Oh, wait, that's exactly what you could do for serious processing (if it proved feasible). It'd be like HorsePower for cars. Or legos for computers..lots of ideas...How soon?
We americans are too rich and lazy to change. It'd be cheaper to build a really good bablelfish than figure out how the hell to address "it"s in seven languages. Besides, one of the best things about English (and America, IMHO) is that it incorporates other languages easily. Welcome to the Borg Tongue.
(Btw, I did see the sunrise this morning, so take that into account while ignoring this post)
Thanks for the link. If I hadn't seen that I wouldn't know their new album's name is "Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water." ROTFL, tell me that's a joke..?
Regardless, I'll be in Denver to watch the riots of people trying to get in. And to buy some CD.
in an interview that you can watch on http://www.abcnews.com the CEO of napster says napster is made for fans to find out about new music, to help underground bands.
This is something people forgot. This is what I use Napster for. I'm talking with a couple friends. Someone mentions a band. I go home, DL, and listen for a bit. Those of you "Napster is the Dread Pirate Roberts" whiners, need to hear some good music, it might open your mind a bit. And don't argue with me what Napster is for, argue with them. And you wonder why the RIAA is suing them for 100k a DL....the best way to capitalize a market is to destroy competition. --
particularly in that you're at least willing to pay for some fraction of the music you listen to.
Thanks!
I actually like the try-before-buying aspect of MP3s. But, unfortunately, it looks less and less like any significant number of people "try" instead of simply failing to "buy".
Internet becomes popular in 1995, it's now 2000. Number of homes with broadband, 1995:Ha-ha, 1999: 3.25x10^6
Talk to your friends with 24-hour high-speed Net connections about "try" and "buy" musical consumption behaviour. It might be interesting..when it will be able to be studied in a few years. This whole market is just getting started.
Further, I really am starting to wonder if the freeloader culture that seems dominant on places like Slashdot leaves any room for more than a few rare people to make any money by distributing MP3s of their work.
O.k., this one set me off a bit. First off, let me make this clear, you will not find my name anywhere in the Linux kernel, nor the GNU Utils, or on much of any publicly (or privately) distributed software for that matter. However, I've only known about it for a year or so (one of the busiest of my life), so be patient.. That being said, I hardly see how you can call this culture freeloading. Unless you mean the most recent influx of/. folks who don't understand Free Software as a concept, or you mean Free Loading, as in introducing software into your life that is Free (Libre).
However, the vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their creating artists.
You might think this rebuttal a technicality, I think it's the whole fuckin' point (hey, it's 4:24 a.m...). The vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their copyright owners.
They've been stolen.
Now THAT, I'll agree with.
And before you argue this one, I suggest you read this.
Especially this quoted part (in light of this thread)
How does work made for hire treatment benefit artists and consumers?
Work made for hire treatment allows for the effective promotion and distribution of a recording so that payments can be made according to contractual agreements. If the termination right could be exercised by all collaborators on a sound recording, all of the collaborators would be in competition with each other and commercial exploitation (especially the offering of exclusive rights to the sound recording) would be impossible without the agreement of all of the collaborators, to the detriment of both artists and consumers.
Considering that companies make real money offering less on their web pages,
That's true...and my point. Pr0n is one of the few businesses that is making money on the Net. It's not hard to find lots of it, but people can make money off you during the search. There is value in the traffic. I've seem both Media Metrix's and Nielson's raw numbers for traffic on the Net (I do have a real job outside of/.:). For Men aged Alive, pr0n is rather popular (pr0n as defined by me "media designed to increase sexual desire").
My point? Even when you have an infinite supply you can differentiate levels of quality. Flood the market with stuff, and the good stuff rises to the top and the simple MASS of all the rest gives a new type of value to the good stuff. Enough that peole will still pay despite having an infinite supply. Two other examples of this phenomenon are Doom (and later Quake) and the Greatful Dead (and later Phish). All of which inspire infinite demand (i.e. love) *cue touchy feely music* --
Now, try taking a digital video camera into a strip club with the intent of taping shows and placing them on the Internet...Guess what, they won't appreciate it.
