In other words, ISPs are upset at the idea that they will lose paying customers.
Isn't it funny what happens when a major coprorate interest butts heads against another? This has nothing to do with the rights of their cusotmers, that's for sure.
Cryptography 101 says that if you have ANY encryption scheme where Alice, Bob, and Eve are all the same person, it just won't work. The thing about marketing claims like this--and it is a marketing claim, doubt it not--is that if it is cracked, their entire business falls apart rather quickly.
You would have thought that any company involved in any measure of cryptography would have read Bruce Schneier. Wanna take bets on how long it takes before this scheme is cracked?
I think that podcasts are one of the best ways to learn of new music.
For example, ones like this: JD's Musical Alchemy. Where I've discovered bands like Beatnik Turtle who are releasing one song for every single day of 2007. There's just an incredible amount of music out there.
Musicians certainly do get together in order to record music. If he's only thinking of the single musicians that work in their studios, he's not really exploring the internet. The band that I'm in has released over 200 songs for a project called Song of the Day. We're releasing one song for every day of 2007. And we've collaborated with over 30 musicians to do it. My band gets together at least a few times a week just to write and record music.
We would never have taken on this project if we didn't have the internet to distribute it. In fact, that's all the internet has done: it has made worldwide distribution possible for every artist. It lets fans decide what they want to hear, rather than music executives.
We released what we think about file sharing and worldwide distribution on our website here, which I am copying below, because it's what I would say to Elton if I had the chance to talk to him.
Reframing the Debate
Peer to peer file sharing of music recordings has brought a crisis to the music industry as it stands today. As we will prove in the File Sharing section of The Survival Guide, file sharing is inevitable, and has signaled the death of the CD. But the problem with the discussion about file sharing is that the major labels and editorial writers are calling it literally the end of music itself.
The current debate intentionally ignores the single most basic fact about file sharing: File sharing only directly effects recorded music. While this is an obvious statement, very few, if any, of the pundits, seem to want to have a full discussion about the effects of file sharing on a musician's income by looking at the whole picture. This is partly because it's complicated to do this, and doesn't make a nice neat editorial. But the other reason is very simple: The major labels make most of their money off of recorded music, so they have shined their spotlight on this single aspect of a musician's income. Since the labels are themselves media organizations, some of them are part of news organizations, it's not surprising that the discussion has been simplified. For the current players, losing income based on recorded music is the end of music itself.
Note that even major musicians don't make any money off of recorded music. It seems to be the major labels that have the real stake in this. Consider this snippet of an interview with David Byrne:
XJ: How do you feel about the fact that some of your fans are downloading your music for free?
David Byrne: It's a mixed bag. Sure, I would love to have compensation for that. But the argument of record companies standing up for artists rights is such a load of hooey. Most artists see nothing from record sales -- it's not an evil conspiracy, it's just the way the accounting works. That's the way major record labels are set up, from a purely pragmatic point of view. So as far as the artist goes -- who cares? I don't see much money from record sales anway, so I don't really care how people are getting it.
-Boing Boing, David Byrne launches internet radio station.
If an artist like David Byrne can't make money off of recorded music, independent bands certainly aren't doing it either. And the file sharing that occurs usually doesn't take away from the most common forms of income from CDs, namely the albums sold at concerts. We will discuss this later, after introducing file sharing's economic effects, but we need to pan the camera back, and turn on the house lights so that we can see the rest of the stage regarding a musician's income.
On peer to peer networks, users download music recordings, but not any other aspect of music that can make money for a musician. For example, there is no way, over the Internet, to steal a live concert. Even if someone records it illicitly and sends it over the Internet, the musician stil
While direct payola was made illegal quite a long time ago, it still exists. This is probably not a shock for the more jaded people here. But the extent that it is implemented might be shocking to some that are not in music.
In fact, nothing gets on commercial radio without being paid for. The only exceptions are college radio, and specialty shows like Dr. Demento and local music shows (such as local Anaestetic on WXRT in Chicago).
How does it work if it's illegal? It's actually very simple. Each radio station is locked in with an "Independent Promoter" who helps the labels get their songs played on the radio. The IPs, as they're called in the industry, are also not supposed to pay for songs to be played, but they do anyway, under the table. Also promotions such as vacations and other items end up going to Radio CEOs rather than listeners. The IPs are more like a toll authority for each station. Often, they make exclusive contracts with stations so that they are the sole IP for a particular station. Since they're "Independent" the law does not take them into account.
This is well documented in the industry, and I'd recommend reading Pay For Play if you're interested in the topic.
