Open Source Leaders Speak About Napster 453
A huge number of people have been submitting the story
on ZDNet (originally from the WSJ) regarding folks like Linus and others about Napster. Many of the submissions have been along the lines of "Linus Bashes Napster." He doesn't -- he's merely saying that copyrights aren't necessarily a bad thing, and that piracy is a bad thing. As well, there's some good points about the Napster/Open Source relationship -- the article is worth reading in depth.
We are Seven! (Score:2)
Strongly Disagree. (Score:2)
1) The legality of companies like NetPD to snoop a computer in my house without my permission or a judge-issued warrant;
2) The legality of 'tallica to hire a third party such as netPD to compile information about me and my computer uses without my permission or a judge-issued warrant;
3) The legality of 'tallica to coerce a software company to deny me access to their product based on the data aquired in 1) and 2);
4) The legality of the RIAA's treatment of the internet community as a class; specificially with regard to interpersonal peer-to-peer communication .
Traditionally, legal action involving theft or copyright infringement in directed toward an individual or corporation dealing in "piracy" : the unauthorized *sale* of material, not individuals simpay sharing samples of a material.
The idea of corporations or extremely rich individuals manipulating the law against a large number of not-for-profit individuals communicating for any reason, and treating them as a class, is quite alarming to me.
I understand that 'tallica and the RIAA are concerned about the impact of emerging technologies on their revenue stream. They have a point. But they are stomping around in people's living rooms, and decisions made now could have a chilling effect on the future of our privacy on the net.
If a sacrifice must be made, let it be on the against the rich and powerful, and for the freedom of the masses.
Perhaps it is time to consider alternatives, such as overseas connections, certified anonymous servers, port hopping, tunnelling, encrypted streams and the like. If that's what it takes in "The Land of the Free" to get the government, corporations and the rich musicians out of my living room, so be it.
Re:Things to think about (Score:2)
The principle behind it is that artists should be able to make as much money as they want from their product, while everyone else should be forced to pay for it.
---
That's a particularly interesting interpretation of capitalism.
The idea isn't to force anything on anyone - you don't have to have most products, so nobody is forcing anything on anyone (unless you're an abusive monopoly, but that's not all that common).
Second, the consumer has some power as well (once again, unless there is an abusive monopoly involved). You can refuse to purchase a product, and if enough people agree with you, they are forced to lower their price or provide more. If it seems like you're being ripped off, it's either because you expect too much or the rest of the population is too complacent and won't stand its ground.
Either way, capitalism is a self regulating system (albeit with a few bugs).
---
Unfortunately, the principles of geekhood (which are typically not quite as capitalist) support freedom of information in the form of the GPL, copylefting, etc.
---
Speak for yourself. A lot of geeks view open-source in a purely pragmatic way, ie. that it contributes to overall stability, code reuse, and ease of integration - not to mention fun projects to hack on. Not everyone feels that it's a "freedom" issue at all, or that anyone has a right to certain code or information.
And believe it or not, there are lots of kinds of geeks. Some still thrive in the closed-source world, and may not agree with much of the Slashdot party line at all. These guys may not have wandered upon the wonders of the open-source world, but that doesn't stop them from cranking out killer (albeit closed-source) shareware on the weekends more for fun than profit.
[I'm not really disagreeing with you - I think the suit against Napster is retarded, they should instead go after the pirates themselves in they have a problem. I just get frustrated when people assume there is a single 'geek profile' when there really isn't...]
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Jesus pirated bread and wine... (Score:2)
According to the story, Jesus did not "pirate" (aka steal) bread. The loaves and fishes did not exist before he miraculously created them. Having created them himself, they were his loaves and fishes. He (and his followers) then choose to give them away.
In addition, there is no report of him doing this on an ongoing and widespread basis, so it's pretty unlikely that any businesses were affected. And even if he had done this a lot, it wouldn't have been pirating. Tough to compete with, but not pirating.
(Heck, he was supposedly a deity, or at least of divine birth. One could argue that as a deity, he had first dibs on everybody's property. But as far as I remember the popular bio, he never tried to take advantage of that.)
(FWIW, I'm an agnostic. But if someone's gonna use the story to make some point, they should at least try to get it right.)
Re:Look at this as a marketing dilemma (Score:2)
The reason why the RIAA is pissed is quite obvious -- it's the same reason that the software industry is pissed about warez.
Bruce Perens Weighs In (Score:3)
Sorry...take 2 (Score:2)
When W2K is $3299.95* & Linux is free - Linux is the better choice.
*current list price Windows 2000 Advanced Server w/ 25 CAL's.
Re:Not Napster (Score:2)
Re:Things to think about (Score:2)
It's also a bad thing from European, Asian and African views. And last I heard, the socialists didn't hold truck with theft either.
"The principle behind it is that artists should be able to make as much money as they want from their product, while everyone else should be forced to pay for it."
Absolutely wrong. First of all, the artists can make no money unless someone else first wants their product. The amount of money they make is tied to how many people want it. Sometimes this means that artistic products are more dependent on marketing than talent, but hey...millions of fans still want it. Go figure. Second, and more important, no one is forcing you to do anything. No one. There is no gun pointed at your head. No nazis are frog-marching you into the nearest store and coercing you into purchasing Metallica against your will. Believe it or not, you do have free will. It is entirely up to you, and you alone, whether you will buy that album or not.
In case you don't understand it yet, if you don't like that $15 price tag, DON'T BUY IT!
My Opinions... (Score:4)
"Piracy" Sure, Napster traffics in huge amounts of illegal mp3s, but wait a second to examine the process a little more. Most people (or at least myself and others I know) don't rely on Napster as their sole source of musical income. As proven in the previous poll on how many cd's the average
For example, I went down to the store and bought Play, Moby's new album. After buying this, I was really pleased with Moby's music and I wanted to see if I should buy any of his other cds. So, I went on to Napster to demo some songs. The next week, I ended up buying another Moby album, Everything is Wrong, based on the one or two tracks I previewed on Napster.
Napster doesn't have to serve as a means to illegal music. In my own opinion, I think that RIAA and the government shouldn't be trying to get rid of Napster. Instead, they should be trying to work in concert with Napster to fundamentally change it. Wouldn't you enjoy a free service where you could download the latest popular songs in mp3 format, in order to preview the cd? Or how about a fully downloadable album at reduced sound quality? Napster could even retain the free trading system by letting users trade only certain "accepted" mp3's, or by imposing a lower sound quality (say 56kb/s) on each downloaded song. If this were the case, you could download and then buy the cd, helping Napster and the RIAA thrive.
There are many alternative solutions, with shutting down Napster not being one of them. I only hope that the Government and RIAA would look into these, instead of blindly charging ahead in their "anti-piracy" jihad.
--------------------------------------------
Re:You worked just as hard as the artist (Score:2)
If you mean that they make $5- revenue per sale, I believe you -- but it doesn't really prove anything or make any point. Revenue is meaningless if you're not making a profit ( and in their case, they really need a profit per sale ). All it really proves is that the record companies have either high operating costs or high profits or both. If you were to divide the reported annual earnings by the CD sales ( ie profit per sale ), the number would be a lot less. BTW, If you're saying that they have $5- earnings per CD sale, I just don't believe you.
here's also my personal experience that might help slake your thirst for knowledge. My band's CD's cost us, at most, and in small, expensive lots, about $2.50 to press, including a crappy little lyric sheet insert in four colors. The majors press millions for about $0.80 a copy, tops.
I know how much it costs to press. But you're being awfully naive if you think that pressing records accounts for the record companie's entire operating expenses.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
Of course I was speaking in general terms. Obviously people give things away now: but an economy based upon gifts or charity cannot be as prosperous as ours. It's a simple impossibility.
Sure, there will still be *some* art if no one's paying for it, but NOT in the quantity that we have today. This is not difficult:
At zero price there are very few suppliers of any given economic good.
Those who steal from musicians are not only robbing the producers of music; if a culture of larceny builds around that theft, eventually there will be nearly zero producers of music. It's unavoidable. Very few people are willing to give away the fruits of their labor. This is part of why communism is such an abominable lie.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:2)
I agree. I love music and I am quite willing to pay for it. But its time to rethink the way music is sold and distributed.
I think it would be great if there was some kind of system where there was some standard for downloading & buying music via the internet. Imagine a system where you fire up your music browser and it lets you search for and download any songs or full albums you want for just 1 cent per song. You might have an account with $50 in it and everytime you listen to a song it debits the account. After listening to a song 10 times, you might pay a higher rate like a nickel everytime you listen to it, or you could opt to buy the song for a dime - and not have to pay for it anymore. Whole albums could have "bulk" rates; like a quarter. There would be many details to figure out, but I think you get the idea. I would love to be able to pay a dollar, download 100 songs from 100 different bands and then discover maybe 5 bands that I really like and proceed to buy their albums to listen to off my harddrive.
-Jeff
Searching for a better tomorrow...
/.ers Contempt for RIAA (Score:2)
IMHO,
Those of us with a keen sense of technology and where it is going know that "resistence is futile" and will laugh at anyone who thinks they can. Just as we'ld probably agree that Amtrak, as a national railway, is obsolete, so to is the physical medium for music distribution.
If the RIAA would realize the tremendous opportunity for profit with all of us having a personal jukebox in our house and charge a nickle per song played, and $1/song for unlimited play, we might actually like them. We'ld save money and they'ld probably pull in twice as much profit as they do now by cutting out the other middlemen and manufacturing costs. This would make everyone happy, I think.
The alure of Napster to geeks is not free music, it's the desire to use the most convenient technology to sample, buy, and store, our legitamately aquired music. Until the RIAA realizes that the FM radio is obsolete and the net is its replacement they're going to wallow in their own self pity, squander their money on legal expenses, and become irrelevant to the next generation of musicians.
Re:eCRIME, LAW & YOU (Score:3)
Remember that copying songs, or TV shows, or poetry is not evil or, necessarily, illegal. Copyright violation is not murder, theft, bigamy, incest or jaywalking. It is violation of a category of law that society has put in place to foster the common good through creativity. Society has decided that efficiency is promoted by installing stop lights at intersections and creating a crime known as jaywalking. There is nothing evil about jaywalking and there is nothing evil about copyright violation -- it is simply the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that copying broadcast TV shows for personal convenience was noncommercial "fair use" in the Betamax case. For Congress to outlaw, and the Supreme Court to uphold a prohibition on copying copyright music from a commercial CD to your hard drive or from your hard drive to your RIO for your own noncommercial listening pleasure would be a stretch.
