Slashdot Mirror
Do We Want ISPs Penalizing Music Fans?
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Noted singer songwriter Billy Bragg has written an excellent column in The Guardian, coming out against the pro-RIAA '3-strikes' legislation the big 4 record labels are trying to push through. In the article, entitled 'Do we want ISPs penalizing our fans?', Bragg writes: 'Having failed miserably in previous attempts to stamp out illicit filesharing, the record industry has now joined forces with other entertainment lobby groups to demand that the government takes action to protect their business model.' He goes on: 'Fearful of the prospect of dragging their customers though the courts, with all the attendant costs and bad publicity, members of the record industry have come up with a simple, cost-free solution to their problem: get the ISPs to do their dirty work for them. They are asking the government to force the ISPs to cut off the broadband connection of customers who persistently download unauthorized material, without any recourse to appeal in the courts.'"
Don't cut the broadband for any crime until it's proven in court.
It's not the role of the ISP to act as a police for a third party.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Billy Bragg has fans?
(I keed! I keed!)
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
... the faster you idiots make yourself irrelevant, the sooner I can load up Slashdot without seeing articles like this.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Do we want "justice" meted out without even the pretense of due process, with accusation equaling guilt, and control in the hands of an unaccountable mess of corporate pressure groups?
The chap from TFA seems nice enough, and it is good that he is thinking about the question; but, thing is, it isn't his call. Allowing penalties to be assessed for private gain, without any sort of judicial process, is a grotesque parody of justice. It should not be countenanced anywhere. I'm glad that there are some on the music side that are uncomfortable with the idea; but that isn't the point. The point is that "3 strikes" and its ilk are wholly unacceptable. If they agree, great, if they don't, tough.
I wonder how secure the home wireless routers are for those running the RIAA and MPAA. I bet they aren't secure enough.
More and more of the music I get into is independent. Much of it is self-released (The Turn-Ons are a good recent example). Side note: Radiohead "self-releasing" is a joke, as they were propped up by major labels for years beforehand and had a well-established fan base. Any kind of offensive in this climate by the RIAA is just silly. They are so irrelevant. If they shut down Another Greast Music Tracker, I'm going to law school.
Does it penalize those who are stupid enough to get caught (the general public)? say... people who use limewire to download their music or.. what are the other ways to download music? What do you use?
If the ISPs are to be considered a 'common carrier', then this is not their duty.
Other points, if the ISPs are going to be doing this:
- How are they to decide when something is fair use, when even the big media companies get it wrong so often?
- Who is going to pay them to do the dirty work of the media industry?
- This is like getting Walmart to ban you because something you are doing is not kosher in HMV.
There are certainly other problems with this whole 'getting the ISPs' to do the dirty work, but I have a 'failure of imagination' when it comes to the other issues.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You emitted the exact same response last time. Anyway: This isn't a "pro piracy" issue. This is a due process of law issue.
If the RIAA can just call up my ISP and demand that they disconnect me, that makes a mockery of due process. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Or are "pirates" (and the occasional misidentified laser printer) just too evil for due process?
Disable YRO on your browsing options.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Or are "pirates" (and the occasional misidentified laser printer) just too evil for due process?
This sounds hilarious, can you link a source article?
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Actually, Due Process issues require state action. Comcast can do whatever it pleases with your Internet connection, including shutting you down on mere suspicion of misuse.
But there should be penalties for acquiring copyrighted goods without any intent to buy them. Many slashdotters complain about entitlement mentalities, and then defend copyright infringement on the part of people who either can pay for what they are getting or who have no need for it (like people who pirate a lot of software).
So what if the quality is crap? Don't buy it or find a way to sample it legally. If it doesn't work once you buy it, boycott the company that makes it, and let them know that you are doing that. When they get a lot of angry letters, and see their sales actually dropping, they'll either address the quality concerns or go out of business.
Just because copyright infringement doesn't deprive people of their original property, doesn't mean it is rendered ethically neutral or even good. There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.
Clearly this is against an ISP's best interest, but here's a few reasons they might go along with it anyway.
(1) Some ISPs (like AOL) are owned by the media bullies.
(2) Larger ISPs have legal departments to handle the lawsuits sure to ensue. Smaller ISPs don't. Bye bye competition.
http://local.yodle.com/articles/the-riaa-is-evil-most-outrageous-recording-industry-lawsuits
Printer Pirate(PDF warning).
