Obviously this is pre-DMCA, but I seem to recall a case a few years ago where prodigy lost a libel suit which was brought up based on a defamatory message someone left on the bulliten boards. If I recall, the ruling stated that since prodigy censored its posts before in the past, it must therefore continue to do so.
Is/. setting the same precedent that prodigy did by censoring one of their posts? Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can help out here....
The media outlet that is the source of all this furor is here. The actual article is here. Looks like a non-free WSJ style login is required, though you can read the summary on the front page of the paper if it is still there when you check it out. Maybe somebody could post the whole article as a reply to this post???
I'm noticing a lot of punk rock recommendations in the comments. Punk rock is fine and dandy, and very non-RIAA, but if you want to some other excellent music, Matador and Warp are good labels to try.
Matador has a ton of cool bands, like boards of canada, belle and sebastian, cat power, pizzicato 5 etc. I am reasonably sure they are non-RIAA -- I didn't find any evidence of it on their website, and they weren't on that RIAA members list.
Warp is an awesome "intelligent" electronica label. They've got cool stuff like autechre, aphex twin, two lone swordsman (also on matador). They are based in Germany, so there is no way they are RIAA. I don't think they belong to the European equivalent either, though I could be wrong.
Be careful though! Some of the albums are co-branded with major labels, for better distribution purposes I suppose. Aphex Twin for example, their later albums also have a little Elektra records stamp on them.
I think that song is Bucephalus Bouncing Ball maybe on the Come to Daddy EP. It is a pretty quirky song, though I don't recall hearing any dot matrix printer in it.
Boss Hog has a cool noisy little punk rock song on their 95 album (I think) with a badass dot matrix printing in the background throughout the whole track. Good stuff yo.
This whole little thread is a bit off-topic, and I'm not sure what the reasoning behind moderating it up was, but while we're at it, why not post some evidence about your accusations? I haven't heard anything about scientists or drug companies experimenting indigenous peoples of third world coutries in modern, post-civil rights times. How about giving us some links to back yourself up? Anything that was done in the 80s or 90s?
______ "Blazing down the road, el camino..." - Ween
Looks like a thinly veiled attempt to start a little flame-war on the tenets of socialism versus an american-style, progress before people, capitalist orgy.
/me wonders who else will take the young republican/libertarian's bait.
That being said, maybe you can also send a post off to all those miserable socialist countries so they can start cutting back on all those pesky welfare programs, and socialized medicine and such. It would be great for Europe if it makes their underclass bigger and raises there infant mortality rate to match the US! Maybe Costa Rica could then follow America's fine example with net access. I'm being serious! No really!!
Right now, Costa Rica has a smaller gap between the wealthy and the lower classes than most other Central American countries. So let's give their government at least a _tiny_ bit of credit. As opposed to libertarians such as your beloved David Friedman, which have yet to prove themselves in any sort of fashion.
Another group makes great music, and they're relatively unknown...untouched, so you support them. But wait! You don't! Steal their music too!
You seem to be confused. The Roots are not untouched and unknown; they are on Geffen Records (as I stated earlier), one of the big players, giving them automatic airplay on the TV and radio, interviews with all the annoying music magazines, and income. So giving that I stated that I only pirate sell outs, I fail to see how I am being "illogical" or how I have "twisted logic".
I never said I had the right or that it is legal for me to copy this stuff. It is like my own personal act of anarchy. It is my way of cyber-pissing in the face of a record executive and the artist that signed on to them. If it were 10 years ago, and there were no MP3s, I would have made a tape copy.
What it comes down to is that you have your way of voicing your dissatisfaction, and I have mine. I'm not sure if you just find my way legally indefensible, as you seem to suggest, or morally indefensible as well. IMHO, it is illegal but morally justified.
I admire your position on free software. (I feel the same way, though I find buying proprietary software is sometimes unavoidable.) What I do not admire is your referring to some unknown "twisted logic" and resorting to petty name calling instead.
You know what, that first point of yours is exactly what I am saying. It is not such a ridiculous viewpoint if you consider that:
1.) Only pennies from your over-priced purchase will go to the artist.
