CBG: Last night's "Itchy & Scratchy" was, without a doubt, the worst
episode ever. Rest assured that I was on the Internet within
minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world.
study up, and you too can get useless karma by helping people laugh at themselves. --
It can be if you record it. I'd put up links to examples, but I'm sure you can find them yourself. Hell, some people will pay to watch you make love to your pets.
Seriously though, someone downloading your music shouldn't make you mad. Nor should someone saying "Hey, I heard this song the other day. Fire up nappy and check it out." Someone burning CDs and selling them is a different matter, but I don't see how someone experiencing your art (without expressed written permission) should be considered offensive. --
His ego might have increased, but his band's size decreased by about 25%. Whisper reasoning for the decision seems to focus on a little thing called artistic integrity, but that's mostly hearsay from people close to the departed. --
Hmm, I haven't read any e-books, ever, paper works just fine. Let's stick to music, mmmkay?
Theft doesn't have to involve a tangible item.
No it doesn't, but that changes its nature quite a bit, does it not? Once you take away the "depriving someone else of property" part of theft, that changes it. They are not the same thing. Intellectual property is a different entity than real property, similar in many ways, but also fundamentally different, although many don't seem to think so. Are you one of those? Or do you regularly download TV's and Cars along with your articles.
Uh, last I checked it was pretty damn involuntary for quite a few musicians.
That's distribution as promotion on the part of the fans, but I think you already knew that. This part of it chaps my hide quite a bit, too. Why, because it is voluntary for a damn large number of musicians. The ones that want people to hear them, but don't want to give up their work for a loan to pay for someone else to tell people how good it is and get them a sample. Taking away such a useful resource hurts these people, I think that is fairly evident. It does wonders to preserve the status quo and stomp all competition, however. Just think, those damn independants all of a sudden have a great way to get their music to people's ears. We simply can't have people doing things for themselves. Then they won't pay us to do it for them. (Note: I was masquerading as a Big 5 record exec there for a second)
Based on your description, the free market allows me to walk into the nearest Best Buy, grab a wide screen TV, and walk out the door without paying.
Ahh, you took an example too far without keeping the parameters in perspective. Try this one on for size. If you could take that TV and leave it on the shelf, your example would be accurate. And if the price of the TV cost, oh say, 1500% of its manufacturing cost (minus the one-time design cost), and you knew that 750% of that cost was used to promote "trendy" TV's to pre-teens, I think you could call it a market correction (or reaction) to go build your own and leave the super-expensive one on the shelf.
Direct all the angst to the BBC. The AP Story (which is also here) is MUCH more even handed. It even mentions other factors in music SINGLES sales dropping, including but not limited to, a softer domestic economy, a narrow focus for music (boy-band bonanza), singles are less effective for radio promotion (since they only have to kickback to two corps now), and Napster. --
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement, but I'm sure you've ignored this arguement before. And it wouldn't be copyright infringement if we had lawmakers who didn't call the RIAA to ask how they should write laws.
Was it a thief who let me download the tracks that convinced me to buy a CD? What you see as huge theft, seems to me as a simple market correction, or music promotion if you will (because what else are you going to call voluntary distribution without compensation, it can only be called promotion). Massive increases in technology lowered the price of an item, market restrictions inflated that price, the market reacted. You are familiar with the concept of a free market, right? Or do you prefer to have our government define all markets and set all prices? Heck, why not let the industry do it, oh yeah... --
Holy shit! Are you really claiming that the battle over mp3 pirating could be equivalent in importance to the Vietnam War?!?
Well, there's at least one part of the analogy that holds. Both are (were) being drawn up as a fight against communism (while the reality is (was) much less drastic). And if the laws we have here in the U.S. were universally enforced, you would have about 30 million people in jail for their entire lifetime. Some people are just trying to avoid another catastrophe, over-the-top analogies (as this is) are one way to make the direction we are currently headed (unwinnable war with massive loss of life(time) looming) clear. --
Musicians can create their own mini-retail business, but this is a seperate business to creating the music.
