I wish journalists would stop going to Jason Catlett and Marc Rottenberg for "authoritative comments" on non-issues like these. This is not a privacy worry...
Google has done the best job I've seen of disclosing the fact that you must expose your surfing habits to use its tool. It's not just the same old "yada yada" as they say.
You have a clear choice. Use the tool or don't. No one's making you install it or sneaking it in as OEM. You don't have some inalienable right to use the Google bar without having be "intrusive".
If Google could invent a way to perform the service without "invading your privacy", I'm sure they would do it. Think you can? Do it and go make a bundle.
When I installed it, at no time was I asked for any personally identifiable information. No registration. So how, pray tell, would Google know who it is that's aggregrating this URL history?
Oh, there's that GUID. Well, I suppose a GUID is Google's digital psuedonym for me and it let's the Web-based application distinguishing me from all the rest of you humps...but it doesn't identity me personally?
Could Google track me down with an IP address, figure out who I am, or assemble a complete dossier on me? I suppose. If I get any hint that Google is doing this, especially after promising that they wouldn't, you can bet I'll be looking to collect some punitive damages.
In the meantime, what data is there to sell to marketers that "I own" and would amount to my privacy being invaded? Nothing, nada. I'll be sniffing those packets to make sure nothing more than my URL and typical HTTP headers are leaking out (i.e. form entry data).
Look world. The Web is mostly public. When you contact a Web server, you are negotiating a communication transaction. If you expect to be a ghost, you don't understand the medium. Being noticed, characterized and tracked isn't necessarily any more of a privacy invasion than walking into Walmart and having a clerk recognize you from yesterday and notice that you are still wearing the same shirt. Let's be reasonable or else when there really is a privacy threat, we won't be taken seriously.
Organizing and accessing my data by object/content over my own network would be pretty cool. However, in the "wild" of the Internet, I don't necessarily need some central organizer knowing the "what" of what I am accessing. I guess I must be a privacy paranoid.
Extra know-how? How hard is it to right click, and choose "save streamed file"? Well let's see...I'm checking my Winamp, MusicMatch, Sonique and Windows Media Players...the ones used by the uncleaned masses. Nope, no "save streamed file" there.
Thats all I have to do to save a streamed mp3 file with my mp3 player (PM123). Bully for you. Guess that puts you in the upper percentile. But even if all these players add features to save a stream and turn a transient listening experience into a stored file, its too bad you can't see that MyMP3 doesn't facilitate that archiving whereas Napster does.
I have the right to make copies of any music I own, in whatever format I choose, for whatever personal use I see fit.
That's right, you do. But MP3.Com does not have the right, as a commercial entity, to facilitate your right by creating copies of non-licensed materials. THAT'S how MP3.Com violated labels' copyrights. (Of course $25,000 per CD in punitive -- not compensatory -- damages is ludicrous.)
Now everyone knows if mp3.com sends music to a "listening device" that happens to be your computer, you can save it in a file just as easily as you can with Napster.
No. I didn't know that. You cannot save a streamed audio file "just as easily as you can with Napster." Sure, it can be done, but it's not part of the mechanism and would require extra know-how and effort on the part of the user. That's the whole point distinguishing My.MP3 from Napster.
I find it interesting how the article attempts to make mp3.com look like it's less of a copyright violator than Napster, when in fact Napster is not even violating any copyrights outright and mp3.com is!
Napster facilitates copyright violation by its users. MP3.Com violated copyright by its implementation of My.MP3...users of My.MP3 are not themselves (if using the service ethically) violating copyright. Please tell you can see the distinction.
Think about it. Courtney is filing suit NOT because she wants the money. She proving a point...that Universal is protecting its own interests and not the artists they represent. And if there is money that's going to change hands, then why shouldn't some of it go to the artists since that was what Universal's lawyers were supposedly representing. I think it's classic.
I still think MP3.Com was arrogant to think it could build a commercial mechanism that required copying copyright material for redistribution without obtaining licenses. Imagine a portable music player that came preloaded with all music, and all you needed to unlock it was a CD to prove ownership. That'd be pretty neat, but the maker would still require a license to install all the prerecorded music (according to current US copyright law anyway). MyMP3 essentially did just that. Neat concept, but flawed in the laws eyes.
