Record Labels Change Minds About Sharing MP3s

Mass Defect writes "While the RIAA continues to sue people for p2p file sharing, the record labels have made an about-face and given their blessing to users sharing MP3s via the social networking site imeem.com. In May this year the site was being sued by Warner for allowing users to upload photos, videos, and music to share. However to everyone's amazement, instead of being flattened, imeem.com managed to convince the label that this free promotion was a good thing. In July imeem.com signed a deal with the label. Since then the site has added Sony, BMG, EMI, and now the biggest fish of them all, Universal. Imeem now has the royal flush of record labels supporting its media-sharing service, each getting a cut of the advertising revenues generated by their catalog. Finally someone has figured out a way to do 'YouTube for MP3s' without getting sued out of existence."

Comments

A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[daveschroeder]

"these 30 sec peview are dumb u cant even steal songs from here how is ti possible to download. plus these are intended to have em in our page we can never put dem in our ipods and such ya know. get rid of da 30 sec limit quick or da 50 cent guy below u will be right about losing alot of members"

(Imeem is not intended for you to download the music, have it on your iPod, etc...that's the whole point. Oh, so sorry; will they really be losing a lot of members unless they make all the songs full-length and downloadable for free? Why didn't they think of that before!)

"I think this is a good news for all who want to make some good Ipod downloads for themselves or want to have the good music on there PC."

(Yeah, it's great news for people who want to do nothing else other than try to figure out ways to steal* music, and ruin an idea like Imeem for everyone else.)

* Oops, I don't mean "steal". I mean "infringe the copyright of". Because the difference totally matters, and makes the latter totally okay. Because the copyright system is so, "broken", you know. Gotcha. My bad.

Good thing there's so many honest people out there not constantly looking to scam the system!

"Imeem.com is a site that offers users to upload songs, make playlists, and embed them on web pages for free with a Flash player. When visitors visit that page, they have the choice to listen to whichever songs the imeem's user has on his or her playlist from the Flash player, but they can't download it. On imeem.com you have the choice of buying it on Amazon.com or on iTunes."

O, the humanity. Yeah, that would be terrible indeed.

"[Some justification about some of the songs not being able to be purchased.] So, do you really think I accept of not owning those songs [...]? I found a way to download them."

Good for you! After all, if something is technically or physically possible to do, that must mean there is an implicit grant allowing you to do this.

Oh, I know I know. "What about recording from the radio?" "Shouldn't I be able to preserve sound waves that I have heard with my own ear, and re-listen to them on any device, anywhere I choose?"

Yes, the convenience and ease of each of those things is why there are, and always have been, different costs for different privileges. Think it's bullshit if you want. Call copyright out if you want. But that's the current legal framework we have, and before you start tossing around terms like "MAFIAA", why not consider that there will always be groups of artists who want to control their own content, and think they should be paid X, Y, or Z for it. Some might even price things -- like the right to play it on a radio station, or be streamed in a web page, or be downloaded from an online music store, or purchased on a CD -- differently. Some might group together under common legal and marketing representation. They may call it, oh, I don't know, a music label. Some might also realize that it's smart to pool their outward legal representation under an umbrella industry trade organization, even given the drawbacks. There may be different frameworks in different countries, necessitating differing systems of handling sales, releases, and legal issues in various places to maximize one's own return on your investment as you see fit, as is your right.

If you really believe in individual freedom AND the notion of compensation from your work, allow others to do it as they see fit.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[morgan_greywolf]

Oops, I don't mean "steal". I mean "infringe the copyright of". Because the difference totally matters, and makes the latter totally okay. There is a difference, even though copyright infringement is not, per se, totally okay.

Because the copyright system is so, "broken", you know. Gotcha. My bad. No, the copyright system isn't broken. Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country. (The patent system is another story). Now laws like the DMCA that criminalize what would otherwise be legitimate acts...that's broken.

Good for you! After all, if something is technically or physically possible to do, that must mean there is an implicit grant allowing you to do this. That's an entirely different argument, Dave. If someone is running a Web server on port 80 and plugged into the public internet, but doesn't have any authentication methods and just assumes that he didn't give explicit permission for anyone to access, therefore no one has access...well, that's just stupid, now, isn't it?

Yes, the convenience and ease of each of those things is why there are, and always have been, different costs for different privileges. Think it's bullshit if you want. Call copyright out if you want. But that's the current legal framework we have, and before you start tossing around terms like "MAFIAA", why not consider that there will always be groups of artists who want to control their own content, and think they should be paid X, Y, or Z for it. Some might even price things -- like the right to play it on a radio station, or be streamed in a web page, or be downloaded from an online music store, or purchased on a CD -- differently. Some might group together under common legal and marketing representation. They may call it, oh, I don't know, a music label. Some might also realize that it's smart to pool their outward legal representation under an umbrella industry trade organization, even given the drawbacks. There may be different frameworks in different countries, necessitating differing systems of handling sales, releases, and legal issues in various places to maximize one's own return on your investment as you see fit, as is your right That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the record labels are totally benign and that artists get paid fairly. That's also not the case, as recording artist after recording artist has come out and said. You also make it sound like the RIAA don't try to control what gets played on the airwaves. They have rules, you know, for radio stations that says that if they want to play RIAA content, they can't play it alongside of non-RIAA content -- i.e., indie rock. Some radio stations have even expressed this view as completely ridiculous, but abide by it because they feel they have no choice. Doesn't this sound like the tactics of another big monopoly? One that starts with an 'M', ends with a 't' and has a Vista in the middle?

I agree that file sharing is a problem, but there are plenty of problems in the music industry and these problems have more to do with their lost revenue than file sharing itself. If the record labels had gotten off their ass and got into online music in a big way when it started, we wouldn't have this problem.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[ATMAvatar]

No, the copyright system isn't broken. Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country. (The patent system is another story). Now laws like the DMCA that criminalize what would otherwise be legitimate acts...that's broken.

Some would argue that the current copyright system is broken.

The original system where a copyright:

• Had to be registered
• Lasted 14 years
• Provided for an additional 14 year extension if applied for

was far more sane than what we have now.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[bhima]

OK. I read your post. I get your logic. But I disagree with what I thought your inferred conclusion was: There will always be artists who want different compensation for their art and allow for different presentation of their art. There will always be record labels. There will always be variation in copyright laws in different countries. Ergo the Status Quo or similar is justifiable.

I don't think the Status Quo is justifiable. I don't think the lawsuits, the intimidation, the harsh penalties, none of this is justifiable against a casual downloader.

I have concluded this, right after I thought a while about the value of music. Live shows have value, just as T-Shirts, Posters, and other physical art has value. A CD without a reasonable media replacement policy has little value and the cover art that comes with CD has almost no value. The actual audio portion of a song I receive from radio has little value.

And thus the Audio portion of a MP3 file has little or no innate value. What gives MP3s greater value are what you can do with them. If you have a collection of MP3's it just as important to have correct & complete ID3 tagging as it is to have the audio portion. This allows you to group, sort, find, and select specific files. Being able to discover new music based on past preference and the current state of the world of music also increases value (you could call this meaningful targeted advertising).

So in my MP3 music collection very little of what has value comes from artists, the record label representing them, or the industry associations that bank role their operations. The ID3 tags are from places like music brainz and LastFM, the manipulation is from applications like iTunes, Song Bird or Media Monkey, the advertising is from blogs, webpages, forums, and torrent trackers.

Where are the labels and industry associates in this?
Why should I pay these people a lot money when I so little of what gives the MP3 value comes from them?
Because this is the legal frame work we find ourselves in? This isn't a very satisfying answer.
Because the Artists deserve money for their art? The current system is designed to prevent the end consumer from paying the artists directly and I'm not giving money to the bankers and advertisers they do business with. Besides, they have plenty of opportunity to get my money when they tour in support of their album. And then I'm buying T-Shirts and Concert Tickets, and the occasional CD.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd. The RIAA and MPAA just assume that anyone viewing music or video is automatically viewing content produced by the interests that they represent... that is not the case. All video is not copyrighted by a TV station or movie studio. What about my home movies? What about my short film that I make? They don't give a shit about that... just their own interests.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[sglewis100]

That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the record labels are totally benign and that artists get paid fairly. That's also not the case, as recording artist after recording artist has come out and said. You also make it sound like the RIAA don't try to control what gets played on the airwaves. They have rules, you know, for radio stations that says that if they want to play RIAA content, they can't play it alongside of non-RIAA content -- i.e., indie rock. Some radio stations have even expressed this view as completely ridiculous, but abide by it because they feel they have no choice. Doesn't this sound like the tactics of another big monopoly? One that starts with an 'M', ends with a 't' and has a Vista in the middle?

While I agree with your comments re: the radio stations not being allowed to play non-RIAA and RIAA content - if that's true, that's absolutely wrong, I have much less sympathy for the artists being paid 'fairly'. I feel for the smaller artists, but blame the larger ones. The TV writers also feel they aren't being compensated fairly. While I'm not typically a huge fan of unions, I have to admit, their union is handling it perfectly. Band together and stop writing until they get a deal they consider fair.

Big music publishers can be made to pay fairly... nobody has banded together to do it. Perhaps the artists don't want to go hungry in the short term by not working, and turning down contracts. The writers decided it was ok to do, maybe the musicians can too.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[morgan_greywolf]

Um, no, you're confusion copyrights with patents. Copyright, as it was originally set in the United States at least, was originally for a term of 28 years, after which it could be renewed for an additional term of 67 years. That was up until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which changed the term to 95 years. See the original wording, which is still present in the Title 17 statute.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[morgan_greywolf]

I feel for the smaller artists, but blame the larger ones The richest lot of the larger artists got that way because they own record labels. Paul McCartney has a significant stake in Apple Corps. Madonna owns Maverick Records. The list goes on.\

Artists get a very very small cut of the wealth -- despite being the product. In almost no other industry does this occur,

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Maniac-X]

Uh no, sorry. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/copyright/ (with photographic proof) Original copyright law was 14 years, extendable one time for an additional 14 years. The original penalty for violation of the copyright law was, turn over the infringing material to the copyright holder for them to destroy, and pay 50 cents per page you had to turn over. The act was signed by George Washington and went into effect in 1790, and DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL until 1891 when copyright protections were granted to non-citizens. Currently, copyright does not expire until 70 years after the death of the creator. Research has been done to suggest that 12-14 year copyrights are optimal, as it allows the creator to get a bunch of money out of it, and then after it goes out of print due to lack of salability (NES games?), it returns to the public domain relatively quickly so anyone interested can get ahold of it. This is how it should be, but its not.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[MightyYar]

If I read your comment correctly, you think that the site Imeem is fine-and-dandy, but sharing music via P2P is wrong.

I cannot reconcile this. What is the difference? That Imeem makes money and a P2P user doesn't? That's exactly backwards from my thinking, where commercial infringement is worse than non-commercial.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[daveschroeder]

The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd.

Oh, really? Where are these devices that ONLY play DRMed content? Every media player and DVD player I have ever seen has always been able to play unprotected content in various forms.

I think you're confusing this with online media stores historically needing to DRM all of their content for reasons for practical, technical, and consistency reasons, and even that is reversing (see iTunes and Amazon) to allow artists and labels who wish to provide un-DRMed content to do just that.

Artists who wish to release un-DRMed music have ALWAYS been able to, and they've ALWAYS been able to be played on all devices that support whatever format they've chosen to distribute the file in, from MP3, to AAC, to Windows Media. Until recently, what they hadn't been able to do was release on some of the major online music stores without DRM, but that didn't stop them from still making the music, or clips, available online. But even that is changing, and artists have more options - not fewer - to release their music, for free or for money, via mutliple online music stores.

So what is the "problem" you were trying to describe, again? Oh yeah, it's saying things that are flatly not true in this tired old debate about how the trade groups are evil. And some of their actions may indeed be, in the eyes of some for other reasons, but not for the one you just outlined.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[CastrTroy]

Copyright has existed for 200 years. However it used to be 17 years. Now it's life of the author + 70 years. It used to weeks, months, years for information to travel from one end of the country to the other. Selling millions of copies of a song use to take a long time for people to even find out about it. Now we have the internet, and media can be spread across the entire country in a matter of minutes. It doesn't take years to gain popularity if you are producing good content.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[daveschroeder]

Imeem is fine and dandy because the CREATORS and OWNERS of the music, or their agents, have agreed that the music can be "shared" there, via the mechanisms Imeem has in place (e.g., playlists, online streaming, no download, etc.). If the record labels tomorrow said music could be freely shared in the form of musical notation as expressionist body art, yes, I'd think it was "fine and dandy" because it's THEIR CHOICE how, when, and where they distribute it, and for what price.

As I said, different mechanisms have different costs, like a radio license versus buying a CD in a store. It's no wonder you can't reconcile this from the comment you just made. P2P "users" don't have any rights to "share" the music under the current framework of law we have. Imeem does, because the creators and owners of the content grant it to them. If you want to try to get them to make this same allowance for P2P, knock yourself out.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[MightyYar]

Imeem is fine and dandy because the CREATORS and OWNERS of the music, or their agents, have agreed that the music can be "shared" there, via the mechanisms Imeem has in place (e.g., playlists, online streaming, no download, etc.). You're aware that Imeem only started getting agreements with the owners in July? At least, that's my recollection. Imeem got popular first, the dirty pirate way, and only later signed the agreements.

But hey, the dirty pirate way worked for YouTube as well. And as long as it is these nice corporations, who cares if they are dirty pirates.

Non-profit users, on the other hand, should be sued into ruin. They can't just throw up their hands and say, "Gosh, we'll start buying music now," once approached by the labels.

I don't share your world view.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[daveschroeder]

That's an entirely different argument, Dave. If someone is running a Web server on port 80 and plugged into the public internet, but doesn't have any authentication methods and just assumes that he didn't give explicit permission for anyone to access, therefore no one has access...well, that's just stupid, now, isn't it?

Yes, but accessing a Web server on port 80 plugged into the public internet without any authentication methods is legal.

Copyright infringement is not.

A better analogy would be reaching in to an open car window and removing something that doesn't belong to you: it's easy, quick, technically and physically possible. And it was made easy and quick because the window was down, and you happened to be in the area. So just because it was possible, enabled, or made easier doesn't mean it's okay.

But wait, in my analogy, someone was "deprived" of something, right? And in copyright infringement no one is "deprived" of anything (except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit under our current system of law, but we'll just ignore that for now).

Ok, then. What if you invent a really nifty contraption that makes it easy, practical, and quick to go into Borders and quickly photograph every page of the selected book in a very low key and unobtrusive way, and then have a mechanism that converts the content to a nicely formatted PDF, so that the final product is as desirable and functional as the original, albeit in electronic form.

Copyright infringement? Check.

Something made easy/quick by a technological improvement? Check.

No deprivation of a physical object? Check.

So how is that right, given the recognition and control that we grant to creators and owners of content (and their agents, etc.)?

That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the record labels are totally benign and that artists get paid fairly. That's also not the case, as recording artist after recording artist has come out and said. You also make it sound like the RIAA don't try to control what gets played on the airwaves. They have rules, you know, for radio stations that says that if they want to play RIAA content, they can't play it alongside of non-RIAA content -- i.e., indie rock. Some radio stations have even expressed this view as completely ridiculous, but abide by it because they feel they have no choice. Doesn't this sound like the tactics of another big monopoly? One that starts with an 'M', ends with a 't' and has a Vista in the middle?

