before P2P, people would request songs on the radio and then tape them. people have been recording music off the radio long before P2P existed. don't blame the internet. music has wanted to be free for much longer...
and let's not forget about bootleg recordings of bands that never allowed it...
i believe jerry's widow was part of the decision making process considering she's probably not making that much money off his estate. regardless, it was a dick move by those who decided... phil wasn't included because phil would've been completely against the decision (and he's the one making the most money from other projects now).
your argument doesn't make much sense... you're saying that people only buy books for a short period of time after they're written. if the book isn't good enough, they, honestly, don't deserve much money from it. if they don't continue writing multiple books, then that's their problem. it's like a band that releases one album and disbands.
the problem with books is they remain in copyright for longer than 7 years because you're allowed to renew it. copyrights should end with no chance for renewal after an initial period (5 years is good enough for most) and then the work should go into the public domain.
yes, but the standard for most taper-friendly bands is to allow audience recordings and not soundboards. after they were big, the dead didn't really allow soundboards, so you can download aud's of the shows from the 60's-70's, but not the audience recorded soundboards (they used to let tapers tap into the board). recordings from that era that were not soundboards are not necessarily terrible quality, in fact some are pretty good. there are a lot of fans who prefer audience copies to soundboard because a lot of times you get a closer experience to the concert itself.
when phish got into selling sbd quality recordings, they disallowed trading of any sbd recordings of shows they officially released (although they allowed the continued trading of any shows they hadn't yet released). it sounds like the dead is planning on releasing all their shows at some point (which will, no doubt, make their catalog of officially release music HUGE).
you are absolutely correct. why do parents want to leave the parenting up to large organizations? if you really care about your children, you'd try the game yourself first and then decide if they should be able to play it. just like with movies, some movies rated R aren't as bad as you would think. watch it with your child or go see it yourself first.
i also don't see why kids can't be carded when they rent or buy video games (although if you're too young for a license you have no way of being carded).
$100,000 per violation. so that's each cd that was purchased and installed in the state of texas. figure there's at least 1,000 people in the state of texas who installed it only once. that's $100,000,000 that sony has to pay out, and that's only in texas. if every state files a similar lawsuit with similar charges, the cost to sony could be upwards of $1,000,000,000. sony's gonna settle this one out of court, but hopefully the people won't let them. first4internet didn't do the hacking, sony knowingly put the software on their cd's and didn't provide any type of warning as to what it did. sony knew exactly what it did.
kevin mitnick stole code. he didn't just look around, he took some for himself. no, he did not distribute it. he knew what he was doing was wrong. he's not a hero, he's an ex-con.
google local doesn't say beta. that includes their maps. i'm kind of surprised since that's one of their newer products. the google toolbar is also not beta.
i think it's more the lawsuit thing that they keep news in beta (makes people think they're constantly working on it). google groups is one of their longest running beta products...
so record stores don't work like the rest of the retail world where you pay for the product before you receive it (or at the time you receive it)? i own a clothing/furniture/office supply/whatever you want other than music store. i have to pay for my stock. anything i don't sell, i eat. that's a loss for me. i don't keep a huge stock if i know i can't sell it.
what you're telling me is that a record store puts in an order, gets the order, and doesn't pay for it until after they've sold, regardless of how much they have in stock. maybe that's the problem with the recording industry... make the record stores pay up front. they can determine the price based on what the market will handle (if the albums are being bought up like mad, the record store gets a nice little profit. if they don't, the record store either breaks even or takes a slight loss).
if the record companies don't like that, then they need to start opening up their own stores instead of fixing the price that record stores will sell albums at (because a record store isn't going to sell for less if no one is buying it).
i am not arguing that the RIAA is necessary. but if they weren't, why would bands go through them? think about your new up and coming bands. why do many heralded indie bands go major label? you're in college, you're young, you probably know more of these bands than i do. they sit there and bash the major labels, but i can guarantee that if given the option they will sign in a heartbeat. many have done it... modest mouse for one. i believe something corporate (who picked their name as a parody of major labels) is also on one now.
in the campus environment, mp3's are easier, i used them when i was in school. now that i have an apartment and room for my cd collection (i'm only 4 years out of college), it's easier. my computer is in a separate room (i hate the fan noise in the living room when i watch tv) and i don't have cable to run from my computer to my stereo (plus it's easier to use the remote than to have to get up to change song at my computer). so i use cd's. i bring them in my car because i can't afford a new stereo that allows me to play mp3's (plus i don't want to burn them). the mp3 collection i have (mostly pirated, i will admit) has varied sound quality (crappy to crappier to unlistenable except to get an idea of what the music is like with the occasional decent quality one). but i can take cd's in my car, i don't have to worry about any degradation of sound quality from the compression, it's just easier for me. my new car also doesn't play burned cd's really well, so there's that problem as well.