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
Cable One here is Biloxi Mississippi has started cutting off bittorrent users. They always send a nasty "you been stealing" letter to the victim. It is happening all over. Of course many of the "guilty" are just idiots that didn't secure their networks and forgot that teenagers lived next door.
my ISP(charter communications) already sent me a warning telling me that I violated copyright infringement because I downloaded Assassins Creed for the PC. What they don't know is that my actual DVD copy that I purchased in store broke. Since my copy broke and I needed to re-install the game I downloaded the game.
By the way, there was no crack that came with the download or anything, I didn't need a crack as I already have a legit copy.
What would stop this from happening with my music or any other things covered under this?
Here we have two adjacent /. stories: one about ISPs being responsible for users' behavior, the other about ISPs not being responsible for users' behavior.
What is needed is a clarification, likely from SCOTUS, on whether ISPs are "common carriers" or not. If they are, then ISPs have to monitor postings and downloads (punishing people according to ... uh ... well they're not police or courts so it's really unclear how they're supposed to detect & respond re: users' behavior). If they are not, then ISPs can finally tell everyone else to take it up with the actual legally-identifiable offender.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
at least this won't come to anything because congress represents the common man.
... and not only that, but there is no practical way for ISPs to know what traffic is passing under your name, without intrusively inspecting the packets. That is without precedent; it is akin to asking telephone companies to listen in on your calls to determine if you are a using the telephone "improperly".
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/05/entertainment-indust-1.html
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
Most importantly, do we need these excessive apostrophes?
Who the fuck is Billy Bragg and why should I care?
The so called 'piracy' (aka copyright infringement) is about fair use, freedom, and taking a stance (though some choose an improper form) against the draconion rules and organizations that are trying to monetize and take away our legacy. Music has always been about enjoyment and sharing. Until recently, the most common way to listen to music was to get together with friends and sing. No performance fees, no songwriter royalties, just people belting out a ditty.
Under the current situation, and the future one if RIAA has it's way, the National Anthem of the USA, that's the "Star Spangled Banner" for those who don't know, wouldn't exist under their rules. It was a (somewhat) popular piece of poetry that people started singing to a very popular piece of music. That made a fantastic hit that inspired people so much, they made it the national anthem. These days, the insane copyright lengths combined with the dubious 'enforcement groups' would have prevented any such thing from ever happening.
Have you wondered why nobody ever sings "Happy Birthday" on shows and movies anymore? Someone decided to enforce their copyright... Another piece of classic americana and culture down the tubes because of this subject. What's the next thing we'll loose? Yes, some of these people are breaking laws.
Yes, we talk about it a lot.
But you need to understand, if somebody doesn't raise a fuss and find a way to stop this, what will our children have left?
Unfortunately, the answer is not much...
yes, but the law would REQUIRE them to do it. If it was their personal policy, that would be different.
You are the type of person who would call Benjamin Franklin and Nikola Tesla, "Pirates"
They had "radical piracy-like agendas" Touting dangerous ideas that knowledge, invention, innovation, even energy should be given away for free for the advancement of human civilization.
The RIAA does not protect "poor artists and musicians", they protect themselves, and huge record corporations.
This is why Jamendo and Magnatune are popular with some artists.
... but don't you get tired of discussing the same thing over and over?
You must be new here.
Actually, I happen to be a musician and I disagree. I don't support piracy and I don't want people stealing my stuff. However, I also despise the RIAA, what it's doing, and how it's doing it. I also hate to see due process get thrown under the bus for the sake of an aging business model. Touring has always made musicians truckloads more money than CDs ever have. CD sales are just used by huge record companies as a revenue stream for themselves and as an indicator telling them who to send on huge tours. Regardless of how you feel about piracy, RIAA's idiotic tactics are going to make people want to stop supporting musicians entirely.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Which the law would REQUIRE them to disconnect without due process.
that since there were losing the war on customers they should recruit allies and open another front. I really don't see that it matters what they do, the will never win the war against their customers.
Umm... This article is about state action, specifically the state enacting laws to force your isp to disconnect you.
Christ, pay attention, will you? TFA is about the RIAA pushing a LAW that would require ISPs to terminate service, without due process.
