ASCAP & BMI, which are Performance Rights Organizations, both have started to establish internet distribution licensing. The major difference (and the reason they're not getting involved in this melee) is that PRO's manage the rights of music performances, for example: radio, tunes played in bars, or streaming audio. They handle licensing and pay the songwriters and publishers.
They don't handle the rights to the actual product that is a sound recording (such as a cd, or an.mp3) of a specific piece of music -- that's done by folks like the Harry Fox Agency (spawned from the NMPA, National Music Publishers Association) and the RIAA. They pay the artists (or more often, companies) who record the music, sometimes the same thing as the songwriters, but not universally. Both of whom are indeed involved in this and other litigation.
In other words, as I understand it, companies that stream their audio can pay licensing fees to ASCAP & BMI to cover the songwriters' royalties, but companies that distribute products (you possess the.mp3 file) are expected to pony up to HFA & the RIAA, and aren't -- thus the lawsuits. A relatively smooth system like the PRO's, transparent to the user, would be welcome.
There are an increasing number of cases in today's courts that deal with technically complex issues, where code is intrinsically a part of the subject matter. Do you feel that the existing legislative and judicial system in the United states is currently capable of dealing with these 'geek' issues? Is there sufficient technical expertise available to be able to create laws and make judgements on issues that require the understanding of intricate lines of code and the nature of the internet and digital distribution? Or, if laws are being made and upheld by Congress and the courts while lacking technical understanding, what can be done to remedy this?
It's an age-old debate. How do national laws apply to the internet? They don't. Will they be made to do so? Without a doubt.
How can an entity comprised of information be governed by a system based on the physical? How can geographic governments rule what is not geographic? As far as information is concerned, and commerce to that extent, geography is essentially obsolete.
Take a look at this old article from the US Treasury that touches on the subject of geography's irrelevance. The relevant question is, how do we convey to stodgy legislators the essential freedom from barriers that earmarks communication today?
I've always wanted stuff along the lines of Idoru's Sandbenders. I'd just as soon have a 'permanent' box, and just have to upgrade the guts. Ivory keypads? Polished wood monitor casing? Just as long as I can still reach the electronics, I'd be happy. Some of the Silicon Valley wealth ought to call up a Beverly Hills jeweler or two and get it rolling. The fruit-cases' mainstream success ought to be an indicator that there is a market for something other than oyster grey plastic.
--- --- "The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
I'm just waiting for the technology to come out to combat the skin-particulate machines...just step in, get suctioned and ionized, and off you go...all free of those incriminating particles.
Secondary market? The in-home model for all the happy obsessive compulsives who can no longer be content with just washing their hands. Just think, five relaxing minutes to utter cleanliness!
So I would be paying, more AND less. More of the money would go to the artists who provide the content.
Sure, definitely. If we're talking about specific charges set directly by the artists, then they could certainly charge less, but make more.
I'm interested, though, in the concept of collective payment. The idea that everyone (in general) pays toward a fixed sum, beyond which all is free (beer). So, any given person might pay a buck, if they thought the product was fair, or thirty bucks, if they thought it was supreme. Once supported to whatever pre-determined level, the product would simply be available to anyone interested.
My question to the world is: would you pay with a system like Ian Clarke's? Would you voluntarily pay to support the creators of the stuff you like? Would you pay more than you would elsewhere? Less? "So we're not home and dry."
First, the basis for current copyright laws came into existence because the printin g press made it possible to quickly, cheaply, and easily create almost limitless copies of current products being sold by a small group of people. The printing press forced literature to look at a new method of distribution and ownership.
Sound familiar? So, now that digital copying allows the quick, cheap, and easy replication of digital products, well...it's time for new laws, and a new way to look at music ownership and distribution. I think it's time we stopped looking at music as a product -- manufactured by musicians, packaged by record companies, and distributed by, well, distributors.
What if we started looking at music as a service, provided by musicians, subsidized by fans, and distributed to the masses freely? On a recent road trip, my fellow musicians and I were musing over the implications of digital distribution. Our model is this: Let the artist create. Let the listeners who care about the music and the artist support the project, contributing to those they enjoy and want to support. When x amount is reached, and the project can be funded, the artist releases the music to the masses. Never again will they have to charge, they can reach whomever they want unrestricted by the prices set by distributors, and they don't have to starve.
