Viable voluntary micropayment mechanisms are in place right now (TipJar and PayPal). Morally, as a toolmaker, you're not responsible for the misuse of the tool.
The people with the moral problem are the parasites, not the creators of filesharing software. -- syrynx
The RIAA's suit is against the wrong defendants. Napster the company makes a tool, and is no more responsible for its misuse than the maker of a butcher knife is when someone uses it to kill someone else.
People who use Napster the toolto hear music they've never heard, delete what they don't like, and buy what they like, or who keep MP3 files of music they've already bought in other formats, are morally in the right, regardless of what the RIAA claims or the courts may rule.
People who use Napster the tool to find and keep music for which they don't meet the owner's license terms are morally in the wrong, regardless of what the RIAA claims or the courts may rule.
No, this is not what people have been asking for. King can take the money and run, without ever completing the novel.
I'm the one who's calling the world's bluff: Download my music in unencrypted MP3 format, pay for it only if you like it, and pay only what you think it's worth. -- syrynx
While the attitudes of Sens. Hatch and Leahy are refreshing, remember that the RIAA has been leading the US Congress around by the ring in its nose since long before non-ear piercings achieved their current popularity. For a reminder, see the transcript of (open-source Good Guy) Philip Greenspun's Testimony Against the Audio Home Recording Act of 1991 (the bill which killed Digital Audio Tape as a consumer/prosumer medium in the US).
For a more recent example of the RIAA's tactics in action, see this page of Salon.com's presentation of the Courtney Love speech.
I'm thrilled that someone with Hatch's legislative acumen and personal stake in the music distribution system is picking up the ball. But there are 533 other members of Congress, many of them with RIAA- and MPAA-controlled noserings, to contend with before new legislation is passed-- which someone in the White House will have to sign.
And there's no assurance that the legislation that is enacted will be any less flawed than the DMCA. This is very slippery ground. -- syrynx
Services such as TipJar and PayPal (and, for that matter, snail mail) enable people to make voluntary contributions to artists they wish to support. The question is, will they?
I'm fairly optimistic, because, when I was able to play my music in public, people responded to it warmly and were reasonably generous in tipping. So I put some of my music on a Web site, with links to the aforementioned services. I'll know in a year whether it'll be worth keeping the site up. -- syrynx
The relatively fixed price of a CD, cassette, or vinyl recording may have given that illusion. The fact is that no two individuals will have exactly the same reaction to a given piece of music; why should they pay the same price?
That's why I've chosen to let people determine for themselves how much, if anything at all, my music is worth to them. -- syrynx
I'm putting the URL of my Web site in the file names of the MP3s of my music. Anyone who cares to do so can go to the Web site and find out how to send me a voluntary payment. -- syrynx
If you like my music and pay me for it, I can do more of it. If nobody pays me, fine; I'll do something else. If you like it and don't pay me, who loses? -- syrynx
No disagreement here. I make my music available without any restriction. I also make it possible for people who like my music to compensate me, in whatever amount is appropriate to them. If enough people like it, and compensate me, I'll have a lot more time to create more music than if I have to work at a conventional job. -- syrynx
But we can remember that music once used to be different, and that an artist can survive on concerts alone.
Music, fiction, and software are all identical in that all are products of the mind that permit perfect digital replication. Where's the concert equivalent for a coder or a novelist? It's time for this absurd argument to die, die, DIE! -- syrynx
I don't even ask a dollar per song-- I'm in no position to judge what one of my songs is worth to you. Listen to my songs free; then decide what, if anything, they're worth to you, and send me the money via TipJar or PayPal. If that's a nickel for ten songs, so be it. If one of my songs is worth ten bucks to you, great.
What could be simpler? What could be fairer? -- syrynx
The RIAA only has to show the statistics: virtually no unsigned artists are benefitting from Napster. At least, not in comparison to the huge volume of commercial music distributed by the major labels. And Boies himself claims that only 2% of artists are signed. Therefore, by the RIAA's stats, his particular assertion about controlling the means of distribution is unfounded.
