, is there anyone who visits /. who hasn't heard of it? I would be very surprised to learn that every single post is from a genuine fan and a not from some paid shill. Signing up for emusic is selling yourself short as a consumer. You can't so much as browse their catalog without giving up your name, address, and credit card information. They use the anti-consumer "AOL method" of signing people up, by forcing people to cancel a free trial. Sorry, but I have no idea how difficult they'll make it for me to cancel, even if I were stupid enough to give them my credit card information without having any idea what they're selling. And since I can't browse their catalog, I'm betting most people won't be interested in most of their catalog. To make matters worse, their subscription method makes absolutely no sense from the consumer point of view. What if I newly discover an established band and want to buy all their albums right now? What if I don't want to buy anything for a couple of months? Their subscription method only makes sense from their point of view. They can manage their books a bit easier and get free money for consumers who don't use all their downloads.

I am not a shill, I am a satisfied customer.

Here's my take:

For a long time, people here complained about iTunes, and essentially said, "Just give me the damn MP3s at a reasonable price". I agreed with them. Along came emusic, and that's what they did. I chose to support that decision with my wallet, which is the only real vote we have in the marketplace.

So I took a chance with the "free" trial. Yes I had to give up my CC, but I figured that if these guys are ripoffs, they aren't going to last long.

What I saw when I got into their site was a breath of fresh air. I have very eclectic musical tastes, and the breadth of their selection was simply astounding. I realized right away that I was not going to have any problem choosing 90 tracks every month for the forseeable future.

Sure, if you are looking for "mainstream" mega-label stuff, it's mostly not there. But if you're fucking tired of the crap you hear on radio, and like to hear other genres than just 70's rock, wow.

You are entitled to your petty objections about emusic, but I will not stop "shilling" for them. For me and many here, emusic kicks ass. It's time to stop whining on slashdot, get out on the market, and vote with your wallet.

Doing anything less is "selling yourself short as a consumer."

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I newly discover an established band and want to buy all their albums right now?

You can pay for a booster pack if you absolutely cannot wait a month.

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC

[iainl]

Quoteth the AC: "You can't so much as browse their catalog without giving up your name, address, and credit card information."

I thought that when I went to the site, too. But a quick Google for "emusic " takes you straight to the list of what they have for that band, and from there you can continue to browse.

e.g. www.emusic.com/artist/11592/11592805.html - their page of Underworld stuff.

I'm not entirely convinced emusic wanted their site to work that way, but seeing they had the stuff I was after is persuading me to sign up, so they probably won't complain too loudly.

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way is my decision to spend my money elsewhere any less "voting with my wallet" than your decision to spend money with emusic? Oh wait, it's not. And I think you know that speech is also powerful in the market, or you wouldn't be plugging for emusic.

You are essentially claiming my point-of-view is petty because you have no counter arguments. Emusic has absolutely nothing on other DRM-free music download services, except perhaps for selection. But, as already mentioned, emusic provides no way to discover 'the breadth of their selection' without first signing up for their service. Add to that the other objections, and it sees really unfair to call my point-of-view 'petty'.

Emusic was not the first to 'give... the damn MP3s at a reasonable price'. Now, with even more options available, it makes less and less sense to take a chance on jumping through emusic's hoops.

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC

[pedestrian crossing]

Emusic was not the first to 'give... the damn MP3s at a reasonable price'.

Uh, they were the first biggie that was legit. They offered their entire catalog for pretty much unlimited downloading at first.

What legal, DRM-free service did that?

Emusic has absolutely nothing on other DRM-free music download services, except perhaps for selection.

Selection is a -huge- differentiating factor.

Please, if there is anything comparable out there, say >1 million tracks, point me at it.

you are essentially claiming my point-of-view is petty because you have no counter arguments.

I'm saying that your objection to the credit card requirement is petty because they have a valid reason (to ensure only one free trial per person).

But my main point (partly directed at the GP) is that to just say, "fuck it, I'm not buying any music", or, "I'm just going to pirate because DRM sucks and there are no options", or especially, "there are options, but I'm not going to use them because their model isn't my ideal of how it should work" is bullshit.

I hope you are doing -something- to support at least one DRM-free music service.

You are right that as the number of options increases, emusic will face competition, but I just don't see anything that comes close to competing on selection and price (my two top criteria after DRM-free) at the moment.

Broken Records?

[MLS100]

Hasn't NIN been under Trent's label Broken Records for some time now? Or was there still some kind of contractual agreement with the recording industry that wasn't renewed?

Re:Broken Records?

[ximenes]

Nothing Records was a vanity label attached to Interscope. The whole vanity label thing is basically just a way for the very few major labels to at least project the impression of a more personal experience, but of course the money goes to the same place.

Its defunct now by the way, NIN's last two albums were directly on Interscope (which in turn is part of Universal Music Group, paired up with Geffen and A&M). There are a million vanity labels, boutique labels, divisions and other things going on yet theres really only four main companies behind all of this.

Re:Broken Records?

[DaveCar]

A "vanity label" is known as an imprint in book or record publishing, and may be used to differentiate between genres of music.

Not *necessarily* to project the impression of a more personal experience ;)

NIN, Radiohead, and more...

[joshuaes]

It seems Oasis and Jamiroquai are to join the label free trend.

Article.

Get a CD, pay what you want...

[Yvanhoe]

I heard that on the 20 euros that most CD cost, artists only see 2 or 3 euros...
I suppose that when they sell on their website, more than 80% of the selling price goes into their pocket, so it is not an idealist fight anymore, it is just a matter of making profit. 5 euros for a CD is cheap by today standard and would earn the artists more money, it will be a hard year for middle-men

Re:Get a CD, pay what you want...

[hyades1]

They might do even better than 80% of the selling price. Right off the top of my head I can think of a couple of ways to ensure that getting paid for songs has nothing whatsoever to do with paying tax.

Every government in the free world lets artists starve in roach-infested dumps while they're trying to make it, then taxes them to death if they finally earn some real money.

I'd rather see an artist screw the government out of a few dollars than a record company screw them out of millions.

Question

[pedestrian crossing]

I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels

Which makes me wonder. If you don't participate in the market, how do you cast your economic vote?

Choosing not to vote doesn't even come close to being as powerful as supporting the entities that you agree with.

Re:Question

[rucs_hack]

I vote the only way I can, by active non participation, They do not get my custom, where they would if they dropped drm, I used to buy a lot of music. What other way is there? buying their stuff doesn't help.

Re:Question

[pedestrian crossing]

Active non-participation? WTF is that? Self-disenfranchisement.

You have to participate to get a say.

See my other comment about emusic. There are things about them that some don't like, but they have non-DRM tracks for a reasonable price (two of my big problems with iTunes), so they get my vote.

I used to buy tons of CDs (5-10 per week). Then the shit really started with the labels and I stopped, took a look around and supported someone else. Just abstaining doesn't do the job, the drop in sales is just attributed to piracy.

If you want to make a change, you have to actively participate in the market. Silence==status quo.

Power to the bands

[Archie Gremlin]

I keep hearing the phrase "bands make most of their money from touring etc not from CD sales".

If this is true, then Radiohead aren't losing any money by giving away their music. They're just building a fan base by giving away music instead of building a fan base by getting a label to sell CDs. It also means that DRM protects the label and actively damages the band.

Has the internet finally created a world in which the bands don't need labels any more? Perhaps in 5 or ten years time, we'll see that the labels will morph into music marketing companies who are hired by bands as necessary. Either that, or they'll have to start paying the bands a decent royalty on CD sales.

Re:Power to the bands

[snarlydwarf]

I wouldn't say the Internet created that: the record companies themselves did by hoarding more and more of the pie (why, for example, do record companies withhold a certain percentage of download sales as "breakage"... left over from the day when some vinyl albums would break in production). By focusing entirely on sales, and ignoring things like "artist development" (ie, financing tours as they did 30 years ago in order to promote albums), they have left the touring income as the only income really available to artists.

The record labels don't do their traditional job (and what they claim to do) in "artist development" so the Internet is picking up the slack.... which of course makes the record companies superfluous: anyone can do the job of pressing and packaging CD's. Distribution is the only real trick, but some small companies (like CDBaby) and some large-we-stock-it-all places (Amazon) make that less problematic. Get your album on Amazon and you have enough distribution to make money.

The mismanagement of the music business is the cause, though.

As for how much they make: the Rolling Stones tour grossed over $500M.

Re:Power to the bands

[hawk]

>why, for example, do record companies withhold a certain percentage of download sales as "breakage"...

downloads on windows machines, of course!

hawk

Vista

[flyingfsck]

Pretty soon, MS Vista will be the only thing left that is ruined by DRM...

Radiohead album available!

[hanssprudel]

Just in time for this story, Radiohead's new album is now available for download for the price you name.

Only downside is they are 160 kbps mp3:s, which may not make everybody happy.

The Radiohead thing

[Lurks]

Dropping DRM and basically opening up the album to the masses is something we all want to see. That said my initial enthusiasm stemmed from being surprised by another Radiohead album rather than being told about it many months before it shows up as normal.

