And liberals will point to Slepian. And conservatives will point to... See a pattern developing here? We've all got crosses to bear. This is a silly argument, whether it's brought up by a conservative or a liberal.
While the original posters message was over the top, there is hypocricy in the liberal camp.
Thanks for pointing this out! Because God knows there's NO hypocrisy among conservatives.
Anyway the same "tolerant" liberals who put up the pink triangles banned Elliot from wearing his "Straight Pride" shirt even though the government run school could display "Gay Pride" posters.
To the best of my knowledge, the people who made him remove the shirt were school administrators, who did so not on the basis of political ideology, but because school administrators have NEVER been unwilling to sacrifice freedom at the altar of a smoothly-run school. These types have clamped down on liberals at LEAST as much as conservatives in the past - witness the Vietnam/black armband Supreme Court case (can't remember the parties involved right now). They likely saw the Gay Pride stuff as widely-accepted, whereas Eliott was viewed as aggressive, so they went for him; simple as that. It's not right, IMO, but I doubt it's a sinister agenda on the part of the school
So here we have liberals who want free speech, but ONLY if you say the right thing. So much for liberal tolerance.
Boy, never heard this line before. All those damn liberals are facists and liars, who don't want freedom for anyone but their friends, and only tolerate other liberals. Great argument! Not an overgerealization at *all*!
Perhaps you could pick a bigger strawman to wield against liberals?
As a card-carrying liberal, I and everyone I know deplore the exact actions you're referring to, most of which are crimes committed by extreme environmentalists. Funny, though, how you use their actions to tar just the entire spectrum of "progressive activists."
Interesting that you're against people thrown in jail for expressing political views, yet you didn't once mention the peaceful protestors who were pepper-sprayed and beaten by police in Seattle protesting the WTO. Hmm. No doubt if you respond to this, you'll mention the.01% who were violent, rather than the people I'm talking about, who had their rights trampled on.
Ah, but no, since extreme environmentalists are liberals of a sort, and extreme environmentalists have committed terrorist acts, the entire liberal/progressive movement is made up of supporters of terrorism. Wow, what fabulous, amazing logic! Thanks for clearing that up; armed with this new knowledge, I'll pick up a couple of Molotov cocktails on my way home from work.
Corporations are public entities; doctors are not. Speaking about/criticizing a public entity has much stronger First Amendment protection than speaking about a private entity.
Also, the Progressive was enjoined from publishing an article on how to build an H-Bomb by a district court, despite the fact that they'd gained the information through legal, publicly available channels (never went to the S.Court b/c the information became available elsewhere and the case was dismissed).
How that affects the case or your post, I don't know; I'm not totally sure how to feel about this. But, I thought I'd throw these tidbits out because they seemed relevant.
What if the artist (say, Limp Bizkit) decides that they want their song on Napster, but the record company (or the RIAA) decides that it shouldn't be on there? Does it go up or not?
Given past outcomes when artists tried to offer their music for free (Chuck D did this, and didn't the record company threaten to sue?), I'm guessing it stays off Napster in such a case. Big surprise. I guess this is just the 3537th piece of proof that this isn't about artists' rights at all, not even a little, but completely and solely about lining the RIAA's pockets. Of course, we all knew that already, didn't we?
It was mostly news to me because HardOCP posted their story today, and it confirms that others besides Tom are having problems. It's particularly notable because some of the larger enthusiast sites seem to be confirming one another's data.
...about 48 people responding to this article with either "Katz, you are so stupid, blah blah blah," or "I usually like Katz, but this article is so stupid, blah blah blah." That never happens when Jon Katz writes an article. I'd like to see it happen someday. Just, you know, for a change. 'Cause, when Jon writes an article for/., people ALWAYS address the viewpoint rather than their perception of the author. And I could really care less about views; I want more personal attacks!
