DeCSS and Napster are the books that are currently trying to be burned. And others. Metaphorical books perhaps, but nonetheless they are bits of knowledge and logic that some people don't want you to have...because it weakens their control. Same story, new century.
We already know that major corporations pay for marketing information collected from unwitting surfers. Are we willing to bring universal access to humanity at the price of making everyone a target for marketers?
This is definitely not an argument against universal access. Give me your home address and I'll tell you why...o.k. fine, I'll tell you anyway. All of the marketing information is already available. Yes, they might get a bit more detailed info (and know you have a 500mhz p3) but beyond a certain point, gathering marketing information is a useless proposition. hmmm, here's the link. Personally I think marketing info hits a type of Heisenberg limit where the simple asking of the question changes the answer to such a degree that it is meaningless.
Then see if there's another way to finance this venture, one that doesn't depend on turning hapless people into cash cows to be milked by the highest bidder.
Well, for anyone who hopes to makes money with advertising on the Net, the constant parade of cash cows is what it is going to take. And I think it's going to happen anyway. And once they get a taste of dial-up, they'll learn of the freedom that comes with broadband. Hopefully by the time they get there, the Internet will still be Free. --
The enRamp program [http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-1798138.html ] allows participants to obtain PC's by paying monthly charges of $24.95 or less over a three-year period, deducted from paychecks or organization dues.
According to Jon we would have Universal Health Care...if everyone worked for giant corporations. Jon, what was your point again? Oh, yea, computers are good for people... Thanks for the update. --
The ratio of independant to mainstream is, if anything, WORSE on Napster than on public airwaves, given the large number of college and pirate radio stations around.
The ratio? Hmm, whatever. All I know is most of the stuff I look for, I find. Even if all I know is how to spell the bands name. Who cares if there are 300,000 copies of Metallidre floating around, I don't wanna hear them, or waste my bandwidth on them.
The fact that a bottom-up forum like Napster has independantly taken on the same shape as the corporate top-down ones is fairly telling evidence of this.
There is absolutely no evidence that a generation of kids with a HUGE range of easily available music, would choose Britney Moore and the Back'N Sync boys as their favorites. There is evidence that ones raised on MTV would though...
Napster levels the playing field, some people don't like that. They don't like competition, it cuts into profits and leads to nasty things like price wars. We wouldn't want to confuse consumers in a "price war" would we?
I'm not justifying it as "free speech" (although at Free Press it might make for an argument...), I justify it as a great way to hear and sample music that I would never come into contact with through regular channels. I use it as the amazing promotional tool it can be. But then again, I'm not everyone (and you can all be thankful for that!;).
Ultimatly I think their plan is to nail the 'questionable' MP3 related services (Napster, MP3.com, etc.) till they have established in the public's eye that MP3=illegal.
This is, unfortunately, working. People seem to think that it is some hidden thrill in using an "illegal" format. They get giggly, it's quite funny to watch. Doesn't lesson the power of Napster, but it does add to its appeal. Forbidden fruit and all that.
Ironically, it won't even be a good cause that triggers the regulation of the internet (like protecting the children, or the usual tear jerkers), it will be commercial interests and big money.
I know this sounds a bit weird, but with the direction we're going, I'd almost rather the government regulate the Net rather than the corps. The gov'ts (at least ours) have people to answer to. The corp just have shareholders. Personally I think people have more interest in rights and wrongs than shareholders who only care about the bottom line and rights and morals go right out the window if it means a fatter dividend. Just my cynical perspective of two cents. --
You're joking right? Legitimate MP3s are rarely ever distributed on Napster.
So you're saying if I was to get a Phish song off of Napster that would be worse that getting it off of the Phishing pole, or sugarmegs, or hell, even recording it off the Phishcast?
Napster is a *better* service.
Loads of indie bands (and signed bands for that matter) have MP3s available for download on their webpage, not to mention the legitimate webpages out there that distribute MP3s
Very true, and they should have some MP3s on their page. They could even call them *blessed* mp3s. Record live shows. It costs roughly $300 to record a live show and put it on the Net as MP3s. Even less to gain a worldwide promotion network (i.e. Napster)
Getting rid of Napster is not going to help the RIAA keep indie bands down.
