"He was violating copyright when he pressed a few thousand copies to GIVE AWAY to his FAMILY AND FRIENDS mixing audio tracks with JAY-Z's self-distributed vocal-only (specifically intended for DJ's to remix) tracks?
I'd sure like to know how that's copyright violation. That's like calling me to the carpet for drawing an Akira poster and giving it to my little brother."
"Do you really think that someone putting out a measely 3,000 copies of the CD is going to take away money from Jay-Z and his 2,000,000 Black Album CDs that he'll probably sell?"
And do you really think that it's perfectly OK for a DJ to just take other musicians' work, and press and sell a commercial CD, and give them nothing in return?
Would it also be prefectly OK with you if the NRA just decided to use samples from "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?
"Besides, I dont' care for Jay-Z and I dislike the beatles (but I do like John Lennon's stuff) -- but the Gray Album sounds DAMN GOOD. Easily far better than the shitty Black Album rap crap."
And as for me, I think this Gray Album is a fun idea, but a pretty boring listen.
"and I also think that "only 3000 pressed" is actually a pretty big run, considering that's larger than most independent releases (which are lucky to sell 1000)."
Actually, I'd say that 3000 pressed is a very big run, given that he knew that he was violating copyright when he mixed in the Beatles' tracks as he did.
He didn't just make a mix to play, he made something to sell.
I mean, isn't this well beyond your typical non-profit copyright infringent type issue?
Isn't part of what makes Jay Z's decision to release vocal-only tracks for remixing cool that he actually made the decision?
In other words, if we're going to encourage musicians to similarly release their works for stuff like this, then don't we also have to respect decisions by musicians who choose otherwise?
And if we don't respect the decisions of musicians who choose otherwise, then what difference does it make whether some choose to share?
I dunno, I listened and I didn't think it was all that great. The idea of matching Black against White is interesting, but -- and this is just one subjective opinion -- I didn't think the music itself deserves the hype.
"Sounds like the 80's when it was, "Remember, since you're paying monthly for cable TV the cable only stations won't need to play commercials."
I don't know which 80's you're talking about, but cable service has always been sold with a mix of channels that include advertising, and other "premium" channels you have to pay for separately.
"The law will only care about hashes though for what we are talking about. If something is not exact you won't be able to convict.
Take for example mp3 files. The RIAA has a hash database of "know" illegal mp3 files. You add the word "me" to the comment field of the id3 tag thus altering the hash. Even if its the same filename, bitrate etc it won't be the same hash anymore thus there is no way to prove guilt. I don't buy into you fingerprint theory for the subject we are talking about.
Criminal guilt which is what were talking about isn't about proving beyond a reasonable doubt, it's about actual hard evidence. If there is any doubt, in this case because the files technically are not the same, then you cannot convict."
Respectfully, I think your interpretations of the law, and your presumtions about exactly what information the RIAA has collected (and continues to collect), are not correct.
You seem to say that a fingerprint could not be used as evidence. You also seem to say that the RIAA has hashes, but no other means of identifying works. Did you know that the RIAA had hashes before that was revealed? Do you know what they might be planning next?
I also know of services that can identify songs by "listening" to the files -- change bits (such as ID3 tags), downsample, and it still 'knows' the file. Sure, it can't always be right, but such technology will improve.
Actually, no. Changing one bit should affect a uniqueness hash, but not necessarily so a fingerprint.
As a simple example, think of the little logo that you sometimes see down in the corner of a video as a fingerprint -- changing one bit of that doesn't remove the fingerprint.
Again, you'll change the hash but not necessarily the fingerprint...
"It's an accepted dictionary definition and one that I am happy with. Theft is the word I'm really against, but pirate I can sort of let it get by."
But how do you think "one who infringes the law of copyright" came to be an accepted dictionary definition for "pirate"? There was a time when "one who infringes the law of copyright" was not listed among the dictionary definitions of the word "pirate" -- was it wrong and bad to use the term "pirate" back then?
"The most positive point of the whole article is that the word piracy is not mentioned."
Sweet lord help us if this winds up as yet another word-play argument. I mean, jeez, were we all given a limited and fixed set of words and meanings, never to change?
In any case, the fact reamains that "the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material" remains illegal.
All the dreamy talk of solutions takes great care to avoid dealing with the very ugly practical problems...
1) Will artists have a choice about whether to particiapte in the government-controlled art system?
2) Will the government-controlled art system exclude works that it deems offensive?
3) Do you want a government-controlled art system keeping track of how you use the Internet.
The list goes on and on, but the point is: before you decide that you like some alternative, first get to know the practical details, and only then decide.
"Any idea if there is a better interface for controlling which songs play, yet?"
You might like my software, Andromeda. It comes in PHP and ASP versions. It's not free (I did try that, but it didn't work). If interested, come take a look.
"You don't need a big surveillance program, just add a bug to your email"
The problem with an embedded image bug is that if the recipient views the source of the email -- and presumably this alleged extorter is a techie -- it's easy to spot such a bug, and so there's a real risk that including a bug would tip him off to the investigation.
"Watching the free music crowd getting played for suckers was an extremely painful thing to watch...especially since their was a better option: If there was respect for the written laws, we could have had our MP3s and copied them to our MP3 player too. Hey, we may have even been in a better position to change the laws for the better."
Are you suggesting that if file-sharing (the copyright infringement type) had been less widespread, than we may have wound up with a more consumer-friendly scenario?
In other words, if copyright-indifferent file-sharing had not gathered so much steam, might the iTunes Store instead be selling more useful MP3 files rather than those DRM'ed ones?
Slashdot Mirror
It's an easy way to protect yourself from all sorts of stupid stuff.