Much like many software distributions today, the listener could download the product for free, replicating for their own use, at their own expense. Or, the listener could still buy a packaged version of the product, complete with liner notes, cover art, and a physical media.
For a valid version of this model, check out Todd Rundgren's Patronet. His is a subscription service. You subscribe, you pay and he promises to deliver product exclusively to subscribers online. His most recent album was originally distributed online via this method. It's an interesting concept.
So, slashdotters, what do you think of Music as a Service? Think it's a valid model? Would you pay? Would you create under those terms? Now is the time to forge out the (workable) venue that you want.
"If you like Britney's songs, you should really be writing a check to the people that actually wrote the damn thing, because they sure as shit don't make a percentage."
You bet they make a percentage. The writer (and publisher, though that's another story) - not the recording artist - gets paid every time a tune hits the radio. You pay by listening to the advertising on the radio that enables the station to pay its licensing fees to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and eventually the artist.
Nevertheless, you don't have the luxury of choice here. You don't, individually, decide what gets airtime. You pay for the Britney song just the same as you pay for the song when you listen to the radio, whether you want to or not.
In the case of visual art, broadcast is close to the end of the chain, rather than the beginning. The very end is, of course, product - like videotapes or dvd's. Why? Because at the point that product is distributed, no more compensation is expected ["Once they have their own copy, they will no longer wish to use ours (broadcast, advertising supported)"]
Thus all the blather and fuss over copies of end product.
You can buy pop sheet music, but the vast majority of it will be hideously inaccurate, and certainly not as notated by the original artist/author. The sheet music publishing industry has its demons, just as much as the recording industry does. ---
Incidentally, it would be a slightly different issue with Slashdot, if only for the specific reason that it is possible for slashdotters to include html links ourselves, and we regularly do so. In this forum, adding (or deleting) links would be altering the original content, since the original content's text did include html tags. With Deja, we couldn't have linked to ads ourselves from our Usenet postings, even if we wanted to. This will not be abundantly clear to all Deja users, though, and that is relevant. ---
The real issue is less of copyright and more of advertising practices and compensation in general. My analogy:
Jingle writers are paid to create music that encourages people to purchase a product. The marketer associates their tune with an advert and they are happy. The work is for hire, so the copyright belongs to the hiring company, but the jingle writer is still content, because they negotiated their contract this way.
Musicians, on the other hand, write music creatively. The marketer approaches the musician and asks for permission to use their tune in an advert. The musician considers, and either declines (and many do, not wanting their music to be associated with given product) or is paid a grand sum of money.
Why is the musician paid? Not to create the music - that's already done. The musician is paid to associate their music with a product. The marketer makes money, because the consumer sees the advert and thinks 'hey, that's my favorite band playing. wow, they must like and support this product. i'd better go buy some.' The marketer has paid the musician, and still must pay for the venue in which the ad will be run. The musician still owns (or the record company, but that's another issue altogether) the copyright. The advert's use of the tune has not violated the copyright. The music has not been altered in any way. But the musician still must be compensated, for the use and association of the music.
There are two elements in this scenario; the musician gives permission, and the musician gets paid.
Now, how does this apply to Deja?
Your original Usenet post is your creation, just as the musician's original tune belongs to them. Other people can read your post elsewhere, unaffected. IBM, however, is like the marketer in our analogy. IBM pays Deja for the existence of its aid on their platform. To this point, all is good and fine.
At the point where Deja associates your post with IBM's advert, all stops being good and fine. IBM has paid the venue, but theoretically should also be paying you, the creator of the content that is being associated with the advert. IBM pays Deja more for the text association. Is Deja passing on that reimbursement to you?
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you should have been given the option to decline to have your content associated with the advertiser. Interestingly enough, the adverstiser should have also had the option to decline to have their product associated with your post. I'd bet there are just as many advertisers who would be unhappy that their product was associated with your flame-bait or drivel or contradictary views.
Copyright and violation thereof is a less relevant issue than that of simple licensing for use of created content. Who should be making money off your specific words, with or without your permission? That's the objection, and I think it a valid one.