Yet it helps tremendously to control access to a wide range of music. It removes the control they have worked so hard to create. Napster *replaces* the RIAA and their control mechanisms. The value they offer musicians is promotion. That's what Napster does, or at least that's what I use it for. Just because some other folks don't know a good thing when they see it doesn't mean that thing should be illegal. There are better ways to deal with technology than condemning it as evil and suing any company that tries to use it.
The way to solve this problem is not through draconian technical measures that will replace promotion as the most expensive part of music. The way to solve this problem is with sensible, enforcable, fair laws. As well as the idea, which I fully grasp and act upon, that you must support the music you like monetarily if you wish more of it to be created.
"And then they have the gall to use the holy word 'copyright' to try and maintain their slipping control," Torvalds says. "That, I consider to be immoral. Go, Metallica. Die, RIAA."
:-)
And you gotta love Larry Wall..
"Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking."
And (to add in a nice way) people who confuse stealing and sharing have ceased any moral growth whatsoever.
To base the whole thing (connection of Napster and Open Source/Free Software) on a Katz(?) or any other/. poster's comments, is, IMHO, shaky at best.
The ideas cross but they are not exactly parallel.
Eventually the cost of CDs to customers neared $20, as 1999 releases like Dr. Dre's Dr. Dre 2001 and Method Man and Redman's Black Out! ushered in a new $18.98 list price.
Yo Dre! 18.98 for a CD, yo? Why not 18.99? That's like Donny's Discount Gas, man...pass some o'dat shit o'er here....peace. --
A few things...(quotes from the link you gave me, or your own reply)
Richard doesn't believe in ownership of intellectual property.
I do believe in intellectual property, but only when it crosses into the real world. That is, I believe in the protection of the implementation rather than the idea itself. There is also a fundamental difference between what I, personally, am advocating, and what *we* (the/. collective) are advocating (which I dare you to pin down, there's a lot of people screaming around here;)
One must also keep the conversation in the correct context, that is "Cyberspace", where, as a fundamental point of my argument, scarcity does not exist.
The important part is finding the right balance between the rights of the copyright holder and the good of the general public.
Which, in all of the cases we are discussing, is between *we* the people of the U.S.(i.e. general public) and "they" (the copyright holders, the RIAA/MPAA, in the current situation). I think this balance of rights, given our current context, is way out of whack. So I think we should whack it back. With a big cluestick. (the clue being that we are, in fact, people out here and we do, in fact, have opinions on how your business is run, and yes, we can tell the whole world about it from the comfort of our bedrooms.)
Many of us percieve the corrupt nature of the music industry: they do have a lock on the business of distributing music, and the artist is often taken advantage of by the mega-corporation. But the Internet will solve this problem, because it lets the artists distribute directly to their patrons. Those artists still need to be able to be compensated for their work. Widespread bootlegging deprives them of that compensation, whether or not the mega-corporations of the music industry are involved.
I disagree with Bruce here. I think widespread "bootlegging" or "sharing" as I prefer, will replace what the RIAA sees as the most expensive, and thereforce valuable, part of the music industry....marketing. I feel quite strongly about this. Read the link from my.sig for a bit more extended defense of my theory.
Bruce goes on to talk about a 1984(ish) scenario that I can see too. But unlike him, I think the battle has already been joined. Raising awarness of these issues NOW, is the biggest concern. Getting people online to research before making an opinion has been my biggest goal, it's what I tell people on the street (if the subject comes up). Once enough people know and DO SOMETHING about it. the danger may be averted. Either that or in 10 years $19 of the $20 a CD costs will be to make sure they still cost that much.
And from the Free Software/Free Music angle. I think they are different forms of IP and should be treated as such. But that is a whole 'nuther discussion.
And think before you believe!
I'm a big believer in thinking. And logic. Unless I get some new sources of information that totally contradict pretty much everything I think I know now, my position won't change. And yes, I am the(a) cynical one.:) --
Why is having a universal radio station that can broadcast any musiciam music, regardless of their marketing agreements, bad for music artists? Seriously?
