The small labels finally have a level playing field for distrubution. This is one of the reasons, IMHO, that the RIAA is fighting so hard against Napster. With it, I can find almost *any* indy music with a click. It TOTALLY opens the music scene up and creates more competition than they can handle, thus the lawsuits.
Excuse me, but how is it fair for Microsoft to charge for access to it's API's, while at the same time demand access, without any expectation of payment, to their competitor's?
AOL bought TW, M$ got found guilty by the DOJ. How do you think it ended?
Seriously though, it's an ongoing battle. AOL pledged help to support an open standard, like they did with cable, but, like cable, we ain't seen shite but words yet.
They will probably try to make it as compatible as IE is with Netscape. What goes around comes around, eh? And the market watches. --
This is very close to free speech./. has just learned to use perl to keep people from yelling "FIRE" in a very crowded theatre a bit too often.
"Karma Martyr"ing has got to be done from time to time. I just passed 2*10^2 myself, and stopped worrying about it at about a quarter that. Use it or lose it, man, use it or lose it. Free Speech that is. --
What are you talking about? Metlicka gave napster a list of 300,000 offenders and they blocked them. If others use bots that break the TOS, they should be blocked too. What's hypocritical about that?
Well, I don't think I miss the *entire* point of ratings. I work with them and the companies that track them every day. I also work with the companies that rely on them.
a) Ratings tell how many people *watched* a program, thus establishing a basis for how much 30 seconds of air is worth.
b) Is talking about advertising, which is where ratings become very important. Ratings for stations are also extremely important as it gives them immediate (roughly) feedback on how their programming is effecting viewership, or listenership, as the case may be.
With the sharing of movies/tv programs/whatever the people who make the media are damn sure gonna give a flying fuck about how "popular" they are. Any artist does, to some extent.
In a distributed media environment (with time shifting and what not) tracking what people are watching and listening to becomes extremely difficult. This is the model of media dissemination we are moving to, whether you agree or not. Having an established way to track popularity is a good step toward the eventual goal of creating viable business models. And allows media creators to demand premium value for advertising (or other means of $$$), if they can prove the message will get out.
Also, putting out a press release to national radio stations about how popular your band is, *with numbers to back it up* could be the jolt some unknown needs to break through to the mainstream. This is one of the reasons the RIAA hates Napster. It lessons their ability to *pop* or *break* a band, ablum, or single onto the scene. This *pop* is what gets magazine covers and the free advertising that goes with people talking about you.
So, I think, the *entire* point of the ratings system is a fundamental one to the media business, or at least it has been for the last 40 years or so. --
..."Arr, matey" side of file-sharing, they might realize that the system he is creating is the digital equivalent of the Neilsons. A ratings system for distributed media. Or at least the basis of one.
That's what I think this should be used for. Sueing 300,000 people for listening to your music might make great headlines, and make the lawyers tons of cash, but it is hardly the way to run a civilized society. Or an entertainment business. It's time to see the future and embrace it. --
Why would they want to? This tool is ACTUALLY, IMHO, the first one that could be used to calculate ratings and "#1 Hits", i.e. "The Most Downloaded Song." As media becomes more free and it becomes trivial (and legal) for me to download last weeks X-Files, a system like this would be an excellent replacement for the VERY screwed up ratings systems we have for both TV and radio. --
we'll probably end up feeling as bad as we did four hundred years ago when we killed off indigenous populations with smallpox, influenza and VD.
Biological warfare, 15th century style. Put a bunch of dirty smelly pirates on a ship for three months, let simmer, serve on unsuspecting native populations. --
considering Metallicas fairly consistent thrashing in the press, I doubt many bands would want to take that route, but I agree, more power to 'em for trying.
If they don't want me to listen to their music, no prob. Someone else does. --
Combine an infinte supply with a zero dollar price tag, and you've got an infinite demand in old school economics.
I think it will work by creating an infinite demand but not quite like that. That is true, but it offers no reason for compensation. This sets the value at 1, i.e. the real value. Creating a motive above infinite demand is bit tougher as the only concept I can think of that fits the description is love. See the They Might Be Giants post in this thread. The fans will pay regardless, because they respect the artists, wish to have a physical artifact of the music, and understand that the only way the artists can make more music is with monetary support. At least that's how I justify buying CDs, buying t-shirts and paying for shows, YMMV.
or, as the guy just said. "They can play music for money."