Wired News offers a little more detail. The expressed difference is that it is a digital/analog hybrid. Apparently, the chip consists of standard transistors in a ring of artifical neurons and synapses. When impulses hit the neurons, they fire, but they can be regulated by a central inhibitor, blocking an ugly chain effect. The central inhibiting neuron allows control, including filtering of weaker signals to allow stronger ones to come through -- Sarpeshkar compares it to ignoring background noise at a party. It's an interesting concept, at any rate. ---
It's probably cheaper for the manufacturer, too. Shipping in a jewel case is likely more expensive than shipping in a cardboard box over a paper cd slip. Add to that the marketing benefit of the larger box, and the decision is pretty easy for the distributing company.
But, don't let that stop you. Order your own products online, and when you download, drop a feedback line explaining why you choose to buy this way. Evaluate product based on its value, and not on its gloss level. Heck, write your favorite companies explaining to them the financial benefit of lesser shipping costs, additional product availability and the PR benefit of environmentalism. It's worth a shot.
---
The actual Field study
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
The RIAA has posted the text of the Field Study along with the other materials relating to this move that may be of interest.
Assume, however erroneously, that the survey is accurate and non-biased. Even given that, there are some pivotal details that did not make it to the press including:
They claim 34.4% as explicitly or implicitly stating that they use Napster in a way that displaces cd sales. Actually, only 11.2% do so to make their own cds or avoid buying cd's, and 13.2% do so to get free music. The remainder of that 34.4% have other reasons that are not so blatant.
Compare that 34.4% to 53.6% who use Napster for the convenience, variety, and community. Notably, 30.0% for convenience and ease of use. Take a lesson, music industry - make your product convenient and easy to use, and you'll gain that entire contingent equal to what you believe you are losing.
11.6% use it for rare or hard to find music.
5.2% use it to preview music to buy.
Now, for the truly damning stuff. The massive threat to the industry? Nearly half of the users are buying less? Look again.
13.6% don't buy or buy fewer cd's as a result of using Napster.
1.4% indicate it causes more purchases of some music choices and fewer of others.
5.8% buy more music.
2.6% want to buy more.
21.8% are helped to make better informed decisions when they buy.
6.4% listen to a wider variety now.
0.8% listen to different music now.
10.8% had some other sort of answer.
4.2% did not answer
and 37.6% did not have an impact or did not know the impact on their musical purchases.
Interesting. The rest, I believe, you have heard with spin in the press already. ---
Re:My favorite quote...
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
Ayup. That definitely caught my eye. I'm getting a little weary of vague, undefined and/or misleading statistics. It wouldn't be an issue for me, but when the press routinely takes information like this out of context and blows it out of proportion, it is detrimental to the public as a whole.
Even the 'nearly half' part of the quote had to be parenthesized, so the odds are that the study actually indicated something entirely other than what was presented. If less than half of Napster users bought less, and more than half bought the same or more; I wonder what the net change is?
Statistics I'd actually like to see:
% of Napsterers who traded mp3s before Napster
% of change in volume of mp3 trade since Napster
estimated dollar amount of total physical format music sales during the year prior to napster's release
estimated dollar amount of total physical format music sales during the past year of napster's advent
number of unsigned, independent, small-label, or un/underpromoted artists providing on napster
the above number as compared to the actual number of relevant downloads. compare: lars' figure of one track
% of Napsterers who previously were less/uninterested in the music industry as a whole due to high prices/lack of selection/inadequate distribution or promotion channels
Relevant statistics would be helpful in determining the actual effect of technology on the music industry. Citing studies like the Field, or calling studies centered around college campuses directly relevant to Napster, without more than speculative data, is not quite so helpful.
Sure, single player text games could be managed on existing cell phone interfaces. But, it really seems that the appeal would be the ability to dial into a text world that's maintained and hosted elsewhere, and inhabited with other hapless addicts. After all, it is a phone.
At any rate, on the topic of charges...remember that while the current cell phone users may not be accustomed to paying exorbitant charges for the joy of gaming, there are scads of old-style gamers out there who routinely spent up to thousands/month on connect charges for multi-player text-based gaming. In addition to which, there are still those who continue to actively play non-graphical games, and do pay for the privilege. Compelling content, vibrant environments, thriving community...makes it still worth it.
