Slashdot Log In
Metallica's "Justice" And Napster
from the the-free-music-wars-get-bloody-and-ugly dept.
Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music on the Net than for its hits of yore. Even before the week was out, the rap group Dr Dre had followed suit. And Dr Dre took the music wars a step farther by threatening to sue music downloaders as well as the Web sites they use.
Metallica's lawsuit, filed two weeks ago in California, charged that Napster encourages music piracy by enabling users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers. The suit named a number of major colleges -- the University of Southern California, Harvard, Yale University (which immediately denied access to Napster through its network connections), and Indiana University. That action caps weeks of intensifying struggles over digitally-distributed music. It's significant, since if powerful schools like Yale cave, which they instantly did, more vulnerable institutions will quickly follow. Individual artists and bands have enough money to launch a wide arrange of expensive lawsuits, and a number of institutions, from colleges to cable service providers, are running for the hills. Early in April, the high-speed cable service provider Cox@HomeSanDiego told several hundred of its customers to stop running Napster or lose their cable modem accounts.
Metallica's lawsuit comes at a significant time legally. Napster and the music industry are already wrangling in federal court over whether the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed nearly two years ago, and the Audio Home Recording Act of l992 (AHRA) are constitutional and applicable to the distribution of music on the Net. Metallica's lawsuit is odd, and almost pointedly gratutious: the recording industry already filed suit filed against Napster in November, and Judge Marily Patel of the Northern California Federal Court is expected to resume testimony on that case next month. It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material. That has an enormous -- potentially devastating, in fact -- impact on the Net as a barrier-free environment where information can move freely.
But rather than wait for the outcomes of these court rulings, Metallica and Dr Dre dramatically clouded the issues surrounding digital music even farther.
"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives," said Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich in a press release. "We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy --- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever -- is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."
It's a disengenuous statement -- the key words being "business standpoint." On the Net, Metallica's music is actually being traded as the "art" it allegedly is, not as a commodity sold by record companies. Ulrich greatly oversimplified what has become one of the most complex and interesting cultural problems arising from the Net: whether conventional notions of copyright can still work in an environment increasingly influenced by the open-source ethic. Metallica apparently couldn't wait for the courts to try to resolve this thorny matter, lest it lose another nickel. This is a strange position for a band who sold most of its CDs in the pre-MP3 era, and which isn't starving.
Metallica may invoke the protection of their art, but lawsuits like this have a chilling effect on free speech and, in this case, on the use of software to transmit information freely. The cautious ISP, college, or business (and almost all of them are lawsuit-wary) will simply ban Napster or anything like it to stay out of potential legal trouble. This is the Net equivalent of what constitutional lawyers call "prior restraint," self-censorship by institutions who block out kinds of information to stay out of potential legal trouble. Traditional media have been radically influenced by the chilling effect of lawsuits. Fact-checkers and lawyers pore over anything even remotely controversial before it appears in papers, books or magazines. To date, the Net has been dramatically freer than the off-line information environment, a major reason it's so much more exciting, diverse and interesting.
"This action raises the same copyright issues as the lawsuit filed against Napster by the recording industry in federal court in San Francisco," Laurence Pulgram, Napster's lawyer, said Friday. "The complaint reads like it was written to inflame the press and intimidate universities rather than to present legal issues to the court. It is hard to understand why plaintiffs -- a group located in the San Francisco Bay Area -- saw it necessary to file a separate action in Los Angeles."
Pulgram got it precisely right, and the reason is pretty obvious. Metallica's suit made news all over the country and scared the wits out of even powerful educational institutions like Yale, whose legal counsel sent this e-mail to the entire university within hours:
"To the members of the Yale community,"As you may have read, a lawsuit has been filed by the rock band, Metallica, against the music file-trading software site, Napster, Inc., and several universities, including Yale. In its lawsuit, Metallica makes claims of copyright infringement.
"The University is strongly committed to protecting intellectual property. In February we specifically alerted our residential college community to the requirements of Federal copyright law as they apply to individual use of Napster. See .
"The University condemns violation of copyright laws, as our policies and procedures clearly state. We also want to assist students and others in understanding and complying with the requirements of those laws. For information on University policies and procedures related to this issue, see www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html and www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html.
"Until we can clarify the legal issues surrounding Napster, access to napster.com will not be available from the Yale network. We will keep you apprised of developments."
The lawsuit seems also clearly meant to call attention to some of the more noxious provisions of the DMCA, which holds colleges and other institutions liable for copyright infringement unless they take active steps to remove from their Web sites software that transmits copyrighted material.
For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous. Confronted with the spectre of wealthy rock groups filing lawsuits along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), many more schools are expected to deny access to Napster as the result of Friday's court action.
Metallica's self-righteous and curiously unknowing statement doesn't take into account the fact that millions of Americans have been accessing free music for years now, and have come to see their music archives as both a right and an integral part of their lives. Nor will the lawsuit encourage artists or the music industry to explore the many alternative -- yet still profitable -- models of distribution that reflect the new realities of the Internet. Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.
Free and downloadable music will always be available to college kids with enough bandwith -- there remain hundreds, if not thousands of music- sharing software programs all over the Web, including AIM and ICQ.
Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands. Many artists have welcomed the spread of digital music distribution, claiming it frees them from the monopolistic control (and high cost of dealing with) record companies, permits them to reach new audiences, and generates interest in new forms of music. Meanwhile, Variety reports, the record companies made record profits last year -- $15 billion -- despite the endless handwringing about online pirates and the epidemic of lawsuits.
Ownership of ideas and creative works is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue. Institutions like Yale seem to have little idea what mayhem they're encouraging when get panicked into shutting down Napster, even before those issues are discussed or adjudicated. In bringing this lawsuit, Metallica has pitted itself against the nature of the Net, and its own fans -- especially working-class kids without T-2 lines who listen to the band's music.
Metallica's efforts to shroud its greed and publicity-seeking in morality is as transparent as it is self-righteous. The band ought to get its wish. Fans might consider stopping trading, downloading -- or buying -- the band's music in any form until it permits educational, legal and artistic institutions to try to come to grips with the new realities of law on the digital frontier.