I think you're wrong here; "prior restraint" refers to preventing someone from printing information that another party considers dangerous/offensive/libelous. It's a free press issue. No one is charging Napster with libel; rather the RIAA is saying that Napster is engaging in, and has already been engaging in, a form of theft. The judge is saying "okay, that may be true - they may have done so in the past and may still be doing so," and so stopped them from continuing.
The case you're looking for, I think, is New York Times v. U.S., which IIRC really laid the smack down against any form of prior restraint. The "clear and present danger" principle was articulated in Schenk v. U.S., and applies to the government's power to punish for political speech. Again, here we're dealing with allegations of theft (or accessory to theft), so I don't think it directly applies.
Also, I really really think Napster should avoid any such claims, because that would imply that they're publishing these songs, which directly contradicts the core of their argument: that they're not publishing/offering anything directly, but rather simply providing a conduit, and it's the users who may be negaging in illegal activity. Once they argue that they're the publishers, they're screwed.
That's true. Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, in the sense that a minority of humans are homosexual. Left-handedness is also abnormal, insofar as a minority of humans are left-handed. Why do lefties have this handedness identity problem? And why do this guy's posts keep getting moderated up? -brennan
It's odd that no one who was quoted in the article addressed the common-carrier argument, or really examined closely whether Napster, as a company and a program, is operating within the law. They seemed to restrict their comments to a piracy=bad line of thinking, which, duh. I found the following quote interesting, though:
(Torvalds) also says that record labels are reacting so vigorously to Napster not out of concern for artists but because they are threatened by new technology. "And then they have the gall to use the holy word 'copyright' to try to maintain their slipping control," Torvalds says. "That, I consider to be immoral. Go, Metallica. Die, RIAA."
True dat. IMO the most prominent voice of reason in this whole debacle is Chuck D. In regards to Metallica and Dr. Dre, on Public Enemy's website, Chuck says "It's like the slaves who were fortunate or (unfortunate) to work in the big house, they'll do anything to stay in the house while never noticing the effects of slavery in the rest of the field."
I think this is a very interesting comparison - these artists are established, and they're using copyright law to their advantage, which it's tough to fault them for. But no one involved in the lawsuit seems to be addressing the question of whether this system of distribution is healthy for artists and music as a *whole*; instead, a few rock stars are complaining that they're getting robbed. Well, yes, they probably are, under current law. But maybe they should take a step back and recognize that the primary beneficiaries of the system they're defending are the RIAA, and NOT the artists. Bearing that in mind, they should maybe think real hard about whether they want to do their part to continue propping up the system.
I'd like to think that Limp Bizkit, Chuck D, and some others are doing it for that reason.
This post is spot on, and hopefully will be moderated up.
It would be nice if they answered the questions posed to them, but think of it this way: Metallica would never have answered any meaningful, penetrating questions. To do so might have tipped the hand of their label (and, by extension, the recording industry). Any answer that they gave would have given us some insight into their motives, into what they're really trying to accomplish here.
I would add that anyone who attended the "chat" on Yahoo a few weeks back should have suspected that they would be unlikely to answer the questions/. would pose. To put it succinctly, they are not willing to answer tough questions from a critical audience. They *are* willing to aswer softballs tossed to them by drooling worshippers.
I'm not surprised, but it makes me sad. I really loved Metallica in high school, and I hoped that they'd take this chance to show that, if nothing else, they may be genuine. Instead, they completely dodge it. No explanation, no reasoning, not a word.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Metallica is the Man now. They deserve no more of my money.
Many people, myself included, bought copies of your music in the 80s, on cassette tape. In fact, I bought Puppets more than once, due to a broken tape.
You've said that this is about artists being compensated for their work, but I compensated you for your art already. In this case, buying a CD would be compensating you for the *media*, which really undercuts the primary arguments you've been making. Do you feel that it's right to ask me to pay $16 for a work that I already paid for in a different format? Do you think that at least in some cases, fans like myself may have a good reason to get old Metallica stuff on mp3, especially considering that, frankly, you got a lot of my money already? I mean, is it about art and fans, or is it about squeezing even more money out of people who have already helped support you financially?
