New Legit Napster Service Coming 293
Serith submitted a CNN story talking about the new
Napster Service. This is of course an attempt to legitimize music sharing. Provided the price point is fair and paying is convenient, I'll be first in line. Of course the odds of that happening seems awfully weak.
To the Roxio Executives (Score:5, Funny)
the_sound_of_a_boot_meeting_a_dead_horse.mp3
Cordially,
The RIAA
Re:To the Roxio Executives (Score:2)
Ahem:
s/dead_horse/ded_kitty/g
Re:To the Roxio Executives (Score:4, Funny)
duking it out in the courts (Score:5, Insightful)
That did not stop music publishers from suing Bertelsmann for $17 billion last week, arguing that by throwing Napster a lifeline in 2002 it was responsible for the service continuing its illegal infringement.
this reminds me of when the photocopiers in the libraries had to have huge disclaimers about copying any material that was copyrighted.
i can only hope that personal use will extend to purchased music as much as it did to purchased books. as much as i hate these lawsuits, it is in the courts that the personal use issue actually finds some teeth.
Re:duking it out in the courts (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, because i know when i D/L an mp3, i only use it for educational purposes
Re:duking it out in the courts (Score:5, Interesting)
this reminds me of when the photocopiers in the libraries had to have huge disclaimers about copying any material that was copyrighted.
When office copiers were first coming out, publishers of recipe books fought to prevent them from being available too easily. Their fear? Secretaries, who at the time were mainly female, would copy recipes out of books for swapping amongst themselves.
Re:duking it out in the courts (Score:2)
Anybody else remember the brou-ha-ha from the (of all things) sewing pattern companies which kicked up right around the same time as Lars was badmouthing Napster?
Seems grannies were swapping sewing patterns on-line and not paying for them, and it got quite a bit of press.
Here's [seul.org] a post (the article link in the post doesn't work, but the post has the full story as text in it).
Re:duking it out in the courts (Score:3, Interesting)
It would seem like the Internet will make criminals out of us all.
I loved this:""Where will it end?" wailed Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum, 54, who designs needlepoint patterns. "I just don't understand how these [people] can stitch a stolen angel and still live with themselves."
Copyright for non-commercial use is largely invalidated by the internet.
Re:duking it out in the courts (Score:3, Insightful)
Hearing insightful statements like this being made anywhere in the world makes me wish I could go back to the first invention of the word copyright, and whisper inside the head of the person who thought it up, "No, saleright would be a much better name." The natural feeling way of things is that, if you want to grant exclusivity for anything, grant it so that only one company has the right to sell something for profit. This would even mean only the saleright holder would be allowed to sell for radio play, since radio stations make money on commercials.
But due to the unfortunate coincidence that the government granted exclusivity was labelled "copyright", it became clustered with the idea that duplicating something is evil, and thus friends sharing with each other are being evil. Behold the power of a word.
If you swapped every existence of the word copyright in modern times with the word saleright, the world would be a much more sensible place.
Always Backdoors (Score:3, Insightful)
People are greedy, they want it for free, and they'll get it.
Re:Always Backdoors (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO
insite? insits? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:insite? insits? (Score:2)
oh, wait, no one's going to read it anyway. Never mind.
Re:insite? insits? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:insite? insits? (Score:2)
Of course they would probably have a co-conspirator shoot me with a high-caliber rifle for pointing that out. Whenever I see this fluff passed for english I just keep thinking of 1984...
(As an aside a co-consipirator is not a real world. A rifle, by definition, is a high-caliber weapon.)
Re:insite? insits? (Score:2)
Triv
Re:insite? insits? (Score:2)
Re:insite? insits? (Score:2)
Re:insite? insits? (Score:2)
Editorializing (Score:5, Insightful)
When the headline's only a few sentences long, do we need this sort of pessimism occupying so much space?
I for one think there's plenty of promise in a pay-per-download music service. If it's easy to use, and, here's the most important part: accessible to teens and pre-teens. Allow for a charge account to be set up by the parents, with the kids spending "credits" to download music, games, cell ringers, etc. Are you listening, BMG?
Re:Editorializing (Score:5, Insightful)
There is plenty of promise in pay-per-download music service. There is. It's only that NO ONE HAS TAPPED THAT POTENTIAL YET. The existing services are *ridiculous*. I am waiting for a service that will
1. Have a lot of selection. Not just the mainstream, not just the independants, not most of the bands. But rather just about everything. I really can't be bothered to figure out which services I have to subscribe to, to get a full view of music selection.
2. Will offer mp3 in high quality. Propriatory players do not cut it, I really don't want to lose all music that I have paid for if I stop subscribing. I don't like propriatory players (or even worse burners), but I do like my portable mp3 player.
3. Will not even attempt to sell streaming. Even if there is a lot of it for cheap. I have cable and still streaming can be laggy and it overloads the network. Local caches and file downloads exist for a good reason. (a radio-like subscription is exempt, I am talking about pay-per-stream model)
4. Will NOT charge me $10 or more a month. I don't want to pay for the priviledge of buying music. I don't want any pressure regarding how much music I should buy to compensate the monthly fee.