Once a copyright piece of music is legally on your hard drive which is accessible to others on the internet, what should be the governing legal principles? It seems to me that while there are two possible outcomes in theory, there is only one practical outcome. The first is that Congress and the Courts decide that noncommercial exchange is fair use, akin to playing your boom box at the beach. There is no way that Congress will outlaw, and the Supreme Court will uphold a prohibition on file transfer software. There are enough files that aren't copyright and plenty of instances where the copyright holders want to do file transfers to establish the legitimacy of file transfer programs. Using legal software for noncommercial exchange of copyright material could, conceivably be found to fair use. I don't think that will happen.
I think that the Congress and the Courts will resolve this by taxing the users and giving the money to the copyright holders. Users of audiotape and audio CDR's are taxed (they call it a royalty) for the benefit of copyright holders. (For example, see 65 FR 19025, April 10, 2000 [loc.gov].) Once the RIAA has either driven Napster into the ground with legal costs, or gotten some part of the exchange process declared illegal, they can get Napster to gather information about what is being exchanged that will be valuable both for marketing purposes and for establishing the tax rate. Remember that even noncommercial colleges pay annual royalties for use of copyright non-dramatic music.
The RIAA has managed to get the U.S. government to tax almost everything that moves for their benefit under the name of copyright. They can't get the Congress to tax the digital exchange via Napster, Gnutella, etc. until the RIAA establishes that there is something illegal going on. Hence the law suits. Once they have established, either through a attrition or a legitimate reviewed legal victory, that there is some copyright violation, the problem is to figure out what to tax. Hard drives? DSL connections? RIOs? Any device that plays MP3? All of the above?
The ironic thing is that MP3's and Napster are almost certainly boosting CD sales. MP3's boost the demand for music by increasing the situations where you listen to your own music rather than the radio. Ripping MP3s from your own CDs is so much more efficient than downloading, checking, and organizing that if you have more money than time, it is more reliable to buy a CD and rip it. For those with more time than money, Napster lowers the average price per song which, depending on the elasticity, may actually increase total dollars spent. Increasing CD sales coincident with the increased use of Napster, if sustained, will mean that copyright holders will get increased royalties along with increased sales.
Re:Some napster, mostly rant (Score:2)
This is, unfortunately, working. People seem to think that it is some hidden thrill in using an "illegal" format. They get giggly, it's quite funny to watch. Doesn't lesson the power of Napster, but it does add to its appeal. Forbidden fruit and all that.
Ironically, it won't even be a good cause that triggers the regulation of the internet (like protecting the children, or the usual tear jerkers), it will be commercial interests and big money.
I know this sounds a bit weird, but with the direction we're going, I'd almost rather the government regulate the Net rather than the corps. The gov'ts (at least ours) have people to answer to. The corp just have shareholders. Personally I think people have more interest in rights and wrongs than shareholders who only care about the bottom line and rights and morals go right out the window if it means a fatter dividend. Just my cynical perspective of two cents.
--
Re:My Opinions... (Score:2)
Re:Jesus pirated bread and wine... (Score:2)
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Dishonesty or a new economics? (Score:2)
But unchecked capitalism is evil. A starving man shouldn't be denied food. Similarly, the conduct of pharmaceutical companies and first world nations towards medical crises in the 3rd world is reprehensible. But let's not kid ourselves here: software and music are luxury goods. These are not basic necessities. We can go without them. And the people who take/steal these things do so not because they are unable to pay, but because they are unwilling to do so.
cost of returned music? (Score:2)
the album I tried sucked - so I take it back.
this has admin costs assoc. with it. I'm sure they still make a hefty profit with all that, but the point is, if I can easily preview (at home) music; I'm less likely to have to return an album due to music taste issues.
of course the riaa will never admit to this. in fact, I'm surprised you're allowed to return albums AT ALL...
--
Pay Per Napster? (Score:2)
Would you pay up to $10 a month to use Napster if it would allow you to share and download any and as many mp3's as you want without having the RIAA breathing down your neck.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
correction: its already too weak. too weakly defined, that is. and very unbalanced.
we need intelligent copyright laws.
intelligent and well-written laws are rarely ambiguous and usually well-followed. its the "hidden agenda" (aka, pork and PAC) laws that have problems.
--
Re:Why are these people opinions worthwhile? (Score:2)
The GNU license is based entirely upon copyright law. If it weren't for GNU, Microsoft or any company could take Open Source software, modify it, and sell it without giving away the source code or any documentation or anything. This is based on copyright law.
The record industry's problem with Napster is also based on copyright law, their argument is that Napster is (indirectly) violating their copyright.
GPL is not necessary without copyright? (Score:2)
Without copyright, someone could take the GPL software and change some stuff, and not release the source code. Isn't GPL fanatics up in arms on the BSD license because that license makes this possible.
>>if pay-per-copy were eliminated, there'd be no motive for authors not to share their source code
In your dreams, maybe. They would probably still withhold source code, for no other reason than to get the money made off on support. Who would you trust to support you? The guy with the code or the guy without?
Also, something that never seem to come up in discussions about the GPL: Who are you paying the support for? The author(s) of the software or the distributor of the software? Who is making the money?
The Open Source movement has no "leaders" (Score:2)
The people quoted could be referred to as open source "activists", "evangelists", or "reporters". But referring to someone as an "open source leader" is like referring to someone as a "leader of capitalism" - the concept makes no sense.
Re:Strongly Disagree. (Score:2)
> there aren't any legal arguments behind them.
Actually, I think you're pretty stupid. Why? Because I don't use napster, never have used napster, have never pirated anything, and you blindly assumed I do. That make you pretty stupid, doesn't it? An ass, more or less.
When I invite a police officer into my house for a cup of coffee, or as a friend/neighbor, that's completely different from that officer entering my house on offical business. The courts have already decided that.
The phone company can monitor my line -- only for the purpose of "quality testing" -- and for no other reason. The courts have decided that as well.
NetPD, 'tallica and the RIAA have done far more damage to the public's right to communicate that the public has done to their revenue stream. It has to stop.
Your accusion of my criminal behavior, without any facts, proof, or evidence, when I have violated no law, is exactly the point I am trying to make. Thank you for making it for me.
People are innocent until proven guilty, and that proof must be obtained legally, or at least that was the case until morons like 'tallica, the RIAA, and you spewed their dollars and/or idiocy on an ignorant legislature and judicial system.
Fool.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
Of course they have a right to profit. They provide the service of allowing artists to record music to CD, packaging the CD, and distributing them to the stores, that automatically gives them a right to some profit.
Whether or not that means they should get to screw over artists or not is a different story. Dude, if you don't like capitalism, move to China or Cuba or something.
Try This Test. (Score:2)
2) Play 'tallica music into phone.
Now, suppose a company listens in and compiles evidence, then sells it to 'tallica. 'tallica, in turn, sues the phone manufacturer, who then takes away your phone.
This can't happen, for a few reasons. AFAIK/IANAL, there are only three ways for any entity to compile evidence regarding your phone usage and use it in court:
a) The FBI, I beleive, can monitor your phone line without a court order or your consent in some cases of national security;
b) Any authority, with a judge-issued search warrant;
c) Anyone, with your permission.
Therefore, the first defense a lawyer would use is : "How did you aquire your evidence?", and then have the case thrown out on the grounds that the evidence was illegally obtained.
Then, I as an individual, could countersue 'tallica and "PhonePD" for unlawful invasion of privacy. I would settle for a resonable amount of their worth, of course
This is a much, much bigger issue than most people, including the Holy Linux Trio (Torvalds, Perens, Wall) think.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
calm down... (Score:2)
I am being picky about a source of so-called news because I like to try and be conscious of the agendas that people speak from when they attempt to influence my behaviour or my opinion. You have only to watch an hour or so of "Ziff-Davis TV" (is that only in Seattle, or do they actually send that out in other areas too?) before you begin to realize that they are the very exemplar of what another poster above stated: they will give you "facts" that support whoever has paid the ad-bill for the next thirty seconds, and getting technical advice from them, or changing your opinions based on the things they tell you only makes you dumb.
Granted, many other news organizations get paid for what they do, but often there is not so closely knit relationship between the products a company sells and the agenda that it promotes in its "objective" reporting. Who likes feeling like they are listening to propoganda?
You may note that in my post above, I don't really state an opinion one way or the other on the Napster/OS/RIAA debate. I think there are lot of valid viewpoints. How do you know whether or not I agree with the article? If I liked it or not? I wasn't making much of a point on the article, just the organization reporting it.
However, I find your personal attack besides the point, and immature at best. I'm not advocating that nobody make money from reporting news. And I wasn't seriously proposing copyright violation. Just pointing out that ZD isn't a natural "friend" of the average Open-Source person, contrary to appearances.
So grow up...
A fairer assesment... (Score:2)
Yes, GNU and people like RMS have serious problems with copyright law as it applies to software, and RMS has said he has similar problems with regard to musical recordings. However, just because you think a law is stupid doesn't mean you break it (c.f. chaos
Let's face it though: copyright law does need to be revised. I don't know if it needs to be thrown out or not, but certainly the terms under which it came into existence don't match those of today. The original copyright law was put in place to protect publishers because the cost of publishing material was very expensive and they simply wouldn't make the investment in the first place if the investment somehow wasn't protected.
Fast forward to today: members of the RIAA are really not "music publishers", at least in terms of what their core compitency. If they were focused on publishing, than things like MP3 and such would be welcomed with open arms because they reduce the cost of publishing. No, the RIAA members are mostly packagers/marketers of music. No slight against them, as certainly there's a lot of sunken costs involved in doing what they do (it's just that actually pressing the CD's is not a big part of it). Certainly THEY want to protect those investments.