Living Up to Their Lyrics (Score:2)
Problem with Napster (Score:2)
Of course no one will ever argue that in a court of law, but it does seem to be the real issue.
oy (Score:2)
Oh, isn't that _special_. I'm told their recent albums suck and are really weak and lame compared to when they were hungrier. Don't talk to me about grueling creative process :P want to talk grueling? I'm reading this after pulling an all-nighter 12-hour-continuous composing session on the techno album I'm producing- an album which pushes a lot of limits such as tonalities and metrical forms. I have to stay up because I'm heading to the bank to deposit all the change in my pocket after blowing my checkbook to a shriveled heap paying for unexpected rip fees on promotional posters for my released album, "anima". And what does Lars want to do to help out? He wants to take mp3 away from me, to poison the well. Granted, my life would be simpler right now if I did _not_ have access to worldwide media (through of course the obligatory link [mp3.com] to my music, which kicks butt in many ways), and it would be easier on me if I had no hope of being a working musician after the open-source independent coder model. Do I thank him for attempting to simplify my life by limiting my horizons? I don't f**king think so.
He's _coasting_. Grueling creative process, hell. Grueling creative process, Lars, is when you're running low on food and you're sick and you're exhausted but you keep going anyway because there is this thing programmers know about called Deep Hack Mode, and DIY musicians know about this as well, know that the journey is the goal.
Plus, I hear that Metallica's recent albums are caving in to commercial expectations and are soft and inoffensive compared to their earlier, hungrier stuff, so it annoys me to see him talking in grandiose terms of their Creativity and Where Metallica Is At That Very Moment In Their Lives. Spare me- if they are becoming old and stale who cares if it's depicted honestly in their music? If I said the piece I just uploaded was Where I Am At At This Very Moment In My Life, they'd put me away ;) it's crazy music, pushes boundaries real hard- uses fiendish polyrhythms and has a midsection where the whole track simply goes insane with schizophrenic counterpoint for a little while. I _like_ music like that and will never get it from the mainstream industry again- the days when they'd release, say, Beefheart's "The Spotlight Kid" with 'Click Clack' doing that, are gone. But that daring is alive because suck it up and deal, I am going to do what _I_ like to hear and mp3 lets me get it heard. I'll fight for that as long as I have breath in my body.
Only one link today- I'm exhausted, disenchanted, people are _still_ behaving like the mainstream industry needs protecting and coddling (I'd sooner cuddle a cobra) and I have no energy to beg after the all-nighter. Much deep thanks to the Slashdotter who apparently bought my CD for $5.99- I love you man (or woman as the case may be) and would love to know who you were, thank you more personally. I thank everyone who's helped me out with downloads and things- it does matter- did you know musicians fight amongst themselves begging each other for a simple download? That's how tough it is to get indie credibility after decades of industry brainwashing. The site (mp3.com), run by mad Michael, is thinking of putting 'pay for play' income on each artist's page, and many people are flipping out, saying "If my fans see that I only made 12 cents that day, they'll leave and not listen to me anymore!" If that _is_ true, it's sad- and incredibly, horribly wrong. Personally, I don't mind that being posted about me because I don't pretend to be anything other than I am- underground, outmarketed, and I need help. But now I'm tired, f**k it, moderate this down into oblivion because I don't count and am not a REAL musician, don't go visit that page in the one link I habitually gave, whatever.
I'm still going to make music anyway. This time in history may just quietly close down and music will never have a freedom movement like programming had with Linux- maybe the RIAA will win and I'll be back to copying off cassette tapes for friends (assuming that is still allowed! The physical media could simply be unavailable to consumers, eventually). But I will still make music anyway- I did it for almost 20 years, secluded in my room with nobody listening, and I can go back to that if that 'broadcasting', mp3 and do-it-yourself and embattled websites- gets turned OFF. And it won't be because I didn't kick up a fuss- it will be from people trying to protect what they see as the music aristocracy, Prince Lars and his creative sensitiveness. *gag* funny, I could have sworn I didn't get any sleep and so this couldn't be a nightmare, could it?
Re:Intellectual property (Score:2)
If I can do that, then other people can do it, to the extent of their general musical wonderfulness. Currently I'm at the 100-150 songs a day level when things are going well, and I'll sell a CD from time to time. If I make even better music, this will improve. Will it escalate madly and make me filthy rich? I would ask where is the justification for _anybody_ to become that kind of rich just for making cool-sounding noises. I think the natural level for this is more in line with, say, a really good tailor, or a weaver of beautiful scarves. Once you've done music for the love of it for 15 years or more, you end up pretty capable of pleasing _somebody_ whatever your style is- and that is the natural outcome of loving and practicing music.
I _so_ agree with roamer. Let the musicians starve! I am, and you know, it doesn't hurt _that_ badly :) and I'm apparently freer to pursue _my_ idea of what Music should be, than the major label whores. Somehow I think I am better off...
Re:My God, are you all sheep? (Score:2)
There's an argument for intellectual property, but the music industry is Not It. I, as a musician who's done some homework, would have to basically support anything that acts to cut down the music industry and lessen their power. They _are_ as bad as Microsoft in their own sphere, and you need to talk to some insiders and get an idea how bad things are before you let them off the hook. An outsider might find "MS and Apple's sole ability to play DVDs on a home computer" as justifiable as you find the music industry's status quo- does that make them an authority on it? I would suggest that with the DVDs, you've done the homework and know better than they do what's at stake. I'm suggesting that Napster is an indirect and ass-backwards attack on something that desperately needs to be cut down to size.
Re:That Issue is Dead (Score:2)
Actually what you are seeing is: McCartney, Metallica, Dre all own VANITY IMPRINTS on existing major labels which are really calling the shots. There are virtually no real indie labels left anymore- they are greatly outnumbered by vanity imprints and faux indies. I agree that they are businessmen, but they certainly do not own labels- they own decorations and a special name to put on major label releases for the purpose of giving the releases a cachet of small private-label flavor. It's down to about 5 huge conglomerates (4?) by now, with all the formerly major labels (Virgin, EMI/Harvest, Rough Trade, you name it) subsidiaries of one of the conglomerates. There is no 'industry' in the normal sense of the word. It's essentially one very large machine with many different colored stickers to stick on the product. That, not Metallica or Dre, is what's suing. Lars and Dre are simply showing unusual willingness to be their master's lackeys.
Re:In the very long term... (Score:2)
Re:Attack the right issues (Score:2)
Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:2)
First off, Jon Katz is not in the music business, is not a member of Metallica (thank God!) and has never managed them. This gives Jon Katz exactly ZERO right to say how Metallica should licence their music.
If Metallica wish to GPL or BSD some of their music, fine! If they don't, oh well! Either way, it's nobody else's business but theirs as to what licence is used for THEIR music.
Secondly, Jon Katz is sounding like this is a done deal. Sorry, but there's this guy called a judge, who - uh - sorta listens to both sides and says who's in the right, here.