5. Charging $2 or even $1 per song is NOT CHEAP. Cheap is 25c to maybe 50c depending on the song. $1/song can easily bring to same $13-$15 per albom, but now I get no CD.
I know that several services cover *some* of the complaints that I have. I am not aware of one that covers all.
And before I stop bitching :), I'd like to point out the most amazing fact about all the existing services. If they have control over what you burn (i.e. not mp3 providers) they fix the number of tracks-to-burn WITHOUT an option to purchase more. That strongly remainds me of Soviet Union where I was born... In US, though, I thought that the seller WANTS you to buy more stuff and would never prevent you from doing so.
Re:Editorializing (Score:2)
There is, its called Kazaa
Re:Editorializing (Score:2)
Re:Editorializing (Score:2)
Re:Editorializing (Score:2)
Consultant (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Consultant (Score:4, Funny)
As opposed to last time where he set the world afire for providing a way to illegally share music?
Re:Consultant (Score:2)
p2p (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:p2p (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:p2p (Score:2)
I know I could go dsl, but still, my point remains: at some point, these 800 pound charge you for everything. That's why Napster was popular...we don't like doing business with those jerks.
Re:p2p (Score:2)
If i'm going to pay, i want to be able to connect to a server somewhere and DOWNLAOD what I want. I don't want to pay for a crapshoot.
Price? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I can get better quality fairly simply, I'm willing to pay. I still buy CDs, for crying out loud.
Re:Price? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, so you're the idiot keeping them in business?
From the article (Score:2)
Irregardless of lawsuits, I'm afraid that this is the fate of all file-sharing programs. I salute Kazaa and Co. for fighting the good fight and all, but I just can't figure out how they'll ever convince enough people to pay for downloadable music to turn a profit.
Missed one condition (Score:3, Insightful)
And we all know the consequences of that - Record exec's saying "blah people won't buy music online blah piracy blah new DMCA blah THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Fair Price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, how many people consider a 'fair' price point to be greater than $0.00? Very few hardcore filesharers will actually buy music online, because the price is 'unfair'.
And how convenient does this have to be? Credit Card? (Oh, wait, we don't trust 'those people' with our credit cards.)
('Those people' being anyone who gets in bed with music producers.)
Re:Fair Price? (Score:2)
Depends on if there is any added value. I'ld be hard pressed to pay $0.99 a song if I didn't get to listen to it before hand. However, if I could listen to a streamed version of the song before purchase, and if after paying I can do what I like with it (put it on a CD, or a portable solid state player, leave it on my harddrive...) I'ld be pretty happy to pay $2.00 a song. Of course I'm not in the 18-24 demographic anymore so I don't find much "popular" music on the radio that I really enjoy so perhaps my voice doesn't count.
Re:Fair Price? (Score:2)
Re:Fair Price? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, in cases of a couple the $2.00 a song rate would dramatically drive up the cost of the music (the beatle's White Album, Pink Floyd's The Wall etc.).
Re:Fair Price? (Score:2)
A lot. But few people want to pay as much as they would for an overpriced CD, when they are downloading music. I mean, I am downloading it on my paid connection, I am burning it to my CD-R (on which RIAA tax has been paid). Why in the world would I pay $2/song, so that the same CD that costs $18 in the store will cost me $16-$22 downloaded?
The music has to cost 25c to 50c/song. At most. This is how much I would pay. Perhaps $1/single hit or something... but when I total up the cost of the albom it really can't be the same as the store price.
Re:Fair Price? (Score:2, Insightful)
1)That you pay for your connection is entirely irrelevant. That is a sunk cost and as you do not incur any additional charges for downloading (assuming standard monthly rates), it should play no part in your decision.
2)You don't have to burn it to CD-R. That cost is an additional cost you choose to pay for additional convenience.
3)I do think you're right that paying for a whole album at $2/song is too much. But I'd like to be albe to buy a few singles for that much rather than shell out $18+ for a medicore album, so it seems like a good deal to me. I'd hope for $10/album "bulk" pricing.
There has never been another option (Score:2)
If you ever saw a system come up where people could sample low quality (or perhaps partial) unlocked mp3's, then pay somewhere between $.01 and $.99 per song, then you would finally be able to figure out if people are willing to pay for music online.
Personally, I think the answer is that people are willing to pay for music. It's just that right now there's no way to do so apart from buying CD's, which is too course-grained a mechanism for the times and is limiting sales (note that I did not say sales were declining, I'm saying the current CD model of buying music is dropping a lot of potential sales that are never seen!).
Why the industry as a whole is satisfied with about a tenth the profits they could have by putting together a real music service, I'll never understand. Imagine the rush if people could download classic Stones songs or the like for $.05 each. They'd be able to plate gold plated stuff with platinum just to make it shinier, and the re-plate that in gold when they wanted a change of color.
Re:Fair Price? (Score:2)
Depends on the song. For Eminem and Maryln Manson, you'd have to pay me an awful lot to listen
Re:Fair Price? (Score:2)
(raises hand) Sure, there will always be the contingent of everything-for-nothings, but I think there are more of us willing to pay a fair price. Of course $1 per song is way too much. We're talking between 10 and 50 cents.