That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the artists were forced into signing contracts with record labels. If they did so because they believed it was the best thing to do, that was THEIR CHOICE. There is ALWAYS a choice. And any organized framework for managing media content, distribution, and sales, will inevitably involve organizations or groups, no matter how informal or loosely organized, that act on the behalf of their artists. They'll take something for this. Whether it's "too much" is completely subjective, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care of the label takes 99% and the artists gets 1% for the purposes of this argument: it doesn't matter, because that is the arrangement THEY entered into of their own free will, and THEY granted the right for their label and the industry trade organizations to vigorously protect the content that they essentially now legally co-own.

As a particular indie gets more popular, they'll realize they can't do it all themselves, and they'll have their own labels and proxy representation. And if someone doesn't care about how their content is distributed or shared, maybe they'll be able to find labels and trade groups who share this philosophy.

The game may change because of the digital realm. It is changing. But it's not going to happen overnight, and the persons and organization that OWN THE RIGHTS to content under the current system of laws have ever

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[sm62704]

Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country. (The patent system is another story).

I would argue that the patent system works and copyright doesn't, because at least with patents they RUN OUT. You can get generic Paxil, you can manufacture and sell generic Paxil, but you can't share the late John Lee Hooker's music that was recorded before I was born over half century ago.

There is no longer an uproar over the poatent on GIF because it ran out (or is about to).

But that's the current legal framework we have (from GP)

When they start passing respectable laws I'll start respecting the law. My grandpa had a beermaking kit during prohibition, so I assume he had the same attitude I do.

before you start tossing around terms like "MAFIAA" (also from the GP)

Music And Film Industries Association of America. I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that!

why not consider that there will always be groups of artists who want to control their own content (yes again)

Because the disrespectable law says that it isn't their content! The US copyright law says that recorded music is automatically a "work for hire" and belongs not to the artist who created it, but to the label they signed with. If they actually could legally their own content, The Offspring would have posted MP3s of the entire "Conspiracy Of One" CD online as they wished. Pretty fly for a white guy, eh?

I agree that file sharing is a problem

I don't. I continue to maintain that if the indies would go away, the majors would embrace it. If they were so afraid of their music being free they wouldn't allow it to be played on the radio.

-mcgrew

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[galoise]

"in almost every other industry does this occur".

There, fixed that for ya.

Unless you really believe that direct producers get something above a very very small cut of the wealth in some other capitalist industry. wich you don't, do you?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[mpathetiq]

If music has no value, why do you listen to it? It seems like it would be far simpler (and cheaper!) to just copy a lot of ID3 tags and manipulate them with software...

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[LWATCDR]

"Good for you! After all, if something is technically or physically possible to do, that must mean there is an implicit grant allowing you to do this.

Oh, I know I know. "What about recording from the radio?" "Shouldn't I be able to preserve sound waves that I have heard with my own ear, and re-listen to them on any device, anywhere I choose?""
The courts have stated that time shifting media is legal.
Media shifting is also legal.
Back in my high school days I would buy records and then record them on tape to take in my car. I can rip CDs and put them on MP3 players.
Now what is broadcast on the public airwaves. I say again YES. Once it is on the public air waves why shouldn't have the option to record it or even listen to it?
There should be a right for people to listen and or view anything that is broadcast in the RF spectrum.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

(Yeah, it's great news for people who want to do nothing else other than try to figure out ways to steal* music, and ruin an idea like Imeem for everyone else.)

* Oops, I don't mean "steal". I mean "infringe the copyright of". Because the difference totally matters, and makes the latter totally okay. Because the copyright system is so, "broken", you know. Gotcha. My bad.

You are attempting to imply that anyone who points out the fact that theft and copyright infringement are two different things MUST be trying to justify copyright infringement. That isn't true and you know it. This makes you at least as dishonest as the "music wants to be free, man!" types you think you're railing against.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[galoise]

ever heard of the concept of "res derelicta"? i don't know about you, but at least in our legislature, we have a distinction between "robo" and "hurto", the first being robbery, and the second being gneric theft (there's probably a more specific term for this in english, i don't know).

So material considerations should be taken into account when determining the criminality of an act. Does this automatically make copyright infringement ok? no, of course. but treating it the same as robbery is absurd, for obvious reassons, specially when determining if 1.- it justifies expensive criminal action 2.- it justifies brutal sanctions like the ones the RIAA has tried to pursue.

This of course is related to a broader question: in principle, the means necesary for the protection of intelectual property did not violate the rights of individuals in such a grievious way, even when this violation was legal according to the statutes concernign IP, mainly because the copyright ingringement were so unimportant that copyright holders did not pursue such cases. And they were of course, no criminal offenses. With new laws like we have now, and the MAFIAA watchdog trying to destroy anyone trying to enforce their fair use rights in ways not especifically provided for by the copyright holder, the measures needed to protect such IP are stomping on a lot of individual rights that we (should) hold dearer than property, i the long run.

This is problematic. This implies that the law will criminalize a lot of acts that the society in broad does not consider to be criminal, even if the law says so. This is a broken system. This system needs reform.

My two cents with respect to *that* specific part of your argument, i let the rest slip, if you don't mind :)

ps: IANAL, but i live, dearly love and often discuss this things with one... I3AL

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[galoise]

well, all /. discussion has the usual anonymous coward trying to appear as a victim of the irresponsible, childish, and fanatical /. crowd.

Too though for ya, boy? go somewhere else and stop crying about the moderation system or how this forum is infested by pimply teen geeks. who cares?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[morgan_greywolf]

That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the artists were forced into signing contracts with record labels. They practically are. Because of the tactics of the RIAA and other industry groups, content that is not from an RIAA label doesn't get exposure. You either sign a contract with an RIAA label or live in obscurity. Doesn't sound like much of a choice does it?

And lastly about the DMCA: you appear to believe that copyright works and is more or less okay, but the DMCA is wrong/bad The DMCA prevents me from legally playing my legally purchased DVDs on my Linux machines. It doesn't stop me from doing it, but it still stands that the act of playing a legally purchased DVD on a Linux machine is a criminal act in violation of the DMCA.

The DMCA prevents me from bypassing DRM so that music I legally purchased on iTunes can be played on a non-Apple media player.

The list goes on. I'm sorry, but if I pay for something, I should be able to use it on any device of my choosing in the manner it was intended to be used.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[squiggleslash]

I hate to agree with Dave on anything, but I'm not seeing your point here.

First of all, Imeem may or may not have done bad things in the past, but we're talking about the here and now, and the content creators are apparently blessing what they're doing today, largely because the dynamic has been changed a little (the content creators apparently getting some kind of value back.)

As for YouTube, the copyright infringement that was going on in YT was never what YouTube's founders intended, they're taking positive steps to remove copyright infringing materials, from complying with DMCA take-down notices to creating new filters that use nifty AI algorithms to locate infringing content. Intent does mean something when you're evaluating the morality of someone's actions.

If someone creates a non-profit Imeem, that still delivers the same benefits to content creators and their investors that Imeem does, I don't see why it wouldn't be backed by the same group. Or are you seeing evidence that such an organization exists, and it's being ripped to shreds by the music industry? Who is this mystery organization?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[tepples]

What about my home movies? Who owns copyright in the posters and television shows that your camera incidentally passed? How will you find the money to pay a lawyer to convince a judge that your copying was de minimis or fair?

What about my short film that I make? Who owns copyright in the soundtrack that you added to your short film? How will you find the money to pay a lawyer to convince a judge that your short film's original score was not accidentally copied from an existing work?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[deesine]

This system needs reform.

I find it telling that of all the arguments I've read for reforming copyright law as it pertains to music, that only one of them has ever been from a musician. I don't think I can remember a time when so many people supported musicians: but the kind of support that doesn't involve paying for their music.

How many musicians do you suppose are aware of the problems with copyright law, yet go ahead and make the choice to sign with a major label anyways, thinking that is their best option?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[bhima]

Lovely snarky point you have there. I suppose I should have specified monetary value. As the ID3 tags obviously have no value without the audio I would say that this is reciprocal property: having a bunch of ID3 tags with no audio is as about as useful as having a bunch of audio files with no tags. Following the current CD model the tags don't come from the CD. So, now that we've had this discussion, I'll restate my thoughts: the audio portion of an MP3 file has a roughly equivalent value as the ID3 tags. I get the ID3 tags for free, thus the audio portion has no monetary value.

In truth, I find myself listening to spoken word (podcasts) as much or more than music.
What music I do listen to I get from the artist, typically from a purchase at a show or festival.
Though I do have a large bootleg collection and I do enjoy those recordings.

I have written 4 separate artists and asked them for alternative avenue to purchase their art (as that they are not likely to tour in my neck of the woods) and was unsuccessful in all counts.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Sancho]

So how is that right, given the recognition and control that we grant to creators and owners of content (and their agents, etc.)? "Right" and "wrong" are moral judgments. You're looking for the word "legal."

And lastly about the DMCA: you appear to believe that copyright works and is more or less okay, but the DMCA is wrong/bad. The DMCA is an attempt to allow the continued enforcement of copyright in a realm that makes it quick, easy, and cheap to reproduce content in an instant. Should this realm change the way we think of and handle information as a society and as a world? No doubt. We're only still at the very beginning of the Information Age. But in the meantime, I don't think it should be the least bit surprising that content creators and owners would be a little stunned that people believe it's suddenly right to take their content without paying for it just because it's been made easy by technology. Copyright infringement has been illegal for years, so why is the DMCA necessary? The DMCA shifts power from the people to the copyright owners. It primarily removes fair use--or more specifically, it allows the content owner to decide whether or not to grant fair use. That's not within their purview. It also provides methods for anyone in the world to remove anything online that they don't like for 14 days (by sending a false DMCA notice.) Sure, after that 14 days, the work can go back up, if a counter-notice was filed. Sure, the real copyright owner can try to get perjury charges filed against the person who filed the false-complaint (good luck with that, incidentally.) That may be a small consolation, though.

The DMCA, generally speaking, is a bad law. It grants too much power to individuals at the expense of the people, and it allows for the revocation of rights by a small minority.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Hal_Porter]

This implies that the law will criminalize a lot of acts that the society in broad does not consider to be criminal, even if the law says so.

So if most people consider downloading things to be ok, it should be legalised, even if the owners of the material are bankrupted?

That seems like a very dangerous idea, despite the fact it would benefit me in the short term since I get free stuff and don't need to worry about getting busted. Even if the people that actually create the content I like continue to do so in the absence of any payment, it just doesn't seem fair. And how do I know that some technological change in future might put me in their situation - a minority that the majority decides it is ok to expropriate from?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[pagaboy]

I don't think the Status Quo is justifiable. I don't think the lawsuits, the intimidation, the harsh penalties, none of this is justifiable I don't think that Status Quo can be justified either. They've caused far more damage to Music than p2p.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[specific]

there will always be groups of artists who want to control their own content, and think they should be paid X, Y, or Z for it .....and you were modified as INSIGHTFUL??? I'll probably get dicked for saying this, but people in hell want ice water. These "artists" you speak of sound like they are their own biggest fan. Maybe they expect to live out their music video fantasy, which is dying (if not dead). The market for that kind of distribution is gone. "We the people" don't respect it, & rightfully so. It's not any label's or artist's "right" to earn anything at all. The only thing that has ever truly been in the artist's control is performance. If you aren't earning your compensation through the performance of your creations then all bets are off, & you can probably be labled as a fake.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[MightyYar]

Intent does mean something when you're evaluating the morality of someone's actions. Indeed. And that would mean something if YouTube's founders gave some money to copyright holders to make amends for their "accidental" profiting from copyrighted works. But, they didn't. Imeem started up AFTER YouTube, and it is run by an ex-EMI executive. They cannot claim innocence. They very deliberately gained a following by hosting copyrighted material, and then used their huge userbase as a negotiation tool with the rightsholders.

If someone creates a non-profit Imeem, that still delivers the same benefits to content creators and their investors that Imeem does, I don't see why it wouldn't be backed by the same group. Or are you seeing evidence that such an organization exists, and it's being ripped to shreds by the music industry? Who is this mystery organization? What kind of straw man is this? Who mentioned NPOs? When I say non-commercial, I'm talking about P2P users, not some music-sharing arm of the American Red Cross.

I just find it humorous that Imeem is "fine and dandy" despite gaining their popularity by infringing copyright, while P2P users are "thieves" and "criminals". The record industry signs deals with Imeem, and sues P2P users into ruin. Perhaps the tactics of Imeem trigger the release of dopamine in their disturbed little record-exec skulls? Or maybe they are just tired of playing whack-a-mole. Or maybe they finally see these kinds of sites as nothing more than a modern incarnation of request radio. We may never know.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[harl]

Then the artists should stop signing work for hire contracts.

If the artists don't like record companies making the majority of the money then maybe they should stop agreeing to terms where the record company gets the majority of the money.

If you can find people stupid enough to sign their right over for you to make money on then that's just capitalism. The artists are most of the problem.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[galoise]

well, that dangerous idea is generally called democracy, and yes, it is dangerous, but it's the best idea we have in regards to choosing the rules that govern us. nothing new under the sun here.

Now, with a little more substance, every rule is the outcome of a process of negotiation, and as such, it has winners and losers. i don't see anything too radical there, either.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[galoise]

and that means? who cares if the musicians have X or Y interest, the point is that in our society, the protection of the rights of a few record labels and musicians is being used as a fundament for the violation of the individual rights of a lot of people. Since this violations only tend to increase in scope and absurdity, a moment wil come when society is gonna realize that the rules that enable said violations are wrong and need to be reformed.

I for my part have heard a lot more musicians, and more fervently, attacking copyright systems, than defending it, probably *because* they do not have any alternative. Specially with those democratic and competitive practices form the RIAA that prohibits playback of non-RIAA music to radios, and such.

This is not a problem of what's best for the musician, but of what values are more important for a society as a whole. If musicians can find a way to defend their interests without violating our rights (to put it very generally), they are welcome. And noone is saying "fuck the musicians", we are only saying that the current restrictions are excesive, brutal, and will fall by their own weight if they keep trying to enforce them in their utmost brutality.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Hal_Porter]

So the white majority could vote to enslave the black minority and that would be democracy? Or in a few years when hispanics are in a majority, they could vote to enslave everyone else, or confiscate some or all of their belongings?

Democracy is a more subtle idea than you think it is.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[zotz]

"No, the copyright system isn't broken. Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country. (The patent system is another story). Now laws like the DMCA that criminalize what would otherwise be legitimate acts...that's broken."

Yes it is broken. At least in my view. Now the people who pushed to get it "fixed" didn't think it was working as it worked 200 years ago and so to "fix" a working system that they deemed broken, they broke it. (Well, lobbied for the changes which broke it.)

Or do you maintain that the system in place today is unchanged from the one 200 years ago?

all the best,

drew

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[mpathetiq]

I'm sorry if I came across snarky. I was just truly confused by your statements. :)

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[NeutronCowboy]

Sometimes I just wonder - is there any government law or activity that you would actually disagree with? I'm not going to tackle the root problem of your argument, as that's been done elsewhere already. Instead, I'm going to draw your attention to the distinction between legal and legitimate, specifically in the context of this:

Yes, but accessing a Web server on port 80 plugged into the public internet without any authentication methods is legal.