More relevantly for this discussion, the really cool digital distribution mechanism has been marred somewhat by the patchy way the whole thing has been delivered. 160kbps CBR MP3 rip (well below par quality wise) is causing expected waves but, in my view, worse still is the amateurish mastering of the album itself.

I've come to the conclusion that to some degree the lo-fi approach is by design but I've also concluded that it appears in so many places, rampant master-level clipping on overlayed sections, that it's really not something I find pleasurable. Then there's also the brutally inept stereo imaging too. I applaud Radiohead for the approach, don't get me wrong, but in some sense it does strike me as a bit self indulgent. They really COULD have benefitted from a real studio and a professional audio engineer. The shame is that record companies will hold this up as an example why that approach is better, when in fact this is just an error on behalf of Radiohead's where they came to believe they could do that stuff themselves too. They can clearly afford to hire out the appropriate resources.

Anyway, I've written a bit more about the whole thing here: http://www.electricdeath.com/blog/1200

I have a question

[nysus]

As the guy in the article points out, it is trivially easy to move bits from one person to another.

If I amass a 1,000 song collection with mp3s, won't it be trivially easy for me to "share" my music with all my friends? Wouldn't that really help build my reputation with them? And wouldn't those who received the free music be inclined to give away their music to others as well to help build their reputation?

It's good that the record companies now understand the scourge of DRM, but I don't see how the artists win in this scenario.

Re:I have a question

[swillden]

It's good that the record companies now understand the scourge of DRM, but I don't see how the artists win in this scenario.

They win by realizing they are performing artists, rather than recording artists.

Re:I have a question

[PMBjornerud]

Careful! From the recent case pricing copyright infingement at $9.250 per song, handing out that DVD to a friend of yours would carry a $9.250.000 fine.

Come to think of it. We ought to compile a dual-layer DVD, the $20 million copyright infringement disk. Make sure every song is owned by Capitol records while we're at it.

Heck, if you know a teenager with no assets, you should ask him to hand out such a disk in front of the police station, then head in and confess to them that he just made a $20 million crime. People should be burning it out and making the disk availiable everywhere.

Relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Now can we get the same kind of action from artists who have done their best work in THIS decade? Just asking.

More innovation from independent bands

[thbb]

> Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now followed Radiohead in ridding themselves of the labels
> and going independent.

Since 2001, Einstürzende Neubauten has been exploring new ways to produce records and interact with their public while producing the album. Their last 3 albums were produced by a subscription. As supporters, we could attend the recording sessions via webcam, chat online with the band members, or use the forums to discuss about the directions taken by the band ; we obtained early versions of the songs, and attended private concerts. Unanimously agreed as a great experience!

They've been fairly successful so far, though they still want to polish their formula. There is
a nice interview about their latest album and the issues they face in going "label-free".

Re:More innovation from independent bands

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, I followed ENB from the mid 80's and bought everything
they released till they dissappeared in the early 90's. I was
really pleased to see a CD in the shops around 2002 and on the
back was written "this CD does not play on computers".

DRM monkeys -- fuck `em

Re:More innovation from independent bands

[Anonymous Coward]

As supporters, we could attend the recording sessions via webcam, chat online with the band members, or use the forums to discuss about the directions taken by the band ; we obtained early versions of the songs, and attended private concerts. Unanimously agreed as a great experience!

Groupies gone online! What is next, Second Life backstage?

Re:More innovation from independent bands

[ottolinkfan]

ArtistShare, also formed in 2001, uses a similar model that you described. Maria Schneider spoke at my school last year and said that her horrific experience with her first label ultimately lead to ArtistShare's creation.

The idea is that you are buying the experience of making the album. You get access to all kinds of interviews with band members, videos of rehearsals and previews of new tracks and, depending on which subscription you choose, a ton of other things like backstage access to concerts. This is really useful and informative to me and as a musician, because I can listen to an interviews with Rich Perry and Ingrid Jensen about how they approach certain solos. I also know that I am directly supporting those musicians, which is a good feeling!

I think packages for her most recent album ranged in price from $17 to something like $15,000 and she had takers at all levels. She has also won a grammy for her 2004 album that was solely distributed through the website. So this model is definitely working for her.

Re:More innovation from independent bands

[thbb]

This was when they used Sony as a distributor, and Sony was experimenting with DRMs on small bands that could not say no to any distribution proposal. It's over now.

Go read the interview: you'll see their approach is much more elaborated than this. Among other things:

PP: Do you think that the reason for the fewer sales had to do with the advance of the internet and illegal downloading or with bad management on behalf of the record company?
BB: Downloading is good for Einsturzende Neuabuten. Downloading is bad for Robbie Williams, not for me.

PP: What is your view about current copyright laws and open source media? Moreover, would you consider Neubauten's radical production process, especially in "Alles Wieder Offen" to be an installment in the debate about copyright?
BB: It is definitely an installment in the said debate. I don't want to go too far into the details of this but, if the record industry wants to survive somehow, they need to change their policies.
[...]
The future of the music industry is subscriptions. Sony has acquired so many record companies over the decades so that now there are only three big companies left. Imagine that you can have access to the whole catalogue and the whole back catalogue - for instance of the old 78s from the jazz labels... Count me in... I like that!

Not making money on CDs

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

...seems to be largely because the record labels keep it all. If a band sells a CD, the record company gets most of the money. If they sell a t-shirt, they've bought the shirt wholesale and keep the rest.
Some friends of mine were touring as the support act with a largeish (reformed '80s) band recently. The main band wasn't selling albums at the gigs, as the wholesale price the record company wanted for the CDs was too high. My friends were making quite good money, as they were unsigned so just had to pay the CD making factory.

Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[jefreyisnotzen]

I'm sick of the RIAA!!! I just paid $11.08 total to download the new Radiohead...CD, no, it's not CD anymore.:P But yes, the whole album. Well, whatever it's called these days. I'm a bit old school...I listened to LP's and even had an 8-track back in the day...Queen, News of the World...on 8 track...yuck, but oh the memories. Now NIN?!! Yes. I hadn't even heard any music off of the new Radiohead, but I love 'em. I didn't care if I didn't like the music, but I wanted to make a point to the RIAA, and perhaps even the MPAA or anyone else interested in DRM or IP. I will pay, but I don't want to pay for something that's restricted because you're afraid I will steal, and what DRM entails, or EULA's may or may not entail. Restrict all you want xxAA or whoever, if I don't want it, I won't buy. And no, I'm not going to steal it either. Simple economics. Radiohead and their current musical or financial allies, not the RIAA anymore, will get my money, because I don't want to buy what the RIAA has to offer. I still do though, but I don't like it. I bought Radioheads new release though, with passion...freedom! And it's their music to do with what they want now, how they want to sell it. And, since I like their music, and it's DRM free, and doesn't have the usual EULA stuff that goes with other sites like Amazon, I'm more than happy to even to pains with currency conversion stuff. What a breath of fresh air this is!!! I love this! And, I'm listening to the new release...it's good, BTW.:) Namyohorengekyo.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[east coast]

I didn't care if I didn't like the music, but I wanted to make a point to the RIAA

Ok. So what happens when everyone starts following the Radiohead model? Are you going to pay them all just to thumb your nose at the RIAA? Or are some artists just going to have to suffer like everyone else and hope that Joe Sixpack is decent enough to actually pay for what he listens to?

It's neat that everyone is pounding their fists today and ready to take on the world but I've seen way too many instances where this dies quietly and those who can get away with being cheap do so after all the thrill of the revolution had died. This is going to hurt small unestablished artists in a big way. Trend Reznor would probably be eating dog food out of a can in the back of some Econoline van trying to scrape up gas money for his tour if it weren't for the initial boost from the big evil record company.

It's like when Greenpeace had it's day in the sun in the 80s. I know people who would have given you a good browbeating for throwing an aluminum can in the trash instead of the recycle bin. Oddly enough some of these same people are driving SUVs today. They probably had the best intentions but it doesn't count for much once the initial thrill is gone.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[jefreyisnotzen]

Wow. Well, as for me, I pay for my music. I know how to get it for free, very easily. I don't though. All of the music I have, was either purchased, or offered freely in podcast format, or the like. As far as what you say, I can't speak for the track records, or the hypothetical or even cynical view of what others do as far as keeping their integrity intact with their beliefs. Truly, this isn't just about thumbing something at the RIAA, not for the long haul as far as the business model goes. Just buying something out of spite, doesn't really win anything other than spite. That's why I think I stuck with paying only the $10, not to mention more I can't afford. I would pay the next band to come along, that I liked, the same. However, I am tired of the RIAA, and despite what you think about the up and coming bands that get helped by the RIAA, are at the mercy of those contracts. It's up to them to decide, but I for one have enough integrity to do what right. That's all I can say. I can only be the change I want to see in the world. That's all I've been doing for a few years now. And, yes, this is a thrill right now, and I'm sure going to enjoy it, no matter what anyone else says to counter that thrill, or be cynical about it. Apparently, you disagree with some of my views. That's fine.