Personally, if I'd been the judge...I'd have determined MP3.Com willfully violated copyrights too. But I would have awarded the minimum allowable punative damages. $25,000 per phonorecord is ludicrous. I wonder how much of that Rakoff is getting?
Ok. Wasn't ragging on you specifically. I just get tired of the Katz bashing, however warranted it might be. Wish I could set those posts below my threshold somehow.
This Upside article pretty much summarizes most of the recent issues being litigated as a result of the Internet's gold rush and the turf protecting efforts by the big boys. I'm sure there are more, but expect this list to grow longer (I'm surprised no sites have complained about About.Com or AskJeeves framing external links within their own ad-displaying framesets. I guess reason reigns over most of the Web since framed sites ought to realize that these services bring in traffic so why bite the hand?)
Hmm. Though I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, I must admit I am tempted to come to the same conclusion. The question then leads to...what would prevent Network Solutions from enlisting proxies to lock up as many domain names as possible to keep them out of the pool from their competitors? Where are the voices of the other registrars? Is any one in charge here?
You don't have to be a wizard to know you never divulge your personal information when you browse the Web. Use an insulating email address (in fact, I'm hooked on the "revokable" email forwarding service at SneakEmail.) Live under a pseudonym, use false demographics if the request bugs you, filter cookies or at least periodical wipe them if you don't want to be tracked or profiled (really, it's just the multi-session/cross site persistent cookies that are a problem). Hide your IP address with a proxy maybe (big list here). Filter or disable Javascript. The only time I'll cross the threshold and divulge my true identity is if I really need to spend money for something which is rare. Otherwise, they can deal with JojoIndianCircusboy, Dirk Diggler, or Art Vandalay. Don't rely on anyone to be your defender...least of all the one's promising to protect your data.
As far as I'm aware, domain name registration is for a specific term. If the term elapses without renewal, the account isn't in arrears. It isn't like a rent or periodic payment due for service. The Network Solution's characterization of the issue as a collection on a debt is akin to a magazine publisher demanding back payment for the issues it delivered on an expired subscription.
Network Solutions doesn't/can't own the domain name (or is that the debate?). They are the Registrar. Once a domain registration reaches the end of its term, if it is not renewed, it cannot/should not be controlled by any single registrant.
The more I think about this, the more steamed I become. If I'm misinterpreting the issues here, please correct me. The question I have is what can we do besides rant on the Slashdot forum?
I must be dense (or not patient enough to research it on my own), but I thought non-renewed domain names simply went back into the pool.
Last year, negotiations broke down between me and a squatter over the transfer of a domain name I wanted. Rather than entertain his ransom, I decided to wait and see. I watched as the record expiration date passed and kept checking to pounce on its return to availability. After two months, I contacted Network Solutions, the registrar, and the reply I received was that registrants were given 30 days to renew or the domain name would be made available for sale. Well, that was nearly 90 days ago and the domain name still rests in expired but unavailable status. Now, am I to believe that "return to availability" means that it will be auctioned? Does NetworkSolutions somehow hold rights to a domain name in perpetuity simply because someone used them to register in the first place? If so...what a crock.
"The Offspring view MP3 technology and programs such as Napster as being a vital and necessary means to promote music and foster better relationships with our fans. The Offspring are dedicated to understanding our fans and are committed to developing the best possible Internet presence that promotes The Offspring's music and helps us stay in touch with the people who provide us with our livelihood, our devoted fans."
A reply...cool. I'm not saying it's impossible to track someone down if they use the methods I describe (or did I say that?). I'm just saying, in response to the claim that there is no anonymity, that it's not hard for someone (not quite so hunted as the Unabomber) to be anonymous. And, of course, it's a matter of degrees. Anonymity for the purposes of the consumer is much less stringently defined than the anonymity required of the socially persecuted which itself is less stringent than that required of the criminal, political dissident, terrorist, or whistle blower. I think, for the average person, anonymity is alive and well for those that want it. Claiming otherwise is paranoia. That's all I'm saying.
1. Create a "pseudonymous" account with Netzero, Freeinet, Bluelight, FreeWWWeb and dialup. For the truly paranoid, go mobile and jack into someone else's phone system.