also, i'm into the music and the art of the music. an album isn't just a bunch of songs (ok, maybe in some cases it is), it's a creation. the songs are chosen for an album because there's usually some theme. can you imagine sgt pepper with other songs or in a different order? it wouldn't be the same. or how about abbey road? think about that one. so i buy cd's because i want the album. generally, the music i listen to, i like it all. there's sometimes a song or 2 that i will skip, but generally speaking, i listen to the whole thing straight through when i'm listening to a cd.
all the people i know, even those who were really into mp3 still buy cd's. it's a view that has changed in people as they get older. it might be a monetary thing for some, for others it's wanting the whole album to listen to in full, for still others, it's the rest of the art behind it... the packaging, the booklet, the liner notes. a cd for me, and a whole slew of others, is more than just a distribution method. if dvd-a or whatever is next catches on, i'll probably be converting my whole collection... i did it with cassettes at one point (although i had far fewer cassettes). but the fact remains that i will continue (as well as at least half, if not more, of the music-listening crowd) to purchase music through record stores (whether online or in person). my computer is a tool, not a stereo.
what many people don't realize is that the RIAA caters to youth only through the crappy music they put out. the majority of the people who listen to and buy music are older and are not interested in downloading their music.
very true... but the RIAA usually has more rights to that than the songwriter... and the band has to pay royalties when they perform a cover (or release a live album that contains said cover).
i prefer to buy cd's. i used p2p to download individual songs that i was interested in or to download a variety of songs from a band that i heard was good. i haven't used p2p in a while because it's gotten so crappy, and i prefer not to download a whole album from BT. but i would download a bunch of songs and if they were worth it, i'd buy the actual cd. i don't have over 1000 cd's, but i do have a few hundred. i plan to continue to buy more. i probably buy about 10 or so per year. but i have to agree, they are worried about the young people, but don't think about the people who have been listening to music for years, the actual music buffs, who buy a lot of music. instead, they put out music that just sucks and only the kids like it, but when the kids grow up, they realize how terrible it is. music that doesn't last doesn't make them a lot of money in the long run...
i don't think that's accurate. while a portion does go to ticketmaster, ticketmaster gets more of of their revenue from the service fees and shipping fees (which are about $10 per ticket now).
Yes, I do believe that THEY are running the webstore. Several of the bands I listen to run their own labels, and contract few, if any, other bands besides themselves. I also happen to know a few bands that follow this precise strategy. They sell lots of albums at their shows, and 100% of the money goes directly to them. No middleman, no excessive advertising (most of it is for free on the internet) and yet they almost make a living playing music.
you're talking about independent artists, i'm not. you can't buy a cd from an artist on a major label who doesn't give a good portion of that money back to the label (mainly because the label owns their webstore).
this is a comment i meant to make in my other reply.
i'm pissed about trey anastasio... lead man from phish. they were all about free trading of their concerts and everything, and now he's got copy-protected cd's. he should not have any copy-protection on his albums. it's very hypocritical if you ask me...
i'm not arguing that record labels are needed, but advertising is not cheap in magazines (rolling stone for instance) or on TV/radio. unless you're a good band and can get enough grassroots advertisements (word of mouth, such as phish), you won't be known without the radio. yes, the internet helps greatly, but frankly, it's not enough to get really big.
the RIAA cashes in on record sales only (and the occasional merchandising contract). they don't get concert revenues. so once you use the RIAA for enough advertising and get good in your own right, you then get out of your contract (or whenever it's done) and record on your own and make money off of concert revenues. it's also not as easy to start your own label. nevermind the overhead costs of recording in the first place.
now i'm not a fan of the RIAA, mainly for over-charging and screwing the artists out of money they deserve. the RIAA should not be retaining rights to the music. They should only be taking in the overhead costs, plus a stipend for fronting the money in the first place. I'm, personally, a big fan of the CD and i prefer to have the actual media rather than audio files on my computer (frankly, i just like CD's and i like the packaging). i don't own an mp3 player, i don't have a use for one. i never used a walkman or discman (i had a discman with car adapter when i couldn't afford a new stereo for my car). I will have an issue if they move to 100% downloading and i have to go and burn the music to have it on CD (not to mention, for some reason, my CD player in my car won't play burned discs).
there's a problem with the way you buy your records. do you really think that more of the money goes to the artist? is the artist really running the webstore or is the record label? think about that one...
