Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Napster Bans Metallica Fans 524

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-never-got-my-nick-anyway dept.
W00dDuCK noted that Napster has banned the 300,000 users that Metallica reported were pirating copyrighted music. Moments later, all 300,000 created new accounts. This isn't over yet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Napster Bans Metallica Fans More

Napster Bans Metallica Fans

Comments Filter:
  • It seems very disingenuous that these same manufacturers who talk about all the "costs" of bringing CDs to market can do the same marketing, advertising, and distribution for tapes, which cost more to manufacture, and sell them for $7-$8.

    The price of CDs are set entirely by demand. They charge as high as they think consumers can stand to pay. The costs on the supply side of the equation have nothing to do with the price because it is not a free market (there is no real competition).

    As far as alternatives, I won't pirate, and I don't like the idea of buying and renewing a license to play the White Album and then getting the CD and any other format I want of it at cost. I like owning a piece of media with fair use. It would be interesting, though, to see how such a licensing system would affect these so-called "costs". Maybe we'd just pay a few dollars directly to the artists, who would pay their own studio/production costs, and there would be competition between web sites, CD manufacturers, and a guy down the street with a CD-burner to see who could distribute the actual bits for the lowest price.

    "What I cannot create, I do not understand."

  • > I guess they banned my IP. My IP only changes
    > about once a month, so I guess I'm out of luck for a while.

    Is this true? Are they banning IPs?

    If so, guess how screwed all the people that get 'dirty' IPs are going to be!

  • I do agree that listening to college radio with its very eclectic playlist is great, but there is one BIG problem: most college radio stations have TERRIBLE range. You'll be lucky if you can hear that college radio station 12 to 14 miles away from the transmitter, especially since many of them operate in the FM frequency range. Here in the Bay Area, the radio stations for Stanford University, San Jose State University and CSU Hayward are very range limited indeed. :-(
  • Hey, there is a good CNET article on ithere [cnet.com].

    kwsNI

  • Could they sue Metallica for libel? (Score:5)

    by cluke ( 30394 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:08AM (#1081526)
    Napster : Metallica say you are trading in stolen property. We're closing your account

    You : You bastards! That's libel*! I only trade in free mp3s from my own group Spametallicarr! I'm going to sue!

    (* or is it slander? I forget)

  • Re:CNET article (Score:4)

    by kwsNI ( 133721 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:09AM (#1081528) Homepage
    This [napster.com]also had a little more info on it, straight from Napster.

    kwsNI

  • How did they key in all 60000 pages so fast

    I want to hire that data entry clerk

  • .
    Tonight, I am going to execute my legal rights and perform and record several parody songs set to Metallica's music, as well as some original songs with the word "Metallica" in the title. Titles that come to mind: "The Ballad of Napster versus the Metallica Boys", "Metallica my Eye" (Cheech & Chong reference there), and simply "Metallica" (Hey, Nerf Herder released a song titled "Van Halen").

    I will also record myself (as a good American Citizen) reciting the Pledge of Alliegance, which I will record under the title of it's last line ("And Justice for All"). I'll also give my views on the incomparable Jim Henson, titling it "Master of Puppets".

    Now, I see the obvious flaw here, but I don't give a damn. We built the damn internet for ourselves (I was on Telenet in the early 80s, long before the web), and we're the smart ones. I'm not in support of using Napster for piracy, but I've owned *three* copies of "And Justice for All" on CD, and lost or scratched every one. I don't like most of their albums, but I've paid my buck to Lars, and I want my songs. I'd even be willing to pay a nominal "replacement fee".

    Screw 'em. When kibo was doing his thing, he was one of us. When Echelon was doing it, it was at least passive, and (in their pov) helpful. Now the Lawyers are doing it, it's an attack on our future, on the vision held by those who understand information at an intuitive level... I'm pretty damn sure that Metallica didn't start this - that they were approached by the lawyer.

    Mebbie it's time for some 60's ethics to come back - fight for your vision of what should be. We all cry "Contact the ACLU" or "Contact the EFF" (Which was started by a 60's child), but we're not doing much to defend ourselves.

    --
    Evan

  • Trent Reznor is a musician of modest talent, but a great marketing man. NIN's real innovation is to take industrial out of the fringes and make it more marketable to angst-ridden teenagers. If you listen to any song from Pretty Hate Machine, you will notice that they are structurally more similar to catchy pop songs than obscure industrial pieces.

    The only time one finds any innovative or experimental elements in NIN is in the absolute minimum quantities to get cred from the pretentious goth crowd who wish to put themselves above the Marilyn Manson crowd. (It's no coincidence that Manson, who successfully commercialised the goth genre and injected new life into Anton LaVey's failing Nietzche/Ayn Rand rip-off Church of Satan, was all but created by Trent Reznor.)

    Witness the Perfect Drug video. There Reznor does his best Andrew Eldritch impression in backdrops inspired by Edwaed Gorey's drawings, both in attempts to cater to the "sophisticated goth" demographic. Pity that his songs haven't progressed beyond recycled teen angst,
  • Actually, when CD's first arrived in the USA in the spring of 1983, discs were priced at around US$18 to US$20 per disk. The price dropped to around US$15 to US$17 by 1985 when more production plants went online, and has stayed there more or less since. By conventional forces of economics, the price of an album-length CD should have dropped to US$8-$9 by 1990, because by 1990 there was enough CD pressing plants to more than keep up with demand and then some.

    For some reason, the RIAA and its member companies bamboozled the American public into keeping the high prices; small wonder why the FTC did its investigation on possible price-fixing.
  • NIN produces songs that give a view into human pain, suffering, and anger like no music before it.

    s/pain, suffering, and anger/mewling, self-indulgent teen angst/

    "I hate my parents! Nobody understands me! I don't want to clean up my room! It's *so* unfaaaaair!!!"
  • They COULD aim for the much-nicer "perjury" charge. The Metallijerks signed an affidavit that a copyright violation had occurred (even though they hadn't actually downloaded the MP3 to check), so anyone who was sharing "Enter-Sandman.mp3" and it was a live recording that, say, THEY owned the copyright for (or really anyone other than E/M Ventures), then Metallica committed perjury in claiming that they HAD committed a crime.

    Perjury is SO much more fun. In fact, I suspect it could POSSIBLY get Lars deported, since he's not a US Citizen, and egotistical enought that he probably signed the paperwork himself (with a flourish).

  • For anyone who knows a bit about microeconomics, the issue here is that because the big music companies that are RIAA members are in effect running a price-fixing cartel, prices remain artificially high. This unfortunately results in lots of incentives to cheat, as witnessed by the rapid growth of using .MP3 files to exchange music and the use of Napster. It's that incentive to cheat that nearly did in OPEC in the middle 1980's, because supporting US$34/barrel of oil was totally unsustainable.

    In fact we can apply this same analogy to operating systems. Microsoft charges around US$85 per copy of the OEM edition of Windows 98 Second Edition; there is MUCH incentive to get something far cheaper, hence the rise of Linux with its pricing of around US$30 for the desktop commercial distributions down to zero if you just want the CD alone. ;-)
  • Why on EARTH do you dislike the Beatles?

    Have you bothered to listened to all of the Beatles' original English releases (like I have)? From MEET THE BEATLES to LET IT BE, the Beatles single-handedly redefined the entire genre of rock music and greatly extended its artistic limits.