However, if we look at the origins of copyright law, when it was put in place there was a net benefit to the public: more books got published because publishers felt their investment was protected. Fast forward to today: more music gets packaged/marketed???? Do we really need that? Do we need it so bad that it's worth giving up some basic rights? I guess the answer is somewhat debatable, although I certainly don't see one side of the debate.
Regardless, the nature of what copyright is protecting has changed tremendously, and to that end it's worth revisiting the whole thing. I guess the DCMA was an attempt to do that, but the problem was that it started from the perspective that these copyrights had to be protected, and it's only real goal was to extend the protection of copyrights in the face of the technilogical "adversity" which was increasingly making them irrelavent.
Technology made copyright relevant in the first place, it's sad that lawmakers aren't recognizing that it's increasingly irrelvant.
Re:Jesus pirated bread and wine... (Score:2)
I'm guessing that this Open Source Thingy(c) must really be a religion, cause they keep rewriting the Bible.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
The GPL would not be necessary without copyright law!
The GPL exists to protect your rights to use, share, and modify software. Without copyright, no one could stop you from using or sharing; and if pay-per-copy were eliminated, there'd be no motive for authors not to share their source code, and as more people understand the necessity of open source for quality, every reason for them to do so.
Your argument for the destruction of copyright is intrinsically immoral. It would mean that the producer of a given piece of software, or of a given song, or of a given book, would NOT own what he has produced, because he would NOT be able to retain control of it (unless he kept it as his personal secret, to the deprivation of the rest of us).
In short, your viewpoint would result in the THEFT of these products from those who created them. So what incentive have they to continue producing? ANSWER: NONE WHATSOEVER.
You may suggest that they can earn money by "supporting" their product. Fine. Let's consider this.
How does a musician "support" his music? How does an author "support" his short stories or books? How does an artist "support" his painting? By "debugging" it?
More importantly, who are you to tell a producer how he may use what he creates? It belongs to him, not you! This is why your argument is intrinsically Marxist: you deny that the producer owns what he creates.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:2)
And that would be a devastating counterargument- if that had been the claim. But it wasn't. From an economic standpoint, the question of losses is not how many people gain unauthorized access to the work but the number of people who substitute unauthorized access for authorized access. IOW, how many people download MP3s instead of buying the CD. The RIAA wants us to believe that they're losing billions of dollars, and they make that claim based on the falacious premise that everyone who downloads MP3s is doing so instead of buying the CD. In fact, most people who download MP3s weren't seriously considering spending their money on the album anyway, and many of the people who were considering buying the album go on to do so (or already have done so) in addition to downloading.
The point is that, functionally, exchanging MP3s using Napster fulfills a role much closer to listening to the radio than it does to buying albums. People want to have a chance to listen to new songs, to listen to a new album before deciding to buy, etc., so they listen to the radio or download MP3s. When they find something they like, they still go out and buy the album. The advantage of MP3s is that you can actually pick what you want to listen to yourself instead of having to hear the same dozen songs being repeated every hour on the big radio stations.
This comment is at least partially valid, but there are two significant caveats. One is that the RIAA does, in fact, act as a cartel. They were recently caught red handed engaging in price fixing and had to promise not to do it again. The few biggest music companies don't completely control the market, but they do exert considerable control in a way that tends to drive prices higher than they would otherwise be.
The other aspect is that copyright law does give artists a monopoly over the sale of their products. I don't object to that, as it is the function of the copyright and serves the purpose of rewarding those artists for their work. Nonetheless, you can see the impact of those monopoly rights by comparing the price of works that are still under copyright to those that are in the public domain. Compare the prices of Bethoven albums to Metallica. Any orchestra can record Bethoven, so there's vigorous competetion and you can get anything from cheap $5 recordings to ones by the best symphonies. But those ones by great symphonies are still generally cheaper than Metallica albums, because Metallica has the right to keep anyone else from recording and selling their music.
"the artists"? (Score:3)
The only artists who benefit from the system are those that sell massive numbers of albums and, through that process, increase their leverage with the record companies and thereby negotiate higher percentages of the gross income. The majority of artists, however, make next to nothing -- from their meager 8 to 10 percent, the company deducts marketing costs, tour bus rental, etc. etc. In spite of the contract, these bands end up depending upon ticket sales at concerts and shows for income.
So, I guess it's no wonder that it's the fat cat artists like Metallica that have weighed in against Napster. I would guess, however, that most of the artists/bands out there would love to do away with the system as it stands. Several bands took a successful end-run around the record companies in the pre-Napster era -- fugazi and ani de franco come to mind -- but with Napster and Gnutella on the fly, the mechanism is finally in place for artists to connect with appreciative fans without the financially cumbersome middleman of the record company sucking up the profits and working the payola. In other words, I think Nap/Gnu will be a good thing for artists as well as the audience -- only the companies stand to lose...
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
Ah!
I didn't realize there was that much of a difference! I thought the RIAA was a sort of bizzare "record label council" and was, in fact, all the record labels speaking as one. I'll have to do a touch more research.
The main thrust of my post still stands, however.
Why are these people opinions worthwhile? (Score:2)
What on Earth makes people think that the opinions of a bunch of open source "gurus" has any more validity than the IANAL post of the average /.er? Just because these people have created some software which has become popular with the elite geek crowd, their views on society, the law and everything else is not something that we should be bothered about.
Just because somebody is good at one thing doesn't make them qualified to talk about anything else as if their opinion really mattered to the world. These people may be able to program, but they're not lawyers, they're not politicians and they're just not qualified to share their views on this subject.
This is especially annoying since these are amongst the greatest of the /. "heroes" of open source, and true to form we are bound see /.ers rush in to fill this story with plenty of "I agree with Linus!" posts. When will you zealots learn that just because someone programmed a halfway decent kernel they do not have the answers to all of life's mysteries?
WTF Linus? (Score:3)
I would have thought that Linus would agree that Napster is not to blame it is the users that are misussing a service.
We all agree that it is wrong to go out and rent a movie tape it off then give copies away. But would we blame blockbuster for it if people were caught doing just that?
Metallica would not bring this lawsuite against it's listeners. The band said as much on its website. Metallica is suing the wrong people. Now that the users that were trading metallica mp3s have been baned I don't see how they still think they have a case. The only people left for metallica to sue are the users and they won't do that because 300,000 people == bad press.
Here's a smart article about this issue (Score:3)
Can I be a witness (Score:2)
I agree with the poster... I won't listen to Dre. any more and not because of his involvement with napster but because of my involvement with mp3z.
I used to listen to rap and I never agreed with the message it sent
I found the light; I now suck bandwith
I was browsing one day though shoutcast and live365 and discovered trip hop
Re:This is disgusting. (Score:5)
The record companies want to hook you with free music. The Napster controversy is about who gets to decide on the bait: the major labels or the listeners.
We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:4)
If we weaken copyright law, we hurt ourselves.
the cat is out of the bag (Score:2)
Everyone can try to sugar-coat napster, but the honest truth is that its a tool for piracy. I would venture to guess that at least 95% of Napster users have downloaded a song, really liked it, and did not buy the cd. Not that I have any moral objection to this. "Rock stars" have become just part of the huge corporate machine that is the recording industry in this country. Most of us do not even really think of big recording artists as people, but more of a untouchable fictional character. Its hard to have any sympathy for people that we all imagine are spending their cd profits on coke and skanky big haired groupies.
Copyrights _aren't_ necessarily a bad thing. (Score:2)
Copyrights are not always a bad thing. It enables authors to make a living on what they do. That's good for everyone economically wise. The problem becomes some of the stupid things that come of this. The incompatibilities and security issues that have been created by the old vision of closed-copyrights have caused havoc. GPL and some of the other licenses fix this nicely by keeping credit to the author alive, yet allowing others to learn and get more information for competeing or partner software.
This is yet another economic Good Thing. Competition drives quality up, prices generaly down. Partner or complimentary products drive demand for BOTH products up.
Now Napster itself is a GREAT idea, just limited in control by the mp3 format itself. There is no way to know if a piece has been specifically copyrighted or not.
Napster should do the following, if the SDMI shit gets correct for once (none of this one-song for one-device shit - allow each person an ID and have all the devices he uses to read this ID and link it to the copyright of that song.):
1: If there's a copyright on the file, and the owner has the correct CID (copyright ID) allow it to be shared at a low bitrate or allow the user to not share at all. This prevents direct copying of the songs to try to bypass the copyright, but allows others to preview these works (no longer do you have to worry about the artist or record company providing previews, if someone has the real thing, they can preview it on the Napster).
2: If the user downloads a preview, have ready links for the person to download or otherwise acquire the song through the correct channels, and get the real copyright version to work with his CID.
3: Works that are not copyrighted, ie. Live performances, remixes, unsigned artists that want to get out there fast, generous artists that offer to give away a few songs, can be shared at no bitrate penalty or price penalty. Neither can these works ever be copyrighted by anyone - once it's tagged and out there, it's done.
So one can acquire one of these CopyRight ID's (smartcard I'm thinking) for a fee (nominal type - cover the cost of the card and maybe some make-the-RIAA-happy money, US$15 or so) and the card works for any work in any system that can play the work from any medium, CD, DVD-A, Internet, etc.
Now I think this can make some people happy - I think the RIAA can be happy that advertising doesn't have to be quite as big of a deal for specific albums or songs, just artists. The artists also get to control their precious copyright and get a little money for the ones who appreciate their music. Users can get remixes and demos from unsigned artists for free plus preview whole songs or whole albums for the small quailty penalty.
Frankly this is how I justify using napster - if I like a song I hear somewhere - i go and find other songs from that album, if I like em I go and buy the album if it's available, if not, I am perfectly happy with keeping those not-so-legal mp3's, since I had no chance to get them more-legally.
Re:Really Tough Call (Score:2)
---
I see "piracy" as about as serious a threat to the fabric of commerce and society as speeding on the road.
---
FYI -
"In 1995, 644,000 people received minor injuries in speeding-related crashes. An additional 77,000 people received moderate injuries, and 42,000 received critical injuries in speeding-related crashes."
Apparently, there were 41,798 fatalities in total in the United States in that year.