2. Pay the $50 and get a quiver of Freedom nyms (or abuse the free 30 day trial over and over again if you're a cheap skate or don't want to register your payment information).
4. Finally, be very aware of any information you provide voluntarily. Even references to geography, personality, employment, etc. may, in the aggregate, offer more clues than you want to reveal. Turn off Java, ActiveX, and scripting languages just to be sure. Make sure your cache and history files are clean at the end of your session.
These are pretty restrictive measures and not the suit of armor I care to don, but if you are a alt.privacy type, there certainly is real anonymity online. With these measures in place, I'd be impressed if the FBI could locate and identify you.
If you aren't willing to take responsibility for what you do or say, you shouldn't do or say it.
Take responsibility? To whom are you saying I need to be responsible? Must I sign my name in opposition to an oppressive government or otherwise keep my mouth shut? Do I not have the right to ask a question about HIV without revealing who I am? Must I attach my name when I blow the whistle on my employer's sexual harrassment, environmental coverups, fraud, waste and abuse? Your attitude is very glib and only sits well when applied to the dark half of the anonymity equation. Anonymity is morally ambivalent.
Taking something that doesn't belong to you and which the owners do not wish for you to possess without an agreed upon transaction is stealing. I don't believe there can be an argument that stealing a "thing" -- something that's tangible -- is not theft. At any given time there's a finite amount of it and it represents a tradeable commodity. Likewise, taking a "thing" and then reproducing it in such a way as to pass it off as the original is theft and few people would argue that it isn't inherently wrong.
Now, how does this equate to something intangible like an idea or a performance? Once it's "out there", how is it secured? Is there a finite amount of "it"? When you create a bit of information (a song, a story, an essay, a poem, a theory, a proof, a dance, an image, an idea), how do you inventory it? You can't. Truth is, there is only one of "it" and it grows in the collective consciousness where it perhaps, divides and multiplies by degrees depending on interpretation and perception. What is finite is the medium on/in which it is archived, retransmitted and distributed. (the printed page, the electronic file, the pressed platter, the magnetic tape...even the modulated airwaves that temporarily carries the sensory information.) Since you cannot morally control thought, the only way to control the information is to control the media. You can erect physical barriers like walls to prevent anyone (or at least non-paying individuals) from being able to listen or see. You can create physical media that cannot be reproduced with fidelity. But as always, inventiveness and technology will find ways around these barriers. The alternatives are to either manipulate social laws and perception so as to equate the obtainment of such "non-things" with theft and a violation of some ethical code. Or, create incentives whereby the "authorized" distribution channels represent greater value, quality or desirability than the work-arounds. It's apparent which alternative the creators and owners of performing arts have chosen. I don't begrudge them that. I just disagree with the equation that they are representing the side of ethics.
I can see how those of you who believe that MP3 trading using Napster is somehow unethical and illegal can come to that conclusion. You have sympathy for the artist who you see is being deprived of the fruits of his/her labor. Or maybe you believe that the artist/creator has an unassailable right to dictate how that product will be used, manipulated or distributed once it is "out there". You are the kind of person who would never take fruit from an untended roadside stand without leaving the requested amount posted on the hand-drawn sign. I laud you. I believe I am one of you. I am ethical to the point of absurdity. Yet, I believe it is a false charge to claim that end-user acquisition of ephemereal, non-things like information is somehow unethical. Illegal? Certainly, if the laws of society uphold it. But not universally wrong or immoral.
Same Hans Zimmer. Different singer, I think. Lisa Gerrard (of Dead Can Dance) was the vocalist in Gladiator. Mission Impossible score isn't out yet (in the US anyway) and I didn't sit through the Metallica song at the end to find out who the vocalist was for some of the Gladiator-esque pieces, but it was awefully similar.
1. I tried. I really tried to read the whole thing...but trying to read this transcript of a spoken interview is terribly cumbersome. I think you've done the Slashdot readers, and certainly Lars, a disservice by publishing the interview this way...unedited. There are several previous posts that ignorantly think Lars wrote these replies. Hey people...you try answering some questions extemporaneously and have it transcribed verbatim and see how articulate you come off looking.