Now on the practical side of it, I'm not so convinced. I mean, what will happen to my carefully trained ability to type 'parry/slash gargolye' or 'emote: growls fiercely' faster than the wind? Will I have to translate it into repeatedly hitting 9 on my dialpad? Bah!
Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP & BMI, which are Performance Rights Organizations, both have started to establish internet distribution licensing. The major difference (and the reason they're not getting involved in this melee) is that PRO's manage the rights of music performances, for example: radio, tunes played in bars, or streaming audio. They handle licensing and pay the songwriters and publishers.
.mp3) of a specific piece of music -- that's done by folks like the Harry Fox Agency (spawned from the NMPA, National Music Publishers Association) and the RIAA. They pay the artists (or more often, companies) who record the music, sometimes the same thing as the songwriters, but not universally. Both of whom are indeed involved in this and other litigation.
.mp3 file) are expected to pony up to HFA & the RIAA, and aren't -- thus the lawsuits. A relatively smooth system like the PRO's, transparent to the user, would be welcome.
They don't handle the rights to the actual product that is a sound recording (such as a cd, or an
In other words, as I understand it, companies that stream their audio can pay licensing fees to ASCAP & BMI to cover the songwriters' royalties, but companies that distribute products (you possess the
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
There are an increasing number of cases in today's courts that deal with technically complex issues, where code is intrinsically a part of the subject matter. Do you feel that the existing legislative and judicial system in the United states is currently capable of dealing with these 'geek' issues? Is there sufficient technical expertise available to be able to create laws and make judgements on issues that require the understanding of intricate lines of code and the nature of the internet and digital distribution? Or, if laws are being made and upheld by Congress and the courts while lacking technical understanding, what can be done to remedy this?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
It's an age-old debate. How do national laws apply to the internet? They don't. Will they be made to do so? Without a doubt.
How can an entity comprised of information be governed by a system based on the physical? How can geographic governments rule what is not geographic? As far as information is concerned, and commerce to that extent, geography is essentially obsolete.
Take a look at this old article from the US Treasury that touches on the subject of geography's irrelevance. The relevant question is, how do we convey to stodgy legislators the essential freedom from barriers that earmarks communication today?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
I've always wanted stuff along the lines of Idoru's Sandbenders. I'd just as soon have a 'permanent' box, and just have to upgrade the guts. Ivory keypads? Polished wood monitor casing? Just as long as I can still reach the electronics, I'd be happy. Some of the Silicon Valley wealth ought to call up a Beverly Hills jeweler or two and get it rolling. The fruit-cases' mainstream success ought to be an indicator that there is a market for something other than oyster grey plastic.
---
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
I'm just waiting for the technology to come out to combat the skin-particulate machines...just step in, get suctioned and ionized, and off you go...all free of those incriminating particles.
Secondary market? The in-home model for all the happy obsessive compulsives who can no longer be content with just washing their hands. Just think, five relaxing minutes to utter cleanliness!
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
So I would be paying, more AND less. More of the money would go to the artists who provide the content.
Sure, definitely. If we're talking about specific charges set directly by the artists, then they could certainly charge less, but make more.
I'm interested, though, in the concept of collective payment. The idea that everyone (in general) pays toward a fixed sum, beyond which all is free (beer). So, any given person might pay a buck, if they thought the product was fair, or thirty bucks, if they thought it was supreme. Once supported to whatever pre-determined level, the product would simply be available to anyone interested.
It's not a *fair* model, but is it a viable one?
"So we're not home and dry."
My question to the world is: would you pay with a system like Ian Clarke's? Would you voluntarily pay to support the creators of the stuff you like? Would you pay more than you would elsewhere? Less?
"So we're not home and dry."
First, the basis for current copyright laws came into existence because the printin g press made it possible to quickly, cheaply, and easily create almost limitless copies of current products being sold by a small group of people. The printing press forced literature to look at a new method of distribution and ownership.
Sound familiar? So, now that digital copying allows the quick, cheap, and easy replication of digital products, well...it's time for new laws, and a new way to look at music ownership and distribution. I think it's time we stopped looking at music as a product -- manufactured by musicians, packaged by record companies, and distributed by, well, distributors.