for your parent's argument about major labels having a place... big bands do sign bad contracts all the time. why? advertising. they know they can get somewhere. think about that one. the beatles had a terrible contract, but they made more money afterwards when they did their own thing with apple records. a lot of the bigger bands today make their money through other means, not record sales. record sales means popularity, nothing more, nothing less. the more popular they are, the more poeple go to their concerts (where almost all the revenue goes to to the band). so far, the record labels haven't been able to touch concert revenue (don't you think they would've loved a chunk of the change bands like phish and the grateful dead made from touring alone?). the big label gets them advertisements, that's all (although phish and the dead became popular through word of mouth, the label just got them new fans).
i've tried bugmenot... none of the username/password combos it gave me for the sites i tried it on worked. maybe once it worked for the ny times (for which i have my own login now anyways). sometimes it's just easier setting up your own using a free webmail account (so you don't get spammed) and bogus info than trying and failing with bugmenot. maybe it's better now, i haven't tried it in quite some time (i think i only tried it shortly after it started or at least first announced on slashdot).
some of those have a skip link so you go to view the ad and then you click the skip link right away and you're at the store... i actually like those rather than news sites that don't allow you to view unless you either pay for a username or you have to sign up for a free username...
i think a bigger part of the problem, and hopefully this will open their eyes, is that thus far, the big anti-virus companies (symantec and mcafee) will not include IM worms in their definitions. this means that even if you have the most up-to-date windows security patches, and the most up-to-date anti-virus software, you can still be infected by the IM worm. i don't understand why they won't include them as they are, in my opinion, just as dangerous and propogate on their own just like normal email viruses. i deal with the "AIM virus" on a near-daily basis. i keep sending people to download AIMFix. this guy is getting some serious hits to his site, and he's not getting paid for it... these are real viruses, since the definition of a virus is that it gets onto your computer and propogates on it's own. this just doesn't use traditional means (email, network ports). even if you uninstall instant messenger, it's still there waiting to send itself to everyone on yoru buddy list.
Slashdot Mirror
the allmans don't allow any sort of digital trading, only snail mail or in person, no FTP, no BT, no HTTP...
you're not a true deadhead if you can really say that it was more the experience than the music...
before P2P, people would request songs on the radio and then tape them. people have been recording music off the radio long before P2P existed. don't blame the internet. music has wanted to be free for much longer...
and let's not forget about bootleg recordings of bands that never allowed it...
i believe jerry's widow was part of the decision making process considering she's probably not making that much money off his estate. regardless, it was a dick move by those who decided... phil wasn't included because phil would've been completely against the decision (and he's the one making the most money from other projects now).
your argument doesn't make much sense... you're saying that people only buy books for a short period of time after they're written. if the book isn't good enough, they, honestly, don't deserve much money from it. if they don't continue writing multiple books, then that's their problem. it's like a band that releases one album and disbands.
the problem with books is they remain in copyright for longer than 7 years because you're allowed to renew it. copyrights should end with no chance for renewal after an initial period (5 years is good enough for most) and then the work should go into the public domain.
yes, but the standard for most taper-friendly bands is to allow audience recordings and not soundboards. after they were big, the dead didn't really allow soundboards, so you can download aud's of the shows from the 60's-70's, but not the audience recorded soundboards (they used to let tapers tap into the board). recordings from that era that were not soundboards are not necessarily terrible quality, in fact some are pretty good. there are a lot of fans who prefer audience copies to soundboard because a lot of times you get a closer experience to the concert itself.
when phish got into selling sbd quality recordings, they disallowed trading of any sbd recordings of shows they officially released (although they allowed the continued trading of any shows they hadn't yet released). it sounds like the dead is planning on releasing all their shows at some point (which will, no doubt, make their catalog of officially release music HUGE).
sas institute and malden mills are good examples of ethical businesses. of course they are both privately held companies.
you are absolutely correct. why do parents want to leave the parenting up to large organizations? if you really care about your children, you'd try the game yourself first and then decide if they should be able to play it. just like with movies, some movies rated R aren't as bad as you would think. watch it with your child or go see it yourself first.
i also don't see why kids can't be carded when they rent or buy video games (although if you're too young for a license you have no way of being carded).
