It's more like the END of the end for the RIAA defined market for music (the compact disc may stick around, but who cares about the media, it's the collusion and attempts of the oligoply to control the market that we'll be glad to see die).
In other news, one of the FCC chairmen (Adelman) is calling for a review of the rampant and illegal payola that serves to define the market for the music industry.
I certainly agree with participating in our representative government. But I have to tell you I think the better solution is to vote with your dollars.
Take me as an exmple, I will now be downloading an enormous amount of 'tunes' from those groups on your website (THANKS, I've been looking for new sites with FREE tunes). And with each, the artificial barrier that is holding up the RIAA is crumbled somewhat! Once the RIAA is no longer the gatekeeper, the market will find a new equilibrium.
Try Web Radio. I listen to Radio Paradise. No commercials. Interesting, sounds fine, NO COMMERCIALS (except to remind folks the station is entirely listener supported). I can listen for hours at a time without getting sick of the same ol' crap.
For consumers like me (happy to hear diverse stuff all day long with no commercials), why would I ever need to buy another CD?
I'm sure Mr. Bainwol will have a good answer, but passing a law requiring me to buy a CD probably isn't going to pass.
cheers,
-ptah
Off to download tunes with a license I can live with.
Exactly. And one reason we need to deal with this now is that the manner in which markets work in a world with 'replicators' will be complicated considering not everyone will be allowed into the clubs where 'things' are replicated on demand.
Funny, the web was going to tear down newspapers, just like the VCR was going to destroy televion, etc. This is all part of the same effort to manipulate markets. And they are all short-sighted and will ultimately fail.
You are on the right track! (other than the end where you talk about fixing things with legislation -).
First you rightly see that the artists are not part of the current market for 'tunes'. The RIAA sees the artist much like Ford sees a lug-nut (important, but easily replaced by any number of near identical lug-nuts).
Secondly, you are correct that the copyright holders should be allowed to do what they want with their content. Again, the thought of forcing a copyright holder to do something in particular strikes me as serious injustice.
But the connection you fail to make, and that you and Wellspring seem to be missing is that this is purely a problem of technology breaking down the barriers (high cost of production, *especially* the physical media on which the music was 'printed', and an oligopoly of distrubution) against competition in the market.
Due to collusion and lack of competition, CDs cost the same now as they did 10 years ago (if not more). Compare that to cellular phone service and you'll get the idea. If there had been a normal market, then the price for a tune would have been $5 five years ago, and the $1 Apple is charging would not seem so cheap now, it might seem expensive!
Now, with technology, it is becoming cheap to enter the market, and the huge profits of the RIAA members are hanging by the _thread_ that is their continued ability to act as gatekeeper (by exerting monopoly-like power) for what is heard on the radio/MTV/etc. The RIAA believes they can further manipulate the market to prevent competition with laws proscribing the creation of a sharing shadow market.
What the RIAA does not understand is that the longer they delay competition, the more drastic the emergence of an alternative market will be for their current business practices. In the end a new supply/demand equilibrium point will be reached where artists and consumers meet, but without the costs of 'printing' onto plastic, artificially created 'hype'/'buzz'/etc, no payola to Clear Channel, no anti-pirate tax on blank media, etc.
The new market will be extremely diverse and in total far *larger* than exists now under the RIAA stranglehold, and without the stranglehold, the RIAA folks will shrivel extremely quickly. This will be good for the market and for the vast majority of tune-creators (who are now being held down so that a single 'group'/'artist'/'lug-nut' can be used to milk the consumer with as little risk as possible). Technology will continue to advance, and we may see a real flourishing of the arts.
And as for the copyright holders. They will make decisions about their content within the new market (making cost/benefit decisions, etc). Some copyright holders may decide that the market is not right for them (for whatever reason; artistic or economic, etc) and NOT RELEASE THEIR CONTENT. They can put it in a museum or only perform in front of 1000 folks paying $1 MILLION each -whatever. But we, the consumers will not be bending over backwards for the profit of a small group of shareholders from a small number of corporations.
Limiting copyrights would be good for similar reasons, but that's a different part of structure of this market and need not be considered central to this discussion.
Because it's more likely than aliens living in the nothingness between stars (a vacuum near absolute zero where atoms per square mile are counted on one hand). Just my guess.
