Napster, Gnutella, Bans, Lawsuits And More 413
It's been a busy week for Napster and Gnutella... mbell sent us an MSNBC story on Gnutella which gets a lot of stuff right, but spends more time proclaiming that it's all about kiddie porn to really give the point fair time.
the geek noted a wired bit about a San Diego ISP
banning Napster from their clients: this is because it's a "Server", not because it's controversial software tho, but it's at least nice to know your ISP is watching what you do. The thing that bothers me most is that accounts were threatened even tho they weren't exceeding bandwidth quotas. Seems harsh.
And finally
NeoMage pointed out that the once amazing (face it, Kill 'm All and Master of Puppets are amazing albums) Metallica has become the first 'big name' band to
sue Napster for copyright violations against the artists' music.
Avoiding napster bans (Score:5)
ssh to unix host in napster friendly network
tunnel socks thru ssh
tell napster you have socks5 on localhost
you might need to use a DNS server other than your ISP's too.
voila! instant policy subversion.
Metallica irony (Score:3)
Metallica suing over (illegal) distribution of their music via the internet is...somewhat ironic. After all, Metallica first became known on the heavy metal scene due to the passing around and duplication of their tapes at concerts, clubs, etc.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Metallica, Say It Ain;'t So. (Score:2)
EULA? (Score:2)
Conflict of Interest (Score:3)
When exactly did piracy (Score:2)
Seriously, just because it's easy to steal, doesn't make it right--at least have the decency to hide what you're doing, people. The quote from Lars comparing these people to looters was quite appropriate.
my thoughts (Score:2)
I figured it only would be a short amount of time before a band (that has money) came out and sued Napster. After all, the trading mp3s is affecting how much in royalties they get. The no-name bands don't really mind so much because it gets their name out there so they can sell concert tickets and band paraphenelia, but the bands that already have a name don't need the publicity.
I know one of my friends said that he can definitely tell the difference between the sound that mp3s and CDs, and he only listens to mp3s on his crappy computer speakers (I have a computer hooked up to my stereo), and buys the CDs to listen with his Bose speakers. I mostly just rip my CDs into mp3s so I have a tracklist of 800+ songs and don't have to switch CDs. I like having the CD on hand to listen to in the car.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Strangeland 2 is gonna have to be pretty extreme to get my respect.
Comment removed (Score:5)
So what defines "Server"? (Score:4)
So, things like ICQ and Instant Messanger are servers - they should be banned by ISPs. Oh wait, that's different isn't it?
While we're at it, let's ban windows, because people might have file sharing turned on by accident - thus being a server - oh wait, they tend to turn a blind eye to that.
Well, they definitely shouldn't be playing internet playable games that open a port - oh hold on, they'll lose a bunch of customers that way. Can't do that.
I know, why don't we just pick and choose what defines the term server, as we see fit, when we see fit. That'll suit the ISPs just fine.
The Real Problem is... (Score:2)
Napster and GNUtella really use up ALL the bandwidth, and the ISP is suddenly faced with a overload in bandwidth. Suddenly they are forced to make good on their bandwidth promoises.
Just a thought.
Can you really blame them? (Score:2)
The way I see it, there are two extremes here: the MP3 fanatics, who seem to want all music freely available, damn the artists, and the record labels, who want to be able to charge a fee every time you listen to something. In the first scenario, the artist gets screwed, in the second, the consumer does. There has to be a happy middle someplace.
I can't share files?!? (Score:2)
I can't share files? Does this mean I can't share data?!? Isn't that exactly the service they're trying to sell here? Hello?!?
Re:EULA? (Score:3)
----
San Diego Cox@Home (Score:2)
"**** We will be banning non-identd users effective 11/11/99 ****"
Is identd not a server? I know thats kinda stretching it, but they have all these weird rules. I am a user, who had read the agreement when I signed up, and I didn't learn until today that I had a 500mb upload a day limit! I Knew I had a 256kbit/s upload limit, but nothing like that. It's very odd, but I wish we had multiple cable companies here. *sigh* Pretty soon I'll wish I was back on my old 28.8 because freedom is very important.
@Home, the internet Gestapo...
Anonymous Coward
Oh, and if you are a Cox@Home user and want to block their scans. Download BlackIce Defender, and then block these 2 IP addresses:
24.0.94.130 (authorized-scan.security.home.net)
24.0.16.94 (lump.eos.home.net)
This quote is rich... (Score:5)
Ahhh, yes the only way to enjoy art is to pay for it. Guess the idea of public art, street preformers, public art houses, and art accessability projects are bunk. Thanks for pointing this out Lars, otherwise I would have never have known that art is to be bought, and not enjoyed.
(mind you: I don't consider Metallica art, and I don't think the piracy of music is right. But making assine statements like Lars did deserive EVERYONES mocking laughter)
Definition of Censorship (Score:2)
It's strange to see the music industry, long known for its "liberalism" when it comes to social issues, trying to stand in the gap when people try to end run them. It becomes surreal when the music industry applauds groups like "Rage Against the Machine" who may end up raging against the music machine. I guess anarchy is fine until they kick in YOUR window.
It is fun to watch. I wonder how many kids go to Confession and say "Forgive me Father, I downloaded a bunch of DCTalk MP3s".
Guitar Tabs. (Score:4)
The guy wrote every tab himself from listening to the music.
Its not like writing tabs hurts cd sales, or even Music Book sales, as i have bought them all just for the proper music notation. (Tabs cannot properly express the music in its fullest).Re:So what defines "Server"? (Score:2)
Sure, you can probably twist most any action around and make it look like a server. But, you and I both know that is pure bullshit.
While we're at it, let's ban windows, because people might have file sharing turned on by accident - thus being a server - oh wait, they tend to turn a blind eye to that.
Well, most ISPs block the NetBIOS ports, thus ending those servers. The broadband ISPs generally block FTP, HTTP, Telnet, DNS, SMTP, POP and other common servers as well.
Anyway, the moderators should not have moderated up your post. It is pure bullshit. Geeks are making themselves look stupid trying to justify Napster. Face it, just because you don't pay for software doesn't give you the right to start pirating music. Part of the reason you chose Linux was because it was free (among other more important reasons). If you refuse to pay for music, maybe you should start listening to free music instead of just stealing it. What makes you any better than Microsoft whom you see as an evil money driven empire? They are ripping off the public. You are ripping off companies and artists.
Re:I can't share files?!? (Score:5)
You are supposed to be a consumer, a black hole for goods, advertising and content. They only want to allocate enough upstream bandwidth for 10,000,000 buy buttons. Producing or sharing information is a subversive act and will not be tolerated.