If you think that a videotape of a strip club would attract a single iota of attention on the Web, well, um, you just got here... Oh, and I think your sarcasm parser is a bit out of whack.
should I calculate the money I've spent on music over the past month...hmmm, 3 cd's, 4 live shows, various cover charges....nope too much to keep track of.
you wouldn't HAVE 99% of the music on your hard drives and CR-Rs.
and my guess is that most people who play it like that don't listen to 99% of their music and are wasting disk space. I used to share video games when I was a kid too. Now I buy them. I could still get them for free, but I don't need too. And I understand that taking without giving any back doesn't work as a long term solution. But we have this really cool Internet thing, that makes a lot of the initial cost of making money off of music (reproduction, distrubution, and promotion!!) disappear. Why ignore it and act like a phonograph is our only avenue to musical appreciation. Why ignore it and keep supporting a broken system. Who taught you that sharing inexhaustible resources was wrong? --
I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to.
Yup, sure looks likes it.:) (you shouldn't make it so easy)
Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it?
Where did you get this idea that there was "no way they would get any compensation"? That's what the government's job is to do, IMHO, control who has the right to profit from protected works. M'kay? If the owner of the work is the only one who can legally profit from a work, why can't we give it away. This has never been an issue before. We used to have this thing called scarcity. That law alone said that you should never, economically, give stuff away.
If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it.
You remember supply and demand right? As a function for determining price? If you have an infinite supply, the price is zero (unless you have infinite demand*). So, if you follow simple market economics, the price for digital music should be $0, which is actually the exact same amount as it costs the original creator to attain worldwide distrubtion and produce (or allow to be produced) 6 billion copies (isn't this Internet thing cool?). You might be wondering how to make money in this situation, and if you're nice, I'll tell you..in the same vague philosophical terms this thread is producing....
It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways."
It'd be like that if it was one of those farms were when you pull a cucumber out of the ground, it stay there for the next hungry man. Which is to say, it's not like a farm at all.
You have to realize that scarcity is no longer an issue in this environment for this product, unless your examples include that attribute, they will be easily refuted. -- and in case you we're wondering what else I was doing while Typing this response, click below. God Bless/., America, and really good Trolling!!
Know where you stand, why you stand there, and don't let anybody push you around. Pirates killed people on the open seas, they don't trade art on the Net.
--
Re:MP3 radio stations? Digital broadcasts happen n
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 2
How long is it going to be before we get a real MP3 broadcasting radio statio playing MP3's of mainstream artists?
IANABSL, but I do know that Napster and my.mp3.com are waay different services. (napster doesn't distrubute mp3's at all) I think the RIAA will have to find a simpathetic judge (I know they've got better lawyers ): to hurt Napster. --
For one, don't expect non-proprietary formats such as MP3 to stay around above ground if mp3.com goes to the wall.
you're smoking $3 crack if you think mp3.com has any significant effect on the use (above or below ground) of mp3's. MP3.com is nothing more than a smart domain squatter with a couple of obvious ideas.
We're still talking about two different easies. You still can't do it 100 times an hour from your living room. My only point is that laws like that are stupid, and if we keep them around everyone will be breaking them constantly and they will only be selectively prosecuted. I would rather avoid that situation.
if you don't like the law, write a letter to someone who can re-write it. but breaking the law because it's easy to break is still breaking the law.
I've actually done more than that. I sat down with my congressman and tried to explain my position, on software patents, the DMCA, and IP in general. He really didn't understand it too much, maybe it's time to visit again. I also have been taught through our cultural history, that one way to get the law changed is to break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly. When you keep doing that, and all of a sudden everyone realizes, that your aren't, in fact, doing something that should be illegal, then the law changes. --
Wow, you can go 120 MPH a hundred times an hour from the comfort of your living room? Amazing, or did you not understand what I meant by easy.
you act like you have a god-given right to listen to music. you don't. get over yourself.
This might be a bit on the philosophical side for you, but I do have a god given right to listen to music. But I have a man-taken one (called copyright or intellectual property) that says I don't. --
Even back in the middle ages, minstrels moved from town to town with the earnest hope of earning a few coins so they could continue their adventures. One could liken that to making money touring, but the sad fact is that we live in a world dominated by MTV, oppressive record contracts, and an attatchment to a flavor of the week, so far as music goes. None of that bodes well for artists touring...
True, if it's going to be hard, why even try... As for the MTV dominated world (it's actually Viacom, who is currently lobbying the FCC to relax network ownership rules, since their recent merger with CBS(?) creates a bunch of illegal situations, luckily for them, they have the money to change the law...), we all shape the world we live in, identifying the bullshit is the first step, throwing it in the garbage is the second.