$100,000 per violation. so that's each cd that was purchased and installed in the state of texas. figure there's at least 1,000 people in the state of texas who installed it only once. that's $100,000,000 that sony has to pay out, and that's only in texas. if every state files a similar lawsuit with similar charges, the cost to sony could be upwards of $1,000,000,000. sony's gonna settle this one out of court, but hopefully the people won't let them. first4internet didn't do the hacking, sony knowingly put the software on their cd's and didn't provide any type of warning as to what it did. sony knew exactly what it did.
kevin mitnick stole code. he didn't just look around, he took some for himself. no, he did not distribute it. he knew what he was doing was wrong. he's not a hero, he's an ex-con.
google local doesn't say beta. that includes their maps. i'm kind of surprised since that's one of their newer products. the google toolbar is also not beta.
i think it's more the lawsuit thing that they keep news in beta (makes people think they're constantly working on it). google groups is one of their longest running beta products...
so record stores don't work like the rest of the retail world where you pay for the product before you receive it (or at the time you receive it)? i own a clothing/furniture/office supply/whatever you want other than music store. i have to pay for my stock. anything i don't sell, i eat. that's a loss for me. i don't keep a huge stock if i know i can't sell it.
what you're telling me is that a record store puts in an order, gets the order, and doesn't pay for it until after they've sold, regardless of how much they have in stock. maybe that's the problem with the recording industry... make the record stores pay up front. they can determine the price based on what the market will handle (if the albums are being bought up like mad, the record store gets a nice little profit. if they don't, the record store either breaks even or takes a slight loss).
if the record companies don't like that, then they need to start opening up their own stores instead of fixing the price that record stores will sell albums at (because a record store isn't going to sell for less if no one is buying it).
actually, trey is not phish. don't confuse the 2. his new album sucks.
i am not arguing that the RIAA is necessary. but if they weren't, why would bands go through them? think about your new up and coming bands. why do many heralded indie bands go major label? you're in college, you're young, you probably know more of these bands than i do. they sit there and bash the major labels, but i can guarantee that if given the option they will sign in a heartbeat. many have done it... modest mouse for one. i believe something corporate (who picked their name as a parody of major labels) is also on one now.
in the campus environment, mp3's are easier, i used them when i was in school. now that i have an apartment and room for my cd collection (i'm only 4 years out of college), it's easier. my computer is in a separate room (i hate the fan noise in the living room when i watch tv) and i don't have cable to run from my computer to my stereo (plus it's easier to use the remote than to have to get up to change song at my computer). so i use cd's. i bring them in my car because i can't afford a new stereo that allows me to play mp3's (plus i don't want to burn them). the mp3 collection i have (mostly pirated, i will admit) has varied sound quality (crappy to crappier to unlistenable except to get an idea of what the music is like with the occasional decent quality one). but i can take cd's in my car, i don't have to worry about any degradation of sound quality from the compression, it's just easier for me. my new car also doesn't play burned cd's really well, so there's that problem as well.
also, i'm into the music and the art of the music. an album isn't just a bunch of songs (ok, maybe in some cases it is), it's a creation. the songs are chosen for an album because there's usually some theme. can you imagine sgt pepper with other songs or in a different order? it wouldn't be the same. or how about abbey road? think about that one. so i buy cd's because i want the album. generally, the music i listen to, i like it all. there's sometimes a song or 2 that i will skip, but generally speaking, i listen to the whole thing straight through when i'm listening to a cd.
all the people i know, even those who were really into mp3 still buy cd's. it's a view that has changed in people as they get older. it might be a monetary thing for some, for others it's wanting the whole album to listen to in full, for still others, it's the rest of the art behind it... the packaging, the booklet, the liner notes. a cd for me, and a whole slew of others, is more than just a distribution method. if dvd-a or whatever is next catches on, i'll probably be converting my whole collection... i did it with cassettes at one point (although i had far fewer cassettes). but the fact remains that i will continue (as well as at least half, if not more, of the music-listening crowd) to purchase music through record stores (whether online or in person). my computer is a tool, not a stereo.
what many people don't realize is that the RIAA caters to youth only through the crappy music they put out. the majority of the people who listen to and buy music are older and are not interested in downloading their music.
very true... but the RIAA usually has more rights to that than the songwriter... and the band has to pay royalties when they perform a cover (or release a live album that contains said cover).
i prefer to buy cd's. i used p2p to download individual songs that i was interested in or to download a variety of songs from a band that i heard was good. i haven't used p2p in a while because it's gotten so crappy, and i prefer not to download a whole album from BT. but i would download a bunch of songs and if they were worth it, i'd buy the actual cd. i don't have over 1000 cd's, but i do have a few hundred. i plan to continue to buy more. i probably buy about 10 or so per year. but i have to agree, they are worried about the young people, but don't think about the people who have been listening to music for years, the actual music buffs, who buy a lot of music. instead, they put out music that just sucks and only the kids like it, but when the kids grow up, they realize how terrible it is. music that doesn't last doesn't make them a lot of money in the long run...
i don't think that's accurate. while a portion does go to ticketmaster, ticketmaster gets more of of their revenue from the service fees and shipping fees (which are about $10 per ticket now).