    Their three best albums--SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND, REVOLVER and ABBEY ROAD--show an incredible, astonishing range of music that most of today's music acts can't even come CLOSE to matching. I mean, look at "A Day In the Life" from SGT. PEPPER; they masterfully combined what amounted to two incomplete songs into one of the greatest popular songs EVER made.

    It is my personal opinion that at the end of the 21st Century, people will still consider the Beatles the musical geniuses of the 20th Century.
  • >Everyone that actively trades mp3s ALL trade
    >some illegal ones along with the legal ones.

    I assume, from your accusation therefore, that you have, at some point in the near past:

    1)
    Hacked into every computer I own which contains ANY MP3 files.

    2)
    Cataloged my MP3s by song title & artist... keeping in mind that on the Mac and the Linux box, they don't have that convinent .mp3 suffix. This makes the search a bit more difficult than a simple "ls -r *.mp3"

    3)
    Broken into my home, my car, and my rented storage locker so as to:

    4)
    Taken a complete inventory of EVERY CD, Tape, and record I own.

    6)
    Obtained a complete list of ALL of the music purchases I've made in my whole life, so as to allow for the CDs, tapes, and records I've lost or had stolen over the years.

    7)
    Correlated the data from steps 2, 4, & 6 to determine that I am in possetion of MP3s for which I have never purchased original media.

    8)
    Done all of the above for EVERYONE who has MP3s

    If not, you are wrongfully accusing a LOT of people, and are a complete idiot... or possibly just another rathar pathaetic AC troll. Hmm... idiot == AC == Troll .... looks like a good tautology to me.

    If you have done 1-7, you are quite a superhuman individual. Oh, and you are also a criminal. Many of the tasks you would have had to perform to determine that I posses or trade illegal MP3s are quite illegal in of themselves.... Care to share your real name so I can forward it to the proper authorities?

    john

  • There is all this talk about how screwed artists are nowdays because just getting a label to sign them is so hard that they'll sign anything, and most labels use roughly the same crappy legal agreements, screwing over the artists.

    There is one thing that the labels can NOT currently ask them to sign over, and that is the rights "in perpetuity" (where perpetuity means as long as copyrights are valid, which is what, 90 years?). As I read it currently an artist can get back the rights to his work when the work comes up for 'renewal' of the copyright, which is after the first (28, 32?) years.

    So currently if you're an artist and you make a deal with the devil to go big, there are limits to what the labels can demand in the contract. This is one of those natural limits. They aren't guaranteed the copyright in perpetuity.

    Works for hire do NOT come up for the same kind of copyright renewal which means that in effect labels would now be allowed to demand the rights in perpetuity.

    Yes yes, if an artist is stupid enough to sign away this much rights then they deserve it.

    HOWEVER, we as a society make it illegal for a person to sign away certain rights, due to the potential repercussions due to abuses. You can not sign away your fundamental freedoms. You can NOT consent to be physically assaulted.

    Labels have so much power that allowing them to demand rights in perpetuity would give them a potential goldmine at the expense of the artists, who would get nearly nothing extra. Do you really think the labels are going to give artists a fair deal in exchange for that 'in perpetuity' (aka work for hire) clause?

    No way in hell. You can bet your ass that Elvis (ok, a rich example, but a good one) would have been given a pittance for the 'extra' future rights signed over, and his family would have been left with a lot less, in perpetuity.

  • No bots (Score:5)

    by BrianW ( 180468 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:38AM (#1081570)
    When I log into Napster, it says, quite clearly:

    "NO BOTS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS SERVICE. IF YOU RUN ONE HERE, IT WILL BE BLOCKED AND YOUR IP WILL BE PERMANENTLY BANNED"

    So will Napster be blocking NetPD's bots?
  • This is absolutely not ridiculous. Napster's move is one that manages to please the 'Media-Suits-RIAA-Metallica' bad guys while anyone who actually USES Napster knows all you need to do is recreate an account. Napster isn't out to get rid of all their users, on the contrary, they are most likely doing everything they can to keep every single user pleased with the product.

    Napster is a great piece of software, unfortunately, they get the unfortunate role of being a focal point in a war between new technology/the users/musicians associated with it and the old technology/the corporations/musicians associated with it (the old technology).

    Napster has managed to delay a bit of the pressure exerted on them. If we boycott Napster, what we get is a company that slowly and surely shrinks and disappears, and sets a precedent in the courts (since they all have Napster dead square in their sights), and eventually.. well, I won't jump to conclusions, but let's just say that it's in our best interests to side with Napster.

  • Standing in the way of the avalanche... (Score:3)

    by ruhk ( 70494 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:40AM (#1081576)
    So all the bad little Napster users that downloaded Metallica MP3s had
    their accounts killed. Of course this didn't fix the problem, nor did it
    even help remedy it.

    While I don't like Napster, this isn't the way to go.

    You want to stop Napster? You have to shut them down completely.
    Heck that won't even stop the problem: Gnutella and Hotline and every
    other $WAREZ_TRADING_SOFTWARE will still be out there.
    What needs to be addressed is the cause. I suddenly have this image
    (gods I'm a geek) of Leia standing in front of Grand Moff Tarkin telling
    him, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more MP3s will
    slip through your fingers."

    Something needs to be done about the reason people go after MP3s
    (collecting, its a counterculture/rebellion thing, they're thieves, they're
    fed up with the low quality of the music industry, the industry rips
    everyone off--artists and customers).

    Banning 300K users from Napster is just like the trying to stop an
    avalanche. You can't do it just by standing in the way.

    --Ruhk

    --
  • All depends on the elasticity of CD pricing. I believe it goes a little something like this. A price inelastic commodity, people buy it no matter what the price. So lowering the price wouldn't increase sales that much. I believe the argument is, and I agree with it, CD prices are elastic. If you drop the price by 50%, sales will go up by more than 100%. Unfortunately, that only discusses the end pricing schema.

    If I sell something for $10 that costs $1 to make, I profit $9. If I sell it for $5, I only make $4. Therefore, if I cut my price to $5, I need to sell 9/4 as many widgets as I was before to make the same amount of money.

    I'm not sure CD pricing is that elastic. Maybe someone should go ask mp3.com. Their model of DAM CDs is intriguing because it removes a number of those pesky middlemen that the RIAA employs. Artists get more money; consumers get less expensive CDs. As far as I can tell, everyone good wins. Only the RIAA loses. That's a shame.
  • I know that, in our church bookstore (which I am partly responsible for) we are unable to discount CD's much at all because we don't get any significant discount on them. On Books, we get 40% off cover. On CD's, we get like 15%.

    I guess I agree with your conclusion: record companies (including the `religious' labels) are a bunch of greedy bastards.

    --

  • Yes, but does the mere existence of a law justify the law? If so, there can be no unjust laws.

    You've made a better argument for decriminalizing marijuana and assault rifles than you have for criminalizaing Napster.

  • How does the Rio ruling affect this? (Score:4)

    by Amphigory ( 2375 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:48AM (#1081601) Homepage
    As I recall, when the courts ruled in favor of the Rio, one of the ideas was that `fair use' entitled you to maintain a copy of the media. Furthermore, the judge in that case implied pretty strongly that you had a right to a copy even if you did not make it yourself.

