Woo-hoo. And we didn't even have to flame you. I'm glad that Bill finally has enough rope to hang himself with, I wasn't sure if he could afford enough before, but now..now he has enough.
Jus wait until the "Enhanced Security Windows" come out...at $500 a pop. No one ever said he wasn't a good businessman, just not a good man.
Simple cost-analysis says getting the ILOVEYOU guy is more worth it than laboriously tracking down the person who hacked you.
As a way to set an example? Crucify the guy to scare away anyone else? What I'm saying, is why the huge expense tracking down one guy? People aren't going to stop writing the viruses, but there is a simpler way to make them less effective.... Maybe nature has an answer...
CmdrTaco: Maybe there should be an additional restriction on moderators so they can't see the name of the poster.
Like him or not Sig11 is usually quite insightful, just post early, often, and on-topic and you too can benefit from massive flames by generating too much karma. --
Is MP3 legal? MP3s can be legal or illegal. The MP3 format itself is legal, and it's legal when the song's copyright holder has granted permission to download and play the song. It is legal (in most countries) to encode MP3s for personal use. However, it is illegal to distribute or trade MP3s without permission of the copyright holder. Good things are always good to share, aren't they?
Dangerous products are dangerous products, regardless. People should at least have their own source to check. So, now I'm buying a car with the hood welded shut, that has a tendency to explode, and it's my fault if it happens. And it's very expensive. Proprietary software ROCKS!!
I think, if we don't fix this craziness now, that the license fee will how you buy cars after we master the joys of nanotech.
"Sure it's only made out of $50 worth of sand, but we have a patent on how to do it, so the license fee is $10,000. And don't try one of those home replicator units either, the Feds are watching."
So if MP3.com changed their service, let people upload MP3's that they could later listen to anywhere, you wouldn't have a problem with it? They tried to cut a corner and offer a better service, but we all know that YOU MUST PAY FOR EVERY SECOND OF MUSIC YOU LISTEN TO OR YOU ARE EVIL!!!!!!.
The law is the problem here, not the fans, not the people. The law needs to be changed so people like you who base all their moral judgements on it can have moral judgements that reflect reality as it is, not how the record companies tell congress it is.
This is exactly what they plan to do IMHO, and illustrates why our patent system is a bit on the slow side. How soon before the lawsuits? I say within 6 months...
And registry is the key term. The patent says "a registry" not "the Windows Registry". A registry (def 2:" a place of registration") would then be anything where information concerning package attributes is registered.
Currently I would think BillyG and CO are pretty pissed about the laws in this country (and those incredulous companies that want to compete with them), and since they can't do it in the marketplace (how can you compete with someone who's software is Free..ask Netscape..) they'll want to use the patent laws against Free Software. --
...walk slowly by a mirror, stare deeply into it, and say, "Man, what ever happened to that stuff I used to believe in." I am constantly shown the images of artists who get rewarded for thier efforts, start to feel that it's their fan's "obligation" to pay them to play, and end up old, bitter, and laughed at. I was wondering, what are the signs to look for when that starts to happen?
I am also wondering if there was a particular moment when you crossed over from playing because you wanted to rock, and playing because you wanted to retire? Do you get any joy out of your music any more? Or your fans? Is the money that much more important to you? --
So? Everyone has lobbyists, and sometimes laws are passed based on that -- laws that you may or may not agree with. There are big problems with the system, and someone is always gonna end up cheesed off.
Yes, but I don't like lobbying from industries that try and get laws passed that hurt their workers (or at least their worker's rights). Read the links from here If you don't believe me. Yes, I. Am. So. Cheesed. Off. right now.
Sure, I think Disney got a bad law passed (copyright extension), but I think many of the copyright laws are still pretty darned good in design.
You might think they're "pretty darn good". I think they suck ass. This is a fundamental difference. I don't expect it to change, today, or even tomorrow. But that's why we talk about it, no?