Just how much trouble do they think I will go through to listen to music? Feh! They get none of my dollars in any way, shape or form anymore! And I don't intend to pirate either. I simply do not need to be entertained sooo badly that I need the RIAA.
I'll entertain myself; throw a party, read a book, - God forbid - actually talk to someone and, if I really want music, I have enough friends that play instruments to come over and jam. Isn't that how all this got started long before the RIAA?
I agree with the general Slashdot sentiment about modern copyright enforcement, but I also tire of the constant deluge of copyright stories on Slashdot. Why not have a weekly digest with all the recent copyright news packaged into one giant flame war?
So are we going to start prosecuting auto makers for providing get-away vehicles to criminals?
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
No kidding. I just looked through the mod option list for the GP and I couldn't find "-1: Fucking Moron" in there to give to him. I'll just go with a comment in support of your comment instead.
Some might argue that not only is it in the rights of your ISP to deny you service for copyright infringement, since it is stated in your terms of service agreement, it is their responsibility. I doubt that the ISPs are going to hire a "police force", but I can see them responding to multiple complaints from MPAA and RIAA. Let's be honest, if you continue to violate copyrights after three warnings, getting exiled from your ISP is pretty soft punishment... and don't try to play the "unprotected wireless network" game, because after your first warning, you should be able to figure out how to secure your LAN...
You're obviously being deprived of the liberty to use the Internet. And the use of the Internet gives people a lot more liberties than they had before, i.e., the soapbox can be really big (but is usually tiny).
At least half of music fans already have penises.
RIAA's idiotic tactics are going to make people want to stop supporting musicians entirely.
I hate to say it, my friend, but you are right, and a little late. I, for one, have stopped purchasing music (and long ago deleted all my infringing copies). I have about a thousand CDs, all purchased before the Metallica / Napster debacle. I have bought half a dozen since, and downloaded a couple albums. From $10k per decade to something like $200 per decade. Entirely because I cannot stand the association which claims to support you and other artists in your fine work.
Now I'm focusing on UGC (user generated content) posted under liberal licenses. There's a lot of good stuff out there. All-in-all, I haven't lost much. But boy have you artists (and the labels) lost a pile on me.
I'm sorry for the extent to which it has impacted you -- I love music, and would like to be a consumer again.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Which is too bad, since as you mentioned, shows are where the musicians really make money. I try to go to more shows by local bands at small, local venues; I sometimes go to shows by major-label artists but I'd rather spend $10 to hear $RANDOM_DEATH_METAL_BAND than $30 or more to hear bands that maybe everyone's heard of but their music is the same pablum that gets played on the radio every day.
But anyway, the reason I'm bother to reply is to ask these questions: Do you create original music? If so, is it available online? And (although this is off-topic for this discussion, but you don't have your e-mail shown to the public so I have to ask here) can I use it in my podcast? Feel free to e-mail me at my slashdot user name @yahoo.com to discuss further if you'd like.
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
Going to? Buddy, we're already at the moral imperative. If you're (the rhetorical, not referring to YOU necessarily) are on an RIAA label, you can go get fucked for all I care. I consider it the moral equivalent of kicking babies to contribute to those fascist bastards.
One possibility which remains, if Big Media manages to shut down Internet liberty somehow, is merely the sharing of physical media (perhaps via some kind of social networking site which does an automatic "N steps to ...").
Considering that in the not so far off future people will probably be able to carry around enormous content libraries on tiny memory cards, it doesn't look all that rosy for trying to stop distribution.
Hell, maybe the laws will get so draconian (e.g., you're guilty of infringement if you can't prove you bought or were legally given all the works under copyright in your possession) that even Joe Sixpack will figure out what's going down, and Creative Commons licensed works will reign supreme.
I can dream, no?
Actually, I happen to be a musician and I disagree. ... Touring has always made musicians truckloads more money than CDs ever have. CD sales are just used by huge record companies as a revenue stream for themselves and as an indicator telling them who to send on huge tours.
I have yet to find/see any actual numbers on production (recording, mixing, mass-producing, and profit) sales for CD's/DVD's, as opposed to touring (travel costs, venue fees, other costs like 'per diem', hotels, gas, etc...). It seems like there would be fewer middle-men on concert tours, so more of the proceeds can go to the artist, but without any concrete numbers, how can we tell?
Anybody have a cost breakdown on tours? on CD's? on DVD's?