It's not impossible for something we're only guessing about in the first place, but unlikely given what we believe to be true.
Aaah, an apologist for the RIAA. What? You own stock in those companies?
There are a number of mistakes you make that I think have been discussed on/. previously.
First, that no one will make money. Have you any idea of how many bands make no money NOW? The ones that make money, do so because they have created (with our willing, if naive, participation) a false scarcity. There are plenty of groups that play in bars around the country and sell their home-produced CDs and make a few bucks. Those groups will diversify and flourish. MORE money will be made, it just won't all go to the 50 groups (try and name 50 groups) that make real money -after the mafia-like protection money the RIAA takes out of 'THEIR' groups.
Second, you seem to think musicians or authors or poets or sculptors or comic-book artists or [fill in any creator type] is doing their creating as part of a plan to make big $$$$. AND, if that's not enough of an assumption, you FURTHER suggest that they will all just *stop* getting together to play music (or to write a book, etc). Believe it or not, artists have been poor in the past, and we can be SURE there will be starving artists in the future.
Related to that, you adopt the plight of the poor starving artist and appeal to common decency or something. To which I say (and would say to any artist): do something else if you don't want to be poor and stuff. As a consumer, I won't care, because I will have access to plenty of cheap music/books/poetry/scuplture/etc THAT I'M willing to buy at a reasonable price. But, I can be nice too, and say: try having a public reading for $10, and maybe 100 people will come because they read your Great American Novel (that they downloaded for $1 -or borrowed from the library, or downloaded for free or WHATEVER). And if only 5 people come, then that's fine, have a book signing and charge $1 and maybe more folks will come... etc. The artist will struggle, but can come up with things that fans will pay for. BUT, we can be sure for those small authors, so Publisher is going to be getting 80% of the cut because there will be no Publisher.
Anyway, I think your concerns don't have any evidence. And history suggests the concerns aren't going to amount to a problem for anyone but... those stockholder types.
Actually, I think those knowledge workers currently making slaves wages *pushing* those plastic discs around their stores, will do fine. They will be in HIGH demand by the vast multiplicity of new "labels" who are producing the many many groups that will florish (though at a small market capitalisation).
Those knowledge workers will enable a Mom-n-Pop label to find their TEN groups and distribute their 200 MP3s to the real fans of 'North-East U.S. Ska flavored Punk with touches of Brazillian Samba', or 'Hard driving Country popular in Alaska this year but sung in Polish' or [fill in your own micro-music-genre]
Getting paid to listen to tunes, blog and take PayPal payments for $1 per track (TO DO WHATEVER the LICENSEE WANTS TO DO WITH as part of the NEW MUSIC LICENSE). Not a bad gig. Or a bad business model. Cringely still misses the point: the RIAA as gatekeeper has died. The Music will start coming over the walls to the listeners and many folks will make some, but very much, money.
New New NEW. Lower Prices! Krazy Bill is just GIVING these away. Come on down. He's Krazy Krazy KRAZY to license this software with these terms! Get yours TODAY!
Controlling how we communicate is a first step in controlling what we think. If we have to use a specialized language on the phone, then what's to stop that requirement moving to other areas (think microphones in public spaces)?
It's double-plus ungood. Give me Liberty or Give me Death.
-ptah
Re:You can't copy right fact
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
You do NOT have to pay for a printed copy. You are FREE to pay for a printed copy BUT... you are also free to commision a hand scribed version direct from your local monastary.
If I print it out the Federal Registry, *I* can sell it to you. It's public domain. I can undercut prices from the government, I can make rude ascii pr0n out of it in a bit of useless satire, etc.
With all due respect, I disagree with the portion of Mr. Linford's reply:
The SBL is published free of charge and does not block the transmission of email, it specifically blocks the receipt of junk email by computers belonging to SBL users.
In fact the list, does not block receipt. It can
be used by the actual postmaster to facilitate that process, but they could do something else like filter the email into a "spam" mailbox for each user, or just gather statistics, etc. It's information nothing more nothing less.
-Ptah
Sounds like you think it's may not be cost beneficial to run Windows software. That's fine, and a reasonable point (to which I agree).