Re:Good tools, but bad usage (Score:2)
I see this statement a lot on Slashdot, and it's incorrect! People may feel they have a right to make money off of their work, but there exists no inherent right which should be upheld. There is a difference if someone asks you to do work, and you agree, or if you spontaneously produce something. There is nothing that says that people should suddenly pay for what you have produced. If this was not true, then unemployment would not exist, because people could make up some interesting assignments for themselves, and then force other people to pay them for it.
Gnotella (Score:2)
Gnutella is not all it is cracked up to be. (Score:4)
Furthermore, I think the anonymity argument is sort of laughable. It is no more anonymous than napster if we assume that napster.com does not leak information, the file transfers are still host to host. RIAA, MPAA, etc. can still come after you. Nor will this thing, as a smoothly working network, manage to avoid network admins (assuming it doesn't fall under its own weight before then) forever. They might not be able to merely firewall a port or a host, but there is more than one way to skin a cat...
I have some respect for the author, but this thing is hardly going to change the world. I don't believe decentralization like this will ever become smooth enough and easy enough to use that most users (as opposed to "geeks", and those who make a point out of trying to pirate) will find it economical to pirate their stuff off the net. RIAA, MPAA, and all the interests they represent are here to stay, gnutella and its cousins won't even cause them to stumble.
¿¿¿DUH??? (Score:2)
Alta-Vista quoteth:
DUH??? Hello? Anybody home?
What is that dope complaining about? People PIRATING their music, or record companies TRADING his "ART"????
Hey, dumbo, why don't you go to Wall-Marde, I hear they have a special on clues until Friday!!!!
--
Re:When exactly did piracy (Score:2)
Just because napster provides the tools, doesn't mean that they are responsible for the piracy. They've created a tool for sharing music. Unfortunately its impossible to distinguish (for computer programs) commercial and non-commercial music.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
Re:When exactly did piracy (Score:2)
Now, allowing the woefully-loaded term "piracy", that remains a crime. It is still wrong to infringe copyright and to reproduce for profit materials with permission of the copyright holder. So each and every person shown to be using Napster to transmit illegal copies should be prosecuted to the full extent of the copious and adequate laws that exist regarding copyright infringement.
But Napster is a tool and ownership or use of a tool in a legal manner is legal. Yes, it can be used to trade illegal MP3s. It can also be used to trade valid ones. A car can be used to get away in a bank heist. It can also be used for grocery shopping. Should we ban cars?
There is a lot of heat and lot of smoke about the "piracy" that Napster encourages. (Apparently all these moral people are hypnotically forced by Napster to break copyright laws or something...) I have yet to see even one validated, meaningful study of how many illegal MP3s are actually being traded using Naptser. I haven't even seen an analysis of the bandwidth monster it has apparently become. Until someone credible starts doing that research, all reasoning about it is happening in vacuum or worse in anecdotes. This is not a good mechanism for making rational, just decision.
Re:When exactly did piracy (Score:2)
Next time you're busted for "possession", tell the DA you have the "absolute right" to "have whatever you want"...
--
Digital Media--tap or bottle? (Score:4)
Back before the internet, music was a scarce commodity. Sure, you could walk over to your friend's house and tape his Floyd album, but for the most part, the supply of music was limited by the number of records, cassettes, and CD's a distributor could produce and send out to the world. The law of supply and demand ensured that each piece of music in existance would have some quantifiable worth.
Along comes the PC and the Internet. All of a sudden, humanity has a tool capable of making exact duplicates of artwork, documents and computer programs, and another tool capable of transmitting this informaton to anyone in the world. Limited only by the speed of light and the sophistication of their storage equipment, anyone could take a piece of scientific or artistic work and generate an infinite supply of it. Elementary economics, where the worth of a good is inversely proportional to its supply, still applies in the digital world. As a result of a near infinite supply, digital media now has close to zero worth, and record and film companies are slowly beginning to realize this. "The music and movie industry is doomed!" these huge corporate conglomerates shout, "With all these pirates stealing our music, artists no longer have incentive to produce!"
Why do I buy bottled water? Water is a resource of infinite supply in most of the industrialized world--it comes out of the tap in my kitchen! Yet, I don't predict the bottlers will go out of business any time soon. The water I get for free from my kitchen sink is so full of chemicals and impurities that I am willing to pay for the luxury of clean water. But by offering water that is fresh and clean, the companies that produce bottled water give extra value to an inherently worthless product.
To put to rest another tired argument, think about this: Am I stealing from bottling companies if I decide to use tap water to wash my dishes? Am I a water pirate? Of course not! The suggestion that I am stealing by making use of an infinite resource, whether it be tap water or the digital version of the Backstreet Boys' latest single, is absurd.
To all you starving artists out there, I am sorry to say it but the digital cat is out of the bag--you're going to have to learn to live with it. Give your customers some motivation to pay for your product, or find a new job--that is, after all, how business works. You need to first decide whether your art is Evian or tap water, before you decide whether or not it's worth selling.
________________________________
How many times to I need to pony up for art? (Score:2)
I feel for the artists in many cases, I really do; I mean, I'm a musician too. And I understand that the crux of their argument is that if people appreciate their art, musicians should rightfully be compensated for their efforts. But in my own situation, Metallica isn't asking me to pay for the art, they're asking me to pay for the *media*. Does this change things? Hmm. All I know is that I don't feel so bad; I used to have a closet full of Metallica t-shirts, and I even bought two copies of "Puppets" back in the day because my tape player ate the first one. I think they've gotten enough money from me.
-brennan
Re:Good tools, but bad usage (with a few problems) (Score:2)
Oh wonderful, now you're even trying to subvert the legitimate desire of an employer that his time and bandwidth be used for business purposes rather than trading child porn and mp3z? I think you might want to rethink this: what possible legitimate application could there be for a program that subverts firewalls. Ex hypothesi, if you're being blocked by a firewall, you're working on someone else's computer, and doing something with it that they don't want you to do.
Reverse Class-Action Lawsuit?/Circumventing Bans (Score:2)
Someone mentioned that the lawsuit filed by Metallica would be going after Napster, and anyone who downloaded any of their music (time for me to microwave some CD-Rs). Does this seem like scare tactics to anyone? How in the name of God is Metallica going to:
Prove that the users that initiated downloads of their music are still in possesion of the files? Are they going to seize every computer that has downloaded a Metallica song via Napster? Not friggin' likely.
And on the assumption that Metallica did somehow manage to win this lawsuit, how are they going to collect damages/punish people? Dock my tax return? Round us up and stick us in "re-education camps"? Again, not friggin' likely.
What this is going to boil down to, in all likelihood, is that either Metallica will win, and everyone will be slapped lightly on the wrist, and Napster will be shut down. Or, what's more likely, is that Metallica will lose the lawsuit, and start pressuring the ISPs, which will ban Napster for fear of having the crap sued out of them.