And how convenient does this have to be? Credit Card? (Oh, wait, we don't trust 'those people' with our credit cards.)
How about PayPal?
3 points (Score:5, Insightful)
- The word is "insight". It isn't used at all in the linked article, and is misspelled twice in the original posting.
- Roxio, the company that took Easy CD Creator and turned it into an unstable piece of garbage is going to do something with Napster? Good luck.
- While occasionally, you'll find someone who says "The artists deserve to get paid for their work," most people say "CDs cost too much, and Kazaa, Gnutella, EDonkey, WinMX, etc. are free." If you really want to support an artist, download what you want from the P2P networks (or FTP or IRC), and send the artists a check in the mail. Cut out the middleman and show the RIAA that they aren't adding any value and don't deserve to get paid
</rant>Re:3 points (Score:2)
Re:3 points (Score:2)
I agree, it's not legally supported to download all the music and just send the artist a check. I also don't think that sending a check for $2 is appropriate. However, you say that you continue to buy CDs. Of the purchase price for the CD, how much of that money do you think the artist actually sees?
If (and this is a BIG if), people would download the tracks, and send the $10-$20 you would have paid for the CD to the artist, maybe artists would drop their worthless labels, start making their own recordings, and make the music available at a reasonable price (insted of production costs + label markup + distributor markup +...
Then again, Stephen King tried online only, honor system payments with one of his books and look what happened.
Pay for mp3s? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pay for mp3s? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not for long. That would be a "Copy".
We can't have that now can we???
Record Execs don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Record Execs don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)
Grin.
Music was free long before then. It used to be you heard a song and you could legal sing it. This was true for thousands of years. That's how music worked. It wasn't until player pianos started to be produced that music became unfree. Someday it will be free again. We're just in some strange kind of transition.
Re:Record Execs don't get it (Score:2)
Does your mom videotape TV shows? If so, does she limit herself to network programming only, or does she also tape off of cable and (God forbid) HBO itself? After all, if the reason she thinks that copying music is ok is because it's free, then is the corollary that she doesn't copy cable because it's not?
I'm not passing judgement on her, cause I tend to be in line at the bandwidth bar myself. I just worry about the hole in your theory.
Re:Record Execs don't get it (Score:2)
You, my friend, have never had to listen to a Sit and Sleep commercial, have you?
Who doesn't get it? (Score:2)
Good for her.
But even she sees no problem with getting CDs copied or songs downloaded form the Internet, in fact she gets me to do it all the time.
Well, there goes that "never steal from anyone" thing. Of course, she's co-opted you into doing her stealing for her. Sounds a lot like "contributing to the delinquency of a minor", but then again you probably introduced her to the who MP3-share concept.
Why? Because for decades the radio stations have convinced the general populace that music is free (after all, if you can listen to it wherever you want for no charge, isn't that free?)
Radio stations have convinced folks that music is free? My God, what a revelation! And I suppose all those Blockbuster Music stores, and Media Play, and Tower Records, and all those other music stores don't mind that folks shoplift, either? After all, music is free...the radio said so!
Most people do not mind listning to a few ads on the radio, in fact, many people enjoy advertisements. So with this general mindset that music doens't really cost anything, why would they be expected to pay for it?
Because the music isn't brought to you for free, dammit. Radio stations pay hefty licensing fees to the song artists in order to play the songs. In turn, the station intersperses ads in the music, the sale of which pays for the songs and the radio station staff. By listening, you are voluntarily donating your ears to the listening of commercials in return for hearing music from time to time. You are being paid for your time, the station is being paid for its time, and the song artist is paid for their time. That is what fair is. You, however, advocate something that is totally different, and fundamentally unfair.
Ever since the 8 track tape was invented people have copying music.
Ever since humans have walked the earth they've been murdering and raping one another from time to time. It doesn't make it right.
These people don't get (or care) that it is digital and therefore it is an exact copy, they just by default expect to be allowed to do it.
And ignorance is the primary instigator of this. People who wouldn't even consider shoplifting a CD from a music store have no compunction whatsoever about pirating music online. After all, its so easy, so anonymous...seductive indeed. It's also wrong. Stealing by any other name is just the same.
Look, I despise the RIAA and MPAA to the core of my being. I think they're dinosaurs, breeds that have become extinct but are too stubborn to realize it yet. They are propping up an ancient business model with legalism, which is one of the most reprehensible ways to keep a business going. It totally contravenes the idea of capitalism and a free market, both of which I am a great fan of. But I've had it up to here with all the damned hypocrisy and lying justifications that everyone spouts to "defend" music piracy.
If you wish to steal music, then just steal it and admit that it's stealing. You are enjoying the benefits of someone else's labors (the songwriter, the performer, the recording engineer, the marketing company, and even the guy who sweeps the floor at RIAA headquarters) without paying for it. That is stealing, and it is NOT a gray area.