But your sarcasm makes it appear that you think one shouldn't have to test upgrades and patches, and with that I simply can't agree. If all system admins are not "testers" in the sense that new services/machines are tested before production deployment, then you are not a real system admin (or your PHB is no longer an amusing reflection of the fictional character, but a real life deteriment to your real life business).
It's a fair point, but collusion between the members of the RIAA ensure that among similar artists the prices are the same.
For example, if Aerosmith comes out at $18 for 3 months, then goes to $15 JUST LIKE The Rolling Stones then my $20 for classic rock is going to find no competition. While Britany, Shakira, Mandy Moore?, and Christina probably start at $20 for 1 month before getting the mark down to $18 etc. The RIAA folks were sued of course for engaging in that illegal collusion of course. They settled out of court as I recall.
It is all a scam from an industry that is dead but just doesn't know it. We no longer need a gatekeeper to tell us what is "hot", and without artificial means to setting the market, the $20 is living on borrowed time. More significantly for the RIAA members, there will some be easy competition from small productions houses if not from artist/producers.
Maybe this has been mentioned previously (grin). The reason the RIAA is scared is that their business model depends on their being the gatekeeper of what is 'hot' or 'good'. Once they lose that (and they already have lost it, they just don't know/accept it yet), they can't make more self-declared 'stars'.
The music will be free. It's just information after all.
I take it the intent to distribute for profit is
what legally makes the download "theft", but I'm
still inclined to distrust the FBI. (maybe I'm
just arguing).
He must be extremely stupid if he did steal, then
inform on himself. But maybe he just had a bit of good karma? Do we need to prosecute every 9 year old who steals a candy bar then returns it?
It's still not clear that what he did should be prosecuted. The things listed in that last paragraph would be consistent with a simple, innocent test to see if the passwords/access worked. And having an intention isn't the same as acting on it (and conspiracy requires >1 party ttbomk).
I still believe the FBI is attempting to parade it's abilities/intentions toward computer crime using this case.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more like the END of the end for the RIAA defined market for music (the compact disc may stick around, but who cares about the media, it's the collusion and attempts of the oligoply to control the market that we'll be glad to see die).
In other news, one of the FCC chairmen (Adelman) is calling for a review of the rampant and illegal payola that serves to define the market for the music industry.
No Dave I'm sorry I can't order that salad, but we have an extra large pesto pepperoni pizza on the way.
Dave, I have your favorite episode of the X-Files here for you.
Dave. Dave?
-ptah
Actually, I already have installed my de-SCO-ifier on your computer. Please send me $9.99.
Yes, this means YOU.
-ptah
Take me as an exmple, I will now be downloading an enormous amount of 'tunes' from those groups on your website (THANKS, I've been looking for new sites with FREE tunes). And with each, the artificial barrier that is holding up the RIAA is crumbled somewhat! Once the RIAA is no longer the gatekeeper, the market will find a new equilibrium.
Try Web Radio. I listen to Radio Paradise. No commercials. Interesting, sounds fine, NO COMMERCIALS (except to remind folks the station is entirely listener supported). I can listen for hours at a time without getting sick of the same ol' crap.
For consumers like me (happy to hear diverse stuff all day long with no commercials), why would I ever need to buy another CD? I'm sure Mr. Bainwol will have a good answer, but passing a law requiring me to buy a CD probably isn't going to pass.
cheers,
-ptah
Off to download tunes with a license I can live with.
Exactly. And one reason we need to deal with this now is that the manner in which markets work in a world with 'replicators' will be complicated considering not everyone will be allowed into the clubs where 'things' are replicated on demand.
Funny, the web was going to tear down newspapers, just like the VCR was going to destroy televion, etc. This is all part of the same effort to manipulate markets. And they are all short-sighted and will ultimately fail.
-ptah
You are on the right track! (other than the end where you talk about fixing things with legislation -).
First you rightly see that the artists are not part of the current market for 'tunes'. The RIAA sees the artist much like Ford sees a lug-nut (important, but easily replaced by any number of near identical lug-nuts).
Secondly, you are correct that the copyright holders should be allowed to do what they want with their content. Again, the thought of forcing a copyright holder to do something in particular strikes me as serious injustice.
But the connection you fail to make, and that you and Wellspring seem to be missing is that this is purely a problem of technology breaking down the barriers (high cost of production, *especially* the physical media on which the music was 'printed', and an oligopoly of distrubution) against competition in the market.