I'll tell you right now, you don't pay me to make software, I don't fucking make software. The same should go for artists.
I don't understand this argument. At least from the artistic viewpoint. From the feeding my family viewpoint, I can see it, but if you are doing art to feed your family, you are either a damn good artist, or an idiot. In fact, the RIAA agrees with you. They now want to treat all artists work as "works for hire", which means that the artist will NEVER control the copyright to their work, because, like you said if "you don't pay me to make software, I don't fucking make software." Not only that, but with that attitude, I'll bet you make shit software. That's the attitude that Metallica has taken, take a hear from their new album (Which is another reason for their "outrage"..free advertising. Did they mention that they have a new video, single, and movie tie-in coming out right now?) and see if it's art or shit.
Art is different than work. It needs to be encouraged in a different way. Copyright law is there to encourage arts and sciences. If I was an music artist today and I saw the current situation (i.e. I would have to sell the rights to my work totally to get *any* compensation), I would not be encouraged.
But, that's o.k. There is hope. I'll go ahead and quote a guy off of MP3.com.
"Thank you all for your support, I am honored to have your respect, and see that I'm selling albums all over the world. 303infinity has plans to create so much more this year, just remember, independent musicians now have the internet as a marketing tool. The possibilities are endless... infinity."
I suppose copying the other party's product and giving it away for free is 'competition', but I'm not really sure.
You are making the assumption that an MP3 and a physical CD are the same product, they aren't. This is also a serious flaw in all the RIAA's argument. Unless of course, you got hit by the LoveBug and it erased all your CD's, then your argument would hold.
So then you'll say, "Oh, but it's IP." And I'll say yup, it is, and the only way to fully control IP is with thought police.
The largest part of the cost and price of CD's is promotion. Check the RIAA's "Cost of a CD" for a clue source. This is the "value" that the RIAA is trying to protect. Now whether or not you judge the value of the music you listen to by how much you like it, or how much you are told you like it, is an exercise best left for the reader, err, listener.
If you want an honest suggestion on how to resolve parts of this situation, check the link from my.sig --
Hmm, I'm not sure how to respond to this extremely cynical post, other than to say that some of us (living in the Gibson novel) see the laws of the land, and the people making them, and know that they have no idea about what the laws they are writing mean or how they will effect our society as a whole.
/. is a place for like (and unlike) minds to gather and discuss some possibilities. The debates here have solidified and enforced my stance immeasurably. Don't attribute the logic of some pissed fourteen year-old to the rest of the people here, each has their own opinions.
The important thing is to fight for what you believe, and believe what you fight for. --
Napster is really more than just "peer to peer file sharing". It's an avenue for music piracy.
Napster is an avenue for music "promotion". This is probably the single biggest worry that the RIAA has. Like it says somewhere in that link down below...The RIAA can keep independent music off the radio and MTV and pretty much any other mainstream "available to everyone" promotion vehicle, but they can't keep them off Napster. The only way to keep down the competition is destroy their chances at widespread promotion.
They are no more worried about digital "pirates" than they are about real ones with parrots and eye-patches. "Pirate" is a loaded word that is easy to remember and everyone "knows" is bad. The whole pirate angle is a PR one, and it seems to be working:(
It's obvious you hate to insert reason into the argument...because you haven't.
Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material
Napster exists for only one reason, for people to share music. The RIAA hates Napster because it raises competition to an unheard of level. One they can't deal with and that will consistently eat into their profits (You mean there are artists that don't get played on the radio or MTV?!?!?). Competition is bad for the bottom line.
I've seen you speak up a lot lately, but have yet to hear a cogent argument. Go wink at yourself, I use Napster to find good music.
"The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years. These settlements will eliminate these policies and should help restore much-needed competition to the retail music market, consisting of $15 billion in annual sales. Today's news should be sweet music to the ears of all CD purchasers," said Chairman Robert Pitofsky."
That's not sweet music to my ears, that smells like bullshit to my nose.
But that's o.k. they are listening..
"These agreements will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until June 9, after which the Commission will decide whether to make them final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580." --
I know I'd pay gladly for freedom of speech. Lord knows we don't have it here.