So far as I know, Jon Katz has not been called to the Bar, and is not the duly-selected judge to preside this case.
Thirdly, this has nothing to do with Free Music (ie: music distributed under an Open Source-type licence), which absolutely NONE of the music in question is.
Stealing is stealing (Score:2)
Remember the flap about Be using some ethernet drivers without following the terms of the license? Is this any different? I don't think so.
Why is it that the fact that the copyright on the material in question is owned by some large corporation changing perspectives so much? Fundamentally, the amount of wealth and power that the copyright holder has shouldn't be altering the equation one bit.
Making copies without the copyright holder's permission is wrong, both morally and legally.
Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:2)
As a band promotion tool, Napster makes little sense. Say you have a band and want to get the word out. Which do you do:
(a) Set up a web site with bios, photos, a mailing list and some MP3s
(b) Put your material up on mp3.com or some similar site
(c) Put a bunch of mp3 files, with no information or contact details other than filenames and ID3 tags, on a file server and hook it up to a centralised search engine so that surfers can download them
Clearly (c) doesn't facilitate selling CDs, promoting upcoming shows or forging any sort of relationship with the audience, but merely serving out the files. Which makes it a lousy solution for promoting a band, but a great one for swapping large amounts of pirated music with strangers.
Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of the recording industry, I personally think MP3 is great, and I believe that the big labels deserve to be taken down a few notches. However, in this case, Napster have a little bit too much chutzpah.
Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:2)
>transmission of MP3s. And most MP3's are
>illegally owned. Yes, I've got some MP3's I've
>ripped for personal usage, I don't use Napster,
>but still, most MP3's are illegal. (And most
>people seem not to want Final Fantasy VII's OST -
>but anyway...)
So you're saying that since "most" mp3s are
illegal, that's an excuse to infringe on the
perfectly valid uses of Napster?
I wonder if there are statistics for firearms like
this. Would you advocate the abolishment of
firearms if it turned out most were used by
criminals? What if it was "most bullets" instead
of most firearms? What if a study is done, and we
find that 51% of mp3s are legitimate, and 49% are
pirated? Where do you draw the line?
I don't have those statistics. And, for that
matter, nobody has those kinds of statistics for
mp3s, either. We're just taking reasonable guesses
based on observations. However, Napster _does_
have legitimate purposes and it _is_ being used in
that fashion.
>FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of
>binary data, and the person with the server is
>responsible for the information which goes over
>those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to
>allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of
>free ISO images, or the latest open source
>project I'm working on. All of this would be
>legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up
>through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most
>people) illegal.
And here you are _wrong_. Under US law, your ISP
is not help responsible for your illegal content
until they are notified about it. At which point,
most ISPs react by removing the content, and
terminating the offender's account. This is
EXACTLY what Napster has been doing, even going so
far as to ban the ips of offenders to insure that
they don't just sign on under a new username.
The people to blame (and sue) in this case would
be the end user, or the ISP if it failed to remove
the illegal content. ISPs are NOT required to
actively check every file on their system to see
whether it's legal or not. They're only
responsible for the things they've been notified
of.
As I said previously, and I'll say again (and
again):
The people the RIAA, the MPAA, Metallica, Dr. Dre,
and the rest should be suing are the people
pirating the software. You don't sue the car
manufacturer for providing the get-away car. You
don't sue the ski-mask maker for making the ski
mask. You DO sue the person that pirates the
files. You DO sue the person that is responsible
for making them publicly available. You do NOT sue
that person's ISP, nor that ISP's backbone
provider. Nor do you sue the manufacturer of that
person's computer.
The dangers of this suit are what's being
attacked, and the precedent that it sets. I
personally believe that copyright infringement is
wrong, and should be stopped. But this NOT the way
to do it.
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
There is a reason that doesn't get moderated up...what kind of explanation for theft is 'I can't afford to legally buy them'. Most people can't afford a Ferrari either...you don't see people heisting them.
When you steal a Ferrari, the owner won't have it anymore. SO YOUR POINT IS VOID, EMPTY, NULL, NADA, BOLLOCKS, NICHTS, RIEN DU TOUT.
(PS: are you really at microsoft.com?)
When you don't have the right ... (Score:2)
... take the left.
Oh how much I hate moralizing Anonymous Cowards. Stealing from a poor person is extremely bad. Stealing from an undecently wealthy bastard is just fair.
Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:2)
Flame all you want, I'll post more
Speaking of which, you could really use some training in this area yourself.
You have shown quite conclusively that you are one of the retarded acneic teenagers that you seem to despise so much.
I'm not a teenager, I don't have acne, though I *might* be retarded depending on one's point of view. You should have phrased that as you're no better than an ..., that would have made more sense.
I would recommend that you back up for a second, reread your post, take a deep breath, and chant "It's only Slashdot, It's only Slashdot".
This is slashdot, and that is why I feel free to speak freely.
Most people who have passed their retarded acneic teenage years can find more constructive ways to counter an argument besides poorly thought out sarcasm and name calling.
As I said, you could really use some help and training in flaming and rhetoric. It was not an "argument" to begin with. It was opinion. Look that up for yourself in a dictionary [m-w.com], you might feel enlightened.
And then ... here comes an actual argument: I've done name calling, I'm not ashamed of it, and I invite you to ask yourself ... what's worse, speaking one's mind strongly and honestly, or sueing Universities for bogus reasons just because you have the money and power to do so?
Hope this helps, too.
Re:Attack the right issues (Score:2)
Actually, if you copy music and don't buy a legal copy, you are in fact stealing. From whom, now, this is the issue.
What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst.
Not necessarily. It's just the most convenient weapon we have. What's easier, writing letters and going on marches, or by letting technology dictate behavior continue to go the easy way which is to continue downloading illegal music and allowing the technology and the behavior to apply pressure for you. It makes civil disobedience easy and rewarding. The problem is at this point prosecuting MP3 pirates is as effective as prosecuting jaywalkers in NYC. And, as long as this happens, the strength of anti-piracy law will be reduced to the point that it will be as strong as NYC anti-jaywalking law.
The real question that will be asked when the recording industry is hurt enough long enough is, how do we make money under the new market rules? The artistic side of the music world has broken down into 2 camps, the indies who love net-distributed music, and the corporate wh0res that see it as a threat to their 10-Ks. But ultimately, as long as it is easy and cheap to pirate music, their views are irrelevant.