Due to collusion and lack of competition, CDs cost the same now as they did 10 years ago (if not more). Compare that to cellular phone service and you'll get the idea. If there had been a normal market, then the price for a tune would have been $5 five years ago, and the $1 Apple is charging would not seem so cheap now, it might seem expensive!
Now, with technology, it is becoming cheap to enter the market, and the huge profits of the RIAA members are hanging by the _thread_ that is their continued ability to act as gatekeeper (by exerting monopoly-like power) for what is heard on the radio/MTV/etc. The RIAA believes they can further manipulate the market to prevent competition with laws proscribing the creation of a sharing shadow market.
What the RIAA does not understand is that the longer they delay competition, the more drastic the emergence of an alternative market will be for their current business practices. In the end a new supply/demand equilibrium point will be reached where artists and consumers meet, but without the costs of 'printing' onto plastic, artificially created 'hype'/'buzz'/etc, no payola to Clear Channel, no anti-pirate tax on blank media, etc.
The new market will be extremely diverse and in total far *larger* than exists now under the RIAA stranglehold, and without the stranglehold, the RIAA folks will shrivel extremely quickly. This will be good for the market and for the vast majority of tune-creators (who are now being held down so that a single 'group'/'artist'/'lug-nut' can be used to milk the consumer with as little risk as possible). Technology will continue to advance, and we may see a real flourishing of the arts.
And as for the copyright holders. They will make decisions about their content within the new market (making cost/benefit decisions, etc). Some copyright holders may decide that the market is not right for them (for whatever reason; artistic or economic, etc) and NOT RELEASE THEIR CONTENT. They can put it in a museum or only perform in front of 1000 folks paying $1 MILLION each -whatever. But we, the consumers will not be bending over backwards for the profit of a small group of shareholders from a small number of corporations.
Limiting copyrights would be good for similar reasons, but that's a different part of structure of this market and need not be considered central to this discussion.
-ptah
Because it's more likely than aliens living in the nothingness between stars (a vacuum near absolute zero where atoms per square mile are counted on one hand). Just my guess.
It's not impossible for something we're only guessing about in the first place, but unlikely given what we believe to be true.
-ptah
Aaah, an apologist for the RIAA. What? You own stock in those companies?
/. previously.
There are a number of mistakes you make that I think have been discussed on
First, that no one will make money. Have you any idea of how many bands make no money NOW? The ones that make money, do so because they have created (with our willing, if naive, participation) a false scarcity. There are plenty of groups that play in bars around the country and sell their home-produced CDs and make a few bucks. Those groups will diversify and flourish. MORE money will be made, it just won't all go to the 50 groups (try and name 50 groups) that make real money -after the mafia-like protection money the RIAA takes out of 'THEIR' groups.
Second, you seem to think musicians or authors or poets or sculptors or comic-book artists or [fill in any creator type] is doing their creating as part of a plan to make big $$$$. AND, if that's not enough of an assumption, you FURTHER suggest that they will all just *stop* getting together to play music (or to write a book, etc). Believe it or not, artists have been poor in the past, and we can be SURE there will be starving artists in the future.
Related to that, you adopt the plight of the poor starving artist and appeal to common decency or something. To which I say (and would say to any artist): do something else if you don't want to be poor and stuff. As a consumer, I won't care, because I will have access to plenty of cheap music/books/poetry/scuplture/etc THAT I'M willing to buy at a reasonable price. But, I can be nice too, and say: try having a public reading for $10, and maybe 100 people will come because they read your Great American Novel (that they downloaded for $1 -or borrowed from the library, or downloaded for free or WHATEVER). And if only 5 people come, then that's fine, have a book signing and charge $1 and maybe more folks will come... etc. The artist will struggle, but can come up with things that fans will pay for. BUT, we can be sure for those small authors, so Publisher is going to be getting 80% of the cut because there will be no Publisher.
Anyway, I think your concerns don't have any evidence. And history suggests the concerns aren't going to amount to a problem for anyone but... those stockholder types.
-ptah
Actually, I think those knowledge workers currently making slaves wages *pushing* those plastic discs around their stores, will do fine. They will be in HIGH demand by the vast multiplicity of new "labels" who are producing the many many groups that will florish (though at a small market capitalisation).