Not sure if you are in the U.S. and just being cynical or what, but if you are (like me) you DO have the freedom of speech, but like any other freedom you want to retain (or gain) you must fight for it. TANSTAAFL. --
Linux and GCC are widely praised by their users. Yet not all is rosy. Like commercial software, free software is --- surprise --- of very variable quality. You find the best and the worst. ISE's own experience with free software has included both kinds. Recently, we have had more than our share of the second; we have had to cancel one major project, and reengineer a product completely, after wasting many person-months and disappointing customers, because of the deficiencies of two separate GNU products (the GCC compiler for Windows and the editor under GTK). In both cases the scenario was the same: fixes to well-known bugs being promised and promised again; everyone waiting for months and months, until it becomes clear that nothing will happen; in the end, having to write off all the affected developments. Since no one is in charge, and you didn't pay for the products, there is no one to blame.
No one to blame, but yourself. If you are free you must take responsibility for your own actions, not lay the blame of deficiencies in the world on others. Scratch your own frickin' itch, my hands are busy finding mine, in other words.
He also misses the mark on the infinite nature of software argument. That photocopying a book example just doesn't hold. It's not only a matter of matter (the physical size of the book and paper) but of time (to make the copies) and effort (to make the copies). The LOVEBUG was a good example of infinite Free Software. Nobody wanted it, but it was free and travelled around the world a whole lot faster than a fat man on sled with a photocopier.
Also....I watched the NRA's rally today on c-span (flipping back and forth to cartoons...) and their esteemed leader Mos^H^H^HCharlton Heston. He ended his speech with the famous 5 words...(You'll get my gun when you pry it)"from my cold dead hands" while holding an antique rifle aloft.
My take on the gun debate is this. After all the hand waving and screaming unresolved conflict comes down to force. If one side is screaming "No Guns, No guns!" and the other's motto is as above. I don't usually bet, but I would on that one.
A community shouldn't be judged by the morals and actions of it's leaders (at least not solely). I'm proud to be an American. Clinton sucks. Enough said?
And for the quality issue...
Product F is free software. It comes with the standard no-warranty warranty. Product P is proprietary software. It costs $50 for the binary-only version. It uses the most advanced techniques of software engineering. It never crashes, or departs in any way from its (mathematically expressed) specification. The seller is, in fact, so sure of those qualities that he will commit in writing that any violation of the specification during execution will immediately lead to reimbursement of the purchase price and compensation for any damages incurred.
That's called a "service contract" and is believed by many to be how they will eventually make money with Free software.
That's enough of this guy for today, time to go out and play. --
The AP shouldn't be pursuing them. They got well over $250 worth of free advertising with that thing. People know who owns it. The guy was just having a little fun. Anybody have a link for how the guy got the shot?
As for copyright law...
By that time, the law could say that the moon in made of green cheese until proven otherwise, while forbidding lunar analysis.
hehe.
Slashback is almost as good as the Daily Show's version of it.... --
you've seen people on/. argue for and against something. I think the problem here is that you're looking for a concentrated opinion or an "Official Corporate Viewpoint", and you're just not gonna find it. It can be quite confusing if you think many voices are speaking for one.
Seriously though, the gov't has all the tech your money can buy, I'll have to check this book to see if he covers any of it. Clancy got interro^H^Hviewed for his interestingly accurate knowledge about nuke subs, maybe this author knows somethin' too...
that example doesn't quite work, though. You can run from the cops when all they are trying to do is make you run (i.e. vacate the premises). Write a happy little virus or something though, and they'll come by and say hello. You can't run from satellites... --
Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS and Napster are the books that are currently trying to be burned. And others. Metaphorical books perhaps, but nonetheless they are bits of knowledge and logic that some people don't want you to have...because it weakens their control. Same story, new century.
--
We already know that major corporations pay for marketing information collected from unwitting surfers. Are we willing to bring universal access to humanity at the price of making everyone a target for marketers?
This is definitely not an argument against universal access. Give me your home address and I'll tell you why...o.k. fine, I'll tell you anyway. All of the marketing information is already available. Yes, they might get a bit more detailed info (and know you have a 500mhz p3) but beyond a certain point, gathering marketing information is a useless proposition. hmmm, here's the link. Personally I think marketing info hits a type of Heisenberg limit where the simple asking of the question changes the answer to such a degree that it is meaningless.
