Paul McCartney Goes After MP3.com 275
sarchasm writes, "Ex-Beatle Paul McCartney's publishing company MPL Communications is suing MP3.com. It's good to see that another poor starving artist is helping to fight the big bad MP3 movement. For more info, see the story on Yahoo.
"
Blank Tapes, VCRs, Tape Recorders & Such (Score:1)
Re:Paul McCartney is doing no such thing. (Score:1)
I speak ere now to correct your errant ways. You, too, ave angered Im by uzing te most poisened of all te letters several times in your faux correction. I pray tat e does not come onto te eart tonigt to rid us of your foolis cicanery.
For your convenience, a corrected version of your corrected version of te original fella's post appears below:
tank you
Re:MP3.com is wrong (Score:1)
I take it you meant to say "over something that I really don't think anybody needs or wants". Well, I for one love their BeamIt service, so you can't say that nobody wants it. I supposed I don't need it, but I feel that I have a right to it as I'm using it to listen to music that I have paid for. Anyway, you should give BeamIt a try. I use it at work all the time, and I find it so incredibly useful that I even use it at home sometimes even though I have my entire CD collection sitting right in front of me (because it is a very convenient way to make playlists, among other reasons). And it works great on Linux.
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
You're right that you don't have a right to ask for Win2000 in whatever media you want, but even Microsoft will allow you the right to back it up on whatever media you want once you own it.
I don't think the RIAA feels the same way.
Re:Whoa; careful there... (Score:1)
Funny you should mention Dave Matthews; didn't they encourage a lot of bootlegging of their music early in their career, and that's why they started becoming popular?
Re:What do you mean exactly? (Score:1)
Please excuse me for following up on my own post, but I missed a close blockquote symbol after the first paragraph. The first paragraph was someone else's, the rest mine.
Re:Free Music Foundation (Score:1)
You left a sentence fragment there...or did you mean too?
Re:No movement, just plain piracy... (Score:1)
--
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Well, the poor guy is a vegetarian...
McCartney's true colors (Score:1)
But one thing that really got to me was when I heard him in an interview a few years ago denouncing John Lennon as a second-rater and claiming that all that was original in The Beatles' music came from him.
DOH. John Lennon has been dead for 20 years now and can't really answer. So is it really surprising what he's doing now?
Freeing music (Score:1)
I love the beatles. I'm 22 and grew up with the band. The contribution of Paul alone will likely never be repayed in royalties.
However, consider the situation.
Sometimes I want to go back and visit some of the old classics. Maybe there's a great song like "Without you, I'm nothing", done by Placebo and the great David Bowie that I'll likely not be able to find in the stores any more. I download the MP3, and feeling a bit guilty I think about buying the album.
Ok, so here's the drill. I go to the record store, days or weeks after the initial craving for a certain song. I pay thirty Australian dollars for a piece of plastic that should last years under all sorts of horrible stress, but of course gets a scratch a few days after buying it, ruining at least one song, and in the case of the beatles, probably a whole album. They are well known for the flow of concept within a record.
Of the thirty dollars I pay, most goes to recording companies who's politics and fundamental ignorance of the creative process are crippling the art of my idols.
The Beatles were the core of a marketing machine that persists today. The difference is that while they still managed to get their message across, that outlet has been denied many modern artists.
I would beg McCartney begin reform of the industry he benefited so much from, and then think about the nature of the mp3 community's thefts.
There are plenty of new business models to choose from, I leave as a reference but one suggestion:
http://linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-03/lw-
I really hope this message gets back to Paul. You never know I suppose.
Re:What do you mean exactly? (Score:1)
Dear Anonymous Coward, (Score:1)
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
Then I honestly don't think you can call yourself a capitalist at all. This is fundamental to capitalism: the right to private property. If you dispute the legitimacy of copyright, you implicitly dispute the legitimacy of private property.
I don't believe that these money grubbing record labels should have the right to add a surcharge on ignorance.
How nice of you to decide for me whether I can or cannot pay "too much" for a product. Value (economically speaking) is subjective: the value of a thing is what *I* am willing to give up in order to obtain it. On the other hand, for you the value of that thing is what YOU are willing to give up for it. This fact is hidden to a great extent by the efficiency of the pricing system in this country, but it is no less true.
Furthermore, how is it that you think that you have a right to dictate to anyone the terms under which they will sell what they own? After all, this is the force of what you are saying here when you say you think they ought to have their ownership rights restricted.
This sounds noble, but it is unworkable. It cannot reasonably be applied to economics generally. Are you making a special case for hatred of music companies? That's rather arbitrary. Especially for something that is so trivial as music. Tell me, do you have similar loathing for the long distance companies that charge more than rock-bottom? Do you violate the law to obtain long distance service as a form of "protest"? Or cable TV?
I don't believe they should be allowed to deny the rights of others to provide an alternative to their collective monopoly.
They have no power whatsoever to control the distribution of music for which they do not own the distribution rights. This means that any independent band may set up its own website and sell their music by the download if they wish. No one can prevent it.
On the other hand, no one has the right to subvert copyrights.
By shutting down MP3.com, napster, and other such legally-iffy institutions, these people are denying my rights to use them, if in the off chance I wish to use them legally.
Later in your post you practically admit that you do NOT use these things legally, when you say "I choose to willfully do my best to fight that. Yes, that includes breaking copyright law." So your alleged concerns about having "legal access" to MP3.com seem rather empty.
Setting that aside, however, I honestly don't see how you can possibly demonstrate that MP3.com can protect copyright, short of requiring its users to actually send in their own CDs. As it stands, a user can simply claim to own a disc, but there is no way to verify that.
Yes, that includes breaking copyright law.
Are you a programmer? Tell me, do you apply these same "scruples" (ahem) to your code?
MODERATORS! Mark that man's post UP!!! (Score:1)
This occurred to me after I posted. It is a brilliant point, and the pirates here who crave "free music" would be singing a different tune if it were GPL'ed software that was at stake.
Copyright, boys and girls, is the ONLY thing that gives the GPL any force whatsoever. Take away copyright, and you can kiss your "free as in speech" software goodbye. It's time to get over your crass hypocrisy and realize that copyright is fundamentally important in a free society.
Or are you really communists after all?
Re:"Starving Artists" (Score:1)
Before copyright artists had patrons who subsidized their work by providing a living for them. Those who had no patron didn't live well (to say the least). Your "argument" (cough) is no refutation of anything I said.
You assume that controlling data is the only way to make money off of it. The Free Software movement shows that that's not true.
In the first place Richard Stallman isn't exactly living large on the return he has made from the software he has written. In the second place you falsely assume that GPL'ed software is not controlled. It IS. The GPL is founded wholly and solely upon the legitimacy of copyright. Absent strongly enforced copyright there is NOTHING to prevent a commercial entity from sucking up all this 'free' code and creating a new and proprietary and fully binary software product under their own label and with no mention of any indebtedness to anyone else in the world.
Do you GPL your code? Would you like Microsoft or any other corporation to take your code and use it as they see fit without any regard for your wishes? If you don't care, then why not place your code in the public domain? If you do care, then quit being a hypocrite and give the musician the same right to do what he wants with his product -- even if that means selling it to those big bad record companies you loathe.
I do feel that I have a fundamental right to any piece of non-private (not personal / financial) data, yes.
What a fine and self-serving definition of "private" you have. So would you mind if I came by your house and took your car? It's not "private" by your definition.
You don't think that there are financial costs associated with the production of music? You don't think that artists should be compensated for these costs?
denying it to me is creating artificial scarcity.