A friend of mine said the same thing the other night between his first and second sets. "They can make money playing fuckin' music. That's what they do isn't it?" (emphasis from textual/tone conversion)
I believe Tori Amos released the first single of the album "To Venus and Back" digitally before the acutal single was released on CD.
This is actually one of the BIG problems the record industry has with Napster. The full contents of new works are on Napster *before* they make it to the stores. They claim this hurts the *pop* of the album and all the free advertising that comes with early sales numbers and genre ranking.
They don't mention the free advertising that Napster does, but that side is debatable. Anyone want to?
i would like to get my music for free. however, i would also like to get my car for free. there are simply some things that are/never-will-be free.
Ya know, some people would have said the same thing about music a few years ago. As to your car example...nanotechnology. It (hopefully) promises to, in a sense, make the whole world digital. We need to learn, as a society, how to deal with infinite products. Music is our first challenge, and it should be an easy one. It's art and beauty after all, why shouldn't we share it?
The problem comes if we decide to treat IP *exactly* like PP (physical property) then we will end up with a government that does nothing but protect the profits of corporations who have lobbied that government to change the laws to protect them. I don't want to wake up and find a world where the only thing that stands between me giving away a new car (that used to be a pile of sand) is a soldier with a rifle.
Slashdot Mirror
distributed file sharing is bad for business, but business has never been good for art.
not to be controntational, but if dfs is bad for business, do you believe it to be good for individuals?
--
The small labels finally have a level playing field for distrubution. This is one of the reasons, IMHO, that the RIAA is fighting so hard against Napster. With it, I can find almost *any* indy music with a click. It TOTALLY opens the music scene up and creates more competition than they can handle, thus the lawsuits.
--
I think there's a .sig around here somewhere that explains this phenomenon fairly well..
it goes something like this...
your favorite band sucks
:^)
--
Try this one then. RIAARetort
--
Here's that link (just used it in another post ) It was three weeks ago, and price-fixing is the correct term.
--
And it's all been refuted before.
*Snore*
"If you don't do it for money, you shouldn't do it."
"Sharing is evil."
"This is about big name stars."
...zzzz....
If you think CD's are too expensive...you agree with the FTC.
Keep the music flowing.
--
Excuse me, but how is it fair for Microsoft to charge for access to it's API's, while at the same time demand access, without any expectation of payment, to their competitor's?
--
not that it's on-topic or anything, but that's what I thought when I read it.
The guy doesn't mince words. Maybe a slight social disfunction, but not everyone is blessed with a beautiful voice.
--
3) (unless you guys are talking about the video) it's mp3.vbs
--
Excellent post mm. Did you just register today? I saw you user # was nearing 200K. Seriously, great points.
--
AOL bought TW, M$ got found guilty by the DOJ. How do you think it ended?
Seriously though, it's an ongoing battle. AOL pledged help to support an open standard, like they did with cable, but, like cable, we ain't seen shite but words yet.
They will probably try to make it as compatible as IE is with Netscape. What goes around comes around, eh? And the market watches.
--
This is very close to free speech. /. has just learned to use perl to keep people from yelling "FIRE" in a very crowded theatre a bit too often.
"Karma Martyr"ing has got to be done from time to time. I just passed 2*10^2 myself, and stopped worrying about it at about a quarter that. Use it or lose it, man, use it or lose it. Free Speech that is.
--
The problem isnt Apogee, it's UCITA. If you look at ANY EULA in light of UCITA, trembling rage ensues.
--
What are you talking about? Metlicka gave napster a list of 300,000 offenders and they blocked them. If others use bots that break the TOS, they should be blocked too. What's hypocritical about that?
--
Well, I don't think I miss the *entire* point of ratings. I work with them and the companies that track them every day. I also work with the companies that rely on them.
a) Ratings tell how many people *watched* a program, thus establishing a basis for how much 30 seconds of air is worth.
b) Is talking about advertising, which is where ratings become very important. Ratings for stations are also extremely important as it gives them immediate (roughly) feedback on how their programming is effecting viewership, or listenership, as the case may be.
With the sharing of movies/tv programs/whatever the people who make the media are damn sure gonna give a flying fuck about how "popular" they are. Any artist does, to some extent.
