I agree, but think that's largely a testament to the music industry's inability to market subscription. I'm a fan of Rhapsody, myself. Also, I think books are a bit different because you tend to listen to music over and over again, but how many times do you re-read most of your books? I've got a few that I re-read almost every year, but for the most part, once is enough so the time out is not an issue. BTW, if you are ending up with timed out subscription music, try syncing after the month boundary or your subscription anniversary, and hopefully that will solve your problem. So long as your subscription continues, your music should never time out.
In fact, I'm a fan of the library, went every week as a kid, but I never get to go now. My wife has to get me books, and that's not a good way to browse. I work long days and don't have time to go to the library, and I am willing to pay to get my books on demand because I have more money than time. A Kindle subscription would be perfect for someone like me (working professional with a family), and I don't care if the books time out because I'll buy the ones I like.
I understand his points, but I think they are less relevant to a subscription service, which is what I want. I want to pay $X/month and be able to get as many books as I can read. I don't need to own, just to rent. Basically, a paid library where the benefit is that I can get the books right on the device because I'm lazy. $10/book to own is too much for me, since I won't read most books more than once.
Even though your statement is not true (see other child posts), that is not the point. The fact is that the majority of digital audio players on the market play mp3 but not ogg. So the problem is that there is an installed base of (millions of) players that can only be guaranteed to play MP3. If you want to solve the interoperability problem and avoid consumer confusion, the choice is clear.
This is an interesting problem, because the companies have to choose between interoperability and customer choice. The *only* way to guarantee that a file will play on a digital music player is to sell it in MP3. One point of moving away from DRM is to end the format war. However, if an average consumer buys an AAC or OGG file and finds that it won't play on their MP3 player (car stereo, set-top-box, digital picture frame, whatever) they're going to be pissed and the format war will continue to rage on.
So I get the desire for Ogg, but to get to a market where format is not an issue, the music companies have to mandate MP3.
The industry isn't going anywhere, it's just changing. Most people don't understand that the labels are basically venture capital for musicians. A VC invests in a start-up and gets stock in return. A label invests in artists and gets (historically) CD sales in return. Large companies can throw their weight around because they had enough starting capital to create good products, make the right partnerships, and grow. Large artists like Radiohead can do a "name your price" promotion because they had enough marking, promotion, and distribution to gain a sizable following. VCs invest in a portfolio of companies because they know 1 in 12 will succeed, and that 1 has to pay for the 11 failures. Labels invest in a portfolio of artists for the same reason.
Small start-ups can self fund, but the largest companies continue to have significant VC backing because it takes a lot of resources to make products and grow. Companies sign with VCs because they want that upfront investment. Unsigned artists can promote/distribute, but the biggest artists continue to have major label backing. Most serious artists continue to want label deals because they want the upfront payment and marketing/distribution muscle that allows them to focus on their artistry and not how they're going to feed themselves tomorrow. As proof, notice that even the big YouTube/MySpace artists are signing label deals.
So what's changing is that the labels will have to provide more services for artists and get things other than CD sales in return. But the need for "venture capital for artists" isn't going anywhere, so long as there are people who want to make music for a living.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to have some grip on reality. 1) CDs are not $20 2) CDs are not DRMed, and haven't been for a while now. Even when there was DRM, it was only on a handful of CDs. 3) The quality of music on CDs is not low quality. 4) Trent is the exception, not the rule. Successful artists like Trent can afford to go it alone and don't speak for the vast majority of artists on record labels who are struggling to make it. For evidence, you only need to look at which and how many artists are speaking out. There simply isn't an outcry, and one artist doesn't make a movement. 5) Anyone who suggests $10-$13 is a rip-off for a CD needs to think about the fact that that is the same as 3 cups of coffee at starbucks and often less than the price of a new book. Think about the amount of use you get out of an album. 6) Read what the jurors wrote. She's clearly guilty, and even her legal strategy acknowledges that. What she's trying to do now is get her sentence reduced.
People who make creative works for a living deserve to get paid, if that's what they want (Radiohead and others can give their stuff away for free if they want). The rights of the many (pirates) don't outweigh the rights of the few (creators). No one is fooled by the indignation of those who wave the banner of "fair use". Everyone knows the vast majority of these people are just pirates, trying to protect their own hides.
This is obviously false. If an artist got $2 on a $2 album, that would mean there was no cost to set up the site, no cost to take the credit card, no cost of bandwidth, no cost for PR or marketing, etc., all of which we know is false. What's more realistic is that an artist gets $2 from a $3 or $4 album.
Even without a label, the artist isn't out there doing these things without help. Someone is getting paid to do the distribution, but the splits are much better if it's not a (typical) label.