I tip my hat to you then -- you are standing up for what you believe.
I say "Howdy". And I'm screaming it at the top of my lungs to anyone who's paying attention, not just standing there.
You ever read it?
No, I haven't read the entire code. I have read various abstracts and conversations, as well as citations from the code. Mainly I think I understand its spirit, and where that spirit has been tainted by self-interest.
First, it addresses the circumvention of copyright protection systems, not actual violations of copyright law. This means they'll go after the DeCSS people (another place where we disagree, I'm sure), not the kid in his basement burning himself a copy of the Matrix.
Just wait until they convince a judge or someone who picks judges (What's up G-Dub!?) that the "horrible" act of "ripping" an MP3 goes against the spirit of the law, in that it is a "circumvention" of the natural protections afforded by the inherent differences between a physical medium and a digital one.(i.e. "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" that's from here word find: "circumvent":)
Second, the section on criminal offenses and penalties is very explicit in that it applies to violations for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". I haven't seen the list of 300,000 names, but I'm pretty sure most of them haven't made any money.
I think that's our loophole. We just want to give it away, we don't want to sell it. Read some of the those conversations under my user info for more details on this. Keep reading for the kicker...
I make a living by creating and selling IP, not music but software. I expect that these laws will help protect my work (and my job), and I fully endorse them. I'm not trying to get something for nothing, I'm trying to feed my family.
Software might be a tough business in a few years. A bunch of crazy hippies are giving a whole bunch away for free in hopes of capturing market share, and eventually maybe some bucks...some way or another. Or maybe they're just doing it for fun, but the stuff seems to work. Even if it is a BIT cryptic. But I understand your point. I think we need to protect absolutely the power of "selling IP" of software or any other media. Keep reading...
I am all for open source -- people who want to spend their time on something they will give away. I respect that decision, and I've even put some stuff out in the public domain. However, I resent the fact that some people on the other side don't respect my decision, my copyrights, and steal my product.
I used to be for open source. Then I realized I was more interested in Free Software. As an ideal at least, open source will most likely represent the reality of it. I also (back on topic) believe in Free Music. We'll see if it catches on.
My final solution to the whole deal is to add two words to this.
This part specifically...
"The congress shall have the Power To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
the two words I want added are "profit from". See if you can figure out where I want it. Shoot, even Republicans could get behind a "Profit From" movement....
Read the DMCA. It'll come up in this fiasco eventually. Check my other post right above here for more details.
I understand what Metallica is simply doing. I don't like it. This bullshit stops now! (like that means anything.:) They might have more lawyers, but we have more people. And I still think I live in a democracy. --
Each new technology pushes the envelope, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying.
Give up trying to do what? Gain total control over digital files? Check my.sig for the feasability of that. If you don't believe me, I guess we could argue some more, but accepting the situation at face value is the first thing you need to do (and the RIAA harbors the same illusion that they can still control us). Once you see the situation as it is, you can then expoit it. That's a fundamental rule.
Let the court draw a line in the sand this year, and in 2 or 5 years, they'll adjust it as necessary.
But the problem is that the RIAA has spent loads of money lobbying for the laws we now have to deal with. Give them 2-5 more years with the same records profits and soon they'll have even people (in Congress) convinced that they are right. (sidenote: profits aren't bad. When they are used to lobby Congress to limit artists rights.....)
The whole point of civil disobedience was to put yourself *in* the way of the law and make an example of how it is unjust. Otherwise, you are just protesting from the sidelines -- and anyone can do that.
I run Napster, anything else I need to do to put myself in the way of the law? Maybe speak out against it, perhaps? Maybe talk to a congressman? This is all stuff I am doing or have done, any more (serious) suggestions?
Are you advocating that people tell Metallica that they are pirating the music so that they can be prosecuted?
Fuck Metallica. At this point I wouldn't even touch one of their MP3's with a ten foot RJ-45.