    In other words, what these fans did would seem to be illegal if and only if they did not own a legal copy of the media. I just remembered something from the CNN story this morning: apparently, according to Metallica `the straw that broke the camel's back' was that their newest song, which has not even been released on CD yet, was being pirated. Possible, the reason it broke the camel's back was that it was impossible for anyone to own a licensed copy of that song yet since they weren't selling it.

    Possibly, this ruling is not as far reaching as we are being led to believe.

    Am I missing something? Any lawyers out there (Hawk, you're the man)?

    --

  • Ever heard of civil disobedience?
  • At the same time, Best Buy and any other Brick and Mortar retailer makes their CD's available for me to steal. Along with Napster, because the opportunity is there does not mean people take advantage of it.

    But at Best Buy and others, you have a way to legally purchase the music, i.e. the register. They also take steps to ensure that you do not simply walk out with the CD (security, those annoying plastics tabs, etc). Napster offers no means to leagally purchase music through their software, and has no way to verify if you are downloading the song legally (you already own a copy of the CD) or not.

    Also, the CD's that Best Buy has on their shelves were purchased by Best Buy from a music distributor, and Best Buy is simply reselling the CD to you, offering it's services as a retailer. If you download a song/CD from a Napster user, chances are they didn't pay anyone for the right to redistribute the music to others.
  • I (ahem) hear an Athlon 600 and gogo can rip an entire CD in about 10 to 15 minutes. That's what I would do um if such activities weren't technically illegal in the US (Due to the Frauhauf MP3 patent.) Maybe you should use an unencumbered music compression format...
  • a) Walk into HMV and fill a basket full of CDs
    b) Walk up to cash register with said basket and assault rifle.
    c) Point rifle at clerk and say "I'm not going to pay for these CDs"
    d) Walk right out the front door.

    It would be better to ask for cash, but I'm trying to stay on topic.

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!

  • From the mouth of the beast (Score:5)

    by Wah ( 30840 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @05:27AM (#1081613) Homepage Journal
    Under the section. "Why do CD's cost so much?" [riaa.com]

    ...For example, the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music. To learn more about why CDs are a great value -- check out Cost of a CD. [riaa.com]

    I, for one, am tired of paying for marketing. Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?

    Oh, BTW, their closing argument for this defense.

    By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.

    Thanks for your opinion, RIAA, now I'll go form my own.

    --
  • I could make up a list of people I alleged to have copyrighted works of mine available for download on Napster. It appears you don't have to have any evidence whatsoever, merely a list of names.

    According to the DMCA, the list of names is submitted under penalty of perjury. Surely they're wrong on at least 1 of those 300,000 names.

    If we could prove 1 case of it, could we send NetPD/Metallica to court for perjury? That might slow down they're crusade.
    -----
  • If you would have read my reply to Capt. Beyond, you would know that an earlier CNET article mentioned their delivering the list of users in paper format.

    Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
  • IANAL -- But I used to be a journalist :)
    Probably not. Libel refers to printed work.

    LIBEL - Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander.

    So I would guess that because they didn't publish an article with identifiable users, there is no question in the case of libel.

    As someone mentioned, slander might be possible. But the key to slander, is that A) it must take place outside of a legal context. and B) malice has to be present.

    So, anyones best bet would be to say Metallica perjured themselves.

  • It just has to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling when Metallica chooses to pick on you and your friends.. *sigh* Makes me want to cry.. :-}

    As much as I liked to listen to them.. *PHOOSH* I'll never listen again.. What I find SPECIFICALLY funny is the fact that *ALL I HAD COPIES OF WHERE LIVE RECORDINGS*. I had not one copy shared in my library that was a rip from their CDs.. Pricks..

  • Re:From the mouth of the beast (Score:4)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @06:16AM (#1081640) Journal
    Under the section. "Why do CD's cost so much?" [riaa.com]

    That argument fails when you consider that cassettes of the same material have a lower retail cost and a higher production cost. The same marketing costs applies to both products.

    The question should therefore not be "why do CDs cost so much?" but "Why do CDs cost more than cassettes?" Same music, same production and marketing costs.

    The price they set is what the market will bear. People are used to paying more for CDs because in the beginning (mid 80s) there was a serious shortage of plants cranking out blanks. That is no longer the case. The cost to manufacture a CD is far less than cassettes.

    But the market is not "bearing" the cost obviously. The illegal trading via napster is an example.

    There is a deep irony in this, proven through people of my (baby boomer) generation. When I was a teenager in the 70s, I couldn't afford to buy records. I copied stuff off the radio, taped friends' records onto cassette, and listen to the stuff over and over. If I didn't have access to that illegal copying, I'd have never had grown so fond of groups like Led Zepplin, The Who, Rolling Stones, etc, etc...

    Now look at the market. Baby Boomers are damn loyal to the groups they grew up with and spend a ton of money buying their CDs, going to their concerts, etc. I blew $150x2 just to see the Rolling Stones at Vet Stadium in Philly in the cold pouring rain in April a few years back. (It was pathetic too, a bunch of old fucks trying to relive their happier younger years... and no, I'm not talking about the band! :)

    The point is, did I rip off these bands when I was a teen by copying their stuff? Yeah, technically, but not literally. I could barely afford gas to fill my car at the time. Trust me, I had no money to buy anything like that. If I didn't bootleg it, I would have went without.

    But now look, the "Classic Rock" market is a HUGE and very profitable market. Now days, I often buy CDs on impulse and very often never even get around to listening to them. I'm too damn busy to bother hunting down mp3s on the net to copy.

    Kind of ironic, no?

    If Metallica turns off their young fans now, when their young fans are older and making money like mad, they won't be spending their money going to a Metallica reunion concert in 2010.

    The world is changing. Musical artists should almost give away their work to get exposure, then make their money on public performances, marketing of products, endorsements, etc, etc... the kind of stuff you can't digitally copy.

    Open Rock baby! :)

  • The real solution to this problem is to pay a penny and recieve 6 CDs. That's what I've been doing for years! CD's are less expensive than any other form of entertainment, and there are many companies willing to send you 6 CDs for free. You don't have to do anything. Isn't that wonderful?
    I'm hearing rumors that you're supposed to give money to these companies after you recieve your 6 free CDs, but I don't give them any credence. Hell, I never have and they still send offers to me in the mail for more CDs!
    By the way, you can sometimes get free movies and books too! Woohoo!
    Mind you, sometimes you need to pick a crap CD to round out your five because the companies offering free CDs only have the most mainstream music. It doesn't really matter, though, because sometimes you can just take the crap one in to a record store and return it for either cash or store credit. If it has bad lyrics, you can even listen to it a few times and then take it back and claim that your son purchased it and you don't allow him to listen to obscene music, and by the way, how dare they sell him this trash?

    I know I'm a bad, bad man, but it you're going to moderate me down, I warn you that I'm on topic, and not trolling. I may be overrated, but I'm also being informative.
    And do I see a problem with the free music I recieve? No. I purchase CDs often, and I buy them at the artificially high prices caused by price fixing within the industry.
  • This is not a good business solution for Metallica, they should have known better than banning users from centrally controlled Napster servers. Now people are going to Gnutella, Freenet and HotLine. Screw Napster.
    Bad move, Metallica, instead of reaching out to your fans and taking an opportunity to create a new on-line market for their mp3's they just have lost their chance to become the first band to realize how easy this user base could create enormous profits.
    They should have worked with Napster and have incorporated micro-transaction support into its next version (but I guess record companies pay them more than 50c a disk). Oh well.
  • Don't use Napster. They obviously don't want you as a user.