If I employed you as a programmer, then took the code and refused to pay you, that's stealing. But, hey, that's okay, isn't it? After all, it's just bits and bytes, just ones and zeroes. I haven't depleted the world of anything by taking the code you wrote and using it. I can make an infinite number of copies of the code and I haven't deprived you of any bits or bytes at all, have I? I'm such an innocent soul, all I've done is steal your time and refused to pay you for it. But that's okay, because you're the oppressed little guy, and the record companies are the big, mean, evil guys.
Get off the high horse, people. If you have music you didn't pay for, you stole it. Be grown up enough to admit it and move on, but don't try to weasel through some sanctimonious justification process that makes it seem like you're doing the Right Thing(tm). You're not. If you want to make a statement, just boycott the fucking music and do without.
Lots of people (Score:2)
Take my own mom. Totally honest, doesn't even break the speed limit knowingly (much to my dismay). Yet she makes mix CD's and hands them out to friends, or gives them away as presents... sure it's wrong. But frankly the fact that the most honest person on earth thinks nothing of doing this speaks to the point that the record companies do not understand the consumer mindset at all, or what an uphill battle they face trying to control behavior that the majority of the populace already view as legal.
I'm not sure I agree with the original conclusion that radio is what led to this thinking. I think it really is that since my mom has a CD, and when the copying is done, she still has a CD, is the thing - the complete lack of any physical aspect to the music is what I think makes her really not think about it being (technically) wrong to give a copy of some music to a friend. After all, she also bought the blank CD...
Re:Lots of people (Score:2)
It was only made "wrong" by an act of law.
It isn't stealing because it's copying not stealing, so there's no tangible or easily precieved loss, on the face of it.
If copying soup, or steak was possible because of a new replicator-gadget, would people not use them because the farmer or the soup company was losing out?
I think not.
The technology usurps the previous restrictions that were in place when the technology was not there. It makes past business models and ways of life obsolete, whether they be making and selling cd's, or soup, or slices of cow.
They can live in denial and fight the new tech, or they can change and go into new areas and accept that their time is over.
The new replicators would still need good original material, but it wouldn't be as profitable as before, when the copying and distribution method was not free (as in liberty.)
The only thing they can do now is either go with it, or ban the replication technology and free information communication. It's the latter, of course that is the real threat, not the copying (divide and rule vs. collective power, if you like)
Re:Lots of people (Score:2)
I've heard this argument so many times I'm about ready to throw up.
Get this through your thick, obtuse skull: intangible things can have a tangible value!!!! Intellectual property is just that -- property! Just because nothing physical is involved doesn't mean it's free and clear, where just anyone can do anything they want with it.
Further, you're not paying for the musical notes, or bits and bytes, or any vibrations in the air. You're paying the artist for their time and talent, which has a value. If you've got a talent that can't be matched by anyone else, that talent is worth something. Suppose you were the best programmer there was, and could come up with algorithms better and faster than anyone else. Would it be right for a company to employ you to write code for them, but then have them refuse to pay you for your time and talent? Of course it wouldn't be right, especially if you were expressly contracted to be paid for such work. Song artists expect to be paid for their work, otherwise they wouldn't work. I'm not sure what other careers some of those misfits might get into, but that's immaterial -- people have to work to make money, and they have a right to expect to be paid for their efforts in accordance to what the fair market value is for their skillsets.
That, of course, leads many to think that artists and music executives are vastly overpaid. To that, I say that: who in the hell annointed you with the power to say who is worth what? Nobody annointed you, that's who. It is not your place to decide how much money any person may make, any more than it is up to me to decide that you need to be making minimum wage instead of whatever it is you are making. Collectively, if consumers decide an artist sucks, they sell no albums and thus make no money. While I must admit that some musical tastes defy comprehension, the fact is that even Justin Timberlake has millions of screaming fans buying his execrable music. Who are you to tell them that their tastes are wrong? Nobody, that's who. You are not special.
Information, despite the current trendy tagline, is not free, nor does it want to be free. Information is valued in direct proportion to how unique it is. If you remove the carrot, that being a financial payoff to making a unique creation, from the system, you will destroy the largest motivating factor to innovation and creation. France tried this back in the 1800's. All inventions and creations were made public domain, and it failed miserably. People had no incentive to create! Why should they toil and sweat, the equivalent of modern R&D, when some fool down the street can quickly and easily copy my work with no effort at all? You see this today in how many countries shy away from investment in China due to lax copyright enforcement. People go where money is, and until something better than money comes along, you've no right to condemn them for it.
You can hate the RIAA and MPAA all you want. I hate them, too. But abolition of property rights is ridiculous, and copyrights are inherently linked to property rights. If you'd think a bit more about the implications of the socialist utopia you're proposing, you'd realize that it doesn't work, hasn't worked, and won't work.
Re:Lots of people (Score:2)
I've heard this argument so many times I'm about ready to throw up.
Get this through your thick, obtuse skull: intangible things can have a tangible value!!!! Intellectual property is just that -- property! Just because nothing physical is involved doesn't mean it's free and clear, where just anyone can do anything they want with it.
Well, you've already won me over with your charm, so let's examine your reason, just to make sure I'm not being smooth-talked into accepting a bogus argument.
Intellectual property is not property in the real sense. Infact I believe someone else said that. I may be stealing their property by repeating it, if they copyrighted or patented the expression. I just comitted an act of theft!