So this morning, I get a fax at work. It's directed at the old network admin, and is like six pages of junk, Windows registry settings and such. I put it aside, with the intention of calling the person later to tell them that he doesn't work here anymore and ask what in the world she sent me.
Then news of this virus starts going around, and I look closely at the fax. It says it "originated from a (COMPANY NAME) Faxcom," and has the attachment "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs . Apparently, our fax number was in her computer, and it faxed us a text copy of the virus. Anyone want it?:)
First off, thank GOD/. is submitting questions, because the chat last night was a joke. The mods wouldn't let ANY tough questions through, the answers looked awfully scripted, etc. Hopefully some real debate will ensue.
Second, I personally don't have a problem with the idea of artists (including Metallica) being compensated for their recorded work. Nor will I defend pirating mp3s. Rather, it's Metallica's stance that annoys me. For example:
They're mad because their "art is being treated like a commodity rather than the art that it is"? And what, Best Buy cares about art? Bullshit.
They concede that "underground tape trading was a big part of their early success" but maintain that this is "irrelevant to the issue." Again, bullshit. They want piracy to exist when it benefits them, and they want it to go away when it doesn't. Very convenient.
Napster could "kill Metallica and music"? Bullshit. Music will always exist, including music just like Metallica, and nowadays much better music than they're doing. It might kill big record companies, but thy don't want to defend that; they want less informed people to consider this a bid to save Metallica. As Lars has said, this is indeed about money; specifically, Metallica's money. Anytime they talk about art, or rock music in general, or anything like that, I'm starting to get reeeaaaaal skeptical. I mean, hell, they even want to start "policing the internet" to get more money. Setting aside the impracticality and their lack of technical knowledge, have they lost their fsking minds?
It's just kinda sad - back in the day, it did indeed seem to be about music. Now, it's about keeping James Hetfield from having to get a day job. Sigh. I hate Limp Bizkit, but they're right - Metallica is the Establishment now.
Hmm. "Music should be free," eh? "All the cost is for R&D," eh?
I'm sure this will blow up into some free-software-thus-free-music thing, but I'll tell you what: You're wrong. Music and software are inherently different. It's easier to become rich off of music? I think not; a friend of mine was lucky enough to join an established band: the first year, they sold over 500,000 albums and he made around $50,000. If it's just a matter of getting rich, working for Microsoft is a hell of a better bet than picking up a guitar.
First, there is no phenomenon within software that is analogous to a concert. Concerts are spontaneous and energetic, and staged for the benefit of spectators. While software may be beautiful, unforseen things happening is generally a bad thing, and people don't install software to watch someone else use it for two hours and then go home.
Also, concerts are generally money-losers. As has been noted countless times by countless people, concerts these days exist, for the most part, to promote the record. Yes, a few bands make money at it. But the U.S. (and the world) CANNOT support an industry that relies on concert income to keep going. My personal favorite concert I've seen was Nine Inch Nails on the Downward Spiral tour; without CD sales, I'll never see a spectacle like that again, or I'll be charged $200 for it.
Second, even recorded music costs thousands of dollars to produce, if you want it to sound decent; this is on top of the cost of a computer and internet connection. You're expecting musicians to foot the bill for your benefit. I suggest that it's not unreasonable for you to help out.
Finally, most music is crap (possibly mine included). If music becomes "free", and mp3.com is the new paradigm for distribution, I'll personally probably just retire to my home with my current CDs. I don't have the time it would take to sort out the few gems from the pile of ickiness. At least record companies serve as a sort of crap-filter, so the worst musicians don't get as much play as the best. Majors tend to serve this purpose badly (hence Britny, Christina, Mariah, etc.), but a great many indies server this purpose very well (4AD, Sub Pop, etc.). I WANT a crap-filter between bad bands and my computer; I just wish people would support a million indie labels rather than five majors.
With all due respect, IMO your post typifies the free-as-in-beer attitude some people within open-source take. That's not a compliment. You want music to be free-as-in-beer? Make it yourself.