For one, most tours are conducted at a loss in order to stimulate record sales. The majority of those sales go back to pay back the people that put up the money to record the CD in the first place.
Well then stop losing money on tours. The big cost is promotion. If you let the music free on the Net, that takes care of itself. Tours are NOT money-losing as a rule, just as a side-effect of the current business model, which would have already crumbled into the dust of the past if they didn't have so many lawyers and ways to push music on children.
The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless".
No, the prevailing mentality is that the Internet completely devalues the business model that currently runs the music business. If you enjoy looking at a woman walking down the street, you should be paying for it. It's that simple. (the previous sentence contains sarcasm, parse it accordingly)
The internet may cover the world, but so should respect.
Yes, it should. Respect is a two-way street. The record business hasn't respected consumers since I've been alive, fuck 'em. The artists will come around...when they see what a good time we're having.
What you're essentially saying is that nobody should ever release anything if they want to make any money off it, or retain any control over it.
What I'm saying is no one should release music if they want to retain absolute control over it. It's the government's job to make sure they are the only ones that profit from, it's the fan's job to make sure others know about it.
But how do artists make a living until then?
umm, how about, oh, say, something like...playing music. --
Ice is a naturally occuring substance. Technology was created that allowed it to be created in places that it would not otherwise be suitable for. The music that you hear on the radio, on mtv, in the car, buy at record stores, etc... is not naturally occuring. That's a big difference.
Art is a naturally occuring substance. You might not think so (We live in a capitalistic society. People expect and need to make money from their efforts), but I guarantee that people will be making music wether or not they might ever profit from it.
And while "we" might live in a capitalistic society, the world does not (the world couldn't support humans if they all consumed liked Americans). The Internet covers the world, so local conventions can be easily dismissed as just that, local conventions.
They've got bills to pay, kids to put through college, retirement to worry about, and all the other day to day stuff that we all deal with.
Then maybe they should get a "real" job, unless, like some idiot said here a while back, you believe that anyone who makes music *must* be compensated for it. That's like saying anyone who plays football should be compensated, just because they are playing. The fact of the matter is that to make any money at "play" you have to be damn good at it, so good that people are willing to pay just to watch you play.
Stop stealing!
I'm not stealing, I'm sharing. But for a country that likes to teach kids to "say no to drugs" in the same schools which push ritalin on the same children, this kind of misunderstanding is common. --
The reality is, though, that they're not really working with their fans, because it's quite clear that their fans want to get the music for free (assuming it's Metallica fans who download Metallica songs, which I think is a safe assumption), and they don't want to give it away for free.
How do you resolve such a fundamental dispute?
hmm, band doesn't want fans to share music. Fans want to share music. If band doesn't want fans to share music, band doesn't release music. Seems simple to me. --
just because it's friday and I like talking about the future on friday's...
Metallica is not attacking free speech and free software. Not one bit.
I'm not sure if you're talking about Free Software or not, but regardless, Metallica is simply publishing to world exactly how far they have sold out. And they are attacking free speech, quite a few bits of it to be exact.
The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.
Now that it's so easy to break soo many of these laws, don't you think that it's the laws that are the problem? Don't give me any "murder everyone if you like it" argument either. The laws we have for copyright and IP and WOEFULLY unprepared for the digital future. The DMCA, our most modern rendition, makes that very clear. "But you're stealing music" you whine. No, I'm not, I'm listening to it. The only way to "steal" music is to profit from it unfairly. Nobody using Napster is doing that, but a whole bunch of them are "sharing" it.
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online.
I'm sure you've seen it, but here's a good stream for those of you that like to try new things. I'm damn glad I've got the net, 'cause I like this kind of music, and without it, I never would have been exposed to it. It's great for long periods of time that require extended concentration, if any of you are ever in a position like that... --
Slashdot Mirror
You're St00pid.
--
..build a beowulf cluster of them!
Oh, wait, that's exactly what you could do for serious processing (if it proved feasible). It'd be like HorsePower for cars. Or legos for computers..lots of ideas...How soon?
--
...then you would be able to use legal means to stop it...if you had the money to do so.
Just another jab at the way my country works, which can be annoying. Still love the bitch, tho.
--
We americans are too rich and lazy to change. It'd be cheaper to build a really good bablelfish than figure out how the hell to address "it"s in seven languages. Besides, one of the best things about English (and America, IMHO) is that it incorporates other languages easily. Welcome to the Borg Tongue.