Yes, but all I'm talking about is a website. Once it is built (and built decent) upkeep would be minimal.
How is the free distribution network going to make money ?
The free distribution network doesn't need to get money. The value is created through a bartering of services, so to speak.
The users play absolutely NO role in the creation of the product, merely its distribution. And it's the napsterites who have consistently argued that distribution is dirt cheap.
Yes, that is their role, distribution as promotion (what else can you call it)
As for the resources, it often does not cost for the user. If they already have the bandwidth anyway, then the marginal cost of using napster is $0-.
Not necessarily so. The possibilities of Napster have become a drawing point for people to upgrade their connections, paying more money for more bandwidth. There is also a labor cost, (outside original creation) which is completely absorbed by the user.
If the people do indeed have the money for that kind of bandwidth, it makes it all the more despicable IMO -- they aren't doing it because they can't afford it, they are doing it out of sheer greed.
You have some serious negative stereotypes of the people who use these services. Yes, it works better with a faster connection. Anecdotal evidence, I just bought "The Hour of Bewilderbeast" after downloading a bunch of tracks becasue I read a good review of the music. Where else can I get this preview so easily? Did the person who paid for the connection that provided the song that convinced me to buy the album steal from the artist?
It's only ingenious if you can do it without screwing the artists.
Then I'm sure you're fully supportive of Napster's new initiative.
'cause both are going to be around. I think it would be an incredible experiment in *cough* communism vs capitalism. On the one hand you have the free (price and action) service. Open source clients and servers, run by volunteers, faith-based organizations, or governments (where aplicable). By their nature, profit and it's motive are forbidden.
One the other hand you have Napster II, a pay service, sanctioned and serviced by the major labels and major corporations. They have the benefit of being able to profit and will most likely have a better, easier-to-use service and the added benefit of tons and tons of existing capital.
Can the two systems co-exist? Given a totally free market, which one would prosper? A challenge, perhaps?
[don't read too much into the commie stuff, please] --
"The $1 billion fee would be the equivalent for the industry of selling another $5.4 billion in CDs, since the labels would have no additional production and distribution costs associated with that fee, he noted. "
Something for nothing for life + 95 years, and the major labels are fighting this. Really, that's been a lot of people's argument since the beginning. Something for nothing. But who is paying for the protection? And who is getting it? --
no, you don't have to do it all yourself. They don't make their own guitars, now do they? But if you wish to become a professional, you'd best find a way to make money. Selling stuff works great, especially CDs. Yes, you would probably have to find someone with a bit of experience in marketing to help, but that's what bands do with major labels anyway, they just get it all in one package for only the cost of their rights. Now, they can do most of it on their own, and use those nifty world wide distribtution networks to get the word out, marketing wise, about their music. With those, anyone who hears about the band can listen to it.
And since I've talk to you about this before, I'll continue.
These suggestions completely fail to address questions about how musicians can earn a living.
Completely fail, eh? Well, you might go back and read the most common suggestion. Being a musician is easy, being a good musician is not, making money as either kind is tough, mainly because being one is so easy. I think that addressed the most important part of the equation.
BTW, I think pandering to freeloaders is a remarkably stupid business plan -- and most of the people who propose alternatives to copyright are freeloaders.
O.k. this whole freeloaders thing has gone on long enough. Anyone who thinks Napster was free, even in a monetary sense, is fooling themselves. Computers cost money, bandwidth costs money, ripping music takes time, time usually costs money. All of these things are taken care of by "freeloaders" who spend at least $20 mo (I spend $100) for bandwidth, and $1000s for their individual nodes. It is a very expensive network, but one where 99% of resources come from the users.
Building a business on the backs of these people in an ingenious business plan. It just that currently its legality is in question. Because of the above criteria, I don't see freeloading as a big problem. Sure, you get a bunch of idiots not realizing how much they are spending to be "free", but that doesn't change the bottom line (which isn't at 0).