I don't know exactly how to feel about some of this. I bought every Metallica album when I was in high school and early college, up to and including the Black Album. But, I bought them on tape, and I don't even own a cassette player anymore. So when I found out about mp3s, I found some of the great old Metallica stuff I still own but don't/can't play. I dunno, does this make me a bad person? Or even a thief? Does only buying their music once mean that, as the suit alleges, I "exhibit the moral fiber of common looters."
I feel for the artists in many cases, I really do; I mean, I'm a musician too. And I understand that the crux of their argument is that if people appreciate their art, musicians should rightfully be compensated for their efforts. But in my own situation, Metallica isn't asking me to pay for the art, they're asking me to pay for the *media*. Does this change things? Hmm. All I know is that I don't feel so bad; I used to have a closet full of Metallica t-shirts, and I even bought two copies of "Puppets" back in the day because my tape player ate the first one. I think they've gotten enough money from me.
There will never be any big company spending a big amount of money on charity, without thinking they will get something back (pr, higher stocks, etc...), which again is to raise income.
Personally, I don't care *why* a corporation is donating to charity, whether it's to be a nice bunch of people, to get bigger profits, to get into heaven, whatever. As long as the right charities/organizations benefit, what difference does it make? And to be honest, I'd rather have a charitable, more profitable company than a miserly, less profitable company.
I know what you're saying, and no doubt it doesn't exactly warm the heart to envision board meetings where companies coldly calculate a cost-benefit analysis to giving to charity, and even *which* charity. But, pragmatically speaking...(shrug)
No offense, but what a load of crap. Capitalism and social responsibility are IN NO WAY mutually exclusive, and IMO a good capitalist society *requires* attention to social issues. I am a capitalist, and to some extent I vote with my dollars: for example, I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I disagree strongly with their politics. If enough people act likewise, Wal-Mart will change these policies or go out of business. In other words, we can effect social change without resorting to force, which results in not only a better society (only companies that are socially responsible can stay in business), but a capitalist society.
If you mean that social responsibility in general is complete bullshit, you're just being silly and reactionary. Can you *possibly* believe that turning a blind eye to social issues and not holding companies responsible for their actions is the best way to insure social justice? If so, I suggest you do just a small amount of research before spouting off about the evil socially conscious people.
In regards to the original topic, didn't I hear somewhere that Bill Gates wants to give his fortune away before he dies (leaving some for his kids, of course)? If so, I wonder what, exactly, he'll do with it? $50 billion or so could change a hell of a lot of lives.
In my opinion, the two most basic questions that need to be asked are:
1. Is there empirical evidence that a program like this will actually keep a single kid safer? (if so, where have studies been published?)
2. Is there justifiable reason to believe that this program will serve its intended purpose rather than being abused and/or giving false alarms?
I strongly suspect that the answer to both of these questions is "no." As such, bearing in mind the multiple reasonable objections voiced here, WHY THE HELL ARE THEY DOING IT?!?!
I'm a lifelong American, and consider myself reasonably patriotic in the sense that I believe strongly that the U.S. Constitution, properly considered, is the greatest governing document ever drafted. I've been active in local and state government in the past, and both my dad and stepdad are veterans. However, I'm also a liberal pro-choice atheist, and there is less and less reason for me to stay here rather than going to, say, Canada or Europe.
If G.W. Bush is elected president, I see Roe v. Wade getting overturned within two years, and I see school prayer getting the okay as well. I just got done calling my senators to express opposition to the flag desecration amendment (would eventually outlaw desecrating the U.S. flag), but I'm betting that it'll pass regardless. Sure, Vermont okayed same-sex unions, but California strongly rejected gay marriage, as have the great majority of states. Now the whole WAVE thing.
Look, I don't hate religious people, or pro-lifers, or conservatives in general. But they seem to want people like me gone, and I'm getting closer and closer to happily obliging them. I'm not sure if I want to raise kids in this country; not because of violence, but because of the political atmosphere.