The truly great (and, sadly, late) guitarist Howard Roberts once observed, "People don't know what they like-- they like what they know." That's why RIAA-controlled acts overwhelmingly dominate Napster traffic; obviously, people are sharing what's popular.
And why is it popular? Because the RIAA's member companies fund the "independent" promotion which buys that popularity. Reread Courtney Love does the math and Steve Albini's The Problem With Music . In that sense, the RIAA already controls Napster, just as it controls the longer-established distribution channels-- illegally, immorally, and (at least to this point) untouchably. Whether Boies can establish this in court is another matter.
As an unsigned artist, I've considered making my music available on Napster, but what good would it do me? Even if all mention of RIAA-controlled acts vanished from Napster servers overnight, how would a Napster user find me tomorrow? How would s/he know what search terms to use?
Sadly, about the only promotion method available to unknown, unsigned artists like myself is shameless, if subtle, spamming, such as this. -- syrynx
Slashdot Mirror
Since when has stability been a prerequisite for a Netscape release?
--
syrynx
The people with the moral problem are the parasites, not the creators of filesharing software.
--
syrynx
--
syrynx
What's wrong with TipJar and PayPal?
--
syrynx
I'm the one who's calling the world's bluff: Download my music in unencrypted MP3 format, pay for it only if you like it, and pay only what you think it's worth.
--
syrynx
For a more recent example of the RIAA's tactics in action, see this page of Salon.com's presentation of the Courtney Love speech.
I'm thrilled that someone with Hatch's legislative acumen and personal stake in the music distribution system is picking up the ball. But there are 533 other members of Congress, many of them with RIAA- and MPAA-controlled noserings, to contend with before new legislation is passed-- which someone in the White House will have to sign.
And there's no assurance that the legislation that is enacted will be any less flawed than the DMCA. This is very slippery ground.
--
syrynx
I'm fairly optimistic, because, when I was able to play my music in public, people responded to it warmly and were reasonably generous in tipping. So I put some of my music on a Web site, with links to the aforementioned services. I'll know in a year whether it'll be worth keeping the site up.
--
syrynx
That's why I've chosen to let people determine for themselves how much, if anything at all, my music is worth to them.
--
syrynx
Yeah, I'll keep making music. But if people don't show their appreciation for it, I have no motive to share my music.
--
syrynx
I'm putting the URL of my Web site in the file names of the MP3s of my music. Anyone who cares to do so can go to the Web site and find out how to send me a voluntary payment.
--
syrynx
If you like my music and pay me for it, I can do more of it. If nobody pays me, fine; I'll do something else. If you like it and don't pay me, who loses?
--
syrynx
No disagreement here. I make my music available without any restriction. I also make it possible for people who like my music to compensate me, in whatever amount is appropriate to them. If enough people like it, and compensate me, I'll have a lot more time to create more music than if I have to work at a conventional job.
--
syrynx
Music, fiction, and software are all identical in that all are products of the mind that permit perfect digital replication. Where's the concert equivalent for a coder or a novelist? It's time for this absurd argument to die, die, DIE!
--
syrynx
What could be simpler? What could be fairer?
--
syrynx
The truly great (and, sadly, late) guitarist Howard Roberts once observed, "People don't know what they like-- they like what they know." That's why RIAA-controlled acts overwhelmingly dominate Napster traffic; obviously, people are sharing what's popular.
And why is it popular? Because the RIAA's member companies fund the "independent" promotion which buys that popularity. Reread Courtney Love does the math and Steve Albini's The Problem With Music . In that sense, the RIAA already controls Napster, just as it controls the longer-established distribution channels-- illegally, immorally, and (at least to this point) untouchably. Whether Boies can establish this in court is another matter.
As an unsigned artist, I've considered making my music available on Napster, but what good would it do me? Even if all mention of RIAA-controlled acts vanished from Napster servers overnight, how would a Napster user find me tomorrow? How would s/he know what search terms to use?
Sadly, about the only promotion method available to unknown, unsigned artists like myself is shameless, if subtle, spamming, such as this.
--
syrynx