I personally have a few bands that I have no problem coughing up $15 on a new CD. When I learn about new music, I want to check it out before I buy it (otherwise I'd be blowing whole paychecks on music, most of which would be crap).
Got me there.
if ( ISP == common_carrier ) user.ignoreBehavior();
else user.monitorBehavior();
Point got across despite the logic error.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Don't they realize such a system won't work, at least not for the artist.
OK, lets say such a thing is adopted by the masses and people happily fork over $25 a month for unlimited P2P downloads (not counting that $25-$45 you already pay for broadband). OK, the *IAAs get their $25 and they are once again allowed to print their money. Well they already have the old infrastructure for getting cash so part of the $25 goes to funding that. Another part will go to setting up and maintaining infrastructure on the new system. The next part goes to paying administrative costs, some taxes, lots and lots of marketing for new artists, breakages fees and a cat hospital in Oklahoma (good will for artist/tax haven). Where does that remainder go? The same place it has always gone, the .02% of successful artist (read primped and pimped lottery winners on the convince store wall) and a much smaller percentage to the starving artist.
When will they get it? The recording business has and always will be a rigged pyramid scheme.
All this talk on stopping the music and stuff online, i never remember this when they made cassette recorders that could record the radio.
Now that the RIAA is putting the ISPs in charge of policing the net, how am I supposed to have any recourse when I am downloading Nine Inch Nails' work WITH PERMISSION? But not just in Australia! I've seen him domestically in the US, and he has repeated the statement many times, from Philadelphia, to Red Rocks (that I personally know of)
How do we expect:
I blame (and commend Trent) for making the RIAA look like buffoons once again.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Are the water, electric, or sewer company responsible for someone who uses their products to do something illegal? no ... Is the phone company responsible for someone conducting illegal business over their lines? Time and again this has been ruled a big NO.
Even closer
Why then, should the provider of my data pipe be responsible for what I, or my neighbor, do with said bits?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Why buy no CDs at all, instead of buying from independent labels like these that don't sue people for downloading their music? And if none of those record labels have music that suits your tastes (I'll admit I lean towards hipster garbage in music taste), check RIAA Radar before you buy.
For most people on slashdot, the RIAA is just a justification to make themselves feel better about downloading instead of buying.
By what name do you wish to be mourned?
.. don't want people submitting articles with spelling mistakes. This 's is really getting on my nerves.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Right, the DMCA has a process where after you get taken down, you write back to say "no they're wrong" and then it can go to court where you get due process.
That's a shitty process, but it is not even close to a system where you have no redress other than the complaints dept of a private corporation.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
We have adjacent stories about two activities that a company may undertake--activities that are not related despite the ISP providing the connectivity for both. One is about providing access to resources on the Internet. One is about publishing web pages for outside parties on company servers. It wouldn't matter if ISPs are "common carriers" or not, the second article wouldn't be covered by common carrier status.
I do create original music! Sadly, I have none available online at the moment although I'm in the process of remedying that. I've been writing and playing live for some time but recording is quite expensive and I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I'm about halfway there for acquiring all of my own gear and recording at home.
I'll be making a point to send you an email so that I don't lose track of your info. Once I've got some stuff recorded I'd be happy to send you a link and you can see what you think. BTW - I love your signature. Very clever.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Due process has absolutely nothing to do with this. Internet access is not a right under any constitution I know of. ISP's can legally disconnect users at any time for any reason, they're just not motivated to do so. The RIAA aims to change that.
I no longer think of this as a pro-piracy issue, it's really a denial-of-pro-piracy issue. You hate the RIAA and therefore you are entitled to steal from them, but you don't condone illegal behavior, so it must be legal somehow.
Believe what you wish, but sooner or later the bough will break, and you will start paying for music, or you will cry like a little girl and then start paying for music. If you think ISP's care about anything except your business, you'll cry even harder.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
I have no hard and fast numbers handy (too lazy to google). However, one of my favorite artists has publicly stated that he makes more in one 90 minute show than he would off of selling the equivalent of 10,000 CDs.
I do agree about checking out new music. I regularly Pandora or GrooveShark new bands that I hear about. If I like it, I buy it. It's actually led me to spend more on music than I did in the past. I still try to stick to indies when I can though.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
No due process required here, your contract states that your service can be changed/cancelled for ANY reason.