(Btw, I did see the sunrise this morning, so take that into account while ignoring this post)
--
Thanks for the link. If I hadn't seen that I wouldn't know their new album's name is "Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water." ROTFL, tell me that's a joke..?
Regardless, I'll be in Denver to watch the riots of people trying to get in. And to buy some CD.
--
in an interview that you can watch on http://www.abcnews.com the CEO of napster says napster is made for fans to find out about new music, to help underground bands.
This is something people forgot. This is what I use Napster for. I'm talking with a couple friends. Someone mentions a band. I go home, DL, and listen for a bit. Those of you "Napster is the Dread Pirate Roberts" whiners, need to hear some good music, it might open your mind a bit. And don't argue with me what Napster is for, argue with them. And you wonder why the RIAA is suing them for 100k a DL....the best way to capitalize a market is to destroy competition.
--
particularly in that you're at least willing to pay for some fraction of the music you listen to.
/. folks who don't understand Free Software as a concept, or you mean Free Loading, as in introducing software into your life that is Free (Libre).
Thanks!
I actually like the try-before-buying aspect of MP3s. But, unfortunately, it looks less and less like any significant number of people "try" instead of simply failing to "buy".
Internet becomes popular in 1995, it's now 2000. Number of homes with broadband, 1995:Ha-ha, 1999: 3.25x10^6
Talk to your friends with 24-hour high-speed Net connections about "try" and "buy" musical consumption behaviour. It might be interesting..when it will be able to be studied in a few years. This whole market is just getting started.
Further, I really am starting to wonder if the freeloader culture that seems dominant on places like Slashdot leaves any room for more than a few rare people to make any money by distributing MP3s of their work.
O.k., this one set me off a bit. First off, let me make this clear, you will not find my name anywhere in the Linux kernel, nor the GNU Utils, or on much of any publicly (or privately) distributed software for that matter. However, I've only known about it for a year or so (one of the busiest of my life), so be patient.. That being said, I hardly see how you can call this culture freeloading. Unless you mean the most recent influx of
However, the vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their creating artists.
You might think this rebuttal a technicality, I think it's the whole fuckin' point (hey, it's 4:24 a.m...). The vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their copyright owners.
They've been stolen.
Now THAT, I'll agree with.
And before you argue this one, I suggest you read this.
Especially this quoted part (in light of this thread)
How does work made for hire treatment benefit artists and consumers?
Work made for hire treatment allows for the effective promotion and distribution of a recording so that payments can be made according to contractual agreements. If the termination right could be exercised by all collaborators on a sound recording, all of the collaborators would be in competition with each other and commercial exploitation (especially the offering of exclusive rights to the sound recording) would be impossible without the agreement of all of the collaborators, to the detriment of both artists and consumers.
If that's not excessive hubris............
--
Considering that companies make real money offering less on their web pages,
/. :). For Men aged Alive, pr0n is rather popular (pr0n as defined by me "media designed to increase sexual desire").
That's true...and my point. Pr0n is one of the few businesses that is making money on the Net. It's not hard to find lots of it, but people can make money off you during the search. There is value in the traffic. I've seem both Media Metrix's and Nielson's raw numbers for traffic on the Net (I do have a real job outside of
My point? Even when you have an infinite supply you can differentiate levels of quality. Flood the market with stuff, and the good stuff rises to the top and the simple MASS of all the rest gives a new type of value to the good stuff. Enough that peole will still pay despite having an infinite supply. Two other examples of this phenomenon are Doom (and later Quake) and the Greatful Dead (and later Phish). All of which inspire infinite demand (i.e. love) *cue touchy feely music*
--
Now, try taking a digital video camera into a strip club with the intent of taping shows and placing them on the Internet...Guess what, they won't appreciate it.
.5b upside the head*
If you think that a videotape of a strip club would attract a single iota of attention on the Web, well, um, you just got here... Oh, and I think your sarcasm parser is a bit out of whack.
*smacks Eric the
Maybe that will help.;-)
--
should I calculate the money I've spent on music over the past month...hmmm, 3 cd's, 4 live shows, various cover charges....nope too much to keep track of.
