Have you read the 1989 OTA Report on home taping, which concluded that so-called "bootlegging" was no threat to music industry profits, and that it in fact served as free advertising? It turned out that the users making tapes illegally were also both more likely to buy more music themselves and more likely to encourage other fans to do so. While obviously the technology has improved significantly since 1989, aren't we really dealing with the same issues? After all, CD sales are way up, despite Napster. And you yourselves have credited bootleg tapes with your own popularity - why are you seeking to put napster out of business and deny other artists similar outlets?
How interesting that someone with this perspective has a link to junkbuster in his sig.... one might just as well say, by using junkbuster you are literally stealing from the advertisers, and you are taking away the right of the web page owner to control the way in which his/her page is viewed. And who knows how much money is lost that you might have spent on the items advertised in the banner ads you missed reading....
You hate double standards? Why is it ok for you to deprive the poor helpless advertiser of the revenue they need to keep their cupboards stocked with Ramen noodles, but it is not ok to similarly deprive poor crybaby Lars of the revenue he might have had if you bought his crappy CD instead of downloading it?
You will say, the difference is legality - distributing illegal mp3s is illegal whereas junkbuster is not yet illegal. Frankly, if the advertisers had their way, they would make it illegal, just like the RIAA and other corporate captains of consciousness have had their way with the laws for years (trading cassette tapes is illegal, even though the RIAA has not gone after cassettes since the OTA answered their arguments in this study back in 1989). I mentioned this before - all the arguments are the same; the only change is the technology. Record companies (and, more importantly, artists) should embrace the implications of the new technologies and come up with a business model that allows them to profit off the new medium. This excellent article in Red Herring suggests just that, if anyone wants to read something more articulate than my own words. (heh - but if you want more of my own ranting, read more on nofuncharlie
You're right that Metallica is just telling Napster to enforce their own rules by handing them 300000 names. But it's notable that they only did that after they started the lawsuit. Which suggests the lawsuit was filed in bad faith and that their real goal was extortion of money from Napster, Inc. rather than "protecting intellectual property." (By the way, Lars claimed in the Metallica chat that their goal was to put Napster Inc. out of business). And I suspect that their real goal in "naming names" is intimidation of their fans rather than any desire to see "justice" done.
Someone else pointed out that trying to stop "piracy" by attacking Napster is like trying to soak up the ocean with a sponge. These millionaires are whining because they see that their unfettered monopoly over artists and consumers is soon coming to an end. The Commodore says, tough luck: evolve or die.
I made it too and agree with all of the above. I posted my feelings briefly here and the transcript should be available here. The lamest thing of all was the way Metallica left the chat without even saying they were leaving. And it was clear they only saw the questions they answered, not the actual stuff going on in the chatrooms.
yeah, real clever. Except this move only comes after a lawsuit. They never bothered to even contact Napster, Inc. before filing the lawsuit. Bad faith for sure; it looked like a naked attempt at extortion rather than a real attempt to protect their intellectual property rights. They should have done this in the first place - that would have been smarter, but I still think this whole thing is stupid. Metallica needs to get with the Internet age, as do the rest of the millionaires whining about their intellectual property being "pirated." The real artistic community (and even the shameless hucksters who make their livings ripping off artists) needs to start imagining creative new ways to stay profitable in the information age (many have already done so). The mp3.com decision is a setback to this way of thinking, but I think technology will overwhelm the lawyers in the long run.
And the bottom line is, they need to prove they are losing money due to napster. I am not talking about the legality of it - sure, distributing illegally copied music is illegal - but rather the feasibility of the band winning any damages. They can throw some poor Metallica fans in jail for violating copyright laws (assuming they spend a lot of $ and time setting them up and directly identifying them while they are committing crimes). Truth is, a lot of those people already probably spend a bunch of their hard earned money on Metallica music already, not to mention t shirts, concerts, and jimmy hats.
The industry is not at this point suffering due to "piracy." Future technological developments threaten it only if it refuses to change -- welcome to capitalism.
Actually he's released an album that has gone quadruple platinum which is more than Eminem's (triple platinum).
gee, that's great. so much for the negative effect napster had on his ability to sell records. And my original point was not that he didn't sell any records recently; just that his recent album sucked, IMHO. You don't have to agree.
If it isn't about piracy what is it about? Up until the arrival of MP3s there was very little way for the average Joe to get digital copies of original copies without considerable cost. The report you link to is a red herring (it is from before MP3s when copying meant burning CDs or dubbing tapes and even then in 1989 it was inconclusive).
It's a red herring how? Copying is copying. So what if it's easier now? That's what technology is all about. If Mr. Fuck tha Police can't deal with it, nobody's making him stay in the music industry. The music industry is changing. And technology is one of the forces changing it. Look, Dre was way ahead of his time technologically back in the 80s; there is no question that he pioneered important new directions in hip-hop. But this kind of lawsuit just shows he doesn't grok the Internet and the revolution in information distribution it represents. (And how was the report inconclusive?)
Dr. Dre, the RIAA and Metallica have shown themselves to be more technologically savvy and able to spot trends than most of the people posting to this thread. In a few years broadband will be ubiqituos and devices that play/record digital music will be cheap. Already my roomate and I who are music fans and probably own a combined total of 200 CDs, have almost stopped purchasing CDs.