In other words, you're not a eurotrash weenie; I agree wholeheartedly.
But as far as I can tell, you're wrong; he did NOT have the expectation that he would plug it in and be connected to a monthly internet service with associated fees. In fact, he went out of his way to ensure that the service was NOT attached automatically. This is exactly the problem, and if Netpliance is charging people who ordered i-openers even a moment before the web page was updated to make the service mandatory, they're being dishonest and IMO borderline fraudulent. You can't make an agreement, take people's money, and then change the terms of the agreement.
I understand the bind that Netpliance is in, but they really should have been more careful when these things first came out. If they can't make money without attaching the internet service (which obviously they can't), then they should have thought of that in the first place and acted appropriately.
I've heard the RIAA talk about how they're fighting mp3s for the benefit of artists, which is so clearly disingenuous that it's almost funny. The record companies have NO INTEREST in protecting artists' rights, nor in ensuring compensation for artists. They have interest in milking artists for every cent they can, on terms that are favorable to the company. If that doesn't work, and they aren't making enough money, they'll destroy the art (i.e. demand changes, rewrites, etc.) in order to make a little more.
The only instance I can recall where a big artist tried to give away music was Public Enemy; Chuck D is a big proponent of mp3s and put an entire record on the net before it was available in stores. Of course, the record company forced him to pull it immediately. See, THEY own the music, not the artist. It is their property.
I dunno. Artists aren't forced to sign contracts, so if the terms of those contracts are unfavorable and they sign anyways, who can complain? But still, any appeal the RIAA makes to "supporting artistry" is laughable. I know a couple of people with recording contracts, one of whom was forced back into the studio by the company to record "more accessible" songs. Those songs, of course, were ones the band threw away because they despised them.
I have little sympathy for the RIAA; if they go out of business, music and artists will still exist, so I'm not sure, really, what use they are these days. One thing seems certain, though: the debate about mp3s has nothing to do with art and artists, and everything to do with money.
So this guy in the audience gets all indignant and says:
"It's hard enough to find and keep talented IT people, and Red Hat is asking us not only to spend $5,000 a person, which eats heavily into our cost, but we also have to lose a $60,000 employee for two weeks, who after being certified, can move almost anywhere he wants, maybe even over to Red Hat. There aren't that many Linux-certified people out there."
You know what? Boo hoo. This wouldn't be a problem if you pay the tech what they're worth.
I think management people sometimes don't appreciate that a knowledgeable tech is worth money. They'd often rather have a cheap, inexperienced person than an expensive, knowledgeable, experienced person. Seems silly to me.
Whoo, where to start? Well, probably the Christian Right mean well, but what I as an atheist resent is (a) the demonization of non-Christians by many many political figures, and (b) the place people outside of fundamentalist evangelicism would have in a society headed up by Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson, which is to say, none.
it is also clear that the human authorities are under God's authority. Modern gov't seems to have forgotten that.
...
As far as censorship... There are some things that are not godly. They don't promote a godly lifestyle. Christians honestly believe that the world would be a better place without them. So while Christians believe in and defend free speech because it is a "good", we also detest pornography because it is an "evil".
Whoa, whoa. What about those of us who don't recognize a God's authority? What about those people who believe that God's authority applies in a different way?
Look, I'm assuming you're playing devil's advocate here, but I could give a shit what the religious right thinks is Godly. When they're trying to tell others what they can and cannot view/say/do, I have a BIG problem with that. A secular government that allows pornography, to use your example, is NOT preventing the religious right from not buying it.
Generally speaking, if you're saying that religious people will bring religious convictions with them when they govern, and that it's okay, I totally agree. If you're saying that they should therefore try to codify controversial and restrictive religious beliefs, because God is "the Lord of all, or He isn't Lord at all," I can only hope you never get elected, and that anyone who supports such a position leaves to Caesar what is Caesar's, leaves such decisions to personal conscience, and stays away from Washington.