I understand your point, but you need to get this through your head. Just because it's free doesn't mean you can't support it. I would hazard a guess that to get a professionally (perhaps not as much as it takes to make Sugar Ray sound good) recorded CD costs around $10,000. Recording live shows (outside of the cost of musical instruments and amps, which are necessary regardless) costs about $300. Putting in on the Net costs less (and takes about half an hour). Building a radio station around it, costs less. My point? Stuff ain't so tough as it used to be.
you wouldn't HAVE 99% of the music on your hard drives and CR-Rs.
and my guess is that most people who play it like that don't listen to 99% of their music and are wasting disk space. I used to share video games when I was a kid too. Now I buy them. I could still get them for free, but I don't need too. And I understand that taking without giving any back doesn't work as a long term solution. But we have this really cool Internet thing, that makes a lot of the initial cost of making money off of music (reproduction, distrubution, and promotion!!) disappear. Why ignore it and act like a phonograph is our only avenue to musical appreciation. Why ignore it and keep supporting a broken system. Who taught you that sharing inexhaustible resources was wrong?
--
I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to.
:) (you shouldn't make it so easy)
/., America, and really good Trolling!!
Yup, sure looks likes it.
Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it?
Where did you get this idea that there was "no way they would get any compensation"? That's what the government's job is to do, IMHO, control who has the right to profit from protected works. M'kay? If the owner of the work is the only one who can legally profit from a work, why can't we give it away. This has never been an issue before. We used to have this thing called scarcity. That law alone said that you should never, economically, give stuff away.
If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it.
You remember supply and demand right? As a function for determining price? If you have an infinite supply, the price is zero (unless you have infinite demand*). So, if you follow simple market economics, the price for digital music should be $0, which is actually the exact same amount as it costs the original creator to attain worldwide distrubtion and produce (or allow to be produced) 6 billion copies (isn't this Internet thing cool?). You might be wondering how to make money in this situation, and if you're nice, I'll tell you..in the same vague philosophical terms this thread is producing....
It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways."
It'd be like that if it was one of those farms were when you pull a cucumber out of the ground, it stay there for the next hungry man. Which is to say, it's not like a farm at all.
You have to realize that scarcity is no longer an issue in this environment for this product, unless your examples include that attribute, they will be easily refuted.
--
and in case you we're wondering what else I was doing while Typing this response, click below. God Bless
Big Hollow Band Page!!
hehe.
*be nice and I'll tell you how, although that would be a bit recursive, no?
--
Hear, hear!
Know where you stand, why you stand there, and don't let anybody push you around. Pirates killed people on the open seas, they don't trade art on the Net.
--
How long is it going to be before we get a real MP3 broadcasting radio statio playing MP3's of mainstream artists?
Negative six months
--
three. dollar. crack.
--
IANABSL, but I do know that Napster and my.mp3.com are waay different services. (napster doesn't distrubute mp3's at all) I think the RIAA will have to find a simpathetic judge (I know they've got better lawyers ): to hurt Napster.
--
For one, don't expect non-proprietary formats such as MP3 to stay around above ground if mp3.com goes to the wall.
you're smoking $3 crack if you think mp3.com has any significant effect on the use (above or below ground) of mp3's. MP3.com is nothing more than a smart domain squatter with a couple of obvious ideas.
--
so, yes, it's easy from my perspective.
We're still talking about two different easies. You still can't do it 100 times an hour from your living room. My only point is that laws like that are stupid, and if we keep them around everyone will be breaking them constantly and they will only be selectively prosecuted. I would rather avoid that situation.
if you don't like the law, write a letter to someone who can re-write it. but breaking the law because it's easy to break is still breaking the law.
I've actually done more than that. I sat down with my congressman and tried to explain my position, on software patents, the DMCA, and IP in general. He really didn't understand it too much, maybe it's time to visit again. I also have been taught through our cultural history, that one way to get the law changed is to break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly. When you keep doing that, and all of a sudden everyone realizes, that your aren't, in fact, doing something that should be illegal, then the law changes.
--
Digital or otherwise, it's not illegal unless you are profiting from copyrighted material. Am I wrong?
Why do you think they had to draft the DMCA? We can't have people sharing, now can we?
--
i have a car that will happily go 120 MPH.
Wow, you can go 120 MPH a hundred times an hour from the comfort of your living room? Amazing, or did you not understand what I meant by easy.
you act like you have a god-given right to listen to music. you don't. get over yourself.
This might be a bit on the philosophical side for you, but I do have a god given right to listen to music. But I have a man-taken one (called copyright or intellectual property) that says I don't.