All in all, what is likely, is a mass-migration to Gnutella. Why? There are certain ports that ISPs are unlikely to ban -- FTP, Telnet, POP, WWW, Quake 2, Starcraft, etc. -- which would cripple their services. My understanding of Gnutella is that it uses the same protocol as WWW, and can be configured to run on any port. (I should code up a Mac port of it, now that I think about it.) How the hell can you stop that? If you're running a Gnutella servient (hybrid server-client), on the WWW port, it's going to look just like web traffic. No web = no Internet, at least as far as the everyday consumer is concerned.
Furthermore, with all the various methods for tunnelling through firewalls, etc., it begins to look more and more likely that distributed storage and distribution is going to continue unabated.
The corporatocracy under the guise of the "law" can metaphorically blow up as many bridges as it wants to -- we can keep building new ones.
Doesn't ICQ have a server too? (Score:2)
As far as napster/gnutella, I think people are kidding themselves if they think these tools are not primarily delivery tools for illegal software and copyrighted audio. Sure, there are people using these tools in a legit way, but the majority of the people using them are not.
Should they be banned? I'm not sure, but I do know that burying our heads in the sand in regards to what people are REALLY using these tools for is ridiculous.
Think of it this way, sure, Back Orifice can be used as a great admin tool, but for the most part it's being used by people who want to commit illegal acts (i.e. 0wn1ng j00r b4wx). Will people piss and moan when their ISP blocks port 37337? Doubt it because it's not stopping their ability to pirate software and music.
Re:Find out. (Score:2)
Doesn't ICQ respond to file requests if you let it?
Re:Find out. (Score:3)
Sorta like when you share a drive in Windows?
And the banning windows thing...hm. Not only does the ISP have nothing to do with that (Network Neighborhood doesn't exactly do anything with a 56k modem)
Oh, but Napster does? I fail to see the difference...
but any method of file sharing is only available from the local network, not anyone with a net connection, as Napster and any web server are.
Depends on your ISP - if they don't block the ports, your drive sure as hell is available to anyone with a net connection. Remember the whole Quake coder / GPL violator thing? Some guy just walked right onto his desktop, got the code, then trashed his system.
I think the ISP has every right to ban Napster on the basis that it's a server.
I agree with you there - if you knew up front that your ISP banned servers, well - there you go. Of course you could still use it in client mode, and not share any files...
And there are no arbitrary definitions for differentiation.
Ah, but I think there are. ISPs should not be able to say "no servers" and then pick and choose which programs to crack down on. They need better definitions if they're gonna write this stuff into contracts. "Server" to me means a program which sends information to a remote host that requests it. By that definition, ping is illegal, and so is mIRC (identd), and file and printer sharing under windows sure as hell is...
Well, anyway... whatever. I'm just glad I have a real ISP that trusts me with an IP, charges me for the bandwidth that I use, and stays out of my way.
---
Un be-friggin-leiveable (Score:2)
This is not censorship, this is not about how Metallica has sold out to The Man, it's about a bunch of annoying little \/\/4R3Z d00dZ and their inablility to either stay within the law or stay out of sight. The sooner Napster dies, the better; all napster does is make theft accessable to the terminally lame, and give the government(s) more reason to monitor and control the internet.
If you want to fight the good fight for rights online, try to pick a fight that doesn't involve somebody's right to be a thief. (the DMCA, openDVD, and UTICTA spring to mind)
Re:Good tools, but bad usage (Score:2)
@Home - can you be selective and still be a CC? (Score:2)
But if you ban one thing (like hosts), and even worse, ban only particular subsets of possible hosts, doesn't that mean you are no longer a common carrier, and therefore liable for network content? I always wondered about this for ISP's that have a no server rule.
It seems like you either monitor nothing, or everything...
Re:The Real Problem is... (Score:2)
This is exactly what I figured was happening when the ISPs banned users from using Napster even though they weren't going over their bandwidth limit. If they aren't going over their limit, then what's the problem? The ISP wasn't even threatened as far as I can tell, so why ban the servers unless they were just using up more bandwidth than the ISP wanted them to use even though the users were promised more than they were using.
face it, "face it" is no argument (Score:2)
not that I know or care in this particular case if these 2 albums were amazing or not. it's about the way of saying it that I'm complaining.
Re:NOT irony (Score:2)
Now that they're rich, they don't NEED the bootleggers any more, in fact, they are a hindrance to their profitability. (Like the decline of their music wasn't a bigger hindrance).
Re:When exactly did piracy.... (Score:3)
once, when I was five....
I enjoy stealing. It's as simple as that. It's just a simple fact.'
A better band than Metallica will ever be.
Tape swapping vs. Napster (Score:2)
Thank you.
//Frisco
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe
"Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.
Enter Napster (Score:5)
Snag a file little one
don't forget, my son
to download every one
Download sin, download Fins
Download just for grins
Till the lawsuit comes
Browse with one eye open
Gripping your lawyer tight
Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
Off to Napster lawsuit land
Something's wrong, I just might
Lose some moolah tonight
'Cause you're downloading sound bites
Dreams of power, dreams of ire
Dreams of songs on a wire
And of our Grammies past
Sleep with one eye open
Gripping your 'rm *' tight
Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
Off to Napster lawsuit land
Now I lay me down to sleep
Pray the Lord my songs to keep
If they're downloaded before I wake
Pray the Lord my cut to take
Hush little Napster, don't send a byte
And don't issue a disk write
If you can kill with a hand saw
Then shouldn't they be against the law
Exit light
Enter night
Old hair-band
Exit light
Enter night
Freedom banned
We're off to Napster lawsuit land
Re:When exactly did piracy (Score:2)
Bah! piracy has been in common use for copyright infringment (on software anyway) since the days of the Apple][. It's not going away now...
But Napster is a tool and ownership or use of a tool in a legal manner is legal And so is an RPG launcher, but I can't just go down to Wal-Mart and buy one.(honest, officer, I just use it for target shooting) The question is does the potential harm from illegal use outweigh the rights of the people who use it legitimately. For a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, yes. For Napster, maybe.
I have yet to see even one validated, meaningful study of how many illegal MP3s are actually being traded using Naptser
Most likely because Napster won't let you look at it's database. That's a "trade secret" (see the
I haven't even seen an analysis of the bandwidth monster it has apparently become.
It's difficult to measure, because napster doesn't use one standard port, and traffic goes to many different places. There are a few
Rage Against The Machine (Score:4)
Rage Against The Machine is a calculated effort to appeal to a particular demographic -- frustrated, aggressive adolescent males. Despite their Marxist message, their CDs, concerts, and T-shirts cost at least as much as everyone else's. They measure CD sales just as much as everyone else. If you set up a website to give away MP3s of their music, their record company would sue you like everyone else.
It's marketing. Don't believe the hype.