What if we started looking at music as a service, provided by musicians, subsidized by fans, and distributed to the masses freely? On a recent road trip, my fellow musicians and I were musing over the implications of digital distribution. Our model is this: Let the artist create. Let the listeners who care about the music and the artist support the project, contributing to those they enjoy and want to support. When x amount is reached, and the project can be funded, the artist releases the music to the masses. Never again will they have to charge, they can reach whomever they want unrestricted by the prices set by distributors, and they don't have to starve.
Much like many software distributions today, the listener could download the product for free, replicating for their own use, at their own expense. Or, the listener could still buy a packaged version of the product, complete with liner notes, cover art, and a physical media.
For a valid version of this model, check out Todd Rundgren's Patronet. His is a subscription service. You subscribe, you pay and he promises to deliver product exclusively to subscribers online. His most recent album was originally distributed online via this method. It's an interesting concept.
So, slashdotters, what do you think of Music as a Service? Think it's a valid model? Would you pay? Would you create under those terms? Now is the time to forge out the (workable) venue that you want.
"So we're not home and dry."
"If you like Britney's songs, you should really be writing a check to the people that actually wrote the damn thing, because they sure as shit don't make a percentage."
You bet they make a percentage. The writer (and publisher, though that's another story) - not the recording artist - gets paid every time a tune hits the radio. You pay by listening to the advertising on the radio that enables the station to pay its licensing fees to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and eventually the artist.
Nevertheless, you don't have the luxury of choice here. You don't, individually, decide what gets airtime. You pay for the Britney song just the same as you pay for the song when you listen to the radio, whether you want to or not.
In the case of visual art, broadcast is close to the end of the chain, rather than the beginning. The very end is, of course, product - like videotapes or dvd's. Why? Because at the point that product is distributed, no more compensation is expected ["Once they have their own copy, they will no longer wish to use ours (broadcast, advertising supported)"]
Thus all the blather and fuss over copies of end product.
---
You can buy pop sheet music, but the vast majority of it will be hideously inaccurate, and certainly not as notated by the original artist/author. The sheet music publishing industry has its demons, just as much as the recording industry does.
---
Incidentally, it would be a slightly different issue with Slashdot, if only for the specific reason that it is possible for slashdotters to include html links ourselves, and we regularly do so. In this forum, adding (or deleting) links would be altering the original content, since the original content's text did include html tags. With Deja, we couldn't have linked to ads ourselves from our Usenet postings, even if we wanted to. This will not be abundantly clear to all Deja users, though, and that is relevant.
---
The real issue is less of copyright and more of advertising practices and compensation in general. My analogy:
Jingle writers are paid to create music that encourages people to purchase a product. The marketer associates their tune with an advert and they are happy. The work is for hire, so the copyright belongs to the hiring company, but the jingle writer is still content, because they negotiated their contract this way.
Musicians, on the other hand, write music creatively. The marketer approaches the musician and asks for permission to use their tune in an advert. The musician considers, and either declines (and many do, not wanting their music to be associated with given product) or is paid a grand sum of money.
Why is the musician paid? Not to create the music - that's already done. The musician is paid to associate their music with a product. The marketer makes money, because the consumer sees the advert and thinks 'hey, that's my favorite band playing. wow, they must like and support this product. i'd better go buy some.' The marketer has paid the musician, and still must pay for the venue in which the ad will be run. The musician still owns (or the record company, but that's another issue altogether) the copyright. The advert's use of the tune has not violated the copyright. The music has not been altered in any way. But the musician still must be compensated, for the use and association of the music.
There are two elements in this scenario; the musician gives permission, and the musician gets paid.
Now, how does this apply to Deja?
Your original Usenet post is your creation, just as the musician's original tune belongs to them. Other people can read your post elsewhere, unaffected. IBM, however, is like the marketer in our analogy. IBM pays Deja for the existence of its aid on their platform. To this point, all is good and fine.
At the point where Deja associates your post with IBM's advert, all stops being good and fine. IBM has paid the venue, but theoretically should also be paying you, the creator of the content that is being associated with the advert. IBM pays Deja more for the text association. Is Deja passing on that reimbursement to you?