Ok, you are correct. What I should have said is a right explicitly contemplated by the constitution and subsequently granted by congress. Technically your clarification is correct, but my initial point about this being a right of content creators still stands even if it is a legislated right contemplated by the constitution rather than strictly a constitutional right.
You need to read more carefully. I said they are protecting their constitutional right (see Article I, section 8) by suing. I didn't say suing was the constitutional right. Also, anyone can sue for anything. That doesn't mean the courts have to take the case.
I suppose you are against all laws and governments, since they tell us how life should be lived?
Only the unjust laws. Remember, kids, jus' because it's a law does NOT make it morally/ethically correct.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it unjust. These laws exist to protect the right of the author, contemplated in the constitution as I mentioned above. The desires of the many do not eliminate the rights of the few. If everyone followed your logic, there would be no minority rights.
Re your headphone example, your logic is faulty. First, this is easily solved by using headphones with your TV. Suppose you didn't make enough money to pay for cable. Would that give you the right to steal it? Clearly not.
Protecting the rights of artists is admirable. When the RIAA starts doing that, we might be more convinced.
Stopping a business from facilitating infringement using established supreme court precedence is beneficial to artists. Artists are still trying to make money selling their creations. Usenet.com is clearly marketing itself as a piracy service, and none of its income goes to compensate artists.
Article I, section 8 (one of the functions of the legislature) : "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Sorry, but this says that congress shall secure authors the exclusive RIGHT to their respective writings. This is a right explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
Really, as someone who makes a living from music, I have to take issue with this. The RIAA is like Hitler for protecting their constitutional rights by suing a business (usenet.COM!) that is clearly inducing copyright infringement, and therefore likely to be liable under the Grokster decision (as ruled unanimously by the Supreme Court)? I suppose you are against all laws and governments, since they tell us how life should be lived?
Based on xenu.net, I would have taken you for a rationalist, but drawing analogies to Hitler in a case like this demonstrates that you are ignorant of the details and/or pandering to the crowd. Let's apply reason in equal measures, please.
So suddenly the rights of the many can be used to do away with the rights of the few? You do know that most artists don't want their stuff pirated, right? A few vocal artists want their music shared, but they're already big enough that they can make a pretty good living from concerts. They're the exception, not the rule. Most artists are struggling, and that's why you don't hear any artists complaining about this outcome. The purpose of copyright law is to protect the creators. Just because you feel entitled to something that runs counter to the law doesn't make that law corrupt. The penalty is sometimes used to make an example of someone, and that is what the court has done here.
I don't feel entitled to what you create, so I don't understand why you feel entitled to what I create. Your position is unsustainable: a society could not function if everyone could just take what they wanted.
I've purchased from the store on both the Mac and the PC and have to say it's a breeze to use. If you buy an album they've got a download manager for both platforms. Once that's installed, it's dead simple to buy & download. Somehow I've already spent $45... Seems much better than the competition. And no, I don't work for Amazon, I'm just a fan of the legitimate MP3 store. Good job, guys!
You're looking at it the wrong way : the labels are like venture capital for musicians. They have to cover their up-front artist payment, marketing, music production (e.g. producers like the Neptunes who bill at 100K per finished minute of music), music video production, fulfillment systems, etc., in addition to the distribution cost. The cost to send the file is not what they're trying to recoup.
Generally I agree, but I think there is a tangible difference. I just switched back to a Mac at work, where I have to run MS office and Entourage to remain compatible with everyone else. The windows file browser is better than the Mac's in some ways and worse in others. MS Office has TONS of weird mac-specific quirks. But for most things the Mac UI is cleaner and faster. I like the fact that the OS isn't constantly asking me things (clean up your unused icons?). I like that the OS seems to have fewer random problems as a result of new software installs. Boot times on the Mac are WAY faster. Expose is awesome if you like working with lots of windows open at once. Unix is under the hood.
Even though I know Steve Jobs is going to screw me eventually, for now I'm a convert. I fully expect to be switching back to MSFT after Apple loses their way and starts sacrificing functionality for design aesthetic. And then in 5 years, I'll switch back.
Oh please, stop spreading your FUD. Where is there any evidence at all that you will legally be restricted to playback? The majors allow their DRM files to be copied to multiple PCs, multiple devices, streamed, added to videos, etc today. Their DRMed files! Why would there be further restrictions on MP3s?
You're last statement is completely backward. A file with no DRM means that consumers won't have any negative effects at all because they will be able to do whatever they want with their files. The only ones at risk are the people who are doing large scale copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but think that's largely a testament to the music industry's inability to market subscription. I'm a fan of Rhapsody, myself. Also, I think books are a bit different because you tend to listen to music over and over again, but how many times do you re-read most of your books? I've got a few that I re-read almost every year, but for the most part, once is enough so the time out is not an issue. BTW, if you are ending up with timed out subscription music, try syncing after the month boundary or your subscription anniversary, and hopefully that will solve your problem. So long as your subscription continues, your music should never time out.