Source: http://www.nhtsa.dot.go v/people/ncsa/FactPrev/spdfacts.html [dot.gov]
...whether or not this is serious is left as an exercise to the reader.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
AC Credibility Takes Nosedive (Score:2)
You have demolished your own credibility. You don't even know how copyright works, and yet you have the temerity to babble about the credibility of those who hold copyrights on useful software.
For your information, O Ignorant One, no lawyer is required for a published work to be copyrighted. A published work is protected by copyright as soon as it is produced.
More, this lame response of yours fails to address the point I made: that one who holds copyright holder on popular software has far more prima facie credibility in speaking about the importance of copyright than does a slashdotter who doesn't. Of course, they may damage that credibility by how they use it, but your weak criticisms (which amount to nothing more than "I disagree with them, so they have no credibility!" Lame) do nothing but destroy your *own* credibility.
Only an idiot would purposefully saddle themselves with Richard Stallmann's viral piece of communist manifesto. Personally I perfer the BSD license
Then you are not as large a hypocrite as others. Good for you. Nevertheless, to the extent that the BSD license differs from releasing a published work to the public domain, it too depends 100% upon the validity of copyright.
Unless you expect producers to release their products solely and exclusively into the public domain, copyright is essential. And if this is really what you think, then you are a nut who wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Have a nice supper, but don't complain about your poverty!
Look at this as a marketing dilemma (Score:5)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My Opinions... (Score:4)
Linus' quote (Score:3)
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
Re:Strongly Disagree. (Score:2)
When you sign on to Napster, you make all of the files that you chose to put in your library available for other to browse and download. NetPD didn't do anything wrong by browsing this.
2) The legality of 'tallica to hire a third party such as netPD to compile information about me and my computer uses without my permission or a judge-issued warrant;
Again, it's not snooping when you are online, sharing files. You don't have to put those MP3's on Napster and you can even remove them from your shared library without deleting them. It's not snooping when you voluntarily and willingly share files online and someone looks at them for a reason other than downloading them.
3) The legality of 'tallica to coerce a software company to deny me access to their product based on the data aquired in 1) and 2);
That isn't Metallica's doing. That's Napster's own policy. Didn't you read the agreement when you signed up?
I understand that 'tallica and the RIAA are concerned about the impact of emerging technologies on their revenue stream. They have a point. But they are stomping around in people's living rooms, and decisions made now could have a chilling effect on the future of our privacy on the net.
Wow, you're sounding like a broken record. "They're stomping around in people's living rooms". Well, here's my broken record. You invited them there by putting your files up for display using Napster.
You ask a lot of stupid legal questions but there aren't any legal arguments behind them. When you signed up to Napster, you agreed that you could be banned for trading illegal content. When you add a song to your library, you are putting that on public display. If you don't like that, don't put the files in your Napster library. That's like setting up a Warez Web server in your house and complaining when lawyers ask you to take it down. Did you give them permission to search that computer? Explicitly, NO - By posting it on a public forum (the web), yes.
kwsNI
Outright Ban (Score:2)
Here's what we can do as music lovers:
Give up listening to commercial music altogether.
Listen only to artists not associated with RIAA and RIAA affiliated recording studios.
Listen only to the music that you already own.
Do not download any commercial music.
Do not listen to any radio station playing commercial music.
Explain your stand to people you meet, online and offine, and discuss these issues.
Personally, I follow all these.
Trade music if you please, but trade the music of new and deserving artists. Artists who share the same beliefs as you; about music, technology, the web and the future that will be.
Re:Wow, I had a totally different experience (Score:2)
1) Your philosophy seems to be, "it's OK to pay for an artist's work if they don't sell out, otherwise you're being lazy by going to the store and buying a CD"
2) You ridicule someone not for their musical taste exactly, but because an artist they respect and admire has done a fucking AD?
My god man, take that money you saved on that album you burned and buy a fucking clue.
Stuff you can do with MP3 that you can't with CDs (Score:2)
But, and this is critical, the point is that an MP3 is mobile. I can pop MP3 songs into my directories for The Sims (which I paid for), recorded from CDs that I paid for, to play in my home as background music. One of the CDs that I ripped has music you can't buy in the US, as the music industry decided that they won't let me buy it. Because Yanks don't buy French techno. And they don't listen to Brazilian electronica.
But they do!
That's why Napster is not bad, it's just not always good. There is music they won't let us hear, music I will get at any cost, and music I am quite willing to pay for. And thanks to sites like mp3.com, I have CDs that I couldn't buy (ok, except for the cool music store in my neighborhood of Fremont, Sonic Boom, located in the Center of the Universe).
Until the music industry gets that paradigm, they will lose.
Ah, but they DID!!! (Score:3)
>were caught doing just that?
Not Blockbuster per se, but...
Our good friends the MPAA DID *try* to destory the entire VCR/Videocassete industry before Blockbuster ever got started and Wayne H. was just another Miami garbageman.
There was a rathar well known case between Sony and the MPAA that went all the way to the supreme court, which basiclly tole the MPAA to stuff it.
The MPAA was claiming that Sony's betamax tapes (and, by extension, everyone else's VHS tapes) were nothing but a tool for piracy and would destroy the movie industry (sound familiar?) and a bunch of other nonsence.
Hmmm, I guess since videotapes were SURE to *destroy* the movie industry, the MPAA that has been persecuting anyone who so much as mentions the word deCSS is just a figment of my imagination, eh?
How ironic that Sony, after taking the VCR to the supreme court, is now in bed with their old enemies and sideing with the RIAA against napster and the MPAA against deCSS.
Those who do not learm from history....
So who's going to take the MP3 format and deCSS to the supreme court so that the RIAA, MPAA, and their stooges like metallica can be told, finally, to stick it?
The ACLU appears to be sitting around doing dick about it. So I guess it's time to cancel my membership with them, and switch over to the EFF, who sure seem to be more on the top of things these days.
john
Re:You don't need Napster for demos... (Score:3)
Yesterday evening, I'm sitting at my computer. I get an itch to download some Whiskeytown. So I go to CDNOW.com to see if they have a new album. (A great band, BTW -- sort of like a laid back Son Volt -- if that's possible -- but I digress...)
Well, they don't have a *new* album, but I see an album of theirs that I don't own. I scroll down the CDNOW page and see the ubiquitous Real Audio 'snippets.'
And, WTF? only some of the songs on the albums have snippets -- and GODDAMMIT! -- the snippets are 30 seconds long.
I don't mind the reduced sound quality, but for chrissake gimmee samples of all the songs! What, you're playing some tease -- some game?
"Hey, bud, here's a couple snippets. We can't give you all of 'em, but, um, take a snippet from track 1, track 2, and, er, let's skip down to track 6 and 7 -- here take these. See, if we gave you snippets from all the tracks, you'd probably not buy the album, right? So we gotta control the snippets you listen to. Plus, ya know, we got disk space issues to consider. Imagine the fucking chaos that would exist if we snipped snippets from all the songs!"
This alone gets me a little peeved. But -- there's more! The brilliant propellar head that snipped the snippets decided to start the snippets at apparently random intervals of each song. So instead of just -- for the love of GOD! -- starting the 30 seconds at the BEGINNING of the track (What? At the beginning? You're kidding, right?) Zippy the MSCE/Multimedia specialist decided to, oh what the heck, start the snippets 30,40 seconds into the song during a particularly long silent space so it's virutually imposible to get any coherent sense of the song.
Yes, yes, this, my friend, is what snippets are for! Hell, yes, that's what they're for!
Lets reduce to the sound quality so that you hear more hiss than music and -- lets really remind the consumer who's in charge -- let's rotate the points where each snippets begin and give them, say, 27 seconds of crappy, disjointed audio) and -- wait, there's more! -- let's just give the buyer a few tracks -- not even the good tracks! Let's tease! Yes, that'll rope 'em in! The snippet tease!
A suit in the backroom: "Snippets? I dunno. Give these internet scavengers more than a few seconds and they'll find a way to SCREW us!"
Zippy the MSCE Propellar Head: "Hey, wait boss: we thought about that. We'll just do a tease. Tease sells, you know."
"A tease! Ah! I love it! The snippet tease! Yes! Zippy, that's the way to sell albums! Let's tease the listener. It's like local news, right?"
"Right."
"Is the milk your drinking loaded with lead? Find out at 11."
"Ha!"
"Ha! I love it! Tease, tease, tease!"
Is it any freaking wonder people are sick of the RIAA? Everything is a marketing tease. (Heck, see my other posts about Roland Barthes, Death of the Author, and Lars, but I digress...)
Everyone is trying to control everything I do. Why? In the name of art? Hell no.
In the name of profit.
Profit for the art?
Hell no.
Profit IN SPITE OF the art.
Fuck art. Fuck Lars. "But, um, Lars? James?" -- high pitched whisper of a pimply-faced record company exec worrying about buying his next Porsche -- "Could you boys go and make us another one of your albums?"
"Why sure, Mr. Record Company Suit."
"See, because, um, while I don't really understand your metal, um, your art, we here at the record company sure do like the profit that your stuff -- er, your *ART* I mean -- the money that your art makes."
"Why sure, we do to! Right James?"
"Right Lars."
Re:Strongly Disagree. (Score:2)
> this.
No other companies can enter a person's home or listen to their communications, let alone compile a usage digest and sell it. Whether or not it's currently legal to do is not the point; the point is that it should not be legal.
> Again, it's not snooping when you are online,
> sharing files. You don't have to put those MP3's
> on Napster and you can even remove them from
> your shared library without deleting them.
>
> It's not snooping when you voluntarily and
> willingly share files online and someone looks
> at them for a reason other than downloading
> them.
That reason better be casual interest. They better not be storing it for resale without my permission. See the laws regarding party lines. The use of of phone lines has many restrictions on who can listen in and why. I don't think NetPD has the right to compile information about my servers for any reason, let alone for the purpose of resale. I'm well within my rights to claim that any information about my computer is for private, non-commercial use. I can't currently enforce it, but I do claim the right.
> > 3) The legality of 'tallica to coerce a
> > software company to deny me access to their
> > product based on the data aquired in 1) and
> > 2);
> That isn't Metallica's doing. That's Napster's
> own policy. Didn't you read the agreement
> when you signed up?