Who exactly decided what is legal and what is illegal? You do realize that the last few changes to copyright have law have essentially been written by Disney, which is terrified of the moment that Mickey goes into the Public Domain? Copyright laws have been exclusively changed to the benefit of corporations, not creators or the public.

At this point, it becomes useful to actually investigate what the drawbacks and advantages of current copyright law is, and what possible alternatives are. To simply sit there and argue that "It's the Law!" is simplistic to the extreme, not to mention unproductive. The primary argument for shorter copyrights and expanded fair use is that all art is a product of what's available in the Public Domain, and that as such, the public has a right to access it and use it. So far, I haven't seen anyone successfully argue against that. The argument that copyright law makes more money to individuals doesn't hold water, as a law that requires everyone to change their windows every 2 weeks is also profitable to window installers, but a drain on society as a whole.

In short, your argument that simply because a law exists it must be good and must be followed represents an awfully, incredible naive lack of understanding about where the laws came from and the money that paid for them.

For the record - I've largely stopped consuming copyrighted media because of this crap. There's money to be made off of people like me, if I'm offered what I ask for.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[galoise]

yup. sure thing. you said it. That's the way it works. Actually, in some countries, legislation is being passed, allegedely by the most democratic of nations, to supress the civil liberties of some citiznes, as we speak. I know of a few countries where being muslim and trying to get in a plane is a direct ticket to an 8 hour interrogation room, or where magically, because of your race or religion, and being at the wrong place at the wrong time, they throw you in a concentration camp in Cuba, or they shoot you in the subway with no explanation whatsoever. So yes, actually, its just the way it works in your country (i asume you are from the us, as we already are a majority over here, and have been for the last 500~ years) too!

Now, in a more serious vein, a society should decide democratically how to set up rules to protect all of its precious values. Liberty being one, property being another. If, in the pursuit of protection of one of this values, ie property, we incurr in unaceptable violations to other values, and the majority of the people agree on that, THAT SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE REFORMED, in accordance to the way democracy works.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[jank1887]

"due to lack of salability"

hmmm... but wasn't that the whole point of the current extensions? According to Disney, et al, some stuff IS still salable much longer than 14 years. They will drag out Steamboat Willie as their prime example, I believe. Now, that being one case, what about those NES games? We're starting to see a resurgence in retro gaming. Wii virtual console anyone? If the mobile industry would actually standardize in some way (BREW and J2ME ain't there yet) I wouldn't be suprised if nintendo et al would release mobile ports of their old libraries. The cellphone toting sheeple will pay $3 for a ringtone, why not for a mobile version of Excitebike?

So, if salability is supposed to be the 'ready to pass into the public domain' metric, in some cases it does make sense for it to be longer than 14 years. 1993 is 14 years ago. That's when Jurassic Park was released. I believe copies are still selling acceptably well (no numbers to back that up. the-numbers.com only gives box office sales and recent dvd sales... anyone?) The book was in 1990, and I know that's still on Amazon.com under the 'buy new' column. sales rank ~27,000, but paperback is 5th best Michael Crichton seller. So, should those be public domain? Should anyone be able to go print out a copy of Jurassic Park for nothing, or sell my own copies now for whatever people will pay me? Should I be able to record an audio copy to (plug warning) www.librivox.org for anyone to download and listen to? Maybe I should. Maybe 30 years would be okay. can anyone come up with a 30 year equivalent analogy? (sorry, I was in diapers then)

Not arguing that current state is no good. But what would be good in a marketplace with what might be much more product longevity than existed a few hundred years ago?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[alexgieg]

Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country.

And "copyrightlessness" worked well for over 10 thousand years in this world before that.

Songs, books, plays and even libraries existed and thrived millennia before anyone developed the bad notion of asking governments to grant monopoly rights on intellectual realizations. Will this change once these rights disappear, since everything that has a beginning has necessarily an end? No, intellectual productions will continue thriving just as before.

Copyright is nothing more than a side note on human history. Unneeded before it existed, annoying during its existence, unneeded after it ceases to exist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Cytotoxic]

Maybe 30 years would be okay. can anyone come up with a 30 year equivalent analogy?

You make a pretty good point. Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" spent most of the last 30 years on the billboard charts. From Wikipedia:

Though it held the 1 spot in America for only one week, it spent a total of 741 consecutive weeks, approximately fourteen years, on the list until April 23, 1988 only to be removed by a rule change. To this day, it occupies a prominent spot on Billboard's Pop Catalog Chart, reaching 1 when the 2003 hybrid CD/SACD edition was released and sold 800,000 copies in the U.S. alone. On the week of May 5, 2006, The Dark Side of the Moon achieved a combined total of 1,500 weeks on the Billboard 200 and Pop Catalog charts.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[morgan_greywolf]

Generally, in an industrial good industry, it works like this. In general the COGS of any business is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of if it's asking price. So, here's an example:

Consider this distribution model:


End user <--- Retailer <--- Wholesaler &lt:--- Distributor &lt--- Manufacturer


The item retails for $100. Assuming each business has adds a 50% markup:


Retailer <--- Wholesaler &lt:--- Distributor &lt--- Manufacturer
$100 $50 $25 $12


So, out of a $100, the manufacturer gets $12 or about an 1/8th of that $100 retail price.

Are you telling me you really think that the artist gets $2.50 royalty for each $20 CD sold?

'Cause if you are, you're crazy.

It's more like pennies.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[DarkIye]

Excuse me? Peter Noone would never be that rude.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[galoise]

...

i agree with you. the point is that that phenomenon is hardly exclusive to the music industry.

Who makes nike shoes? some chinese laborman. Let's say he makes a couple hundred pair of shoes a month. His salary is nowhere near the 12.5% of the cost of a couple hundred pair of nike shoes.

I know, i't s a tricky analogy, but give it a spin: how many cents does the original designer that worked in any given pair of nike shoes get for each shoe sold? i bet is much much much less than 12%, or whatever.

Yes, musicians are under-paid. But in capitalism, EVERYBODY that does not own his own bussiness is under paid, and that includes a vast vast vast majority of people, specially in other countries (other than the us, that is).

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[fyngyrz]

It doesn't take years to gain popularity if you are producing good content.

On the contrary, it may takes years or even never achieve recognition. Just because an artist has done something worthwhile doesn't mean anyone else has noticed. Marketing, social trends, the right people (for instance, if I create a rocking metal track, but the only people who hear it are country fans, it isn't going anywhere quickly.)

You're confusing "can" with "will."

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[init100]

except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit

Why should this apply just to music, movies and software? Why shouldn't a painter be able to control who looks at or uses a house he painted, or a plumber be able to demand a license fee for using the toilet he installed? Why should music producers (etc) get a special treatment?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

All creative content is *bundling* creative ideas created by others not the latest current artists to bundle ideas created by others. So who's the one who is "naive" about where the content came from? If you think it's all so shitty that ideas cannot be owned because they are copying other ideas on many different levels, THEN STOP MAKING CONTENT THAT BUNDLES THE IDEAS OF OTHERS!

If these "bundles of ideas" are so trivial, and not worthy of declaring as property, surely you and everyone else can resist pirating them, right? I mean, why bother to the extent of crossing the law all for the sake of these crappy idea-bundles that no-one deserves recognition for?

If they're worth pirating, they're worth something, and if they're worth something, why not let that something go to the artists who actually allowed you to enjoy it in the first place?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You either sign a contract with an RIAA label or live in obscurity. Doesn't sound like much of a choice does it?

Yeah, tragically, that's pretty much the way the free market works. If one service happens to be of exceptional quality, there won't seem to be much of a choice. If the RIAA really do screw you over in terms of payment, then surely you'd be better off at a lesser known indie label, right?

I'm sorry, but if I pay for something, I should be able to use it on any device of my choosing in the manner it was intended to be used.

Maybe your problem lies in what you pay for?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Zwack]

However Time Fades Away By Neil Young came out the same year and has been deleted from his back catalogue. Basically this means that of two albums that came out in the same year one is very hard to get a hold of, and the other is very easy. There must have been hundreds or thousands of other albums released that year, do you want to estimate how many of them are still available as new? How many of them might become available if Copyright expired on them?

There are record companies who specialise in releasing smaller batches of recordings that are out of copyright. While it's not considered economically viable by the big labels these companies survive. Extending copyright terms (as happens way too often) makes it more likely that material will vanish rather than drop out of copyright.

Z.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[shark72]

"I know, i't s a tricky analogy, but give it a spin: how many cents does the original designer that worked in any given pair of nike shoes get for each shoe sold? i bet is much much much less than 12%, or whatever."

Well, here's a real-world example: until recently I was a director at a PC peripheral company that everybody reading this has heard of. I was responsible for about $30MM worth of business. Yet my salary was less than one percent of the gross sales! And, my pay was likely around the 98th percentile in my company.

Another real-world example: we pity the artists because they gross perhaps 5% of the selling price of a CD. Some of us even use this as moral impetus to pirate music. Yet the artist whose name is on the cover of the CD likely gets the biggest slice of the pie. Warner Music had something like $3.4 billion in revenues last year; if Edgar "I don't let my kids trade music" Bronfman's salary was, say, $10 million dollars last year, that's still about one third of one percent of revenues.

I agree with both you and the GP that musicians are underpaid. I'm underpaid. It would be a better world if the standard musician's contract included 50% royalties and their choice of color for their free pony. But the reality is that most record companies are exactly like every other big company, and that pie is sliced into a lot of pieces. It's disingenuous to call this out as an example of badly musicians have it.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point completely. The artists themselves are "pirating" bundled ideas created by others before them into their own current works. If artists can freely copy the ideas of others, then surely everyone can copy all the ideas of others. Everyone only benefits from copying. And artists shouldn't be able to lay property claims to ideas that they themselves didn't create, just like when you sell your house, you are not allowed to sell your neighbor's house along with your house. But that's exactly what is occurring in copyright claims, public domain ideas are being *annexed* into the latest creative works. This makes the copyright claims invalid and void.

--monxrtr

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[CustomDesigned]

The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd.

Oh, really? Where are these devices that ONLY play DRMed content? Every media player and DVD player I have ever seen has always been able to play unprotected content in various forms.
The only way to fully enforce DRM is for the vendor to fully control the device. This might be acceptable for stand alone DVD players. But currently, you have to buy M$ Windows to legally play purchased DVDs on your non-Apple computer. And while running Windows, you have about as much control over your computer as over your standalone DVD player.

What DRM boils down to is a proposal to prevent digital copyright infringement by outlawing the general purpose computer. And, of course, it works just like gun control. Actual outlaws will continue to use general purpose computers for anything they want, including to illegally copy DVDs (and successors) and sell them on street corners (or sell downloads on shady web sites). Innocent paying customers are banned from fully using one of the most important technologies produced by our culture. It is once again the elite seeking to keep the peasants under their thumb - using the fact that a few peasants are thieving hoodlums to justify their oppression.

Not every privileged member of society is wicked. The proportion is probably about the same as for plebians (interesting study: how much does power corrupt?). But a wicked aristocrat has so much more potential for far reaching evil than some small time bandit in an alley. And all the time, they think of themselves as "better" than the bandit because they wear nice clothes and smell nice.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[morgan_greywolf]

None of these are good examples.
The Chinese laborer is not the product. The shoe designer is not the product.

The musician on the cover of the CD is the product. When they sell a Flyleaf album, they're not selling little plastic discs, they're not even selling songs -- they're selling Flyleaf! Flyleaf is the product. They don't make the product, they don't design the product, they are the product.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[skarphace]

So the white majority could vote to enslave the black minority and that would be democracy? Or in a few years when hispanics are in a majority, they could vote to enslave everyone else, or confiscate some or all of their belongings? No, we have a constitution that clearly forbids that. Though we could ammend it to allow for enslavement. It's still crazy that you are comparing copyright infringement to slavery.

What the GP is talking about is Majority Rule(aka Pure Democracy) and not a Representative Democracy(which the US is). The latter is there to prevent(hopefully) things like a majority trying to enslave a minority, the founding fathers hated the idea of a pure democracy which is why they set things up the way they did.

However, you are still missing the point. If society wants something changed and most believe that the change is good for society as a whole, we can change it. And yes, that could include enslavement. We can essentially shape society as we see fit; as long as we can all agree and convince our representatives of the idea.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[FSHero]

That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the artists were forced into signing contracts with record labels. If they did so because they believed it was the best thing to do, that was THEIR CHOICE. There is ALWAYS a choice. And any organized framework for managing media content, distribution, and sales, will inevitably involve organizations or groups, no matter how informal or loosely organized, that act on the behalf of their artists. They'll take something for this. Whether it's "too much" is completely subjective, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care of the label takes 99% and the artists gets 1% for the purposes of this argument: it doesn't matter, because that is the arrangement THEY entered into of their own free will, and THEY granted the right for their label and the industry trade organizations to vigorously protect the content that they essentially now legally co-own.

Disclaimer: I'm just a 'lowly' university student! I don't know about the current situation completely... I'm just trying to follow a logical thought process.

Okay, true, the band/artist wasn't forced to do anything... but when struggling to make money in the world, what other choice do they have? So they go with a big-name record label who will give them only a small proportion of records sales revenue, since they feel lucky to be 'given' a chance to become famous/make money/other reason for entering music.

Next, I agree with morgan_greywolf that big record labels (in the USA, affiliated with the RIAA (I'm in the UK, but the principle is still the same) are distorting the "market" for music. Another disclaimer: I'm a heavy metal fan, and so I understand that I make up a minority of my population. I appreciate that there are genres of music that a majority of the population like. However, I feel that in the UK people are being force-fed hip-hop and RnB. There is no radio station that caters for heavy metal, or even 'good old' hard rock (e.g. AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, The Who, etc.)

Now, this looks like a sign for the market being distorted. (Else, there would be such radio programmes or stations in existence, due to demand for it.) From what I've read, this is a sign of a monopoly in existence: the major record labels.

Admittedly, I usually have an axe to grind when talking about most non-metal genres of music, but I am trying to be as level-headed as possible here. In summary: I think that the RIAA and big record labels should be held accountable for producing poor-quality music, and that artists and musicians should get paid fairly for the music they create and play. The system is broken at present.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You missed the point completely.

I don't think I did. I was saying, there is value in a copyrighted work, even if it all comes from the public domain. If ideas bundled from the public domain are so worthless, and the act of formulating and distributing them is so worthless, then surely you can do it all yourself, and have absolutely no need to violate the law by copying them without permission.

public domain ideas are being *annexed* into the latest creative works. This makes the copyright claims invalid and void.

No, that's the reason why copyright is only temporary. They don't sell the ideas so much as they sell their combination of them. Eventually, those ideas must be returned to the public domain for other people to use. Meanwhile, there are people out there who find the service valuable (even if you don't), and the artist was the person who did the work.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[BootNinja]

But copyright is no longer only temporary. There is now an established precedent in the supreme court that says that it is legal to extend the term on an existing copyright. So now, congress can feel free to extend the term of copyright every 15 years and what was a limited monopoly now becomes effectively limitless.