However, I doubt, as you say, you have held up to your own beliefs about how you would like to live your life, and been successful in all those areas completely, or perfectly. That is also true of many people, myself included. But to judge others, as to judge people involved in Greenpeace, saying one thing, and then doing another, when we ourselves as humans do very often (haven't met one who has been hypocritical as least once in their life, including me), does not offer an argument, but a lack of faith in people for being able to good and honest. Perhaps you side with those who would jail the world before crimes were committed. I don't know. That's what it sounds like though. You have a low opinion of humanity. For myself, when I felt like that, I looked deeply, and found it was my own humanity, my own actions that I didn't have faith in, because I was failing in my own ideals. Because others have failed, or that I have failed in the past, is no reason to give up. It is cowardice to give up on integrity, and very disrespectful to give up on the integrity of others, and class me in with others who have failed, and call them, and myself by association of your argument, a hypocrite. Well, if you want to live in a world of corruption, and blame others for things they haven't done yet, that is your hell to live in. I have more faith in humanity, and myself, than that. Namyohorengekyo to you my friend.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[east coast]

Truly, this isn't just about thumbing something at the RIAA, not for the long haul as far as the business model goes.

Really? But you said in the first post...

I didn't care if I didn't like the music, but I wanted to make a point to the RIAA

Anyway.

, I am tired of the RIAA, and despite what you think about the up and coming bands that get helped by the RIAA, are at the mercy of those contracts.

This happens to labels outside of the RIAA too. The only way to free yourself of this is to only deal with bands that are 100% indy or to get contracts that you can examine to see if they hold up to your standards. Being a fan of punk for many years (and even today) I have seen a ton of bands that credit their (non-RIAA) labels for helping them get things together and making their first real tours possible. Sure, some people get ripped off but others are treated well, and some of the labels that do treat their bands respectfully are RIAA labels. Once you look over the RIAA list of labels you start to understand that "indy" is kind of a sad joke. Well, that's if you consider RIAA labels to be anti or non-indy.

However, I doubt, as you say, you have held up to your own beliefs about how you would like to live your life, and been successful in all those areas completely, or perfectly.

I'll be honest with you, I'm not really as much of a "cause" person and my ideal are my own and I don't wear them on my sleeve. In fact, there are several ideals that I have that I really don't want to be associated with the "cause" because I find the people who agree with me on the ideology have a disturbing way of carrying themselves in public. I have friends who never knew for years about some of my habits because I don't mention them. Some of these are things that others feel the need to put on their t-shirts. I'm just not that kind of person.

So, have I ever failed? A bit, sure. But more often I have left some things behind because once I looked at it from different points of view I realized it had no serious value. I'd hate to take up the banner and be forced to explain myself if I decided that it was just nonsense after the fact. The best option is not to fly a banner at all in those cases.

a lack of faith in people for being able to good and honest. Perhaps you side with those who would jail the world before crimes were committed.

Ah, take a look around. Those crimes are being committed today. When you say I'm a cynic I personally think you're out of line. I'd be a cynic if this kind of thing (music for free, call it stealing for the sake of argument) weren't happening but it is and you know it as well as I do. If this wasn't an issue most people wouldn't have an issue with the RIAA at all since there wouldn't be a drove of lawsuits.

That's what it sounds like though. You have a low opinion of humanity.

I point out the pro-artist use of music labels and the fact that music theft is happening today and suddenly I have a low opinion of humanity? Get real.

It is cowardice to give up on integrity, and very disrespectful to give up on the integrity of others, and class me in with others who have failed, and call them, and myself by association of your argument, a hypocrite.

I made an honest question as to where this model was heading. If you take it as a personal insult that's your problem, not mine. I wonder if you give these rants to anyone who questions your motivation. Even if you do hold up to your oh-so-high standards of actually paying for music do you honestly think everyone else is going to?

Well, if you want to live in a world of corruption, and blame others for things they haven't done yet, that is your hell to live in.

Corruption? Because a band signs to a label without doing the right thing and getting a lawyer to look over the document you consider that corrupt? No one is holding a gun to anyone's head.

And again, others have done

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[Braino420]

Sir, put down the coffee.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[jefreyisnotzen]

And, frankly, I don't consider being realistic about society as living in a hell. I consider turning your back on what people actually do and painting a rosy picture of what's left to be dishonest.

It's always about the perspective one chooses, that makes the difference.

There's quite a few that steal. There's even more that don't...way more. For every time I have been dishonest, I can count, well, I've never actually done it, but I know, I've done many more acts of good, than bad...and I've done much to clean up those bad things as well, as most people do. Not all, but most. I think you've been reading too much negative commentary. There are people being honest all over the place, but it doesn't get too much press. You even chided me for my "oh-so-high" standards. I was merely trying to get through to you...there are honest people in the world, and even though, the internet is quite anonymous, our words and how we communicate should reflect that we know another person is on the other side of the tcp. I didn't take it personally at all. I'm a bit older than that. I was just making a point. The fear that people have wanted us to live in, only works, if it changes how we think about others, and the world, if we believe we need to live in fear. It is then that we lose our freedom, to enjoy how beautiful the people around us are. I remember a friend of mine going off on drivers while he was in the passenger seat when I was driving. I was calm and enjoying the drive. Most of the drivers were driving just fine, but he choose to focus and get bent out of shape by one or two of the drivers that we encountered along our 30 minute drive that were behaving "badly." I enjoyed the other 300 that weren't. That's realism my friend.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[jefreyisnotzen]

LOL!!! How did you know?

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[east coast]

I've done many more acts of good, than bad...and I've done much to clean up those bad things as well, as most people do. Not all, but most.

The majority of music thieves don't see their actions as bad or illegal. At least not until they get served a summons. This is the difference. And this trend is only increasing.

I remember a friend of mine going off on drivers while he was in the passenger seat when I was driving. I was calm and enjoying the drive. Most of the drivers were driving just fine, but he choose to focus and get bent out of shape by one or two of the drivers that we encountered along our 30 minute drive that were behaving "badly." I enjoyed the other 300 that weren't. That's realism my friend.

And what happens if one of those drivers wreck into you? It's easy enough to ignore those who break the rules until it become your problem.

Oh well, just keep thinking that way. I have no real desire to get through to you. You just keep turning a blind eye.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[Braino420]

Or are some artists just going to have to suffer like everyone else and hope that Joe Sixpack is decent enough to actually pay for what he listens to?

What if I don't think art should be a full-time job? People will still make art if they aren't payed for it. Of course you won't have the "big names" as much (you know, the marketing), but with the way things are going, I don't think I'll care that much. You will still have people that dedicate their lives to the music, and are damn good at it. Hell, pretty much all the music I listen to is being played by dead people, and there is A LOT more to go. The musicians don't even have to be dead, there's plenty of free legal music by bands that love what they do available at archive.org . It must just totally amaze you why these people do this. Not make money?! OMG!

The whole point of the RIAA (really the record companies they represent) for me is that they filter the crap and let the good stuff through. Judging by the stuff on the radio, they have been doing a shitastic job. I like pop music from the 70's, what happened? I can't justify paying for a dead guys music, that is overpriced, that I can't copy, and that has DRM, oh ya, and that I'll have to re-buy to play on a different format. So fuck em, music won't die with them.

So, it's fine if you think I'm cheap. I'll laugh all the way to the bank with my free and legal music while you pay for overpriced crap. You'll like it too, and you'll even praise the RIAA while it's all happening. And please do note that nowhere above do I condone illegally downloading music, it's just that it makes me want to vomit when someone is getting fucked in the ass by the RIAA and then sucks the RIAA's dick afterwards(graphic?).

BURN KARMA BURN!

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[east coast]

I can't justify paying for a dead guys music, that is overpriced, that I can't copy, and that has DRM, oh ya, and that I'll have to re-buy to play on a different format.

AFAIK there hasn't been a single successful (or unsuccessful case for that matter) when it comes down to making copies for personal use. I have never bought music that has DRM on it and frankly, it's a separate issue.

The whole point of the RIAA (really the record companies they represent) for me is that they filter the crap and let the good stuff through. Judging by the stuff on the radio, they have been doing a shitastic job.

That's where you're wrong. The point of the company is to produce a profitable product. It's the public's role to filter out the trash by voting with their dollars.

I'll laugh all the way to the bank with my free and legal music while you pay for overpriced crap.

That's fine. I certainly have nothing against the freebie stuff either as I have several albums from archive.org too. But at the same time I'm willing to pay for the commercial product if that's what the deal is.

it's just that it makes me want to vomit when someone is getting fucked in the ass by the RIAA and then sucks the RIAA's dick afterwards

And who exactly would that be?

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[Braino420]

AFAIK there hasn't been a single successful (or unsuccessful case for that matter) when it comes down to making copies for personal use.

Irrelevant. It's still illegal (to them), I still feel it's fair use, but with the DMCA it really doesn't matter.