    Sure they do, they just want you as a legal, non-pirating user.

    Don't buy anything by Metallica. They obviously don't want you as a fan.

    Sure they do, they just want you as a honest paying fan. I can't say I blame them. I sure wouldn't want commercial code I wrote to be pirated this way.

  • This Weeks Geeks In Space Homework Assignment (Score:3)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @06:21AM (#1081653)
    Here's a suggestion for this weeks Geeks In Space homework assignment:

    - Create a new account on Napster.
    - Make an MP3 of yourself talking about how you feel about this whole Metallica issue.
    - Make multiple copies of the file.
    - Name each copy after Metallica songs, including one that just says 'Metallica.mp3'.
    - Start sharing your creations on Napster.

    Now let's see how they justify banning an account because Metallica says you're pirating their music , when all you're doing is talking about Metallica?

    Of course, they'd probably consider that a moot point. But it was just an interesting thought.
    ---
    icq:2057699
    seumas.com

  • Re:Technology can be closed. (Score:3)

    by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @06:24AM (#1081656) Homepage
    A geek is running for president! Al Gore ... he is a geek in every traditional sense of the word.

    [boggles]

    [gulp]

    [boggles again]

    [looks at the poster and carefully backs away]

    Dude! Do you have any clue, any at all, about what a geek [tuxedo.org] is?

    [sighs and goes away sadly shaking his head]

    Kaa

  • For a good laugh check out the open letter from Metallica [brunching.com] on Brunching Shuttlecocks. It explains the importance of promotional money aka "We don't suck" money. It answers your question "Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?"

    For the humor-impaired--it's a joke. At any rate, I got a chuckle out of it.

    numb
  • According to GeekLife.com [slashdot.org], who may or may not know what he's talking about in this article [slashdot.org], you may now sue Metallica for perjury.

    Let me know when you set up www.suelars.com.

  • I signed up Lars [paylars.com], Jon Katz [slashdot.org], Miss Portman [slashdot.org], AL Gore [algore.com] and CmdrTaco [cmdrtaco.net]. (this is a joke, I did not sign up these people)

    But you have a good point, ANYONE ANYWHERE could signup on this "legally binding document" and there is really no way to tell who really behind IP 209.272.218.128, they should atleast require a pgp signature (even though this would still have problems) or even better yet, print it out, sign it and have 2 witnesses sign it, and fax it in with 2 forms of photo ID.

    I remeber like 2-3 years ago, the Internet has just one big ass "Hoax" no one took anything serious on the Internet, it was more of a "play toy" for geeks and porn haven for preverts and that was it, now we are passing around credit card numbers and "legally binding documents" on the web and just expect it to work on in the real world. I view the real world and the Internet a whole lot differant. These world are just that, too differant and unrelated worlds.

    This is one of the times where people would need to be tracked on the Internet, to tell how the really are, but at the same time certain things [grits.com] we do or don't do on the Internet should remain private.

    Would pgp keys work in this sisuation? I think the Internet should remain %100 anonymous, unless the user wants to be known (and can also prove that they say who they really are), but when a user does want to prove that they are really who they say there are, there needs to be a sure %100 method of doing this. Maybe goverment issused PGP or simlair? (Sorry I don't know much about pgp, so this probably sounds really fsck stupid)

  • Metallica can't even spell 31337! (Score:3)

    by Rupert ( 28001 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @05:02AM (#1081668) Homepage Journal
    317,377 users? I think they mean elite users.

  • Duplication cost isn't the only factor. An audio CD sells for 18 dollars, but an OEM copy of MS Office without manuals has the same duplication cost but sells for way more (admittedly not to anyone on here. :) )

    I think it's interesting that we consider 18 dollars way too expensive for a CD, but don't mind paying stupidly inflated prices for software; in both cases, what you're actually paying for is the content, not the media.

    Contact.

  • Dante,

    I should note that for many years that vinyl LP sales made good money, even at $8 per disc.

    The fact that the RIAA members never really lowered the original US$15 to US$17 price for a CD (which was understandable in 1985 when CD pressing plants were still very uncommon and the record companies had to charge more to pay off the cost of these advanced manufacturing facilites but not in 2000 when modern technology stamps out CD's at a few cents per disk) tells me that the RIAA liked the higher price so much they never bothered to lower it. It the RIAA had lowered the price of a CD to US$9 max back in 1990 the issue of piracy would be MUCH less now.
  • > If the lawyers can squelch Napster, why can't they kill FreeNet also?

    You have to have somebody to sue to use lawyers. It also helps if they are in a country.

    My Retirement Plan: (1) sailboat, (2) radio transmitter, (3) computer, (4) solar cells, (5) fishing rod. Oh yah, and an offshore bank account for 'services provided'. I can dream can't I?
  • Dix wrote:

    "The recording industry argue that the prices reflect the work they do in finding and promoting "artists". This does not wash when instead they push formulaeic ditties via pretty teenagers, and enforce playlists on radio stations. If the extra cash goes into this, then rebellion is timely."

    Boy, have you hit it on the nose! (bamf!)

    I think the RIAA is more than just doing price-fixing on audio CD's. Have you noticed that radio stations in the last 10-12 years have become increasingly bland and too full of "adult contemporary" stations? Where is the big variety of music we used to hear on radio stations, even in the big markets? Has the record companies become so interested in "formulaic" pop music and enforcing radio playlists that a lot of music is no longer being heard?

    It's small wonder why .MP3 files have become extremely popular. They have become the new medium to spread music that most radio stations seem to have missed lately.

  • do yourself a favor: Don't use Napster. They obviously don't want you as a user. Here's some more advice: Don't buy anything by Metallica. They obviously don't want you as a fan.

    I don't see how this does any favors for yourself. People were never Metallica fans because the band wanted them to be fans, but because the music appealed to them. Metallica's stupid behavior does not affect this. If Napster and Metallica really don't want you, the concept of boycotting them is what's absurd.


  • And what happens if you're a Metallica fan that have buyed ALL their albums, like me, I've shared some of them into Napster and I've been banned by Napster this morning.
    I have the prove that I hold all the Metallica albums for legal, then I cannot copy them to anyone or to any kind of media?
    That's the way to keep out new fans coming in, since they're banning the ways of sharing their music they're closing their market, since (I'm talking IMHO) every group that I've liked, heard about on the Internet or whatsoever I've finally buyed their albums to support future productions of that groups.
    I hope that Metallica doesn't release a new album since I'll not buy them anymore.

  • It's the political correct thing to say when what you really mean is "I want that information to be free." And I agree with you -- it gets a 10 out of 10 on my banality scale.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • Ah, but the USA thinks it's the centre of the universe... or hadn't you noticed that with all the other similar copyright junk? ;)

    My first thought was that I bet half the people caught by this are minors and thus CANNOT be legally bound by *any* contract... silly, huh.
    ---


  • Do you have anything to hide? Let me dig though your house without permission? Do you have anything to hide, let me follow you around for 24x7 for 2 months watching EVERYTHING you do.

    Even if you are a %100 pure saint and never have or never will commit a sin, it is still creepy having people watch you when you don't want to

    Care if I stand over you and watch you while you sleep? Creepy? Yes. I like to remain anonymous while I sleep and also when I take a shower, I don't have anything to hide, but I don't want people to have access to that information...