You really don't understand economics, do you? Music is intrinsically a scarce good because its supply is NOT unlimited.
you must be consfusing Free software with Open Source
No, I am NOT. Why don't YOU go read this [gnu.org], where the FSF says (among other things) "we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." Further, I believe that if you ask Mr. Stallman you will find that he is opposed to copyright violations because he knows that the GPL stands upon this foundation ALONE. You will not find arguments for software piracy (or any other form of piracy) at www.gnu.org.
If you're going to look to Stallman for inspiration for your loony ideas about music, be sure you look at everything he writes first -- not just the parts you like.
Re:"Starving Artists" (Score:1)
Are you completely lacking in knowledge of history? All you need to do is look at the state of classical music today for your answer. There is nowhere close to a large enough market for this music to produce employment for as many symphonies as there are. That is why the VAST majority of them are subsidized. In the past it was no different.
Producing art for free is not a growth industry. The costs are too great, and someone is going to have to pay.
Do you really think that the only way for an artist to make money is to "product-ize" their work and stamp out copies to sell?
Please, deliver me from my ignorance. Tell me exactly how -- without copyright -- we can have the same quantity and quality of music we presently enjoy. Put up or shut up, friend. Show us how it can be done, now that you've insisted that it can be done.
No offense, but I won't hold my breath.
Copyright is NOT anti-capitalist. (Score:1)
You, sir, have not the slightest clue about the subject.
Don't you remember basic economics? A written or recorded work is private property: it belongs to the person who produced it. There were costs associated with its production: time, money, effort, and so forth. If the owner of that private property wishes to share it with others, he has the fundamental right to do so under conditions that are acceptable to him. NO ONE has the right to dictate to him the conditions under which he will do so. If he wishes to be paid in money for his work, that is his privilege. If he wishes to give it away, that is his right as well.
Copyright is NOT "just like normal patents." This is a gross misunderstanding. A patent prevents others from using/profiting from an idea that a patent holder had. Copyright protects the particular expression found in the copyrighted material. You and I can both write a book about the postage stamps of Bolivia, and unless we plagiarize each other we are not violating copyright. On the other hand, if you invent a new method or tool for tilling the soil in the hilly areas of Bolivia and then patent it, I am enjoined by law from both copying your idea AND from coming up with something on my own that is substantially similar to your patented work. This is vastly different from copyright.
Lastly, it is copyright which is the fundamental protection behind all software. Unless you're a warez boy and just don't care, you had better realize that no software is safe if copyrights are abandoned.
Copyright is NOT "anti-capitalist." That is the most preposterous thing I've read today.
"Starving Artists" (Score:1)
So how much money would an artist make if there was no copyright protection on his work? Answer: approximately US$0.00. There would be no economic incentive for anyone to pay for music that they could obtain for free. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are no friend of "starving artists" if you really think that their interests are better served by abandoning copyright. If they are dissatisfied with the amount of money they receive from the record companies, then they have a simple solution: don't sign unsatisfactory contracts with record companies. You seem to be suffering from the misconception that these "starving artists" were somehow coerced into giving up control of their music to the record companies. Nothing could be further from the truth -- especially in an age where "starving artists" can use the Internet to distribute their music themselves.
But if we abandon copyright on music, then they can't even make money THAT way, can they?
Second, I have to pay for music.
Poor poor pitiful you. You do not realize that there are costs associated with creating music? You do not think that music creators have a right to be compensated for the expenses associated with making music? You think you have some sort of fundamental right to free and unlimited access to music created by others?
If this is true, I weep for your country.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy
Richard Stallman is hopefully not so blind as to fail to realize that it is copyright that gives his GPL any force whatsoever. Remove copyright from GPL'ed software and what do you have? You have software that can be made proprietary by anyone who wishes to do so. If you GPL your software, you had better realize this fact. If you do realize this fact, then you need to abandon the hypocrisy of opposing copyright on music.
Lastly, unless I'm quite mistaken Mr. Stallman is NOT opposed to the idea of paying for software. He simply wants access to the code. So I really don't think you can go looking to the FSF for a defense of abandoning copyright OR "free music."
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
I disagree completely. The two are linked. It's not a direct, one-to-one correllation, but the connection is obvious and compelling. One need only look at one or two pathological cases to see my point. In the Soviet Union no one had private property at all -- and no freedom at all. The same situation exists in Communist China, but with a twist: The government has permitted some capitalism to exist, but they now are struggling to keep the lid on the liberating force that private property actually is. Arguably the circumstance is more complex than this caricature, but it is simply undeniable that prior to the introduction of a tiny measure of capitalism into the PRC there was *far* less freedom (and even less impetus to liberty) than there is today.
It's just that the blind assumption "the USA is the most capitalist country, and the most free, therefore capitalism = freedom" should be challenged.
I did not use the US as an example. I do not think that we are particularly free today; certainly we have lost a great deal of our liberty. I believe that it is no mere coincidence that the restrictions on the free market that we see today (contra the situation during the 1800s) have developed at the same time as the restrictions on our liberty.
The unfortunate side effect is that big corporations with a lot of money can force the little guy with no money into a legal settlement, simply because they can afford the outrageous legal fees that the little guy cannot. I'll admit that that is more a problem of the legal system than the capitalist system.
That is correct. The legal system is rigged to a very great extent against the little guy now. But the justice or injustice of the court system doesn't seem to me to have any necessary connection to the economic system, except as it enforces (or fails to enforce) the existing laws relating to private property.
Of course, the fact that there are defects in the legal system does not in any way change the fact that copyright is a legitimate and necessary feature of a capitalist and free society...and that the record companies are therefore perfectly within their rights in attacking MP3.com -- until or unless it is is demonstrated that MP3.com has not infringed upon the copyrights held by the record companies.
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
I believe you ought to extend the same courtesy to the music industry. And just as it is up to you to decide what is "proper" compensation for your work, so too it is up to them to determine what is "proper" for theirs.
Of course, market forces may agree or disagree with both the music industry's and your assessment of whether that compensation you want is actually "proper" or not. I'm guessing you are gainfully employed, so the market seems to agree with you.
And in the same way, the market seems to agree that the music industry is not overcharging for their products -- whatever you or I may think.
By what standard do you arrive at the conclusion that present music prices are "immoral"?
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
While other things may be important to capitalism, private property is the sine qua non of capitalism: In its absence there is no capitalism at all.
if you oppose murder for hire, then by your own logic, I don't see how you can call yourself a capitalist.
Neither a free society nor capitalism can exist in a moral vacuum. Among other things, the right to private property must be protected -- no one has the right to steal your stuff, right? No one has the right to destroy my property, either. So how absurd would it be for us to suppose that private property is protected but our lives are not?
Can contracts survive where honesty and truthfulness are not valued? Of course not! You think you're being clever, but you're really not.
Simply because somthing CAN be used illegally is not grounds for making that something illegal.
This amazingly irrelevant statement is attached to a quote that you cleverly ripped from its context. What I said had to do specifically with the poster's professed willingness to violate copyright while at the same time being upset about not having legal access to MP3.com. A person who is willing to violate copyright is obviously not particularly interested in what is legal, so it's pretty silly to pretend to be all worked up about not having "legal" access to something. If you will look you will see that this is exactly how the poster understood it, and it was in fact my intent. I'm sorry you didn't get it.