I have never bought music that has DRM on it and frankly, it's a separate issue

It's a separate issue because you haven't bought DRM'd music...right. The majority of mp3 sellers out there are selling DRM'd shit, and that's the way everything is headed (or atleast that's what the **IA wants). You know that, right? Pretty soon you aren't going to have much a choice, but in the meantime, keep giving them money to make it all possible!

That's where you're wrong. The point of the company is to produce a profitable product. It's the publics role to filter out the trash by voting with their dollars.

Ahem, I believe I said "the whole point of the RIAA for me." Of course the point for any company is to produce a profitable product (the RIAA is a group of such companies!). However, this does not motivate me to buy their product, now does it? That was the point of my statement. That is how they try and make money; find talent and hire them (again, we're talking about the companies that make up the RIAA). And my point, still, is that they are doing a terrible job. And as you say, I don't even really need them, I can filter stuff just fine.

I'm sorry, my previous statement was harsh. You are just one of those people that let things happen to them, and that's cool. But please, PLEASE, don't try to convince people that are trying to make this world a better place not to do so. Of course people are hypocritical, but that is a very silly reason not to do anything (referencing your previous statements to the too-much-coffee-kid), isn't it? And please, before/if you respond again, read my post and really understand what I am trying to say. Just for a refresher, we're talking about how you like to pay for music because you feel the artist suffers otherwise (remember the first sentence of your first response). These nit-pickings of yours are irrelevant to that point, and really show you have nothing to back up your point.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[jefreyisnotzen]

I'm in charge of my perspective and my reality. I haven't been in an accident since 1988. You through out events that claim victim before they even happen in hypothesis! Well, so fricken what if someone hits me in an accident, or I'm going to die in one. I'm not going to look for things or pay attention to things that bring me down. They just don't matter that much. I'll be taking my own advice on this thread with that. Bye bye. You're a worry wort dude.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[east coast]

These nit-pickings of yours are irrelevant to that point, and really show you have nothing to back up your point.

And what point would that be?

Or do you think I'm brushing off your posts because I don't understand them? Or maybe it's because I have a different point of view?

Frankly, I don't see where you're going with this but since you made a fairly limp attempt to squeeze your off-topic point of view into my post I'm guessing that your point doesn't really relate to what I have to say at all.

Oh well, this won't be the first time I've walked away from a Slashdot thread and simply shrugged my shoulders.

And as far as being one of those people who just lets things happen to them? What am I let happen? I'm supporting an artist. I'm not being robbed here.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[Braino420]

And what point would that be?

The one I stated in the sentence before, do you have ADD?

That's fine if you want to walk away, I replied directly to you and quoted what I was replying to (again, I think you need to get the ADD looked at). I'm so very sorry if you feel that was off-topic. I feel the same way, but I find your replies hilarious. Thanks.

Oh well, this won't be the first time I've walked away from a Slashdot thread and simply shrugged my shoulders.

See what I mean by hilarious? You said almost the exact same thing to the too-much-coffee-kid. You probably forgot about that too, but that's totally ok. Here is the quote, in case you forget:

Oh well, just keep thinking that way. I have no real desire to get through to you.

Hilarious. Oh well, sometimes you get in good debates with other slashdot readers, other times you get people with the attention span of a 4 year old.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[east coast]

I'm so very sorry if you feel that was off-topic. I feel the same way

Except for that your off-topic replies were to my original post, not the other way around. Who has the ADD here?

Hilarious. Oh well, sometimes you get in good debates with other slashdot readers, other times you get people with the attention span of a 4 year old.

I don't see a real debate with you. I guess that's why I have nothing to say. Again, shrug.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[east coast]

Wow, you certainly went out of your way to cover yourself there.

Re:RIAA Radar

[Technician]

If some of the big groups are going to divest themselves of their overlords, I'll be starting up with the purchasing again.


You didn't have to stop. Just let the buyer beware.
http://www.riaaradar.com/

My most recent purchase was from here.
http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp?searchtype=ArtistSearch&keyword=Christopher+Peacock

Do you HAVE a thousand friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the CD is up for sale and it's a birthday/holiday and you know the person has the music of the band, wouldn't you buy the CD as a present for them? Sale!

A teenager is spending (say) £50 a month on music. Now if they don't have to buy ANY music, are they going to start a bank account and save the £50 each month into it? No, they'll probably buy more stuff. Probably music, too. Sale!

There may be a lot MORE music (in number of tracks times the number of people who have those tracks) than the money being made would assume, but I don't see that the actual money being spend on entertainment is going to drop no matter what you do. Kids can only wear so much, play so many games and buy so many DVD's and if the see bands stopping producing because nobody's buying, they'll buy from the band to keep them there because they want to be entertained.

You are thinking like an accountant, all that is important is the money. From the customer's POV, the money isn't important (else we wouldn't be giving it away), it's the ENJOYMENT we are looking for and all our money that isn't bound up somewhere else will be spent on it, because you can't take it with you when you go, so spend it.

Re:Do you HAVE a thousand friends?

[east coast]

I do have a thousand friends. Ever since I joined MySpace I have friends from everywhere. Most of them are hot chics too! Wow, had I had known earlier...

What if the CD is up for sale and it's a birthday/holiday and you know the person has the music of the band, wouldn't you buy the CD as a present for them? Sale!

Let me play RIAA Devil's advocate here: What if they're already downloading that album on it's date of release? No Sale!

A teenager is spending (say) £50 a month on music. Now if they don't have to buy ANY music, are they going to start a bank account and save the £50 each month into it? No, they'll probably buy more stuff. Probably music, too. Sale!

If I'm already downloading this for free. No Sale!

There may be a lot MORE music (in number of tracks times the number of people who have those tracks) than the money being made would assume, but I don't see that the actual money being spend on entertainment is going to drop no matter what you do.

Because at some point not buying CD/DVDs becomes more of the norm. You're looking at it from an aspect of what is normal for you today. Find someone 10 years or so younger then you and find out what their spending habits are when they're your age. My 15 year old nephew has 20 times more music then what I had at his age... I probably owned 20 times more of it on CD (ie. music I paid for vs music he downloaded). No Sale! He isn't spending his cash on music. He spends it on DnD books and such. Tell me where the recording artist is making their due pay as he buys The Complete Potato Farmer V3.52342?

Kids can only wear so much, play so many games and buy so many DVD's and if the see bands stopping producing because nobody's buying, they'll buy from the band to keep them there because they want to be entertained.

There is enough stuff under the sun today to keep everyone on the face of this planet entertained for decades if not centuries. This isn't to say that there won't be some support but back when I was a kid (sonny!) we had little in the way of free entertainment in matters of recorded materials. I've been through a couple of decades of this and I can tell you the face of entertainment is changing quickly and money that use to flow because of it is starting to decrees. Once this trickle down starts to hit the artist in the pocketbook you're going to see less artists. And it will at some point.

You are thinking like an accountant, all that is important is the money. From the customer's POV, the money isn't important (else we wouldn't be giving it away), it's the ENJOYMENT we are looking for and all our money that isn't bound up somewhere else will be spent on it, because you can't take it with you when you go, so spend it.

Or if you're someone paying the bills, the money is important.

Again, the flow of money into entertainment is slowing. This directly relates to the number of artists and eventually could effect the quality of the "art". Scoff now but I've seen this happen in small markets that are economically on the down trend.

The pain starts now...

[Joce640k]

"Consumers kicked them to the curb 5 years ago. Now artists are starting to do it."

Yep.

The real artists are seeing clearly that the the RIAA is a ripoff organization. Pretty soon all the RIAA will have will be the starry-eyed people who apply for talent contests.

These days I only buy a CD when I know for sure that the artist will get a decent cut (50% or more). If it doesn't say how much they get, I don't buy. The thought of the RIAA getting my money makes be feel ill.

Re:Yahoo is not your friend

[Anonymous Coward]

You may indeed be right about Yahoo, their tactics, and their intentions. And if so, this just adds to the significance of their decision to ditch DRM. If Yahoo won't use DRM, who will?

A long time coming from NIN

[Anonymous Coward]

Trent has said he was going to do this for a long time now. He would have beaten Radiohead to the punch had he not signed the deal that he did.

Still, buying the cd's was part of the fun too, like Year Zero...how cool is a cd that changes from black to white when it gets warm?

OK, so lets have a vote

[maillemaker]

Let's have a vote. You can even AC it if you want.

How many people have ever bought music direct-from-the-artist over the web or in person?

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Eivind Eklund]

I have, the last four or five times I've bought music. I stopped buying music apart from this when I stopped pirating music, as I lost my interest in getting new music due to not sampling new music all the time. However, when I drop by a concert, I sometimes pick up the CDs afterwards.

Eivind.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[crumley]

I have bought music straight from the band many times, though the majority of it has been fromoone band (Pearl Jam).

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[jim_redwagon]

I have, starting with Dicks Picks Vol 1 and continue to do so. Can't remember the last store purchased album in my collection. But then again, most the bands I listen to let you tape the shows and share ....