2.) The sell-out artist has contracted himself to a money-hungry industry which is interested in music only as a commodity, not as an art form. The major labels will step on other artists, and other smaller labels to pimp their music. They will take creative control over said artist, and try to keep them from being experimental or doing anything risky.
Major labels answer only to their shareholders. They don't care about music, so why should I support them or their artists?
Here is what chicago producer Steve Albini has to say about major labels. He is known for producing the first Pixies album and Nirvana's In Utero. Read it and get a clue yourself.
OK, perhaps I spoke somewhat rashly and didn't make myself totally clear because of my intense dislike for Moby. For one thing, I just think that it is ridiculous to say that everyone who likes the mp3 of an artist will go out and buy the CD. It is just silly. Maybe some do.
On the other hand I would gladly pay for a Roots concert. I think that would be a better paradigm for the music industry, for them to make money from concerts rather than overpriced CDs. A greater percentage of that money goes to the artist.
The record industry does not give a shit about music, it only cares about money. It uses its money to influence MTV and radio stations and pimp its (mostly) crap artists and squeeze out the smaller players. That's why I don't buy music from artists that I think have sold out, even if they are a decent group, and they've just managed to slip through and hit it big. It is just a basic matter of principle for me.
From the article: The fact that programmers associated with free software would take such a strong antipiracy position may surprise some people, who assume that Linux and the like are somehow vaguely socialist. But rather than believing that proprietary, for-profit software should not exist, most open-source advocates are more pragmatic. They believe their software works better than the traditional kind "because more people can collaborate towards its development," says Matt Welsh, a researcher in the computer science department at the University of California, Berkeley, and a long-time Linux user. "But there's nothing collaborative about music or most other forms of content that copyright law is designed to protect."
This guy obviously has no understanding of music. Maybe he owns some Bon Jovi and an Ace of Bass CD??? Music is collaborative and constantly evolving. You can ask any artist this. If i sit down on my computer and write an electronic music track, I am drawing from all the music I have listened to in the past. Music always has ideas from other older artists. How many bands have been influenced by Nirvana, how many draw from Lou Reed and Velvet Underground? Despite their recent actions, even early Metallica I'm sure inspires many groups today. Just go to allmusic.com and look up your favorite artics and see who their roots and influences are for yourself.
Napster makes music from around the world more easily accessible, and lets people discover new musical ideas. This helps music that people make morph and evolve, and keeps it interesting, avoiding stagnation. At least in that respect, napster is doing everyone a very open-source style service. I guess Linus and everyone else in this article missed that point. I respect these people, so that makes me unhappy.:(
It is interesting for you to bring this up, because just the other day a sort of similar thing happened to me, but with a totally different outcome. I heard a cool song by 'The Roots' on the radio off their album Everything falls Apart. So I went on napster, downloaded all the songs off the album. I listened to it over the course of a couple of days, and decided I really liked it, so I converted them to WAVs and burned them onto a blank CD. Geffen Records never saw a penny. I even copied it for a couple close friends of mine.
The only reason I could think of that I would have bought the album is sheer laziness, since I'm not ont of those people who is enamored with cover art or anal-retentive about the quality of MP3 tracks. Shit, I wouldn't even mind a tape copy, if tapes weren't so inconvenient. (They are harder to store, can't go between tracks as easily, etc.)
My point is this, that not everyone is like you. Not everyone has money to burn and feels like throwing money at sellout artists when they can have it for free. There are albums I DO pay for however, truly independent artists that are difficult or not popular enough to find on napster. For example, I picked up Marumari's Ballad of the Round Ball the other day. (Listen to some free mp3s of theirs at carparkrecords.com; they sound kinda like video game music.) This is after I couldn't find it on Napster of course.
So I am hope you are happy that you paid for you Moby album. I saw a billboard for him the other day. It was a Sprite or 7UP billboard or something... it's around the intersection of Houston and Broadway in the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan. He is holding a can and looking all crazy, doubtlessly telling the kids how rebellious it is to drink those soft drinks. Then I come here and read your post, and I have never felt more disgusted and nauseous in my entire life.
here is theregister article about the subject. isn't it odd that/. never link theregister.co.uk stories? afraid of a little competition? it doesn't have the community of slashdot, but it is a great news site.