Hmm, let me get this straight - you support lawsuits against napster users because you yourself are a notorious pirate? You flagrantly violate the copyright laws you cherish, and don't even bother to give back to the music industry, and you think Dre's lawsuit will somehow rid you of your addiction to behavior you consider immoral and illegal? Perhaps you should volunteer to be one of the "as yet unnamed" defendants in the suit.
There will always be leeches who take and don't give back, but that won't bankrupt the music industry. What will bankrupt the music industry - or at least its currently leading crop of robber barons - is a refusal to grow with the times. The internet is a radical medium of information exchange that people are only beginning to understand. One thing it greatly facilitates is sharing information freely. There is no way around that, and those that prosper in the digital age are those who embrace that change as a source of strength rather than run in fear because it forces them to reinvent their business strategies.
where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck. I have thought about different ways that the music industry can thrive in a digital world and none come to mind
The music industry as it currently exists shouldn't live in the digital world then. What do you want to do, outlaw the digit?
I agree with the other respondent - these millionaires should shut up and quit their fscking whining. Who is "stealing" what Dre sells? Taping an album is not a crime. And it's not a crime to download the mp3 of a song if you own the album or the CD or the tape. I am not defending "theft" or "piracy" here at all, but it is silly to assume that just because people download mp3s that they are thieves and pirates. In any case, Dre has no legal argument if he cannot show that his record label is losing $ by "piracy," which is why I mentioned the fact that CD sales are up anyway.
At least Chuck D, Limp Bizkit, Cypress Hill, and Offspring "get it." This is about technology and the freedom to use it to promote your art. Sure it raises piracy questions but so has every recording medium since the fscking player piano.
Forget him then. The only decent thing he's done recently is sign Eminem. Read my coverage of this on nofuncharlie here and here. This is not about "piracy" at all in my mind. Sure there are plenty people downloading copyrighted music out there, but there are also plenty of people taping stuff off the radio. CD sales are up despite napster and despite CD-R availability, and studies have shown that the people who copy music are also more likely the people buying more records. They also spread the news of new music to their friends who also buy more records. And mp3 may be better quality than tape but it ain't that great. This isn't about piracy at all - it's about an industry that is afraid to change with the times. Get over yourself, Dre, and take a hint from your buddy Chuck D: the reason the industry is scared of napster is because it gives small unknown artists the power of distribution without having their work extorted by music industry gatekeepers!
Look everybody, finally it's not "the man" going after music pirates. At last, a group with the power -- and the balls -- to do stand up and something about this. Kudos to Metallica.
Yeah, right; it takes real courage for a group of millionaires to sue napster and some colleges in order to protect their intellectual property rights. Give me a break. This is about extortion, pure and simple, because Metallica's lawyers know they can get away with it. I'm hoping they're wrong.
SDI has been a miserable failure at everything except transferring wealth from taxpayer pockets. The amount of money still being spent on SDI-related research is outrageous given the lack of success (at least at its stated goals). There was a great piece on one of the more recent failures at nofuncharlie - the story is here: http://nofuncharli e.com/HyperNews/nfc/get/news/bmd.9-Mar-00.html and has some great links to further information.
It should work fine on the S900. I installed the beta a month or so ago on a J700 as well as on a Power Tower Pro; both pretty much without a hitch. I'll be reviewing it and LinuxPPC 2000 (which I also installed on both machines) for GNUpples sometime in the near future. But here's a preview -- I found SuSE much easier to install, configure, and I liked the default package set that came with the distro much better than LinuxPPC 2000 (in spite of its slick X-based installer). Stay tuned for more details....
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read the 1989 OTA Report on home taping, which concluded that so-called "bootlegging" was no threat to music industry profits, and that it in fact served as free advertising? It turned out that the users making tapes illegally were also both more likely to buy more music themselves and more likely to encourage other fans to do so. While obviously the technology has improved significantly since 1989, aren't we really dealing with the same issues? After all, CD sales are way up, despite Napster. And you yourselves have credited bootleg tapes with your own popularity - why are you seeking to put napster out of business and deny other artists similar outlets?
You hate double standards? Why is it ok for you to deprive the poor helpless advertiser of the revenue they need to keep their cupboards stocked with Ramen noodles, but it is not ok to similarly deprive poor crybaby Lars of the revenue he might have had if you bought his crappy CD instead of downloading it?
You will say, the difference is legality - distributing illegal mp3s is illegal whereas junkbuster is not yet illegal. Frankly, if the advertisers had their way, they would make it illegal, just like the RIAA and other corporate captains of consciousness have had their way with the laws for years (trading cassette tapes is illegal, even though the RIAA has not gone after cassettes since the OTA answered their arguments in this study back in 1989). I mentioned this before - all the arguments are the same; the only change is the technology. Record companies (and, more importantly, artists) should embrace the implications of the new technologies and come up with a business model that allows them to profit off the new medium. This excellent article in Red Herring suggests just that, if anyone wants to read something more articulate than my own words. (heh - but if you want more of my own ranting, read more on nofuncharlie
You're right that Metallica is just telling Napster to enforce their own rules by handing them 300000 names. But it's notable that they only did that after they started the lawsuit. Which suggests the lawsuit was filed in bad faith and that their real goal was extortion of money from Napster, Inc. rather than "protecting intellectual property." (By the way, Lars claimed in the Metallica chat that their goal was to put Napster Inc. out of business). And I suspect that their real goal in "naming names" is intimidation of their fans rather than any desire to see "justice" done.