Religious belief can, does, and should give people a base for their convictions and values, but government (i.e. law) in the US is secular. If you don't have a secular justification for a law, or it promotes religion, as far as I'm concerned it has no place in the public arena; it's private and should stay that way. I have no interest in having my actions limited by Christian fundamentalists.
Slashdot Mirror
-brennan
As a card-carrying liberal, I and everyone I know deplore the exact actions you're referring to, most of which are crimes committed by extreme environmentalists. Funny, though, how you use their actions to tar just the entire spectrum of "progressive activists."
Interesting that you're against people thrown in jail for expressing political views, yet you didn't once mention the peaceful protestors who were pepper-sprayed and beaten by police in Seattle protesting the WTO. Hmm. No doubt if you respond to this, you'll mention the .01% who were violent, rather than the people I'm talking about, who had their rights trampled on.
Ah, but no, since extreme environmentalists are liberals of a sort, and extreme environmentalists have committed terrorist acts, the entire liberal/progressive movement is made up of supporters of terrorism. Wow, what fabulous, amazing logic! Thanks for clearing that up; armed with this new knowledge, I'll pick up a couple of Molotov cocktails on my way home from work.
-brennan
Also, the Progressive was enjoined from publishing an article on how to build an H-Bomb by a district court, despite the fact that they'd gained the information through legal, publicly available channels (never went to the S.Court b/c the information became available elsewhere and the case was dismissed).
How that affects the case or your post, I don't know; I'm not totally sure how to feel about this. But, I thought I'd throw these tidbits out because they seemed relevant.
-brennan
Given past outcomes when artists tried to offer their music for free (Chuck D did this, and didn't the record company threaten to sue?), I'm guessing it stays off Napster in such a case. Big surprise. I guess this is just the 3537th piece of proof that this isn't about artists' rights at all, not even a little, but completely and solely about lining the RIAA's pockets. Of course, we all knew that already, didn't we?
-brennan
-brennan
-brennan
-brennan
The case you're looking for, I think, is New York Times v. U.S., which IIRC really laid the smack down against any form of prior restraint. The "clear and present danger" principle was articulated in Schenk v. U.S., and applies to the government's power to punish for political speech. Again, here we're dealing with allegations of theft (or accessory to theft), so I don't think it directly applies.
Also, I really really think Napster should avoid any such claims, because that would imply that they're publishing these songs, which directly contradicts the core of their argument: that they're not publishing/offering anything directly, but rather simply providing a conduit, and it's the users who may be negaging in illegal activity. Once they argue that they're the publishers, they're screwed.
Did I mention that IANAL?
-brennan
-brennan
That's true. Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, in the sense that a minority of humans are homosexual. Left-handedness is also abnormal, insofar as a minority of humans are left-handed. Why do lefties have this handedness identity problem? And why do this guy's posts keep getting moderated up? -brennan
I think this is a very interesting comparison - these artists are established, and they're using copyright law to their advantage, which it's tough to fault them for. But no one involved in the lawsuit seems to be addressing the question of whether this system of distribution is healthy for artists and music as a *whole*; instead, a few rock stars are complaining that they're getting robbed. Well, yes, they probably are, under current law. But maybe they should take a step back and recognize that the primary beneficiaries of the system they're defending are the RIAA, and NOT the artists. Bearing that in mind, they should maybe think real hard about whether they want to do their part to continue propping up the system.
I'd like to think that Limp Bizkit, Chuck D, and some others are doing it for that reason.
-brennan
I'm not surprised, but it makes me sad. I really loved Metallica in high school, and I hoped that they'd take this chance to show that, if nothing else, they may be genuine. Instead, they completely dodge it. No explanation, no reasoning, not a word.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Metallica is the Man now. They deserve no more of my money.
-brennan
You've said that this is about artists being compensated for their work, but I compensated you for your art already. In this case, buying a CD would be compensating you for the *media*, which really undercuts the primary arguments you've been making. Do you feel that it's right to ask me to pay $16 for a work that I already paid for in a different format? Do you think that at least in some cases, fans like myself may have a good reason to get old Metallica stuff on mp3, especially considering that, frankly, you got a lot of my money already? I mean, is it about art and fans, or is it about squeezing even more money out of people who have already helped support you financially?