I'm just disappointed that Metallica and Dr. Dre are simply enriching lawyers at the expense of their targets and the goodwill of their fanbase. That money would be better spent tryign to find a fair solution that allows music consumers to stay legal at a reasonable price, whcih could possibly include buying themselves out of their record company and providing legal downloads.
Your Working Boy,
lowpass.net to sue napster. (Score:2)
Keeping in line with their commitment to staying on the cutting edge of even the shadiest of trends and technologies; burgeoning e-Meat company Low Pass Industries today issued a chilling condemnation of Napster, the online service that allows users to download and trade music recorded in MP3 format.
In the fifty-eight page spirographed letter, Low Pass Industries demands that an MP3 stolen from their website Sunday morning by "evil yet strikingly handsome black leather trenchcoat clad hackers with uzis and possibly the Force as their allies," be immediately removed from Napster's "computer" or else "serious legal repercussions would ensue," and added that if they failed to comply, Low Pass Industries would, "kill them."
Low Pass Industries flatly denies all allegations that this is simply a hoax to gain a foothold in the rapidly expanding MP3 litigation industry. They also asserted that the claims Low Pass Industries planted the MP3s on Napster themselves as an underhanded advertising technique were both baseless and, "so crazy."
The MP3, entitled "The Marshall Mathers LP -- Gold Digger" began appearing on Napster on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, and was promptly downloaded by thousands of Napster's shifty-eyed criminal user base.
"Any resemblance between our advertisement and a song off of the highly anticipated new Eminem album are totally coincidental," said a Low Pass representative through a mouthful of Chow Mein at an adjoining press conference with an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet. "Being a thriving, dynamic company unafraid of challenges however, we are excited to have been given this opportunity to become world leaders in the exciting field of copyright litigation."
The threat also goes on to accuse Napster of stealing Low Pass Industries' idea to "completely screw Metallica," and suggests often and in capital letters that suing for damages may not be that far off into the future. It alleges with colourful illustrations that in the Fall of '99, several high-ranking employees of Napster had access to confidential Low Pass Industries memos with flamboyant titles such as: "SCREW LARS" and "METALLICA SUCKS" and that all subsequent attempts by Napster and their affiliates to rob Metallica and keep them homeless and poor and begging for change on the street forever were born out of these memos.
The letter also claimed that there were well over ten other artists which Low Pass Industries had first suggested screwing and as such are entitled to a cut of anything they are subsequently screwed out of.
"We hope to have this matter resolved soon and with the best results for both parties involved," said another Low Pass Industries representative, while drunk.
Re:Napster promotes CD Sales. (Score:2)
This analogy doesn't work when comparing traditional media to napster and mp3-broadcasting stations.
Music on the radio isn't "free". The radio station has to keep very careful records of what they play, and based on the ratings, they pay royalties to the RIAA (which distributes them proportionaly to the labels who own the recordings played), and to the publishing companies (BMI/ASCAP/SOCAN).
The radio stations advertise in order to collect the money that goes to the royalty payments. The music isn't free. Like "Yahoo", its paid for by advertising.
This is the reason the RIAA is going after 'net broadcasters. Net broadcasting (shoutcast, real-producer, etc...) is likely going to have to go to an advertising model 'cause the royalties for playing the music still need to be paid.
The problem with the RIAA approach is that they charge far too much relative to the size of the listening audience. Why should someone pay $5000 + royalties that reflect an audience of 10,000, when they have records (its all digitially logged anyways, automatically) showing that they've never had an audience more than 100 listeners at a time? Economically, the RIAA is actually pricing most 'net broadcasters out of business. And I'm inclined to believe its intentional.
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
Yes, the Record Companies are money grabbing bastards, and yes, they should be made to stop ripping us off. That doesn't alter the above statement though.
Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it? Do you think weekend artists would be as skilled on average as full time artist?
Then maybe they should get a "real" job, unless, like some idiot said here a while back, you believe that anyone who makes music *must* be compensated for it. That's like saying anyone who plays football should be compensated, just because they are playing. The fact of the matter is that to make any money at "play" you have to be damn good at it, so good that people are willing to pay just to watch you play.
I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to. Nice to see that you discuss your point of view rationally, rather than resulting to name calling.
If I am the person you're referring to, then you misinterpreted what I said. I believe that if someone creates something, they are entitled to ask whatever price they want for it, and if someone wants to benifit from that creation, they are required to pay the price. I don't think they must be compensated simply for creating. There's a significant difference.
If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it. That's fine, and it's fair. It isn't fair for people who want the creation to obtain it without paying the creator's price. If you don't like the price, go elsewhere, or wait and see if the creator reduces their price. You could even try to convince the creator to lower the price, or perhaps convince them to change to a diferent business model. But simply obtaining the benefits of their work is
It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways." You either pay the price, or find someone else who's got cucumbers at a lower price.
Money and Mouth (Score:2)
Been out of town, sadly, so didn't get to join in this discussion from the start. Bunch of you have e-mailed me asking if I would mind if my columns were stolen and distributed for free. Fact is, they are.
My columns and others here are reprinted all over the place. I don't get paid and when asked, don't charge. My belief is that I...like music authors..need to change the way money comes in. Despite suggestions to the contrary, I have very little money. But my belief is that the more people read my work, the more valuable I will become as a writer.
I don't believe I can charge for my work in a traditional copyrighted way. So my columns are often reprinted, linked to or excerpted and I don't get money or expect any. People are free to use my work in whatever way they want. This many make me stupid or crazy..many people here have suggested both. But I believe that the Net presents new challenges for writers and artists. So my choice is simple: I can get a lawyer to write threatening letters to people who quote my columns, or I can find new ways to earn a living. Those would be become widely read enough so that I can charge flat fees for my work. I have a contract with Slashdot, for example. I get paid as a freelance writer a flat fee per year. I don't expect or receive five bucks every time somebody reprints or quotes from my column. I want them to.
I am not writing about this issue from a position of remote detachment..I feel it's time people came up a with a better way to deal with the movement of ideas than antiquated copyright laws, which just don't work in an Internet Age. Some have asked if I mind that people digitalize and distribute my books. It's a good question. I'd love to make money and pay my bills, but I can't say tht I do mind a lot. I'm happy when people see my work, pro or con, and believe that will ultimately take care of me.
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
Bully for you, and entirely irrelevant. Unless you are only collecting mp3's for things that you own already, in which case you still don't need Napster.
"First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..."