Hey EFF, are you reading this? How about setting up a little New York City fundraiser??? This is a bigger city.... it'll bring more people and raise more money. Best of all, if its in New York _I_ can attend it.
It seems to me that this preliminary injunction came _so_ quickly, and that the judge's reading of the law is_so_ unreasonable, that one has to wonder if the judge is either incredibly inept or there is some kind of monetary exchange under the table.
My experience from reading about other trials and such (on slashdot and other news sources) involving free speech and the internet is that judges use use preliminary injunctions somewhat conservatively. Judge Kaplan is tossing them around like there is no tomorrow.
Isn't there some kind of accountability built into the judicial system? If there is anybody that should be getting any kind of injuctions, it is this moronic judge who is obviously highly impressed by the MPAA, the companies they represent, and the money they toss around.
So did the Red Hat IPO prompt the slack slackware people to pull their thumbs out of their collective asses and start to make some progress? I love slackware to death... it's what I started on with linux. It was sad to see it fall behind. This is definitely a good thing. Maybe some VCs (venture capitalists) waved some cash under their noses? Who knows?
This is sort of along the lines of those software license agreements you have to approve before installing stuff (esp Microsoft stuff). I mean, who actually reads those things before clicking 'OK'? Historically, American courts take the consumers side in these matters. They do not expect the person to have fully approved of it, and they do not consider it a legally binding document.
That WHOIS statement would be judged along the same lines I'm sure. NSI is obviously trying to cover their asses here. This is probably not the best way however.
Send some mail to Loral Orion, the satellite provider threatening to cut off internet access. Their e-mail addresses are here: http://www.loralorion.net/contacts/contmain.htm
Mailing their satellite services snd their network management center would probably be the most effective. Let them know that this is not cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously this is pre-DMCA, but I seem to recall a case a few years ago where prodigy lost a libel suit which was brought up based on a defamatory message someone left on the bulliten boards. If I recall, the ruling stated that since prodigy censored its posts before in the past, it must therefore continue to do so.
/. setting the same precedent that prodigy did by censoring one of their posts? Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can help out here....
Is
shellac.
The media outlet that is the source of all this furor is here. The actual article is here. Looks like a non-free WSJ style login is required, though you can read the summary on the front page of the paper if it is still there when you check it out. Maybe somebody could post the whole article as a reply to this post???
shellac.
My bad. Don't know what I was thinking there.
:)
I have to second that Mille Plateau recommendation, btw.
I'm noticing a lot of punk rock recommendations in the comments. Punk rock is fine and dandy, and very non-RIAA, but if you want to some other excellent music, Matador and Warp are good labels to try.
Matador has a ton of cool bands, like boards of canada, belle and sebastian, cat power, pizzicato 5 etc. I am reasonably sure they are non-RIAA -- I didn't find any evidence of it on their website, and they weren't on that RIAA members list.
Warp is an awesome "intelligent" electronica label. They've got cool stuff like autechre, aphex twin, two lone swordsman (also on matador). They are based in Germany, so there is no way they are RIAA. I don't think they belong to the European equivalent either, though I could be wrong.
Be careful though! Some of the albums are co-branded with major labels, for better distribution purposes I suppose. Aphex Twin for example, their later albums also have a little Elektra records stamp on them.
I think that song is Bucephalus Bouncing Ball maybe on the Come to Daddy EP. It is a pretty quirky song, though I don't recall hearing any dot matrix printer in it.
Boss Hog has a cool noisy little punk rock song on their 95 album (I think) with a badass dot matrix printing in the background throughout the whole track. Good stuff yo.
-ali
This whole little thread is a bit off-topic, and I'm not sure what the reasoning behind moderating it up was, but while we're at it, why not post some evidence about your accusations? I haven't heard anything about scientists or drug companies experimenting indigenous peoples of third world coutries in modern, post-civil rights times. How about giving us some links to back yourself up? Anything that was done in the 80s or 90s?
______
"Blazing down the road, el camino..." - Ween
Looks like a thinly veiled attempt to start a little flame-war on the tenets of socialism versus an american-style, progress before people, capitalist orgy.
/me wonders who else will take the young republican/libertarian's bait.