2. Nevertheless, from what I could parse, is that Lars doesn't get it. He knows something about the issue, but comparing Napster to a Book-of-the-Month club scheme? Come on. I think this represents the difficulty we're going to continue to see as the gap between the cogniscenti and the "uncleaned masses" continues to grow. I'm not espousing elitism here. I think its important for the geeks of all degrees to glimpse this and recognize that as the Lars's of the world come on line, or regulate it, or pass judgement on it, it is they through sheer numbers who will hold sway over it. This sounds like I'm being condescending, but we're a generation away from conversations like these seemingly horribly ignorant and primitive. People don't want to have to know how things work...only that they do. Lars barely understands that AOL isn't the Internet. That's not his fault. But it's the challenge we face, especially when we have judges and regulators and public opinion that has the same misconceptions.
3. I could only get through question #2, so if the interview improves after that, I'm sorry for basing my thoughts on a short review.
I remember once way back in my college days (1984) reading in the LP liner notes of some Athens, GA band that said something like "Please don't copy this record...if you like it, support the band and buy it". I ignored that plea and made a cassette copy because I wasn't about to go spend the $8.99 for a record that I wasn't sure I liked. But I liked the music enough to want to listen to it some more, if only in a crappy, hissy format like Compact Cassette. Was I ripping the band off? I didn't think so because they weren't getting my money anyway, so there was no lost sale. Did I have a right to that access? No...since I didn't own the platter, copying it wasn't my right.
But you know what? Having that cassette turned me into a fan I subsequently purchased the following LP and even went back and bought the one I'd taped previously. So that band (Love Tractor in case you're curious) benefitted from my "illegal taping", despite their plea that I refrain.
Is this anecdote illustrative of anything? Personally, I think so. Music is a great promotional tool. The motivation should be on expanding distribution, not restricting it. If I were a recording industry executive, I'd be looking at shooting ahead of the rabbit rather than trying to create obstacles. I'd be embracing the technology as the viral marketing tool than it is. In the short term, I wouldn't be worried about eroding profits, taking solace in the fact that people with -56K connections aren't too enamored with spending 15-30 minutes downloading a track...assuming they know how to access it in the first place. I'd be a fool to characterize college campuses as dens of rampant MP3 trading rather than viewing them as fertile ground for cultivating future fan bases. Even so, there's a much larger population out there that is still uninitiated or unaffected by the lure of "free music online". In the meantime, I'd start building a strategy to embrace and exploit this coming wave. I'd strive to make my retail product better than the freely exchanged product; adding multimedia content, including extended liner notes, enclose coupons or promotional giveaways...the creative possibilities are numerous. Make the retail product something worth spending money on. Use the free MP3 (or whatever digital format you like) to promote the product. It's like a huge listening station where you are trying to hook listeners into wanting more and better. If the music is disposable, then it won't stand up to this model, but then that's a good example of natural selection isn't it? Might cut down on the ephemeral successes of future Milli Vanillis and Spice Girls. If the music is in demand, then you have more sales and more profit.
Oh yeah, and I wouldn't gouge my customers with unsupportable product pricing and then blame things like My.MP3.Com and Napster for flat sales.
For a change of pace, scrounge through the heaps of amateurs at MP3.Com and see what gems you can find. Building fans. Here's a small "station" of World Beat music I've created -- Outside the Box. Make your own; share with friends. MPPP may be in the tank but I think they're doing a lot of things right.
Slashdot Mirror
- Google has done the best job I've seen of disclosing the fact that you must expose your surfing habits to use its tool. It's not just the same old "yada yada" as they say.
- You have a clear choice. Use the tool or don't. No one's making you install it or sneaking it in as OEM. You don't have some inalienable right to use the Google bar without having be "intrusive".
- If Google could invent a way to perform the service without "invading your privacy", I'm sure they would do it. Think you can? Do it and go make a bundle.
- When I installed it, at no time was I asked for any personally identifiable information. No registration. So how, pray tell, would Google know who it is that's aggregrating this URL history?
- Oh, there's that GUID. Well, I suppose a GUID is Google's digital psuedonym for me and it let's the Web-based application distinguishing me from all the rest of you humps...but it doesn't identity me personally?