Oh... no, that's right, it wasn't real property after all, it was just a term with the word property in it. And as I'm sure you've been told, saying something doesn't make it so. People invented the concept of "intellectual property," (I wonder if they patented it?) it has no real existence, it is a law, an imposed cotract, backed by the physical force of the state to uphold it. It is simply an imposed rule, not a real thing in itself.
Further, you're not paying for the musical notes, or bits and bytes, or any vibrations in the air. You're paying the artist for their time and talent, which has a value. If you've got a talent that can't be matched by anyone else, that talent is worth something. Suppose you were the best programmer there was, and could come up with algorithms better and faster than anyone else. Would it be right for a company to employ you to write code for them, but then have them refuse to pay you for your time and talent? Of course it wouldn't be right, especially if you were expressly contracted to be paid for such work. Song artists expect to be paid for their work, otherwise they wouldn't work. I'm not sure what other careers some of those misfits might get into, but that's immaterial -- people have to work to make money, and they have a right to expect to be paid for their efforts in accordance to what the fair market value is for their skillsets.
But according to your world-view, anoyone who decides that they want to make money by engaging in any business model, whether it be realistically feasible or not, should be paid.
I want to be paid to be a portrait artist, but those bastards witht their personal "cameras" come along and take reaslistic copies of their own image for next-to-free, thus robbing me, robbing me I say, of my livelihood. Thieves.
Although it's not exactly synonymous with music creation, it's similar in the sense that a new technology has largely decimated a way of making a living. It's changed things fundementally. The means of production has been liberated from the few to the many.
That, of course, leads many to think that artists and music executives are vastly overpaid. To that, I say that: who in the hell annointed you with the power to say who is worth what?
Why is anyone needed to appoint power? I, and everyone else can use our own judgement... some would say God gave us that.
Nobody annointed you, that's who. It is not your place to decide how much money any person may make, any more than it is up to me to decide that you need to be making minimum wage instead of whatever it is you are making. Collectively, if consumers decide an artist sucks, they sell no albums and thus make no money. While I must admit that some musical tastes defy comprehension, the fact is that even Justin Timberlake has millions of screaming fans buying his execrable music. Who are you to tell them that their tastes are wrong? Nobody, that's who. You are not special.
Actually we're all very special. And, anyway, what are you going on about here?
Information, despite the current trendy tagline, is not free, nor does it want to be free. Information is valued in direct proportion to how unique it is. If you remove the carrot, that being a financial payoff to making a unique creation, from the system, you will destroy the largest motivating factor to innovation and creation.
I think the saying means, information wants to have liberty. That doesn't mean it can't have a value, even a very high value, but that does mean that if that value is dependent upon a restiction of it's ease of dissemination, then, when a technology comes along that makes it easliy disseminated, it's value drops, in some cases very significantly.
France tried this back in the 1800's. All inventions and creations were made public domain, and it failed miserably. People had no incentive to create! Why should they toil and sweat, the equivalent of modern R&D, when some fool down the street can quickly and easily copy my work with no effort at all? You see this today in how many countries shy away from investment in China due to lax copyright enforcement. People go where money is, and until something better than money comes along, you've no right to condemn them for it.
I wasn't condemning anyone for anything. Nor do I have an answer to what will happen because the current technological paradigm has changed regarding the dissemination of text, images, audio or video. But I do feel that the media corporations are doing their best at a modern day equivalent to King Canute (Kanute?)
You can hate the RIAA and MPAA all you want. I hate them, too.
Hate's for fools. They're just the enemy. Don't hate your enemy, understand them, so you can better defeat them.
But abolition of property rights is ridiculous, and copyrights are inherently linked to property rights. If you'd think a bit more about the implications of the socialist utopia you're proposing, you'd realize that it doesn't work, hasn't worked, and won't work.
I know what you mean, I mean, where was culture before copyright? Before copyright, people were ignorant savages without the finer things in life, like Coca-Cola branded lunchboxes, and The Cheeky Girls.
One more thing, don't take out your frustration at your inability to have to world think the way you want it to (perish the thought) on me, you uncouth little twerp. That is all.
Re:Lots of people (Score:2)
No, it's not property. Indeed, the term IP was basically conceived of by lawyers who wanted a more succinct and sexier job description. If you want to claim that content is property, then you should tell me what criteria I can use to determine whether any given thing is or is not property, and which evidences content as being the former.
The test I'm familiar with is threefold: First, it can be used by the 'owner.' Second, it can be lent out and returned. Third, it can be transferred.
Content meets the first test, but fails the other two. The copyright on the content however, as carefully distinguished from the copyright's subject matter, is property however, at least of a sort. (There's a fifth amendment issue involved, you see)
Certainly if content were property, it would really be strange that a) it wasn't protected anywhere in the world until the early 18th century, despite millennia of property laws in force around the world; b) it is required to expire when the government so mandates; c) the government can impose 'easements' on the 'owner', etc. d) The common law actions for stealing and conversion (or trespass to chattels) have never been held to apply to copyright or patent infringement, which have totally different, exclusively federal statutory remedies.