So because you have "rarified tastes", you suddenly have carte blanche to steal whatever you want. I'm sure that the stuff is available somewhere, otherwise, it wouldn't be available as mp3's. You could always try and join/build a community of trancers, that would let people know what's new, and good, and where to get it. I'm sure that you could legitimately pay for what you use, if you only wanted to.
"Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA..."
So don't buy the stuff you don't like. And everyone buys CD's that have dreck on them. Just don't buy more from that band, if you don't like the direction that they're going. If it's worth stealing tho, it ought to be worth buying. Caveat Emptor. And if it's available outside the US, I'm sure that there is some channel that you could use to get it here as well. What with all the online music vendors.
"Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise."
So because it's a "victimless crime", it's perfectly ok? Or because you're poor, you should have a different set of guidelines, than someone that makes more money? Get a job. If the music is so important to you, that you HAVE TO HAVE IT, then get a second job. It's a matter of priorities. The things that really matter to you, you can find a way to facilitate.
"Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase."
So because you are stealing from people that might be better able to afford it, it's suddenly acceptable? I'm sure that breaking and entering, carries a much lighter sentence when you bust into Bill Gates's house, than when you bust into mine. Makes sense. Yeah, record company greed does suck. But just because they are greedy, doesn't justify the fact that you are too. Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?
"The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews."
If you don't like the sales help, don't patronize the store. The fact that you don't like the salesclerks at Tower Records, doesn't suddenly give you carte blanche to steal the products elsewhere. And sure buying online is a risk, you don't know if you'll like what you're buying. In case you didn't catch it earlier, it's called caveat emptor. Buyer beware. Build a community of friends whose tastes you do trust. Find legitimate samples of the musicians work, so you can taste before you buy. Become an informed consumer, rather than a petty theif.
"I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on."
I'm sure you do love it. You get to take whatever you want, without actually having to walk into a store, and risk getting popped for shoplifting. It's great for you. But you're not the only person involved. The artists have rights as well, and in stealing their work, you are trampling all over their rights.
Re:It is piracy (Score:2)
Purely anectodotal, but I am a college student (doing ok financially at this point) who uses napster from time to time. This year I have purchased 4 CDs that I wouldn't have even considered except I came upon them somewhat by accident - for example a group remixed by one I was looking for. I have also downloaded tracks that I was too lazy to rip myself (yes, it is easier to click one button than to dig up my CD and start up cdparanoia, then notlame, then set the ID3 tags correctly). The best part of Napster though is downloading remixes and live tracks that you just can't find anywhere else.
Of course, this is all anectdotal, and I know there are people out there with 30GB of music that they will never listen to.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
Actually, in this case your establishment would be subject to civil forfeiture, meaning that the government could confiscate your establishment without even having to provide any evidence of wrongdoing on your part. Your only recourse would be to post 10% of the value of your establishment, then go to court and prove that your establishment wasn't used to sell drugs. Under the tortured logic of our "drug" laws, your property is presumed guilty unless you can prove it innocent.
Don't presume that your constitutional rights apply when you are charged with a drug crime. They don't anymore.
Check out fear.org [fear.org]
Remember... (Score:2)
I challenge anyone to name one instance where a "Copyright" has helped a consumer, rather than an information-hoarder.
And this justifies it how? (Score:2)
In addition, this "information wants to be free" line is crap. There is no way in hell anyone could have ever produced an exact copy of metallica's mp3s. In other words, Metallica's attempts to stop the illegal distribution of mp3 of their CDs does nothing to stop the legitimate sharing of "free" music. Unlike the possible argument with other forms of IP protection, it does not possibly restrain anyone from indepedantly creating their own works. Metallica would only produce their music if they could make a living from it, and maybe even a "killing". Thus, given the choice between everything being "free" (read: No metallica) versus somethings costing money (read: metallica), even the rational cheapskate should prefer the latter. Even if the person personally don't want to purchase (or lack the funds) Metallica, they can still listen to it on the radio, copy their music, and generally benefit from its existence.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
I really fail to see any legitmate use to Napster. If someone has a legitmate need to listen to a CD, they can listen to the CD, convert the track themselves, or register with Beam-It, tell Beam-It they have the CD, prove it, and be able to listen to it from anywhere.
When 90%+ of the material Napster's network is illegal, obviously the idea, if it was a legitmate one to start out with, isn't working as planned and should be completely scrapped and revamped.
Telling artists that their music should be free is like everyone saying that you know, sysadmins, network technicians, and programmers should do their work for free since they enjoy it so much... Maybe they can make money training other IT professionals, making motivational speaches, or something like that. They made their career choice just as everyone here did, or will once they graduate college.
If the problem is that there's only one or two good songs on the CD, don't buy the CD. Find better artists that are able to produce a whole album's worth of good material. They still do exist, you know...
Re:I think I buy it though (Score:2)
end $3 mil in sales is no different than $3.5 mil
Well why stop there? I could just as easily say that $2.5 mil is no different than your $3 mil. And $2 mil's should be plenty for anyone, who really needs $2.5 mil? Our forefathers somehow managed to thrive without being multimillionaires, and they're a Hell of a lot smarter than most people around today, so nobody should need more than $1 million. But ya know, Metallica alreay has a $20 million recording contract, so it's not like they'd even notice whether or not they got that extra $1 million -- that settles it, all their music should be free.
Any argument starting with the premise that someone has too much money, or more than they need, is an inherently evil one with the real purpose wanting to take away your freedom to do what you want with your own money. Why the fsck is it any of your business how much I make, how much you think I need, or whether or not I decide to blow it all on the most frivolous, self-indulgent crap ever known to man. Mind your own damn business.
(And when I say "you" up there, I'm talking about the general you, not aiming that at you, Vince.)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2)
Defenfing Napster.. Futility? (Score:2)
However I use it for lissening to on-line talk shows like Geeks in space [thesync.com] and Leet Radio [booze.org].
Napster is a great tool for distributing sound. Be it talk radio, Internet artists or CDs you bought from the store.
I'd like to defend Napster but everyone else seems to defend Napster as a tool for piracy.
That dosn't help the case...
The DCMA puts Napster in a bad position. Napster distributes high quality audio. It dosn't have to be made as a tool for piracy..
Under the old copyright laws Napster would have to be designed to devalue intelectual property.
Usenet can devalue IP.. Type a whole book into a computer or better yet scan it it and use an OCR program. Post it to usenet.. or on a website. You just pirated a book. Is Usenet or the web designed for this? No. It dosn't stop anyone from trying.
One usenet newsgroup was named "Gigabites of copyright violations"....
But that dosn't change Usenet into a website for copyright violations.