If Napster lose this suit... (Score:2)
Napster is as much responsible for music piracy as Memorex are (for selling magnetic media).
Perhaps we'll see Metallica suing Sony for selling blank minidiscs next?
--
Re:Piracy is W*R*O*N*G (Score:2)
Eh? I don't see copyright infringers taking guns to artist's heads.
Re:me me me... Him him him (Chuck D) (Score:2)
Thank you.
//Frisco
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe
"Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Thanks for that, Bill.
The point is that Napster are not responsible for what people use it for. What if every person currently illegally trading copyright material using Napster were to shift over to using FTP? Would it then be OK for the RIAA to go and sue the IETF? Berkley University?
Of course not. I'm not suggesting that violating the license on these materials is a "right" -- what I'm saying is that Napster have no control over what MP3s people transfer using it, and they are under no obligation to have the software make checks.
I don't actually agree with the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" -- but I would heartily agree with "Napster doesn't violate copyright laws, people violate copyright laws". You don't restrict the sales of plastic bags just because they can be used to transport drugs.
I can't provide a solution to the problem of music piracy (in fact I would argue that, morally wrong or not, it is too difficult to combat, and the best answer is "live with it"), but Napster is too far removed from the crime to be fairly held responsible.
--
Response to the MSNBC fantasy (Score:2)
I read all of two paragraphs of your disgusting story before wanting to run to the nearest latrine and puke. It is a DISGRAGE to the industry of reporting that your story (as in fantasy) got any consideration for print at all! Kiddie porn trading, oh that will get the readers. But let's not let the facts get in the way. In less than 24 hours it was posted on a web site and "reverse engineered." Glaring flaw #1. It was distributed under the GPL which means the source was included. No need for reverse engineering at all.
Let's continue the read, shall we?
Ooo, here's a good one. A 15-minute session with a "security expert" named... Redone! Red 1, get it? You know, most respectable security experts I know don't hide behind some pseudonym. That's only in Hollywood.
Wow, no way to censor it. This from someone in an industry that is given protection by the First Amendment. You
Continuing on we see a claim that the strings "groupsex", "porn movies", "young naked", "pre teen" and "teen sex" are "almost as common as searches for pirated music."
What, was that because you got onto a private network with your "expert" and he typed them in and then logged off? The times I've been on gnutella I've not seen those strings. EVER. Not once. Not once in 15 minutes. Not once in 150 minutes. NOT EVER. If it were, as you claimed, so rife with people looking for kiddie porn then clearly a casual glance, much less the broader scrutiny of a curious geek, would see something that was "almost as common as searches for pirated music."
Only near the end, after more hype, fear, uncertainty and doubt is planted firmly in the reader's mind do you even come CLOSE to giving a balanced story. Only after you have gotten all of the copy-selling evil out of the way do you tack on, as an afterthought, the good points of the technology.
You call yourself a journalist? Disgusting.
Re:Digital Media--tap or bottle? (Score:2)
- The water I get for free from my kitchen sink is so full of chemicals and impurities that I am willing to pay for the luxury of clean water.
- Am I stealing from bottling companies if I decide to use tap water to wash my dishes?
- You need to first decide whether your art is Evian or tap water,...
Remember: "Evian" spelled backward is "naive."Bottled water is frequently just as full of chemicals and bacteria as tap; sometimes worse.
Are you suggesting that your downloaded copy of "Master of Puppets" came from a separate source than the one on the CD? Since I'm ignorant of some of the finer points of copyright law, I'll stipulate that Metallica may have little recourse if another band covers their songs, which is what your analogy points toward. The reality you're trying to defend, though, is more like going to Evian's bottling plant, drawing some water from a bottle on the line, and claiming it isn't theft.
All of your points hinge upon the fallacy that a song recorded on a CD is somehow different than the same song in digital (non-corporeal) format. You repeatedly allude to "quality" as the differentiating factor, but digital copies are (except for MP3s) exact copies.
Because you BOUGHT the water. (Score:2)
Nope, because you have a legal right to the water. Either you have paid for the water in the pipes through taxes or paid at the store for the bottled water.
>Am I a water pirate? Of course not!
Thats because you have paid for both of them. You would be a water pirate if you illegally hooked up a pipe to the cities water supply or walked out of the store with the bottled water.
>The suggestion that I am stealing by making use of an infinite resource,
Its not that you are using a resource, its that its illegal. There are a large number of stores which have lax security, shouldn't I make use of this infinite resource?
> whether it be tap water or the digital version of the Backstreet Boys' latest single, is absurd.
When did you pay for the single? If you asked the record companies and anyone who worked on the single if you were stealing, what would the say?
This is NOT a strong argument and I have no idea why this was moderated up. Crappy moderaters, don't just count the number of lines in an article, read it!
Crack Smoking Moderator! (Score:2)
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe
"Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.
Re:me me me... Him him him (Chuck D) (Score:2)
But when someone steps forward and says they don't want something done to their work, abide by their wishes. Otherwise, why can't I just go over your house and take whatever I'd like? I mean, i want it, so isn't my right to have what i want? No, it isn't, when what i want is someone else's. Then you have to ask permission to borrow it, or buy whatever they're interested in selling to you.
It's all about people retaining control over their works... Kinda like the oh-so valuable GPL which is talked about all around here... Yes, it equates to free software... But the developers make a consciounscious decision to GPL their work... I don't see any GPL advocates distributing Photoshop, Windows 2000, or any other copyrighted software under the guise that "software should be free", unless they're just warez kids. Imagine the backlash that would happen here if companies started distributing Linux w/o source? That backlash has happened somewhere else, because in this case it's many of the Napster users that are ignoring the artists rights
Metallica the Hypocrite (Score:2)
San Mateo, Calif.-based Napster already is the target of a suit by the Recording Industry Association of America, which claims that Napster violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a new law that bars devices that could be used to circumvent copyrights.
Don't you love laws that place ridiculous limits on what the market wants. Or tell it what it wants. The DMCA (at least major parts of it) is baad, baad I tell you.
And then our friend Lars. (who I mean no personal affront to, and am basing this opinion on the story.) Sorry man, you can't have it both ways. (and actually reading it again he may have been taken out of context, it says "publicists for the band and music companies even threw in a statement from Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich."[possibly while stoned, I'm looking at you Cypress Hill])
the quote
Lars Ulrich, who said it is "sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."
and then followed it up with.
"From a business standpoint, this is about piracy -- aka taking something that doesn't belong to you -- and that is morally and legally wrong."
From an art standpoint, this is about art, using and appreciating something that someone created to reflect an interesting aspect of life, sharing an infinite resource with your fellow travelers.