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[steveo777]

Plenty of times. Independent artists abound. All over town here in the Twin Cities. Doesn't they're ever going to make it big or not. And yeah, some of them suck. But I'd rather support them then a label. My favorite band distributes through A Different Drum. It's a label too, but they give the artists a lot more control over their music. And give them a slightly bigger audience and presence. Labels don't have to be evil. And Bruce Dickinson doesn't need to be in every studio.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Zerth]

Almost every time I go to a show. That way I'm sure the most of my money is going to the artist, especially if the band is handing out CDRs. Plus they usually cost less.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[CharAznable]

I just did, 5 minutes ago. New Radiohead album.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Vancorps]

Over in VT there is also BigHeavyWorld which is similarly not evil. They are a non-profit label giving a good chunk of the money to the artist and donating the rest to charity after recouping actual costs of production. People volunteer from all over the state to help them out and their stuff sells, some of their bigger bands are doing just fine financially albeit not as fine as they would be if it was a larger label.

It's a great concept, I used to help them put on concerts back in the day. You can also download a lot of the music off their website. They don't want to pay for all the bandwidth otherwise they would host more. They would have no problems with finding the MP3s on a P2P site as the cd releases are advertising for their concerts which in my opinion is how it should be.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[AaronLawrence]

Yep, from the Dare website - admittedly they had some problems with delivery but it was decent MP3s, no DRM.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[ab0mb88]

I purchase music direct from the artist with some frequency. When my local station was taken over by Clear Channel I stopped listening to their play lists and started going to festivals that came to the area. I have found a number of groups that I like this way and I am sure I would have missed some of them if I waited for their label to promote them. Between concerts and a few enthusiast websites I have found more groups I like than I ever would have from the radio.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Not exactly a formal survey, but FWIW, I often buy music to dance to direct from the bands (some of whom basically run their own independent mini-label) or via resellers who source direct from the bands. This is for loads of different kinds of dancing: Latin American, swing, ballroom, that kind of thing. You can get CDs from some of the better-known bands via the major record labels, but no-one really does, because it just costs more and all of the best bands made their name playing live gigs and through word-of-mouth publicity anyway. If my friends are anything to go by, the same is probably true for folk, choral/religious music, and many other "niche markets" too.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[kent_eh]

Raises hand

It's pretty common at folk festivals and indie gigs that I've been to. And when you buy from the artist, you get a chance to talk to them about their music. That's added value right there.

Also, I've bought from a couple of the music (instrument) stores in who town sell their customers' CDs for a flat 1$ markup.(does that count for your survey?)
They even have a CD jukebox set up with headphones loaded up with those same local CDs so you can "try before you buy"

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I have. Too many times to count. I bought a cd direct from the artist yesterday (Matriarch, check out their video) and a download of another a few days ago (Dead Mens Dreams, these guys are local (Orlando)). I go to local shows several times a month and usually end up leaving with at least one CD.

I also buy local stuff at Park Avenue CDs (Orlando) fairly regularly.

I also download lots of independent stuff off of eMusic and DownloadPunk.com.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[TemporalBeing]

Yep, and would do it more too. I've supported a friend's band this way.

I'm even considering recording and releasing my own stuff as an independent. (side business)

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[emudoug42]

Yep: TMBG has been doing this for a while. I just picked up the latest Say Hi album the other day. I just got the latest Radiohead album. I'd be completely willing to do this more often.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[dlim]

Other than my subscription to eMusic, I pretty much only buy music direct-from-the-artist. This usually includes getting a record (on vinyl) at shows, which hopefully includes mp3 downloads that labels like Merge and Sub Pop include with their LPs. I also bought the Radiohead record (at $5) online.

I see 2 benefits to this approach:

1. (I like to think) artists get more from the sale than they would if I bought it from a shop.
2. The labels that make up the RIAA get less (if any) money from the sale. (I usually only go to shows of bands on independent labels - "safe" on the RIAA Radar).

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Just Some Guy]

How many people have ever bought music direct-from-the-artist over the web or in person?

Here. Even more if you include fair brokers like CD Baby.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[BrianRoach]

::raises hand::

I stopped going to big shows (arenas, civic centers, etc) years ago ... I don't really care for them. I go to small - medium clubs to see live music, and many times that means local music, indie acts, or newer bands on the major labels. If I like the band, I'll buy the CD after the show at the venue.

- Roach

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Godin21]

I have. Both through CD/T-shirt bundles on the Web (ok, well I got this one as a gift, but if I hadn't told my mother-in-law where to find Scott Riggan on the web I would never have received it), and by purchasing cd's, DVD's and T-shirts from artists while on tour, or at a music festival.

I'm interested in compelling music, not the tripe the radio says I have to like.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Time Ed]

I have! I do it all the time!

Check out nugs.net, livedownloads.com, digitalpanic.org, etree.org. There are many others. They've all been around for a long, long time.

Best bet? Start with nugs or etree. You're almost assured of finding an artist/genre you like. You can link to many other legit download sites from either.

Example: in my headphones right now - Machine >Barstools and Dreamers, Widespread Panic, 4.25.07, 1st set. Originally downloaded from digitalpanic as 24bit/96khz audience recording. I liked it, so I went to the Panic site and bought the show from the band for $10 in CD format (16b/44k), compressed with FLAC. *And* its a soundboard copy, mixed by the bands engineer! NO DRM. No restrictions.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[samwichse]

I have, many times in the form of CDs direct from the artist and from their own personal websites (after checking RIAAradar just to be sure).

Sam

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

See my sig.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Stormwatch]

How many people have ever bought music direct-from-the-artist over the web or in person?

I've bought a Viper DVD at a concert. Awesome band btw.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard Amir Sulaiman on a broadcast from the mixtapeshow.net

Navigated to the myspace page, and bought in the most direct way available.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is a flawed poll if you want to gauge whether people have copied music illegally more than we paid the artists directly for them. It's rare for artists to sell their music online and donating some arbitrary amount of money to the artists after copying songs is troublesome. I'll say this though. Even though I never buy music directly from an artist, but if an artist writes and performs a song I like and makes it convenient to purchase it directly over the web, I have no problem paying for it.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[blendo75.5]

I just bought the "diskbox" from Radiohead. They deserve it for giving the RIAA a kick in the crotch. I've also purchased Aphex Twin and Mu-Ziq releases straight from their own labels which are not RIAA affiliated. I'll never buy a CD in the store again and I'll never purchase anything from any company associated with the RIAA. Sony is out of my life forever.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[W1BMW]

Me. I'd easily say the last two dozen physical CDs I purchased were bought at the venue after a show. Our local community radio, WMNF, sponsors tons of small venue shows every year with awesome acts that will never make it to the Clear Channel scene... nor would they want to. Usually, it's no problem to get the CD autographed, or have a member of the band or crew take your money and say 'Thank you' like they mean it. If I do purchase RIAA music, it's from iTunes because I refuse to take 9 bullshit songs just to get the one piece I like.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Maradine]

Bang Camaro

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a bunch of times at local concerts. I also play on buying the new Radiohead album because I like what they're doing (and they're a fantastic band).

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I've bought music from the artist in person.

-too lazy to log in

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[freakmn]

I'd say that I do about 80% of the time. The last CD I purchased was directly from the artist's website (The Cat Empire). As a bonus, it's not yet available in the US, but I did buy all but 1 of their CDs from their website. I also picked up a few of their other merchandise (A shirt, a deck of cards, and a keychain). Most of the other CDs I buy are from the artists at their concerts. I hear about music mainly through word-of-mouth, but occasionally listen to a local public radio station (The Current). I don't claim to be representative of the masses, but that's how I get music.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Sloppy]

How many people have ever bought music direct-from-the-artist over the web or in person?

In person, dozens of times, maybe even a hundred(?). Over the web, maybe a couple dozen times.

Next time: this weekend, Ultimatum (Albuquerque thrash band) releases their new CD. I'll be rocking out as they play, and at the merch table afterwards, putting cash directly into band member's hand.

And like the vast majority of today's recorded music, the RIAA is not involved.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Sloppy]

Kick ass!

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Maxo-Texas]

Bought stuff from Magnatunes over the web.
No DRM ages ago. Gives a 50% split to the artist.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[mjt5282]

I have. I have purchased FLAC albums digitally without DRM several times (The Divine Comedy and COIL). Add the FLAC losslessly compressed files and a high quality folder.jpg and I'm happy. I wish more indy artists or their labels would sell directly over the internet. I also bought Radiohead's In Dreams and enjoyed listening to part of it this morning.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[digitig]

I do, often. Most recently last Sunday. If I go to a show and like the artist, I usually buy their CD. The shows I go to are mainly local artists, so I have a rather obscure selection of artists in my collection, but it's all stuff that I like and having bought it in that way makes it feel more "personal" to me.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[bberens]

The only album I've purchased in the last 3 years was a Toxic Audio cd, purchased directly from their website. If anyone's interested they have a neat gimmick, no instruments at all, it's all vocal.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Magnatune count? If so, yes.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[king-manic]

Me,
I have a small indie CD collection of home grown talent and I used to send money through MP3.com to the artists that published tracks I enjoyed. From all reports it got to the artists.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[jefreyisnotzen]

Count my vote as an affirmative, many times over.:)

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[raehl]

I have. In fact, that's the ONLY way I've bought music in the past 10 years - if I'm at a concert with an 'indie' artist or an opening act I like, I buy their CD. Some of the CD's I don't even listen to (I mostly listen to XM radio) - I view it as a way to tip the performer. Sometimes I pass the CDs on to someone else.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[BootNinja]

Yes, I've only bought 2 albums in the past 6 or 7 years, and both of them have been direct from the artist. One was a CD I picked up at a local concert, and the other was when Harvey Danger was linked on slashdot for offering their album for free in mp3 and ogg. I liked it well enough to buy the cd from their website.