Then see if there's another way to finance this venture, one that doesn't depend on turning hapless people into cash cows to be milked by the highest bidder.
Well, for anyone who hopes to makes money with advertising on the Net, the constant parade of cash cows is what it is going to take. And I think it's going to happen anyway. And once they get a taste of dial-up, they'll learn of the freedom that comes with broadband. Hopefully by the time they get there, the Internet will still be Free.
--
...PeoplePC , without the engaging salesman.
l ] allows participants to obtain PC's by paying
The enRamp program [http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-1798138.htm
monthly charges of $24.95 or less over a three-year period, deducted from paychecks or organization dues.
According to Jon we would have Universal Health Care...if everyone worked for giant corporations. Jon, what was your point again? Oh, yea, computers are good for people... Thanks for the update.
--
The ratio of independant to mainstream is, if anything, WORSE on Napster than on public airwaves, given the large number of college and pirate radio stations around.
The ratio? Hmm, whatever. All I know is most of the stuff I look for, I find. Even if all I know is how to spell the bands name. Who cares if there are 300,000 copies of Metallidre floating around, I don't wanna hear them, or waste my bandwidth on them.
The fact that a bottom-up forum like Napster has independantly taken on the same shape as the corporate top-down ones is fairly telling evidence of this.
There is absolutely no evidence that a generation of kids with a HUGE range of easily available music, would choose Britney Moore and the Back'N Sync boys as their favorites. There is evidence that ones raised on MTV would though...
Napster levels the playing field, some people don't like that. They don't like competition, it cuts into profits and leads to nasty things like price wars. We wouldn't want to confuse consumers in a "price war" would we?
--
Everyone tries to justify it as "free speech"
I'm not justifying it as "free speech" (although at Free Press it might make for an argument...), I justify it as a great way to hear and sample music that I would never come into contact with through regular channels. I use it as the amazing promotional tool it can be. But then again, I'm not everyone (and you can all be thankful for that!;).
--
Ultimatly I think their plan is to nail the 'questionable' MP3 related services (Napster, MP3.com, etc.) till they have established in the public's eye that MP3=illegal.
This is, unfortunately, working. People seem to think that it is some hidden thrill in using an "illegal" format. They get giggly, it's quite funny to watch. Doesn't lesson the power of Napster, but it does add to its appeal. Forbidden fruit and all that.
Ironically, it won't even be a good cause that triggers the regulation of the internet (like protecting the children, or the usual tear jerkers), it will be commercial interests and big money.
I know this sounds a bit weird, but with the direction we're going, I'd almost rather the government regulate the Net rather than the corps. The gov'ts (at least ours) have people to answer to. The corp just have shareholders. Personally I think people have more interest in rights and wrongs than shareholders who only care about the bottom line and rights and morals go right out the window if it means a fatter dividend. Just my cynical perspective of two cents.
--
You're joking right? Legitimate MP3s are rarely ever distributed on Napster.
So you're saying if I was to get a Phish song off of Napster that would be worse that getting it off of the Phishing pole, or sugarmegs, or hell, even recording it off the Phishcast?
Napster is a *better* service.
Loads of indie bands (and signed bands for that matter) have MP3s available for download on their webpage, not to mention the legitimate webpages out there that distribute MP3s
Very true, and they should have some MP3s on their page. They could even call them *blessed* mp3s. Record live shows. It costs roughly $300 to record a live show and put it on the Net as MP3s. Even less to gain a worldwide promotion network (i.e. Napster)
Getting rid of Napster is not going to help the RIAA keep indie bands down.
Yet it helps tremendously to control access to a wide range of music. It removes the control they have worked so hard to create. Napster *replaces* the RIAA and their control mechanisms. The value they offer musicians is promotion. That's what Napster does, or at least that's what I use it for. Just because some other folks don't know a good thing when they see it doesn't mean that thing should be illegal. There are better ways to deal with technology than condemning it as evil and suing any company that tries to use it.