-brennan
Then news of this virus starts going around, and I look closely at the fax. It says it "originated from a (COMPANY NAME) Faxcom," and has the attachment "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs . Apparently, our fax number was in her computer, and it faxed us a text copy of the virus. Anyone want it? :)
-brennan
Second, I personally don't have a problem with the idea of artists (including Metallica) being compensated for their recorded work. Nor will I defend pirating mp3s. Rather, it's Metallica's stance that annoys me. For example:
They're mad because their "art is being treated like a commodity rather than the art that it is"? And what, Best Buy cares about art? Bullshit.
They concede that "underground tape trading was a big part of their early success" but maintain that this is "irrelevant to the issue." Again, bullshit. They want piracy to exist when it benefits them, and they want it to go away when it doesn't. Very convenient.
Napster could "kill Metallica and music"? Bullshit. Music will always exist, including music just like Metallica, and nowadays much better music than they're doing. It might kill big record companies, but thy don't want to defend that; they want less informed people to consider this a bid to save Metallica. As Lars has said, this is indeed about money; specifically, Metallica's money. Anytime they talk about art, or rock music in general, or anything like that, I'm starting to get reeeaaaaal skeptical. I mean, hell, they even want to start "policing the internet" to get more money. Setting aside the impracticality and their lack of technical knowledge, have they lost their fsking minds?
It's just kinda sad - back in the day, it did indeed seem to be about music. Now, it's about keeping James Hetfield from having to get a day job. Sigh. I hate Limp Bizkit, but they're right - Metallica is the Establishment now.
-brennan
I'm sure this will blow up into some free-software-thus-free-music thing, but I'll tell you what: You're wrong. Music and software are inherently different. It's easier to become rich off of music? I think not; a friend of mine was lucky enough to join an established band: the first year, they sold over 500,000 albums and he made around $50,000. If it's just a matter of getting rich, working for Microsoft is a hell of a better bet than picking up a guitar.
First, there is no phenomenon within software that is analogous to a concert. Concerts are spontaneous and energetic, and staged for the benefit of spectators. While software may be beautiful, unforseen things happening is generally a bad thing, and people don't install software to watch someone else use it for two hours and then go home.
Also, concerts are generally money-losers. As has been noted countless times by countless people, concerts these days exist, for the most part, to promote the record. Yes, a few bands make money at it. But the U.S. (and the world) CANNOT support an industry that relies on concert income to keep going. My personal favorite concert I've seen was Nine Inch Nails on the Downward Spiral tour; without CD sales, I'll never see a spectacle like that again, or I'll be charged $200 for it.
Second, even recorded music costs thousands of dollars to produce, if you want it to sound decent; this is on top of the cost of a computer and internet connection. You're expecting musicians to foot the bill for your benefit. I suggest that it's not unreasonable for you to help out.
Finally, most music is crap (possibly mine included). If music becomes "free", and mp3.com is the new paradigm for distribution, I'll personally probably just retire to my home with my current CDs. I don't have the time it would take to sort out the few gems from the pile of ickiness. At least record companies serve as a sort of crap-filter, so the worst musicians don't get as much play as the best. Majors tend to serve this purpose badly (hence Britny, Christina, Mariah, etc.), but a great many indies server this purpose very well (4AD, Sub Pop, etc.). I WANT a crap-filter between bad bands and my computer; I just wish people would support a million indie labels rather than five majors.
With all due respect, IMO your post typifies the free-as-in-beer attitude some people within open-source take. That's not a compliment. You want music to be free-as-in-beer? Make it yourself.