Notwithstanding all this, your point is completely irrelevant in the present context. I never said anything that could be reasonably interpreted to dispute this point. The problem with MP3.com is that it is SURELY being used for illegal purposes -- it is not a question of taking away something that merely *might* be used illegally. If MP3.com can demonstrate that their system is designed and secured so as to effectively REQUIRE that its users actually own the CDs for which they're getting MP3's, then I can't think of any particular reason why I'd be bothered by them. Lastly, to borrow your gun analogy -- I assert that law enforcement would be fully within their rights to shut down a gun shop where illegal arms trafficking was occurring right alongside legitimate firearms sales. Such an event does NOT represent an attack upon legitimate ownership of guns. In the same way -- if MP3.com is trafficking in pirated music right alongside legitimate music, I have NO problem with law enforcement shutting them down. This does not mean that either they or someone else is not free to act within the law in a manner that is perhaps even substantially similar to the way MP3.com does business now. It does mean that thievery will not be tolerated. Perhaps the MP3.com folk mean no harm -- but then they have an obligation to ensure that no harm is done using their systems, just as gun dealers can't just turn a blind eye to the law as it pertains to guns.
If I infringe your copyright, you suffer no loss.
This is simply ignorant. If you infringe my copyright I lose the compensation -- of whatever form -- that I would otherwise have enjoyed had you honored my copyright. If enough people engage in this practice, I might decide that I am not being sufficiently compensated to bother with the costs associated with producing my copyrighted goods -- and then YOU lose, too.
In the long run the result of the abandonment of copyright is this: less of the goods that were formerly protected by copyright. Why is this? Because fewer people will agree to share their art with others for reduced or zero compensation.
Lack of gain != loss
You fail to understand economics. Lack of gain == reduced income (reduced by the amount you failed to pay me). If this is done by enough people, my income approaches zero. At some point prior to that I will surely conclude that I am not making enough money in this business, so I may as well go on to something else. Result: YOU lose production of a good you previously valued enough to at least steal.
have I stolen from Ford by buying a Chevy?
Ford's income is reduced by the amount of money that you spent on a Chevy rather than on a Ford. If enough people do this, Ford goes out of business.
On top of all this, you are apparently incapable of distinguishing between patents and copyright. You need to fix this. The two are different. Copyright does NOT extend to the ideas presented in a work. It extends to the particular expression of those ideas -- namely, they are MY words put together in (hopefully entertaining or educational) sentences of MY construction. The ideas themselves are fair game. This is very different from patents, which are all about ideas: I can't make my own version of a cotton gin -- even one that's better -- as long as Eli Whitney's patent on the gin is in force. Differing expressions of the same idea are forbidden by patents, but not by copyright.
I'm getting pretty sick of the histrionics of people who claim copyright infringement is theft.
Judging from your post, we don't have a monopoly on histrionics. :-)
Re:MP3 Apologists ignore the facts as usual (Score:1)
Make your MP3s or CDs yourself, and don't give them away to others. Honestly, this isn't that hard. Purchasing an LP does not mean you were granted any rights to some "perpetual upgrade." You bought copies of copyrighted material. You do not have any claim on anything other than the material you purchased. You do not have the right to subvert copyright because technology has left your former purchases behind.
This is tantamount to saying you have a right to steal a car because you once bought a bicycle. Sorry -- it doesn't hold water.
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
The two are really inseparable though different. There is no true liberty where there is no right to private property, and there is positively no capitalist system where private property rights are snuffed out by the state.
Free enterprise often implies the ability to restrict other people's freedom.
The only "restriction" free enterprise places is on the fact that a man has the right to control his own property, and that another man does not have the right to coerce him into disposing of it in ways he does not want. But that works both ways: everyone's property is protected.
The American national pastime of sueing everyone over every little thing is an illustration of this.
The litigiousness of American society cannot reasonably be said to be a necessary feature of capitalism. The fact that this litigiousness has only appeared in the last century demonstrates this. The U.S. was far more capitalistic in the 19th century, in that there were far fewer restrictions upon how a man might use his private property. It is only with the growth of additional restrictions upon that freedom that we have seen the explosion of lawsuits in this country. I don't believe that the demise of capitalism and the rise of the lawsuit are particularly linked to each other, but certainly litigiousness is not in any way a feature of capitalism.
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
These costs are substantially lower when the citizenry respects the property rights of the copyright holder. When people have a massive disrespect for property of others -- as is the case in the U.S. today -- then indeed the costs are greater -- but only because the people have become morally degraded.
The whole apparatus of copyright registration,
There is no such thing. A work is copyrighted immediately upon being produced. There is no additional "registration" involved in enjoying the benefits of copyright protection -- at least not here in the United States (I have no idea what the situation is like in other countries). Publishers will register their products with the Library of Congress (in the United States) because they perceive there is an additional benefit to doing so -- but it has nothing to do with copyright. Look around you -- do you REALLY think that all these millions of copyrighted materials have been vetted by some clerk in Washington/London/Sao Paolo/wherever?
investigation and prosecution of criminal copyright cases, courts to hear civil and criminal copyright cases, prison cells for people convicted of criminal infringement, is a substantial cost.
Yes. These are costs of a free society where private property is officially respected. If the citizenry does not itself respect copyright, then these costs will be high -- but this lack of respect by the public cannot reasonably be said to be a virtue. It is in fact a gross hypocrisy (see how people yelp when THEIR stuff is stolen!)
If the end result is not a significant benefit to the public, then Copyright should be abolished.
Copyright is massively beneficial to the public. They would not have all this music to listen to without it. They would not have all these books to read without it. They would not have movies to watch and software to use without copyright.
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
What are "natural rights" ? Who says that the right to property of any kind is a moral absolute ? I put it to you that it isn't. It's also a "legal invention for the benefit of the public", though perhaps a somewhat older such invention. Other rights like the "right" to free speech are somewhat newer.
IMO, the significant benefit of copyright is that it provides a means for authors of creative works to claim compensation, and as such, furthers the development of such works. It also allows ordinary people to dollar-vote for such works, whereas further back, the musicians could only write what the aristocracy wanted them to, because patronage is something only the wealthy can sponsor. I call this a "significant benefit to society".
Re:That music's mine, and you didn't pay for it (Score:1)
If this is true, why do we see so many high school bands these days ? And some of these bands are darned good. Most of the students in them will not become professional musicians. They just do it to broaden their education. I also did this and don't regret it.
Too many people see making music as a brass ring - that you make music in hope of making a huge pile of money. The vast majority will not, and forget the main reason to make music - pleasure.
Yeah yeah yeah ... teachers should do it for love, professors should do it for love, so should doctors. And many of them do. But all of these guys would be equally pissed off if you said "you have no right to make money in your line of work. Get a real job".
Re:Oh, give me a fucking break. (Score:1)
1.4 billion for an entire industry certainly does not make it a "profit leader". Take a look at some earnings reports from some major companies -- several are pulling in more than this.
Re:Free Music Foundation (Score:1)
The Record Companies usually fund concerts, driving up sales of CDs, increasing the name recognition of the artist and the label. If the artist has a good contract (good money that McCartney would, bad money that N'Sync would), they gain more money based on increased sales, or have better bargaining position with their next contract.
Roger McGuinn on Artists' love for MP3.com (Score:1)
The ever-genial Chicago native agrees that the Byrds albums never sounded better than they do now, but if you assume the 57-year-old Pete Seeger idolizer is sitting around contemplating the past, guess again. This morning alone, McGuinn's already answered hundreds of e-mails generated by his Mcguinn.com Web site, and is busy setting up microphones so he can record the latest addition to his continuing "Folk Den" song series, then make the results available for no-cost downloading. At Seeger's request, he's cutting another trad gem, "Dink's Song," adding that a "Best of Folk Den" project will see its way to retail shelves soon. The first three volumes of the series are available only on MP3.com.