And I don't think most capital punishment opponents are murderers, although some probably are. --
coaster, and mugs, and cds, and whatever the heck else anyone will buy. Buy your band's domain names, get someone to make you a decent site, practice, put up a couple songs, practice, hope people like you enough to keep you on their hard drives, practice, tell everyone to listen to you, be really good at playing music, rinse, repeat. a simple recipe to success. --
because unless I'm mistaken (and Salon didn't go into it, damn troll journalism) no doubt Mp3blast.com owners, who were the only ones to get raided as of yet, were not just typical napster users. I'd guess that mp3blast.com was an old school mp3 pirate site, with banners, hiddens links, top50 links, etc. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, the site (obviously) is gone.
Personally I think it should stay very illegal for people to make money off of the intellectual property of others without compensating the copyright owner. However, I think the free exchange of such things should generally be allowed, and definitely for music. I see nothing wrong with giving it away, I see something wrong with selling it. --
can your bookshelf play music and movies while at the same time sending them out to various people around the world? If so, I want one, mine just sits there. --
don't get me wrong, it's great to be an idealist. sometimes it pays off (thanks, rms).
Well then, do what he does and tell your friends.
And there is some validity to the idea. While it might be only.03 (hmm) it is the *first*.03 that buys new products in this arena.
People know i'm a nerd, so when I say stuff like "SDMI Baaad!" they understand. Do so everytime a relative or buddy calls up asking for free tech support. --
well, they try and take a good enough picture so they get the drivers face. Couple this with the new superbowl innovations and you end up with real life privacy protections of about the same level as personal information protections here in the states, i.e. none. --
yea they like it. That's why they park an unmarked police car on the side of the road that takes pictures of speeding cars where I live. Then you get a ticket in the mail. Very professional. Hopefully, soon they'll be able to tell when I just think about speeding, and arrest me on the way to the car. --
Slashdot Mirror
what you want is a checkbox on your user advertising profile that says "texts only ads."
--
CBG: Last night's "Itchy & Scratchy" was, without a doubt, the worst
episode ever. Rest assured that I was on the Internet within
minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world.
study up, and you too can get useless karma by helping people laugh at themselves.
--
mmmmm, groundhogs...
--
Rest assured I was on the internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world.
--
Making love to your SO is not a career.
It can be if you record it. I'd put up links to examples, but I'm sure you can find them yourself. Hell, some people will pay to watch you make love to your pets.
Seriously though, someone downloading your music shouldn't make you mad. Nor should someone saying "Hey, I heard this song the other day. Fire up nappy and check it out." Someone burning CDs and selling them is a different matter, but I don't see how someone experiencing your art (without expressed written permission) should be considered offensive.
--
His ego might have increased, but his band's size decreased by about 25%. Whisper reasoning for the decision seems to focus on a little thing called artistic integrity, but that's mostly hearsay from people close to the departed.
--
Hmm, I haven't read any e-books, ever, paper works just fine. Let's stick to music, mmmkay?
Theft doesn't have to involve a tangible item.
No it doesn't, but that changes its nature quite a bit, does it not? Once you take away the "depriving someone else of property" part of theft, that changes it. They are not the same thing. Intellectual property is a different entity than real property, similar in many ways, but also fundamentally different, although many don't seem to think so. Are you one of those? Or do you regularly download TV's and Cars along with your articles.
Uh, last I checked it was pretty damn involuntary for quite a few musicians.
That's distribution as promotion on the part of the fans, but I think you already knew that. This part of it chaps my hide quite a bit, too. Why, because it is voluntary for a damn large number of musicians. The ones that want people to hear them, but don't want to give up their work for a loan to pay for someone else to tell people how good it is and get them a sample. Taking away such a useful resource hurts these people, I think that is fairly evident. It does wonders to preserve the status quo and stomp all competition, however. Just think, those damn independants all of a sudden have a great way to get their music to people's ears. We simply can't have people doing things for themselves. Then they won't pay us to do it for them. (Note: I was masquerading as a Big 5 record exec there for a second)
Based on your description, the free market allows me to walk into the nearest Best Buy, grab a wide screen TV, and walk out the door without paying.