You're either a businessman or an artist, but never the 'twain shall meet. (in a purely definitive senses)
--
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Un be-friggin-leiveable (Score:4)
...The sooner Napster dies, the better; all napster does is make theft accessable to the terminally lame... (emphasis mine)
Translation: "I can't believe you people! When did freely sharing digital information go from something which took above-average computer skills and was thus Ok, to something which non-nerds could do?!??
"...The sooner Napster dies, the better; all napster does is make the power of the digital revolution available to everyone."
How pathetic.
Look, I'm not going to rehash the reasons why duplicating something is not a theft but a gift, and why the music distribution industry is so obviously antiquated by the existence of the Internet as to make propping them not just futile but actually against the interests of society.
Instead I'm going to relate a little anecdote. After I saw this ridiculous story posted to news.com early this morning, I went to www.metallica.com, which I correctly guessed was the official Metallica website, to see what the reaction there was--whether Metallica fans would be swayed more by their allegiance to the band or by their allegiance to common sense. (Well, mostly to see whether there were actually still Metallica fans...)
Unfortunately, when I got there I found that www.metallica.com's message boards are only available to "members" [metallica.com]. Ok, registration required, fair enough. Only one problem: to become a member, you need to pay them $25!!! [metallica.com] Just to post in their message boards!!!!
And I thought to myself, wow--how could they possibly not get it any more??
See, Cid, ask yourself this: do you think that $25 message board is worth it? Of course not; indeed, it's almost guaranteed to be one of the worst message boards on the face of the Internet, because it will only consist of people who just paid $25 to post in a message board.
The point is this: elitism doesn't work anymore. On the Internet, everyone is equal, but everyone's power is additive. That's why Napster is so powerful--not because it does anything that hasn't been done before; like you said, it's pretty much just IRC and ftp tied together, automated, and made easy. But by virtue of being so easy, it gains critical mass, and it gains its own power; when the history of the end of the commodification of ideas is written, Napster will have no small part.
Meanwhile, you and Metallica and everyone else stuck with your outdated elitist worldview will sit on the side of the road and watch the world pass you by.
Moderate this up! (Score:2)
Oh, hell, where is the "+1 Ironic" choice for moderators?
----------------------------------------------
Re:Digital Media--tap or bottle? (Score:2)
Actually compared to MP3s, it is infinitely scarce. You're missing a big point. The difference between abundant supply and infinite supply is a significant one (IHMO, THE significant one when trying to understand New Media). Could you trade tapes with anyone in the world? Did they get perfect copies? That's the difference, infinite perfect copies. The RIAA was able to leverage and control the old scarcity for profit. If they were smart they could leverage an infinite product for profit, but they aren't smart, they're scared and panicking. Panic is poison to rational thought.
(BTW, I loved the water example)
--
BOOTLEG TAPES/VIDEO'S (Score:2)
Re:Because you BOUGHT the water. (Score:2)
Your argument is essentially, "It's stealing because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's stealing." I don't see anything strong about that.
Once something becomes available for all, it immediately becomes worth $0, regardless of whether doing it is illegal. Sure, you can still pay for it if you want, and many people do. But anything you pay would be above market price.
And as to your "stealing from a store" argument, another poster already pointed out the difference between abundant supply and infinite supply. Until we get some kind of material replicators which can duplicate physical objects, anything you find in a store will be "abundant" instead of "infinite" and thus have worth, so yes you'd be stealing if you walked in and took one.
________________________________
Re:Un be-friggin-leiveable (Score:2)
Music, like computer programs, have a zero production cost. All of the cost is for "R&D".
Music should be free. As should software. It is just strange that the scene of free music is not as big as the one for free programs. Bu the reason may be it's easier to become really rich on music. For computer programs, you have to create your own company and work hard... And no one is promizing new hackers large contracts...
We shouldn't break the law. We should change it to reflect our beliefs of right and wrong.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:NOT irony (Score:2)
Hee! Now that would be a verdict I'd like to see... "We find the defendant innocent of all charges. The claimants reported loss of revenue was due not to the development of software, but rather because everything they've put out since
----
Dave
Purity Of Essence
Retailers suing Sony over online distribution (Score:3)
Re:Digital Media--tap or bottle? (Score:2)
You don't have to be trying to rationalize copyright infringement to point out the fundamental difference between copying music (or anything else) and taking something from someone: if you copy music, the person from whom you copied still has it! If I draw some water from Evian's plant, they're out 8 or 12 oz of water. Sure, it's not much, but their total amount of water available has decreased slightly. Clearly theft. If you copy something, the total number of copies has -increased- by one, rather than staying the same.
Here's my tired refrain: "It may be just as illegal, it may be just as immoral, it may even kill your dog, but copying is not the same thing as theft."
Re:Metallica suing for copyright infringement? (Score:2)
> "It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being
> traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."
Of course this is perfectly backwards. With Napster there is no "trading," one gives away copies of the files absolutely for free. In every other transaction concerning Metallica's products that I can think of, including legitimate sales of CDs in stores, one does trade for the music.
One does not ussualy conduct commerce in mundane goods, like yams and corn and tires and TVs, without there being an element of trade, without a profit to be made. In distinction there is a venerable tradition of giving away art works to all comers for free, from the public plays of ancient Athens, through the cathedrals of the Renaissance and the museums of the Enlightenment, to the Free Software movement of today. Given the choice, Metallica place their products in the category of yams and corn, that's all.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Because you BOUGHT the water. (Score:2)
Look city boy, we don't all pay for our water. My family has a 75 foot deep hole in the front yard with a pump on it. We get our water from that. It's called a WELL. We didn't pay for that water in any way, shape, or form.
However, the difference between music and water is that someone had to CREATE the music, the water is just THERE.
Don't think of it as paying for a copy of the music, think of it as paying for the amount of TIME that the person took out of their life in order to create that. I think 6 months of Metallica's life for 10 songs is worth 15$.
Kintanon
Excellent point (Score:5)
Excellent point. Till now, performing art has enjoyed the special distinction of being an unending source of revenue for the artist, or at least, the artist's contract-holders. While non-performing artists have generally been rewarded with lump-sum payments for their work from collectors, museums, etc, deriving only a small part of their income from licensing of prints, photographic reproductions and so on.
I don't see that the fine arts world is any the worse for this, and we certainly don't seem to be short of artists. Should we now admit that what is happening is a fundamental, unstoppable, change in the way the business of music is done?
As a musician myself, I don't see that these changes are bad. What is really being torn down is the system of manufacturing stars - entirely a creation of the music industry. If there is an endless supply of bands just as talented as metallica, and believe me, there is, then what you'll see is the recording industry no longer being able to control the vast bulk of the supply of music by limiting the number of newly minted stars. What's going to happen? Obviously, once the chokehold on supply is broken, prices will fall. That's exactly what's happening, although in all the confusion, it's sometimes hard to see that.