  • Online legal form... (Score:5)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:10AM (#1081711) Homepage

    Very confused about the legality of the form on Napster. I could fill that in (I don't even use Napster) with the name and address of a banned person. No signature, just text...

    Another point. If I, as a British Citizen, were banned, how would the DMCA apply to me ? If the transaction took place between myself and a person in Germany why is a US rule being applied ?

    The phrase "can of worms" comes to mind. And of Napsters form the phrase "half-arsed" presents itself.
  • You should be paying about US$3 to US$4 less than you're paying now. Given the fact that CD duplication costs are way cheaper than even duplicating analog audio cassettes, it is just a bit amazing that Americans can be fooled into paying more than US$9 per disc.

  • It would take a LOT of bandwidth to download roughly 3megs from each of the 300,000 users

  • Re:CD cost a factor in this fight (Score:3)

    by nospoon ( 126741 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @05:14AM (#1081721)
    Talk about timing... Read this story about lowering cd prices [msnbc.com] on MSNBC.
  • Um... redistributing a radio recording is not legal either, AFAIK.

  • "Made available" (Score:3)

    by Hyperion X ( 120480 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:11AM (#1081725)

    The notice to bad users states that Metallica has accused them of making available Metallica music, not actually trading it (which brings up all the "I'm putting this here for people who own the CD, it's not my fault they download it"). NetPD has no way of tracking user to user transfers, they can just do a search on Metallica like everyone else, using a 'Bot to save all the resulting users. Maybe they could even do something fancy like search on the titles of all the albums and tracks too.

    It doesn't seem likely that they could somehow eavesdrop on user transactions, since the transactions are distributed, only the database of available songs is central.

  • Re:This is ridiculous (Score:3)

    by Yaruar ( 125933 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @05:15AM (#1081727)
    So people should not use Napster unless it expressly allows them to pirate material from artists??

    Also any band that objects to piracy should be boycotted as a protest to the fact that they actually might want you to pay for the record that they invested time and money producing.

    If people use Napster for the purpose they keep bleating on about (ie. listening to free music and small bands who are trying to build a fan base) rather than the majority use which is pirating then they have nothing to worry about. Of all the people I know using it I would say that less than 40 percent of the commercially available music availabe is owned by them legally. I have some friends who have even stopped buying music because they can get it free now. But then again the freeloader problem was always a product of consumerist society...

    Technically this makes the music industry a highly imperfect market, and the only answer now is nore legislation... Or bands going out of business.

  • I can't wait (Score:3)

    by dougman ( 908 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:12AM (#1081729)

    As someone tracking this story very closely on my own site, I can tell you that a popular item of discussion in this whole sorry state of affairs centers around the all-important question:

    What EXACTLY is the "secret recipe" used by NetPD to determine someone is a "MEtallica Pirate"? And, seeing definite vagueness regarding the TOS of the Napster agreement with regards to bannable activity, what's going to happen when a group amoung these 300,000 ex-fans decides, instead of simply recreating Napster accounts, decides to challenge Napster's assertion that they were actually in posession of Metallica tracks? This is just a sordid state of affairs.

    OFFTOPIC, and I apologize, but if you want to get even more pissed off at the music business then read this article [theswindle.com] reporting on a bill before the US House Of Reps. that would declare ALL published artistic musical work "work for hire". This is a VERY, VERY bad thing, arguably just as bad as the War on MP3 - but it's NOT BEING COVERED IN THE MEDIA. Yet.

  • Re:CD cost a factor in this fight (Score:3)

    by jbarnett ( 127033 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @05:56AM (#1081730) Homepage

    no, where can I get there mp3?

  • Good news, very good news (Score:5)

    by streetlawyer ( 169828 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:12AM (#1081732) Homepage
    Here are a few other bands whose fans should be banned:

    Nine Inch Nails (like heavy metal without the talent)
    Rush (think they're clever, but aren't)
    Hootie and the Blowfish (shit name, shit band)
    AC/DC (the single least musical bunch of morons God ever created, and disgustingly sexist to boot)
    The Grateful Dead (shit beyond shit)
    The Beatles (the Britney Spears of their generation)
    The entire country of Australia ("I come from a land Down Under, where the only band is a one-hit wonder)

    And in general, anything else I don't like.
  • mp3.com just got bitten by RIAA, right?

    Go download some music (legally) from there and support mp3.com. I'm only just getting back in to mp3.com after not having looked at it for a while. There's some _seriously_ good music there if you dig around a bit.

    Was thinking about mp3.com the other day, and, apart from the whole legally dodgy Beam-It stuff, I can see why RIAA wants to shut mp3.com down. As I said, there's a lot of really good music available for download - music that I would of previously been happy to go buy in a shop on CD. "Commercial" quality and all that. Or I can get a DAM CD for ~US$7, and the artist is still making more money than if they had a record deal with a major. And, hey, guess what? The majors aren't getting in on this new stuff.

    There's already some artists who are making a decent living from mp3.com sales, etc. Look here [mp3.com].

    The majors aren't needed any more. I would be upset if I was them.

    (for a nice selection of electronic music from mp3.com, check out this link )that I have nothing to do with): http://stations .mp3s.com/stations/2/turn_on_tune_in_space_out_.ht ml [mp3s.com])

    ...j
  • No authentication.
    If mini transactions were part of mp3 distribution systems' functionality it would not be an issue. Imagine Napster, you download a song from anyone, and this is one of the songs that you have to pay for, then Napster sends a request for you to pay (let's say 10c - $1).
    If you decide to pay, you get a license for that song and you get a permission to listen to that song on any media of your choice at any time (copy of your license stays at the distributor of-course).

    I believe that most fans would like to support the artists they like, especially if it is as cheap as 10c - $1 and most of the money goes to the artists themselves.

    What Metallica is doing (and you approving it) is they loose the potential business opportunity to invest in this kind of activities.

    You see, I started using mp3's about 4 years ago, and people did not need Napster to download these files. We have ftp, http and other wonderful protocols. (today it is Gnutella, Freenet, HotLine).
    So people who download mp3's WILL NOT STOP even if they are banned from Napster, BUT Metallica and other bands are loosing an opportunity to get more profit from those users who will support these bands over the internet.

    So they are stupid
  • Or they hired some of Bill Gates' infinate fleet of monkeys typing on infinate typewriters.

    Just a quick correction. Bill Gates clearly doesn't have an infinite amount of monkeys. If he did, Windows would work better.

    Microsoft: A Few Monkeys Short.

  • This is ridiculous. If I was on that list, I would most certainly not create a new account. I would never use Napster again.

    And that would make RIAA very, very happy. Remember, the point of the exercise is to kill Napster.

    Besides, what are you bitching about? Napster basically provides a free service to everybody. Since they are not taking your money, they can (legally and ethically) do anything they want, including banning all people whose nick starts with a letter "A", those who come from certain subnets, people who connect between 11pm and midnight, etc. etc. Napster doesn't owe you anything. Deal with it.

    Go buy some Limp Bizkit, even if you don't like them; they will never try to dictate what you can do with something you paid money for.

    Why should I buy music I don't like? At least contributions to charities are tax-deductible... And how do you know what Limp Bizkit will do in a year? or five? Just because Napster paid them a bunch of money doesn't make them angels IMHO.