Haven't you read the news lately? Napster banned thousands of innocent users because of the lawsuit brought my 'tallica. If you still don't understand, that means "The results of the action by 'tallica deprived thousands of innocent users the benefit of a product".
> Well, here's my broken record. You invited them
> there by putting your files up for display using
> Napster.
More like your broken brain. I have never used napster, idiot. Once invited into my house, guests cannot do "anything they want". For example, they can't take pictures of me or make recordings of my voice without my permission.
two (Score:2)
There is two points to be made here, what is legal and what is moral?
Under the (USA) law now, even if you disagree with the laws, even if the laws are completely wrong, it is still the law. What the copyright laws say for *most* Music CDs is that you can not redistrubate any content of the CD without permission. The RIAA, Metallica or anyone that has the right to give permission to redistrubate CD content, did not give anyone permission to post them to a large user base (whatever that user base may be, in this case napaster) in any form.
Legally, the RIAA is right. Under the law it, they own the content that is being posted, and it is being posted without there permission.
This (most "commerical" mp3s) being posted are copyrighted, and who ever owns the copyright can basically do what ever the fuck they want to within the copyright.
Hell Cowboy Neil could sell his music on 8 track tapes and have a copy right "you can only listen to this music under Sony 8 Track tape players and the owner of the 8 track is the ONLY one that can listen to the music, you can't even listen to the music when or where someone else can hear it", sure it is stupid, about as dumb as most copyrights on CDs now, but that is Cowboy Neil's right, just like the right the RIAA or who ever can impose any copyright on their "IP" as they want, as long as it doesn't void any other copyrights or break a law... well pretty much you get the idea.
Legally the RIAA has a strong case, but not against Napster. Listen, if you buy 2 VCRs and use them to bootleg porn, can the porno industry sue sony for "helping" prevents bootleg porn? Hell no. You can walk up to any head shop and buy a one hitter or bong, I mean err uh some smoking device or tobaccoo pipe. These bong as sold as tobaco smoking devices, pretty legal in USA, but who the hell using them for smoking tobaccoo? No one, everyone smokes pot or crack out of them, but they (the head shop) still can sell them, because they aren't implying you use them for illegal purposes (pot and crack are illegal in the US)
The Head shop says "Hey man, these are for uh wooow did you see that, *cough, cough* oh head rush, what where we just talking about? oh yea, these devices are not for illegal purposes, you can only smoke legal substances out of them man, like toboccoo or something. If you get busted it is your own fault dumb ass, you got a lighter?"
The same way napser say "Hey man, do not trade illegal or copyrighted files over this services man or we will ban you ass. Oh you are one of the people that got banned for illegal meticalla mp3s? screw off, this is only for legal purposes only"
I seriously doubt anyone can sue napster over copyright, hell if you can sue any service for having mp3s on it, I could sue AOL, newsgroups, irc servers, web sites, ftp operators and about anything on the Internet. Hell I could uuencode a bunch of mp3's and post them to slashdot or wet_and_greasy_used_porn.com.
If they can sue napaster they could sue about any service on the Internet, and by putting all services on the Internet out of business, guess what NO MORE INTERNET. I doubt this will happen, cause it would really piss of Al Gore (since he created and invented the Intenet with his bare hands), and Al can kick some ass when it comes down to it...
I think the RIAA can and has the right to sue the users that where posting or sharing these files on Napaster, will they? I don't know, but they own the copyright, and if they want to, they could.
Point being, right or not, copyrights exists. Right or not, people that own the copyrights can pretty much get anyway with any dam thing they please under they copyright with their "IP"
So we (open source zealots and slashdot trolls) can do a couple things here. We could continue to break the law, even if it is a stupid law. Find a way to change the laws. Work closly with the RIAA to find a "middle ground" that everyone is somewhat happy with. Troll. Only support artists that release their "IP" under freindly copyrights (check mp3.com). Bitch about it or go view some porn...
I don't know about you, but I am dam hungry, haven't eaten all day, I am going to grab some dinner, what where we talking about?
How do you figure cost per song? (Score:2)
Re:Let's face it... (Score:4)
> a place to _buy_ your MP3's? Nope, I can't find ane MP3's for sale on Metallica's website.
> Well gosh darn, instead of crying, DO SOMETHING!
This is an excellent point, and I think perhaps the crux of the MP3/Napster debate. I don't think that many of us would champion ripping the artists off -- at least, not on such a large scale. But the question is:
I'd love the chance to download MP3s for price-of-single-less-cost-of-physical-media-and-d
My comment to the RIAA would have to be this: I want to give you money. I don't want to be taking directly from the artist.
They'd never answer, of course. It would destroy the case they've built up for themselves, where the eeeevil internet community is stealing from them because we're all greedy bastard 'hackers'.
Nice article (Score:4)
:-)
And you gotta love Larry Wall..
"Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking."
And (to add in a nice way) people who confuse stealing and sharing have ceased any moral growth whatsoever.
To base the whole thing (connection of Napster and Open Source/Free Software) on a Katz(?) or any other
The ideas cross but they are not exactly parallel.
--
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
There once was a time not that long ago when copyrights applied only loosely to software. The result was a confused mess of copy protection schemes. It also gave rise to the EULA! You see, the EULA is not based on copyright law. When you tear open that shrink wrap and click "OK" in the install window, you are legally binding yourself to a contract.
Without copyright, I foresee a renewed interest in bizarre copy protection schemes, dongles, incomprehensible EULA's, and encryption and registration requisites. Authors and publishers want their works protected. Just a the repeal of trespass laws won't eliminate door locks, so to the elimination of copyright laws won't eliminate the means of protecting software.
"It's hard to say what would happen, but maybe people would pay for the actual creation of software instead of the distribution"
In economics, this is known as the free rider problem. Those who don't understand it are doomed by the law of unintended consequences. Basically, if software is expensive to create, but monetarily free to distribute, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to be the second person in line
It would be nearly impossible to predict what kinds of software will be available in the future, so I'll limit my example to one that I'm sure will be there: games. Why in the world would I spend $100,000 dollars for the coders, artists, musicians, and equipment necessary to get a first quality game created, when I can excercise a miniscule amount of patience and be second in line, receiving it for free? Forseeing your answer, I'll ask my next question: why would I spend that money to be a commercial reseller of the software, when I can be second in line and still have shrink-wrapped boxes ready on "opening" day?
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:3)
I disagree. The GPL, which can permanently liberate software, is based on copyright. Without copyright, authors would have an even stronger motive not to share sources. Commercial programmers would be reduced to a continual arms race to develop newer copy "protection" methods, because the temporary advantage of obfuscation would be the only way to eke out any money from sales. Shrink-wrap licenses would change to strong, fully-enforceable nondisclosure agreements that must be signed before purchase. All software would be less open than the BSD license.
On the other hand, with copyright, authors can earn a living creating works. And the GPL is possible, which can liberate source code permanently. I personally think copyright is a good balance between liberty and tyranny. (Of course, I make a living creating intellectual "property", so I'm not unbiased.)
Re:My Opinions... (Score:2)
I like your opinion! (^_^)
Personally, one thing that we can do is modify Napster so it trades only in time-limited digital music files. That way, it'll allow you do download 56 kb/s 128-bit encrypted sound files that will work for up to 3-4 days on your computer, and 56 kb/s stream with MP3-like compression is more than enough to "preview" the track but not at the sound quality that encourages piracy.
In short, it appears you just made lemonade out of a lemon, as the old saying goes.
Re:ZDNet Baits Slashdot (Score:2)
You can download free music with Napster (legally) (Score:2)
Burris
Re:Quite right... (Score:2)
An analogy is not an argument. Your analogy not only doesn't make your point, and is severely flawed. Of course you don't mind that someone copies your computer, provided that you don't lose income as a result
A better "analogy" would be theft of services. The services may not be tangible ( and it might in some cases be difficult to argue that the service provider actually "lost" anything ) but that doesn't justify stealing them.
Re:You worked just as hard as the artist (Score:2)
Do you have a source for your $5- figure ? Thought not. You are using ficticious data as a foundation for an attack. I find it very hard to believe that most record companies record annual earnings of $5 x the number of CDs they sell. It may not have occured to you, but they do have these things called "operating costs".
in a country where the average yearly income is 40k, how can these suits justify making $5 million from a few months worth of work ?
Why ? Because CEOs usually get paid more. Because the record industry needs to offer competitive salaries to their executives.
didn't Joe construction worker spend so much of his time to build the studio in which the band made it's recording ? how much money went to him ? NONE.. >
This is a flat out lie. Joe was paid a salary, and that salary is directly or otherwise one of the many operating expenseses ( which you seem to have ignored ) of the record company
don't we have a right to know why we're being charged so much for a music cd ?
What does "charged so much" mean ? Why do automoblies "cost so much" ? Why does food "cost so much" ? What does "cost so much" mean ? Many of these companies are publically traded -- the publically traded companies have to release quite a lot of information. You can probably obtain their shareholders report or something similar if you really want to know.
and i've looked in the wrong place..
L:ooking on slashdot for information ? Yeah, you've definitely come to the wrong place.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
These so-called "products" are intangible and therefore cannot be "owned" by anyone. They are simply data.
This is remarkably naïve. Please, go talk with your favorite musician, author, or artist and ask them to produce a major work for you for free. Then when you're finished, talk with all those who provide us our music, literature, and art. You will find that very few of them -- if any -- will give away the fruits of the labor for nothing. Economics, friend: there are very few suppliers at zero price.
Why should anyone be able to control anything because they created it? If I baked a cake and sold it to you would you accept that I have the absolute right to control where/when/how you consumed it and whether or not you shared it? I hope not.
Of course I would accept that you have that right! After all, it's YOUR cake. You made it, didn't you? Or are you really suggesting that you wouldn't mind if I just ate your cake without giving you anything in return? And would you continue to produce cakes if my friends and I ate every single one of your cakes without compensating you?
You have the right to determine the conditions under which you will part with YOUR cake. Of course, if the price is too high -- and part of that price would be the restrictions you place upon how I may consume it -- you will have very few potential buyers. Again: simple economics. At a very high price, there are relatively few buyers of a product.