What we're really seeing here is the beginning of a real flowering of art for art's sake, in much the same way as the current exponential growth of code hacking for code hacking's sake. It's not necessary to drive a Benz to be a functioning member of society as a musician. There are still many ways to be paid for the work, and to be paid well for great work, but one of them - the one that supports the recording industry's monopoly on talent and supply - is coming to an end.
--
Why Creed is so cool (Score:2)
Anyway, the reason Creed is so cool is that you can actually download some of their tabs from their site. Check it out here [creednet.com]. Of course, that's not the only reason they're so cool, but it's definitely a start. I don't know their stance on MP3, but they've got Liquid Audio up on their site so perhaps they'd be more open to it than Metallica (who, at this point, are so uncool it hurts).
__________________________________________________ ___
So why don't they take a two tier approach? (Score:2)
I would be willing to do this if it would let me run a server in my home.
Re:Gnutella is not all it is cracked up to be. (Score:3)
The technology is new, and I'm sure some bugs will be worked out, but I think there are fundamental problems with decentralization. I don't think the fix is so trivial at all. I really doubt its viability, no matter what the hackers do. As for pure servers, if you depend on them, you might as well be napster.
Ok well first off, a great deal of these napster and Gnutella users are on college campuses. Those network admins are only expected to facilitate legimate uses--providing for free pirated music simply isn't in their job descriptions. When illegimate uses crowd out the legimate users (e.g., well past full capacity bandwidth) the admins will simply push that much harder to eliminate it. People seem to think that because gnutella uses http protocol to transfer files (and because there is no one single server or port it uses), the users can't be locked out. This is simply untrue. Their usage patterns are unique, as you point out, they use far more bandwidth than anyone else (amongst other things). Furthermore, I firmly believe that RIAA or someone like me could write a program for these institutions to log onto the gnutella network and pretend to be a client (just like any student), then harvest all the clients' IP addresses, find out which ones match your subnet, and disconnect them from the network. I believe this will always be possible too.
I'm not so sure if they'll even need to adapt much. The physical distribution costs of the media itself is only a small fraction of their costs. If they do decide to turn to the internet, they can shave whatever their shipping and material costs are, while enjoying the same profit margins. I, for one, do not believe the internet will "liberate" everyone from pricey music. Put simply, the music companies add substantial value for the artist other than just their physical distribution. They have editing, promoters, fashion people, sound technicians, contacts, you name it. In other words, I don't see self-promotion on the internet as being a realistic alternative for any mainstream artists any time soon; they are better off getting "gouged" by the companies and only making 1% of their sales(but a million times over), than selling 1000 copies (in all probability) and making 99% (or what have you). In any case, time will tell.
Nice talking to you.
The Record Companies brought this on themselves. (Score:3)
The record companies didn't like this idea. If you want 10 songs from 5 different artists, you have to buy 5 CDs to get them all. They wanted to get the ($15*5) instead of the ($2*5) from you.
If the record companies hadn't fought sensible and fair music distribution models then, they wouldn't have to deal with Napster, Gnutella and Hotline now.
They killed DAT. They'd love to have killed CD-R. They're quaking in their boots over Gnutella because it can't be stopped.
LK
Really? Ftp is always anon? (Score:2)
How about telnet -- is that a server by your definition? Of course not -- it's not anonymous.
Ii think you had better rethink your redefinition.
--
Hmm... (Score:2)
I see the whole issue of not being able to run servers and having multiple machines in a home network only becoming a bigger issue with @home - the problem is their flat rate - if they would allow you to do whatever the hell you wanted to with the connection, and just be a common carrier, and charge you for bandwith - this wouldn't be an issue.
I got wrongly accused of running Napster (Score:2)
Re:Why Creed is so cool (Score:2)
Re:Because you BOUGHT the water. (Score:2)
Partially correct. Traditional larceny laws are based on products with a finite supply. Once so-called "Intellectual property" came along, companies started whining that they couldn't hoard their information, so they convinced the government to enact absurd copyright and patent laws, all under the guise of "furthering the arts and sciences".
I have yet to see any example where a copyright or patent furthered anything but the bank account of the person who was given rights to the idea or information.
________________________________
Yes! It Works With Napster! (Score:2)
"Wolf" www.mp3.com/ChrisJ [mp3.com]
Please PUT this on Napster, if possible with a name or metadata like "Wolf (on napster by personal request of the artist Chris Johnson!)". I'm on a Mac so I can't make spammy filenames like that :) and napster doesn't actually help me at all because people downloading stuff off mp3.com directly helps me- but that doesn't matter because I want to help _Napster_. If someone could do that, or could do that with all my stuff both there and at mp3.com/RFW, that's over 170 megs of mp3s that are specifically on Napster by personal request of the artist. It may hurt my chart rankings over at mp3.com if nobody ever has to go there again ( ;) ) but I don't care. I _really_ would like to personally ask that stuff of mine be put on Napster so that I can say "Hey- I am a musician and I _want_ Napster! I _asked_ for my stuff to be there. Are you trying to cut off my avenue of distribution?" and have that be a SERIOUS ARGUMENT. Nobody has a right to cut off my avenues of LEGAL distribution just because the medium is being used for other purposes.
So _please_ would someone grab all my stuff and put it on Napster? Hell, if it helps I'll ask somebody in writing. Does anybody know if it might help for me to ask someone in writing, just to authoritatively establish that at least one working artist legally and legitimately WANTS their stuff on Napster and requested that it be there? It seems to me that could help blow a hole in the "It's just plain illegal!" concept. It's just a tool...
Re:When exactly did piracy (Score:2)
Since I've never visited napster.com nor used napster, I have no idea how to find legal MP3s. I have no idea how to find illegal ones, either. I don't see the relevance... although I have to admit that an earlier poster's RPG analogy has given me pause. I haven't worked out that part yet, and I might have to change my stance.
Re:I can't share files?!? (Score:2)
Perhaps you should yell at the users who steal. (Score:4)
Yeah, just like there might be legimate reasons for walking around in KKK garb (e.g., hood and mask). But don't expect me to attack the guy who gets his house burnt down for verbally assaulting the dress. Metallica _is_ getting looted of their IP, they have a right to be pissed off. If you want to yell at someone, perhaps you should yell at 99.999999% of Napster, who uses it illegally. Furthermore, if you can use a service which is used almost exclusively by "looters", I think you should be able to stomach just verbal assaults.
Re:me me me (Score:2)
i can understand if the band got tired of playing whiplash every day for 20 years...i dealt with the bubble gum wrapper that miserable SOB Bob Rock put on their music, i sighed and moved on when Hammet started obsessing about silk shirts and expensive clothes...but bloody hell if this doesn't make me want to take an axe to every metallica album, tape, cd, and video that i own.
I'm starting to wonder where the pods are....