Yes, I do believe that THEY are running the webstore. Several of the bands I listen to run their own labels, and contract few, if any, other bands besides themselves. I also happen to know a few bands that follow this precise strategy. They sell lots of albums at their shows, and 100% of the money goes directly to them. No middleman, no excessive advertising (most of it is for free on the internet) and yet they almost make a living playing music.
you're talking about independent artists, i'm not. you can't buy a cd from an artist on a major label who doesn't give a good portion of that money back to the label (mainly because the label owns their webstore).
this is a comment i meant to make in my other reply.
i'm pissed about trey anastasio... lead man from phish. they were all about free trading of their concerts and everything, and now he's got copy-protected cd's. he should not have any copy-protection on his albums. it's very hypocritical if you ask me...
i'm not arguing that record labels are needed, but advertising is not cheap in magazines (rolling stone for instance) or on TV/radio. unless you're a good band and can get enough grassroots advertisements (word of mouth, such as phish), you won't be known without the radio. yes, the internet helps greatly, but frankly, it's not enough to get really big.
the RIAA cashes in on record sales only (and the occasional merchandising contract). they don't get concert revenues. so once you use the RIAA for enough advertising and get good in your own right, you then get out of your contract (or whenever it's done) and record on your own and make money off of concert revenues. it's also not as easy to start your own label. nevermind the overhead costs of recording in the first place.
now i'm not a fan of the RIAA, mainly for over-charging and screwing the artists out of money they deserve. the RIAA should not be retaining rights to the music. They should only be taking in the overhead costs, plus a stipend for fronting the money in the first place. I'm, personally, a big fan of the CD and i prefer to have the actual media rather than audio files on my computer (frankly, i just like CD's and i like the packaging). i don't own an mp3 player, i don't have a use for one. i never used a walkman or discman (i had a discman with car adapter when i couldn't afford a new stereo for my car). I will have an issue if they move to 100% downloading and i have to go and burn the music to have it on CD (not to mention, for some reason, my CD player in my car won't play burned discs).
there's a problem with the way you buy your records. do you really think that more of the money goes to the artist? is the artist really running the webstore or is the record label? think about that one...
for your parent's argument about major labels having a place... big bands do sign bad contracts all the time. why? advertising. they know they can get somewhere. think about that one. the beatles had a terrible contract, but they made more money afterwards when they did their own thing with apple records. a lot of the bigger bands today make their money through other means, not record sales. record sales means popularity, nothing more, nothing less. the more popular they are, the more poeple go to their concerts (where almost all the revenue goes to to the band). so far, the record labels haven't been able to touch concert revenue (don't you think they would've loved a chunk of the change bands like phish and the grateful dead made from touring alone?). the big label gets them advertisements, that's all (although phish and the dead became popular through word of mouth, the label just got them new fans).
i've tried bugmenot... none of the username/password combos it gave me for the sites i tried it on worked. maybe once it worked for the ny times (for which i have my own login now anyways). sometimes it's just easier setting up your own using a free webmail account (so you don't get spammed) and bogus info than trying and failing with bugmenot. maybe it's better now, i haven't tried it in quite some time (i think i only tried it shortly after it started or at least first announced on slashdot).
some of those have a skip link so you go to view the ad and then you click the skip link right away and you're at the store... i actually like those rather than news sites that don't allow you to view unless you either pay for a username or you have to sign up for a free username...
do you have proof of this? i could not find any way to play a CD with this DRM.
i think a bigger part of the problem, and hopefully this will open their eyes, is that thus far, the big anti-virus companies (symantec and mcafee) will not include IM worms in their definitions. this means that even if you have the most up-to-date windows security patches, and the most up-to-date anti-virus software, you can still be infected by the IM worm. i don't understand why they won't include them as they are, in my opinion, just as dangerous and propogate on their own just like normal email viruses. i deal with the "AIM virus" on a near-daily basis. i keep sending people to download AIMFix. this guy is getting some serious hits to his site, and he's not getting paid for it... these are real viruses, since the definition of a virus is that it gets onto your computer and propogates on it's own. this just doesn't use traditional means (email, network ports). even if you uninstall instant messenger, it's still there waiting to send itself to everyone on yoru buddy list.
and who's gonna monitor all the .mobi sites?