The way to solve this problem is not through draconian technical measures that will replace promotion as the most expensive part of music. The way to solve this problem is with sensible, enforcable, fair laws. As well as the idea, which I fully grasp and act upon, that you must support the music you like monetarily if you wish more of it to be created.
--
"And then they have the gall to use the holy word 'copyright' to try and maintain their slipping control," Torvalds says. "That, I consider to be immoral. Go, Metallica. Die, RIAA."
/. poster's comments, is, IMHO, shaky at best.
:-)
And you gotta love Larry Wall..
"Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking."
And (to add in a nice way) people who confuse stealing and sharing have ceased any moral growth whatsoever.
To base the whole thing (connection of Napster and Open Source/Free Software) on a Katz(?) or any other
The ideas cross but they are not exactly parallel.
--
The FTC noticed that too
hehe, and I just noticed this too...
Eventually the cost of CDs to customers neared $20, as 1999 releases like Dr. Dre's Dr. Dre 2001 and Method Man and Redman's Black Out! ushered in a new $18.98 list price.
Yo Dre! 18.98 for a CD, yo? Why not 18.99? That's like Donny's Discount Gas, man...pass some o'dat shit o'er here....peace.
--
Thanks for the response Otter, loved you in the "Funniest college movie before Road Trip!" ;)
/. collective) are advocating (which I dare you to pin down, there's a lot of people screaming around here ;)
.sig for a bit more extended defense of my theory.
A few things...(quotes from the link you gave me, or your own reply)
Richard doesn't believe in ownership of intellectual property.
I do believe in intellectual property, but only when it crosses into the real world. That is, I believe in the protection of the implementation rather than the idea itself. There is also a fundamental difference between what I, personally, am advocating, and what *we* (the
One must also keep the conversation in the correct context, that is "Cyberspace", where, as a fundamental point of my argument, scarcity does not exist.
The important part is finding the right balance between the rights of the copyright holder and the good of the general public.
Which, in all of the cases we are discussing, is between *we* the people of the U.S.(i.e. general public) and "they" (the copyright holders, the RIAA/MPAA, in the current situation). I think this balance of rights, given our current context, is way out of whack. So I think we should whack it back. With a big cluestick. (the clue being that we are, in fact, people out here and we do, in fact, have opinions on how your business is run, and yes, we can tell the whole world about it from the comfort of our bedrooms.)
Many of us percieve the corrupt nature of the music industry: they do have a lock on the business of distributing music, and the artist is often taken advantage of by the mega-corporation.
But the Internet will solve this problem, because it lets the artists distribute directly to their patrons. Those artists still need to be able to be compensated for their work. Widespread bootlegging deprives them of that compensation, whether or not the mega-corporations of the music industry are involved.
I disagree with Bruce here. I think widespread "bootlegging" or "sharing" as I prefer, will replace what the RIAA sees as the most expensive, and thereforce valuable, part of the music industry....marketing. I feel quite strongly about this. Read the link from my
Bruce goes on to talk about a 1984(ish) scenario that I can see too. But unlike him, I think the battle has already been joined. Raising awarness of these issues NOW, is the biggest concern. Getting people online to research before making an opinion has been my biggest goal, it's what I tell people on the street (if the subject comes up). Once enough people know and DO SOMETHING about it. the danger may be averted. Either that or in 10 years $19 of the $20 a CD costs will be to make sure they still cost that much.
And from the Free Software/Free Music angle. I think they are different forms of IP and should be treated as such. But that is a whole 'nuther discussion.
And think before you believe!
I'm a big believer in thinking. And logic. Unless I get some new sources of information that totally contradict pretty much everything I think I know now, my position won't change. And yes, I am the(a) cynical one.:)
--
Good point. And I'll bet the percentage of people in the U.S. who know how and why these laws have been changed is less that 1.
Only Congress (which fat pockets) could interpret "limited" as "life+". Frickin rediculous.
--
Guys, Napster is BAD for artists. It is!
Why is having a universal radio station that can broadcast any musiciam music, regardless of their marketing agreements, bad for music artists? Seriously?