On the other hand how can I defend Napster and Napster users?
When every argument I see on Slashdot is a defence of IP theft and not of Napster for lagit uses.
Napster users are the fans (Score:2)
Think about it, most of the people on napster are college students. I know there are a lot of others on there too but most of the users tend to be young and poor. They are also the ones who tend to love music the most, but they are also the ones with the most limited income in general. I would never go out and buy most of the music I download, I'll admit it, but the reason is I can't afford $15+ for each piece of music I want to hear. I may only want to hear it once. I have a totally different taste of music now thanks to napster. I have been exposed to almost every different type of music there is and it is great; it's the way it should be. I guess I have to admit, I have not bought a cd since I started using napster, but I have gone to see a lot more bands in concert than I would ever had. Whenever I hear of a band coming to town the first thing I do is get on napster and check them out. Anyone else who does this knows how great it is.
The point is, piracy is great and you are never going to be able to convince people otherwise. We all know how awsome free information is, just look at all we get off the internet for free. Why do pay services not work on the internet? People do not want to pay for things they can get for free from somewhere else. It's a sad fact but it is so true. In the end, music will not die, it will just change. Just look at the bands that support trading of theor music between fans, bands like phish, the grateful dead, and marley among others. Look how well they have done. They make their money from performing for their fans. If bands are serious about their music and not money, this is how it should be. No one would agree that money is not nice to have, but how much do they deserve and how much does the industry deserve. I would not mind at all paying 50cents for a song, they get less than that anyway. Perhaps a pay per use to a certain extent would be good also. Listen once for free, 5 cents for each use after that until you hit 50 cents then you own it. I know people do not like these schemes and of course there will be ways around it, but if you really want to support the bands directly and not get screwed by bad music it's a descent plan. You must be able to listen once for free though. The only problem is, schemes like this must be accepted by all as fair. There will always be mp3's or a way around any copy protection scheme. The system has to be accepted by the users to make it work. Anything else is doomed. Forgive my speeling mistakes, I spent way to long typing this and must go before proofreading.
Re:Intellectual Property (Score:3)
But that's exactly the point - they are suing "the ease of doing it" instead of the people that do it.
While I admit that this would be practicly impossible that ought to be the only way to do it.
This suit doesnt go anywhere. If they'd be more consequent they should just sue Cisco and 3Com and whoever for building routers and network cards also.
The internet and its inherent possibilities are a fact now - we should either try to live with it or else shut the whole damn thing down. The fact that Napster is mainly used illegaly is mainly because there is no legal alternative that offers the same functionality/features. I actually liked the idea of paylars.com - give musicians money for the songs you like/listen to. I dont know why none of the big recording companies hasnt yet come up with an intelligent idea for marketing mp3s (well, probably because musicians would soon realize that they dont need them) but that isnt my problem. And it certainly shouldnt be the problem of Universities...
Argh... I'll just stop now...
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
I think they got it almost right - it's more along the lines of a commercial-government complex - the government in this country does not listen to it's citizens - it listens to the dollar sign and money'd interests. Which is dissapointing, considering that we were supposed to be a democracy.
I have yet to find an (informed) individual out there who agrees that the DMCA is necessary, or that Metallica should be suing it's fans (great way to encourage sales, eh?). I DO however see on a daily basis the rising frustration with our government - it is largely ineffective at solving the day to day problems people want solved.
Here's what people want solved - they want their big screen TVs, SUVs and low gas prices. They want job security and freedom from advertising/marketing. They want access to the internet so they can easily satisfy their need for entertainment - whether it be listening to music, reading/watching the evening news, grabbing the latest Southpark episode. They want to watch the Matrix on anything with a DVD player, or for that matter the Titanic or the next "chick-flick".
The flip-side of this is that they want to feel safe doing this - they want to explore the internet without fear that some government or corporation is watching their every move. They want to be able to hop online and gossip about the above-mentioned things. They want to be able to do it as easily and efficiently as possible.
As geeks, we built the infrastructure to allow this - most of it, anyway. Online people can satisfy their entertainment needs. With alittle help from software we produced, they can also provide a good measure of privacy for themselves. They can e-mail their friends to gossip, or hop into chatrooms. Key point: people are going to keep doing the same things online that they were doing in the real world before the 'net existed.
Now along comes the corporations and say "Hey, where's my share?" And then all hell breaks loose - the government "swings" into action at about 1 foot a fortnight and starts passing draconian legislation, trying to restrict these people's newfound freedom (freedom of choice, not freedom of speech) - and they are rightfully pissed.
This is the core of the matter, and why people are pounding their fists on the table - they have everything they want.. and now some greedy corporation is coming to make it harder to get ahold of, more expensive, and less appealing. Only one problem - it is backfiring badly for the corporations - they trained these people to blindly consume and consume and consume.. and now they can't make them stop.
It's going to be a long, bloody, legal war to get this one straightened out.
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
You mean ftp, right? We should all go and sue everybody whose code ever got into any ftp software. Or maybe you mean Usenet? That's even better -- let's sue all sites that carry news. Or maybe you mean the web -- you know, this newfangled way to "transfer material to anyone else in the world instantaneously"? Then we can sue AOL (current owners of Netscape) and Microsoft -- woo-hoo! We'll be coming into some serious money!
Kaa
Metallica's Roots.. (Score:3)
What about the 15-16 yr olds that aren't making much money, but want to hear the orignal "Garage Days" CD and cannot pay the large marked up price? "Sorry kid, you can't hear our 'art' if you don't have the cash" Does this seem like somthing an artist would say?
Will Picasso sue me next for having my wallpaper set to one of his paintings downloaded from the net?
I also enjoy hearing live stuff, and there aren't many metallica albums live. Would they rather not have thier music heard unless it means turning a dollar for every song?
I'm disenchanted... They owe allmost everything to there fans... Oh well... I still have Nine Inch Nails. They might have an internet-only album out in 4-5 months.
"Justice has been raped..."
Snoop
What I'm doing about the Metallica lawsuit (Score:3)
Now, I think I'll ask Jason's mom (who I know) for his address so I can return the picture, and also every tape of theirs that I own. I think it's really sick for a band who's perhaps the most famous in its genre to start whining about revenue lost to Napster. I mean, who can even find "kill em all" anymore? Why not trade it around?
But, even if they want to whine about that, it's their legal right. It disgusts me, but they're entitled, I guess. But to attack universities, which are non-profit organizations, even when they're ivy league, is just wrong. And moreover, this is an oblique attack on a freakin' tool, which is just as easily used for good as harm.