Copyright now is effectively perpetual because congress can retroactively extend copyrights every time they come up for expiration.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Kalriath]

except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit

Why should this apply just to music, movies and software? Why shouldn't a painter be able to control who looks at or uses a house he painted, or a plumber be able to demand a license fee for using the toilet he installed? Why should music producers (etc) get a special treatment?

Because you can't easily copy a toilet or a house. That's why music producers/movie producers/software producers get different treatment - because if they didn't they'd spend thousands of dollars to make a single song/movie/program and get one sale to some ass that copies it and gives it away.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Hal_Porter]

What the GP is talking about is Majority Rule(aka Pure Democracy) and not a Representative Democracy(which the US is). The latter is there to prevent(hopefully) things like a majority trying to enslave a minority, the founding fathers hated the idea of a pure democracy which is why they set things up the way they did. Which is the point I'm trying to make - majorities don't have the moral right to take away rights selectively from unpopular majorities, in this case record labels. Which is something the founding fathers understood (and the GP doesn't) and is why the US is not a pure democracy. Most modern democracies actually protect minorities from the majority in some way, by having constitutions, an independent judiciary or a lobby system.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Asm-Coder]

Fine, the majority should not oppress the minority. However, the miniority should not oppress the majority either.

(as for my sig, I will remove it when the MPAA provides a OPEN way for me to view products I purchase on my *nix machines.)

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[freezingweasel]

>> The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd.

> Oh, really? Where are these devices that ONLY play DRMed content? Every media player and DVD player I have ever seen has always been able to play unprotected content in various forms.

There's a big differance between "want" and "can do".

iTunes HAS to play by the RIAA's rules or the RIAA can refuse to let them SELL THE SONGS.

If ACME makes MP3 players, what will the RIAA sue them over? ACME doesn't NEED to sell music, that IS the business of iTunes.

Because the CD isn't an encrypted format, there's a plentiful souce of music for MP3 players.

There have been experiments with DRM on CDs though, including some well known and nasty bits by Sony. It's only a matter of time before a single CD replacement is pushed HARD, forcing adoption with the music NOT encrypted and thus DMCA protected. Once there's a network of licensed devices (consider DVD players) any infringing (breaks the protection without being licensed) will be sued under. Watch China and Wal-Mart confront the RIAA head on. It's unthinkable that you should be forced to watch a commercial on a DVD you bought, having it forced down your throat by the DVD player that should be following YOUR whims. It's still here though.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Hal_Porter]

But the minority is not oppressing anyone. People are infringing on their legal rights and they are trying to stop them. Whether they are doing this in a wise way is another question of course.

And before you start complaining about fair use, sharing stuff with the entire world is not fair use. It's copyright infringement and it is not exactly surprising that the music industry has set up the RIAA to try and stop it.

E.g. from your first link
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/11/0436215

"In an Arizona case against a defendant who has no legal representation, Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA is now arguing contrary to its lawyers' statements to the United States Supreme Court in 2005 MGM v. Grokster that the defendant's ripping of personal MP3 copies onto his computer is a copyright infringement. At page 15 of its brief (PDF) it states the following: 'It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies... Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies...'" Italics mine. It's the sharing that they complain about. In fact here someone pointed out he shared them with much more than his wife.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=385319&cid=21664615

I think the issue here is that the article was a troll :-D The guy who is getting sued for infringement (1)space-shifted the files from his CDs to his computer, and then (2)he posted those files on Kazaa for other people to download. Part 1 is OK. Part 2 is not.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[WaltFrench]

DS may indeed have made many "choice comments" but I fail to see them as flamebait. Real discussions allow provocative ideas to which the group may not have logical rebuttals, and that presents a learning opportunity for all.

An acquaintance, "Laura," is an accomplished musician. She sells CDs on a website to help put food on the table. People who've heard (or heard of) her can enjoy hearing her (again) for a few dollars, if they like. There might be enough left after she pays her hosting, design and many other expenses, to make up for the little income she gets from concerts. With largely fixed costs for production, etc., every lost sale comes right out of her pocket.

She and her chef husband both do what they do out of love of their arts. They're not exactly worried about whether to take the BMW or the Mercedes down to the beach.

No RIAA middleman (those bastards!) here to promote and distribute her disks and take a fee for it, nor for anybody to demonize. Just the notion that the music is there for those who want it enough to send a few bucks her way. You do not "have to" have her performances, no matter how enriching you may find them. If you don't like the deal she offers, maybe you'd like to write her & ask for a discount. But she might think, "you know, I put half my childhood and my whole adult lifetime into practicing, practicing, practicing, after expensive training." (She's a classical pianist.) "Why does some guy think he should get the fruit of my labor without even watering the tree?" Or worse, give it away to passers-by so they won't help me, either?

Add the notion that she might hire somebody else to do all the messy logistics stuff for her so she can spend more time at the keyboard, and you have a basic version of every other musician's story . Demonize the RIAA all you want, but in the end, the musician can choose to self-publish or contract with a label, and it doesn't change your "right" to have her perform for you, one teeny iota.

To me, it seems pretty black-and-white, Little Red Hen, Non-Fairy Tale Edition, for people who don't get metaphors. If her listeners bought very much into file sharing, she'd basically have to find a new line of work, one that would deprive her of doing what she loves and all her fans, including me, of hearing her performances.

Yes, DS, it's all about basic human rights, just those of somebody more important to the process than the file-sharers. Some people don't like to hear that. Sigh.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Mr2001]

And in copyright infringement no one is "deprived" of anything (except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit under our current system of law, but we'll just ignore that for now). Indeed, we should ignore that, because it doesn't matter. The so-called "right" to tell us that we aren't allowed to copy or distribute certain numbers isn't legitimately theirs to begin with, so the possibly that they might not be able to do it anymore isn't anything worth worrying about.

What if you invent a really nifty contraption that makes it easy, practical, and quick to go into Borders [...] So how is that right, given the recognition and control that we grant to creators and owners of content (and their agents, etc.)? It's right because the "we" in your statement are a tiny minority who have used their wealth to obtain laws that benefit them at the expense of everyone else's freedom. The rest of us -- "we" the people -- mostly feel that there's nothing wrong with breaking these unjust laws.

We act as if instantaneous digital reproduction should suddenly mean that all music and media should be free. No... only that reproducing it should be free. The distinction is subtle, at least to someone who's used to thinking of music and media as something that you buy in a jewel case or pay per file to download, but it's important.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there's value in a "copyrighted work". Value is by definition created for the copier every time he copies (no matter whether it's the artist copying the work or previous artists, or consumers copying the work of current artists). But the artist freely copies that bundled public domain value portion into his work. And I'm sick and tired of the propaganda which fails to acknowledge that artists copy the ideas of others constantly. The artists are inserting copied value into their works just as consumers are inserting copied value into their works (physical hds, cds, etc.). There's no need for a shortcut copyright law at all when artists can demand they be paid up front before releasing their product. If they don't get paid what they want to be paid, they can not waste their time producing something people don't want to pay for.

Copyright is not in any meaningful definition "temporary" or "limited". The current length of the copyright term is clearly unconstitutional. *Limited* should apply the same to all uses in the law. You cannot file charges for crimes committed after a certain period of time. Copyright limits should match that 2-4 year window (or whatever it is).

They don't sell the ideas so much as they sell their combination of them. Excuses, excuses. And copiers don't so much as copy the work of artists as they combine them into uniquely arranged compositional pieces, played in different orders on the iPods and burned cds.

--monxrtr

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[deesine]

Oh I see, the issue now is about how your rights are being violated! Could the hysterics reach a higher pitch?

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[galoise]

go read a little about theories of justice, or right and liberties, or law. every right imposes restrictions on someone elses liberties. In general, the mechanisms that must be set up for the protection of material property impose tolerable restrictions, as there are quite explicit means to enforce the will of the propietor, ie, he can lock his doors, and it wouldn't be presentable to call fowl over the fact that your right to move freely is affected by his decission.

In the case of Imaginary property, like digital goods, the problem is much more complex, and normally, you could end up comitting a CRIME, for wich you could have to pay a lot of money, just by donwloading a file, wich ios not presentable as a grave violation of the will of a third party to defend thier rights.

So yes, the issue ALWAYS is about my rights, and how my rights affect the liberties of others, and vice versa.

Don't be naive to believe otherwise, right and liberty are not empty words, and can not be talked about without consideration for their necesary material consequences, specially if this are enshrined in judicially effective LAWS.

ps: IANAL, just a guy with common sense.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Of course there's value in a "copyrighted work". Value is by definition created for the copier every time he copies (no matter whether it's the artist copying the work or previous artists, or consumers copying the work of current artists). But the artist freely copies that bundled public domain value portion into his work. And I'm sick and tired of the propaganda which fails to acknowledge that artists copy the ideas of others constantly.

OK, I'm with you so far, with two exceptions. Number one, you can't create value. All your doing is illegally redistributing value from the copyright holder to you. Some call that stealing. Number two, I haven't actually seen any propaganda that tries to suppress that fact.

The artists are inserting copied value into their works just as consumers are inserting copied value into their works (physical hds, cds, etc.).

As in piracy, right? Wrong. There's a lot more to the creation of copyrighted works than just copying something else bit for bit. But if you disagree, again, why don't you just create your own works and stop redistributing the value of ones created by other people (a.k.a stealing)?

There's no need for a shortcut copyright law at all when artists can demand they be paid up front before releasing their product. If they don't get paid what they want to be paid, they can not waste their time producing something people don't want to pay for.

On the same token, there's nothing stopping an artist doing that. If you really think that'd be more efficient, then by all means, release your creativity that way. You can even talk to other artists and encourage them to do so as well. As for the implication that we'd be better served without copyright law, that's just absurd. Why don't we let the two business models compete, and if copyright indeed becomes superfluous (i.e. when it's not used any more, and when all copyrights have expired), then we can redact it. However, I'm not optimistic, because I doubt people will allow copyright to die. It's essential to things like the GPL, which have a large following.

Also I'd like to add that even though it'd be more efficient on the supply side to ask what everyone wants, it'd be more inconvenient to the consumer if the works ended up being crap. Both systems could work, I guess, but copyright requires less organisation on the consumer end, and that's a major plus for efficiency.

Copyright is not in any meaningful definition "temporary" or "limited". The current length of the copyright term is clearly unconstitutional. *Limited* should apply the same to all uses in the law. You cannot file charges for crimes committed after a certain period of time. Copyright limits should match that 2-4 year window (or whatever it is).

Look in a dictionary. I have never, ever seen a definition for temporary or limited that specifies any specific number of years. While I agree that copyright terms leave a lot to be desired, your rant about them being "clearly" unconstitutional is way off. You're just as likely to get the law changed so that charges can be filed 75 years past the person's death. It's not gonna happen.

Excuses, excuses. And copiers don't so much as copy the work of artists as they combine them into uniquely arranged compositional pieces, played in different orders on the iPods and burned cds.

Well, gee. That was bit of a stretch. Like I said, if it's not that different, then take the legal road, rather than the illegal one that everyone else finds so much easier.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I'm with you so far, with two exceptions. Number one, you can't create value. All your doing is illegally redistributing value from the copyright holder to you. Some call that stealing. Number two, I haven't actually seen any propaganda that tries to suppress that fact. I'm just talking from a non-judgmental economic analysis perspective. After the act of copying a song, there is one more copy of the song than there was before the act of copying. Technically, the world is net wealthier because of copying. When something is stolen, good A is transferred from Person 1 to Person 2, Person one is Poorer by 1 good A, and Person 2 is richer by one good A, but the the same amount of Good A exists after the theft. With copying, MORE of Good A exists after copying, and Person 1 still has all the copies of Good A she ever created.

There's a lot more to the creation of copyrighted works than just copying something else bit for bit. But if you disagree, again, why don't you just create your own works and stop redistributing the value of ones created by other people (a.k.a stealing) It's an undeniable fact. Language and the evolution of musical theory aren't reinvented from scratch with each artistic work. There's a percentage breakdown of new creation and old creation which is copied into the new artistic work, for absolutely every artistic work. And that percentage of old creation which is copied into new artistic works is probably much higher than you suspect, ranging from 50% to 99% of the work which copyright is claimed upon. It's not right or ethical to be making property claims on ideas one didn't truly create.

As for the implication that we'd be better served without copyright law, that's just absurd. It's an irrefutable economically demonstrated fact. If art is truly valuable, absolutely every person can by definition receive more from copying the work of others than they can create themselves, and we are talking billions to the billionth power and ever growing order of magnitude benefit. Any musician which can freely copy all the musical works created by all other musicians has received more value than he himself has created, has he not? So if music is truly valuable all artists themselves benefit from free copying. Copying increasing subjective material wealth in absolutely every instance of copying. Ever hear of "supply" and "demand"? Ever hear of the word "marginal"? Marginal means *exact copy*. Copying is natural. Everybody copies. It's unnatural and a destructive waste of resources and energy trying to enforce prohibitions against copying. I read an article just today that said all the content ever created will be able to be stored in iPod within 13 years. We will get to the point technologically where everything which was ever creatively made is one mouse click away from being copied. It's unavoidable.

Look in a dictionary. I have never, ever seen a definition for temporary or limited that specifies any specific number of years. While I agree that copyright terms leave a lot to be desired, your rant about them being "clearly" unconstitutional is way off. You're just as likely to get the law changed so that charges can be filed 75 years past the person's death. It's not gonna happen. It's absolutely laughable for the interpretation of Constitutional Law to consider the term "limited" lasting more than a lifetime. That just breeds utter contempt and disrespect for those laws on a mass scale.

Like I said, if it's not that different, then take the legal road, rather than the illegal one that everyone else finds so much easier. And be a sucker? As they said in "Goodfellas", "no balls". Less and less people consider the corruption and bribery resulting in 'laws' in meaningless words only as "legal".

--monxrtr

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[biovoid]

The audio portion of an MP3 file has a roughly equivalent value as the ID3 tags. I get the ID3 tags for free, thus the audio portion has no monetary value.

Wow, that has got to be the most illogical and screwed-up perspective on music and copyright I have ever read.

Do you derive pleasure from listening to music? Do you agree that people who create music do so using their own time and resources? Don't you agree that there should be some form of compensation for the artists, for the pleasure that you gained from their music and the time and resources they spent to create it?

I have re-read your posts and I still cannot fathom how you believe that music has no monetary value, or that the audio portion of the MP3 has the same value as the ID3 tags. Without the audio, the ID3 tags are worthless. Without the ID3 tags, the audio portion retains all of its value.

I've tried to be polite up to now, but honestly mate, that was an absolute crock of shit.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[bhima]

Pity you have trouble being polite when you disagree with other people, you should work on that. You also appear to have troubles with reading comprehension as I have addressed all of your 'questions' earlier in the thread. I've got time, I'm waiting for the train, so I really was tempted to completely rehash everything I said earlier outlining and perhaps throw in some new thoughts as to why I thought MP3's have little to no momentary value but honestly what's the point? You've obviously made up your mind and this isn't likely to continue to be a polite conversation.

Have fun with your self righteous indignation...

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Technically, the world is net wealthier because of copying.