Ahh, you took an example too far without keeping the parameters in perspective. Try this one on for size. If you could take that TV and leave it on the shelf, your example would be accurate. And if the price of the TV cost, oh say, 1500% of its manufacturing cost (minus the one-time design cost), and you knew that 750% of that cost was used to promote "trendy" TV's to pre-teens, I think you could call it a market correction (or reaction) to go build your own and leave the super-expensive one on the shelf.
--
Direct all the angst to the BBC. The AP Story (which is also here) is MUCH more even handed. It even mentions other factors in music SINGLES sales dropping, including but not limited to, a softer domestic economy, a narrow focus for music (boy-band bonanza), singles are less effective for radio promotion (since they only have to kickback to two corps now), and Napster.
--
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement, but I'm sure you've ignored this arguement before. And it wouldn't be copyright infringement if we had lawmakers who didn't call the RIAA to ask how they should write laws.
Was it a thief who let me download the tracks that convinced me to buy a CD? What you see as huge theft, seems to me as a simple market correction, or music promotion if you will (because what else are you going to call voluntary distribution without compensation, it can only be called promotion). Massive increases in technology lowered the price of an item, market restrictions inflated that price, the market reacted. You are familiar with the concept of a free market, right? Or do you prefer to have our government define all markets and set all prices? Heck, why not let the industry do it, oh yeah...
--
Holy shit! Are you really claiming that the battle over mp3 pirating could be equivalent in importance to the Vietnam War?!?
Well, there's at least one part of the analogy that holds. Both are (were) being drawn up as a fight against communism (while the reality is (was) much less drastic). And if the laws we have here in the U.S. were universally enforced, you would have about 30 million people in jail for their entire lifetime. Some people are just trying to avoid another catastrophe, over-the-top analogies (as this is) are one way to make the direction we are currently headed (unwinnable war with massive loss of life(time) looming) clear.
--
Man: God, what is a million years to you?
God: It is like a second.
Man: God, what is a million dollars to you?
God: It is like a penny.
Man: God, can I have a penny?
God: Sure, in a second.
--
I meant as far as using it to profit from the IP of others.
--
I've found a new sig.
--
Musicians can create their own mini-retail business, but this is a seperate business to creating the music.
Yes, but all I'm talking about is a website. Once it is built (and built decent) upkeep would be minimal.
How is the free distribution network going to make money ?
The free distribution network doesn't need to get money. The value is created through a bartering of services, so to speak.
The users play absolutely NO role in the creation of the product, merely its distribution. And it's the napsterites who have consistently argued that distribution is dirt cheap.
Yes, that is their role, distribution as promotion (what else can you call it)
As for the resources, it often does not cost for the user. If they already have the bandwidth anyway, then the marginal cost of using napster is $0-.
Not necessarily so. The possibilities of Napster have become a drawing point for people to upgrade their connections, paying more money for more bandwidth. There is also a labor cost, (outside original creation) which is completely absorbed by the user.
If the people do indeed have the money for that kind of bandwidth, it makes it all the more despicable IMO -- they aren't doing it because they can't afford it, they are doing it out of sheer greed.
You have some serious negative stereotypes of the people who use these services. Yes, it works better with a faster connection. Anecdotal evidence, I just bought "The Hour of Bewilderbeast" after downloading a bunch of tracks becasue I read a good review of the music. Where else can I get this preview so easily? Did the person who paid for the connection that provided the song that convinced me to buy the album steal from the artist?
It's only ingenious if you can do it without screwing the artists.
Then I'm sure you're fully supportive of Napster's new initiative.
--
'cause both are going to be around. I think it would be an incredible experiment in *cough* communism vs capitalism. On the one hand you have the free (price and action) service. Open source clients and servers, run by volunteers, faith-based organizations, or governments (where aplicable). By their nature, profit and it's motive are forbidden.
One the other hand you have Napster II, a pay service, sanctioned and serviced by the major labels and major corporations. They have the benefit of being able to profit and will most likely have a better, easier-to-use service and the added benefit of tons and tons of existing capital.
Can the two systems co-exist? Given a totally free market, which one would prosper? A challenge, perhaps?