Clearly the legal system has not and does not consider content to be property. I can point to the courts literally saying that if you like, but I don't want to have to go that far.
Information, despite the current trendy tagline, is not free, nor does it want to be free.
Naw. It's a saying similar to 'Water seeks its own level.' Information is nonrivalrous. If you tell me something, you can never untell me; you can never take that back. If I tell someone, I can never untell it either. Thus information has a natural tendancy to spread, and can never be recaptured. This is what that saying means. Monetary value has nothing to do with it. It's a speech free, not a beer free.
France tried this back in the 1800's. All inventions and creations were made public domain, and it failed miserably.
I've found a lot of people parroting this, but very few understanding what the laws in France were actually like. I suggest you read up on it.
Besides which, copyrights were only invented anywhere in circa 1710. Patents were only invented anywhere circa 1300. For all of the countless eons of human history prior to that, we had neither, but invention and creation seem to have been happening regardless. After all; there's always going to be payment for LABOR, even if you won't get paid more than once for your work as under the present system.
If you remove the carrot, that being a financial payoff to making a unique creation, from the system, you will destroy the largest motivating factor to innovation and creation.
Sure, but who said anything about shutting the system down completely? I would prefer to reduce the scope of the rights granted in a work in ways that lead to MORE innovation and creation. Right now we have overprotected, and it's harming what it is that we want out of the system. Protection after all, DOES NOT NECESSARILY lead to a greater public benefit.
A counterpoint... (Score:2)
Are these people stupid...never mind (Score:2, Interesting)
I wrote a casebook on mp3s as part of a freshmen english class about 5 years back. At this time several companies were trying to develop watermarked, time or number of plays limited propriatary audio formats. The companies failed to realize that this was a stupid idea, the mp3 files could be found anywhere, were compaitable with a number of good software programs, and didnt suffer from any of the limitations that the RIAA wanted to introduce in order to prevent piracy, and that because of this they would not catch on.
Appearently the big 5 still fail to realize that all the legislation in the world is incapible of putting the genie back in the bottle. Even while resorting to tactics like introducing bad versions of songs and spreading rumors of an upcoming, plaform independent mp3 virus and persecuting those running servers with nasty letters to their isp's, the popularity of mp3's and file sharing continues to rise. The infeasability of a pay-per -play scheme given the current abundance of peer-to-peer software should be obvious to anyone with half a brain...
More crazy RIAA math and dates! (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhhh..afaik, napster went offline in 2001. And I don't think Napster ever came back up.
And what's this about $17 billion dollars? I know punative damages are usually in excess of what's really expected, but $17 Billion? In 2001, only $13 billion worth of music was sold. So what is this, $4 billion in lawyer's fees?
Yeesh. Let's all pitch in and buy a timeshare nerd resort on Vanuatu so we all have a place to relax and trade files in peace...
What's new here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the value of being able to buy one song at a time and burn your own customized CDs is a significant enough improvement to alter consumers' behaviour (which I think is debatable), the perceived value of such a service has been diluted by the ability to do that exact same thing for free for years!
These companies are in a rush to grab a potentially huge market, but their business plans SUCK because there is no added value. I propose that declining CD sales may have more to do with the ease of burning CDs than actual Internet filesharing. With the current music marketing model of revenues coming from a few multi-platinum albums, it becomes very easy for kids to burn each other CDs since they all want the same mass-consumed product.
One way to give themselves a bit more protection might be to try to diversify musical interests so it wouldn't be easy to share 'the hot album'. I'm not sure if it's feasible, but they could save a lot of money on production and advertising, and still garner some major hits through word of mouth sales (kids will do an awful lot of free promotion if you're clever).
Now I know I may be talking out my ass, but the point is that recycling old concepts and increasing the price is NOT going to be a succesful business model.
What is needed... (Score:5, Interesting)
What, explicitly is needed:
Compressed AND un-compressed audio file for download
Artwork / track listings etc. to print
Nothing to stop you burning a CD
No watermarking
Affordable pricing that reflects the facts that:
You've bought your computer and internet connection and CD burner etc.
You've bought your blank media and printer and paper
Musicians give their music away on the radio all the time, and the consumer doesn't pay for this. This has devalued and / or shown the true value of music and it is a very low value.
The price of second hand CD's more accurately reflects a true market value of music
Do the sums yourself and even taking into account the costs of setting up the service, the price per song / per minute is going to be pretty low, but if the service / artist do a 50:50 split on that (before costs) I'd reckon that would be amicable.
Ofcourse, this would put record shops out of business, but that's their problem. They don't offer much useful anyway (unless they sell vinyl)
It's a one-way road (Score:5, Insightful)
Napster was never about "free music." Napster was always about community, about "sharing my collection--my very own, personal, idiosyncratic collection."
There is no way the record companies are going to provide the same variety or the same breadth of coverage as a bunch of dedicated enthusiasts.
Sure, I'll be able to get Britney Spears from this site--but am I really going to be able to get Arthur Askey? Or cylinder recordings by Billy Murray? Or sound effects? The Weavers' recording of "Tzena, tzena, tzena?" Bernard Cribbins singing "'Ole in the Ground?"