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[geminidomino]

I have. I was intrigued by a metal band doing songs inspired by "A Song of Ice and Fire"

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[geminidomino]

A capella is a gimmick???

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[bberens]

Well, it's not just a capella.. I guess the phrase is 'beat box'? They make all the instrumental sounds with their voices. They do lots of popular covers and also have original music.

Re:Hey, dumbasses....

[Anonymous Coward]

If it weren't for the labels, you wouldn't know who Nine Inch Nails and/or Radiohead was.

So? That only shows that artists need advertising, not the record labels. Advertising is a service like any other, and the RIAA isn't the only company that can provide that.

All the grownups know that most of the anti-DRM garbage is just an indrect way of bitchin' about the labels making it harder for you to steal their crap.

You're full of shit. I want control of what I buy and the ability to listen to it as I wish. Take that away from me and I don't buy. That's what I've been doing for years -- not buying DRMed crap. If it's not encumbered with DRM, I'll happily buy. But when the only choices are DRMed except illegal downloading, I download.

TV commercials as music promotion

[Comboman]

The truly sad thing is that most of the new music I'm exposed to is initially through TV commercials (further proof that record labels are not the only way to promote new music) rather than on the radio. The fact that several websites exist (like adtunes and whatsthatcalled) to help people find out the names of the artists and songs from their favorite TV ads indicates that I'm not the only one.

Re:TV commercials as music promotion

[dwye]

Assuming that the label didn't sell the commercial's producer(s) on the song, of course, which is often NOT the case. A decent record promoter will check into alternate venues, if only to remind buyers that their bands are still selling music, even if the band has left the charts or the members died.

Anyway, why would it be better to find out about a song from someone selling commercials than from the commercial?

Re:Hey, dumbasses....

[smash]

Welcome to 2007. Sure, in the past record labels were required to get the word out there. But in the day and age where some extremely disturbed idiot can put up a video on youtube and become an instant celebrity worldwide (yes, chris crocker, i'm talking about you) - they're no longer required.

Tell me, what can they do for a band's publicity now that the band can not do in their own time?

Personally I think that bands are going to end up with some sort of subscription model - eg, pay $5/month or $2/month or whatever and get exclusive access to content on their site - video, audio, news, chat with the band, etc. Tie it in with some sort of fan-forum login (which will stop people sharing their account) and there you go.

No need to put DRM on the content, as that's not exactly what you're selling in this instance - you're selling membership of an online community...

I am Indie musician

[fury88]

It's coming. Winds of change are about to blow. No more suppression. Technology is too far advanced and this is the way it will be. Resources are too easy to get to create and produce your own QUALITY music now. You don't need a major label if you have the will and the motivation to do it yourself.

What's the point anyway?

[Brix Braxton]

Even with iTunes, everyone knows that all you have to do is burn a cd and then rip it. I'm surprised someone hasn't automated the process with a virtual CDR driver. The best DRM is just sell the music for a fair price. .99 cents works for me.

The Tide is Turning

[allcar]

In the last few weeks we have seen a number of advances in the world of DRM. This article is an excellent and eloquent statement of what a nonsense DRM really is. Critically, it is written by a guy in a very influential position. Coupled with the launch of Amazon's MP3 service (sadly only in the US, at least nominally) and the continuing deluge of bad publicity for DRM, the labels will eventually have to see sense. Oh, they won't just crumble overnight. There will continue to be a spate of ugly trials and the RIAA will even win some (especially when the defendants are stupid enough to lie in court), but actually all that achieves is more bad publicity for them. They'll cling on to their outmoded business model for as long as they can, but it can't and wont last. It's about time!

Re:The Tide is Turning

[jimharris]

Is the tide really turning? Or is their another tide beyond MP3? Are DRM-free MP3 songs the ultimate solution to music distribution? Rhapsody recently made deals to put subscription music on cell phones, Tivo and cable TV services. In a blog I wrote inspired by Ian's blog, "Are MP3s a the End of Their Lifecyle?" I suggest and hope the new paradigm will be subscription music.

I find owning and managing MP3 files to be a pain. My essay points out the trouble I have maintaining LPs and CDs and MP3s will be the same. I stopped buying movie DVDs because Netflix is just a better model. Rhapsody frees me in the same way. I even make a point that subscription music could also be DRM free if it was a common form of music marketing. Once you discover the pleasure of net music you realize owning music is so 20th century. The ease of use is like comparing regular TV and DVR TV.

Jim Harris

Re:Hey, dumbasses....

[Vexorian]

No nine inch nails or radiohead? Huh, yay!!!1. Where do I sign to live in a world without the music labels?

Yahoo Music Unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

So what does this mean for customers of Yahoo Music Unlimited, Yahoo's music subscription business based on DRMed WMAs? If they say they are not going to be involved in DRM any longer, does this mean that they are going to shut down the YMU service. Its a shame. The service was cheap, about $12/month, and you could have unlimited players and up to 3 computers authorized at any time (my home desktop machine, the one connected to the television/stereo and the work laptop) and I could listen to anything any time anywhere I was.... cost was less that keeping my own server up and running and backed up regularly. If it goes away, I will actually be sorry to see it go, though I know that there is no love for the subscription model around here.

I did

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought some creative-commons-licensed music directly from the artist (Jonathan Coulton).

I have also bought music through Magnatune and Emusic, but I don't know if those count.

Yes I have

[anti-human 1]

The Shizit. Based out of Seattle, (I don't live there anymore) I have purchased plenty of stuff directly from indie bands. Also got a lot of stuff for free.

Quite the opposite

[PMBjornerud]

I have bought music directly from the artist.

However, I have never bought anything from the RIAA (or any label remotely related).

I think God modded me +5 (Fuck the RIAA) for that.

w00t for indie bands

[indiejade]

It's amazing how little bands or artists themselves actually get of the $12.99 - $18.99 typical selling price of an album. In grad school, I took a negotiations class and one of the mock negotiations was for a typical record label and band. . . breaking down the actual cost of the deal, the record label often makes more money per album than the band itself makes from the album, factoring in a variety of legal/inflated expenses.

Re:w00t for indie bands

[crusher-1]

For an artist or band getting signed for the first record deal (usually a 3 or sometimes a 5 record deal - think the band Boston) most artist/bands are doing well if they get 5 points on the contract. If the band is successful and makes money then when it comes time to sign a new contract they can arbitrate for a larger percentage of the take - but the Labels almost always take the Lions share of the income.

Indie bands and indie labels paired with internet distribution channels are really what scares the shit out of the RIAA affiliates (case in point... the brick and morter record shops are dust and so is the market lock the labels had).

Expect to see more artist saying bye bye to the Labels and if enough critical mass happens then Apple and iTunes will be left with little recourse at that point. But it will most likely get a lot nastier before it's settled - the RIAA affiliates feel as though they're fighting for their life - and given their inability to adapt to the new market and putting their client base in the role of a criminal, one could say "a fight for their life" may be an accurate characterization of the RIAA/Labels position...

Personally my heart bleeds for those relying on DRM to secure their market channels.

So

[ghjm]

You are correct, of course, that filesharers are acting out of personal greed, as are the RIAA member labels. But so what? The American revolutionaries were acting out of personal greed; they didn't want to pay taxes to the British government. But we still call them freedom fighters. The question isn't whether people are acting out of noble motives; it is whether or not their greed is justified.

At the time of the American revolution, the British government made all the same arguments the RIAA members make now. The British government / RIAA can say that they paid to create the desirable item, that they paid to promote it and make its desirability evident, that they have the courts and legal system backing their ownership of it, and that people who take it without paying are thieves - or if not thieves, then some other kind of criminals (copyright infringers / tax avoiders). Freedom fighers are always criminals, because if the law respected the freedoms they (greedily) desire, they would not have to fight for them.

So yes, filesharers are acting out of personal greed. But that doesn't mean their cause is wrong. The principled argument in favor of filesharing is that copyright exists not to convey absolute property rights to the creator of a work, but to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences; that this implies the public has an ownership in copyrighted works just as essential and protected as that of the creator; and that current copyright law excessively rewards the creators of works without giving due consideration to the public interest. If you buy this argument, then filesharers are freedom fighters, regardless of their motives.

-Graham

Re:So

[Incongruity]

The question isn't whether people are acting out of noble motives; it is whether or not their greed is justified. --snip-- So yes, filesharers are acting out of personal greed. But that doesn't mean their cause is wrong.