Ideas and other creative works can never be stolen - they can only be copied. If I copy your idea, you still have it. Nobody has lost anything. If you don't want anyone to copy your work, the only way (without imposing artificial restrictions) you can guarantee it is to keep it to yourself.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what copyright is. Copyright does not extend to the ideas expressed in a covered work; it ONLY covers the particular EXPRESSION of the ideas.
The reason we can have a nearly infinite number of legal and copyrighted murder mysteries is that their authors don't copy each other's words verbatim; but obviously the IDEA is the same: someone dies; someone solves the mystery.
In the software world the same applies: an algorithm is an idea. It can be EXPRESSED in a variety of ways: different languages, different variable names, different whitespace, etc. Copyright does NOT cover an algorithm. It covers the code: a particular representation of the algorithm.
The person who wrote the code OWNS that particular representation of the algorithm. It is his to do with as he pleases. He does NOT own the algorithm. That is a matter of patents, and that is a different horse altogether. If you copy MY code without giving me the compensation I want, I *do* lose something. And next time, I may not be so generous -- so you lose something, too.
Creative people enjoy creating. It's a fundamental part of being human - it's what human beings do, a law of nature if you will.
Another fundamental part of being human is eating. So is raising a family. Again, you are fundamentally naïve if you think that creativity is a boundless well that you can endlessly muddy with theft without eventually poisoning it. There are costs associated with producing *anything* and very few producers of goods will simply eat those costs without any hope of compensation ("very few" == nearly zero).
I'm sorry but the tactic of shouting "Communist" or "Marxist" at anybody that won't toe the corporate line simply will not wash. I believe in a free market economy with no artificial restrictions on duplication.
LOL! That's rich. How do you simultaneously hold beliefs that are in such manifest conflict?
You obviously weren't paying attention. I said that it is intrinsically Marxist to suggest that a producer of something does not own it ("From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"). This is the very heart and soul of the GNU philosophy. It is evil.
Lastly, you seem to have me confused with someone who thinks that the prices charged for music these days are A-OK. I don't buy much music at all, and I'm far more inclined to buy used CDs than new. If the prices of CDs were more reasonable, I would buy more. I think that the RIAA has created this monster due to its own foolishness -- but it's still a monster. Theft is still evil.
There's a simple solution: if you don't want to pay the price, DON'T LISTEN TO THE MUSIC. If I don't agree to your terms, I don't get to eat your cake. But here's the problem: far too many people lie to themselves, pretending that they have a "right" to free music, or to free software, or to free...whatever. This is a lie. We have no such right. What we have are a bunch of spoiled people, acting like children and throwing tantrums (and doing evil) when they don't get their way.
128-bit RSA cracked in seconds on my calculator (Score:2)
I'm not an NSA cryptographer, but unless the NSA knows of some magical math, I don't think the NSA is cracking 128 bit RSA keys (for example) in a few hours, no matter how much computer resources they have.
I can factor a 128-bit integer on my TI-89 calculator in just a few minutes. The TI-89 is not a supercomputer by any standard: it uses a 10mhz m68k CPU and has just over 1mB of memory. If you can factor the public key, you can decrypt any messages encrypted using it.
I think you're confusing symmetric cypher key strength with asymmetric key strength. While a key that is 128-bits is considered strong for the latter, it takes roughly ten times that length to be good enough for use with the former.
Re:My Opinions... (Score:2)
If it had started out a RIAApster then we would never have this battle and everyone would be downloading songs without a fight. The RIAA companies could pump it full of Britney, Backside Boys, Third Eye Blind songs, whatever they're pushing at the time, filter out stuff they don't sell, i.e. those indie label bastards, and have a great mechanism for generating revenue. Not to mention the fact that when you do a search for Britney, an ad for Britney T-shirts, Britney lunch boxes, and Britney Slim tampons will pop up for your consumption.
A little extra money up front but with no power, means less money later with less power. They have control of everything in the music industry now, and this threat is very scary for them.
Re:WTF Linus? (Score:2)
You're right, Napster isn't directly to blame, but they aren't helping either. If a certain plane has illegal drugs on it every time it flies into the US, and the crew is legitimately ignorant of where they came from, how long to you think this plane is going to be flying into the US? Or, a better example. If I have an open house with 1000 people (that I don't invite, I just put the word out that I will be having people over for a reason I don't define) every weekend and they end up trading drugs, guns, stolen credit cards, etc., how long do you think this will be going on? I don't know the people, I don't pay attention to what they trade, I don't make any money off of it, there are even a few people trading legal things, so what's the problem? I shouldn't be held responsible, even though it's at my house right? Even when people tell me what's going on I shouldn't be held responsible or be forced to make them stop, since I don't want to censor anyone, right? Wrong. You've responsible even though you don't pay attention to what's going on, and at the very least these little "gatherings" will be stopped.
So instead, everyone goes to Napster's house (or servers as the case may be) and does illegal things through them. I don't see much of a difference, especially when they are told what is going on.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand what is actually being purchased by your tuition. It's not the education; you can get that without all the academic nonsense. No, you're paying for guild certification. The guild of University professors certifies that you have demonstrated a certain level of expertise in a given discipline(s). Because this is what you are buying from them, they have the right to set the price as they see fit. It just so happens that the price (USUALLY) includes doing the work involved with getting an education -- but as I said, you could do all that yourself, if you try hard.
But your payment for that guild certification takes other forms as well: writing papers that unscrupulous professors will mine for material they can use themselves, for instance. These are all costs of getting that guild certification -- err, degree.
If you can't vision a world with out money, where people do things that are good and share them with everyone. Then you must live one shallow life.
Don't be silly. Of course people do this, even now. It's called "charity" or "gift-giving." These are nonsensical bases for an economy, and simply would not work.
Things to think about (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the principles of geekhood (which are typically not quite as capitalist) support freedom of information in the form of the GPL, copylefting, etc.
These two things are not compatible. People are forced to choose between two things that are acceptable to varying degrees by different people.
Duh. (Score:3)
Since when has Open-Source ever been about stealing IP from others?
The thing I've always thought was the best part of the Open-Source mindset, is the fact that it's set up to help you learn, not to give anything to you. As put by some wiseman, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime". Just because you have the source, does not necessarily mean you can do anything with it unless you're willing to take the time to figure it out.
Pirating MP3s has nothing to do with Open-Source. It's just stealing fish.
That said, I still disagree with Metallica's lawsuit against Napster. It's like trying to sue a hammer manufacturer because some psycho used a sledge to kill one of your family members. You have every reason to be upset, but it's hardly the tool's fault.
Ban Napster and you've laid down the groundwork for the government to shutdown/regulate the entire Internet. It maybe a tool that is primarily being used for evil, doesn't change the fact that it's just a tool.
-Tommy
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
I'm in the RMS camp (Score:3)
He's right, the system is fundamentally flawed. The existence of the Internet, and digital copying technology in general, destroys the utility of copyright law as it stands.
Some new system needs to evolve. Some guy up above ran an interesting thought experiment to try to determine the price of a song. I'd prefer to go about it from the other direction.
How much should a top artist be paid?
As a means of sort of arriving at a number in a vaguely plausible fashion, try this: A top programmer (who's not the owner of a business with employees besides themselves and their immediate family) can make as much as, say, $200k per year. Lets say an album of 12 songs takes about 3 years to produce. Lets say that music is twice as valuable to society as the program the programmer would produce. And, lets say being a 'top artist' means they're popular. Say, selling above 1 million albums qualifies you as a top artist. And, finally, lets say a band is on average about 5 members.
Working through the numbers on this looks like this:
($400k/yr * 5 members * 0.25yr/song) / (1e6 copies) = 50 cents / song
Hmm, and songs cost about $1.25 apiece on a standard CD. That can't all be production and distribution costs. There's a whole HUGE amount of money going somewhere it shouldn't. Over the net, I would guess that product and distribution costs would add at most 25% to the cost.
The $0.50 result was not a target. Perhaps, subconciously that's what I was doing, but I think the number just fell out. Of course, I don't know how much an artist who sells a million copies makes from the album. I'd be interested to know though. I bet, despite the incredible price, that the artist actually makes a lot less.
As I said, I think the system is broken. I don't know exactly how to fix it, I just know that RIAA needs to die, and for me Napster is a means to that end.
Although, strangely enough, Napster has also induced me (against my better judgement) to buy CDs of interesting artists. :-)
Re:It's Too Late (Score:2)
This started when the music industry switched from Analog to Digital. It was possible, then, but very difficult, the hardware wasn't quite there yet. As the technology improves, this starts to work on a broader scale.
And if they drive these people off the internet, it will be back to modems, telephones, and BBSes. Private networks.
And we can't stop the tidal wave of bad cliches either, because the cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, the toothpaste is out of the tube.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Will to Power (Score:2)
If a song it the writer's intellectual property, why mustn't I pay him to play it myself, say on my piano? Because it's not practical to enforce such a restriction. Our intellectual property conventions have arisen in accordance with technology and circumstances. Once upon a time, printing recordings of music was an expensive undertaking, and thus centralized and easily controlled. Technology dictated ethics: copyright laws were deemed good, at least in part, because they were enforceable.
Now things are different, and intransigent souls, predictably, are demanding that ethics dictate technology. I cannot imagine them winning. What I can imagine them doing is making random people's lives miserable by sporatically attempting to enforce an unenforcable law.
Say Metallica wins their law suit... what does that change? Is there to be an unending string of reverse-class-action lawsuits by every musical group? At least by those groups who can afford to defend their intellectual property...
Or say Napster gets shut down. What about Gnutella and Freenet, not to mention tomorrow's God-knows-what super-sneaky encrypted system? Can they be stopped, short of shutting down the Internet?
I was quite young when I learned an unpleasant fact about property: if you can't enforce your rights, you haven't got any. Now in most matters we depend upon government to protect our property rights, but the same rule applies... if they can't enforce them, you haven't got any. What we need to be considering are practical plans for a sustainable system, not pie-in-the-sky discussions of what's right.
My own thoughts. (Score:2)
Do I think that people have a right to share music? Kind of.. but I also think artists themselves have a right to their material.
Let's face something here.
1) Pirating music is *ILLEGAL*. It doesn't take any bending or twisting of the law to make it illegal..it's plain and simple. This fact may change in the future, as technology changes... but right now, the law is very clear. It is ILLEGAL.