No, you're wrong. Each work has a value affected by how much people are willing to pay for it. People are much more likely to pay for something if they don't have it already for free. Think about it. When selling physical goods, each copy of the physical object gives away a small amount of the item's value, since the widening distribution and market saturation ends up with it being worth less. Most of the value is retained by the manufacturer, since they are the only ones who can make copies. If the media companies put no restrictions on copying, they would be splitting the value equally between them and their one customer. Both the master and the copy are exactly identical, and can be copied the same way. Therefore, they have the same value. If that customer makes another copy, that's not just splitting his copy's value, but the media company's copy as well. The fact that everyone can copy it all over the net and still find the experience valuable is a testament to just how valuable a copyrighted work can be. Each time you copy a song or movie, you're splitting the value of the media company's copy (as well as everyone else's copy), and sharing it to another person. It doesn't create value.

And that percentage of old creation which is copied into new artistic works is probably much higher than you suspect, ranging from 50% to 99% of the work which copyright is claimed upon. It's not right or ethical to be making property claims on ideas one didn't truly create.

I assure you it cannot be higher than I suspect, because I suspect roughly 100%. Yes, just about everything has been thought up on some scale, the only possible exceptions being people who create their own off-scale notes that are half-quarter semitones off the scales we're used to. I also agree that it is immoral in this context to stake claims over something built with other people's materials. However, you have not adequately responded to my point: it isn't staking claim. The public domain is essentially lending these artists the tools to build unique artworks as an investment. The artist profits from temporary ownership, and eventually has to return the completed work with all its parts back into the public domain itself. It's not annexing resources and claiming them as their own. It's giving resources and expecting something in return. It's not at all immoral, and it's a great service for our culture.

It's an irrefutable economically demonstrated fact. If art is truly valuable, absolutely every person can by definition receive more from copying the work of others than they can create themselves, and we are talking billions to the billionth power and ever growing order of magnitude benefit.

Y'know, I was playing a Legend of Zelda game the other day with a friend, and we were just laughing at the economics of rupees. You could just find them anywhere! Link never had to work to get them, at least no more than just cut some grass. It makes you wonder, how much are rupees worth? I mean, who would actually work, help society function, perform a service, keep the economy going, if they could just find money or "value" in the grass? Who would accept rupees as a payment for anything when they can keep their product/service and just find their own rupees? Rupees would be completely worthless. Zelda's economy only has a certain amount of value, based on the potential for their resources (including human labour). If anyone can find as many rupees as they want for doing nothing, every extra rupee takes its own equal share of the total economy. In fact, the only way that rupees could work, is if there were some limiting regulation about finding rupees in the grass, and each breach of that regulation would be a small steal from a huge number of people.

This is similar to your "irrefutable economically demonstrated fact". If people could just pull value out of the air, why would anyone work?

About time

[Yukse]

About time! When will they get the point that music sharing will ultimately lead to more exposure for their artists, and thus, more revenue?

Re:About time

[Martian_Kyo]

Yes but RIAA was never opposed to music sharing because of the revenue...but because of the principle and morality.

Re:About time

[sm62704]

No, because they can't shut indies out of P2P like thay can radio. They have no principles or morals.

Give them a way to keep indie music off of Morpheus and they'll embrace it.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

If that superultraawesome indie music appealed to anyone other than holier-than-thou college students with stupid hair who stop listening to a band the moment someone who bathes admits to listening to them, then the band would have been signed to a major label. There's a reason the labels are pushing Beyonce more than The Mars Volta. Beyonce sells zillions of albums and The Mars Volta are unlistenable jizzshit that only appeals to people who think suffering is an awesome side effect of entertainment.

Re:About time

[lonesome_coder]

If that superultraawesome indie music appealed to anyone other than holier-than-thou college students with stupid hair who stop listening to a band the moment someone who bathes admits to listening to them, then the band would have been signed to a major label.

Are those lyrics TO a new Beyonce song?

Re:About time

[sm62704]

If that superultraawesome indie music appealed to anyone other than holier-than-thou college students with stupid hair who stop listening to a band the moment someone who bathes admits to listening to them,

I'm fifty five years old, have been out of college since 1979, and shower daily (BTW, mods, the parent is flamebait) and I have bought nothing but indie music for the last several years.

then the band would have been signed to a major label.

Only if they were stupid enough to sign away copyright to all their songs which explains, Mr Shill, why your bands' music is so awful - they're all mentally retarded, moreso than my oldest daughter (IQ 65) who listens to your garbage. My youngest (IQ 130) listens to classical, ska, jazz, and punk, none of which your label has anything to do with.

Do music a favor, hurry up and die.

If this is true

[rastoboy29]

It's unbelievable. 

Re:If this is true

[davester666]

Not really. This is like the subscription services. It's great for the labels, as they get a fairly steady, slowly increasing amount of cash, with no reason to give any money to the actual artists, as the label can claim it's "promotional" [for this site at least]. And even if it's not promotional, it's certainly not easy for any band to figure out how much money is owed them by their label [even the gross amount, without any 'expenses'].

The end it near

[Kintarotpc]

Does this mean that the universe is going to end?

Re:The end it near

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does this mean that the universe is going to end?"

Well, ... duh.

here's the answer

[rasputin465]

Imeem now has the royal flush of record labels supporting its media-sharing service, each getting a cut of the advertising revenues generated by their catalog

gee... i wonder why they agreed to drop legal action against imeem.

Re:here's the answer

[Technician]

gee... i wonder why they agreed to drop legal action against imeem.

What I wondered is how much it costs an advertiser per page view. A bunch of kids that never buy anything could prove to be expensive to an advertiser. Remember the free Net Zero? I expect the content providers to squeeze the middle pretty hard. They overcharge for any use of their product. This will be no exception. Advertisers payments will go directly to the record companies and the website will go broke. Nobody providing RIAA content is making a lot of money and negotiations often bread down. Look at the fees they were trying to charge webcasters and the higher fees they were trying to push on iTunes. This outfit is next in line for the squeeze. They will be squeezed to the point they have to raise advertising rates to the point the advertisers demand more in your face exposure for the money or they go bye bye.

Re:here's the answer

[aadvancedGIR]

So, do they realy get $7500 in ad revenues per downloaded song?

Re:here's the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

if faceboook has shown anything the relationship between paying customers and company value is still widely off the mark...they could probably still make money with no little or no actual revenue stream... cue the next crash morons

Re:here's the answer

[DrWho520]

This is not Funny (well, funny, but more worthwhile than that.) This is extremely Insightful and is precedent for how much the RIAA-types should be making off of file sharing. As alluded to by the parent, most probably not even close to $7500.

Re:here's the answer

[MightyYar]

Kids are THE target demographic. Most of their income is disposable, and they are quite heavily influenced by media (including ads). Just because they no longer buy as much music does not mean that they don't buy "anything".

Re:here's the answer

[aadvancedGIR]

In France, we have something that looks similar: deezer (sorry, they filter out foreigners), that has a deal with the SACEM (some kind musical author's guild) and most majors (individuals can also propose their own mp3 files). From the web page, you can look for music by text queries or tree navigation, build playlist (if you take the free registration) and listen to anything you want at medium to OK quality. The whole thing works out of redistributed ad revenue but the ads are simple non-intrusive text boxes at the top and bottom of the useful part of the page, and you could simply enter the name of an artist, click on the first song of the list, minimize the window and enjoy the music as the player automatically swith to the next song in the search result list. So someone is paying for an ad I'll probably see no more than 2 min for each hour of played music and the majors signed in for a fraction of that ad revenue. Since I know that site, my music downloading has almost totally drop to 0 and I visit the site more than 4 hours a week.

Re:here's the answer

[illectro]

Deezer is just one of the many sites that saw imeem's explosive growth in 2006 and threw together a clone, their SACEM deal was announced in August - over a month after imeem's first major label deal, Warner Brothers in early July.

wait a tick

[techpawn]

Is this going to stop the RIAA lawsuits at all? This reads like an advertisement for the social site more than that the record companies have done an about face in policy.

Besides, what's to stop them from having the RIAA from going after these downloads? I hope that's in the contracts that give them a cut of the advertising.

Re:wait a tick

[192939495969798999]

The RIAA lawsuits can and will continue, because they are over sharing that didn't give a cut of the revenue to labels.

Re:wait a tick

[EtherMonkey]

The RIAA lawsuits can and will continue, because they are over sharing that didn't give a cut of the revenue to labels.

So, all I need to do is promise the RIAA I'll share, say, 50% of the revenue that my .MP3 site earns and they won't sue me. SWEEEET!

1. Write script to access .mp3 files in c:\music via browser.
2. html and script to make searchable.
3. Create Google AdWords account and link to webpages.
4. Open new bank account to accept Google payments
5. Script to automatically transfer 50% of bank account deposits to music labels.
6. PROFIT! (and listen to music)

Re:30 second clips are for non-members

[Technician]

"these 30 sec peview are dumb u cant even steal songs from here how is ti possible to download. plus these are intended to have em in our page we can never put dem in our ipods and such ya know. get rid of da 30 sec limit quick or da 50 cent guy below u will be right about losing alot of members"

Clipped right from a song sample page...

"You must be logged in to hear the full song. Click here to create an account."

You can listen to the entire song.. With an account. That is why there is so much Google information of how to cheat the system and download the songs. Nobody wants a bunch of 30 second clips of songs except as ringtones.

tag it..

[tangent3]

sudden outbreak of common sense?

Re:tag it..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the whole 'sudden outbreak of common sense' meme. Unless it is a movie reference, how can it be happening so often lately - except if it's really a suddenly not blowing everything out of proportion by summary writing people. Otherwise this is just a typical outbreak of common sense.

wow

[mincognito]

Wow. How amazing that the record companies agreed to this. Low quality streaming with loads of ads and a "download" button that sends you to the iTunes store or amazon. The annoying registration box that pops up after listening to 30 seconds of a song (you must register to hear the rest) is a nice touch.

Re:wow

[Aladrin]

You call it 'low quality', but it sounds as good as radio to me. I'm not real picky about the bitrate of music I stream... In fact, low bitrate is better, since the whole office uses this crappy little connection.

'Loads of ads' is apparently 2 per page. I've learned to tune them out, so I don't care.

The 'download' button is a good alternate (read: not a flash ad) revenue source and I probably -will- use it to buy from Amazon the songs I want to keep.

Registration is free, and what -doesn't- require you to subscribe to get the full benefit these days?

It even lets you create and listen to playlists, so you don't have to play a single song at a time. It's perfect for seasonal music and all those good-for-3-months songs that are oh-so-popular these days.

Personally, I like it and it didn't cost me anything. Plus, the fact that they got some record companies to agree to -anything- is great. Maybe they'll keep continuing to gain some sense.

Re:wow

[Freaky Spook]

I've been registered for a few days since I heard about it.

I have to say, I really like it. Once signed up I can listen to every song in full, and fair enough the site is littered with ad's, but I am getting legal music streaming for free.

I just load a playlist, minimize the window and let it play, its not really that invasive, I haven't had to sell a kidney, or hand my sould over to the devil.

Re:wow

[elrous0]

The record labels don't mind you sharing your music, just as long as the "sharing" is so annoying and hassle-ridden that no one will bother. It's like a dictator saying "My people are free to speak their minds and criticize me, just as long as they do it between 2am. and 3 am. at this spot deep in the forest with cotton balls in their mouths."

Re:wow

[sm62704]

Low quality streaming with loads of ads and a "download" button that sends you to the iTunes store or amazon. The annoying registration box that pops up after listening to 30 seconds of a song (you must register to hear the rest)

New at Amazon.Com: "How to win friends and influence people" by Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich!

-mcgrew

Re:wow

[Yetihehe]

its not really that invasive, I haven't had to sell a kidney, or hand my sould over to the devil.

The first time is for free...

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess who owns imeem now? They could have sued to take it down, but by taking a substantial ownership stake they can kill it when they want to, and in the meantime see if they can get some money through the ads.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

'Low Quality'?

All the music I've checked out is 128kbit mp3, which is better than most digital radio, the samples are lower quality by the looks of things, but those are a lot rarer if you're logged in.

Re:wow

[mcrbids]

Personally, I like it and it didn't cost me anything. Plus, the fact that they got some record companies to agree to -anything- is great. Maybe they'll keep continuing to gain some sense.

You might consider Deezer.com as well. No ads, instant download, decent selection. I like it!

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The record labels don't mind you sharing your music, just as long as the "sharing" is so annoying and hassle-ridden that no one will bother. It's like a dictator saying "My people are free to speak their minds and criticize me, just as long as they do it between 2am. and 3 am. at this spot deep in the forest with cotton balls in their mouths." Free speech zones?

Re:wow

[RLiegh]

>Wow. How amazing that the record companies agreed to this. Low quality streaming with loads of ads and a "download" button that sends you to the iTunes store or amazon.

Yes, it sucks if you want to download the songs, I'll give you that. But ads? Man up and install flashblock and adblockplus already.

Re:wow

[elrous0]

Pretty much, yeah. Free speech zones are the modern college equivalent of saying "Go away."

Re:wow

[bobnbob]

Here is a cool website that allows you to create playlist and listen to whole songs. No registration required. Of course this isn't backed by the RIAA but its pretty sweet www.seeqpod.com

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

'Loads of ads' is apparently 2 per page. I've learned to tune them out, so I don't care. I've learned about AdBlockPlus so I don't have to tune them out.

Yawn...

[moosesocks]

Imeem's missing the point. One of the biggest positive points of P2P is that the record companies, radio conglomerates, have absolutely no say over the selection and presentation of content.

What we're seeing here is the Record Companies trying to appeal to our better judgement, while making one last effort to maintain an iron grip over their content. And it's just not going to work.

You see.... last year was arguably one of the best years on record for independent artists and labels for this very reason. The amount of *great* content being released by small labels was staggering to say the least, and I'd be pretty certain that more than a few of these artists got their "big break" via P2P.

Meanwhile, the talent on the major labels was.... crap... to say the least, and it has nothing to do with the inevitable backlash that occurs between generations. Most of the "Top-40" artists are untalented, formulaic, and absolute rubbish.

The crackdown on P2P, and the agreement with Imeem is at least in part trying to mask the fact that the RIAA's members have completely lost the ability to identify and sign new talent. On the other hand, the indie labels have gotten quite good at it.

The days of rock stars with million dollar salaries are over. The labels need to accept the fact that music is going to become increasingly diverse over the next several years, and that their old strategy of promoting a very small number number of superstar artists just isn't going to work any more.

Re:Yawn...

[jez9999]

The days of rock stars with million dollar salaries are over.

Tell that to Led Zeppelin.

Re:Yawn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imeem's missing the point. One of the biggest positive points of P2P is that the record companies, radio conglomerates, have absolutely no say over what you get for free. What we're seeing here is the Record Companies trying to make money, while making one last effort to keep cheap fucks from taking things for free because it's easy. And it's just not going to work. You see.... last year was arguably one of the best years on record for people who want free stuff for this very reason. The amount of *easily pirated* content being released by small labels was staggering to say the least, and I'd be pretty certain that more than a few of these artists got their "big break" via P2P by "fans" who insist that somebody is going to pay for a t-shirt or ticket... just not them. Meanwhile, the immensely popular talent on the major labels was.... "crap"... to say the least that you can say to justify all the music you stea... er, infringe copyright, and it has nothing to do with the inevitable backlash that occurs between generations. Most of the "Top-40" artists are untalented, formulaic, and absolute rubbish, which makes it *really* odd to see how many people are downloading Beyonce and Alicia Keys torrents at this very moment. In fact, if the "Top-40" artists are so fucking awful, why is it that they're inevitably the most *pirated* artists? Oh, well. I guess there are a lot of political protesters out there pirating shitty music in a consolidated effort to stick it to TEH MANG! The crackdown on P2P, and the agreement with Imeem is at least in part trying to mask the fact that the RIAA's members have completely lost the ability to get paid for the music they distribute. On the other hand, the indie labels have gotten quite good at it... and by "gotten quite good" I mean "consistently failed to attract artists who have anything other than a niche appeal." The days of music piracy being limited to people with any sort of technical knowledge are over. The labels need to accept the fact that the culture of entertainment as something worthy of financial support is over and music is going to become increasingly unfunded over the next several years, and that their old strategy of making money off music that is wildly popular to the listening audience is over. Fixed that for you.