That being said, maybe you can also send a post off to all those miserable socialist countries so they can start cutting back on all those pesky welfare programs, and socialized medicine and such. It would be great for Europe if it makes their underclass bigger and raises there infant mortality rate to match the US! Maybe Costa Rica could then follow America's fine example with net access. I'm being serious! No really!!
Right now, Costa Rica has a smaller gap between the wealthy and the lower classes than most other Central American countries. So let's give their government at least a _tiny_ bit of credit. As opposed to libertarians such as your beloved David Friedman, which have yet to prove themselves in any sort of fashion.
---
"blazing down the road, el camino" --Ween
Another group makes great music, and they're relatively unknown...untouched, so you support them. But wait! You don't! Steal their music too!
You seem to be confused. The Roots are not untouched and unknown; they are on Geffen Records (as I stated earlier), one of the big players, giving them automatic airplay on the TV and radio, interviews with all the annoying music magazines, and income. So giving that I stated that I only pirate sell outs, I fail to see how I am being "illogical" or how I have "twisted logic".
I never said I had the right or that it is legal for me to copy this stuff. It is like my own personal act of anarchy. It is my way of cyber-pissing in the face of a record executive and the artist that signed on to them. If it were 10 years ago, and there were no MP3s, I would have made a tape copy.
What it comes down to is that you have your way of voicing your dissatisfaction, and I have mine. I'm not sure if you just find my way legally indefensible, as you seem to suggest, or morally indefensible as well. IMHO, it is illegal but morally justified.
I admire your position on free software. (I feel the same way, though I find buying proprietary software is sometimes unavoidable.) What I do not admire is your referring to some unknown "twisted logic" and resorting to petty name calling instead.
-ali
----
"blazing down the road, el camino..." -Ween
You know what, that first point of yours is exactly what I am saying. It is not such a ridiculous viewpoint if you consider that:
1.) Only pennies from your over-priced purchase will go to the artist.
2.) The sell-out artist has contracted himself to a money-hungry industry which is interested in music only as a commodity, not as an art form. The major labels will step on other artists, and other smaller labels to pimp their music. They will take creative control over said artist, and try to keep them from being experimental or doing anything risky.
Major labels answer only to their shareholders. They don't care about music, so why should I support them or their artists?
Here is what chicago producer Steve Albini has to say about major labels. He is known for producing the first Pixies album and Nirvana's In Utero. Read it and get a clue yourself.
-ali
OK, perhaps I spoke somewhat rashly and didn't make myself totally clear because of my intense dislike for Moby. For one thing, I just think that it is ridiculous to say that everyone who likes the mp3 of an artist will go out and buy the CD. It is just silly. Maybe some do.
On the other hand I would gladly pay for a Roots concert. I think that would be a better paradigm for the music industry, for them to make money from concerts rather than overpriced CDs. A greater percentage of that money goes to the artist.
The record industry does not give a shit about music, it only cares about money. It uses its money to influence MTV and radio stations and pimp its (mostly) crap artists and squeeze out the smaller players. That's why I don't buy music from artists that I think have sold out, even if they are a decent group, and they've just managed to slip through and hit it big. It is just a basic matter of principle for me.
-ali
The fact that programmers associated with free software would take such a strong antipiracy position may surprise some people, who assume that Linux and the like are somehow vaguely socialist. But rather than believing that proprietary, for-profit software should not exist, most open-source advocates are more pragmatic. They believe their software works better than the traditional kind "because more people can collaborate towards its development," says Matt Welsh, a researcher in the computer science department at the University of California, Berkeley, and a long-time Linux user. "But there's nothing collaborative about music or most other forms of content that copyright law is designed to protect."
This guy obviously has no understanding of music. Maybe he owns some Bon Jovi and an Ace of Bass CD??? Music is collaborative and constantly evolving. You can ask any artist this. If i sit down on my computer and write an electronic music track, I am drawing from all the music I have listened to in the past. Music always has ideas from other older artists. How many bands have been influenced by Nirvana, how many draw from Lou Reed and Velvet Underground? Despite their recent actions, even early Metallica I'm sure inspires many groups today. Just go to allmusic.com and look up your favorite artics and see who their roots and influences are for yourself.