Not saying its morally right, but don't mix a civil contract with criminal law.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That is because if it gets to court most of the cases will be lost and in time they will lose all control.
Today, with their ties to the ISPs they still have power.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I selectively support only the small RIAA signed artists that I want to see actually get to tour. Unfortunately if you ever want to see them in person you have to play the idiotic RIAA game. That means buying their CD so that the label thinks they've got enough sales to justify a tour. I still buy indie as much as I can, and some of my faves are actually trying to revert back to indie status... but it's not easy.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Why buy no CDs at all, instead of buying from independent labels like these that don't sue people for downloading their music? And if none of those record labels have music that suits your tastes (I'll admit I lean towards hipster garbage in music taste), check RIAA Radar before you buy.
Because a non-essential, impulse purchase is stifled by a "mother may I?" check?
For most people on slashdot, the RIAA is just a justification to make themselves feel better about downloading instead of buying.
No, the reason we don't buy CDs is because of network effects. Once we stopped buying and looking at the big label CDs we had much incentive to go to a music store to look at the other 1% or whatever (by volume).
For example, since CompUSA and Circuit City both went down the drain, I go to BestBuy and GameStop LESS often to look at stuff. Taking a trip for just one store isn't worth it to browse. This is why malls and shopping centers are good for business.
Personally, I think I've bought 5 CDs since Napster was shut down - 2 of those for the DVD with the videos, 2 japanese sountracks and a musical for my gf. I don't illegally download it, or buy it online now, I just don't bother with music. If I listened to music even a tenth as much as I used to, I would buy a Zune and a Zune pass and get it there.
It's basically an automatically-served injunction. In the real world injunctions have to see a court before they're enforced and I just don't get why it's not the same in digital-land.
Why buy no CDs at all, instead of buying from independent labels like these that don't sue people for downloading their music?
The current copyright law, as it is being used and abused by the RIAA, is potentially hostile to me. Therefore I currently require that content distributors explicitly grant me reasonable rights, such as archival copies, media shifting, time shifting, etc. Independent labels may not currently be suing people for doing those things, and maybe I could win on those points in court (I believe they are covered by fair use), but the fact is I can't take the risk.
I can't afford a lawsuit, I can't afford to settle, I don't believe the courts would necessarily make what I believe is the right decision, and I don't trust that what the indie label says today will still be their position tomorrow (unless they put it in writing).
So - no raw copyright works for me, thanks. Get one of those labels to switch entirely to some form of CC license, or write a new one that is less than a thousand words and not written in bullshit lawyerese, and maybe I'd consider buying from them. Come to think of it, though, I'm so disgusted with the music industry that I'm probably going to want more to even consider coming back; collaborative filtering for content recommendations that actually works for people who like music other than Britney Spears, maybe a couple decent metal bands that don't turn into sissies on the second album to increase sales, OGG Vorbis ferfucksake (and an iPod that supports it natively). Frankly, I'm probably a lost cause.
Again - not your fault, it's the RIAA's fault. But they have almost completely destroyed raw copyright consumption for me. Their actions, and the broken legal system they abuse, make it perfectly clear that I cannot afford to trust anyone who uses raw copyright. Their reprehensible behavior has made me not interested in trying to meet anyone halfway.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
For most people on slashdot, the RIAA is just a justification to make themselves feel better about downloading instead of buying.
Oh - and on that. My first reaction was, "fuck'em, those people are assholes."
But, then, copyright is supposed to be a bargain struck between the public which grants a fiat monopoly and the individual who benefits from it. Copyright was a pretty darned fair balance at one time -- but is it still? If the RIAA and Disney have purchased changes in the law to circumvent the bargain that copyright was meant to be, is there no understanding when the other side retaliates?
I'm not saying where I stand -- as I noted in my post I deleted all my infringing content back in 1999. But I have spent many hours considering the balance of copyright, the endless extensions thereof, and what that implies for the person on the other side of the teeter-totter. And I think everyone has to do that part -- the deep consideration -- if they want to hold a well-reasoned opinion on the matter.
Which leads me back to thinking those people are assholes -- because I figure most of them haven't really gone through the deep consideration part.