2) Two things really bother me here in this lawsuit, and they contradict one another if not seen in the right light. Look at it this way.
a) Firstly, as probably many others feel, I am angry that napster is being prosecuted based on technology. I see it as technology being prosecuted.. because to those of us in-the-know... ftp servers as well as napster. Irc. Everything else.. the net already allows us to transfer data around.. napster is just one way of organizing that data for retrieval. So from a pure technology point of view... well.. law has no place in pure technology!
b) From another point of view though... consider napster again. These people, napster, have tried to get FAMOUS and SUPER POPULAR, and to make MONEY (well.. they are a corporation, no? it must be in the plan somewhere) by starting napster, a tool that they KNEW DAMN WELL would only be popular because it empowered people to PIRATE MUSIC. Please. Spare the tripe about legal music. yes. I agree. TEchnically napster can be used for trading legal music. The fact is.. these poeple tried to become famous (and have succeeded) by helping people break the law. Period. Crappy software. Shitty interface. not really very sophisticated at all...
if I contrast this to gnutella.. the principle is different. Gnutella is not designed specifically to share music.. but it'smore than that. What they were trying to do was create a flexible way to share and search data that would be free of censorship, period. Yes, the undertones are that it is for doing illegal things.. but the principle is different, more noble. Gnutella tried to give people freedom. Napster tries to help people steal music.
Re:Linus' quote (Score:4)
And that really is the heart of the matter.  The piracy argument from the RIAA is really about maintaining control of their distribution channels.  These days I buy all of my CDs used so neither the artist nor the RIAA gets directly compensated.  I would gladly buy direct from the artist (CD or MP3) and pay $10 for a disc.  Until that day comes, I'll just be patient and get my music 6 months after it comes out...
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
According to the GNU Manifesto, there are two ways: authors should support their creative efforts by waiting on tables, or a tax would be levied on all creative producers, to be doled out to those select few deemed to be politically correct.
Well, they're right... (Score:3)
In fact, the more OSS advocates stand up for copyright protection the better oss projects look - I mean, if someone can rip off a copy of W2K it's way better than any Linux distro - but when you force people to factor in the $799 or whatever price tag per install then Linux et al are clearly the better choice. You either have to pay someone else (Msft) to do all your work, or you can do some work yourself and save a bundle.
Re:Twisted myth? (Score:2)
might be the bandits in the forest, and that's better captured by the
`rob from the rich to feed the poor' than it is by your nationalist
take on it.
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you mean here, you don't think that the action of creation itself could be defined as "earning it"? I heartily disagree there, I think if a musician creates an amazing piece of art, he automatically has a right to do whatever he wants with it, but hey, I'm a hardcore capitalist of the Ayn Rand bent (at least to some extent). I think the blood, sweat, and tears that go into the creation of a great work of art is enough to be called "earning it".
The RIAA, when it pumps money into something, expecting a profit, then.. yeah, I think they have a right to sell whatever they produce, at a profit, if they want to. They don't have the right for you to buy it, but they do have a right for people not to steal it, and thereby infringe upon their profit.
Re:My Opinions... (Score:3)
While I agree with you on the 'mp3's are good for previewing' idea, I disagree that it is a valid argument for an entity like the RIAA to condone distribution of copyrited mp3's. The bottom line is that the music is copyrited, the authors/owners of it do NOT want it available on the Internet, and it's WRONG. We need a better way to preview our music. Even if some of the authors are for the Napster/mp3 deal, if there are some who don't like it, your decision to take their music is being forced on them.
Who are we to force them (the artists) what to do with their music? (That reminds me of a certain company indirectly dictating what OS I people should use for software..)
I'm not debating whether the $15/cd or $15 for 1 song is right or wrong. I don't like the RIAA and how they rape then music bus. All I'm saying is that right here, right now, it's stealing unless all people involved in the music industry (artists, bands, etc) agree that their copyrited stuff should be available for download.
Maybe you use Napster to preview songs, but I'm sure for every one person who uses Napster as a means to preview, there is one who doesn't.
Wouldn't you enjoy a free service where you could download the latest popular songs in mp3 format, in order to preview the cd?
Yes, this would be very nice, and it reminds me a bit of CD Now. CD Now has lots of commercial material samples available to listen to on-line. Perhaps another site dedicated to song previews could do the same legally (as in no full length copyrited stuff and full downloads of the legal ones).
And please don't tell me you need the WHOLE song, at CD quality, to decide if you should buy it. That's like saying a free sample you get at the grocery store isn't enough for you to "properly" sample the food, and you need to have the whole dish to see if you like it.
ZDNet Baits Slashdot (Score:5)
I don't like the oily feeling I get when I read their articles, knowing that their idea of news is tied directly to their revenue from ad-driven articles aimed for specific audiences. They obviously by now have identified slashdot as one of those target markets, and makes news stories that specifically "bait" everyone here into clicking onto their page.
I think I'd prefer if when news from them came out, if it was _really_ necessary to see the article that someone would post the text here, so I wouldn't have to go to their site. Oh wait, they'd probably sue
Don't be fooled by this non-freind of Open source, and don't be baited into silly anger at their statements...
("slashdot, a site for novice linux enthusiasts")
(WTF? No bearded smug people from VAX days read slashdot anymore? Silly ZDNet!)
Re:This is disgusting. (Score:5)
If you want to "Fight the power" you should stop listening to RIAA-pimped music altogether. Stop watching MTV. Stop listening to commericial radio stations. Don't buy their crappy CD's. Don't buy magazines with photos of Britney Spears.
Otherwise, you're just as clueless as all the people that complain that Microsoft is a monopoly, while using a pirated copy of MS Office. Using Napster is the moral equivilant to giving the RIAA the finger. They might not like it, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt them. If you're gonna be a tough monkey boy and "Fight the Power", then fight it in a way that hurts them. Hurt their influence and pocketbook -- stop giving them any money at all, either directly through album sales, or indirectly through advertising revenue.
Dishonesty or a new economics? (Score:4)
We all have grasped by now that electronic information (from software to music to books, and so on) differs from physical commodities in that the replication price is virtually nil. Yesterday
In the MP3 discussion, my friend commented that he would gladly charge for music if it were valued at something closer to it's "true" value. Leaving aside the confusion of a line of argument that tries to assign some kind of intrinsic value outside of a free marketplace, I asked him what that fair price might be. He said 50 cents per song would be just if that meant he could download the song quickly and hassle-free.
Well, I respect my friend but frankly I thought he was lying. It's easy to say that you would pay 50 cents for something you can currently get for free. I might agree that 50 cents is a reasonable price to get a Camaro delivered to my doorstep if all I had to do otherwise was walk down the street and take the keys out of the glovebox.
So I tried to reverse the situation, to find out what he really thought a song was worth. He thought of a song he liked, and I asked him how much he would require me to pay him in return for a promise that he would never choose to listen to that song again. Of course, he could listen to it if someone else were playing it, or if it happened to be on the radio, but he could never again decide of his own volition to play that tune.
He thought about it for a bit, and then *still* said 50 cents. It may be that the didn't really like the song that much, or it may be that he was still fudging the truth, but I'll take his word for it. You may come to a different answer, and if you do then perhaps you haven't been completely honest with yourself about your motives. It *is* possible to believe you're serving the side of virtue when in fact you're only looking out for your baser desires. I hear it even happens on slashdot
So the next time you assign a value to a commodity that you can get for free, ask how much it would be worth to you to go without it. Think of it as an exercise in self-inspection.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Feh (Score:3)
I think the success of Napster may be in part due to the demand for the MP3 format, for which there are no legal sources outside MP3.com. Encoding their own might beyond your less technically literate Windows user, as used as they are to the point and drool convienence to which Microsoft has accustomed them.
Of course the RIAA and the MPAA would like us to move over to a pay-per-view world where you have to give them money every time you want to listen to a song or watch a movie. To that end they'll need to outlaw every format that might allow for free viewing and free distribution. Napster is not a threat because their copyrights are being violated. Napster is a threat because the distribution model might give people ideas.
Not Napster (Score:5)
It is legal for me (or you) to have mp3s. I have almost every one of the Beatles' songs on mp3, I also own every albulm. I made most of the mp3s myself, but occasionally I didn't have the time to make my own and I set up a program to download a copy. Is that illegal? I still own and paid for the CD. I literally have gigs of mp3s and an entire box of CDs, it's much easier for me to set up a list of songs off of xmms then on my stereo. But if they keep suing compaines that provide a mp3-related service I'm not going to be able to play those files (then what would I do with that 20gig drive?) because there will be no WinAmp or XMMS.
Fine let everybody pretect their copyrights, but I must protect my rights to use this file format!
Devil Ducky
Dodging the REAL Issue (Score:3)
Napster never encourages or acts as an accomplice to music piracy in any form. It is simply an open forum that allows for the distribution of music files, plain and simple. Since none of the files that are exchanged ever reside on Napster's servers, they are in never in possession of pirated music. While some users utilize Napster's network for legitimate MP3 distribution, some abuse it and pirate music. The fact is that Napster, who is merely providing a service that can be used for legal, ethical, activity is being blamed for the abuse of some of its users.
The RIAA should pick a fight with pirates directly, not use Napster as a convenient scapegoat.
Re:Whose rights, again? (Score:3)
Secondly, noone is twisting your arm behind your back, forcing you to listen to certain music. If you think the deal is bad, or the risk is too great, the answer is to BOYCOTT the product, not to steal it.
Thirdly, the world does not owe you the fruits of other peoples creativity. If you want free music, download some amateur works from mp3.com, or buy a guitar and make your own. If you think that mp3 is a viable distribution medium, then go around convincing _artists_ of that -- if you achieve this, then the record companies will become irrelevant.
If you want the record companies' music music, however, don't whine about the terms they ask - it's their product. If you didn't consume it, they wouldn't exist. If you consume it without agreeing to their terms, you're a criminal. Pay up or shut up.
Charles Miller
(Having fun being moderated down for the totally unacceptable crime of disagreeing with the slashdot mob mentality...)