Ahem, turn off HTML viewing in your email client NOW.
*I've* had records released world-wide, and I've only made one."
And your release was also given away, worldwide, for free?
I don't know too many people who print up a few thousand CDs for worldwide release, just to give them away without any financial objective.
But, hey, maybe that's because I don't have 3,000 friends... ;)
I'd sure like to know how that's copyright violation. That's like calling me to the carpet for drawing an Akira poster and giving it to my little brother."
Well, from Danger Mouse's own site:
"This Incredible re-interpretation will be one to look out for and will be made available worldwide around Feb/March of 2004."
How non-commercial does that sound to you? ;)
And do you really think that it's perfectly OK for a DJ to just take other musicians' work, and press and sell a commercial CD, and give them nothing in return?
Would it also be prefectly OK with you if the NRA just decided to use samples from "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?
"Besides, I dont' care for Jay-Z and I dislike the beatles (but I do like John Lennon's stuff) -- but the Gray Album sounds DAMN GOOD. Easily far better than the shitty Black Album rap crap."
And as for me, I think this Gray Album is a fun idea, but a pretty boring listen.
Actually, I'd say that 3000 pressed is a very big run, given that he knew that he was violating copyright when he mixed in the Beatles' tracks as he did.
He didn't just make a mix to play, he made something to sell.
I mean, isn't this well beyond your typical non-profit copyright infringent type issue?
Well, there's obviously an art to matching samples to the vocal track, and a good mash-up can be a remarkable thing.
But given all the hype, when I gave it a listen I just didn't think it was all that great.
As always, when it comes to art, mileage may vary...
In other words, if we're going to encourage musicians to similarly release their works for stuff like this, then don't we also have to respect decisions by musicians who choose otherwise?
And if we don't respect the decisions of musicians who choose otherwise, then what difference does it make whether some choose to share?
I dunno, I listened and I didn't think it was all that great. The idea of matching Black against White is interesting, but -- and this is just one subjective opinion -- I didn't think the music itself deserves the hype.
Astroturfing
It's Valentine's day, so I feel obliged to note -- it's her article...
And if you REALLY don't like their reporting, just write an email virus to DDoS the BBC... ;)
Dispite how cool it looks on Star Trek/Wars, you get blasted by cosmic rays (bad) and loose bone/muscle mass (bad).
In fact, my understanding is that most of their revenue is from the advertising, and not from the cover price.
The real problem is that advertizing only exists because it works...
I don't know which 80's you're talking about, but cable service has always been sold with a mix of channels that include advertising, and other "premium" channels you have to pay for separately.
A number of sites (like Salon) disable their ads for paid subscribers.
Remember that when sites can make money off advertising, they have less need to directly charge their visitors...
Criminal guilt which is what were talking about isn't about proving beyond a reasonable doubt, it's about actual hard evidence. If there is any doubt, in this case because the files technically are not the same, then you cannot convict."
Respectfully, I think your interpretations of the law, and your presumtions about exactly what information the RIAA has collected (and continues to collect), are not correct.
You seem to say that a fingerprint could not be used as evidence. You also seem to say that the RIAA has hashes, but no other means of identifying works. Did you know that the RIAA had hashes before that was revealed? Do you know what they might be planning next?
I also know of services that can identify songs by "listening" to the files -- change bits (such as ID3 tags), downsample, and it still 'knows' the file. Sure, it can't always be right, but such technology will improve.
Load a fingerprinted file.
Change one bit.
It has a new fingerprint."
Actually, no. Changing one bit should affect a uniqueness hash, but not necessarily so a fingerprint.
As a simple example, think of the little logo that you sometimes see down in the corner of a video as a fingerprint -- changing one bit of that doesn't remove the fingerprint.
Again, you'll change the hash but not necessarily the fingerprint...
But how do you think "one who infringes the law of copyright" came to be an accepted dictionary definition for "pirate"? There was a time when "one who infringes the law of copyright" was not listed among the dictionary definitions of the word "pirate" -- was it wrong and bad to use the term "pirate" back then?
Again, this is just a wasted effort -- why not go back and take a look at my post.
Are the guys that run vast commercial CD duplication operations "pirates"?
No, they're not "pirates" either.
The semantic game is just smoke screen hiding the real issues...
Sweet lord help us if this winds up as yet another word-play argument. I mean, jeez, were we all given a limited and fixed set of words and meanings, never to change?
In any case, the fact reamains that "the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material" remains illegal.
All the dreamy talk of solutions takes great care to avoid dealing with the very ugly practical problems...
1) Will artists have a choice about whether to particiapte in the government-controlled art system?
2) Will the government-controlled art system exclude works that it deems offensive?
3) Do you want a government-controlled art system keeping track of how you use the Internet.
The list goes on and on, but the point is: before you decide that you like some alternative, first get to know the practical details, and only then decide.
I've written some more about here.
You might like my software, Andromeda. It comes in PHP and ASP versions. It's not free (I did try that, but it didn't work). If interested, come take a look.
I'm veering off-topic here, but turning off HTML in your mail client is a good thing to do...
The problem with an embedded image bug is that if the recipient views the source of the email -- and presumably this alleged extorter is a techie -- it's easy to spot such a bug, and so there's a real risk that including a bug would tip him off to the investigation.
So, it may be an HTML bug, but perhaps not...
Are you suggesting that if file-sharing (the copyright infringement type) had been less widespread, than we may have wound up with a more consumer-friendly scenario?
In other words, if copyright-indifferent file-sharing had not gathered so much steam, might the iTunes Store instead be selling more useful MP3 files rather than those DRM'ed ones?