See, that's just the thing -- in the cases where they're acting out of self-interested greed (which, again, I have said I can't really blame given the circumstances) they don't have a "cause" (other than their own self-interest, by the very definition of the word 'cause':

a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate : she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people.

It's not a 'cause' until and unless you have that high-minded intention rooted in some fundamental belief about the principle of the matter.

The principled argument in favor of filesharing is that copyright exists not to convey absolute property rights to the creator of a work, but to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences; that this implies the public has an ownership in copyrighted works just as essential and protected as that of the creator; and that current copyright law excessively rewards the creators of works without giving due consideration to the public interest. If you buy this argument, then filesharers are freedom fighters, regardless of their motives.

Hardly. You confuse congruity with identity. Just because someone handcuffs a person, that act doesn't make them a police officer, likewise, just because someone puts out a fire in their own kitchen, they're not a firefighter -- now, if they ran across the street and started hosing down their neighbors house as it was going up in flames, you might have a point. Being a freedom fighter means fighting for freedom -- not just demanding the unrestricted exercise of your own. No, it requires fighting for some larger, more generalized sense of freedom for yourself and others -- that's the principle, that's the cause of Freedom. Acting only for yourself, without intent or commitment to that larger cause isn't 'freedom-fighting'. To see it otherwise would be contradictory as you're not fighting for 'freedom', the concept, you're fighting for your personal desires and that ain't anything special -- that's just good old self interest and/or greed. To be sure, those have their place and value but they are not freedom-fighting, no matter how many post-hoc justifications people want to make.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it requires fighting for some larger, more generalized sense of freedom for yourself and others -- that's the principle, that's the cause of Freedom. Acting only for yourself, without intent or commitment to that larger cause isn't 'freedom-fighting'. To see it otherwise would be contradictory as you're not fighting for 'freedom', the concept, you're fighting for your personal desires and that ain't anything special -- that's just good old self interest and/or greed. To be sure, those have their place and value but they are not freedom-fighting, no matter how many post-hoc justifications people want to make. How is it personal "greed" when someone *uploads* copyrighted content? This is nothing short of an anti-copyright revolution. The Boston Tea Party had a few thousands of dollars worth of tea dumped into the public domain sea? We've seen billions if not trillions of dollars worth of content dumped onto the public domain internet. And everyone can make their own copy without depriving anyone else of their pre-existing copies. Just like with words. There's no physical material limit as to how many times a particular word can be used. There's no physical limitation to more than one person using the same word at the same time.

"Making available" isn't just acting for your own personal greed, it's acting for the general benefit of free enjoyment for all. That's what peer to peer implies. And this is creative copied production made upon material property that doesn't belong to the creators of content. It's newly created wealth that erases previous existing marginal scarcity.

And absolutely every creative artist benefits from free trade file sharing. No single artist can create more content than the sum total of content created by all other artists. Thus, if intellectual artistic content even has real VALUE, every productive artist is rewarded far more than their own meager productive art by having free access to everyone else's artistic content. Every artist is rewarded trillions to the trillionth power in advance of their own intellectual contributions, even if they don't create anything at all, even if they create the next greatest thing since sliced bread. We have not seen a single magnificent invention or revolutionary artistic work that was not built upon the shoulders of previously existing giants. They all STUDIED their crafts. How did they STUDY their crafts? How did they LEARN their crafts? By COPYING, plain and simple.

I give free lessons in economics and epistemology by almost daily upbraiding ignorance. We freely voluntarily contribute entertaining and educational posts. We freely voluntarily read entertaining and educational posts. It's time for everyone else to get in line, and cease with their phony claims of non-tangible non-circumscribable non-scarce intellectual non-"property". We have a natural right to mimic and copy anybody we feel like mimicking or copying. It deprives nobody of material physical property. And people still talk, even though they aren't being paid to talk, as evidenced by posts on this forum. And our talk is no less of a intellectual production than that of any musician, any programmer, any professor, anyone's whatsoever.

Re:So

[Incongruity]

"Making available" isn't just acting for your own personal greed, it's acting for the general benefit of free enjoyment for all. That's what peer to peer implies. And this is creative copied production made upon material property that doesn't belong to the creators of content. It's newly created wealth that erases previous existing marginal scarcity.

In your haste to read way more into what I wrote than was there, you allowed your emotions to lead you to confusing the technology employed vs. the intentions and motivations of the users. See the post elsewhere in this thread, but basically, it's a documented fact that many many more people go to filesharing systems to download rather than upload -- and greed and/or personal interest is at the heart of that. Beyond that, you really are chasing your tail arguing about intellectual property rights and the like -- I've not made any arguments pro or con on the matter, so, well, good for you, I guess, but you're off topic here...

Lemme guess, you fancy yourself a freedom fighter, don't you?

Re:So

[monxrtr]

In your haste to read way more into what I wrote than was there, you allowed your emotions to lead you to confusing the technology employed vs. the intentions and motivations of the users. See the post elsewhere in this thread, but basically, it's a documented fact that many many more people go to filesharing systems to download rather than upload -- and greed and/or personal interest is at the heart of that. People don't upload as much as they download because of FEAR of being punished for file sharing. It wouldn't surprise me that in a copyright free environment the vast majority of P2P users would also simultaneously be uploaders; at a minimum, the proportion that uploads would be significantly higher than it is now. People would find it cool that someone else enjoys the same content as they themselves enjoy. Sharing content files would be no different than water cooler talk about media events, such as sports, movies, news, television shows.

So no, I would argue that FEAR is at the heart of the fact that many more people go to filesharing systems to download rather than upload.

Lemme guess, you fancy yourself a freedom fighter, don't you? I'm not a frontline in the trenches uploader if that's what you mean. But yes, I'm out there outlining defensive and offensive strategies to further the abolition of intellectual non-"property". Though "generalissimo" has a nice ring to it. :D I'm fascinated by the economic and epistemological implications of the debate. I think were in the middle of vast historical torrents of change. Any moral, philosophical, epistemological, or economic basis or justification for intellectual non-"property" is being washed away by quickly improving scientific analysis and deduction. And I'm a huge contributor there, making sure participants in the debate can avail themselves to these techniques of analysis.

But "greed" really is immaterial to the analysis from a strict economic perspective. All action is aimed at going from a state of greater dissatisfaction to a state of lesser dissatisfaction. Action only occurs because people are in a state of dissatisfaction. There'd be no reason to act otherwise. All action whatsoever is "greed", aimed at getting to a state of lesser dissatisfaction.

http://www.mises.org/resources/3250

And yes, people do greedily share too because they enjoy others enjoying what they themselves enjoy, especially when non scarcity cost is relatively minimal. The incentives to share are multi-faceted. People freely share their thoughts on forums like this, out of strict greed, whether to prove points, derail troll, or "altruistically" advance the knowledge of others. The act of writing and choosing to post shows at the time the post was made, that action not only increased subjective wealth for the poster, but was the most effective increase of subjective wealth available for the poster at that time, given their non-omniscient knowledge and momentary optional choice possibilities.

There's a desire behind every action, including posting, including reading posts. And people also may greedily not want to share a secluded spot on a tropical beach. People may want to have "in" cliques where they don't want just anyone else enjoying what they enjoy. And others may greedily want to over-saturate the market with some content to greedily deprive some clique of derived status from relatively rare enjoyment of some content. And still others may greedily compete to prevent the content of others being heard rather than their own content heard. The motives can span the entire spectrum of motivation, but all of them are inherently "greedy".

OT: which ebook reader?

[grimwell]

I've dropped literally hundreds of dollars at webscription.net, which not only allows me to buy DRMless books, but to redownload them whenever I want to. It doesn't take two minutes and an internet connection to open them. It'd take two bookshelves to hold them all if I'd bought physical copies. I appreciate the saved space.

Just out of curiosity... do you use an ebook reader, which one and do you like it?

Re:OT: which ebook reader?

[Firethorn]

Just out of curiosity... do you use an ebook reader, which one and do you like it?

Sorry, just my computer. They don't offer them for sale here, and I'm unwilling to spend $200+ for one with less than a hundred megabytes of memory that I can't handle before buying.

You should be able to use pretty much any pda to read webscription ebooks - they're available in html and richtext, among other formats.

This means more advertising, less music.

[Qwavel]

Is this really good?

When they say no more DRM, I doubt their plan is to 'sell' songs without DRM. I think this means that songs will be distributed as a service and that the service will be supported by advertising.

And I, for one, am sorry that everything we do has to be supported by advertising. I don't like advertising. I prefer to pay a reasonable fee.

I don't blame Yahoo. They came out with a great music subscription service that went absolutely nowhere in the market. And, regarding DRM, they have been consistent in their rhetoric against it, but have not had the power to do anything about it.

Yahoo's Reality Distortion Field

[hondo77]

Lame article on the current state of online music:

• Mentions Apple 0 times.
• Mentions iTunes 1 time.
• Mentions iPod 1 time.
• Mentions Amazon 3 times.