Oh well, they are free to suck at the corporate teat as long as they want. They don't need my money any more anyway.
Re:What is really ironic (Score:2)
For crying out loud. If they're truly you're favorite band, then PAY them for their service. People who bitch at bands who want to be paid for their job are truly disgusting to me. These people may be fans, but they are "looters" none the less. If someone picks my pocket, they'd better not have the termerity to be surprised and upset when I get angry at them for it.
Re:Metallica Album Burn Off (Score:2)
The RIAA has a good point. I, and many of my friends, have access to music that we would have never spent the money on ourselves. Heck, we really like these bands, but instead of buying their CDs, we'll just buy another hard drive to hold their music and the music of hundreds more artists. It's not like they wouldn't have gotten our money anyway. We just spend it on other things now that we can get their works for free.
I once bought a Japanese import of "...And Justice for All" for $40 dollars because it had an extra track, "The Prince," on it. You think I'd do that again when I can get the MP3 for free? Yeah right -- and I actually support going after pirates like myself. Just look at the rest of you whiners. I personally hope Metallica wins the lawsuit. Despite what the developers say, Napster is nothing more than a tool for delivering pirated MP3s. I'd like to see a good conservative guess at how much of Napster's traffic is illegal. 95%? 99%? More?
Re:When exactly did piracy (Score:2)
Re:Pay artists, sure...but.... (Score:2)
I think somebody needs to ask Metallica to review their contract. Do the words "work for hire" appear in it? Read this: http://www.livedaily.com/archive/2000/2k01/wk3/Ame ndmentToCopyrightActCo.html [livedaily.com]
Basically, it is possible that Metallica does not own its own songs- making their pleas for respect for their artistic work kind of ironic. I realise it might come as a bit of a shock to consider that record industry contracts are being changed to alter them so that, rather than the company owning your artistic creations for thirty-five years outright, the company owns your artistic creations FOREVER. That's exclusive ownership, you don't get a say. Did you know of this? Does Metallica know of this? Does Metallica have a provision in their contract stating their albums are work for hire due to the involvement of engineers and producers and such? If so, and this law-change would appear to be retroactive and apply to existing 'work-for-hire' contracts, Metallica does not own any of their music- they'd own nothing and are also probably barred from producing work other than for the company that will wholly own anything they produce. If anyone can check on this it would be very interesting...
I own my mp3.com stuff [mp3.com]. Their contract gives them nonexclusive rights, so they also get carte blanche to do what they wish with the stuff I give them, which I'm happy with, but it does not sign over ownership of the music or the mechanical recordings to the company- which I am still more happy about. Try that with a record company contract. There is a very good chance that Metallica are goddamn slaves and don't even realise it. Ask them about their contract! But don't be too hard on them as they had damn-all chance to negotiate even a word of it, with 20 million other bands clamoring to be exploited.
I'm not at all sure there is morality to be had in defending the record companies the way things are going. The concept of civil disobedience seems more and more relevant...
Silencers and Radar Detectors (Score:2)
Oh, and by the way, welcome to the mutability of the English language. You won't see most people griping about the use of "artificial" in negative connotations despite the fact that 300 years ago it was a term of high praise.
Re:Un be-friggin-leiveable (Score:4)
Who died and made you Karl Marx? Just what makes digital media so special that it no longer is beholden to ownership by its originator. Since when did putting something in a digital format make it community property? Copying of digital media that is not yours to distribute IS theft. This isn't about common sense or freedom. This is about greed -- and not the band's greed. This is about the greed of music listeners who want, as always, something for nothing. It's about people who think it's their God-given right to enjoy the hard labor of others at no compensation and who rail against those who did the work for having the the "outright gaul" to expect that they be given something in exchange.
Music piracy is just flat out wrong. It's explotation of other people's hard effort. You think all information should be free? Well here's a piece of wisdom worth remembering: "You get what you pay for." Just try looking for good music on MP3.com sometime. I swear, I've only liked less than 10% of what I've listened to. These people have talent and want to be recognized for it. What the heck is so wrong about that?
Allegance or common sense? What rhetorical nonsense. Who's coming off as the elitist here? What Cid was saying was that back in the days before Napster, people had the conscience to realize that whay they were doing was wrong and illegal and made efforts to hide themselves. Nowdays with Napster and the growing predominance of piracy, people like you come out and say that it's their right to steal and that those who are trying to "protect their rights" to the music they own and made are they greedy ones.
I make my counterpoint thusly: who is the greedy one, the one who works hard and asks for compensation or the one who does nothing and demands the fruits of the first's labor?
Re:What is really ironic (Score:2)
Napster is a huge barrier to anyone else making it big. I'll bet you that in 3 years or less, record sales begin dropping for new artists. Who needs to buy No Doubt's "Return to Saturn" album? I've already got the whole thing off Napster and it isn't even out yet. It's good to see the big boys wading in and trying to stop this threat to their entire industry's source of income.
If you're such a big fan, then why do even care about them going after Napster? You've already bought all their albums, right? Oh, well, I guess that you should shut up then.
By the way, I love your beautiful way of communicating your viewpoint through 4 letter words. I'll bet your one those "hot grits" trolls, aren't you? Next time try taking a stand with a logged in name like a real man. Coward is right.
Re:AC because of /. intolerance (Score:2)
> I'll fire up emacs and talk with the shrink, he's smarter than you.
Now I have practically unlimited respect for Richard Stallman, but there's no way emacs is smarter than my G 80md. (I held back for a while, G, so you'd have a clear stage from which to lay down yo rap.) Not only is he a philosopher but he's also an artist and you being French it ought to come natural for you to respect an artist. A troll artist that is!
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
It's about time (Score:2)
Saying 'stay within bandwidth constraints' is fine, it's impartial, but saying 'no servers' means that, technically, everyone running mirc + identd is breaking the rules.
Inf act, anyone running windows 2000 with telnet server on is breaking the rules.
Anyone running a quake or tribes or UT server is breaking the rules.
Foo.
Re:This quote is rich... (Score:2)
The sad part is after(if?) Napster is banned I won't be able to get some great live and unreleased stuff that anyone who loves music just craves.
Poor Lars, this week's Metallica downloads cost the band about 14 bottles of black nailpolish and 100 throwaway picks that say "Hammet" on them. Will the madness ever end?!
Re:Rage Against The Machine (Score:2)
They seemingly don't have much to stand on when they preach anti-big business while signed to a megaconglomerate like Sony. Whether you care to believe their reply on that often asked question is up to you, but it usually goes like this: Rage could have gone the route of starting their indepedent label and splitting their time running their own business and pushing their message/music, but they chose to put all their effort on the music/message and let Sony worry about promotion and making sure the Tower records in Amsterdam is getting enough copies of Evil Empire.