Copyright violation is a civil matter, and certainly not a felony.
It used to be like that. You ever hear about the DMCA?
Prof. Jane Ginsburg was quoted in an article titled "Battle Brews on Rights to Web Content, Those Who Think Material Should Be Free Are at Odds with Owners, Current Law." Referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), a federal law that, according to the article, made it a felony for someone to even attempt circumvention of protective code, Prof. Ginsburg said that she worries about the inability of code to identify motives behind the copying of a film in the wake of the DMCA. "The same device that could stop me from copying a whole movie could also stop me from copying a small amount of the movie to show to my class," she said. "In that case, the copy would be locked up and I couldn't circumvent the lock because of the DMCA. Here is where the existence of an alternative copy is very important." The Boston Globe, March 26, 2000
You were saying....?
This isn't a distant battle between 2 faceless giants, but affects you too.
This a simple battle between us and them. Which side are you on? And why?
I was going to have a full reply to this, but I just don't have time today, check my user info (recent posts) for answers to all your questions. For a quick reality check tho....
It doesn't matter if the law sucks, that's what the court system is for.
The court system is too slow to keep up with the current rapidly changing environment. We need to skip a couple steps to catch up.
Litigation isn't a bad thing, it is designed to get to the heart of the matter -- setting precedent or shattering laws that don't work!
I'm skipping straight ahead to that shattering laws that don't work part. How do you shatter something? Break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly. Putting 300,000 kids in prison in not even close to a realistic solution. --
...the other day I wrote a rebuttal to a recent interview on Salon.com...here it is again. Hilary, are you listening?
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort. v1.1
This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.
Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.
While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,
Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.
I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.
Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.
There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.
Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.
Clearly I understand all that.
For some reason I don't believe you.
But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?
Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."
It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.
Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?
That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!
Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?
As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.
Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.
But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,
Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.
established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.
BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in greater detail if you like. So can a bunch of others around here. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the.5b
I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.
I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).
The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?
If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.
Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.
Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.
Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?
It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads...
I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.
I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.
What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"
There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.
Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.
It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.
That's the big problem. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, we like it. How much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?
It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.
You just keep on digging into the unnecessary complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.
It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.
Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)
Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.
You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?
It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.
And your business would be built where?
Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.
*COUGH*
No one is arguing Chicken Little here;
Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.
what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.
No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.
It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.
You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.
i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.
And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.
Yes, those costs must be absorbed. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you, and that distrubution part for you, and that reproction part for you. You just sell CDs. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)
Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.
Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.
Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.
I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.
What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?
I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.
I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.
Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' roll thing for him to do.
There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.
No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.
I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.
Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again? What do you guys do?
I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.
Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.
There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.
The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.
The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.
So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.
I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?
Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!
We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.
The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.
But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.
Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.
When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.
Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)
When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.
A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.
I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.
Slashdot Mirror
So artists rights mean nothing?
Not to the RIAA.
or try this one, if that didn't convice you.
--
one other point of advice,
Metallica have always encouraged piracy of their live albums and concerts.
It's "sharing". Not piracy, not stealing, sharing. Words define our world, please try and use the correct ones.
--
This is another step in the arms race
And the next round of Kill-BOTS will be even worse.(click headline for story)
You might want to check Anonymizer or do a "web search" for any of the keywords in your question..:)
--
He produces the equivalent of Mr. Ed's lifetime quantity of horeshit every single time he posts.
....and yet Friends is still popular...
Besides, horseshit is good for growing stuff.
--
Woo-hoo. And we didn't even have to flame you. I'm glad that Bill finally has enough rope to hang himself with, I wasn't sure if he could afford enough before, but now..now he has enough.
Jus wait until the "Enhanced Security Windows" come out...at $500 a pop. No one ever said he wasn't a good businessman, just not a good man.
--
Simple cost-analysis says getting the ILOVEYOU guy is more worth it than laboriously tracking down the person who hacked you.