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you should have been given the option to decline to have your content associated with the advertiser. Interestingly enough, the adverstiser should have also had the option to decline to have their product associated with your post. I'd bet there are just as many advertisers who would be unhappy that their product was associated with your flame-bait or drivel or contradictary views.
Copyright and violation thereof is a less relevant issue than that of simple licensing for use of created content. Who should be making money off your specific words, with or without your permission? That's the objection, and I think it a valid one.
---
Wired News offers a little more detail. The expressed difference is that it is a digital/analog hybrid. Apparently, the chip consists of standard transistors in a ring of artifical neurons and synapses. When impulses hit the neurons, they fire, but they can be regulated by a central inhibitor, blocking an ugly chain effect. The central inhibiting neuron allows control, including filtering of weaker signals to allow stronger ones to come through -- Sarpeshkar compares it to ignoring background noise at a party. It's an interesting concept, at any rate.
---
It's probably cheaper for the manufacturer, too. Shipping in a jewel case is likely more expensive than shipping in a cardboard box over a paper cd slip. Add to that the marketing benefit of the larger box, and the decision is pretty easy for the distributing company.
But, don't let that stop you. Order your own products online, and when you download, drop a feedback line explaining why you choose to buy this way. Evaluate product based on its value, and not on its gloss level. Heck, write your favorite companies explaining to them the financial benefit of lesser shipping costs, additional product availability and the PR benefit of environmentalism. It's worth a shot.
---
Assume, however erroneously, that the survey is accurate and non-biased. Even given that, there are some pivotal details that did not make it to the press including:
- They claim 34.4% as explicitly or implicitly stating that they use Napster in a way that displaces cd sales. Actually, only 11.2% do so to make their own cds or avoid buying cd's, and 13.2% do so to get free music. The remainder of that 34.4% have other reasons that are not so blatant.
- Compare that 34.4% to 53.6% who use Napster for the convenience, variety, and community. Notably, 30.0% for convenience and ease of use. Take a lesson, music industry - make your product convenient and easy to use, and you'll gain that entire contingent equal to what you believe you are losing.
- 11.6% use it for rare or hard to find music.
- 5.2% use it to preview music to buy.
Now, for the truly damning stuff. The massive threat to the industry? Nearly half of the users are buying less? Look again.- 13.6% don't buy or buy fewer cd's as a result of using Napster.
- 1.4% indicate it causes more purchases of some music choices and fewer of others.
- 5.8% buy more music.
- 2.6% want to buy more.
- 21.8% are helped to make better informed decisions when they buy.
- 6.4% listen to a wider variety now.
- 0.8% listen to different music now.
- 10.8% had some other sort of answer.
- 4.2% did not answer
- and 37.6% did not have an impact or did not know the impact on their musical purchases.
Interesting. The rest, I believe, you have heard with spin in the press already.---
Even the 'nearly half' part of the quote had to be parenthesized, so the odds are that the study actually indicated something entirely other than what was presented. If less than half of Napster users bought less, and more than half bought the same or more; I wonder what the net change is?
Statistics I'd actually like to see:
Relevant statistics would be helpful in determining the actual effect of technology on the music industry. Citing studies like the Field, or calling studies centered around college campuses directly relevant to Napster, without more than speculative data, is not quite so helpful.
---
Sure, single player text games could be managed on existing cell phone interfaces. But, it really seems that the appeal would be the ability to dial into a text world that's maintained and hosted elsewhere, and inhabited with other hapless addicts. After all, it is a phone.
At any rate, on the topic of charges...remember that while the current cell phone users may not be accustomed to paying exorbitant charges for the joy of gaming, there are scads of old-style gamers out there who routinely spent up to thousands/month on connect charges for multi-player text-based gaming. In addition to which, there are still those who continue to actively play non-graphical games, and do pay for the privilege. Compelling content, vibrant environments, thriving community...makes it still worth it.
Now on the practical side of it, I'm not so convinced. I mean, what will happen to my carefully trained ability to type 'parry/slash gargolye' or 'emote: growls fiercely' faster than the wind? Will I have to translate it into repeatedly hitting 9 on my dialpad? Bah!
But there's potential...
---