- Could Google track me down with an IP address, figure out who I am, or assemble a complete dossier on me? I suppose. If I get any hint that Google is doing this, especially after promising that they wouldn't, you can bet I'll be looking to collect some punitive damages.
- In the meantime, what data is there to sell to marketers that "I own" and would amount to my privacy being invaded? Nothing, nada. I'll be sniffing those packets to make sure nothing more than my URL and typical HTTP headers are leaking out (i.e. form entry data).
Look world. The Web is mostly public. When you contact a Web server, you are negotiating a communication transaction. If you expect to be a ghost, you don't understand the medium. Being noticed, characterized and tracked isn't necessarily any more of a privacy invasion than walking into Walmart and having a clerk recognize you from yesterday and notice that you are still wearing the same shirt. Let's be reasonable or else when there really is a privacy threat, we won't be taken seriously.I'm with you. Some good stuff in amongst the static. Outside the Box
I'd mod you up, but I don't get status anymore.
Organizing and accessing my data by object/content over my own network would be pretty cool. However, in the "wild" of the Internet, I don't necessarily need some central organizer knowing the "what" of what I am accessing. I guess I must be a privacy paranoid.
Well let's see...I'm checking my Winamp, MusicMatch, Sonique and Windows Media Players...the ones used by the uncleaned masses. Nope, no "save streamed file" there.
Thats all I have to do to save a streamed mp3 file with my mp3 player (PM123).
Bully for you. Guess that puts you in the upper percentile. But even if all these players add features to save a stream and turn a transient listening experience into a stored file, its too bad you can't see that MyMP3 doesn't facilitate that archiving whereas Napster does.
I have the right to make copies of any music I own, in whatever format I choose, for whatever personal use I see fit.
That's right, you do. But MP3.Com does not have the right, as a commercial entity, to facilitate your right by creating copies of non-licensed materials. THAT'S how MP3.Com violated labels' copyrights. (Of course $25,000 per CD in punitive -- not compensatory -- damages is ludicrous.)
Now everyone knows if mp3.com sends music to a "listening device" that happens to be your computer, you can save it in a file just as easily as you can with Napster.
No. I didn't know that. You cannot save a streamed audio file "just as easily as you can with Napster." Sure, it can be done, but it's not part of the mechanism and would require extra know-how and effort on the part of the user. That's the whole point distinguishing My.MP3 from Napster.
I find it interesting how the article attempts to make mp3.com look like it's less of a copyright violator than Napster, when in fact Napster is not even violating any copyrights outright and mp3.com is!
Napster facilitates copyright violation by its users. MP3.Com violated copyright by its implementation of My.MP3...users of My.MP3 are not themselves (if using the service ethically) violating copyright. Please tell you can see the distinction.
I still think MP3.Com was arrogant to think it could build a commercial mechanism that required copying copyright material for redistribution without obtaining licenses. Imagine a portable music player that came preloaded with all music, and all you needed to unlock it was a CD to prove ownership. That'd be pretty neat, but the maker would still require a license to install all the prerecorded music (according to current US copyright law anyway). MyMP3 essentially did just that. Neat concept, but flawed in the laws eyes.
Personally, if I'd been the judge...I'd have determined MP3.Com willfully violated copyrights too. But I would have awarded the minimum allowable punative damages. $25,000 per phonorecord is ludicrous. I wonder how much of that Rakoff is getting?
Ok.
Wasn't ragging on you specifically. I just get tired of the Katz bashing, however warranted it might be. Wish I could set those posts below my threshold somehow.
I'd prefer a filter for any post that rants simply on the basis of Jon Katz's authorship.
This Upside article pretty much summarizes most of the recent issues being litigated as a result of the Internet's gold rush and the turf protecting efforts by the big boys. I'm sure there are more, but expect this list to grow longer (I'm surprised no sites have complained about About.Com or AskJeeves framing external links within their own ad-displaying framesets. I guess reason reigns over most of the Web since framed sites ought to realize that these services bring in traffic so why bite the hand?)
Hmm. Though I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, I must admit I am tempted to come to the same conclusion. The question then leads to...what would prevent Network Solutions from enlisting proxies to lock up as many domain names as possible to keep them out of the pool from their competitors? Where are the voices of the other registrars? Is any one in charge here?