I'll tell you right now, you don't pay me to make software, I don't fucking make software. The same should go for artists.
I don't understand this argument. At least from the artistic viewpoint. From the feeding my family viewpoint, I can see it, but if you are doing art to feed your family, you are either a damn good artist, or an idiot. In fact, the RIAA agrees with you. They now want to treat all artists work as "works for hire", which means that the artist will NEVER control the copyright to their work, because, like you said if "you don't pay me to make software, I don't fucking make software." Not only that, but with that attitude, I'll bet you make shit software. That's the attitude that Metallica has taken, take a hear from their new album (Which is another reason for their "outrage"..free advertising. Did they mention that they have a new video, single, and movie tie-in coming out right now?) and see if it's art or shit.
Art is different than work. It needs to be encouraged in a different way. Copyright law is there to encourage arts and sciences. If I was an music artist today and I saw the current situation (i.e. I would have to sell the rights to my work totally to get *any* compensation), I would not be encouraged.
But, that's o.k. There is hope. I'll go ahead and quote a guy off of MP3.com.
"Thank you all for your support, I am honored to have your respect, and see that I'm selling albums
all over the world. 303infinity has plans to
create so much more this year, just
remember, independent musicians now have
the internet as a marketing tool. The
possibilities are endless... infinity."
--
I suppose copying the other party's product and giving it away for free is 'competition', but I'm not really sure.
.sig
You are making the assumption that an MP3 and a physical CD are the same product, they aren't. This is also a serious flaw in all the RIAA's argument. Unless of course, you got hit by the LoveBug and it erased all your CD's, then your argument would hold.
So then you'll say, "Oh, but it's IP." And I'll say yup, it is, and the only way to fully control IP is with thought police.
The largest part of the cost and price of CD's is promotion. Check the RIAA's "Cost of a CD" for a clue source. This is the "value" that the RIAA is trying to protect. Now whether or not you judge the value of the music you listen to by how much you like it, or how much you are told you like it, is an exercise best left for the reader, err, listener.
If you want an honest suggestion on how to resolve parts of this situation, check the link from my
--
Hmm, I'm not sure how to respond to this extremely cynical post, other than to say that some of us (living in the Gibson novel) see the laws of the land, and the people making them, and know that they have no idea about what the laws they are writing mean or how they will effect our society as a whole.
/. is a place for like (and unlike) minds to gather and discuss some possibilities. The debates here have solidified and enforced my stance immeasurably. Don't attribute the logic of some pissed fourteen year-old to the rest of the people here, each has their own opinions.
The important thing is to fight for what you believe, and believe what you fight for.
--
Napster is really more than just "peer to peer file sharing". It's an avenue for music piracy.
:(
Napster is an avenue for music "promotion". This is probably the single biggest worry that the RIAA has. Like it says somewhere in that link down below...The RIAA can keep independent music off the radio and MTV and pretty much any other mainstream "available to everyone" promotion vehicle, but they can't keep them off Napster. The only way to keep down the competition is destroy their chances at widespread promotion.
They are no more worried about digital "pirates" than they are about real ones with parrots and eye-patches. "Pirate" is a loaded word that is easy to remember and everyone "knows" is bad. The whole pirate angle is a PR one, and it seems to be working
--
It's obvious you hate to insert reason into the argument...because you haven't.
Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material
Napster exists for only one reason, for people to share music. The RIAA hates Napster because it raises competition to an unheard of level. One they can't deal with and that will consistently eat into their profits (You mean there are artists that don't get played on the radio or MTV?!?!?). Competition is bad for the bottom line.
I've seen you speak up a lot lately, but have yet to hear a cogent argument. Go wink at yourself, I use Napster to find good music.
--
It's time for the FTC to start looking into the RIAA, and it's time for the rest of us to consider a class-action suit against them.
.sig for more juicy links.
You're a couple years late...they already got their hand slapped for being in the cookie jar. Click the
"The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years. These
settlements will eliminate these policies and should help restore much-needed competition to the retail music market, consisting of $15 billion in annual sales. Today's news should be sweet music to the ears of all CD purchasers," said Chairman Robert Pitofsky."
That's not sweet music to my ears, that smells like bullshit to my nose.