What, you say--you've never heard about them and don't care about them? Of course not. But on the old Napster there were people who did, and shared them with me. And you have a bunch of stuff of your own that you care about, that _I"ve_ never heard of. Maybe even stuff that isn't available on CD.
This new "Napster" is a one way road. It's going to be all about what the record companies push, and nothing about what the music buying public wants.
Re:It's a one-way road (Score:2)
I'll email it if you want
Re:It's a one-way road (Score:2)
nap nap, vt to seize; to steal. [Cf Swed nappa Dan and Norw nappe to catch or snatch; relation to nab uncertain]
The intention of the site, I would argue by light of it's name, no accident I am certain, was to "steal" music.
At least that's what it was to the creator of the site.
Of course, Shawn Fanning named Napster after himself; his nickname is Napster. He acquired that, not out of any knowledge of scandanavian languages, but because he has nappy hair. Which he's apparently a little touchy about.
Maybe you should read a little about Fanning before you make more of a fool out of yourself?
Re:It's a one-way road (Score:2)
Just a coincidence, I guess (the word is English, the Swedish was just in the etymology.)
Making an error doesn't make me a fool, it makes me fallible.
Re:It's a one-way road (Score:2)
Yeah.
Old news -- it's just another reseller (Score:3, Insightful)
Napster Fanning himself? He's just a figurehead. George Foreman does more appliance design than Fanning will do with the actual running of this service.
Of course it'll flop, but that's what the record industry wants.
My Favorite Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Roxio managed to buy most of Roxio's assets, but it did not assume any of the company's pending liabilities.
That's pretty nice I wish I could buy up all of my own assets and hot have to pay for any of my liabilities.
Napster Insite is the product's name? (Score:2)
I believe that CmdrTaco got the scoop before anyone else in the whole world. [google.com], and this is one of those "from the future" stories that he was bragging about a few days ago. Maybe I should rethink that subscription after all?
Too bad it will never work... (Score:5, Insightful)
We can all scream bloody murder about how there are no pay systems, CD prices are too high, artists today blow, intellectual property rights are wrong, filesharing actually increases CD sales, capitalism is evil, whatever your favorite argument is...the fact is you can't beat free and as long as the people can get it for free, the majority of people will not use a pay service.
That's reality. Maybe not the reality in your head or on Slashdot, but the reality of the world.
Just maybe . . . (Score:2)
This is not meant as a bait, but what about Open Source Software? That's free and people are still paying buttloads for propietary OSes.
The translation I'm thinking is that if the pay download services were easier to use than current P2P technologies (e.g. easy searches with high success rates; complete, relatively high-quality files), people might choose to pay for their digital music than search high-and-low for mp3s with tweak in their mojo.
Maybe?
I'm from Canada. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're gonna tax me for piracy, then it's my goddamned right to pirate.
I'm going to use p2p services and download all that I want, and it'll be perfectly legal, seeing as how I've already paid the RIAA, so why shouldn't I have a right to it?
A spindle from the USA makes a great gift... (Score:2)
Re:I'm from Canada. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it doesn't actually mean that you're allowed to do it, but it does mean that you are certainly justified in doing it. It's the difference between legal and right I suppose. How can you make people pay for something they aren't allowed to do and consider yourself to be in the right?
Re:I'm from Canada. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself. Just because you've paid the "Celine Dion tax" on your media does not mean that you can copy music at will.
Do kid yourself. This tax basicaly amounts to two things: (1) treating all tax-payers as criminals, regardless of whether they have participated in criminal activity or not; (2) a tax whos sole purpose is to support a failing industry.
First, if you are going to be treated like a criminaly, then in this case you might as well partake in criminal activities.
Second, supporting failing enterprises does no one any good. Failing enterprises should be allowd -- even encouraged -- to fail as quickly as possible.
poor business model yet again... (Score:4, Insightful)
What I originally liked about Napster was the fact I wasn't constrained to downloading from the traditional schlock the radio and MTV push on us. I'd say 80% of the music I've been introduced to in the last few years is thanks to Napster and Kazaa lite. I'd of never heard bands like Thursday, Death Cab for Cutie, or Rival Schools without digital music, now they're some of my favorite artists, all of whom I've attended their concerts. Now digital music is all I listen to, and I've been freed from listening to corperate schlock. I couldn't tell you who's on the Top 20 right now, nor have I watched MTV or listened to the radio for about 3 years (seriously).
It's the same problem in a different medium: push pre-processed garbage music down peoples throats. HELLO! That's why people aren't buying music in the first place! Why pay 17$ for a CD which you might listen to two songs on? Most of the time I get bored of that song after a month or two anyway.
The biggest thrill of Napster, though, was being able to get all those old songs you used to have, but your CDs were stolen/scratched/lost or you don't own a tape/record player. About half my
I wonder if their new ploy will work with my portible
Re:poor business model yet again... (Score:2)
So, explain to me, how I'm supposed to go onto Kazaa and just start downloading music that I'll probably like, but since I don't know which bands produced it, how to FIND the music????