"They retail for $7.99, because there's no middleman, and I get 50%," explains McGuinn. "If they sell 1,000 CDs, I get $4,000. It's unheard of! You know how long it would take to get $4,000 in royalties from a [label]? Maybe the answer is never."
Link fix:Roger McGuinn on Artists' love for MP3 (Score:1)
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
>Copyright is abusive? Immoral? Ho ho. To the contrary, it is fundamentally capitalist.
Actually, yes, IP law is anti-capitalist, it provides a government mandated monopoly, just like normal patents.
ICQ#2584116
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
Re:"Starving Artists" (Score:1)
With all the crypto talks around here, people always bring up that the consititution needs to be updated or at least reunderstood because of all the loop holes left by things like electronic surveilance that the founding fathers had no way to foresee. Likewise, copyright was created when it hadn't existed in the past because of new technologies that undermined what people had come to understand about originals. If the tools didn't exist to easily reproduce someone elses work, then copyright would not need to exist today.
Those tools do exist. They have for quite some time now. Copyright tries to protect the artist from from those tools to an extent, by giving them say over what happens to their work.
Re:What do you mean exactly? (Score:1)
It doesn't matter how much money someone has... If he's being ripped off to the point where one can go "oh, maybe he'll have to...." then ever wonder what it means to the less successful artists? The ones that won't merely need to switch toilet papers, but maybe switch career aspirations as well?
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
I don't agree with the music industry trying to tell people how they can listen to their music (trying to ban the rio, for instance), but i completely agree with them in wanting to have final say in how their music gets distributed. It's theirs, they own it. And no one here has come up with anything near a clear plan on how artists would get paid, except for things like an honor system.
CD's cost a lot more to produce than just the 25 cents to press a CD... everyone here appears to want to over look that fact, though.
Re:Movement?? (Score:1)
The GPL is based on copyright. People are believed to have to observe it as a valid license because of the copyright implications. IF you tear down the walls on copyright law, all of a sudden, that oh-so-precious GPL license is also equally meaningless.
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Re:MP3.com is wrong (Score:1)
Tapes are impermanent... they degrade, as they don't exist in a digital sense.
The more times you make copies of tapes, the more they degrade.
MP3's degrade only once, when they're converted, and then can be copied enmasse forever.
That's the scary thing about digital. In the analog world, copies were worse than the original, there was no aarguing that point. But now, a digital copy is bit for bit a copy of the original... It's understandable that the industry doesn't like the repurcussions of that.
No movement, just plain piracy... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, MP3 is a rather poor media format. When one records tracks with any sort of complexity to the content, for example from Tori Amos, there are obvious digital artifacts and just plain weird stuff.
It is suitable for my purposes. But the idea that people are going to pay to obtain music in this format is ludicrous at best. It's not even the quality of a prerecorded cassette tape, and people have rejected those for years compared to the CD. My assumption in this regard seems to be born out by the fact that MP3.com is losing money, and has not shown any clear revenues to artists.
Again, this is not to say that there is no place for MP3 on the internet. I think it's a wonderful format for the recording artists to provide samples of their CD's. This has influenced a ton of purchases I have made from cdnow.com, which provides mp3 and realaudio samples of some music.
But the basic idea that there is a revolution here with regards to MP3 and the distribution of recorded music is a distortion of facts.
There is no revolution here. While MP3 is an interesting technology, and has it's place... what is constantly brought up by MP3 apologists is plain simple music piracy. It's the exact same thing that we used to do when I was in college with a cassette recorder.
It's not a question of the music industry "just not getting it". They "got it" when we were copying our tapes, and they "get it" today with MP3.
As it sits today the music industry is not a huge profit leader. For any given label, the profits of their top 20 artists help to support the publication of the remaining 1000 or so artists.
A rebuttal to pro-piracy arguments & a rant on /. (Score:2)
Now without further ado, the rebuttals to the weak arguments in support of 'piracy'.
I. There seem to be a number of slashdotters who have some belief that (p1) "information wants to be free". Can anyone clearly articulate why this is true? I have yet to see *ONE* good reason why this is the case. Saying that it p1 is true because information wants to be free is CIRCULAR. I'm sure you know what that means. Its absurd. LAst time I checked information didn't have an opinion on its freedom. OF course new break throughs in information theory that I am ignorant of might have changed this. Please, somone, please do tell me how you have a right to other's work. PLEASE I really want to know the logic behind this.
II. There are a certain number of slashdotters who see mp3s as ok because muscians don't deserve that much money. Who gave this group the right to decide who deserves what? Last time I checked, the majority obviously thinsk they do,l and they do so by deciding with their wallets. Actions speak louder than words. These people are obviously jealous that muscisions do a job they love while they are stuck in some job they hate. That is the only reason I can see for even posting this absurd argument.
III. There is another gruop of /.'ers who believe that the majority of muscisions supports mp3s and want to kill the RIAA. There have no been 2 posts to the contrary, I would really like to see a some real statistical research into the matter. Research that doccuments the income from various (randomly chosen) muscisians, so we can see where their income comes from (these /.ers would have us believe that cd-sales is a minimal sourc eof income, which really sounds absurd from what I know). That is why I think honest research is needed. Some of these /.'ers have changed their opinion now to label muscisans as greedy. How convienant. I don't want some anecdotal evidence from a /. musciain. So don't even think about replying to this comment with that. We all know how valid anecodates are. So unless you are going to point to a study from a reliable source, don't even both replying. Of course the argument can still be refuted, but at the moment, I don't see the point of wasting hte effort until someone meets my requirements.
IV. There is yet another group that justifies music through the fact that they do not have enough money to buy it and thus by stealing they are doing no harm. This is truely an absurd argument and arises from some idiotic notion of 'the man'. By the same reasoning my stealing from Macy's does really no harm, because I don't have the money to buy the clothes, the clothes cost nothing to produce (they are produced with child labor in most cases), and thus no one is harmed. YEA RIGHT!. Stealing is wrong because it is morally wrong. Even small children understand this. I don't understan how slashdotters can't realize this. I'm not going to justify why stealing is wrong here, there are many other sources that can do that far better than I can. This "no one" gets hurt mentality is idiotic. If you don't have to pay, neither does anyone else, and thus no one pays!. Then pepole do get hurt! I can't afford a BMW and I know this rich BMW dealership that could easily afford the loss of one BMW (I'll even 'pay' the costs of the raw materials ~ 5k if that). It doesn't mean I have the right to take it just becaue Im poor. Thats idiotic.
V. There is another group of slashdotters (they could be branded as a subgroup of I) that believe they are entitled to entertainment and thus have the right to download mp3s. Sorry! Please justify this principle of being entitled to others work! Its absurd. Besides that, the principle is psychologically absurd. Anyone whose taken psych 101 knows that. There is only 1 thing humans NEED, that is food. To a lesser extent there is a need to avoid pain and a need for reproduction. But entertainment is not a psychological neccesity. That is BULLSHIT.
I could go on and on, but I believe the aboe summarizes the major /. pro-piracy arguments. All are truely pathetic. Now I'm going to switch topics, because I'm really in an irritated mood, and going to rant on /. in general.