As a way to set an example? Crucify the guy to scare away anyone else? What I'm saying, is why the huge expense tracking down one guy? People aren't going to stop writing the viruses, but there is a simpler way to make them less effective.... Maybe nature has an answer...
CmdrTaco: Maybe there should be an additional restriction on moderators so they can't see the name of the poster.
Like him or not Sig11 is usually quite insightful, just post early, often, and on-topic and you too can benefit from massive flames by generating too much karma.
--
I had to stop reading that about halfway down. I never realized shoving your own head so far up your own ass could be profitable.
--
wah.
Pipe down and learn to accept other people's shortcomings.
working on it.
--
I haven't looked at these sites too closely, but how many of them will play any music from any CD that happens to have mp3
Dude, the guy linked them. It's a frickin' click away. He wasn't paid for that post (although he should get kickbacks.:)
--
Cool, from the link (c'n'p karma)
Is MP3 legal? MP3s can be legal or illegal. The
MP3 format itself is legal, and it's legal when the
song's copyright holder has granted permission
to download and play the song. It is legal (in
most countries) to encode MP3s for personal
use. However, it is illegal to distribute or trade
MP3s without permission of the copyright
holder. Good things are always good to share,
aren't they?
yup.
--
caveat emptor!
hehe
Dangerous products are dangerous products, regardless. People should at least have their own source to check. So, now I'm buying a car with the hood welded shut, that has a tendency to explode, and it's my fault if it happens. And it's very expensive. Proprietary software ROCKS!!
--
no need to fight. We should help the wounded.
Note: Link reposted 'cause nobody reads for the articles.
--
I think, if we don't fix this craziness now, that the license fee will how you buy cars after we master the joys of nanotech.
"Sure it's only made out of $50 worth of sand, but we have a patent on how to do it, so the license fee is $10,000. And don't try one of those home replicator units either, the Feds are watching."
Great comment, overwhelming, even.
--
yes it was rude. I feel rude today, especially after one of my lusers really belived that somebody out there "LOVED THEM", dammit.
I think that vius was written my the RIAA to kill mp3's, an MP3 KIllBOT, working on a story about it for the Free Media.....
--
... is a script that works with the cgi interface.
:)
wow, a Common Gateway Interface interface?
That's almost as bad as the W2K boxes that proudly proclaim it is "Built on NT technology." NT, IIRC, stood for "New Technology."
--
So if MP3.com changed their service, let people upload MP3's that they could later listen to anywhere, you wouldn't have a problem with it? They tried to cut a corner and offer a better service, but we all know that YOU MUST PAY FOR EVERY SECOND OF MUSIC YOU LISTEN TO OR YOU ARE EVIL!!!!!!.
The law is the problem here, not the fans, not the people. The law needs to be changed so people like you who base all their moral judgements on it can have moral judgements that reflect reality as it is, not how the record companies tell congress it is.
--
This is exactly what they plan to do IMHO, and illustrates why our patent system is a bit on the slow side. How soon before the lawsuits? I say within 6 months...
And registry is the key term. The patent says "a registry" not "the Windows Registry". A registry (def 2:" a place of registration") would then be anything where information concerning package attributes is registered.
Currently I would think BillyG and CO are pretty pissed about the laws in this country (and those incredulous companies that want to compete with them), and since they can't do it in the marketplace (how can you compete with someone who's software is Free..ask Netscape..) they'll want to use the patent laws against Free Software.
--
...walk slowly by a mirror, stare deeply into it, and say, "Man, what ever happened to that stuff I used to believe in." I am constantly shown the images of artists who get rewarded for thier efforts, start to feel that it's their fan's "obligation" to pay them to play, and end up old, bitter, and laughed at. I was wondering, what are the signs to look for when that starts to happen?