--
Even back in the middle ages, minstrels moved from town to town with the earnest hope of earning a few coins so they could continue their adventures. One could liken that to making money touring, but the sad fact is that we live in a world dominated by MTV, oppressive record contracts, and an attatchment to a flavor of the week, so far as music goes. None of that bodes well for artists touring...
True, if it's going to be hard, why even try... As for the MTV dominated world (it's actually Viacom, who is currently lobbying the FCC to relax network ownership rules, since their recent merger with CBS(?) creates a bunch of illegal situations, luckily for them, they have the money to change the law...), we all shape the world we live in, identifying the bullshit is the first step, throwing it in the garbage is the second.
For one, most tours are conducted at a loss in order to stimulate record sales. The majority of those sales go back to pay back the people that put up the money to record the CD in the first place.
Well then stop losing money on tours. The big cost is promotion. If you let the music free on the Net, that takes care of itself. Tours are NOT money-losing as a rule, just as a side-effect of the current business model, which would have already crumbled into the dust of the past if they didn't have so many lawyers and ways to push music on children.
The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless".
No, the prevailing mentality is that the Internet completely devalues the business model that currently runs the music business. If you enjoy looking at a woman walking down the street, you should be paying for it. It's that simple. (the previous sentence contains sarcasm, parse it accordingly)
The internet may cover the world, but so should respect.
Yes, it should. Respect is a two-way street. The record business hasn't respected consumers since I've been alive, fuck 'em. The artists will come around...when they see what a good time we're having.
--
What you're essentially saying is that nobody should ever release anything if they want to make any money off it, or retain any control over it.
What I'm saying is no one should release music if they want to retain absolute control over it. It's the government's job to make sure they are the only ones that profit from, it's the fan's job to make sure others know about it.
But how do artists make a living until then?
umm, how about, oh, say, something like...playing music.
--
Ice is a naturally occuring substance. Technology was created that allowed it to be created in places that it would not otherwise be suitable for. The music that you hear on the radio, on mtv, in the car, buy at record stores, etc... is not naturally occuring. That's a big difference.
Art is a naturally occuring substance. You might not think so (We live in a capitalistic society. People expect and need to make money from their efforts), but I guarantee that people will be making music wether or not they might ever profit from it.
And while "we" might live in a capitalistic society, the world does not (the world couldn't support humans if they all consumed liked Americans). The Internet covers the world, so local conventions can be easily dismissed as just that, local conventions.
They've got bills to pay, kids to put through college, retirement to worry about, and all the other day to day stuff that we all deal with.
Then maybe they should get a "real" job, unless, like some idiot said here a while back, you believe that anyone who makes music *must* be compensated for it. That's like saying anyone who plays football should be compensated, just because they are playing. The fact of the matter is that to make any money at "play" you have to be damn good at it, so good that people are willing to pay just to watch you play.
Stop stealing!
I'm not stealing, I'm sharing. But for a country that likes to teach kids to "say no to drugs" in the same schools which push ritalin on the same children, this kind of misunderstanding is common.
--
The reality is, though, that they're not really working with their fans, because it's quite clear that their fans want to get the music for free (assuming it's Metallica fans who download Metallica songs, which I think is a safe assumption), and they don't want to give it away for free.
How do you resolve such a fundamental dispute?
hmm, band doesn't want fans to share music. Fans want to share music. If band doesn't want fans to share music, band doesn't release music. Seems simple to me.
--
just because it's friday and I like talking about the future on friday's...
Metallica is not attacking free speech and free software. Not one bit.
I'm not sure if you're talking about Free Software or not, but regardless, Metallica is simply publishing to world exactly how far they have sold out. And they are attacking free speech, quite a few bits of it to be exact.
The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.
Now that it's so easy to break soo many of these laws, don't you think that it's the laws that are the problem? Don't give me any "murder everyone if you like it" argument either. The laws we have for copyright and IP and WOEFULLY unprepared for the digital future. The DMCA, our most modern rendition, makes that very clear. "But you're stealing music" you whine. No, I'm not, I'm listening to it. The only way to "steal" music is to profit from it unfairly. Nobody using Napster is doing that, but a whole bunch of them are "sharing" it.
--
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online.
I'm sure you've seen it, but here's a good stream for those of you that like to try new things. I'm damn glad I've got the net, 'cause I like this kind of music, and without it, I never would have been exposed to it. It's great for long periods of time that require extended concentration, if any of you are ever in a position like that...
--