But then, the effectiveness of tit-for-tat in game theory isn't just theory. It's what any organic system will naturally evolve. Thinking the gov't, courts, RIAA, and Orrin Hatch can stop it is to ignore the seismic power of organic systems. Which is why I don't worry about it too much. They'll all get ground to dust eventually, on this matter. It's only a question of how many innocents like you get caught in the crossfire while they attempt to defend their hopeless position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
They're not "protecting their business model". "protecting their business model" by lobbying is when an established business tries to erect barriers to new businesses that can outperform them. I've got no time for that, but in this case, the "improved model" that outperforms the record companies is illegal. No-one would argue that because some people steal TVs and sell them down the pub that the model for selling TVs was wrong.
There's some things wrong with copyright, such as a lack of fair use in UK copyright and terms that are too long, but fundamentally, we need it.
The ironic thing here is that Billy Bragg is a socialist and has in the past defended numerous people (e.g. the miners) who demanded special pleading outside of the free market.
Your "appeal" is to sue your ISP.
This is effectively a law that defines a punishment, enforced by a private business. First off, private businesses are not police. Second, this law sentences you (disconnection from ISP service, DICTATED BY LAW) without fair hearing; that is unconstitutional.
Come on, aren't any of you lawyers?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Oh, wait a minute...
You're still missing the "it". Your ISP is not your property. It's not your life (well, in the constitutional sense), and it's not actually "liberty" either, as you don't have a right to commit copyright infringement.
The only issue, and one that is not sourced in any links, even in TFA, is the questionable claim that the action would not be reviewable by a court of law. Based on all versions of the text that have been excerpted, there is no such limitation, and it's just trolling.
We need to automate the generation and production of music, and crush the music industry like a bug.
Listen to this sample. That was created with Yamaha Vocaloid. The product sells for $179.95. It's better than many singers. We're getting close.
This technology is like MIDI players, a generation later. You need the composition and instrument models. Then the player puts it all together. You can mix and match; choose a different singer or instruments. (Question: is there enough compute power in an iPhone to run this?)
If this catches on, the music industry will be crushed.
There's still a need for composers. Easy Music Composer isn't quite good enough. Yet.
Talk is cheap and in the case of Mr. Bragg, especially so. While I share his latest stance it seems somewhat at odds with previous pronouncements from the musician who gave us the wonderful"A New England."
"The huge social networking sites that seek to use music as free content are as much to blame for the malaise currently affecting the industry as the music lover who downloads songs for free. Both the corporations and the kids, it seems, want the use of our music without having to pay for it. The claim that sites such as MySpace and Bebo are doing us a favor by promoting our work is disingenuous. Radio stations also promote our work, but they pay us a royalty that recognizes our contribution to their business. Why should that not apply to the Internet, too?"
Letting music industry trade associations play the heavy while one allows oneself to write generously cool opinion pieces rings more than a little hollow, unless one is willing to ditch the record company and pull out of trade group memberships altogether.
And if Mr. Bragg has already done so kudos to him.
When they shut up and put up I'll take them seriously. Until then I'm afraid they're a good part of the problem.
- js.
You are the type of person who would call Benjamin Franklin and Nikola Tesla, "Pirates"
They had "radical piracy-like agendas"
Franklin went considerably beyond the agenda. He made a living out of printing the works of living European authors without paying them a cent. If people who copy creative works for personal use can be called pirates then how much more those who do so for commercial gain?
I download Linux distros "all day" and test them on several different systems. Care to try again?
You're another class of customer that they probably wish that they could get rid of.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
There is a worldwide organisation that charges radio stations, tv stations, pubs, clubs, gyms and cafes a yearly amount for playing music in public (yes, they double dip by charging both the radio and pub playing the song). Musos out there will know the name. They then guesstimate how much of the total gets divvied up between song writers. (I think artists only get paid for performance, so not for this type of replay). Why don't they charge the transmitting ISPs this fee, just like radio stations and television broadcasters?
Should never have any control over a citizens freedom.
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
In one swift stroke, your username has gained massive irony.
They must be. From the beginning of their attacks on the Internet with Napster, they have made it obvious their intent is to keep others from using the Internet to broadcast audio. Napster was in a gray area, if not intended to help people infringe copyright, however many of the systems they attacked later through various means (lawsuits, false take down notices, and some say even trojan horse programs) were generic file transfer programs. Many of the lawsuits weren't even against people copying the supposed infringing material, but they were against people and companies who wrote networking software.