I am seriously getting sick of /. using the word 'geek'. WHAT KIND OF DAMN HYPOCRACY IS THIS? These so called 'geeks' use this word in the same exclusionary way that 'jocks' and 'cool' people use those terms. HYPOCRACY! Come on!. I really want to puke everytime I see this word, as some sort of generalization fo what the audience of /. is. Some sort of stereotype. UGH, please don't make me throw up. I'm a damn individual, not a stereotype. The hypocricay is even more evident when you see the ferveront anger /.ers display to non geeks (e.g. jocks, capatilists, theists, now muscisans, etc. etc. etc.). PLEASE someone save us from the hypocracy. I have been on slashdot since before the corporate buyouts, before moderation (censorship), and before users. This term geek has been used by /. for purely hypocritcial marketing purposes. Back in the day /. ran way mor etechnical articles, it is clear today articles dealign with social problems are by far in dominance. These types of articles promote the disgusting behaviour I mentioned above. These types of articles are in dominance because they bring in more viewers. Can we say hyporcarcy for the billionth time (and NO I CAN'T SPELL, but this is /. so thats ok). *Cough*Sell out*cough*. I have a right to rant, selling out is a cause of indignation. I will rant, it will fall on deaf ears,b ut thats ok, I feel obliged to rant. I'm serverely disgusted.
End of Rant.
Re:A rebuttal to pro-piracy arguments & a rant on (Score:2)
Well... you've outright said you're not listening to _me_. I've been playing music for almost 20 years, I've paid money to take music business courses and educated myself about the reality of the situation and devoted some hard thought to what's really going on here but I'm coming out for mp3s so you're going to ignore it by default. I've been talking to an LA producer who likes my stuff and ought to be able to get some people listening to it, and _he_ doesn't bat an eyelash at this sort of thing, yet you strike up a noisy bad stance and expect to be taken as the voice of reason.
If you refuse to listen to my 'anecdotal evidence' even though I'm demonstrably a musician who happens to be a /.er, why on earth should I listen to you? I think you're trying to reduce a new situation to a series of easily defeatable strawmen. In doing so you're attacking MY resources. I really, _really_ don't appreciate your trying to kill off the only form of media that remains entirely within my control...
Re:Paul McCartney is doing no such thing. (is so!) (Score:2)
While this is generally true, that artists tend to have no control over their music after they sign a contract, in this case the article says that McCartney is the principal owner of MPL -- so it's his company that is filing suit.
So yes, in this case, it's fair to blame him.
Re:Again, crappy moderation. (Score:2)
Sit in limousine #74 and cry in his champagne?
It will be easier to take these anti-mp3 complaints seriously once we hear artists complaining who aren't already insanely rich! We're only hearing complaints from the people at the top of the food chain, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
what "Information wants to be free" means (Score:2)
Some people might toss around the phrase ``information wants to be free'' as some kind of moral statement, but I've always interpreted it more along the lines of ``nature abhors a vaccuum.'' Obviously neither information nor nature have any feelings on the matter; both phrases are anthropomorphisms that describe properties of the world.
Information, by being infinitely duplicable and not tied to a physical object, has the tendency to expand far and wide, just as gasses have a tendency to to fill a container.
It's possible that Maxwell's Demon can keep those pesky molecules in line, and it's possible that information can be tightly controlled and treated as a subject of property just like physical objects can be.
But it's not bloody likely.
Re:Movement?? (Score:2)
In this case it isn't strictly a backup. It's a person making the music that they've purchased available to themselves from any location where they have access to a computer and the net. It's similar to making a cassette copy of a CD to play in your car, something that courts have already ruled legal. In this case you're making a digital copy on the MP3.com server so you can listen to it at work or some other place.
Option #1 (Score:2)
We should get a bunch of people together and dress up like indians. Then we go dump all the REM CDs in Boston Harbor! That'll teach 'em!
Re:What do you mean exactly? (Score:2)
Re:What do you mean exactly? (Score:2)
I don't have to prove you wrong, Patrick. I just have to read a history book from the British point of view rather than the relatively biased one put out by the Americans. :-)
No, I don't actually believe that, but a hell of a lot of British "subjects" (and people from Canada and the like) do. Some of them believe stuff that's even more detached from reality, that I won't go into here. My point? That any social phenomenon can be mischaracterized as "a bunch of selfish jerks who want something for nothing;" even the space program. Don't let them get you angry, because then it looks even more like what they're saying is true.
Production versus reproduction. (Score:2)
I have a small ethical problem when someone derives unlimited control and profit for doing a small, fixed amount of work---or worse, having someone else do the work and then claiming ownership of it.
Copyright infringement is merely illegal. It is not unethical. At one point in U.S. history, it was illegal for a slave to run away. That didn't make it immoral. Copyright is the new form of slavery: intellectual slavery.
Copyright has an even lesser ethical basis than slavery, which already has zero. When a slave runs away, it can be argued that there is an economic loss. When an ``unauthorized'' copy is made, there is no loss to the original. The entire economic expenditure is suffered by the ``pirate'', who comes up with the target media and the machinery for reproduction. There is no backward effect to the master copies owned by the creator.
Copyright is not capitalism; it is a government enforced monopoly that was designed to promote science and the arts. Not to line the pockets of greedy culture merchants and giant, rich software companies.
Copyright needs to be reduced to only one or two rights; the attribution right to have your name carried with your creation, and the right not to have your name associated with a twisted version of your work.
These rights are really just common sense; someone who receives a copy of something should be given honest, correct information as to the true origin of that something.
The end of MP3.com? (Score:2)
Could MP3.com be sued into bankrupcy? If so, we could see its assets (the domain name, roster of tracks, &c.) sold off, possibly bought up by (and subsumed into) one of the major music companies. Then we could see the situation of the new MP3.com being at the vanguard of phasing out the insecure MP3 format in favour of SDMI.
Now that would be a coup for the RIAA.
Copyright (Score:2)
There is. You buy the record.
You then have the right to possess and listen to tapes dubbed from that record, CDs sampled from that record, MP3s encoded from that record, or whatever other format you think is most convenient.
Well... (Score:2)
Some people just need to realize that they have more to fear from becoming irrelevant than they do from MP3. The scary thing for these people is that MP3 speeds up the process.
TOo bad for them, I guess.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Movement?? (Score:2)
Sure, you can bypass this system by sharing logins or borrowing CDs - but you can do the exact same thing with a decent tape recorder. It's just another tool that people can abuse or use right. It's up to the person.
This isn't really a distribution method, although technically data is being shuffled around. By 'beaming' your CDs, you are essentially making a copy on a server for later retrieval. You already had the original music distributed to you in the form of a CD - the record company made their cut.
I just don't see the problem. It's almost like you and a friend own the exact same CD, and your friend makes a copy to tape and gives it to you. Now you have a CD and tape copy of the same data - what's the problem? You already payed the licensing rights for that music, no?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:MP3.com is wrong (Score:2)
So why is it a problem if I make a digital backup for my own use? Why is it a problem if it lasts forever? If I can keep the original media forever, why shouldn't I keep the backup forever? In the computing world we'd be pissed if we couldn't make long-term backups - why should it be any different in this case? My backups are legal today, they should be just as legal 10 years from now.
Should the recording industry stop people from making CD burners (which many people to make their own mixes)? They make exact duplicates as well.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Well... (Score:2)
I have no interest in downloading pirated MP3s. Your assumption that anyone who uses this service is incorrect - the fact that some people who use it do so illegally is not my concern. They should be dealt with accordingly as individuals - I don't believe this should preempt my rights to the music I already purchased.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Well... (Score:2)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:MP3.com is wrong (Score:2)
This can be abused, sure. So can other types of media. Tape recorders, VCRs, TiVo, your hard-drive, your CD burner, etc. are every bit as 'guilty' as mp3.com's service is.
If the recording industry can do this to mp3.com, they'd _better_ be prepared to tell the consumer to his/her face that he/she cannot purchase a tape recorder.