Its a lot like Abbey Hoffman's 'use the system to decry it' philosophy. In the long wrong exposure from a big label like Sony will turn a lot more heads than a independant start-up ever could. There's a lot of anti-governemnt anti-business bands out there, how many can you name? Have you even ever heard of Negativland, has your average Rage fan? So far, I'd say going with Sony has made them a household name and the alternative would probably have left them no bigger than Negativland.
I'm sure Sony's marketing guys have the same attitude as you do, the anti-marketing market is big etc, but I've found the band to be consistant and not focuses on just the money.
Re:Un be-friggin-leiveable (Score:2)
But where does 'compensation' stop? Metallica has to rake in the dough BIG time. Every friend I have has at least 3 Metallica shirts, Metallica posters, all of the Metallica CDs (including the total rip offs like Garage Inc. which is basically selling their old stuff over again).
Don't get me wrong. I'm a huge Metallica fan (or was). But I think what the other posters were trying to say is that the information should be free. Give away the music, and make money from the real stuff (shirts, posters, concerts).
If what all of the artists say is true, they don't make jack after the record company, their agent, publicist, ect take their cuts from the price of a CD. If so, they will still be fabulously rich, and we will all get to enjoy their music. For free.
Let Metallica eat dirt (Score:2)
What a self-centred money-grabbing bigot. Art is the last thing on his mind.
Roll on MP3, Napster, and sons-of-Napster, and may the artists eat dirt if that's typical of the way they feel about their relationship with their audience.
Re:what a generalization... (Score:2)
The quality of 128kbps mp3 doesn't make napster a good way to 'pirate' (yes, I actually rape and pillage songs) whole albums.
A dog by any other name... (Score:2)
Yes, I personally am not the one who defines it. However, 99.99% of the content on both "networks" is illegal. With both "networks" the users who use it have a tendency to take more than their share of bandwidth--there simply isn't enough to go around, even with today's relatively moderate usage. Thus, many universities have already taken steps to shut down those "networks." It is not as if I've just arbitrarily pulled this out of my ass and declared that because I don't think napster is a legimimate use, all universities will act on this. They have. They will. They have every incentive to continue.
First, neither promote learning, you know it as well as I do. The most you can argue is that they entertain, but do not forget that they do so illegally. Second, The admins jobs is whatever the powers that be say it is. They are not obligated to entertain you--certainly on everyone else's dollar. Third, the students don't subsidize their jobs. The admins work for the school, not for the students. Damn few students even pay, it is their parents', the state, or some other organization 9 times out of 10. Which is a very important distinction, because if every student were to be allowed unrestricted access to napster (and the like), the uplinks would have to scale as well, the costs would increase, and the bandwidth bill per student could easily be 50+ bucks a month for every student. The people who are actually footing the bill (e.g., parents) may not accept this...
With all due respect, people like you are always running around with their head in their hands screaming the world is about to ____end______! People, like me, just fundamentally understand that things are generally the way they are for a reason, real change is pretty damn rare. I've listened to all the arguments. Hell, I've even been using mp3s longer than 99.99% of the users and advocates (being one of the original founders of #mp3) And you know what? I do not see any compelling argument for thinking this "prediction" is going to be any different. RIAA, MPAA, and company will survive. They may adapt a little (e.g., target digital downloadable music), but the labels will still provide value for the mainstream artists (almost by definition). Artists will continue to sign almost exclusively with the major labels (with similar contracts). The labels will continue to set the prices. Thus, the companies that makeup RIAA will continue to profit like they always have.
In any case, time will prove me right. By that time, maybe you will have come a bit more center after your Xth failed prediction of impending doom or cataclysmic change. No offense, and good night.
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
The pot calling the kettle black? (Score:3)
My problem is not one of lack of imagination; I've been using mp3's longer than most anyone (4+ years ago). However, I do not, I can not, fool myself into thinking that these theoretical 'learning benefits' are sufficient reason to effectively make intellectual property null and void. I, unlike you (as long as you wish to make blanket statements), know what it takes to create new and innovative things. Having seen, and been behind, many hi-tech startups, I understand risk and reward quite well. The principles behind protecting music are much the same. The artists need to get paid for their work. The people who bring their work to the masses need to get paid. To make a long story short, IP is necessary. Although I do not lose anything when when the artists get robbed of their IP, I am too intellectually honest to make up some bullshit excuse that I am 'learning'. Nor do I think most college kids can make such a claim. Damn few are incapable of rubbing together the money to buy an extensive CD collection if they are truely motivated. If they're not motivated, they'll probably never make anything of themselves anyways.
Furthermore, it is ironic that you are saying that these kids need expensive IP based music, while advocating its destruction for all intents and purposes. Why can't these kids just go to mp3.com, or what have you, and get 'free' music? What? I didn't hear you! There isn't enough good free music? Has mp3.com, or any other organization which distributes free music, truely improved this in the past few years? Interesting view point you have there. You basically want to have your cake and eat it too. You purport IP protected music to be necessary to learn, but IP is not necessary? How are these would-be artists going to learn in the future in a world with no effective IP protection?
This position is even more futile when you take into account the fact that we are not even talking about 'ideas' here. We are talking about byte-for-byte copies of a singer's performance (e.g., song, voice(s), instruments, etc.). It is hard to argue they are obstructing anyone by not allowing you to get an exact copy of their work. In other words, if their music did not exist (read: No IP, no music) you would have nothing to copy at all, and if their music does exist (read: IP, music) you just can't pirate an exact digital copy. You can, however, still: buy it, listen to it on the radio, take notes on its composition, emulate its sound, etc., etc., etc.
You may enjoy not paying for music. Although, I lose nothing when the artists lose, I am just too intellectually honest to try to justify this behavior with absurd excuses. In any case, the issue here was the school's take on this. The fact of the matter is that a great many schools have already taken steps against it.
Ahem, no. I've know many admin's too, in both corporate and educational institutions. The mere fact that some of them may participate in piracy does not mean they're willing to risk their necks over it. Very few institutions have the excess capacity to accomodate every student regularly trading mp3s. Perhaps you should talk to some of your admin friends again, and ask them how much their network slowed down when even a small fraction of students were using napster, et.al.
Umm, you don't understand. I have no direct stake in this other than my intellectual honesty. You, on the other hand, have committed yourself to a dream. A dream which you believe will profit you. I'm being pragmatic here...
And my statements are categorically different from yours, how? You say I am too committed to the status quo. I say you're too committed to committed to unrealistic change. They're flip sides of the coin. I'm not saying you're "scared", I'm saying you're eagerly anticipating change without thinking it through. Deal with it.
I, for one, am not worried. To reiterate, I: a) Realize the need for Intellectual property b) know RIAA is not so easily toppled. Does this concern me any more than it should you? No.