In fact, I'm a fan of the library, went every week as a kid, but I never get to go now. My wife has to get me books, and that's not a good way to browse. I work long days and don't have time to go to the library, and I am willing to pay to get my books on demand because I have more money than time. A Kindle subscription would be perfect for someone like me (working professional with a family), and I don't care if the books time out because I'll buy the ones I like.
I understand his points, but I think they are less relevant to a subscription service, which is what I want. I want to pay $X/month and be able to get as many books as I can read. I don't need to own, just to rent. Basically, a paid library where the benefit is that I can get the books right on the device because I'm lazy. $10/book to own is too much for me, since I won't read most books more than once.
Even though your statement is not true (see other child posts), that is not the point. The fact is that the majority of digital audio players on the market play mp3 but not ogg. So the problem is that there is an installed base of (millions of) players that can only be guaranteed to play MP3. If you want to solve the interoperability problem and avoid consumer confusion, the choice is clear.
This is an interesting problem, because the companies have to choose between interoperability and customer choice. The *only* way to guarantee that a file will play on a digital music player is to sell it in MP3. One point of moving away from DRM is to end the format war. However, if an average consumer buys an AAC or OGG file and finds that it won't play on their MP3 player (car stereo, set-top-box, digital picture frame, whatever) they're going to be pissed and the format war will continue to rage on.
So I get the desire for Ogg, but to get to a market where format is not an issue, the music companies have to mandate MP3.
The industry isn't going anywhere, it's just changing. Most people don't understand that the labels are basically venture capital for musicians. A VC invests in a start-up and gets stock in return. A label invests in artists and gets (historically) CD sales in return. Large companies can throw their weight around because they had enough starting capital to create good products, make the right partnerships, and grow. Large artists like Radiohead can do a "name your price" promotion because they had enough marking, promotion, and distribution to gain a sizable following. VCs invest in a portfolio of companies because they know 1 in 12 will succeed, and that 1 has to pay for the 11 failures. Labels invest in a portfolio of artists for the same reason.
Small start-ups can self fund, but the largest companies continue to have significant VC backing because it takes a lot of resources to make products and grow. Companies sign with VCs because they want that upfront investment. Unsigned artists can promote/distribute, but the biggest artists continue to have major label backing. Most serious artists continue to want label deals because they want the upfront payment and marketing/distribution muscle that allows them to focus on their artistry and not how they're going to feed themselves tomorrow. As proof, notice that even the big YouTube/MySpace artists are signing label deals.
So what's changing is that the labels will have to provide more services for artists and get things other than CD sales in return. But the need for "venture capital for artists" isn't going anywhere, so long as there are people who want to make music for a living.
Here, check my math:
38% of 1.2 million people pay $6 = $2.736 million.
According to this article http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001017730, their last album sold over 900,000 copies in the US alone, so let's guess they did 1.5 million (which would be a pretty poor showing, internationally). At $2/album from the major that means that they'd get $3 million.
So depending on whether the download cannibalized their CD sales this time around, they might come out slightly ahead.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to have some grip on reality.
1) CDs are not $20
2) CDs are not DRMed, and haven't been for a while now. Even when there was DRM, it was only on a handful of CDs.
3) The quality of music on CDs is not low quality.
4) Trent is the exception, not the rule. Successful artists like Trent can afford to go it alone and don't speak for the vast majority of artists on record labels who are struggling to make it. For evidence, you only need to look at which and how many artists are speaking out. There simply isn't an outcry, and one artist doesn't make a movement.
5) Anyone who suggests $10-$13 is a rip-off for a CD needs to think about the fact that that is the same as 3 cups of coffee at starbucks and often less than the price of a new book. Think about the amount of use you get out of an album.
6) Read what the jurors wrote. She's clearly guilty, and even her legal strategy acknowledges that. What she's trying to do now is get her sentence reduced.
People who make creative works for a living deserve to get paid, if that's what they want (Radiohead and others can give their stuff away for free if they want). The rights of the many (pirates) don't outweigh the rights of the few (creators). No one is fooled by the indignation of those who wave the banner of "fair use". Everyone knows the vast majority of these people are just pirates, trying to protect their own hides.
This is obviously false. If an artist got $2 on a $2 album, that would mean there was no cost to set up the site, no cost to take the credit card, no cost of bandwidth, no cost for PR or marketing, etc., all of which we know is false. What's more realistic is that an artist gets $2 from a $3 or $4 album.
Even without a label, the artist isn't out there doing these things without help. Someone is getting paid to do the distribution, but the splits are much better if it's not a (typical) label.
That's not what was originally reported, but I just tried it myself and you are correct!