Typical of Yahoo: confront the competition by ignoring it. Just like company management not mentioning Google (except to say ridiculous things like, "This (Panama) will have Google shaking in their boots!"), Ian ignores the 800 lb. gorilla in the room (Apple/iPod) and focuses on Amazon. Who offered DRM-free downloads first, Apple or Amazon (let's leave eMusic out of this for now)? Go right ahead, Ian, and concentrate on competing against Amazon. Then you can enjoy dancing to your DRM-free music on the deck of the good ship Yahoo while it sinks.

That he even worked on Yahoo Music Unlimited strongly suggests he doesn't know which end is up.

I don't care, I'm still free...

[Nitroadict]

...You can't take the sky from me....

I believe the tide that is turning is finally starting to make a nice public appearance; it'll be interesting to see which bands / artists follow up, as well those who cling to the old ways out of pathetic nostalgia. Let's just hope it doesn't have to get ugly; the vacuum of space is a bit chilly.

Go Independents!

How do we change this?

[Kuvter]

Record companies take so much from the artist that the old $10 - $25 concert tickets are $45* - $75 and up (those prices are for the cheap seats). Secondly a simple t-shirt that says you went to the concert is $40* and a hoodie outrageously $100* (*Prices from a Smashing Pumpkins Concert 7 Oct 07). Promotion is expensive, but they still take too much from the artist.

If you buy the artist CD they'll probably make a dollar. If you buy this over priced ticket or clothing they'll get a lot more from you, to make a guess, 60% or more of the gross profit. This is how things are right now.

I still haven't found a way to get it to change. I've done everything suggested, which is, go to concerts and don't buy DRM. In fact I haven't bought a CD, unless bought at a concert, for the last 4 years. I still haven't seen a change. I've only seen it get worse. I've spread the word, posted things like this on slashdot, etc. Has there been change that I just haven't noticed?

Re:How do we change this?

[justinlee37]

Record companies take so much from the artist that the old $10 - $25 concert tickets are $45* - $75 and up

What makes you so sure that the change in price can't be entirely accounted for by general inflation?

There's no way for me (or anyone else) to tell, if you don't let us know what year the tickets used to cost $10-$25. For the love of God, try to maintain a little objectivity here.

When its done for PROFIT they should be @#%^

[crovira]

but when its me and thee, some wedding pics and a song or two and you're NOT going to use it for generating profits, the **AAs should get their noses out of our butt-cracks.

They just end up with something like egg on their faces, used egg.

msb-0210 Whose record is this anyway?

[crovira]

The issue of "provenance" and the acknowledgment of such is the key issue.

The lack of transparency (you just plunked down your money but WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY BOUGHT?) is the real problem.

Most people don't know what they have bought. (The album cover SHOULD reflect the person who really gets the $ Its no use saying "Radio Head" on the cover if they don't get any of the proceeds. [Like all those "Elvis" or "Kobain" or "Hendrix" albums put out by a bunch of dentists in suburban LA, or some such scheme to sucker you into buying them by trading on the popularity of the artist.] The info should either be on the cover, in proportion to the portion of your dollar going to whom, or for existing albums, that information should be on a CDDB type database. [Along with track names and cover art])

----

Likewise the expression "all rights reserved" should NOT be taken for granted.

What ARE those rights?

I would also list them in a CDDB type database

Most people don't know what rights they have after shelling out their money.

The people(TM) either have a right to know, or the sellers should NOT be allowed SELL THE FRIGGIN' MUSIC.

This requires NO DISCLOSURE of any confidential information. (no volumetrics).

----

Shine a light on the contracts (and see which companies run like cockroaches when you turn on the light in the kitchen.)

steal this idea

[enjahova]

It's only worse in the artificial world of IP. The reason most people don't steal is not because its against the law, its because the law just reinforces human nature. Copyright and IP is contrived in response to the slow and uneven development of technology. At this point it has become unnatural and goes against the grain of human nature.
Ever noticed that when you have a good idea you want to tell somebody? Yeah, sure it would be great if you could make money off it, but just because its a good idea doesn't mean you deserve to bank on it. It's not a RIGHT to make money off of ideas, its a just a pleasant idea :) Unfortunately it's not working, we are finding out that its not possible to create the artificial scarcity that would let us treat ideas as property. Every DRM scheme invented has been cracked, every work that has been digitally encoded can be transmitted to millions of people over the entire globe within seconds. You CAN'T lock it down, you can't stop it, and it will just get easier as the technology gets polished. Trying to hold on to the idea that we can make a market of ideas will leave you in the same camp as scribes, printing press operators, typists, etc. that is to say, obsolete.

Re:steal this idea

[rizzo420]

so are you saying that artists and musicians should just get real jobs? how about programmers? they should just write code and give it all away for free making money doing something else because it's not real work? give me a break.

Re:steal this idea

[enjahova]

You aren't really understanding the point. Those things are real work, but the reality of the situation is that its going to get harder and harder making money by selling COPIES of the work.
I make a living programming for people that make money off my work without copyrighting anything. Have you ever heard of open source? Did you know musicians existed before the 1930s when copyrights started applying to music? Did you know scientists invented things before there was a patent office?

I'm not saying people will have to do something else, but they will have to find different ways to make money off it. The value for the last 100 years has been in the copies, but since copies are becoming worthless (in the sense that the work in reproduction/distribution is nearing 0) it's my prediction that the value will go back to being in the artist/musician/programmer.

Re:steal this idea

[cpt kangarooski]

Did you know musicians existed before the 1930s when copyrights started applying to music?

I believe you mean the 1830's.

Responsibility

[sxmjmae]

Why it is the responsibility of software, hardware, etc to enforce the DRM?
Are the car manufactures required to implement speed controls so you do not break the speed limit?
I really hate that Microsoft is trying to enforce the DRM - why is it there responsibility to do it?
If Microsoft is required to implement the DRM so Microsoft can provide a DVD decoder for the movie then Microsoft should say fine we will not include your decoder - if the user wants to play your company's DVD on our software OS you should provide your own DVD player/decoder (BTW: Microsoft is not responsible if through some patch or update your software no longer works). From Microsoft point of view I would be pissed at the DVD company rather than Microsoft.

I just do not see why it DRM is trying to force hardware and software developers to be the police. Do they get extra pay every time some tries to break the DRM?

UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[tepples]

I'll normally download cracked executables for games even though I purchased it, that'd make for an interesting court battle when they claim I pirated software and I produce a receipt from before they say I downloaded it. I wouldn't find it so interesting. The copyright owner would likely have an open and shut case against you in those jurisdictions where the reasoning of UMG Recordings v. MP3.com applies.

Re:UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[Firethorn]

They'd still have a harder case against me - I'm not distributing, nor even keeping excess copies of data - I replace one executable with a slightly modified one. I have a valid code, still have the media, etc...

Given how uniformly software licenses are thrown out,

Three examples of being bound

[tepples]

Most music consumers are bound by contract to a certain vendor? Minor children are bound by mandatory school attendance laws to a certain vendor: whoever puts the songs on the local top-40 FM radio station that the school bus plays. People who live in cities are bound by zoning ordinances to buy food at grocery stores, all of which happen to play proprietary music over the PA system when they aren't announcing a blue light special or calling a CSM to the service desk. People who have an iPod audio player are bound by pain of having to buy a new music player to either Apple (operator of iTunes Store) or Thomson Multimedia (the MP3 patent holder, which controls licensing for DRM-free online stores).

or is the money wider spread?

[Anonymous Coward]

there are DVDs, consoles, games, ring tunes, texting and so on, all competing fot the teen dollar.

Since the field is 3x wider, why are you suprised that the old entertainment industry isn't getting as much?

Re:or is the money wider spread?

[east coast]

Since the field is 3x wider, why are you suprised that the old entertainment industry isn't getting as much?

It's not that I'm saying your wrong about spreading the wealth but your 3x figure is way too high. Do you honestly think that we didn't have most of this 20 years ago too? I remember when prerecorded movies were expensive. You think 20 is high to pay for a DVD? That use to be the low end. We had games and they were just as expensive in adjusted price. Ring tones and texting? Are you kidding me? 5 bucks for a months worth of testing and how many ring tones can one download in a month. I bet the average teen isn't paying as much as they'd pay for a single CD or iTunes album as what they're paying for text and ringtones put together.

Entertainment is getting cheaper. Most of what you see as new entertainment existed before in some other form with the exception of cell phones and when cells weren't around just about every teen I knew had a separate phone line for their personal use. It cost nearly as much as a low end cell plan.

I would go as far as to say that entertainment is probably costing less today. A blank CD costs about 10% of what a blank cassette cost in the 80s. And that's without adjusted price and that's if you're not getting the freebie offers that most places run about once every two weeks.

And a portable player is no more expensive. I paid over 250 USD for my Sony Discman in the early 90s. I've seen them at WalMart for about 20 now.

Not to mention movie rentals. I remember when movies were 4 bucks a day to rent. 18 bucks a month for 3 movies at a time? And the selection that you have?

So yeah, now I am going to say that your 3x figure is way too high. To have the same entertainment today as what we had in the late 80s and early 90s is much cheaper today.