    Do you know how to program? Help with the OpenNap project.

    Gnutella is tastier.

    Kaa
  • If I, as a British Citizen, were banned, how would the DMCA apply to me ?

    DMCA doesn't apply to you. It applies to Napster.

    And if Metallica wants to sue you, it probably will have to do it in a British court. But note, that it can sue you in British court.

    Kaa

  • uh I paid $2 for a debian cd and someone in my lugi gave me a staroffice for free... I put them in my cd-rom drive, and what do you know, they had content on them, good content to, it tasted like melted butter

  • Personally I think it comes down to society and what the people want. Maybe in 30 years, a geek will run for president in the US and be elected.

    A geek is running for president! Al Gore was a social outcast in school, has done a bit of programming, hell he even invented the Internet (I know... not really, but he helped bring it to the mainstream...) Whatever you think of his other politics, he is a geek in every traditional sense of the word.

  • Re:Is there any legitamate use for napster? (Score:3)

    by Capt. Beyond ( 179592 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:16AM (#1081787)
    Have you ever heard of the Grateful Dead? Even Metallica lets people trade LIVE recordings There are tons of live Metallica nd Grateful dead recordings available through Napster. What Metallica want to stop is the trading of STUDIO recordings.

  • Re:Could they sue Metallica for libel? (Score:3)

    by G Neric ( 176742 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:17AM (#1081794)
    Ain't going to happen.

    Are you kidding? this case is prima facie:

    Yes, judge. I suffered irreperable harm to my name when Metallica had my Napster account cancelled. My friends and associates ridiculed me
    because now they know I listen to Metallica and am a pathetic looser. I am now outcast."

    Every judge on the bench would believe that claim :)

  • Not to reply to my own message, but hundreds of people apparently agreed with me that my admiteddly offtopic posting of the "work for hire" bill scam that is now before the Senate demanded more information - and I just did the research. And the results are VERY scary. Seems the record biz/RIAA have bought a VERY offtopic, VERY sweeping little amendment to an otherwise completely unrelated bill - regarding satellite signal retransmission. See my latest report [theswindle.com] for more.

  • The Beatles (the Britney Spears of their generation)

    Only if (like the Beatles) Britters follows up several albums of pap, with something as revolutionary as Revolver (heh, revolutionary, gerrit), then keeps getting more and more creative until someone assasinates her.

    I have a pleasant dream that one day the Spice Girls will do this (not the assassination bit...), but there's no sign of it happening yet...
    --

  • I like paying the middleman, Bob from accounting is one cool dude, also I have all of Ricks marketing progranda (commericals, posters) etc, rick is the marketing God! Go Rick and Bob, they make a super middleman team.
  • Two years ago I did a small CD press run: * 4-color CD * creation of the "mother" CD * jewelcases For 750 CD - it was about $1300. I didn't do the printing for the inserts into the jewelbox. If I had it was about another $1000 (4-color printing, fold-out, two-sided). So, the cost per CD at a VERY SMALL run, ***but at a quality similar to commercial CDs*** worked out to about $3/CD. The price for CDs in the marketplace, given how little the artist gets from each CD sold is completely unjustified. It's no wonder that lots of garage and independent artists charge LESS for their small run CDs then the major labels do for their very large run pressing (where the cost/CD goes to under $1 each).
  • "Don't buy anything from Metallica. They obviously don't want you as a fan."

    That's bollocks. Metallica of all people have always treated their fans with respect: they put up with bootlegs, and they have no problem with fans sharing music, such as lending it and copying it for their friends. But there is a huge step from that to the massive online trading of mp3s. When you have over 5GB of assorted music, more than you could ever hope to listen to and appreciate, can you really call yourself a fan of anything? Or are you just, as they claim, a "commodity" trader? For the vast majority of people Napster is not a community. It's just a market.

    Even so, Metallica aren't suing these people for copyright infringement. After all, they are potential fans. All they're asking is for them to stop it and grow up. And maybe learn to listen to music, not just amass it...

  • Under the law, you should be able to rip them to mp3s, but under the law you can not give/trade these .mp3s with people that don't own the album...

    Just because YOU own the CD, doesn't mean that the person downloading your songs owns the CD...

  • This is ridiculous. If I was on that list, I would most certainly not create a new account. I would never use Napster again. I would also never buy another Metallica record again (not that I have in years).

    If you were one of the people whose account was cancelled, do yourself a favor: Don't use Napster. They obviously don't want you as a user. Here's some more advice: Don't buy anything by Metallica. They obviously don't want you as a fan. Go buy some Limp Bizkit, even if you don't like them; they will never try to dictate what you can do with something you paid money for. Go buy some Grateful Dead, even if you don't like them, for the same reason.

    Do you know how to program? Help with the OpenNap project [sourceforge.net]. If you can't program, support them any way you can: Download it [freshmeat.net] and run an opennap server.

    darren


    Cthulhu for President! [cthulhu.org]

  • well... (Score:3)

    by Frac ( 27516 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:20AM (#1081830)
    Moments later, all 300,000 created new accounts.

    Not exactly. But even if that's true, you just got yourself 300,000 pissed off Napster users. Three quarters of them probably got another account right away. The rest probably looked into other file-sharing programs, like iMesh, CuteMX, and Gnutella.

    Now imagine if Metallica gives them another 200,000 names next week. Rinse, dry, and repeat. And perhaps, other musicians will join in.

    I still think what Metallica doing is ingenious (I think what they're doing is evil, but still ingenious) - by calling Napster's bluff, they showed other musicians that:

    1) you can waste many man-hours of Napster Inc, especially when you deliver them 300,000 usernames on hard copy.

    2) create a massive inconvenience for Napster users, which might drive them away to other solutions, and decrease Napster Inc's revenues.

    I guess Napster won't be having their IPO anytime soon. Doh.

    Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)

  • Now imagine if Metallica gives them another 200,000 names next week. Rinse, dry, and repeat.

    Given that creating a new account on Napster is basically costless, all this will achieve is a very big list of strings that cannot be used as Napster nicknames. Given that a scheme like Joe1, Joe2, ..., Joe1985, ... works perfectly well, all this looks like a very good example of lawyer-induced stupidity.

    Banning IP addresses probably wouldn't work either: first, what about dial-up users, and second, can an IP address infringe copyright?

    Kaa
  • The DMCA allows anyone to easily force an ISP (or something like Napster) to kick off others by alleging copyright violations. However, the catch is that, if you are wrong, you face the penalty of perjury.

    Nope. The accuser doesn't have to swear to anything. In keeping with the spirit of the DMCA, it's the accused who has to come forward and under the penalty of perjury state that he is innocent. Ain't DMCA wonderful?


    Kaa
  • This is how the game is played. Young, struggling musicians get approached by a man in a dark suit who promises them all the fame in the world. In exchange for the publicity, they agree to fork over 99.99% of the money from CDs, let the RIAA represent their "interests," etc. They get publicity by being heard on MTV, radio stations, etc which they think they would never get if they continued performing at local bars and in their parents' garage.

    As a result, this whole affair is what comes of it. It is illegal to give away this music. It is illegal to download this music. Everything but what the RIAA blesses is pretty much illegal (or have enough spare cash to challenge them in court).