Ok, you are correct. What I should have said is a right explicitly contemplated by the constitution and subsequently granted by congress. Technically your clarification is correct, but my initial point about this being a right of content creators still stands even if it is a legislated right contemplated by the constitution rather than strictly a constitutional right.
There was a minimum 0.45 fee applied to cover credit card cost, so if people went to bittorrent, etc., it could be pirated.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it unjust. These laws exist to protect the right of the author, contemplated in the constitution as I mentioned above. The desires of the many do not eliminate the rights of the few. If everyone followed your logic, there would be no minority rights.
Re your headphone example, your logic is faulty. First, this is easily solved by using headphones with your TV. Suppose you didn't make enough money to pay for cable. Would that give you the right to steal it? Clearly not.
Stopping a business from facilitating infringement using established supreme court precedence is beneficial to artists. Artists are still trying to make money selling their creations. Usenet.com is clearly marketing itself as a piracy service, and none of its income goes to compensate artists.
Article I, section 8 (one of the functions of the legislature) : "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Sorry, but this says that congress shall secure authors the exclusive RIGHT to their respective writings. This is a right explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
Really, as someone who makes a living from music, I have to take issue with this. The RIAA is like Hitler for protecting their constitutional rights by suing a business (usenet.COM!) that is clearly inducing copyright infringement, and therefore likely to be liable under the Grokster decision (as ruled unanimously by the Supreme Court)? I suppose you are against all laws and governments, since they tell us how life should be lived?
Based on xenu.net, I would have taken you for a rationalist, but drawing analogies to Hitler in a case like this demonstrates that you are ignorant of the details and/or pandering to the crowd. Let's apply reason in equal measures, please.
So suddenly the rights of the many can be used to do away with the rights of the few? You do know that most artists don't want their stuff pirated, right? A few vocal artists want their music shared, but they're already big enough that they can make a pretty good living from concerts. They're the exception, not the rule. Most artists are struggling, and that's why you don't hear any artists complaining about this outcome. The purpose of copyright law is to protect the creators. Just because you feel entitled to something that runs counter to the law doesn't make that law corrupt. The penalty is sometimes used to make an example of someone, and that is what the court has done here.
I don't feel entitled to what you create, so I don't understand why you feel entitled to what I create. Your position is unsustainable: a society could not function if everyone could just take what they wanted.
I know it's your party, by how about we donate money to an organization that actually benefits people in need, like Child's Play?
Why isn't anyone asking the most basic question, of where is the evidence?
I've purchased from the store on both the Mac and the PC and have to say it's a breeze to use. If you buy an album they've got a download manager for both platforms. Once that's installed, it's dead simple to buy & download. Somehow I've already spent $45... Seems much better than the competition. And no, I don't work for Amazon, I'm just a fan of the legitimate MP3 store. Good job, guys!
You're looking at it the wrong way : the labels are like venture capital for musicians. They have to cover their up-front artist payment, marketing, music production (e.g. producers like the Neptunes who bill at 100K per finished minute of music), music video production, fulfillment systems, etc., in addition to the distribution cost. The cost to send the file is not what they're trying to recoup.
Cut and paste?! I use it all the time on my blackberry.
;-P )
Wireless sync (unless it's already in now
Generally I agree, but I think there is a tangible difference. I just switched back to a Mac at work, where I have to run MS office and Entourage to remain compatible with everyone else. The windows file browser is better than the Mac's in some ways and worse in others. MS Office has TONS of weird mac-specific quirks. But for most things the Mac UI is cleaner and faster. I like the fact that the OS isn't constantly asking me things (clean up your unused icons?). I like that the OS seems to have fewer random problems as a result of new software installs. Boot times on the Mac are WAY faster. Expose is awesome if you like working with lots of windows open at once. Unix is under the hood.
Even though I know Steve Jobs is going to screw me eventually, for now I'm a convert. I fully expect to be switching back to MSFT after Apple loses their way and starts sacrificing functionality for design aesthetic. And then in 5 years, I'll switch back.
Oh please, stop spreading your FUD. Where is there any evidence at all that you will legally be restricted to playback? The majors allow their DRM files to be copied to multiple PCs, multiple devices, streamed, added to videos, etc today. Their DRMed files! Why would there be further restrictions on MP3s?
You're last statement is completely backward. A file with no DRM means that consumers won't have any negative effects at all because they will be able to do whatever they want with their files. The only ones at risk are the people who are doing large scale copyright infringement.
Here are some publications from the Yale lab. They explain the benefits of using robots:
a ti-EPIROB-05.pdfa ti-ISRR-05-final.pdf
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/scaz/papers/Scassell
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/scaz/papers/Scassell
Not only that, but audio professionals typically do codec and compression tests using an ABX test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
This would have been more interesting if they had used a statistically valid sample size and not only compared 128 to 256, but also to lossless.