And yes, they tried that once as well. Stupid, stupid, stupid...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:MP3.com is wrong (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but a service that gives you access to your own songs seems unneccessary.
---
BTW, for some reason, this statement seems incredibly... Odd.
What is so unnecessary about a service that allows you to stream your own personally purchased music from elsewhere? I'd rather not carry my entire CD collection around with me. As long as I'm near _any_ high-speed internet connection, I'm good to go.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:MP3.com is wrong (Score:2)
However, I still don't see where this applies to my.mp3.com. Like tape recorders, CD burners, etc. this service has the potential for abuse. With all of these technologies, it is very easy to abuse. Yes, this needs to be looked at. Yes, my.mp3.com should try hard to make this service secure.
But should they be sued? No. At least, not if they're not going to sue manufacturers of CD burners, tape recorders, and so on. My computer is capable of making recordings either from line-input or off of a CD - should the any member of the recording industry sue Apple next (guess what - they've already tried)?
I think the degradation issue is moot - my rights to the music I purchase don't expire in 10 years, and if I find a more viable means to back up my music, I have the right to use it. I think what people are saying is that the recording industry has the right to do whatever they wish to protect their intellectual property, _as long as_ it doesn't stomp on our rights as consumers. Suing a company that comes up with yet another mechanism to listen to your _already owned_ music is just petty.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Free Music Foundation (Score:2)
If musical recordings becomes fluid, and part of the atmosphere, then it will be as impossible to expect to make money off each copy of a recording as it would be to expect me to pay for everything that my eyes just chance upon: I don't pay architects for every building I see, or artists for every mural I look at. They make their money in advance, as a service.
revolution indeed (Score:2)
Yup, we got those, they're called CD prices, among other things.
>Lack of representation in the British parliament.
No customers control the RIAA or the MPAA, just some studio honchos and lawyers.
>Horrible diplomacy on the part of the British
'nuff said
>Heavy-handedness
Did you sleep through all the lawsuits?
So... by your definition it is a revolution indeed.
ICQ#2584116
Re:Technology structures musical culture (Score:2)
Re:Movement?? (Score:2)
The institution of Copyright also has costs, for the government and ultimately the citizen. The whole apparatus of copyright registration, investigation and prosecution of criminal copyright cases, courts to hear civil and criminal copyright cases, prison cells for people convicted of criminal infringement, is a substantial cost. If the end result is not a significant benefit to the public, then Copyright should be abolished.
Copyrights, patents and trademarks are not natural rights, although some people would disagree with that, they are legal inventions for the benefit of the public. Licenses and contracts will not be enforced by the courts if the result is judged to be against the public interest. I've seen real estate covenants that say that the property may not be sold to Blacks or Jews. They are a legitimate part of the deed but they will not be enforced by modern courts.
Re: (Score:2)
My parents 60's Beatles LP's are my next MP3z! (Score:2)
So I've started recording my LPs, and compressing them as 256kbps VBR MP3's so I can ENJOY THEM.
Sorry, I dont re-buy music I own unless the price is right.
I, and the world DIG your music Paul! My parents collected from your first trip over here. I now store the collective familys worth of LP's, 45's, and some tapes.
We have all sorts of Beatles, Wings, and George and Richards stuff, Even those cardboard Beatles head coat-hangers! We all saw Yellow Submarine in a movie theatre. (WAY more color depth on FILM TOO by the way.)
In fact WE PAID hundreds of dollars in these last 4 the DECADES. Those 60's dollars invested are worth some big bucks now, huh. Even your percentage, of the percentage is a lot of money now. Hmmmmm, who GOT most of that money?
Alas, You did'nt get 50% of WHAT WE PAID, DID YOU PAUL!!!? (You CAN NOW. If you sign with MP3.com...)
We dont want to listen to those scratchs and pops. I can only hope you'll save me the trouble of compressing every last LP myself, and sell multi-year sets of you bands music in MP3 format.
It would be a good idea to price it under ten dollars, and you dont need no stinking S.D.M.I. Paul...
ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE PAUL!
...now go and make your lawyer quit his job!
If you need money, go with MP3, and you'll GET 50% of it THIS century!
Both Sides (Score:2)
So Mr. McCartney's company's lawsuit is quite frivolous and misguided, but it *IS* a natural human response trying to protect what he has created. It is so much easier to go after a central source than individual pirates, and until that changes, companies will always go after people in the middle like MP3.com.
If you can think of an agreeable way to fix these types of situations so both sides are happy, do it and get rich. And soon, so I can quit worrying if my right to make backups is going to disappear.
McCartneys is businessman, not Artist. (Score:2)
So don't view Paul as someone who is defending the inspiration and sweat of the songs he wrote, he's as bad as the MPAA itself, only worried about the money he makes, or might NOT make from lost sales from MP3's
Then again, if I only had $900Million, I'd be worried about making ends meet too..
--knick
MP3.com is wrong (Score:2)
They provide legal MP3s, it's what they do... there's no reason for them to suddenly start providing access to questionably legal stock, especially without first asking the recording companies. Now, instead of giving access to the music of up-and-coming artists it's going to have to battle in court with the major labels over something that I really don't anybody needs or wants. I could be wrong, but a service that gives you access to your own songs seems unneccessary.
Re:Technology structures musical culture (Score:2)
I guess it was resolved when ASCAP saw people were moving to BMI and started doing the same.
(NOTE: This is from memory of a Pop Music of the 20th Century course I took 1.5years ago, so is probably wrong)
Paul McCartney is doing no such thing. (Score:2)
Paul McCartney is doing NOTHING to MP3.com. A company which owns the rights to much of his music is doing something to MP3.com. Artists may literally sell their songs and figuratively their souls to the record company, but power of attorney as well?
I wonder how much I could have gotten for selling the right to blame things on me to, say, Union Carbide. "We're not dumping PCBs naked into the environment, it's that bastard Phil who's doing it!"
Re:Movement?? (Score:2)
I hate this crap. Look it's his property but it's not his country. He has to obey the laws of the city, county, state and the country his property is located in. Just because it's your property that does not mean you can rape somebody on it does it?
But judge it's my property and I can do any drug I want to on it! Yea right.
Re:McCartney may have a point here.. (Score:2)
Yes, they do. They have actually gone out and purchased every CD that is available for their Beam-It service. They have hired people to rip the CDs, which they do almost 24 hours a day. So you might say that the record companies are actually getting a bonus, since MP3 has to buy the albums, as well as the end-user.
Re:Movement?? (Score:2)
What does "wanting free music" have to do with MP3.com? The only "free music" they have on their site is the stuff that artists are intentionally letting people listen to for free. All the stuff on my.mp3.com you have to prove you own the CD FIRST.
Sure, you could borrow a friend's CD to feed it, but if you could do that, you could make a personal copy almost as easily.
Re:What do you mean exactly? (Score:2)
There's a difference between people who think that paying some tarriff is too much for the price of tea, and the people who think that paying ANYTHING for a CD/cassette/8track/LP/(insert your favorite traditional music medium here) is too much.
The people who think that the RIAA and individual recording labels are big, bad and evil for opposing mp3s are just freeloaders, they're not even close to revolutionary. They want something for nothing. They're spoiled, and chances are, they've never actually released a product where they have tried to earn a profit from its sales.
_____________________
step one: place
Imagine (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:What do you mean exactly? (Score:2)
The American revolution was nothing more then a bunch of freeloaders who didn't want to pay there taxies, after Britain spent hundreds of millions defending the country in the French and Indian war. Please, there was nothing 'movement like' about this revolt.