Yes, I know about the ratio of legal-to-illegal stuff traded on Napster. But it is a significant, if misguided, statement by thousands of people that they're sick of the markup the RIAA would have them pay. And instead of reaching out to their fans, Metallica -- who are all millionaires, BTW -- has decided to pitch a fit about a few thousand dollars in lost revenue.
So, maybe I can get one of their home addresses, and while I think it'd be irresponsible to spread that around the internet, I don't feel bad about sending a letter or two there. Anyone else want to send back your tapes/CDs to tell 'em how you feel? Give me a buzz! [mailto]
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
Lets see:
get rid of all ftp servers / clients because I can download warez
get rid of all web servers / clients because I can download kiddie porn
get rid of all guns because their owners are able to commit murder
Do you have a better picture now? MP3's are not inherently illegal anyway!! They have to be copyrighted works to begin with. This fact alone should nullify any suit against them. Look, I know 99% of napster use is illegal, but this is NOT, I repeat NOT the way to go about solving this problem.
There is no solution that works for the average person as well as the corporations. You either end up with a very reactionary and contolling economy and government, or you move to a type of "infromation is free" type of economy. Isn't technology supposed to be for the benefit of all?
It's too late. (Score:3)
The internet is international, and not subject to the laws of one country... Sure Napster might suffer, but the same thing could spring up tomorrow in Canada, France, China, whervere...
Cliche as it is, knowledge is power, and the true force behind the internet is knowledge.
UH, there are no 'pirates' anymore. (Score:3)
Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:4)
However, you're wrong in thinking that this is about stealing. That's what the RIAA, the MPAA, Metallica, and the rest of those people filing lawsuits against Napster and college universities wants you to think.
I live in Bloomington, Indiana, which is the home of Indiana University, one of the colleges initially named in the Metallica lawsuit. Immediately after the lawsuit was filed, University officials were contacted for comment. IU's lawyers have stated that IU was acting legally and responsibly, and that it would have been shielded from any sort of lawsuit like the one Metallica filed, on the grounds that it's a content provider along the same lines as an ISP.
So, with their lawyers telling them that they're in the clear, what do the school officials do? They pull access to Napster. The university that helped Napster restructure its network protocol to minimize bandwidth usage is now _pulling_ from its network the same product it helped reengineer. Apparently, IU (and the other universities pulling Napster access based on an overblown threat of litigation) are more interested in their own pocketbooks than the rights and freedoms of their students.
This lawsuit, and the others like it, long ago went beyond "We wan't just compensation for our work". It's now about control of information, and about control of the Internet.
I don't want _anybody_, whether it's Metallica or the Russian government, telling how and where I can express myself, and that's the fundamental level these lawsuits are operating on.
So what if they win the lawsuits, you might ask?
Well, for starters, they can immediately make moves on the http, ftp, and irc protocols and their authors. Why? Because their encouraging piraacy by allowing for the free transmission of data. What do you think was the primary source for pirated mp3s prior to Napster? And do you honestly think that with a precedent like that that the RIAA and the MPAA would _not_ take advantage of it? This is a case with the capacity of setting a _very_ dangerous precedent, because it asks the question "Is the method of transmission responsible for what's transmitted?".
There are many wonderful real-life analogies that can be drawn here, but I'm sure you can figure them out. What kind of world would it be if you could be sued anytime you helped someone that later went on to do criminal acts?
Suing Napster is one thing. Suing the Universities that provide Napster access is another, and I find it absolutely disgusting that universities are bowing to legal pressure when _their own layers_ are telling them that they're legally safe.
>Making copies without the copyright holder's >permission is wrong, both morally and legally.
I'd like to quickly point out that morality in does not require you to follow written laws. Morals are something that each invidual decides for themselves. Legally, copyright infringement is against law. Morally, it depends entirely on the situation.
Would you infringe someone else's copyright to save a life? Would you be morally wrong for doing so?
Pirated Music != Free Music (Score:4)
Short version: Jon, you're full of crap.
Long version: Jon, arguing that Metallica's exercising of their right to protect their copyright is going to crush the open source movement is equivalent to arguing that a homeowner protecting the crap on his/her lawn from thief is going to destroy the yard sale movement.
Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music
Oh, so because they (were) "rebellious", they can't be concerned about copyrights and other "corporate matters". Give me a break! This is their living. If they didn't care about who was and wasn't buying their records, the Black album, "Load", "Re-Load", "Full'er Up Again", etc., wouldn't happened. (Wait... that might be a good thing...)
IMO, "Free" music is music that is given away for free by the artist. "Pirated" music is music given away for free by someone other than the artist. One has *nothing* to do with the other.
And a final point, if Napster folds and dies because "pirated" music doesn't flow though its service, I don't think it deserved to live in the first place. They even have a policy against piracy; if their survival *depends* on it, doesn't that make them hypocritical?
George Lee
This is why (Score:4)
We're pretty much doomed. (Score:4)
Getting on topic now, I think everyone's just greedy. We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others. Information will also not have limits on it, and limits would be barred.
I doubt this will happen though. People won't live without a way to gain power and control.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:4)
True, if it's going to be hard, why even try... As for the MTV dominated world (it's actually Viacom, who is currently lobbying the FCC to relax network ownership rules, since their recent merger with CBS(?) creates a bunch of illegal situations, luckily for them, they have the money to change the law...), we all shape the world we live in, identifying the bullshit is the first step, throwing it in the garbage is the second.
For one, most tours are conducted at a loss in order to stimulate record sales. The majority of those sales go back to pay back the people that put up the money to record the CD in the first place.
Well then stop losing money on tours. The big cost is promotion. If you let the music free on the Net, that takes care of itself. Tours are NOT money-losing as a rule, just as a side-effect of the current business model, which would have already crumbled into the dust of the past if they didn't have so many lawyers and ways to push music on children.
The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless".
No, the prevailing mentality is that the Internet completely devalues the business model that currently runs the music business. If you enjoy looking at a woman walking down the street, you should be paying for it. It's that simple. (the previous sentence contains sarcasm, parse it accordingly)
The internet may cover the world, but so should respect.
Yes, it should. Respect is a two-way street. The record business hasn't respected consumers since I've been alive, fuck 'em. The artists will come around...when they see what a good time we're having.
--
Napster promotes CD Sales. (Score:5)
Sure. I contend that Napster, and free distribution of MP3 tracks actually promotes CD sales, as opposed to detracting from them.