You don't have to be a wizard to know you never divulge your personal information when you browse the Web. Use an insulating email address (in fact, I'm hooked on the "revokable" email forwarding service at SneakEmail.) Live under a pseudonym, use false demographics if the request bugs you, filter cookies or at least periodical wipe them if you don't want to be tracked or profiled (really, it's just the multi-session/cross site persistent cookies that are a problem). Hide your IP address with a proxy maybe (big list here). Filter or disable Javascript. The only time I'll cross the threshold and divulge my true identity is if I really need to spend money for something which is rare. Otherwise, they can deal with JojoIndianCircusboy, Dirk Diggler, or Art Vandalay. Don't rely on anyone to be your defender...least of all the one's promising to protect your data.
Network Solutions doesn't/can't own the domain name (or is that the debate?). They are the Registrar. Once a domain registration reaches the end of its term, if it is not renewed, it cannot/should not be controlled by any single registrant.
The more I think about this, the more steamed I become. If I'm misinterpreting the issues here, please correct me. The question I have is what can we do besides rant on the Slashdot forum?
Last year, negotiations broke down between me and a squatter over the transfer of a domain name I wanted. Rather than entertain his ransom, I decided to wait and see. I watched as the record expiration date passed and kept checking to pounce on its return to availability. After two months, I contacted Network Solutions, the registrar, and the reply I received was that registrants were given 30 days to renew or the domain name would be made available for sale. Well, that was nearly 90 days ago and the domain name still rests in expired but unavailable status. Now, am I to believe that "return to availability" means that it will be auctioned? Does NetworkSolutions somehow hold rights to a domain name in perpetuity simply because someone used them to register in the first place? If so...what a crock.
Wish I could moderate this up for you. Or in the lingo at Abuzz, "applause".
A reply...cool.
I'm not saying it's impossible to track someone down if they use the methods I describe (or did I say that?). I'm just saying, in response to the claim that there is no anonymity, that it's not hard for someone (not quite so hunted as the Unabomber) to be anonymous. And, of course, it's a matter of degrees. Anonymity for the purposes of the consumer is much less stringently defined than the anonymity required of the socially persecuted which itself is less stringent than that required of the criminal, political dissident, terrorist, or whistle blower.
I think, for the average person, anonymity is alive and well for those that want it. Claiming otherwise is paranoia. That's all I'm saying.
2. Pay the $50 and get a quiver of Freedom nyms (or abuse the free 30 day trial over and over again if you're a cheap skate or don't want to register your payment information).
3. Even with your Freedom nym in place, use the URL-based, CGI-type proxies at Anonymizer, Clandestination or the-Cloak (I found a great listing of proxies at WebVeil.Com.)
4. Finally, be very aware of any information you provide voluntarily. Even references to geography, personality, employment, etc. may, in the aggregate, offer more clues than you want to reveal. Turn off Java, ActiveX, and scripting languages just to be sure. Make sure your cache and history files are clean at the end of your session.
These are pretty restrictive measures and not the suit of armor I care to don, but if you are a alt.privacy type, there certainly is real anonymity online. With these measures in place, I'd be impressed if the FBI could locate and identify you.
Take responsibility? To whom are you saying I need to be responsible? Must I sign my name in opposition to an oppressive government or otherwise keep my mouth shut? Do I not have the right to ask a question about HIV without revealing who I am? Must I attach my name when I blow the whistle on my employer's sexual harrassment, environmental coverups, fraud, waste and abuse? Your attitude is very glib and only sits well when applied to the dark half of the anonymity equation. Anonymity is morally ambivalent.
Now, how does this equate to something intangible like an idea or a performance? Once it's "out there", how is it secured? Is there a finite amount of "it"? When you create a bit of information (a song, a story, an essay, a poem, a theory, a proof, a dance, an image, an idea), how do you inventory it? You can't. Truth is, there is only one of "it" and it grows in the collective consciousness where it perhaps, divides and multiplies by degrees depending on interpretation and perception. What is finite is the medium on/in which it is archived, retransmitted and distributed. (the printed page, the electronic file, the pressed platter, the magnetic tape...even the modulated airwaves that temporarily carries the sensory information.) Since you cannot morally control thought, the only way to control the information is to control the media. You can erect physical barriers like walls to prevent anyone (or at least non-paying individuals) from being able to listen or see. You can create physical media that cannot be reproduced with fidelity. But as always, inventiveness and technology will find ways around these barriers. The alternatives are to either manipulate social laws and perception so as to equate the obtainment of such "non-things" with theft and a violation of some ethical code. Or, create incentives whereby the "authorized" distribution channels represent greater value, quality or desirability than the work-arounds. It's apparent which alternative the creators and owners of performing arts have chosen. I don't begrudge them that. I just disagree with the equation that they are representing the side of ethics.