I am also wondering if there was a particular moment when you crossed over from playing because you wanted to rock, and playing because you wanted to retire? Do you get any joy out of your music any more? Or your fans? Is the money that much more important to you?
--
sharing seems fair to me.
--
So? Everyone has lobbyists, and sometimes laws are passed based on that -- laws that you may or may not agree with. There are big problems with the system, and someone is always gonna end up cheesed off.
:)
;0
Yes, but I don't like lobbying from industries that try and get laws passed that hurt their workers (or at least their worker's rights). Read the links from here If you don't believe me. Yes, I. Am. So. Cheesed. Off. right now.
Sure, I think Disney got a bad law passed (copyright extension), but I think many of the copyright laws are still pretty darned good in design.
You might think they're "pretty darn good". I think they suck ass. This is a fundamental difference. I don't expect it to change, today, or even tomorrow. But that's why we talk about it, no?
I tip my hat to you then -- you are standing up for what you believe.
I say "Howdy". And I'm screaming it at the top of my lungs to anyone who's paying attention, not just standing there.
You ever read it?
No, I haven't read the entire code. I have read various abstracts and conversations, as well as citations from the code. Mainly I think I understand its spirit, and where that spirit has been tainted by self-interest.
First, it addresses the circumvention of copyright protection systems, not actual violations of copyright law. This means they'll go after the DeCSS people (another place where we disagree, I'm sure), not the kid in his basement burning himself a copy of the Matrix.
Just wait until they convince a judge or someone who picks judges (What's up G-Dub!?) that the "horrible" act of "ripping" an MP3 goes against the spirit of the law, in that it is a "circumvention" of the natural protections afforded by the inherent differences between a physical medium and a digital one.(i.e. "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" that's from here word find: "circumvent"
Second, the section on criminal offenses and penalties is very explicit in that it applies to violations for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". I haven't seen the list of 300,000 names, but I'm pretty sure most of them haven't made any money.
I think that's our loophole. We just want to give it away, we don't want to sell it. Read some of the those conversations under my user info for more details on this. Keep reading for the kicker...
I make a living by creating and selling IP, not music but software. I expect that these laws will help protect my work (and my job), and I fully endorse them. I'm not trying to get something for nothing, I'm trying to feed my family.
Software might be a tough business in a few years. A bunch of crazy hippies are giving a whole bunch away for free in hopes of capturing market share, and eventually maybe some bucks...some way or another. Or maybe they're just doing it for fun, but the stuff seems to work. Even if it is a BIT cryptic. But I understand your point. I think we need to protect absolutely the power of "selling IP" of software or any other media. Keep reading...
I am all for open source -- people who want to spend their time on something they will give away. I respect that decision, and I've even put some stuff out in the public domain. However, I resent the fact that some people on the other side don't respect my decision, my copyrights, and steal my product.
I used to be for open source. Then I realized I was more interested in Free Software. As an ideal at least, open source will most likely represent the reality of it. I also (back on topic) believe in Free Music. We'll see if it catches on.
My final solution to the whole deal is to add two words to this.
This part specifically...
"The congress shall have the Power To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
the two words I want added are "profit from". See if you can figure out where I want it. Shoot, even Republicans could get behind a "Profit From" movement....
This is the "dealing with it" part.
--
Be cheeful for a day or so. :)
I'm just looking for some good conversations.
--
Who said anything about prison?
:) They might have more lawyers, but we have more people. And I still think I live in a democracy.
Read the DMCA. It'll come up in this fiasco eventually. Check my other post right above here for more details.
I understand what Metallica is simply doing. I don't like it. This bullshit stops now! (like that means anything.
--
Each new technology pushes the envelope, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying.
.sig for the feasability of that. If you don't believe me, I guess we could argue some more, but accepting the situation at face value is the first thing you need to do (and the RIAA harbors the same illusion that they can still control us). Once you see the situation as it is, you can then expoit it. That's a fundamental rule.