    If you object to this, do not support any group (movie, etc) represented by the RIAA (or other evil organizations). It is that plain and simple. With this new medium (this Internet thing), unknown musicians do have a way of getting themselves known throughout the world, and they can do it themselves. A simple bait and switch mechanism could bring in a lot of popularity and money. Give away some MP3s when you're starting out, get thousands of people to download them, give them to friends, etc. Then when you hit the big time, sell CDs, t-shirts, MP3s, etc yourself. Release a few MP3s here and there for free to keep up the hype. Let the MP3s drive up your hype/popularity, then rake in the money with hard copies, concerts, etc. This is possible, you just have to be a good enough band for it to happen. The RIAA knows it is difficult, so they are banking that it just will not happen. Go ahead, let them win.
  • Well, the fact that radio stations are playing more or less the same old crap from the record label playlists is the reason why talk radio and news stations are zooming up in popularity.

    Care to explain why KGO, KCBS and KNBR have such high popularity in the Arbitron books? Or how about why even a conservative talk radio station like KSFO are doing quite well?

    No wonder why I find FM radio to be such a big wasteland of music. I remember in the old days I can listen to everything from classical to easy listening to jazz to hard rock! Nowadays, forget about it! (grrr)

  • Silly NetPD (Score:3)

    by kyanite ( 73015 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:23AM (#1081855) Homepage
    Metallica is stupid and so is anyone who tries to fight this. I think most users will understand that Napster's arm was twisted to make them ban users. And the users will just create new accounts. However, Metallica has just pissed off 300,000+ fans. Think those people will EVER buy a Metallica CD now. At least before, people could have liked the MP3 and then purchased a CD. Metallica has just shot themselves in the face and made their record sales worse.

    NetPD is not too smart either. When the CTO was interviewed, he wouldn't even give a simple idea on how it worked other than the metaphor that it is like 5,000 humans in a room searching for the info. Which means his little plan will fail. I think most people know that if your algorithm is so secret that you can't tell anyone, then you are doomed. I give that software maybe a month (that's generous too) before someone gets a copy, disassembles it, and writes a patch for Napster. Then, I would like to see where NetPD sees it's sales. Get a clue guys, there is nothing any company can do to stop MP3 because there is a HUGE wave of millions of people behind it with a combined force that is greater than an company could ever mass. Look what happend to DVD and their secret algorithm.
    _________________________
    Words of Wisdom:
  • Definitely some questions as to how the online legal form works. Napster had to have something like that though. Just as they are trying to stay out of legal trouble by banning the people Metallica wants them to ban, they need to allow recourse for those people they are banning. As Napster states, they have no way of verifying that the people on Metallica's list did indeed infringe copyrights. Napster could get into further legal trouble by banning users who did nothing wrong and were merely misidentified by Metallica as doing something illegal. So they have that online form that allows users to get access back to their accounts if they "state under penalty of perjury" that their account access was blocked by mistake.
  • 'cause he's a troll with a full belly. I think it was the Beatle comment that got 'em. Nice one, SL.
    --
  • The real crime of the music industry is that these costs are huge, and they all come out of the artist's royalties.

    But the artist only sees $0.56 out of each CD, and those costs come out of that small fraction! What about the other $16.43?

    Goes into the Bentleys these ponytailed A&R poseurs collect...

    The quantity of sympathy I have for RIAA and its puppets can best be expressed by sqrt(-1)...


    Your Working Boy,

  • Can electronic form be a binding document? (Score:4)

    by brassrat77 ( 9533 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:25AM (#1081880)
    In spite of all the notices on the web page that the counter notification form [napster.com] is a legally binding document, I don't see how it can have any validity in court.

    I see no obvious way a form could be linked in court to a specific Napster user unless the user testifies they submitted it. There's no authentication that the name and address entered belongs to the person completing the form. There's no authentication by any obvious strong cryptographic means, no witness's signature, notary, or anything else normally associated with a legally binding document, let alone one where the alleged signer starts giving up their legal rights.

    I suspect anyone could submit a form on behalf of any napster user. (Those more familiar with Napster's registration process are welcome to correct me). Yes, that's possibly perjury, but could someone sumbitting a false form be tracked down with only an IP address to find them?

    I don't listen to Metallica, so I'm not directly involved in this issue. But I wouldn't fill out the damn form if I *was* blocked inadvertantly. It feels to me like replying to the opt-out address in SPAM email. If someone wants to sue me, they can use the traditional methods to find and serve me. (Been there, done that, my attorney and I are waiting)

    IANAL, standard disclaimers apply.

  • Does anyone have a mirror of the statement from napster, since my college has all access to napster blocked?

  • Egregious misreading of the bill (Score:3)

    by Randym ( 25779 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @10:10AM (#1081886)
    reporting on a bill before the US House Of Reps. that would declare ALL published artistic musical work "work for hire"

    The comment is flamebait. If you actually go (like I did) and read the bill (go to Thomas [loc.gov], search for S. 1948, then look at Sec.1011), then go and look at the actual US Code [cornell.edu] which it references, you will see the following:

    A ''work made for hire'' is - [...] (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work [the change incorporated from S. 1948: as a sound recording], as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire [my emphasis].

    This does *not* mean what the author of this comment alleges that it means. No copyrights are ripped away from any artists. It still requires that an artist agrees that the work that he or she is doing *is* a work for hire.

    The 1976 updating of the Copyright Act holds that the mere creation of a work of art confers copyrightholder status on the creator. A significant legal action is required to transfer copyright to anyone else. A further legal action is required to certify that a work is being done "for hire".

    This really *was* a technical amendment updating Title 17, Sec. 101, Para. 2 to include sound recordings as an area in which work for hire *might* be done. It is *not* a wholesale taking of intellectual property as was alleged by the author of this comment.

  • 3,000 Worms May Turn on Metallica (Score:4)

    by warpsmith ( 139813 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:26AM (#1081890)
    This can of worms is incredibly fascinating.

    The DMCA allows anyone to easily force an ISP (or something like Napster) to kick off others by alleging copyright violations. However, the catch is that, if you are wrong, you face the penalty of perjury.

    Metallica/NetPD admit that the list may not be completely accurate. Let's say that it is 99% accurate. That still leaves 3,000 people kicked off unfairly. If those people were to hit back, Metallica/NetPD would be faced with serious risk of massive perjury.

    Takers?

  • From a Napster [napster.com] page (sounds like they got the list of users from just simple querying) :

    Q: What information has Napster received from Metallica?

    A: Metallica delivered a computerized list of 317,377 distinct usernames to be banned from Napster. The list contained usernames, filenames of allegedly infringing music for each user, time, date, and the IP address of the Napster server to which the user was connected. That information did not contain the user's IP address or personal information. Metallica has stated that it intends to limit the scope of its notification to commercially released Metallica albums, making "no claim of infringement with respect to recordings of songs made by fans at Metallica live concerts."

    Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)

  • bill before the US House Of Reps. that would declare ALL published artistic musical work "work for hire". This is a VERY, VERY bad thing

    I'm not a signed artist but this still pisses me off...all this focus on Napster and musician's rights has been drawing us away from finding out about this.

    metallica's lawyers: "Hey, Napster is infringing on your rights! let's get 'em!"

    metallica's record label: "Hey, now that we've pissed off your fans and gotten you lots of media attention, we thought we'd mention that we now own your work. Forever. And it's retroactive. Have a nice tour!"