Re:Yawn...

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of *great* content being released by small labels was staggering to say the least...

That's cool, and I agree, but please don't refer to music as "content". Even when you want to write content instead of "film, books, and music", please just use film, books, and music. The other people I know who create things and I don't want our best work referred to by a term that only gained widespread popularity during the dot-com boom.

Re:Yawn...

[elrous0]

Only if I can kick those overrated bastards in the balls first.

Re:Yawn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Led Zeppelin rules, bitch.

Re:Yawn...

[sm62704]

Meanwhile, the talent on the major labels was.... crap... to say the least, and it has nothing to do with the inevitable backlash that occurs between generations.

I'm a geezer, but when I go into a bar downtown to listien to some live music from cover bands, do I see people my age? No, the geezers are all down at the bar down the street shooting pool. The audience at the live shows is nothing but people in their twenties.

Are the bands covering Britney Spears, Finger Eleven, Jay-Z, T-Payn, Shop Boys, Tori Amos, Hinder, Stayned?*

No, they're playing ACDC, Steve Miller, Zepplin, Stones, Nugent, Van Halen, Quiet Riot.

The young people are listening to the same music I listened to when I was their age! There is no longer any generational gap when it comes to music. IMO the only decent band to come from an RIAA label this century is Buckcherry, and what's more, my young friends all agree with me.

-mcgrew

Re:Yawn...

[cavemanf16]

Imeem is missing the point, but not because it doesn't understand the money to be made in representing the indie bands and singers who don't get recognized by the RIAA companies. In fact, their terms of service state that you have to have legal permissions to upload ANY content. In other words, unless you're an artist or the recording company, you can't upload music (legally, according to them) to their site. So yes, their site is crap compared to the ability of a true social network with the viral ability to promote any given indie music/video artist based on a small minority of rabid fans, but they do at least get the concept of allowing indie artists to promote their stuff via the Imeem site. Unfortunately, I don't think Imeem has the clout or the right following to act as a psuedo-bittorrent or -IRC service, which is what most college kids seem to be using these days to share their music and video content with one another. And here's the key reason that Imeem may not be very successful: the marketplace for recorded music has set its price for digital music and video: free.

Sure, we'll pay big bucks to also get cable, HD, DVRs, movie tickets, concert tickets, and swag from our favorite entertainers, but we (the consumers) are simply not willing to pay money to perform an activity that we can perform for ourselves with little to no additional investment. (burning a CD or DVD on our computers) iTunes is obviously an anamoly in the world of digital, online music, but that's because it is worth it to consumers to have not just the music, but also the DEVICE that makes listening to digital music ON THE GO easier than we could otherwise do for ourselves. And Apple has the iPod nice and locked up, unlike our computers which cannot be easily locked up by DRM - there are too many workarounds that don't require soddering teeny tiny parts together to do so.

Re:Yawn...

[arktemplar]

Don't know much about the RIAA etc. but wouldn't tool also be from an RIAA company ?, not sure just asking.

Re:Yawn...

[illectro]

Actually you haven't even tried the site, because if you look there's tonnes of stuff from all corners of the music industry, just because the PR people announced 4 major labels doesn't mean they don't already have deals with a load of indies.

Ultimately it's like youtube - somebody has to upload it, and a lot of people have been uploading it, so try the site before you criticise it.

Re:Yawn...

[illectro]

Now you can tell them on their imeem page http://ledzeppelin.imeem.com/

Re:Yawn...

[smellsofbikes]

>The days of rock stars with million dollar salaries are over. The labels need to accept the fact that music is going to become increasingly diverse over the next several years, and that their old strategy of promoting a very small number number of superstar artists just isn't going to work any more.

I disagree.
You're positing a world full of people who listen to music that they like. While a lot of us do that, there are also a very large number of people who listen to music that their friends like, and then come to like that music -- which is a wholly different thing. For that demographic, there will still be superstar artists. I think we'll see exactly what we've seen in the last five years, only moreso: briefly hyperpopular groups marketed to the me-too demographic and small independents for all the rest of us.
The problem is: those hyperpopular acts will still make millions, and everyone wants to make millions, so there's still a driving force to push artists into the arms of record companies, who have the influence to launch ad campaigns to the me-too demographic.

What I think will happen is that as the market continues to get more broad, record companies aren't going to make as much, so they'll have less to spend on promoting bands, so they'll spend that on a few sure-thing bands for the me-too demographic, and we'll keep seeing the Britney-du-jour, while the small independent bands will continue to expand their influence, sucking up the money that used to go to the big record companies. What I think that'll mean is less Modest Mouse/Arcade Fire -- indie bands that after a dozen years finally make it big -- and significantly less variety on the mainstream radio because it'll be just a venue to push the very few sure-thing bands. I get really tired of switching through the top 5 radio stations in my area and hearing Kelly Clarkson playing on three of the five at the same time, when a year ago it was James Blunt playing on 4 of the five. They're all pushing the same crap. In contrast, one of the small college radio stations that I listen to, I can go for six hours of solid listening and have heard a total of two bands whose names I even recognize. I love that station and it's the one I listen to 90% of the time, but nobody getting airplay there is ever going to get rich.

To sum up: as long as artists still wish to get filthy rich, record companies will survive, because they can organize a media campaign that will attract people who use popularity as a judge of quality, and that's where the filthy rich money is.

Re:Yawn...

[geminidomino]

Not until the crappy albums (ænima and later) on Volcano.

Opiate and Undertow were on Zoo's label.

Re:Yawn...

[AnalogDiehard]

The days of zero musical talent lip-syncing eye candy teenagers with million dollar salaries are over.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Yawn...

[moosesocks]

Oh, sure they're overrated to hell.

However, you cannot seriously deny that they're quite talented at what they do, and that they're among the small subset of "rock stars" that are at least in part deserving of their massive salaries.

Ditto for Radiohead. I absolutely cannot stand their music*, or to listen to the hype that surrounds the band, although I can easily see how they're talented and why they're important.

*I quite liked OK Computer. However, anything that came after that couldn't come close to touching its genius.

On the other hand, I could care less for Amy Winehouse, Britney, and the like. Even their *FANS* admit that the music isn't that good. (I do suppose that part of Amy Winehouse's appeal is not unlike that of a train wreck....)

Re:Yawn...

[xigxag]

It's funny that you say imeem is missing the point when your web address is pointing to last.fm. Imeem is basically last.fm PLUS unlimited music plays PLUS video feeds. (But admittedly, minus the kewl audioscrobbler.) I don't see what there is to beef about a free ad-supported service which has basically just destroyed the raison-d'etre of Yahoo!Music Unlimited and other comparable services. In any event, your criticisms are really about the major labels, not about imeem per se. Imeem can exist in a world completely without the RIAA, and could conceivably contract with individual artists to stream their songs, looking almost exactly the same as it does now.

So even if the labels are missing the boat, (and I personally feel that this is a positive step for them, albeit dragged-kicking-and-streaming ;)) I think imeem's business model is one which may work, and which may outlast the music industry as we know it.

Re:Yawn...

[arktemplar]

Seriously ? crappy ? well I guess it's a matter of opinions. I thought Lateralus, ænima 10,000 days etc. were rather good, well to each his own.

I wonder how much that cost them?

[stevie.f]

The record companies must be getting a significant cut from the advertising then. I can't help wondering the amounts involved that cause such an abrupt about face. In reality they are benefiting in two ways though. First of all monetarily and secondly with artists getting more exposure. The best kind of advertising is a friend mentioning something cool. More fans = more money being spent.

pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

I checked this out earlier when CNN pointed it out. While imeem doesn't make it easy for you to download music, they are streaming standard Flash video with MP3 soundtracks, which makes it easily downloadable e.g. using DownloadHelper. The MP3 files can then be extracted using e.g. MPlayer ("mplayer -dumpaudio -dumpfile foo.mp3 foo.flv").

End result: free, often decent quality (128 kbps), legal MP3s of music from major labels (where fair use applies; the usual disclaimer about not being a lawyer also applies).

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Anonymous Coward]

decent quality 128 kbps mp3? an oxymoron!

if you must have lossy compression, use VBR or preferably vorbis (oggs). if it's decent quality you're after, use flac.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

decent quality 128 kbps mp3? an oxymoron!

if you must have lossy compression, use VBR or preferably vorbis (oggs). if it's decent quality you're after, use flac.

My perception goes something like: less than 64 kbps MP3 or 48 kbps Vorbis = awful, 64-112 kbps MP3 or 48-96 kbps Vorbis = bad, 128-192 kbps MP3 or 97-128 kbps Vorbis = decent, higher lossy rates = good, lossless = excellent. YMMV (although I'm curious as to what you'd call good quality if lossless audio is merely "decent", especially since FLAC goes up to 8 channels of 32 bit PCM at more than 600 kHz). In any case, the sound on imeem is better than, for example, Youtube. Of course, if the uploader is just re-encoding a 32 kbps WMA file...

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[m94mni]

Hmm....

Are we seeing the start of "128kbps are just previews, 256kpbs is what you are prepared to pay for"?

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Colourspace]

No, I mean, that would be far too anal for the slashdot crowd wouldn't it? I write and produce music, albeit at an amateur level.. That said, having done so for 20 years now, if a decent 128 MP3 vs OGG or whatever is seriously ruining your enjoyment of the music then I would say you have other issues.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[JBMcB]

There are quite a few comparisons out there of lossy audio quality across multiple music types and listeners. LAME encoding MP3 usually comes out on top for higher bitrate lossy compression, followed by Vorbis. Vorbis comes out better at lower compression rates, but AAC is close.

Vorbis is an excellent compressor, but LAME often beats it, mainly because it's a very mature codebase and it's psychoacoustic model has been tweaked to near perfection. Vorbis can get there - but it'll take time. What's really hurting Vorbis is the lack of support in iTunes/iPods - the most popular players out there. If Vorbis was available on this platform, you'd see a lot more interest in development, I think.

I've ripped all of my CDs to FLAC, then transcode to MP3 as needed for our iPods.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[sm62704]

You can get top 40 MP3s in higher quality simply by plugging your radio's headphone jack into your sound card, sampling a top-40 station for a couple of hours, then spending ten minutes making MP3s. Less trouble, better quality than this OR eDonkey.

Not CD quality, but as good as an MP3 you can make from a CD and far better than iMeem or eDonkey.

-mcgrew

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Jugalator]

A user making a convenient Firefox extension out of that procedure in 3... 2... 1...

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

You can get top 40 MP3s in higher quality simply by plugging your radio's headphone jack into your sound card, sampling a top-40 station for a couple of hours, then spending ten minutes making MP3s. Less trouble, better quality than this OR eDonkey.

You're assuming (incorrectly) that:

• I actually care about current top 40 stuff.
• I don't want to search for specific tunes instead of listening to a radio station's choices.
• I have a radio that outputs a high-quality signal on a headphone jack.
• Cutting up a recording by hand into MP3s is less trouble than extracting from a SWF.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[squiggleslash]

So how are those gold-tipped Monster cables you use to connect your iPod to your Bose noise-cancelling headphones working out for you?

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Hal_Porter]

I hope not, then we'll get posts here about how people poor peoples rights to 256kbps music is being violated by evil DRM and the MAFIAA.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Joe Jay Bee]

That's not fair use, that's just leeching, ffs.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Joe Jay Bee]

Actually, my last reply to this was fairly glib and slightly trollish. So I'll try again...

All the time all I hear on Slashdot is how all people want is to try before they buy and want to use their own fair use rights to shift from PC to iPod to car stereo etc. Which is fine, dandy, not a court in the land would convict you for the latter and there's enough services for the former that provide 30 second song previews etc (e.g. iTunes).

Now, Imeem comes out with something which allows people to listen to any music they want, and already the record industry's fears are being proven completely correct; within a couple of hours of this being posted on Slashdot, ALREADY people are thinking up ways of just leeching music intended for streaming. TO KEEP, FOR FREE. And then, insult to injury, you try and wrap it in the flag by calling it "fair use".

Seriously, why should they even bother trying to become more liberal when all that happens is everyone will say "fuck you" and take their stuff for free anyway? Doesn't this really just prove their point about DRM, that it's necessary to stop people just taking stuff for free and never paying, ever? All this sort of thing does, in the end, is show the labels that this sort of model just can't be trusted because people just leech from it. Good going, there.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[danzona]

First of all, it is a bit disingenuous to say that because some people have expressed a desire to utilize this service to create MP3s on their hard drive that everyone will do it and then become outraged because everyone wants to utilize this service to create MP3s on their hard drive.

Secondly, what exactly is fair use to you? If someone tapes a radio station broadcast and listens to it in other places where there is no radio, is that fair use or not? How is that any different from going to a website that broadcasts MP3s and storing the MP3s to listen to when not at that website?

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[sm62704]

You're assuming (incorrectly) that:

I actually care about current top 40 stuff.
Neither do I. The comment was meant for general consumpsion, not directly to you. As always YMMV

I don't want to search for specific tunes instead of listening to a radio station's choices.
Then you don't need iMEEM, unless I'm missing something here. All you have to do in that case is turn on th eradio, no computer needed.

I have a radio that outputs a high-quality signal on a headphone jack.
Ten bucks buys you a radio that outputs a higher than MP3 quality signal to a headphone jack.

Cutting up a recording by hand into MP3s is less trouble than extracting from a SWF.
Cuttin one up is effortless to the point that arguing which program is more effortless is kind of pointless. Using a program like EAC you just click at the beginning and end of the songs and click a menu item. I'd imagine if the RIAA figured this out it would be a bigger nightmare to them than the P2P bogeyman.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

That's not fair use, that's just leeching, ffs.

Why do you say that? The entire point of fair use is to allow you to decide yourself what to do, irrespective of the copyright holder's wishes, with copyrighted materials you have legally been given a copy of, which occurs when using imeem as intended by imeem. More to the point, why would it be a problem whether I listen to some music using Flash in a browser or a nice and comfy MP3 player?

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

From my point of view, it's more a case of trying to teach these record companies not to dictate how I use their product, especially since copyright law is quite clear on the subject of fair use (at least where I come from, Finland). Besides, there are legal precedents in the form of recording radio and TV transmissions, even in the USA.

Considering that some people here on /. advocate abolishing copyright, I don't think making full use of existing rights is too extreme.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Joe Jay Bee]

The entire point of fair use is to allow you to decide yourself what to do, irrespective of the copyright holder's wishes, with copyrighted materials you have legally been given a copy of, which occurs when using imeem as intended by imeem.