I base this assertion on the idea that Napster and MP3 is just another way to listen to music. Plain and simple. You can hear music for free on the radio. You can hear music for free on television. You can also hear music for
free on the Internet. Granted, the net now gives you the ability to be VERY specific about what you hear - but common sense tells us that only a tiny fraction of Napster traders actually hoard every MP3 they download and store it in a giant collection, to be pulled from as their only means of listening to music. To think otherwise is
absurd, like saying that most people tape all their music from the radio and only use their cassettes to listen to their favourite tunes.
People buy CDs for many reasons that radio OR MP3 will never be able to undermine. They buy the CD to support the band. They buy the CD because it's a status symbol to have the CD if you call yourself a "fan". You buy the CD to impress your friends with your exceptional musical tastes, the CD sitting on your music shelf. You buy the CD for the material such as the lyric sheets, the cover art, the funny liner notes. You buy the CD so you
can listen to the music in your car, or on your walkman, since you're part of the 99% of people who don't yet have MP3 players in their cars or own a portable MP3 player.
For these reasons, you have to conclude that MP3 / Napster is a medium, NOT a replacement for the media. And as a very, VERY effective medium, just like radio, the promotional benefit far outsrips the revenue loss tied to that tiny fraction of people who will abuse the medium strictly to avoid ponying up for the CD. Yes, I could fire
up Napster and find each and every track off the latest Linda Perry record. But how many people do you know, and be honest, that have the hard drive space/CD Burner that allows them to archive all the albums they want in MP3 format, and that actually abuse this medium to expressly have all digital music collections?
To assert that MP3 / Napster should be eliminated is absurd, and ignorant of the inevitable new medium that WILL supplant radio as we know it today. If we ban or outlaw MP3 or Napster, we really should ban radio as well - because there ar e people that tape songs of the radio, make mix tapes, heck make recordings of complete albums, and not only NOT buy the CD, but (gasp) make copies of their tapes for friends! Heck, since
we're at the beat-piracy game, we should outlaw all current CD, cassette, and stereo equipment, which could easily be used to make copies of CDs and cassettes for friends, as is commonly done.
It just doesn't add up. MP3 is not the problem. Napster is not the problem. The fear that the music industry has over the new medium that is digital music is the problem. With the old medium of radio, the industry had ALL the control over who got "pushed", when artists got "pushed", and how popular that "push" would be. With the
new medium, the record companies have virtually no control - it's like what would happen if every radio station in the country decided tomorrow to just play whatever the hell they wanted to. That control over promotion, THAT is the key motivation that the record industry has to do everything in their power to obscure, cloud, and reposition this issue into one of "piracy" and "copyright infringement".
Now, if only Dr. Dre could see this. Maybe he'd understand.
Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:5)
Let's pose a hypothetical for all the Slashdotters out there. Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. You contact them, you talk to them, you threaten them, and maybe you get the FSF to help you sue them, I dunno. But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right?
When Metallica releases their music, they're doing it under a sort of license, called a copyright. When some violates this copyright, that gives Metallica the right to sue. When some organization aids in this lawbreaking, they are guilty of basically being an accomplice. Napster's in a grey area because their systems are being used to break the law, but they can theoretically claim a sort of immunity as a service provider.
I like MP3s. I think they're a great way to preview music. I've even pirated MP3s to try out new music that I've heard was good. But I don't grab a program like Napster, grab all the MP3s I want, and when someone accuses me of theft, claim that the information wants to be free and that I'm being denied my right to download free music. You have no fscking right. You don't even have the privilege because you don't have the permission.
Jon, quit trolling Slashdot. This is a story aimed at getting a large percentage of Slashdot behind you. The fact is, it's illegal, and if someone were to copy your entire book which you make money off of and give it away for free online, you or your publisher would sue the bastards. The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.
Attack the right issues (Score:5)
First of all, to all the whining over getting mp3's off the 'Net for free, I should inform you that with the current legal system that most of the world uses, copying music and distributing it (even if you're not making money) is a violation of copyright. Get over it. You're crooks. Not violent criminals, just IP crooks. To the argument regarding copying music as not being theft because it deprives no one of any good, you are correct. It is not theft. This is a bad term. That is why they made the term "copyright infringement" and that is what you are violating when you copy/distribute music.
On the flip side of this argument is the issue of democracy and coporatism. The whole idea of being able to download stuff off the 'Net and listen to it is the most appealing aspect of the entire experience. It is very easy, and people like that. I don't think people are realizing that they are saying something with this, because they never back it up with anything but bitching when confronted by issues such as lawsuits to Napster from big bands. It's not whether or not the band should or shouldn't do that. I'm sorry to inform you that this is entirely the wrong issue to attack.
What you should be noticing is that with all this downloading, you, as the people living in a democratic society (theoretically, anyway) don't like the current laws. What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst. However, you still acting like teenagers (and if most of you are, grow up - fast!). You gave go to tell the representatives in government that you do not like it.
Ok - I can hear the nay-sayers already. However, think about this: the corporations that are pissing you off so much understand this basic principle. Use (for abuse) the system. They already went to the government and got stuff like the DMCA passed and now, they are attacking you with it. They use money and ideas like "Our customers support us on this" to do so. You shouldn't stand for this. Right now, we live in a coporate democracy because people don't say or do anything about what irks them. They seem to think that just because they think it is right, it is right and thus, it will prevail. Sorry, man, but you have got to do something about it. Is the system broke? Damn right it is. Can we fix it? Yes, but it's gonna be a helluva a fight.
Bitching at Metallica is as useless as Metallica is right now (sorry - had to get in a cheap shot =)). They are simply doing what is within their rights. They are exercising it like any citizen should be able to. As much as I think they aren't helping the situtation at all (Hey Lars, James! You used to be good. Step back and fsck'ing think what you are doing!), they are doing what our society allows them to do by what we have defined as a society.
(This may be a bit North american-centric, but lots still holds for European countries as well. Corporations are going global, you know.)
Katz got one thing right in the article - Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.
Just think about it - carefully.
Woz
Metallica Chat... (Score:5)
Jairus Pryor
My Defense of Napster (Score:5)
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc...
Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA...
Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise.
Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase.
The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews.
I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on.
(P.S. I've posted this before, but it never gets moderated up very high, if at all)
My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:5)
- In my original post I asked that instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates we should instead discuss how the music industry (artists included) can survive in a digital world. Please read my
- original post [slashdot.org] and respond below.
Damn, I have to go code....PS: I think it was stupid of Dre's lawyer's to mention something as ridiculous and difficult to enforce as suing Napster users.