I can see how those of you who believe that MP3 trading using Napster is somehow unethical and illegal can come to that conclusion. You have sympathy for the artist who you see is being deprived of the fruits of his/her labor. Or maybe you believe that the artist/creator has an unassailable right to dictate how that product will be used, manipulated or distributed once it is "out there". You are the kind of person who would never take fruit from an untended roadside stand without leaving the requested amount posted on the hand-drawn sign. I laud you. I believe I am one of you. I am ethical to the point of absurdity. Yet, I believe it is a false charge to claim that end-user acquisition of ephemereal, non-things like information is somehow unethical. Illegal? Certainly, if the laws of society uphold it. But not universally wrong or immoral.
2. Nevertheless, from what I could parse, is that Lars doesn't get it. He knows something about the issue, but comparing Napster to a Book-of-the-Month club scheme? Come on. I think this represents the difficulty we're going to continue to see as the gap between the cogniscenti and the "uncleaned masses" continues to grow. I'm not espousing elitism here. I think its important for the geeks of all degrees to glimpse this and recognize that as the Lars's of the world come on line, or regulate it, or pass judgement on it, it is they through sheer numbers who will hold sway over it. This sounds like I'm being condescending, but we're a generation away from conversations like these seemingly horribly ignorant and primitive. People don't want to have to know how things work...only that they do. Lars barely understands that AOL isn't the Internet. That's not his fault. But it's the challenge we face, especially when we have judges and regulators and public opinion that has the same misconceptions.
3. I could only get through question #2, so if the interview improves after that, I'm sorry for basing my thoughts on a short review.
But you know what? Having that cassette turned me into a fan I subsequently purchased the following LP and even went back and bought the one I'd taped previously. So that band (Love Tractor in case you're curious) benefitted from my "illegal taping", despite their plea that I refrain.
Is this anecdote illustrative of anything? Personally, I think so. Music is a great promotional tool. The motivation should be on expanding distribution, not restricting it. If I were a recording industry executive, I'd be looking at shooting ahead of the rabbit rather than trying to create obstacles. I'd be embracing the technology as the viral marketing tool than it is. In the short term, I wouldn't be worried about eroding profits, taking solace in the fact that people with -56K connections aren't too enamored with spending 15-30 minutes downloading a track...assuming they know how to access it in the first place. I'd be a fool to characterize college campuses as dens of rampant MP3 trading rather than viewing them as fertile ground for cultivating future fan bases. Even so, there's a much larger population out there that is still uninitiated or unaffected by the lure of "free music online". In the meantime, I'd start building a strategy to embrace and exploit this coming wave. I'd strive to make my retail product better than the freely exchanged product; adding multimedia content, including extended liner notes, enclose coupons or promotional giveaways...the creative possibilities are numerous. Make the retail product something worth spending money on. Use the free MP3 (or whatever digital format you like) to promote the product. It's like a huge listening station where you are trying to hook listeners into wanting more and better. If the music is disposable, then it won't stand up to this model, but then that's a good example of natural selection isn't it? Might cut down on the ephemeral successes of future Milli Vanillis and Spice Girls. If the music is in demand, then you have more sales and more profit.
Oh yeah, and I wouldn't gouge my customers with unsupportable product pricing and then blame things like My.MP3.Com and Napster for flat sales.
For a change of pace, scrounge through the heaps of amateurs at MP3.Com and see what gems you can find. Building fans. Here's a small "station" of World Beat music I've created -- Outside the Box. Make your own; share with friends. MPPP may be in the tank but I think they're doing a lot of things right.
Pretty much Rob Rosenberger's theme at the Computer Virus Myths page. I post that here in case a few of you haven't discovered it.