I'm not sure if you're actually serious, or just trolling, but I'll risk responding to a troll to reply to this.
Although the motivation not to pay for the French and Indian War was present others factors were involved
In short, I suggest you find a history book and do some reading, as I can't see how you can logically support your conclusion.
Please prove me wrong and post a more complete support of your argument.
Patrick
Dazed and confused ... (Score:2)
Forgive me, but what's the difference?
Huh? Have you thought of being coherent? (Score:2)
If they wanted to blatently ignore the copyrights, why would they check that the user already possesses the album they want to listen to?
"You rob someone, you go to jail. Plain and simple. And don't give me the line about 'I download mp3s to see if I want to buy the album'. The same thing is said about software piracy, which is no less a crime. And it is still false. Do you think all the drunken college kids are going to pay for their 'Limp Bizkit' or 'Jay-Z' albums?"
Yes, but that's not at issue here. Your failure to bother even reading the article is obvious. What is at issue here is using other peoples copies of albums that you already own.
Man.... Will you people please stop seeding the discussion forums?
McCartney may have a point here.. (Score:2)
Musical Warez? (Score:2)
Surely the record label / publisher / artist is well within their rights to stop mp3.com from distributing their works if there is a strong possibility that an illegal act is occurring? No, Mr McCartney doesn't need the money, nor does his label, but enforcing their legal rights is, if you'll pardon the expression, their right in this society. After all, we all have the right to free speech to criticise them at every turn, don't we?
mp3 struggle (Score:2)
demitraides.
Respect Due. (Score:2)
"Elvis Presley aint got no soul. Bo Diddley is rock and roll. You may dig on the Rolling Stones. But they aint come up with that shit on they own." -Mos Def "Rock and Roll"
Art should be free. (Score:2)
Feh. (Score:3)
McCartney may or may not be taking an active role in this, but in effect he is hurting me, something I do not appreciate. I have not ever downloaded a _single_ thing off 'My Mp3.com' (their commercial-music mirroring service). I _upload_ to mp3.com (links siggified, knowing that slashdot gets royally sick of hearing the same plea 27 times in a row!) and get over 100 megs of web hosting for my music at no charge, in exchange for giving only _nonexclusive_ rights to 'em. McCartney is looking to take this away from me- though I doubt he's even thought it through.
Part of the reason I even picked mp3.com for this, knowing that they are the focal point for these attacks, is because I want to be in a position to take part in a sort of judo-like attack back at the RIAA and these other attackers. If they manage to harm the _original_ part of mp3.com significantly (I really don't care about My Mp3.com) then they are harming me and a _lot_ of other musician types, many of whom take the music mirroring concept a lot more seriously than I do. Can you say 'class action suit'? I knew you could... If these litigous idiots manage to hurt MY ACCESS to media as an independent artist (christ, I'm not even asking for equal time for promotion, or whatever- it's fine if I just sit there on mp3.com having to fend for myself to get publicity- I'm talking about losing access, about building a web presence that gets harmed through a lawsuit to a _separate_ part of the site!) then I will seriously want to be part of a retaliatory lawsuit.
Go ahead and get them to kill the commercial music mirroring, Paul- I can see the argument that this is important and the wave of the future, but it's clearly also a very daring attempt to redefine the law by acting on what it 'should' mean.
But all this defending of the faith is mostly the protecting of a music machine that built _you_, Paul- they have been selling _your_ music for 30 years and more, and have increasingly little interest in making any new 'product'. And maybe you, personally, have had ENOUGH from that work done 30 years ago. You're trying to still be paid to this day from work you did literally before I was born. Record some new songs if you want new money- I personally have no problem with your insisting that every note is commerce and must be bought and paid for- my problem is when your actions begin to step on my ability to have access to media (I'm thinking of the mp3 format in general here, and the mp3.com site in particular as a 'prime location' due to the domain name and size of it).
I hope this all ends up with My Mp3.com either dead or not- but the mp3.com _I_ use still alive. In some ways the mp3.com guy reminds me of Malcolm McLaren, though I know he's not really that clever. If your band can't get a gig- get them arrested. If the band isn't even popular enough to get arrested- get yourself, the manager, arrested! And so he is.
I just hope it stirs up curiosity about what mp3.com used to be- it's incredibly insulting if mp3.com, with tens of thousands of bands and songs of all different quality levels, is treated as just an illegal pirating website for _industry_ music. Putting that spin on it is _amazingly_ insulting.
Re:What do you mean exactly? (Score:3)
You are assuming that popular artists make a lot of money, and less popular artists make a little money, and things like MP3 will take money out of all of their pockets proportionally.
That's wrong.
The reality is that a handful of superstars make a lot of money, and all other artists make exactly nothing.
Small artists stand to benefit from free internet distribution of their music because it will get their music heard, since now they can go around the profit-sucking middlemen in the record labels.
This is not about artists losing money, this is about lawyers losing money.
Whoa; careful there... (Score:3)
You know what's interesting? Many record labels have taken up arms against MP3.com and the like. But I have yet to see a single actual artist take a stance against it. Every artist I've seen who's had anything to say about the matter has been in favor of the format.
Guess it goes to show you who really stands to lose here. The recording companies screwed up big time when it comes to digital music. If they'd gotten in on the ground floor, found real ways to market music online, they would have flown. But they didn't, and technology is simply passing them by as it evolves. I suppose it's kind of sad, to see companies fighting to stay alive, when the only people to blame for their problems are themselves.
What do you mean exactly? (Score:3)
Ok, so people want free music without paying for it, and there doing it in mass. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not. It's illegal to pirate music, but then most revolutionary ideas are when they go against the fiber of the current entrenched power. Will ultimately harm the music industry? Probably. Will it harm the quality of music? Who knows? Even so, Marxism ended up being detrimental, but you could hardly not call that 'movement'.
In any event, the MP3 'situation' is definitely destabilizing the music industry right now, it is an agent of powerful change, and could have long lasting effects. Despite how you might feel about there motives and objectives, it is a movement.
Yes, the company owns most of the rights.... (Score:3)
Movement?? (Score:3)
Give me a break. There's nothing "movement-like" about mp3s.
Re:Movement?? (Score:4)
So where exactly did I sign saying that my music has to come from the CD I purchased it on? The only 'license' I know of prevents me from duplicating it for someone else's use.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Movement?? (Score:4)
Copyright is abusive? Immoral? Ho ho. To the contrary, it is fundamentally capitalist. You who claim to be in favor of free enterprise are rather shortsighted if you really have a problem with copyright.
Producing music or books has associated costs. Copyright ensures that those who bear those costs also have an opportunity to benefit from producing these goods for the rest of us. It protects those who create music and books from plagiarism (among other things).
The only alternative to copyrighted music is: much, much less music available to enjoy.
I am not here intending to defend the record companies. Their products are grossly overpriced, in my opinion -- but note: they cannot charge more than people are willing to pay, because they cannot force people to buy their products. The fact that I refuse to spend $15 on a CD is irrelevant, because an awful lot of people are perfectly willing to do so.
To the extent that MP3's are used in pirating music, McCartney or any other owner of copyrighted music is absolutely and completely within his rights to seek to protect what is lawfully his.
If you ignore copyright -- if you make or own pirate copies of copyrighted music -- you are implicitly denying that a private property owner has the right to do what he wishes with what he owns within the bounds of the law. You are thereby undermining your claim to be a capitalist, and you are similarly undermining your right to be outraged when someone steals something out of your house.
You're free to make MP3s from CDs you own yourself -- just don't go trafficking in pirated goods.