In a distributed media environment (with time shifting and what not) tracking what people are watching and listening to becomes extremely difficult. This is the model of media dissemination we are moving to, whether you agree or not. Having an established way to track popularity is a good step toward the eventual goal of creating viable business models. And allows media creators to demand premium value for advertising (or other means of $$$), if they can prove the message will get out.
Also, putting out a press release to national radio stations about how popular your band is, *with numbers to back it up* could be the jolt some unknown needs to break through to the mainstream. This is one of the reasons the RIAA hates Napster. It lessons their ability to *pop* or *break* a band, ablum, or single onto the scene. This *pop* is what gets magazine covers and the free advertising that goes with people talking about you.
So, I think, the *entire* point of the ratings system is a fundamental one to the media business, or at least it has been for the last 40 years or so.
--
congrats, you've officially got the smallest text on your website that I've ever seen. :^)
--
Just collect a list of all bots and submit it to them in writing. They'll take it from there.
--
..."Arr, matey" side of file-sharing, they might realize that the system he is creating is the digital equivalent of the Neilsons. A ratings system for distributed media. Or at least the basis of one.
That's what I think this should be used for. Sueing 300,000 people for listening to your music might make great headlines, and make the lawyers tons of cash, but it is hardly the way to run a civilized society. Or an entertainment business. It's time to see the future and embrace it.
--
Why would they want to? This tool is ACTUALLY, IMHO, the first one that could be used to calculate ratings and "#1 Hits", i.e. "The Most Downloaded Song." As media becomes more free and it becomes trivial (and legal) for me to download last weeks X-Files, a system like this would be an excellent replacement for the VERY screwed up ratings systems we have for both TV and radio.
--
Space suit or canvas tent, whichever you have handy. :)
--
we'll probably end up feeling as bad as we did four hundred years ago when we killed off indigenous populations with smallpox, influenza and VD.
Biological warfare, 15th century style. Put a bunch of dirty smelly pirates on a ship for three months, let simmer, serve on unsuspecting native populations.
--
considering Metallicas fairly consistent thrashing in the press, I doubt many bands would want to take that route, but I agree, more power to 'em for trying.
If they don't want me to listen to their music, no prob. Someone else does.
--
Anyone got a better idea?
Yea, but we have to scoot back a little bit.
Combine an infinte supply with a zero dollar price tag, and you've got an infinite demand in old school economics.
I think it will work by creating an infinite demand but not quite like that. That is true, but it offers no reason for compensation. This sets the value at 1, i.e. the real value. Creating a motive above infinite demand is bit tougher as the only concept I can think of that fits the description is love. See the They Might Be Giants post in this thread. The fans will pay regardless, because they respect the artists, wish to have a physical artifact of the music, and understand that the only way the artists can make more music is with monetary support. At least that's how I justify buying CDs, buying t-shirts and paying for shows, YMMV.
or, as the guy just said. "They can play music for money."
A friend of mine said the same thing the other night between his first and second sets. "They can make money playing fuckin' music. That's what they do isn't it?" (emphasis from textual/tone conversion)
He plays guitar, check it out.
--
I believe Tori Amos released the first single of the album "To Venus and Back" digitally before the acutal single was released on CD.
This is actually one of the BIG problems the record industry has with Napster. The full contents of new works are on Napster *before* they make it to the stores. They claim this hurts the *pop* of the album and all the free advertising that comes with early sales numbers and genre ranking.
They don't mention the free advertising that Napster does, but that side is debatable. Anyone want to?
--
i would like to get my music for free. however, i would also like to get my car for free. there are simply some things that are/never-will-be free.
:)
Ya know, some people would have said the same thing about music a few years ago. As to your car example...nanotechnology. It (hopefully) promises to, in a sense, make the whole world digital. We need to learn, as a society, how to deal with infinite products. Music is our first challenge, and it should be an easy one. It's art and beauty after all, why shouldn't we share it?
The problem comes if we decide to treat IP *exactly* like PP (physical property) then we will end up with a government that does nothing but protect the profits of corporations who have lobbied that government to change the laws to protect them. I don't want to wake up and find a world where the only thing that stands between me giving away a new car (that used to be a pile of sand) is a soldier with a rifle.
And you are indeed a burning man
--