Someone else pointed out that trying to stop "piracy" by attacking Napster is like trying to soak up the ocean with a sponge. These millionaires are whining because they see that their unfettered monopoly over artists and consumers is soon coming to an end. The Commodore says, tough luck: evolve or die.
Commodore Sloat
I made it too and agree with all of the above. I posted my feelings briefly here and the transcript should be available here. The lamest thing of all was the way Metallica left the chat without even saying they were leaving. And it was clear they only saw the questions they answered, not the actual stuff going on in the chatrooms.
And the bottom line is, they need to prove they are losing money due to napster. I am not talking about the legality of it - sure, distributing illegally copied music is illegal - but rather the feasibility of the band winning any damages. They can throw some poor Metallica fans in jail for violating copyright laws (assuming they spend a lot of $ and time setting them up and directly identifying them while they are committing crimes). Truth is, a lot of those people already probably spend a bunch of their hard earned money on Metallica music already, not to mention t shirts, concerts, and jimmy hats.
The industry is not at this point suffering due to "piracy." Future technological developments threaten it only if it refuses to change -- welcome to capitalism.
That's exactly what it is, at least according to the law, whether you consider copying it "theft" or not.
gee, that's great. so much for the negative effect napster had on his ability to sell records. And my original point was not that he didn't sell any records recently; just that his recent album sucked, IMHO. You don't have to agree.
If it isn't about piracy what is it about? Up until the arrival of MP3s there was very little way for the average Joe to get digital copies of original copies without considerable cost. The report you link to is a red herring (it is from before MP3s when copying meant burning CDs or dubbing tapes and even then in 1989 it was inconclusive).
It's a red herring how? Copying is copying. So what if it's easier now? That's what technology is all about. If Mr. Fuck tha Police can't deal with it, nobody's making him stay in the music industry. The music industry is changing. And technology is one of the forces changing it. Look, Dre was way ahead of his time technologically back in the 80s; there is no question that he pioneered important new directions in hip-hop. But this kind of lawsuit just shows he doesn't grok the Internet and the revolution in information distribution it represents. (And how was the report inconclusive?)
Dr. Dre, the RIAA and Metallica have shown themselves to be more technologically savvy and able to spot trends than most of the people posting to this thread. In a few years broadband will be ubiqituos and devices that play/record digital music will be cheap. Already my roomate and I who are music fans and probably own a combined total of 200 CDs, have almost stopped purchasing CDs.
Hmm, let me get this straight - you support lawsuits against napster users because you yourself are a notorious pirate? You flagrantly violate the copyright laws you cherish, and don't even bother to give back to the music industry, and you think Dre's lawsuit will somehow rid you of your addiction to behavior you consider immoral and illegal? Perhaps you should volunteer to be one of the "as yet unnamed" defendants in the suit.
There will always be leeches who take and don't give back, but that won't bankrupt the music industry. What will bankrupt the music industry - or at least its currently leading crop of robber barons - is a refusal to grow with the times. The internet is a radical medium of information exchange that people are only beginning to understand. One thing it greatly facilitates is sharing information freely. There is no way around that, and those that prosper in the digital age are those who embrace that change as a source of strength rather than run in fear because it forces them to reinvent their business strategies.
where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck. I have thought about different ways that the music industry can thrive in a digital world and none come to mind
The music industry as it currently exists shouldn't live in the digital world then. What do you want to do, outlaw the digit?
At least Chuck D, Limp Bizkit, Cypress Hill, and Offspring "get it." This is about technology and the freedom to use it to promote your art. Sure it raises piracy questions but so has every recording medium since the fscking player piano.
Forget him then. The only decent thing he's done recently is sign Eminem. Read my coverage of this on nofuncharlie here and here. This is not about "piracy" at all in my mind. Sure there are plenty people downloading copyrighted music out there, but there are also plenty of people taping stuff off the radio. CD sales are up despite napster and despite CD-R availability, and studies have shown that the people who copy music are also more likely the people buying more records. They also spread the news of new music to their friends who also buy more records. And mp3 may be better quality than tape but it ain't that great. This isn't about piracy at all - it's about an industry that is afraid to change with the times. Get over yourself, Dre, and take a hint from your buddy Chuck D: the reason the industry is scared of napster is because it gives small unknown artists the power of distribution without having their work extorted by music industry gatekeepers!
The link points back to slashdot. ??
Yeah, right; it takes real courage for a group of millionaires to sue napster and some colleges in order to protect their intellectual property rights. Give me a break. This is about extortion, pure and simple, because Metallica's lawyers know they can get away with it. I'm hoping they're wrong.
Commodore Sloat
Commodore Sloat
Commodore Sloat