    What's a starving artist like me to do? Should we write our Congressperson? Storm the Senate? How about having a Million mp3 March? ;-)


    The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

  • My account is gone - Can I sue Metallica? (Score:3)

    by WNight ( 23683 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @07:12AM (#1081897) Homepage
    My account is gone, I tried to login and couldn't. (I'm assuming it's because of this.)

    I scanned my MP3 drives and the only thing I have with their name in it is

    f:\mp3\misc\friends\Mark - Covering Metallica - Enter Sandman.mp3

    For them to get me kicked off of Napster, they have to be alleging a criminal violation of some sort, and I don't think me having a copy of a garage band's music is a criminal violation (at least on my part, I have no idea about covers in general).

    So, can I sue them for defemation of character or something? Or at least to get them to go to Napster and reinstate my account?

    I think defamation has to have damages and be public, but there's got to be something appropriate for this case.

    For certain though, I'll never buy another MP3 from those thieving bastards again. Another example of a big company (or band, backed by a big company) throwing their legal weight around and crushing anyone who gets in their way. Fuck Metallica, and fuck the RIAA.

  • Steve Albini's famous rant (Score:5)

    by Hesperus ( 16733 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @12:53PM (#1081911) Homepage
    I believe that this piece first appeared in Maximum Rock and Roll about five or six years ago. In it Albini exposes the finance mechanisms behind a major lable record, including an sample balance sheet:

    http://www.interstate40.com.au/NEWS/Nov_Dec/Troubl e.htm

    (I found this particular URL by doing a google search: '"Steve Albini" trouble music')

    Anyhow around the same time I first read this I was enrolled as a grad student in Music Business at Columbia, where I was taking a course with Irwin Steinberg, the guy who founded Mercury and later Polygram.

    He was totally convinced that the majors were about to take a fall, because as soon as real artist realized that they could distribute there music for free they would, since they usually wind up loosing money on a major label deal anyhow.

    It's funny buy in the class they actually gave us copies of a major label contract, and ran us through the negociation process, and yes, the whole thing is designed to make the artist think they are making money from the records while actually making them NOTHING!

    So why would anyone make a major label record?

    People who make the decision to sign with a major are usually following one of two lines of reasoning:

    1. (the smart ones) A major label record will get us a ton of exposure, and we'll make a lot of money when we tour.

    2. (the stupid ones) We'll sell a bunch of records and get rich.

    Obviously anybody thinking either way about this is couting on the label to do a lot of marketing work, and that the marketing is going to provide the exposure, but really anybody who is confident that their music is truly worthwhile and is savvy enough to be thinking along the lines of the first line of resoning would not be at all threatened by mp3s, napster, the hacker ethic or whatever.

    As for those following the second line of reasoning, I think everybody can agree that the music scene will be alot better off without "musicians" who make music in order to "get signed and get rich".

    Wanna prove that our way is the right way? Try this (if you have some cash):

    Find some band or DJ or whatever that you really really really like that hasn't been signed to a major label, and offer to pay for a recording, so long as you can give the recording away in mp3 form, and more importantly under a licence like the GPL which will prevent somebody from signing them later and taking the recordings back.

    The artist still owns the songs themselves, only the recordings will be gpl'd (or equiv.) That way they will still get the paid for radio play.

    Of course they (or anybody else) can put the record on a CD, with or without nice cover art and shrinkwrap (whatever).

    Build a fancy website about the group, put the recordings up in their full form, and start telling people about it. If the music is as good as you will get lot's of hits and can sell ads, and the band will start getting a bigger turnout at shows, and can start reqiring much much larger amounts from venues. Everybody wins.

  • Technology can be closed. (Score:3)

    by alanp ( 179536 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:29AM (#1081926) Homepage
    So, do you think the government will just sit back and let it all happen ? Give up their futile fight ?

    I don't think so. This stuff will go too far and eventually the internet will be regulated.
    How do you regulate the internet you ask ?
    What is happening already. Make ISPs responsible for their users. When a few people have been sued for doing what the government consider illegal things on the net, other people will think twice. This bop the mole is bullshit. A lot of people will not be willing to take the risk.

    You can argue that the more people who stand up to them the less chance they have. Bullshit. You can live in your little cyber world all you want, but when the feds come busting through your door in the real world, you will soon know reality.
    And when some guy name bubba wants you for his personal love toy, what then ?
    Don't think that you can do what you want on the net. You can't break the law and get away with it. Even if the law is wrong.

    While there have been some cool new technologies like mp3, violating copyright is against the law. And it looks like people will be made to pay. While I agree that the mymp3.com and DeCSS are a fiasco, and I don't think they violate any laws in any way, the metallica issue is different. It is copyright theft on a mass scale

    Just wait until the government catches up with technology and excersises its iron grip. The internet makes you easier to trace, you leave an electronic pattern whatever you do. Anonyomity... bullshit. Slap a court order on the owners of the server who gave you your anonymous email address / dynamic ip and bingo. Server logs are pulled, who was dialled in then, who got that ip allocated.... etc etc.

    Live in the real world people. Not this fantasy that the internet will change governments etc....

  • CD cost a factor in this fight (Score:5)

    by RayChuang ( 10181 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:29AM (#1081928)
    Folks,

    As I said earlier, the whole issue with Metallica versus Napster points out the fact that music buyers in general are suffering from a case of sticker shock buying new CD's.

    Right now, if you go to a "brick and mortar" music store the average price of an album-length CD is about US$15 to US$17, and already there is talk of the price going to US$18 very soon. Even the online music stores like CDNow.com, Borders.com, and other can only knock a few dollars off this high price.

    Given that the duplication cost per CD is measured at about 35-50 US cents (that's including packaging), something tells me that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its member companies may be conspiring in a price-fixing scheme to keep prices high. I mean, just how many middlemen are we paying in order to get the price of a CD to US$13 to US$17 per disk?

    In my personal opinion, this is a true case of monopolistic practices, because the customer _is_ being hurt by a possible artificial high price by an OPEC-like cartel of record companies. Maybe lowering the price of an album-length CD to US$8 to US$9 will definitely help things along, since not only will there far less incentive to pirate the music, but also there will be substantially more volume sales of _legitimate_ CD's. Anyone who's taken a course in microeconomics can figure that out pretty quickly.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @08:46AM (#1081939)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Damn! (Score:3)

    by dszot ( 118732 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:30AM (#1081943) Homepage
    Well, my friend just told me he got banned. Tried to create a new username called FUCKMETALLICA , but it was already taken. fancy that...

  • Brick and Mortar (Score:3)

    by pridkett ( 2666 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2000 @04:33AM (#1081953) Homepage Journal

    IANAL, but here is what's funny:

    Metallica explained that these usernames had made available for others to download materials that Metallica claims infringed its copyrights.

    At the same time, Best Buy and any other Brick and Mortar retailer makes their CD's available for me to steal. Along with Napster, because the opportunity is there does not mean people take advantage of it. Which is along the same lines of people getting something without paying for it. So, I guess I'm waiting for Metallica to deliver a list of all the Best Buy stores to Best Buy, Coconuts stores to Coconuts, Musicland to Musicland etc...

    Some may say that this is different because it's making it easy to and encouraging people to steal with Napster. I say they haven't talked to enough suburban 14 year olds (sorry DJ Jazzy Trevor, I didn't know the food court was your turf).

    <SARCASM>Oh wait, that's right this is the way of the future, and we should be scared of it.</SARCASM>

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close