Give up trying to do what? Gain total control over digital files? Check my
Let the court draw a line in the sand this year, and in 2 or 5 years, they'll adjust it as necessary.
But the problem is that the RIAA has spent loads of money lobbying for the laws we now have to deal with. Give them 2-5 more years with the same records profits and soon they'll have even people (in Congress) convinced that they are right. (sidenote: profits aren't bad. When they are used to lobby Congress to limit artists rights.....)
The whole point of civil disobedience was to put yourself *in* the way of the law and make an example of how it is unjust. Otherwise, you are just protesting from the sidelines -- and anyone can do that.
I run Napster, anything else I need to do to put myself in the way of the law? Maybe speak out against it, perhaps? Maybe talk to a congressman? This is all stuff I am doing or have done, any more (serious) suggestions?
Are you advocating that people tell Metallica that they are pirating the music so that they can be prosecuted?
Fuck Metallica. At this point I wouldn't even touch one of their MP3's with a ten foot RJ-45.
Copyright violation is a civil matter, and certainly not a felony.
It used to be like that. You ever hear about the DMCA?
from here
Prof. Jane Ginsburg was quoted in an article titled "Battle Brews on Rights to Web Content, Those Who Think Material Should Be Free Are at Odds with Owners, Current Law." Referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), a federal law that, according to the article, made it a felony for someone to even attempt circumvention of protective code, Prof. Ginsburg said that she worries about the inability of code to identify motives behind the copying of a film in the wake of the DMCA. "The same device that could stop me from copying a whole movie could also stop me from copying a small amount of the movie to show to my class," she said. "In that case, the copy would be locked up and I couldn't circumvent the lock because of the DMCA. Here is where the existence of an alternative copy is very important." The Boston Globe,
March 26, 2000
You were saying....?
This isn't a distant battle between 2 faceless giants, but affects you too.
This a simple battle between us and them. Which side are you on? And why?
--
I was going to have a full reply to this, but I just don't have time today, check my user info (recent posts) for answers to all your questions. For a quick reality check tho....
It doesn't matter if the law sucks, that's what the court system is for.
The court system is too slow to keep up with the current rapidly changing environment. We need to skip a couple steps to catch up.
Litigation isn't a bad thing, it is designed to get to the heart of the matter -- setting precedent or shattering laws that don't work!
I'm skipping straight ahead to that shattering laws that don't work part. How do you shatter something? Break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly. Putting 300,000 kids in prison in not even close to a realistic solution.
--
...the other day I wrote a rebuttal to a recent interview on Salon.com...here it is again. Hilary, are you listening?
.5b
...
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort. v1.1
This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.
Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.
While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,
Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.
I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.
Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.
There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.
Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.
Clearly I understand all that.
For some reason I don't believe you.
But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?
Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."
It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.
Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?
That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!
Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?
As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.
Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.
But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,
Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.
established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.
BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in greater detail if you like. So can a bunch of others around here. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the
I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.
I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).
The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?
If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.
Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.
Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.
Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?
It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads
I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.
I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.
What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"
There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.
Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.
It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.
That's the big problem. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, we like it. How much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?
It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.
You just keep on digging into the unnecessary complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.
It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.
Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)
Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.
You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?
It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.
And your business would be built where?
Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.
*COUGH*
No one is arguing Chicken Little here;
Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.
what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.
No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.
It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.
Do artists also like "works for hire"? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.
You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.
i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.
And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.
Yes, those costs must be absorbed. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you, and that distrubution part for you, and that reproction part for you. You just sell CDs. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)
Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.
Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.
Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.
I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.
What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?
I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.
I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?
I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.
Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' roll thing for him to do.
There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.
No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.
I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.
Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again? What do you guys do?
I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.
Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.
There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.
The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.
The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.
So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.
I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?
Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!
We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.
The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.
But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.
Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.
When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.
Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)
When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.
A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.
I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.
Thanks,
Roy M. Taylor
a.k.a. Wah
--