No, the point of fair use is that you have rights to use material in certain ways, for purposes of backup or criticism. NOT "Hey, look, they're streaming MP3s for free, I'm going to rip them to my PC."

More to the point, you haven't been given a copy of a song through Imeem, you've been lent it for the explicit purpose of listening to it through Imeem. Ripping it for your own personal use IS leeching, and certainly doesn't fall under fair use when you don't actually own a copy of it.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Joe Jay Bee]

If Finnish law allows for taking media in that sort of way, then that's fine, and I'm sorry for arguing seeing as I was ignorant of that vital fact... Frankly, all I believe in is people respecting both the law and copyright holder's wishes. That's all. ;)

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[rhizome]

The entire point of fair use is to allow you to decide yourself what to do, irrespective of the copyright holder's wishes

I think you're mixing up the concepts of Fair Use with The Right of First Sale, but neither apply in your example anyway.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

No, the point of fair use is that you have rights to use material in certain ways, for purposes of backup or criticism.

And this doesn't fall under backup?

More to the point, you haven't been given a copy of a song through Imeem, you've been lent it for the explicit purpose of listening to it through Imeem.

Last time I checked, if you borrow a CD from the library, you're allowed to rip a copy for personal use (again, probably not in the US or wherever you are). In this case, Imeem is making the copies and is actually being paid for each one through advertising.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

It is my understanding that international copyright law works like this, and DMCA-style legal protection of copy protection is irrelevant as no copy protection is used (the SWF is only used as documented and without DRM). I may, however, have been misusing the term "fair use"; I've only read Finnish copyright law in detail; my knowledge of US law is mostly based on Slashdot and Wikipedia.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

My terminology is probably a bit confused, as I'm trying to explain Finnish copyright law using American terminology taken from years of reading Slashdot (which is seldom accurate).

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

Then you don't need iMEEM, unless I'm missing something here.

Yes, a negation. My point was that I'm selective. And that's really the important point here; imeem provides more choice than radio.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

Reading up on US law, it seems that I mean US Copyright Law, Section 1008, although I'm starting to doubt whether it actually means what I think it does.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!!

[Novus]

According to the US Copyright Office, "You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).". Hmmm. That pretty much blows my argument out of the water entirely as far as the US is concerned. Section 107 could be relevant (especially if you believe the EFF), but the wording is ridiculously vague.

I'm going to shut up now, and I'd like someone who actually know about this to explain to what extent US copyright law allows copying for personal use without authorisation.

Last.fm

[decowboy]

Since both here and at last.fm you can only listen to 30 secs of a song, how are they different? And if I don't get the full mp3 anyway, I'd prefer last.fm since they can track what I listen to, and generate radio stations with music that gets uploaded by the record companies themselves! No need to go the awful looking imeem site..

Re:Last.fm

[illectro]

Last FM doesn't let you pick the exact tunes you want to listen to, you start out with some preferences and then it goes on its way serving you tunes guided by your preferences - imeem is completely on demand, you can play whatever you want, when you want, as many times as you want. Also, last.fm doesn't have any user supplied contents so you're not going to find things like nigerian kuduru (a cross between techno and booty bass)

Re:Last.fm

[illectro]

YOu're either a) Not signed in b) listening to something that isn't licensed for your country otherwise it would be full length. presuming you can answer a or b and rememdy the situation then you'll be able to listen to it whenever you want and you'll have your answer to why imeem beats last.fm

Re:Making available

[Technician]

Is this going to stop the RIAA lawsuits at all? This reads like an advertisement for the social site more than that the record companies have done an about face in policy.


Nothing changes in the P2P lawsuits. The RIAA has been solid on a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy being as good as the original copy is a bad bad thing. Making a copyable file and posting it is bad bad bad and we will sue...

This website is not P2P. It is a post and broadcast.. There is no download and pass along a copy.. well not without some google searching on how to D/L a copy in violation of the DMCA. The songs are protected by streaming flash and maybe an identifying watermark.

The site is now a web broadcaster. The site pays royalties out of the advertising revenue. There is no P2P. Copies stolen (copyright violated) may be identified for later lawsuits by watermarking or other identifiers provided at the site to prevent theft (copyright violations). This is probably why there is no listening beyond a 30 second clip without an account. With an account the info may be embeded in the clips so if they show up on Kazaa later, they know who to sue for the violation. How much personal information do you have to give to get an account? If it requires a CC number, you are pretty much a sitting duck if you D/L and post on Kazaa.

Money to artists?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there's a defacto music industry contract item which says any profits made by the label through promotional work are to be retained by the music company in lieu of services rendered.

They then do a promotion only deal with this website saying that you can use the music as much as you want as long as you don't sell it, the labels make money from a cut of the advertising which is defined in such a way that it's a by-product of the promotion campaign and the relationship so they don't have to pay the artists a cent, nickle, dime, groat or rupee.

It's almost as if it's the record label and the website that are doing a deal, not the website and the artist represented by the label!

Holy fucking shit

[sm62704]

Jesus, I've been saying that file sharing is GOOD PROMOTION forever (just check my slashdot comment history). I've also been saying that these goobs can't be stupid enough to understand that, that they're against file sharing to keep the indies out of their ears. (So maybe I shouold be modded "redundant?)

Yesterday I posted that the indies were going to eat the dying RIAA labels' lunch (not in those words).

Is it April already?

-

Getting out of hand

[Lispy]

Frankly, I really don't care what is allowed today and what is illegal the next day or vice versa. The record industry is confused, I know. But it's not my fucking problem. If they can't speak with one voice and come out every day with a new law/copyright/drm/ or whatever, I just don't care anymore. I share my stuff now without regret. They have proven to be clueless and it's not my job to follow every press release to have a semiidea of what is legal or illegal today. Now sue me for rebuying my LPs in the 90s as CDs and not doing the same with your DRM-ridden songs last year that you are now reselling as DRMfree MP3s. You can have your LedZeppelin Revivals, I have my LedZeppelin records and everything you produce today is rubbish anyway.

Wait...

[kitsunewarlock]

I still have to pay for my music? No fair. I want it for free because it makes me happy.

Re:Wait...

[sm62704]

still have to pay for my music? No fair. I want it for free because it makes me happy.

No, you have the radio, which has always been free and legal. In the US in the 1970s they passed a law called the "home recording act" that explicitly said that it was LEGAL to tape the radio.

Now we have computers and CD burners but it works the same way. If you live in St Louis you can have seven albums per week this way, uncut and uninterrupted, some of which haven't even been released to retail yet!

-mcgrew

Re:Wait...

[stevie.f]

In the UK we have the MCPS-PRS alliance. They require payment for the use of a radio in any workplace.

"The rates in this section vary depending on the number of days in the year music is played in the workplace, canteens or staff rooms; the number of half-hour units per day music is played in the workplace, the number of employees in the workplace to whom the music is audible and the number of employees to whom the canteen/room is available." http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesses/officesandfactories/Pages/officesfactories.aspx

Still, it's reassuring that things are taking a step in the right direction in America.

Re:Wait...

[sm62704]

Um, actually they're not, really. Rather, it seems that we're moving more to your direction. For instance, you fellows have a TV tax, whereas our TV can be free; I use an antenna and pay nothing whatever beyond the cost of the electricity to run the thing. But should I subscribe to cable or satellite, which used to never exist, then I'd have to pay.

But I can listen to the radio for free anywhere; however, if a bar turns a radio on, ASCAP will harrass them for fees.

Re:The content is fingerprinted..

[Technician]

From the terms of service page...

"Any audio that you upload to the imeem service will be filtered by an audio fingerprint filtering system that prevents registered audio content from being full-length streamed to any users other than the user that uploaded it. "

This is why some tracks are fully playable without an account and other tracks are 30 seconds. They also frown on uploading content that you didn't create.

"You must not upload or present any media or content in which you do not have the appropriate rights to do so. You may be in violation of copyright laws if you do not have the appropriate rights to the media or content you upload or present on imeem. imeem will not tolerate known infringements or misbehavior by its users."

Most disturbing part of the terms of service is they claim you retain your copyright when you upload, but in uploading you provide an unrevokable license to them.. This is bad.

"Member Content, you agree to and hereby do grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, imeem, its contractors, and the users of the imeem Site an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully sublicensable, fully paid up, worldwide license to use, copy, publicly perform, digitally perform, publicly display, and distribute such content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such Member Content on the imeem Site or Service."

Basicaly you give them a permanant license to use your content in any way they want forever including distribution. They could compile your work and then sell it worldwide and you would get jack for royalties.

Common sense?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

This isn't an outbreak of anything but more crap. Who would use this service? It's like going to a news site where all they do is provide a brief, degraded version of an actual news story...

Re:Common sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would use this service? It's like going to a news site where all they do is provide a brief, degraded version of an actual news story...

Mods, I think he was going for Funny, not Insightful. He did, after all, post this comment on Slashdot.

Re:Common sense?

[mincognito]

Who would use this service? It's like going to a news site where all they do is provide a brief, degraded version of an actual news story..

I'm not sure about imeem, but what if -- get this -- you had a site with degraded news stories *about* degraded services? The news stories could be degraded in just such a way that made the degraded services appear *non-degraded* and really cool. Then, you provide a forum for people to bitch about the service and about how it shouldn't have been covered in first place. What do you think?

Re:Common sense?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"The news stories could be degraded in just such a way that made the degraded services appear *non-degraded* and really cool."

Brilliant idea! It's like taking a song and adding enough noise to it that people are forced to believe the noise is part of the music.

I think Cher tried this already...

Re:Common sense?

[Seraphim_72]

It's like going to a news site where all they do is provide a brief, degraded version of an actual news story...

And yet you created a Slashdot account. Me thinks that thou doth protest too much.

Re:Common sense?

[illectro]

I dunno all the tracks are full length to me, are you actually signed into the site?

Re:Common sense?

[Hal_Porter]

The strange thing is that his comment applies to most media. Almost all TV channels newspapers and blogs simplify things to the point that they are inaccurate, misrepresent or ignore true stories that don't fit their political prejudices and hype blatantly untrue ones that do.

If you happen to agree with their prejudices, this is actually quite hard to spot and vaguely comforting.

Re:Common sense?

[DreamingReal]

Who would use this service? It's like going to a news site where all they do is provide a brief, degraded version of an actual news story...

In that case, it sounds like it's tailor-made for people who watch Fox News...

Re:Common sense?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"THIS IS A FOX NEWS ALERT. President Bush has just announced that... Lacy Peterson... has been targeted as a top terrorist threat... Iran Nuclear Holocaust... DEATH DIE DIE!!!"

IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me!

[Reverend528]

To view music and video on imeem, you'll need at least Macromedia Flash Player 9 and JavaScript enabled in your browser.

What the hell does that even mean? Can I opt to not install flash player and just listen to the music?

Re:IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does that even mean? Can I opt to not install flash player and just listen to the music? No, it means that they're only going to show you a spectrograph of the music's waveform. Have fun reconstructing it in your head.

Re:IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me!

[sm62704]

To view music... What the hell does that even mean?

Sheet music maybe?

Re:IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me!

[emurphy42]

Someone is way ahead of you on that one, pal.

Re:IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me!

[Reverend528]

Oddly enough, I've written a song using a similar method. It's meant to be seen more than heard.

Re:IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me!

[4D6963]

Hehe, not like I invented "viewing music" tho, it pretty much existed ever since the Bell Labs analog spectrographs from the late 1930's.

Re:IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me!

[Anonymous Coward]

To view music and video on imeem, you'll need at least Macromedia Flash Player 9 and JavaScript enabled in your browser.

What the hell does that even mean?

To view music? Sounds like discrimination towards the hearing impaired to me.

Re:"Stealing"

[gutnor]

"Copyright infringement is a DIFFERENT THING."

Indeed with stealing you can get away with a mild sentence or some community service when caught. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, will probably put you in debt for the rest of your life.

I think

[Rik Sweeney]

that it won't be very long before they start adding in a clip at the start, middle and end of each song saying something along the lines of "You're listening to this song on Imeem.com"

Re:Making available

[Novus]

There is no download and pass along a copy.. well not without some google searching on how to D/L a copy in violation of the DMCA. The songs are protected by streaming flash and maybe an identifying watermark.

First of all, it is unclear whether streaming audio is a form of copy protection in the legal sense; Streamripper, for example, seems to have survived an earlier DMCA takedown attempt. Depending on your browser's cache implementation, you may have a copy of the FLV file on your hard disk already. In any case, you've already downloaded the file when streaming it (from a HTTP perspective, and, presumably, therefore, a legal one).

How much personal information do you have to give to get an account? If it requires a CC number, you are pretty much a sitting duck if you D/L and post on Kazaa.

Name, gender, date of birth, email address. Only the email address in checked, and you have 10 days of use before you even have to finish that check. In any case, why would you even want to post any of this on Kazaa, when imeem already contains the material in a legal and accessible form?

Re:Making available

[sm62704]

There is no download and pass along a copy.. well not without some google searching on how to D/L a copy in violation of the DMCA.

You can only violate the DMCA if you live in the USSA.

-mcgrew

Re:30 second clips are for non-members

[Novus]

There are two reasons for a track to be limited to 30 seconds: either you're not logged in (easily corrected; creating an account is quick and free and the personal information required is minimal) or imeem has determined that they lack the rights to distribute the track even to members (in which case only the uploader can hear the full track).

Needle in a haystack

[Anonymous Coward]

The only interesting part of your "fixed" version was:

>> music is going to become increasingly unfunded over the next several years

More is not always better than less.

"signed a deal". It's about control.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like with Napster and others, they "signed a deal".
As long as MAFIAA believes it is in control, then that's ok.

Missleading headline

[Anonymous Coward]

For every story having a missleading headline I'm now going to post this exact same entry.
Please feel free to +1 me.

This is nothing new

[sudden.zero]

there are other sites that have been doing this for quite a while (i.e. http://www.deezer.com/) and it doesn't change a thing about how the RIAA feels because without violating the user agreement you can not download only listen.

Parallel universe?

[nevurthls]

Did we switch to one while I was asleep?
I guess this means Duke Nukem Forever will be coming out next month.

Upload your address book?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone notice they actually encourage you send them your Outlook/Yahoo address books?

Are they kidding? Even stupid people can't be that stupid! Surely anyone smart enough to figure out HOW to transfer data from Outlook or Yahoo would also be smart enough to know better? Surely somebody that tech savvy wouldn't even USE Outlook, right?

This has to be some kind of elaborate phishing scam, after all why write a virus to steal your personal information when you can just ask them to hand it over - and they do?!

No wonder Britney Spears has 440,000 plays. All their users are airheads!

Re:Upload your address book?

[Kalriath]

Are they kidding? Even stupid people can't be that stupid! Surely anyone smart enough to figure out HOW to transfer data from Outlook or Yahoo would also be smart enough to know better? Surely somebody that tech savvy wouldn't even USE Outlook, right? Outlook is not that bad - if properly configured. That simply involves actually using the latest version (where they use Word's HTML renderer rather than Internet Explorer's, since it's not capable of running script or ActiveX) and in Vista you're automatically protected (Outlook runs in sandbox mode, I believe)

Re:The content is fingerprinted..