How soon we forget.. (Score:4)
"You say you want a revolution, well, you know.."
Oh dear. Looks like Mr. McCartney is now staring his revolution in the face, and he doesn't like what he sees. Counter-culture hippy turned lawsuit-throwing mogul. Like he's one to talk about "musicians rights"..He doesn't even own his own work anymore! His entire body of work from 1960-1970 is owned by Michael Jackson! Sheesh!
Saying McCartney isn't going after MP3.com is like saying Bill Gates didn't try to undermine Netscape--he just happened to be the one who owned the company! Gimmie a break.
Welcome to the 00's, Mr. McCartney. The cat's already out of the bag, and a hundred lawsuits wont put the cat back in it.
flame(off);
Bowie J. Poag
Re:That music's mine, and you didn't pay for it (Score:4)
...except in Paul's case, it's often not music that he's written. Paul Macartney and Michael Jackson are two of the largest owners of publishing. Paul doesn't even own the Beatles songs - Jackson does. So this is a lot more complex than a poor artist protesting about being ripped off, this is the owner of a business that his done it's fair share of artist-screwing, protesting to preserve the status quo.
The idea that music could be "owned" is a recent concept, probably no older than the Victorian era with sheet music sales. The idea didn't really take hold until the invention of the phonograph, when a few performers could become massively popular.
Two trends have been the result of recorded music:
At one point, every family had at least one musician. Most middle-class homes had a piano; virtually no home was so poor that it didn't have at least one instrument, and someone to play it. But the popularity of heavily promoted popular music has had a devestating effect on home-made music. Too many people see making music as a brass ring - that you make music in hope of making a huge pile of money. The vast majority will not, and forget the main reason to make music - pleasure.
All these carefully orchestrated pleas from carefully chosen artists ignore one fact: the same digital revolution that has made "piracy" possible has made it amazingly cheap to record music. "Project studios" are within the reach of most anyone, and the equipment, including professional quality microphones, has gotten cheaper and cheaper. Recording your own music can now be considered a "hobby".
Cream does rise. Talented artists produce followings, and the internet can enable you to become known outside of your city. But we have been programmed by the recording industry to believe that anyone who plays in only one area is a failure, that success only exists on the country-wide or global scale. But every dollar spent on the massive world-wide tour by the platinium-selling artist is one less that could be spent supporting locally generated music.
Technology structures musical culture (Score:5)
The development of recorded music, which really became an important industry in the mid 40's (even though the first phonographic tubes were credited to Edison's lab in the 1880's, I think) changed the way we understand music in such a dramatic way, it's almost unimaginable to us now. Before that time, the popular music industry consisted of songwriters who would write and sell sheet music: musicians would buy the music and perform locally. Once a musician bought the sheet music, they would pay a royalty for public performance, but home performance was, of course, unlimiited. This practice goes back at least to the 19th century (as did the practice of paying off performers to promote songs.) Musical works in the US were protected by copyright from 1831, The music was preformed locally: that meant that one hit song could provide a modest but real living for a large number of local musicians (remember them?). Radio often consisted of live performances of music, and the same royalty practices would eventually apply to radio. The definition of the recording of a performance as being another performance, and thus something to which the artist had rights, grew out of a series of court cases involving radio and TV broadcast.
With the advent of recorded media - i.e., performances - available as saleable objects, the production of music completely changed. Rather than a large number of local performances and productions, it was much more profitable to resell the same performance over and over again. Thus was born the era of the "pop star;" a musician who would get much, much richer than the composers and songwriters on whom he relied, whose single 'performance' would be renumerated again with each purchase of the media, and again with each public playing of that media. Obviously, most of today's music stars are the beneficiaries of this system: local performance is just an adjunct to the business of creating and distributing media.
This has created a chiaroscuro of winners and losers: for one thing, mediated mass appeal became much more important than before; local musicians often struggled, as did those who relied on serious music audiences (classical and serious music was and is sustained by performance attendance, as well as by public and private grants and academia.) Paul McCartney, obviously, was a Big Winner, as was the whole industry involved in the production and distribution of little pieces of plastic. Some niche musicians were able to distribute their audience much farther than they would have been able to before the development of reel-to-reel, LP's, CD's, etc, so sub-genres of music (folk, punk, goth, trance, industrial, etc.) could thrive, as long as they could find a popular audience - and sometimes a symbiotic relationship with the manufacturers of youth cultures would develop.
The engine of technology is about to exhaust this model, however, and there is no going back. Music is again going to be a service, not a commodity. Some people will thrive in this environment: artists who manage to create live experiences which draw audiences, composers who get grants to create complex works and get them performed, or who have academic careers; musicians who are paid to produce music for games, film, and theatre, and amateur composers and musicians who are motivated by a passion for the music, who then might find themselves with an unexpected audience (ever hear of Daniel Johnston?) The people who will lose are largely those who were winning in the old system. It would be blithe to paint them as spoiled whiners who deserve to suffer now: many of them were talented, creative people whose output might suffer in a post-commodity musical millieu, and some types of music will frankly get less money than before. Also, there will probably be new opportunities for vultures and parasites, for agents and headhunters and plaigarisim lawsuits. But, thanks to the distributed and grassroots aspect of the new technologies, the cat is solidly out of the bag. It's just a matter of how long it will take before enough people are sharing music digitally, that the old industry infrastructure simply collapses.
Re:Whoa; careful there... (Score:5)
The company of which Paul McCartney is the principle owner, MPL Communications Inc, is suing MP3.com. We frequently represent Microsoft as Bill Gates, why not do the same to Paul McCartney?
A statement even came from his personal publisist about the suit.
Nate Custer
Used CD's (Score:5)
Anyone who has ever worked at a music store knows that the profit margins are pretty slim. New product from a company like Sony cost about $9 per and to compete with places like Best Buy we had to resell it around $12. A used CD on the other hand we could buy for around $3.50 and sell for $8.50. Needless to say, we definitely emphasized the used CD part of our business. Eventually NARM (National Association of Music Retailers) got their collective sh*t together and protested and the RIAA eventually dropped it. And poor Garth continued to sell 5 million units every year.
This case will be a little different because NARM will believe they stand to lose as much as the RIAA if mp3's are still distributed. It just sounds like Paul is the designated industry voice in this case, most likely because it will appeal to the people in their 40's and 50's who have more control over what's going on, at least in the legal area.
The whole controversy over mp3's is a smokescreen anyway, just the RIAA wanting control over how music is distributed. The bulk of what you'll find on the Napster is top 40 radio crud that will still sell no matter what. Sure kids'll download a few Britney Spears singles but she isn't going to be missing any of the money. The bands who are really hurting for money, the ones that barely get by anyway, won't miss it either. Bands like that tour and sell T-Shirts. Plus, I've searched the Napster numerous times for bands like Fugazi and I might run across one or two tracks at the most despite the fact that they've sold tens of millions of CD's over the past 15 years. People who like the independent/local bands will continue to buy their product because they want to support them. When the used CD thing happened, I asked a member of a band that was on a major label what he thought and he said to go ahead and buy the used CD because he'll never see any of the money anyway.
Less popular bands are essentially indentured servants to whatever label they are on anyway. The record company might give you a million dollar contract (over 4 or 5 albums, no less) but then they'll want you to make a video and go on tour and guess what, they charge you for that and takeit out of your royalties. Then when it comes time to record your next album, they'll make you pay for the studio time out of your contract as well.
Face it, the RIAA doesn't give a crap about the artist unless the arist is a "radio-friendly unit-shifter" (thanks for the term, Nirvana). They just want to control how the music is distributed.