I learned this from a lot of research. I am in an independent band, and so when we made our first album, I researched this to find out how to get on Commercial radio. I was very surprised to find out the truth. I have a collection of links on our website if you are interested in more articles on this topic.
By the way, as a musician, I'd rather that they abolish the laws on Payola. I want the payments to be on the table, rather than under it. After all, companies pay to get their items on shelves of grocery stores and consumer stores like Best Buy. Is it so shocking that radio is any different? There is too much money bet on bands to succeed that there would be any doubt that airtime is paid for. IPs are an unintended, legislated middleman. They serve no legitimate purpose, and in fact, make it even more expensive to get played on the radio. Let me be specific: If my band's music somehow got played on a radio station, the IP's would bill my band. If we didn't pay, they'd rip it from the playlist. IP's are the enemies of good music, and radio, and I want the artificial legislation that created them to be abolished.
This is an open letter to Forbes regarding this article. I feel that the open source community does itself a disservice by making Ad Hominem attacks against the writers, rather than engaging them in logical arguments.
I feel that Forbes in this case is just uncertain about what this is all about. From their point of view, it not the traditional business model. They're not sure how to handle it. What they don't understand is that this is an exciting new opportunity instead. It's got different rules than what they've run across before, but it also has tremendous opportunity. Just think: ANY business has the same powerful Linux code that Cisco used to make their mega-hit product.
This is what I sent them:
Open source software is a new business model. While that is a change from what companies are used to in the past, it has nothing to do with communism. In fact, open source is rooted in the strongest ideals of capitalism. That is, it takes ideas that others have had, and builds upon it, so that entrepreneurial individuals can profit from it. Some of the largest companies in today's economy are based on those ideals. McDonalds didn't invent the hamburger, it built upon it, and improved on the process. Disney didn't invent Sleeping Beauty, it reinterpreted it.
The differences that this article seems to misunderstand is the intent of the legitimate copyright holders of this code. There are millions of man hours of work from some of the finest programmers built into the Linux system. Without this excellent work, the Linksys router, a smash business hit, would not be possible. The programmers that put in this difficult work decided to release this code according to the GPL rather than keeping it secret. Don't confuse open sourced material with the public domain, it's still owned by the copyright owners. And their wish is to let others improve it still farther.
Open source software got to the point it is today by solving real business problems, running enterprise-critical systems, and allowing others making a profit from it by opening, not closing their work. In millions of instances, people tweaked the system because of issues that it had running in particular environments, or they may have optimized it for a certain process. This gets passed back into the original code, and everyone benefits.
Linux would not have been viable to make a top-selling product if the GPL didn't exist. But what this commentary seems to be suggesting is that Cisco be allowed to steal the code, and go against the copyright holder's wishes illegally. If the FSF or others who are attempting to protect the copyright holder's rights were to roll over and give up the fight, the first business use of GPL code would have ended this very valuable, revenue-generating resource a long time ago.
In the past, the only way to make a business out of software was to keep it secret. This is not the case anymore, they can also make money from software being open. Instead of fearing this new business model, and giving it an inappropriate label, it would be far more interesting to see articles about how to take advantage of this very exciting, very powerful resource that's open to all businesses, within the rules of this new business model. Why make the suggestion to kill the golden goose now that its gotten nice and fat? Don't miss out on the true value of the goose: the golden eggs.
Slashdot Mirror
The Matrix is inevitable now.
Since when did "Cold Fusion" freeze anything? And to freeze an entire volcano in an instant?
I understand that writers have license to stretch science to make a plot, but that was ridiculous.
In other words, ISPs are upset at the idea that they will lose paying customers. Isn't it funny what happens when a major coprorate interest butts heads against another? This has nothing to do with the rights of their cusotmers, that's for sure.
Maybe gravity IS just a theory.
Cryptography 101 says that if you have ANY encryption scheme where Alice, Bob, and Eve are all the same person, it just won't work. The thing about marketing claims like this--and it is a marketing claim, doubt it not--is that if it is cracked, their entire business falls apart rather quickly.
You would have thought that any company involved in any measure of cryptography would have read Bruce Schneier. Wanna take bets on how long it takes before this scheme is cracked?
At least this pizza was free.
I think that podcasts are one of the best ways to learn of new music. For example, ones like this: JD's Musical Alchemy. Where I've discovered bands like Beatnik Turtle who are releasing one song for every single day of 2007. There's just an incredible amount of music out there.
Musicians certainly do get together in order to record music. If he's only thinking of the single musicians that work in their studios, he's not really exploring the internet. The band that I'm in has released over 200 songs for a project called Song of the Day. We're releasing one song for every day of 2007. And we've collaborated with over 30 musicians to do it. My band gets together at least a few times a week just to write and record music.