Napster makes music from around the world more easily accessible, and lets people discover new musical ideas. This helps music that people make morph and evolve, and keeps it interesting, avoiding stagnation. At least in that respect, napster is doing everyone a very open-source style service. I guess Linus and everyone else in this article missed that point. I respect these people, so that makes me unhappy. :(
-ali
It is interesting for you to bring this up, because just the other day a sort of similar thing happened to me, but with a totally different outcome. I heard a cool song by 'The Roots' on the radio off their album Everything falls Apart. So I went on napster, downloaded all the songs off the album. I listened to it over the course of a couple of days, and decided I really liked it, so I converted them to WAVs and burned them onto a blank CD. Geffen Records never saw a penny. I even copied it for a couple close friends of mine.
The only reason I could think of that I would have bought the album is sheer laziness, since I'm not ont of those people who is enamored with cover art or anal-retentive about the quality of MP3 tracks. Shit, I wouldn't even mind a tape copy, if tapes weren't so inconvenient. (They are harder to store, can't go between tracks as easily, etc.)
My point is this, that not everyone is like you. Not everyone has money to burn and feels like throwing money at sellout artists when they can have it for free. There are albums I DO pay for however, truly independent artists that are difficult or not popular enough to find on napster. For example, I picked up Marumari's Ballad of the Round Ball the other day. (Listen to some free mp3s of theirs at carparkrecords.com; they sound kinda like video game music.) This is after I couldn't find it on Napster of course.
So I am hope you are happy that you paid for you Moby album. I saw a billboard for him the other day. It was a Sprite or 7UP billboard or something... it's around the intersection of Houston and Broadway in the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan. He is holding a can and looking all crazy, doubtlessly telling the kids how rebellious it is to drink those soft drinks. Then I come here and read your post, and I have never felt more disgusted and nauseous in my entire life.
-ali
here is theregister article about the subject. isn't it odd that /. never link theregister.co.uk stories? afraid of a little competition? it doesn't have the community of slashdot, but it is a great news site.
-ali
Tesla rocks the house man! That teacher must be pretty cool. My favorite album is their first one, Mechanical Resonance!!!
Allright, I'm sorry, but somebody had to make the joke. *ducks*
Hey EFF, are you reading this? How about setting up a little New York City fundraiser??? This is a bigger city.... it'll bring more people and raise more money. Best of all, if its in New York _I_ can attend it.
*grin*
It seems to me that this preliminary injunction came _so_ quickly, and that the judge's reading of the law is_so_ unreasonable, that one has to wonder if the judge is either incredibly inept or there is some kind of monetary exchange under the table.
My experience from reading about other trials and such (on slashdot and other news sources) involving free speech and the internet is that judges use use preliminary injunctions somewhat conservatively. Judge Kaplan is tossing them around like there is no tomorrow.
Isn't there some kind of accountability built into the judicial system? If there is anybody that should be getting any kind of injuctions, it is this moronic judge who is obviously highly impressed by the MPAA, the companies they represent, and the money they toss around.
So did the Red Hat IPO prompt the slack slackware people to pull their thumbs out of their collective asses and start to make some progress?
I love slackware to death... it's what I started on with linux. It was sad to see it fall behind. This is definitely a good thing. Maybe some VCs (venture capitalists) waved some cash under their noses? Who knows?
-ali
This is sort of along the lines of those software license agreements you have to approve before installing stuff (esp Microsoft stuff). I mean, who actually reads those things before clicking 'OK'? Historically, American courts take the consumers side in these matters. They do not expect the person to have fully approved of it, and they do not consider it a legally binding document.
That WHOIS statement would be judged along the same lines I'm sure. NSI is obviously trying to cover their asses here. This is probably not the best way however.
-ali
Send some mail to Loral Orion, the satellite provider threatening to cut off internet access. Their e-mail addresses are here:
http://www.loralorion.net/contacts/contmain.htm
Mailing their satellite services snd their network management center would probably be the most effective. Let them know that this is not cool.
-ali
Send some mail to Loral Orion, the satellite provider threatening to cut off internet access, here:
http://www.loralorion.net/contacts/contmain.htm
Mailing their satellite services snd their network management center would probably be the most effective. Let them know that this is not cool.
-ali
Does anyone know the web page or e-mail address for the IP mailing list, which they talk about in the CNN article? Thanks....
-ali