Those knowledge workers will enable a Mom-n-Pop label to find their TEN groups and distribute their 200 MP3s to the real fans of 'North-East U.S. Ska flavored Punk with touches of Brazillian Samba', or 'Hard driving Country popular in Alaska this year but sung in Polish' or [fill in your own micro-music-genre]
Getting paid to listen to tunes, blog and take PayPal payments for $1 per track (TO DO WHATEVER the LICENSEE WANTS TO DO WITH as part of the NEW MUSIC LICENSE). Not a bad gig. Or a bad business model. Cringely still misses the point: the RIAA as gatekeeper has died. The Music will start coming over the walls to the listeners and many folks will make some, but very much, money.
-ptah
I smell a sale coming!
New New NEW. Lower Prices! Krazy Bill is just GIVING these away. Come on down. He's Krazy Krazy KRAZY to license this software with these terms! Get yours TODAY!
Controlling how we communicate is a first step in controlling what we think. If we have to use a specialized language on the phone, then what's to stop that requirement moving to other areas (think microphones in public spaces)?
It's double-plus ungood. Give me Liberty or Give me Death.
-ptah
If I print it out the Federal Registry, *I* can sell it to you. It's public domain. I can undercut prices from the government, I can make rude ascii pr0n out of it in a bit of useless satire, etc.
-ptah
Sounds like you think it's may not be cost beneficial to run Windows software. That's fine, and a reasonable point (to which I agree).
But your sarcasm makes it appear that you think one shouldn't have to test upgrades and patches, and with that I simply can't agree. If all system admins are not "testers" in the sense that new services/machines are tested before production deployment, then you are not a real system admin (or your PHB is no longer an amusing reflection of the fictional character, but a real life deteriment to your real life business).
Sleep with dogs, expect fleas and all.
Cheers,
-Ptah
It's a fair point, but collusion between the members of the RIAA ensure that among similar artists the prices are the same.
For example, if Aerosmith comes out at $18 for 3 months, then goes to $15 JUST LIKE The Rolling Stones then my $20 for classic rock is going to find no competition. While Britany, Shakira, Mandy Moore?, and Christina probably start at $20 for 1 month before getting the mark down to $18 etc. The RIAA folks were sued of course for engaging in that illegal collusion of course.
They settled out of court as I recall.
It is all a scam from an industry that is dead but just doesn't know it. We no longer need a gatekeeper to tell us what is "hot", and without artificial means to setting the market, the $20 is living on borrowed time. More significantly for the RIAA members, there will some be easy competition from small productions houses if not from artist/producers.
Maybe this has been mentioned previously (grin). The reason the RIAA is scared is that their business model depends on their being the gatekeeper of what is 'hot' or 'good'. Once they lose that (and they already have lost it, they just don't know/accept it yet), they can't make more self-declared 'stars'.
The music will be free. It's just information after all.
-Ptah
Here's 3 random numbers:
1 23 ,123,123,123,1239 82,548,962,349,678 ,678,678,678,678,6785 6,740,293,475,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
765,689,45,690,845,986,049,586,049,586,123,132,
92,348,670,149,852,346,908,234,
2,490,290,639,086,436,402,4
-Ptahian
(in case you don't know that brauen means beer or brewing or something):
http://www.m-fey.de/brauen/index.htm
It's MUCH more concentrated.
Here's a page describing the grades.
http://www.h2o2-4u.com/grades.html/a
Even now Michael Jackson is calling his surgery team to schedule more transformation. His nose is clearly no longer small enough.
How does 100,000 articles compare to 'old style' encyclopedias (e.g. Brittanica, World Book, etc)?
And when can I buy a nicely bound hard-copy for the cost of printing (plus a buck for the FSF)?
p0rn leads the way as always.
He must be extremely stupid if he did steal, then inform on himself. But maybe he just had a bit of good karma? Do we need to prosecute every 9 year old who steals a candy bar then returns it?
I still believe the FBI is attempting to parade it's abilities/intentions toward computer crime using this case.
2 in fact: one for each foot.
Add a hand-held controller and we're off to the races.
Funny how easy it was to guess.
Here's a Pic and info of the IBOT. Add some contempary chips, and it's easy to imagine.