-brennan
I feel for the artists in many cases, I really do; I mean, I'm a musician too. And I understand that the crux of their argument is that if people appreciate their art, musicians should rightfully be compensated for their efforts. But in my own situation, Metallica isn't asking me to pay for the art, they're asking me to pay for the *media*. Does this change things? Hmm. All I know is that I don't feel so bad; I used to have a closet full of Metallica t-shirts, and I even bought two copies of "Puppets" back in the day because my tape player ate the first one. I think they've gotten enough money from me.
-brennan
I know what you're saying, and no doubt it doesn't exactly warm the heart to envision board meetings where companies coldly calculate a cost-benefit analysis to giving to charity, and even *which* charity. But, pragmatically speaking...(shrug)
-brennan
If you mean that social responsibility in general is complete bullshit, you're just being silly and reactionary. Can you *possibly* believe that turning a blind eye to social issues and not holding companies responsible for their actions is the best way to insure social justice? If so, I suggest you do just a small amount of research before spouting off about the evil socially conscious people.
In regards to the original topic, didn't I hear somewhere that Bill Gates wants to give his fortune away before he dies (leaving some for his kids, of course)? If so, I wonder what, exactly, he'll do with it? $50 billion or so could change a hell of a lot of lives.
-brennan
-brennan
If G.W. Bush is elected president, I see Roe v. Wade getting overturned within two years, and I see school prayer getting the okay as well. I just got done calling my senators to express opposition to the flag desecration amendment (would eventually outlaw desecrating the U.S. flag), but I'm betting that it'll pass regardless. Sure, Vermont okayed same-sex unions, but California strongly rejected gay marriage, as have the great majority of states. Now the whole WAVE thing.
Look, I don't hate religious people, or pro-lifers, or conservatives in general. But they seem to want people like me gone, and I'm getting closer and closer to happily obliging them. I'm not sure if I want to raise kids in this country; not because of violence, but because of the political atmosphere.
In other words, you're not a eurotrash weenie; I agree wholeheartedly.
-brennan
I understand the bind that Netpliance is in, but they really should have been more careful when these things first came out. If they can't make money without attaching the internet service (which obviously they can't), then they should have thought of that in the first place and acted appropriately.
-brennan
The only instance I can recall where a big artist tried to give away music was Public Enemy; Chuck D is a big proponent of mp3s and put an entire record on the net before it was available in stores. Of course, the record company forced him to pull it immediately. See, THEY own the music, not the artist. It is their property.
I dunno. Artists aren't forced to sign contracts, so if the terms of those contracts are unfavorable and they sign anyways, who can complain? But still, any appeal the RIAA makes to "supporting artistry" is laughable. I know a couple of people with recording contracts, one of whom was forced back into the studio by the company to record "more accessible" songs. Those songs, of course, were ones the band threw away because they despised them.
I have little sympathy for the RIAA; if they go out of business, music and artists will still exist, so I'm not sure, really, what use they are these days. One thing seems certain, though: the debate about mp3s has nothing to do with art and artists, and everything to do with money.
-brennan
I think management people sometimes don't appreciate that a knowledgeable tech is worth money. They'd often rather have a cheap, inexperienced person than an expensive, knowledgeable, experienced person. Seems silly to me.
-brennan
Look, I'm assuming you're playing devil's advocate here, but I could give a shit what the religious right thinks is Godly. When they're trying to tell others what they can and cannot view/say/do, I have a BIG problem with that. A secular government that allows pornography, to use your example, is NOT preventing the religious right from not buying it.
Generally speaking, if you're saying that religious people will bring religious convictions with them when they govern, and that it's okay, I totally agree. If you're saying that they should therefore try to codify controversial and restrictive religious beliefs, because God is "the Lord of all, or He isn't Lord at all," I can only hope you never get elected, and that anyone who supports such a position leaves to Caesar what is Caesar's, leaves such decisions to personal conscience, and stays away from Washington.
Religious belief can, does, and should give people a base for their convictions and values, but government (i.e. law) in the US is secular. If you don't have a secular justification for a law, or it promotes religion, as far as I'm concerned it has no place in the public arena; it's private and should stay that way. I have no interest in having my actions limited by Christian fundamentalists.
-brennan