Re:poor business model yet again... (Score:2)
I've been telling that to Honda for the past two years. I already paid for my 1970 Civic, it's obsolete now, and all scratched up, and doesn't even run half the time. Why should I have to pay for a 2003 version all over again? It's the same stuff, just an engine on wheels.
Re:poor business model yet again... (Score:2, Insightful)
The question at hand is, when you buy music, are you purchasing a physical CD or the rights to intellectual property? If it's intellectual property, when do you no longer have the rights to your old MC Hammer CD (don't lie, we all had it) you lost?
anyway, thanks for reading and responding to my post.
Im not sure why this is so complicated ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine being able to walk into Best Buy (using a kiosk for the broadband impaired) or a simple web page and accomplish the following.
1) Design/burn your own music CD selected from the complete vast archives of the music biz.
2) Each song being 128k quality or better or varying based on cost
3) Each song costing anywhere between 49-99 cents each
4) Each song delivered in choice of format (.mp3 or wav etc...)
5) Provide some kind of e-receipt which you could use to re-download/burn music that you lost or damaged (eliminate need for "backup")
Then all they would need to do is promote the crap out of the service using all the money they saved from not suing the crap out of everyone.
I won't pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Name Recognition (Score:2)
The problem is that corporate side of the music world recognizes it as the red-headed stepchild of the music industry, and name recognition won't mean much for the users from yester-year once they realize they can't get unlimited free music like they used to.
The RIAA with never allow this to succeed (Score:3, Insightful)
But, such an arrangement will never be agreed to by the record industry for one simple reason. Greed. The mindset of the record companies is "why should we sell songs for a nickel when we can sell CDs for $18"
Re:The RIAA with never allow this to succeed (Score:2)
I doubt this will be successful (Score:2, Insightful)
-1 offtopic, flamebait, don't read (Score:2)
Baised in title! (Score:2)
So Nyahh!
Movies and TV episodes too, and some other ideas (Score:3, Interesting)
Here are some ideas:
Movies and TV episodes
As well as all the stuff mentioned above (easy to use, good quality, wide diverse collection, album art, etc.) I think a good service should also offer movies and TV episodes for download, and maybe even software. I know this would make licensing even more complicated, but a complete service like this would certainly be added value!
Must be P2P
And it would have to be a true P2P service, with users downloading from each other, but with some check that the material is licenced for distribution on the service. This check would also help to maintain integrity and quality. The check wouldn't need to be on a central server either, lists of allowed files could be distributed.
A Community
Recommendations based on what other people with similar tastes to you have downloaded would also add value. People like the whole community thing!
Bandwidth-based Pricing?
An interesting idea would be a bandwidth-based pricing model, maybe with discounts for people who share more (like Kazaa's user ratings). But it would have to be simple enough for people to understand - maybe with just 3 or 4 levels of MBs/month - and people always knowing how much they have left that month.
Quality
I think the biggest problems with current free P2P networks is finding exactly what you want, and always getting guaranteed quality. Reliability would hopefully be solved by a paid for system.
There are so many ways value could be added to such a service. I think if a paid-for service addressed many of the points raised in this discussion, and provided a complete P2P file-sharing experience, then people would use it. I know I would!
Re:"Insite? Insit?" (Score:2, Funny)
International Symposium on IT Standardization (from VERA, Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms.
I somehow doubt that's what they really meant, but at least you know it's not total gibberish.
Re:To(o) much work (Score:2, Funny)
Re:$1.50 a song is all I will ever pay peroid. (Score:2, Insightful)
They pay ISP bills too (Score:2)
Why on earth would you ever pay $20+ for a set of lower-than-cd-quality songs without the physical CD or packaging?
Because I don't have to buy the songs I don't want. Many recent albums have about two or three singles and 8+ filler tracks.
no more distribution/pressing/packaging costs.
What about the cost of maintaining the system's back end, front end, and Internet connection?
The artist should take over their own promotion and distribution of their music via their website - or a 3rd party hosting service.
So in that case, without the backing of a major music publisher and a major record label, how is an artist supposed to verify that the song he wrote doesn't infringe the copyright of a song he happened to have heard on the radio? (Take Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs [columbia.edu] for precedent.)
The old-style music distributors are obsolete
The labels still have one purpose in the modern music industry: to separate the Universal Records wheat from the MP3.com chaff. They sign only acts that are good enough to have a reasonable chance of commercial success.
Go Roxio, Go Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The one thing I worry about is the idea that, according to rumor, they'll be charging ~ $0.99 per track. I think that's a bit steep unless they have some slick way of giving you album art and liner notes or other bonus materials.
I wish Apple and Roxio the best of luck. I really want to believe in pay-for-download music. I really want to believe that if you do this right, someone will pay for it.
No more tying! (Score:3, Informative)
$0.99 per track. I think that's a bit steep unless they have some slick way of giving you album art and liner notes or other bonus materials.
To me, the fact that the good songs on an album are no longer "tied" (by antitrust definition) to the filler more than makes up for that. This service [napster.com] is for people who want singles; this one [cdnow.com] is for people who want albums.
Re:Sounds like... (Score:3, Interesting)
Tim
Re:Sounds like... (Score:2)