If a three strikes law passed, just like the DMCA, it will be abused to take away internet access from just about everyone who tries to publish something who is not from big media. Doesn't matter if they have the legal right to publish it or not, the media companies or trolls will get them one way or another.
Isn't this how they took over the radio spectrum? Creating laws and technicalities to make it difficult for the common person to use it? I've talked to radio enthusiasts, and from what they tell me, it is a pain in the ass to follow all the rules for talking on HAM frequencies.
Yeah, there is CB and it is lax, but that is only a few channels. When is the last time you have heard someone use CB besides a trucker? With so few channels, if everyone used it, it would be a mess. Now we have to pay absurd amounts of money for cell phone service because of this and the FCC auctioning off the airwaves. We could have massive medium range wireless networking, which would also allow cell phone like devices, so if you were just a few miles from home, you could use your landline to make calls.
ISP's should not have to be the middle man; tracking what users and downloading, this isn't there role, priority or ethical right. Let it go.
RIAA's idiotic tactics are going to make people want to stop supporting musicians
Already has.
The licensing on most CD's is a show stopper for me. The times have changed and the things people want to use music for is PROHIBITED making is much less useful.
The phrase "For private home use only" Is the show stopper. Want music for an online video? Want music to sync to a Powerpoint slide show? Ever been asked to DJ a reception? Ever rip a CD to make an MP3 for your car player so you can leave the original home?
All the above is not permited. As such, I find little value in buying it. The added liabilty makes it too dangerous to support the current litigation machine. I'm in the process of starving the litigation machine. Unfortunately, the musicians are caught in the crossfire. The DRM and rootkits only is the icing on top of the main problem of high price and low value.
The truth shall set you free!
They're taking a cue from US Baseball and Congress.
The baseball organizations didn't have the guts to investigate steroid use, so like a bunch of wimps, they avoided the whole situation by making US citizens pay for investigating it through Congress.
Meanwhile our economy was crashing off a cliff, corruption was running rampant, bankers were stuffing money in their pockets like madâ¦
I feel safe on the other side of the Channel... oh wait!
Much as I agree with Bill's remarks, I think that New Labour are likely to agree to this measure because it fits their classic pattern of bringing in no-trial, no-evidence punishments. Cf ASBOs and fixed-penalty fines. One of the most worrying things about their regime has been their attitude that the courts are simply an inconvenience to be bypassed.
culling dinosaurian business models from the market.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
The law has been passed in France after european govt voted 90% against. I didnt even know it was a threat in America too. Any action taken without due process is against every fundamental principle of every country that dares call itself democratic. Besides, in this day and age free flow of (uncensored) information is as important as free speech itself. I think it is fucking scary that a proposition like that can even MAKE it to the top of the governments.
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
You mean, like when they find a marijuana roach in your car and take your car and keep it until you go to court to get it back? Or, like when they find you with a (determined by them) "large amount" of cash and take your cash and keep it until you go to court to get it back? What due process?
Ask Me About... The 80's!
There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
> Although 100gig is getting a bit out of control!
Exactly, it's both a lot of music and at the same time no more than two of the next-generation writeable disks (e.g., Blu-ray).
That was Version 1 of Vocaloid. Listen to Japanese pop generated with Version 2 (MP3). Version 2 sounds better than Version 1; they're getting to lead-singer quality.
This program has a sizable following in Japan; there's a whole "virtual idol" thing. The English versions just have voices, but the Japanese versions come with artwork and background information about the "singer". There are suspicions that some songs in anime were cranked out with this program.
Currently, the main limitation is that setting up the program for a new voice is a big job. There's a training process which requires the singer to sing some specific material to capture the needed phonemes. Once someone figures out a way to do that from existing recordings, it will be possible to emulate existing performers.
In other words, instant cover versions of classic songs. That's going to give the RIAA headaches. Anybody can make a cover version of any song and pay just a statutory royalty. The RIAA likes that, because they get most of the money and the composers don't get much. But with this technology, the RIAA's function can be automated out of existence.
When this machine learns your job, what are you going to do?
Crush the music industry? Or crush all creativity? There's nothing wrong with artists producing their own music. Automating the generation of music WILL crush the creative artists, the current industry publishers will simply start churning out vocaloid tracks and continuing to control the industry.
Creative commons licensing of music I think is a better way to "crush" the industry. It's more likely to usurp the industry than crush it. People are already doing it, and some are quite good.