We would never have taken on this project if we didn't have the internet to distribute it. In fact, that's all the internet has done: it has made worldwide distribution possible for every artist. It lets fans decide what they want to hear, rather than music executives.
We released what we think about file sharing and worldwide distribution on our website here, which I am copying below, because it's what I would say to Elton if I had the chance to talk to him.
While direct payola was made illegal quite a long time ago, it still exists. This is probably not a shock for the more jaded people here. But the extent that it is implemented might be shocking to some that are not in music.
In fact, nothing gets on commercial radio without being paid for. The only exceptions are college radio, and specialty shows like Dr. Demento and local music shows (such as local Anaestetic on WXRT in Chicago).
How does it work if it's illegal? It's actually very simple. Each radio station is locked in with an "Independent Promoter" who helps the labels get their songs played on the radio. The IPs, as they're called in the industry, are also not supposed to pay for songs to be played, but they do anyway, under the table. Also promotions such as vacations and other items end up going to Radio CEOs rather than listeners. The IPs are more like a toll authority for each station. Often, they make exclusive contracts with stations so that they are the sole IP for a particular station. Since they're "Independent" the law does not take them into account.
This is well documented in the industry, and I'd recommend reading Pay For Play if you're interested in the topic.
I learned this from a lot of research. I am in an independent band, and so when we made our first album, I researched this to find out how to get on Commercial radio. I was very surprised to find out the truth. I have a collection of links on our website if you are interested in more articles on this topic.
By the way, as a musician, I'd rather that they abolish the laws on Payola. I want the payments to be on the table, rather than under it. After all, companies pay to get their items on shelves of grocery stores and consumer stores like Best Buy. Is it so shocking that radio is any different? There is too much money bet on bands to succeed that there would be any doubt that airtime is paid for. IPs are an unintended, legislated middleman. They serve no legitimate purpose, and in fact, make it even more expensive to get played on the radio. Let me be specific: If my band's music somehow got played on a radio station, the IP's would bill my band. If we didn't pay, they'd rip it from the playlist. IP's are the enemies of good music, and radio, and I want the artificial legislation that created them to be abolished.
This is an open letter to Forbes regarding this article. I feel that the open source community does itself a disservice by making Ad Hominem attacks against the writers, rather than engaging them in logical arguments. I feel that Forbes in this case is just uncertain about what this is all about. From their point of view, it not the traditional business model. They're not sure how to handle it. What they don't understand is that this is an exciting new opportunity instead. It's got different rules than what they've run across before, but it also has tremendous opportunity. Just think: ANY business has the same powerful Linux code that Cisco used to make their mega-hit product. This is what I sent them: Open source software is a new business model. While that is a change from what companies are used to in the past, it has nothing to do with communism. In fact, open source is rooted in the strongest ideals of capitalism. That is, it takes ideas that others have had, and builds upon it, so that entrepreneurial individuals can profit from it. Some of the largest companies in today's economy are based on those ideals. McDonalds didn't invent the hamburger, it built upon it, and improved on the process. Disney didn't invent Sleeping Beauty, it reinterpreted it. The differences that this article seems to misunderstand is the intent of the legitimate copyright holders of this code. There are millions of man hours of work from some of the finest programmers built into the Linux system. Without this excellent work, the Linksys router, a smash business hit, would not be possible. The programmers that put in this difficult work decided to release this code according to the GPL rather than keeping it secret. Don't confuse open sourced material with the public domain, it's still owned by the copyright owners. And their wish is to let others improve it still farther. Open source software got to the point it is today by solving real business problems, running enterprise-critical systems, and allowing others making a profit from it by opening, not closing their work. In millions of instances, people tweaked the system because of issues that it had running in particular environments, or they may have optimized it for a certain process. This gets passed back into the original code, and everyone benefits. Linux would not have been viable to make a top-selling product if the GPL didn't exist. But what this commentary seems to be suggesting is that Cisco be allowed to steal the code, and go against the copyright holder's wishes illegally. If the FSF or others who are attempting to protect the copyright holder's rights were to roll over and give up the fight, the first business use of GPL code would have ended this very valuable, revenue-generating resource a long time ago. In the past, the only way to make a business out of software was to keep it secret. This is not the case anymore, they can also make money from software being open. Instead of fearing this new business model, and giving it an inappropriate label, it would be far more interesting to see articles about how to take advantage of this very exciting, very powerful resource that's open to all businesses, within the rules of this new business model. Why make the suggestion to kill the golden goose now that its gotten nice and fat? Don't miss out on the true value of the goose: the golden eggs.