[don't read too much into the commie stuff, please]
--
The most important part of the article...
"The $1 billion fee would be the equivalent for the industry of selling another $5.4 billion in CDs, since the labels would have no additional production and distribution costs associated with that fee, he noted. "
Something for nothing for life + 95 years, and the major labels are fighting this. Really, that's been a lot of people's argument since the beginning. Something for nothing. But who is paying for the protection? And who is getting it?
--
no, you don't have to do it all yourself. They don't make their own guitars, now do they? But if you wish to become a professional, you'd best find a way to make money. Selling stuff works great, especially CDs. Yes, you would probably have to find someone with a bit of experience in marketing to help, but that's what bands do with major labels anyway, they just get it all in one package for only the cost of their rights. Now, they can do most of it on their own, and use those nifty world wide distribtution networks to get the word out, marketing wise, about their music. With those, anyone who hears about the band can listen to it.
And since I've talk to you about this before, I'll continue.
These suggestions completely fail to address questions about how musicians can earn a living.
Completely fail, eh? Well, you might go back and read the most common suggestion. Being a musician is easy, being a good musician is not, making money as either kind is tough, mainly because being one is so easy. I think that addressed the most important part of the equation.
BTW, I think pandering to freeloaders is a remarkably stupid business plan -- and most of the people who propose alternatives to copyright are freeloaders.
O.k. this whole freeloaders thing has gone on long enough. Anyone who thinks Napster was free, even in a monetary sense, is fooling themselves. Computers cost money, bandwidth costs money, ripping music takes time, time usually costs money. All of these things are taken care of by "freeloaders" who spend at least $20 mo (I spend $100) for bandwidth, and $1000s for their individual nodes. It is a very expensive network, but one where 99% of resources come from the users.
Building a business on the backs of these people in an ingenious business plan. It just that currently its legality is in question. Because of the above criteria, I don't see freeloading as a big problem. Sure, you get a bunch of idiots not realizing how much they are spending to be "free", but that doesn't change the bottom line (which isn't at 0).
And I don't think most capital punishment opponents are murderers, although some probably are.
--
coaster, and mugs, and cds, and whatever the heck else anyone will buy. Buy your band's domain names, get someone to make you a decent site, practice, put up a couple songs, practice, hope people like you enough to keep you on their hard drives, practice, tell everyone to listen to you, be really good at playing music, rinse, repeat. a simple recipe to success.
--
because unless I'm mistaken (and Salon didn't go into it, damn troll journalism) no doubt Mp3blast.com owners, who were the only ones to get raided as of yet, were not just typical napster users. I'd guess that mp3blast.com was an old school mp3 pirate site, with banners, hiddens links, top50 links, etc. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, the site (obviously) is gone.
Personally I think it should stay very illegal for people to make money off of the intellectual property of others without compensating the copyright owner. However, I think the free exchange of such things should generally be allowed, and definitely for music. I see nothing wrong with giving it away, I see something wrong with selling it.
--
it's not really recorded music though, just a digital representation of it. Unless you have a really pure source.
:-)
Just nitpicking a nitpick.
--
can your bookshelf play music and movies while at the same time sending them out to various people around the world? If so, I want one, mine just sits there.
--
don't get me wrong, it's great to be an idealist. sometimes it pays off (thanks, rms).
.03 (hmm) it is the *first* .03 that buys new products in this arena.
Well then, do what he does and tell your friends.
And there is some validity to the idea. While it might be only
People know i'm a nerd, so when I say stuff like "SDMI Baaad!" they understand. Do so everytime a relative or buddy calls up asking for free tech support.
--
with your "floppy", yet hard duality, have been deprecated.
--
well, they try and take a good enough picture so they get the drivers face. Couple this with the new superbowl innovations and you end up with real life privacy protections of about the same level as personal information protections here in the states, i.e. none.
--
yea they like it. That's why they park an unmarked police car on the side of the road that takes pictures of speeding cars where I live. Then you get a ticket in the mail. Very professional. Hopefully, soon they'll be able to tell when I just think about speeding, and arrest me on the way to the car.
--