A few of the replies so far have critizized Love's article because it doesn't absolve napster/etc. users of any wrongdoing. WAKE UP!!! If you painted a masterpiece would you want to give it away for free instead of selling it to a company for 20 dollars and watching them sell it the next day for 20 million? Neither option is acceptable!
Her article boils down to a few key points.
1. The music industry rakes in billions of dollars anually, but only a small portion of that actually makes it to the artists. The majority ends up with the record labels.
2. RIAA affiliated record labels make use of a variety of unethical buisness tactics that prey on informed and ignorant music artists alike.
3. Being signed to a RIAA affilliated record label doesn't necessarily make you money. Most artists are in effect giving their music away for free. There is however at least *some* hope that you might make money affiliated with RIAA.
4. The money RIAA rakes in from these lawsuits goes to the record labels, not the artists.
5. She suggests that if artists can make P2P services work directly for them, so that they can get their music out there, make people aware of it, then the artists can dispence with the major record labels and actually see some of the profits from their own music.
This article, while not endorsing copyright infringement fully as some may wish, shoots a hole the size of Texas in any of RIAA's arguments that claim they are on the side of the artist. This is a primary source folks, and not some script kiddie telling you what he heard from the friend of a friend. It's worth reading just because of that.
It's articles like this that have convinced me that buying a CD from a RIAA affiliated record label is as evil, if not more so, as downloading MP3's online. The only way I can think of to ethically obtain music from groups on a RIAA affilated label at this time is to pirate the MP3's and send a money order directly to the band. (and pray the record labels don't have clauses in their contracts that lets them steal that income too) I'd rather send 50 cents directly to 20 artists I like than buy one CD and see 16.50 of 17 dollars go straight to the record label. More money making it through the middlemen to the artists is a good thing!
However, a system that relies on voluntary acts of charity is only good if people are relatively generous. Currently, too many people think they have a right to freely access and download artists' works. Love makes a very valid point. Yes, there are some "pure" artists out there that would be singing their hearts out whether they were being paid for it or not. However, many artists are in it at least partially for the money, and many of those "impure" artists produce damned good music. Expecting artists to donate their music to the world free of charge with no hope of payment would thin out the talent pool and deprive us of a lot of great music.
The authors that will stand the test of time are the ones whose stories actually have something to say to the audience of tommorow. Many science fiction authors have a nasty habit of dating themselves. What is incrediably imaginitive today might be stale 50 years from now, and only of literary interest to english majors and literary historians.
William Gibson is an absolutely amazing writer. I love his work. However, will he stand the test of time? His work does focus on technology a lot, often at the expense of the characters. While his imagination of the world of tommorow is an amazing experience today, will it be as hard hitting 50 years from now when a good deal of what he has imagined is realized or surpassed? I think some of it will. Neuromancer is still an excellent read despite the fact that much of the technology (i.e. The Net) has been realized, and not precisely as he envisioned.
Another science fiction author that stands out in my mind is David Brin. His take on human relations with alien species is unique, and could only be outdated by actual alien contact. His books are filled with the fantastic, but he keeps his work grounded in real science. (He has a doctorate of astrophysics and has consulted for NASA) Besides having some truly origional ideas and real science in his novels, he also builds living breathing characters that are absolutely compelling. Even if you ignore the ideas and science, his books are still a good read just for the characters and conflict.
There are other authors I should mention but am simply too lazy to write about right now. =P One thing we should keep in mind is that the classics of today may not be readily apparant to us. Tolkien's work was not well received when it was first published, and there are a plethora of other classics that went unappreciated in their own time but are dear to us today. It's quite likely that the real classics that everyone will be enjoying 50 years from now are books nobody here has even heard of, let alone read.
Slashdot Mirror
A few of the replies so far have critizized Love's article because it doesn't absolve napster/etc. users of any wrongdoing. WAKE UP!!! If you painted a masterpiece would you want to give it away for free instead of selling it to a company for 20 dollars and watching them sell it the next day for 20 million? Neither option is acceptable!
Her article boils down to a few key points.
1. The music industry rakes in billions of dollars anually, but only a small portion of that actually makes it to the artists. The majority ends up with the record labels.
2. RIAA affiliated record labels make use of a variety of unethical buisness tactics that prey on informed and ignorant music artists alike.
3. Being signed to a RIAA affilliated record label doesn't necessarily make you money. Most artists are in effect giving their music away for free. There is however at least *some* hope that you might make money affiliated with RIAA.
4. The money RIAA rakes in from these lawsuits goes to the record labels, not the artists.
5. She suggests that if artists can make P2P services work directly for them, so that they can get their music out there, make people aware of it, then the artists can dispence with the major record labels and actually see some of the profits from their own music.
This article, while not endorsing copyright infringement fully as some may wish, shoots a hole the size of Texas in any of RIAA's arguments that claim they are on the side of the artist. This is a primary source folks, and not some script kiddie telling you what he heard from the friend of a friend. It's worth reading just because of that.
It's articles like this that have convinced me that buying a CD from a RIAA affiliated record label is as evil, if not more so, as downloading MP3's online. The only way I can think of to ethically obtain music from groups on a RIAA affilated label at this time is to pirate the MP3's and send a money order directly to the band. (and pray the record labels don't have clauses in their contracts that lets them steal that income too) I'd rather send 50 cents directly to 20 artists I like than buy one CD and see 16.50 of 17 dollars go straight to the record label. More money making it through the middlemen to the artists is a good thing!
However, a system that relies on voluntary acts of charity is only good if people are relatively generous. Currently, too many people think they have a right to freely access and download artists' works. Love makes a very valid point. Yes, there are some "pure" artists out there that would be singing their hearts out whether they were being paid for it or not. However, many artists are in it at least partially for the money, and many of those "impure" artists produce damned good music. Expecting artists to donate their music to the world free of charge with no hope of payment would thin out the talent pool and deprive us of a lot of great music.
The authors that will stand the test of time are the ones whose stories actually have something to say to the audience of tommorow. Many science fiction authors have a nasty habit of dating themselves. What is incrediably imaginitive today might be stale 50 years from now, and only of literary interest to english majors and literary historians. William Gibson is an absolutely amazing writer. I love his work. However, will he stand the test of time? His work does focus on technology a lot, often at the expense of the characters. While his imagination of the world of tommorow is an amazing experience today, will it be as hard hitting 50 years from now when a good deal of what he has imagined is realized or surpassed? I think some of it will. Neuromancer is still an excellent read despite the fact that much of the technology (i.e. The Net) has been realized, and not precisely as he envisioned. Another science fiction author that stands out in my mind is David Brin. His take on human relations with alien species is unique, and could only be outdated by actual alien contact. His books are filled with the fantastic, but he keeps his work grounded in real science. (He has a doctorate of astrophysics and has consulted for NASA) Besides having some truly origional ideas and real science in his novels, he also builds living breathing characters that are absolutely compelling. Even if you ignore the ideas and science, his books are still a good read just for the characters and conflict. There are other authors I should mention but am simply too lazy to write about right now. =P One thing we should keep in mind is that the classics of today may not be readily apparant to us. Tolkien's work was not well received when it was first published, and there are a plethora of other classics that went unappreciated in their own time but are dear to us today. It's quite likely that the real classics that everyone will be enjoying 50 years from now are books nobody here has even heard of, let alone read.