But that's o.k. they are listening..
"These agreements will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until June 9, after which the Commission will decide whether to make them final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580."
--
I know I'd pay gladly for freedom of speech. Lord knows we don't have it here.
Not sure if you are in the U.S. and just being cynical or what, but if you are (like me) you DO have the freedom of speech, but like any other freedom you want to retain (or gain) you must fight for it. TANSTAAFL.
--
you can always sell hardware.
--
Linux and GCC are widely praised by their users. Yet not all is rosy. Like commercial software, free software is --- surprise --- of very variable quality. You find the best and the worst. ISE's own experience with free software has included both kinds. Recently, we have had more than our share of the second; we have had to cancel one major project, and reengineer a product completely, after wasting many person-months and disappointing customers, because of the deficiencies of two separate GNU products (the GCC compiler for Windows and the editor under GTK). In both cases the scenario was the same: fixes to well-known bugs being promised and promised again; everyone waiting for months and months, until it becomes clear that nothing will happen; in the end, having to write off all the affected developments. Since no one is in charge, and you didn't pay for the products, there is no one to blame.
No one to blame, but yourself. If you are free you must take responsibility for your own actions, not lay the blame of deficiencies in the world on others. Scratch your own frickin' itch, my hands are busy finding mine, in other words.
He also misses the mark on the infinite nature of software argument. That photocopying a book example just doesn't hold. It's not only a matter of matter (the physical size of the book and paper) but of time (to make the copies) and effort (to make the copies). The LOVEBUG was a good example of infinite Free Software. Nobody wanted it, but it was free and travelled around the world a whole lot faster than a fat man on sled with a photocopier.
Also....I watched the NRA's rally today on c-span (flipping back and forth to cartoons...) and their esteemed leader Mos^H^H^HCharlton Heston. He ended his speech with the famous 5 words...(You'll get my gun when you pry it)"from my cold dead hands" while holding an antique rifle aloft.
My take on the gun debate is this. After all the hand waving and screaming unresolved conflict comes down to force. If one side is screaming "No Guns, No guns!" and the other's motto is as above. I don't usually bet, but I would on that one.
A community shouldn't be judged by the morals and actions of it's leaders (at least not solely). I'm proud to be an American. Clinton sucks. Enough said?
And for the quality issue...
Product F is free software. It comes with the standard no-warranty warranty.
Product P is proprietary software. It costs $50 for the binary-only version. It uses the most advanced techniques of software engineering. It never crashes, or departs in any way from its (mathematically expressed) specification. The seller is, in fact, so sure of those qualities that he will commit in writing that any violation of the specification during execution will immediately lead to reimbursement of the purchase price and compensation for any damages incurred.
That's called a "service contract" and is believed by many to be how they will eventually make money with Free software.
That's enough of this guy for today, time to go out and play.
--
The AP shouldn't be pursuing them. They got well over $250 worth of free advertising with that thing. People know who owns it. The guy was just having a little fun. Anybody have a link for how the guy got the shot?
As for copyright law...
By that time, the law could say that the moon in made of green cheese until proven otherwise, while forbidding lunar analysis.
hehe.
Slashback is almost as good as the Daily Show's version of it....
--
I just don't like to pay for people living off the government (when they are perfectly capable of making their own money, but refuse to).
oh, I was just about to make a remark about the beauty of forced-labor economies when I realized you were a troll, and an active one at that...
Silly troll, opinions are for the informed.
--
you've seen people on /. argue for and against something. I think the problem here is that you're looking for a concentrated opinion or an "Official Corporate Viewpoint", and you're just not gonna find it. It can be quite confusing if you think many voices are speaking for one.
--
Watching? shoot, i've been living it....hehe.
Seriously though, the gov't has all the tech your money can buy, I'll have to check this book to see if he covers any of it. Clancy got interro^H^Hviewed for his interestingly accurate knowledge about nuke subs, maybe this author knows somethin' too...
--
that example doesn't quite work, though. You can run from the cops when all they are trying to do is make you run (i.e. vacate the premises). Write a happy little virus or something though, and they'll come by and say hello. You can't run from satellites...
--