[Novus]

Your quoting is a bit selective. The important parts you missed are:

Member Content identified as belonging to a third party can be transmitted on the Site or Service so long as you obtain permission first and the ownership and rights are clearly indicated.

This license does not grant imeem the right to sell Member Content or otherwise distribute it outside of imeem's Site or Service; provided, however that streaming of content on third party Web sites via embedded widgets shall not be deemed a distribution outside of imeem's Site or Service.

-1 "Redundant"

[sm62704]

Mods have a sense of humor today. Good job!

Re:The content is fingerprinted..

[Technician]

The important parts you missed are:

There is tons of jucy stuff in the TOS. I started with one point and then started rambeling as I kept finding stuff.. I just cut it off. Go ahead and post the rest of the TOS. It's a good read.

imeem is crappy

[Anonymous Coward]

imeem was in the news a few days ago for some deal they had made with NBC Universal...so I checked them out. Put simply, it fell miserably short of my expectations. It came across as a poorly implemented, over-capacity youtube knockoff without the interesting content. They try to force you to signup to do just about anything worthwhile. And on the music side, there are so many other sites that are far more interesting. I'm not sure how imeem is getting the deals inked because the site and technology seem to be behind everyone else in terms of infrastructure, usability, and volume. They must have someone from the music, movies, or tv industry behind them. It also seems clear that this story was submitted to drive traffic to their site...maybe that is how they continue their smoke and mirrors routine.

It provides an argument for the defense

[Anonymous Coward]

>Is this going to stop the RIAA lawsuits at all?

No, because the RIAA lawyers almost certainly get paid for each lawsuit submitted. If it weren't so, they would probably be picking their targets more carefully. They won't stop turning the handle until their masters say to stop, or cease paying them for it.

However, the imeem deals could provide an argument for the defense in any future lawsuits, since the RIAA represents its individual labels. Any label that legitimizes zero-cost downloads through imeem and at the same time is suing for damages from unauthorized downloads is in a tricky position, since its public message is at odds with its legal action. It will be interesting to see whether any defense lawyer can use this to their advantage.

Yes, let's complain about how we can't STEAL SONGS

[glindsey]

"these 30 sec peview are dumb u cant even steal songs from here how is ti possible to download. plus these are intended to have em in our page we can never put dem in our ipods and such ya know. get rid of da 30 sec limit quick or da 50 cent guy below u will be right about losing alot of members" "Oh no! Oh no! Please don't leave our website because we aren't making it easy for you to do stuff that will piss off our partners!"

I realize this is offtopic, but holy HELL, our society is doomed.

Yeah, I know, get off my lawn, et cetera.

Last.fm

[blhack]

Isn't this the same thing as last.fm? Or Pandora? I have always wondered how last.fm hasn't been sued into oblivion; from what i've seen they have music from big-name labels.

Anybody know what the deal with that is?

Re:"Stealing" (vs copyright infringement)

[sm62704]

The difference between stealing music and infringing copyright

If I go to WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing. WalMart no longer has the item; it's gone. If I get caught stealing that $25 CD, I'll be arrested for misdemeanor retail theift, released on my own recognnisance (which I can't spel and don't care to look up) and will have to go to court and pay at most a couple hundred bucks in fines.

If I infringe copyright the copyright holder still has copyright, and still has his music. He hasn't lost anything. If I get caught I'll either pay a $4,000 extortion fee or get hauled to court in a civil suit and pay up to $150,000.

THAT'S the difference between stealing music and copyright infringement.

-mcgrew

Citation needed

[tepples]

Copyright, as it was originally set in the United States at least, was originally for a term of 28 years, after which it could be renewed for an additional term of 67 years. That was up until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which changed the term to 95 years. But where did the 67 in the current statute come from? It was 28+28 under the Copyright Act of 1909 (use Google). Then a change to 28+47 was phased in starting in 1962, ending in the Copyright Act of 1976 (use Google). The Bono Act is where the 67 came from.

See the original wording, which is still present in the Title 17 statute. That's the original wording as amended by the Bono Act.

Re:The content is fingerprinted..

[tepples]

This is why some tracks are fully playable without an account and other tracks are 30 seconds. They also frown on uploading content that you didn't create.

"You must not upload or present any media or content in which you do not have the appropriate rights to do so. You may be in violation of copyright laws if you do not have the appropriate rights to the media or content you upload or present on imeem. imeem will not tolerate known infringements or misbehavior by its users." So if I write a song and record it, how do I know whether or not I have the right to upload it? How can I tell whether my song is original, or whether it'll be the next "My Sweet Lord"?

No point in buying at all then

[jridley]

Well gee, since the ONLY thing I have done with CDs for years is to rip them to MP3 then stick them in a box, I guess this means that there's no point in me buying CDs at all anymore. If it's going to be illegal no matter what I do, I might as well just download it for free.

Re:The content is fingerprinted..

[Technician]

How can I tell whether my song is original

It is fingerprinted and compared against a database of registered songs.
"Any audio that you upload to the imeem service will be filtered by an audio fingerprint filtering system that prevents registered audio content from being full-length streamed to any users other than the user that uploaded it. "

As far as any writers rights, fingerprinting only goes so far. An infringing song might not be registered in the fingerprint database and later lead to a legal challange.

Classical music as defined by imeem.com

[calstraycat]

So, I went to imeem.com and clicked the link labeled "Classical" fully expecting to, you know, find some, well, classical music. Seemed a reasonable expectation to me.

Here's what I got:

http://www.imeem.com/music/ranked/classical

I guess the kids have gone and changed the definition of classical music. Back to iTunes for me. Clicking on classical in iTunes brings up a page of Beethoven and stuff. Pretty old fashioned, I suppose. I guess I'm just an old fogey.

Re:The content is fingerprinted..

[tepples]

An infringing song might not be registered in the fingerprint database and later lead to a legal challange. So is there anything I can do while writing the song to minimize the risk of being bankrupted by "a legal challange"?

Re:The content is fingerprinted..

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job deflecting the fact that you were totally wrong. Have you ever considered politics?

Re:"Stealing" (vs copyright infringement)

[Dragonslicer]

If I infringe copyright the copyright holder still has copyright, and still has his music. He hasn't lost anything. Except that distributing copyrighted material without authorization means that the holder has lost something, namely their control over how their work is distributed. I certainly don't agree with six-digit penalties for sharing a few songs, but the repetitive insistence that copyright holders don't lose anything from infringement is old and tired.

Interesting site

[thorkyl]

too bad you have to have itunes to doenload it
I don't so I will not be back

So, they should call it...

[srmq]

Ameem

Watermarks?

[gknoy]

Can someone give a short version of how digital watermarking works?

If I create user account A, and also create user account B (perhaps with incorrect information), and download the song on each of them, wouldn't a binary diff reveal whatever watermarking was in effect? I mean, short of transcoding on the fly (for each song for each per user), it doesn't really seem feasible. What am I missing?

Re:Watermarks?

[Mathinker]

> Can someone give a short version of how digital watermarking works?

It doesn't. Short enough?

A bit longer: every digital watermarking scheme that I know of has been "broken" by finding some transformation of the content which deletes the watermark while preserving the content more or less unchanged from the point of view of human enjoyment.

> wouldn't a binary diff reveal whatever watermarking was in effect?

If the watermarking occured in the frequency domain, for example, a binary diff would merely show that almost every sample in the music file had changed. And adding random noise to each sample in a file might leave the watermark intact.

Last.fm

[shutdown -p now]

How is it different from Last.fm?

Oh Shut up!

[Anonymous Coward]

At what other time than today would it be possible for a small nobody band like "CSS" to get front page exposure on a supposedly "controlled by big labels" website like this? CSS's "Music is my hot hot sex" was posted 1 YEAR ago. Its now on the top page and very popular (got there through popularity, NOT manipulation).

Their song was used in an Ipod commercial which made them famous over-night. I am quite impressed with the "new music model" which is evolving now. Small independant bands can become hugely popular through OTHER means than a big label's marketing dollars.

March on Imeem!

+1 sad

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 sad

Re:30 second clips are for non-members

[slagish666]

I'm currently listening to three full tracks from my friend's band, no account required.

Re:"Stealing" (vs copyright infringement)

[sm62704]

I hate control freaks. First sale doctrine means that an author loses control over how any copy of a book is distributed once it's purchased. Stephen King may hate Amazon.com and refuse to sell his books through them, but once I've bought a copy I'll sell it through Amazon and there's nothing Mr. King can do about it, nor IMO should there be.

eye meme har har

[Anonymous Coward]

As site I've never heard of before suddenly obtains privileges no other company has ever negotiated from record labels, even though it's necessarily smaller and unpopular than the two major social networking sites?

Seems like the recording industry wants a shot at owning its own MySpace.

The Law - such as it is

[fyngyrz]

"Right" and "wrong" are moral judgments. You're looking for the word "legal."

I speak both as a musician and as the owner of a literary agency. The problem is that the legal system is corrupt from the very top - the executive branch, the courts, the legislature - and the public knows it. They know the laws are not created for the benefit, or in service of, the citizens at large. Furthermore, the laws that are being created, generally in service of pandering to fear for the purpose of consolidating power, and/or serving the interests of PACs or large corporations, are not reasonable. The citizens are subject to law- and enforcement-based wars against their personal choices, their speech, their liberties, even their ability to travel. Only the dimmest or most deluded citizens are unaware of the status quo.

It is unrealistic to expect people to obey the laws under those circumstances. And sure enough, they are not doing so. There is no legislative fix; a fix by power, that is, a technological fix or some other mechanism by which the public can be forced to comply with the decrees of the legislature, is not presently available, and consequently, every segment of the IP industry - programming, writing, musical and dramatic performance - is suffering a huge hit to its ability to provide gainful employment.

I suspect the congress's recent attempt to declare the Internet a "terrorist weapon" is the beginning of the end of file sharing. For all the freedom-loving hackers out there, remember, all the data has to go through lines owned by large entities that can, and will, do what they are told. The day may be coming very soon when you cannot send encrypted information over the net, and you can't send files at all unless you're a "registered file vendor" or some such horse manure. Don't think they'll let the current state of affairs continue. It affects the corporations; they control the legislature; that snowball is already rolling.

Re:"Stealing"

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Similarly, stealing will deprive one person of $X worth of assets, copyright infringement will deprive one person of $X worth of assets again, and again, and again, and again...

www.copyrightreform.us

[apachetoolbox]

The whole copyright/patent systems needs to be reformed. We need to go back to our roots.

Re:The content is fingerprinted..

[Technician]

So is there anything I can do while writing the song to minimize the risk of being bankrupted by "a legal challange"?

Yes, Never become popular and make it on the charts. ;-) For most Slashdotters this isn't an issue.

Re:"Stealing" (vs copyright infringement)

[Kalriath]

Yes, but he loses something significant if you were to photocopy all of "Needful Things" and give away/sell it, then he has lost something other than control - the cost of that book. When you infringe copyright there IS a direct loss to the producer (so don't try the crappy excuse that there is nothing lost), when you sell a secondhand copy there is not (as you have deprived yourself of the work at the same time as someone else gaining it - you would need to repurchase it to get another copy).

Noone's complaining about secondhand sales. If they are, they shouldn't be. But copyright infringement (as in, copying without compensating) is a problem. If you want to argue that copyright is wrong and stuff, and use the tired old plumber or carpenter argument, ask yourself this: do you really want them to have to price music in the same manner as every other product, namely at above the production cost? (I'm sure you'll be happy to purchase a new CD if it costs you $1.8 million). Then while we're at it, we'll treat the unauthorised theft of the first copy as theft - for $1.8 million that would get you a hefty jail sentence (much like Grand Theft Auto - the crime, not the game)

Obviously Too Good to be True

[abscondment]

iMeem was getting their asses handed to them in court; in all likelihood, they've given all of the records labels tons of equity and cuts of future revenue. As a startup, they're running on borrowed money right now -- and if you think it's hard to make a startup work under normal conditions, consider the prospect of trying to do that with a "you infringed on our copyrights and now you owe us" tax on all of your future earnings, in addition to most of your company board being controlled by pig-headed record label executives.

This deal is just another way the record labels are attempting to kill the problem while sucking up any money in the surrounding area.

Re:Obviously Too Good to be True

[abscondment]

That's a hypothetical "in court" -- they were obviously in settlement mode from the get-go, since their service was most obviously using unlicensed music.

Napster's revenge

[ProRockstars.com]

You can easily make the argument that the only reason imeem has managed to pull this off is due to Snocap. imeem and Snocap (founded by Napster creator Shawn Fanning) hooked up in March of 2007. After that, all of the various pending label lawsuits against imeem were eventually dropped in favor of tagging, tracking, sales and DRM in place through Snocap.

To their credit, imeem has a team of extremely hard working people that are very, very good at communicating with content owners and creators. They also managed to create an infinitely less horrendous user experience than Myspace. However, when it comes to the major labels, I think you have to take a long hard look at what Snocap provided here to see how imeem survived.

Professional Rockstars on imeem: http://professionalrockstars.imeem.com/

wow

[pontifier]

I don't understand this move at all. Did they decide that music is no longer a product, but only a means to sell other products? I suppose this has been the strategy in regular radio forever.

Do the artists get a cut?

[FSHero]

It sounds nice that this is legal. But just as importantly: do the artists and musicians get a proportion of the ad revenue and whatever else imeem are paying the record labels?

Re:"Stealing" (vs copyright infringement)

[Mr2001]

Except that distributing copyrighted material without authorization means that the holder has lost something, namely their control over how their work is distributed. [...] the repetitive insistence that copyright holders don't lose anything from infringement is old and tired. OK then, here you go: copyright holders don't lose anything from infringement that was legitimately theirs to begin with.

They don't legitimately have control over which numbers we're allowed to copy or distribute. That's something copyright law tries to deprive us of.

Audacity + imeem = Free MP3s!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... this is great.

FREE registration and I can legally record all the music I want. Since the music was recorded from a legal service I can then share it with all my buds on the planet! :)

Once those fuckin idiot record companies figure this out they'll be back a door with the DMCA shutdown notice screaming about lost revenues, and the burn northern sky and the shameless killing of kittens.

Please... just give the good damn music away and be down with it! Besides I didn't see much top 10 or 20 hits on imeem! Seems mostly filled with lower tier wannabes and hiphop gangsters!

Re:30 second clips are for non-members

[Xman73x]

When will the R.I.A.A die off!..They complain about way to much!..Will R.I.A.A suck your rich money up your ass!..You greedy Antichrist bastards!..

Re:30 second clips are for non-members

[Xman73x]

And if your so damn pissed off about this incident! Give the consumers a way to go into a WalMart etc and in the store let us burn the cd the way we want! In Europe only they have more rights then us American's!

No, you can't download MP3's for free

[The Cisco Kid]

You can

1. Listen to tracks via a flash-based player. (Theoretically you could capture the stream via a /dev/dsp hook or something)
2. You can download it via itunes, *IF* you have a platform for which apple has released a version of its proprietary binary only application.
3. You can buy the track at amazon. Not sure what format you get.

If a file is available for 'download' it means there is a http:/// or ftp:// link directly to the file itself, that requires only a standards-compliant http or ftp client, which can then save the file, and you can play it with a standalone player.

Regardless of the merits of what imeem is doing, they are *not* offering MP3's for download for free, at least not anywhere I can see. So I second the 'misleading summary' tag.