--
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3)
I agree with you, many people like to have the actual CDs and a recent research (I guess that this were reported here) with the popular MP3 encoders showed that they are actualy less quality then the CD itself.
I think that if put a few bells and whistle into the CD every one will buy it, even thought they already have it on MP3.
Napster is a good thing(tm) for several reasons, like for instance geting musics before buying a cd or distribute your backyard band to the world.
Well off course pirate music is bad for every one. So is pirated software or books, but how can you stop those? Ban xerox machines? Start using some kind of unique ID in each computer?
The music is entering the hall of the "easy to copy" media, just like books and software already are. Well cheap xerox existed since I can remember needing it, and there are still very rich authors and editors. Software is easy to copy by definition, and there are M$ and other companies that sell software.
The music industry and artists will also survive, there is cash in other places. There are clips that people want to watch. There are beautyful/colorfull booklets that comes with the CDs that dosen't come with the MP3s. And off course there are live shows and concerts.
Soon the movie industry will be in the same place, an they are alredy fearing those days....
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
An Open Letter to All Current Media Providers (Score:3)
With the advent of the internet, many of the current media providers have found themselves on the defensive. Newspapers and magazines feel threatened by the web; movies, television, radio, and music distributors are lashing out against filesharing of their content; software companies are complaining about rampant piracy of their products.
This situation is deteriorating with the addition of new legislation and new lawsuits to the scene. The Motion Picture Association of America is suing the makers of DeCSS (a tool that allows DVDs to be read to a file for viewing or copying), the Recording Industry in general seems to be suing Napster, MP3.com, and anyone else that they see using the MP3 music codec, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act has basically criminalized "fair use" for anything that uses encryption to prevent copying.
The Problem
Most traditional content providers make their money by charging consumers for their products based on the media that they buy. Book publishers sell printed book, newspaper companies sell newspapers, record companies sell CD, tapes, or records. For most of our lives, this has been the only way to do it. If I want the latest Terry Pratchett novel, I have to go to the bookstore and buy it. They even make additional money by releasing hardbacks first, so that the devoted fans will have to pay 2-3 times more than the paperbacks will cost if they want the books in the first few months after release. The internet challenges this entire revenue model by offering an alternative distribution system. Traditional media is based on the sale of the physical medium. Since most types of content can now be digitally encoded as files, the physical medium is not a limiting factor. 100,000 recordings of a song can be copied with no degradation, no media cost, infinitesimal distribution costs, and no additional sales commissions attached. This sounds great, doesn't it? Economics 101 says that demand will always exceed supply, and drive the price up. Well, the supply curve just went through the roof, so shouldn't this mean that the price should go down? The problem is that the sale of items cannot be mandated for copying to take place. Simply put, there is no way to physically make someone pay for items that they have copied from another person. Legal requirements against copying protected materials will be about as enforcable as the 55 mph speed limit has been on metropolitan interstates in the long run. :)
What's At Stake Here
Many computer users may feel that this is fine. "The music will always be free" proclaimed one in a recent article. That very well may be true, but musicians will continue to have to pay rent and buy groceries. Therefore, some method needs to be found to allow them to make money from their efforts.
On the other hand, groups like Metallica and Dr. Dre can only lose by their lawsuits and intimidation tactics. The word "Boycott" may not hold the threat that it once did, but their fans will remember their actions for quite some time. Many people are simply tired of the inflated prices for movies, CDs, software, and other items that are now media-independent, and are taking things into their own hands. They know that they're not stealing, since the "injured" party has not lost anything; they simply haven't gained anything either. The net outcome to the artist is the same as if they had simply not bought the album at all.
While each of these viewpoints are correct, a solution must still be found for each. If prices aren't drastically lowered for media-independent content, many computer users will simply stop buying movies, CDs, and other items they can "pirate" for free. But if revenues diminish for the artists, the content will suffer (as many would argue it already has for television).
Fortunately, there is a solution. I'm not the first person to have thought of it. I doubt that I'm even in the first thousand to have thought of it. I just haven't seen it in print anywhere yet in it's entirety.
The Solution
Lower the price for file-based media content. Drastically.
Yes, I know that this is a blinding flash of the obvious, but it's well overdue. How much does an album really need to cost, once you remove the cost of the media, the shipping, the warehousing, and the retail markup? How much would you earn in additional sales?
The key to defeating piracy is simple. Reduce the price and piracy goes away. Downloading a CD from the internet on a slow connection might take up to two hours, depending on your speed and if you get disconnected from your (often unreliable) source. Software often takes 4-6 hours and movies could take days. This assumes that you can even find what you're looking for, which can be a hit-or-miss process for many items. Even a straight CD-to-CD copy will often take an hour if you have a CD Burner and may not always work.
If companies were to reduce their prices and make their content available for paid download online from high-speed, reliable servers, they would not only stop the vast majority of piracy, but they would increase their own revenues fairly substantially. Copying would still be possible, but the effort required to do so would not be worth it.
The model I think would work best is along the line of "Everything for a buck". Why that amount? Because one dollar represents a psychological cut-off point in most people's minds. It is throw-away cash that can be spent with no guilt. How many people do you think would have paid $1 to download WinAmp? How many would have downloaded the Matrix Soundtrack for $1? I'll bet that it would have amounted to more money than was earned.
I sincerely doubt this would affect the current market for conventional media either. People will continue to buy CDs, DVDs, and books if they have no computer, have no internet connection, or simply don't wish to be chained to their computer to enjoy these items. In fact, people who download these items onto their computers will often buy the media afterwards for the convenience, if they enjoy it that much. In the case of television, this may inject some life back in the media, if broadcast companies would allow download of old shows and episodes (and we mean complete series, not just snippets).
Specifics
CDs - Allow download of complete CDs for $1 ideally ($2 if necessary), or $0.25 per song. Royalty is paid to artist, company pockets the rest. Could also profit from banner ads on download page.
Movies - Allow partial download of movie (first half) for free to get people hooked. Require payment of $1 for download of entire movie. Link to sale of physical DVD or VCR tape. Make money on banner ads.
Television - Allow download of TV shows at $0.25 per 30 mins. This includes shows that are off the air, as well as previous episodes of currently showing series. Include commercials, which can be fast forwarded (but often aren't; people have gotten used to seeing them and often forget when they can fastforward). Make money on banner ads.
Books - Allow download of first half to 3/4 of book for free (many publishers already do this.) Allow text, HTML, or word doc download of entire book for $1. Link to sale of physical book. Make money on banner ads.
Software - Allow download of popular software (games, common apps, OS's, other "must-have" software) for $1. Sell printed manuals separately (this is commonplace). Have easy on-line registration. Make money on banner ads.
Critical to this is the ease of payment. All payment should be through credit card or some equivalent secured online payment. Note that this will make the credit card companies very happy and would make for excellent partnerships with them.
Don't worry about encryption or copy protection. Encryption cannot succeed, since the final product must be decrypted to be used. DVDs could have unbreakable encryption, but all that a viewer needs to do is set up a video camera, point it at the TV screen, and digitize their recording. Same with audio. If you sell your products at a reasonable price, most people will have no problem with paying that price. Some unauthorized copying will still take place; simply point out the ultra-low cost of legitimately purchasing the product to flagrant abusers.
What I have suggested above is one of the better ways to go. I would urge media executives to consider this and implement it. A few final points should be made, however.
If companies continue to try to enforce their inflated prices by lawsuits against companies like Napster, MP3.com, and individual users, they will rapidly find themselves running out of targets without solving the problem. New technologies are being developed specifically to mask the identities of users and decentralize the location of the files. Who will you sue when the program has no controlling company? Who will you finger when the users and file sharing are anonymous and encrypted? How will you block their access if the software can jump ports or sit on port 80 (requiring Web Access to be blocked in order to block the program)?
The business of media content is changing. The dike is leaking and the industry is running out of fingers to plug the holes. The rewards for adapting to this new reality could be enormous; if you lower your prices by 90%, but have sales increase by ten fold, you can come out ahead. But if you don't change, you may find that you don't have a industry anymore.
Mike Dickinson
meridun@templeton.gt.ed.net
Notice: This article may be retransmitted freely, but only in it's entirety and with credit for authorship given.
Oh, joy... (Score:5)
Look: copyrights are, in principle, good. The fact is, everyone has the right to share his stuff on his own terms, so long as said terms are fair. Copyright is a balancer in that. It defines some things which must be included for the terms to be considered fair (fair use, and expiration after a set time). But it also makes sure those terms are kept. It's used by the GPL to enforce its terms (I'll share this with you, but in return you have to share it too.)
This is why UCITA and DMCA are bad; they allow corporations to set unfair terms (no negative reviews, no reverse-engineering for compatibility, no right to see the terms before agreeing with them, etc.)
However, that's a double-edged sword. Look at the standard terms for a CD. OK, you've bought the CD. You can play it as much as you want. You have the full terms of fair use. You can even play it for your friends, so long as you don't try to make money off of it. You can even lend it to a friend. The only thing you can't do is make a copy of the music and give it to a friend (or give said friend the original and keep the copy for yourself). This seems fair enough; you paid your dues, they should have to pay theirs. Now, the price-fixing the RIAA does is highly unethical, and they need a DoJ slapdown in the worst way because of it, but that's another issue that this post isn't meant to address.
This said, I don't like what Metallica is doing. They certainly have the right to be suing over piracy, but the arguments they are using are extremely hypocritical (saying they're disgusted at the fans "treating their music as a commodity" when that's just what they do themselves). Let's face it, it's all about the money, and they ought to be honest about it. Of course, that'd be terrible PR, but it's still the truth.
As for RIAA, MPAA, etc, they're just plain scared. The Internet and computing technology, particularly as the infrastructure thereof matures, is going to render them obsolete. Right now, software exists that allows a person at home to theoretically make movies with special effects surpassing what many Hollywood films had not even ten years ago. Sound processing software exists for recording music, and CD burners and duplication firms exist to distribute it. With a decent Website and e-commerce software (some of which is Open-Source), I could publish and sell a book without ever going to a major publishing house.
That's why MPAA is so worked up. They aren't afraid of people using DeCSS to decrypt DVD's; they're afraid of people doing the opposite: making their own DVD's. Without going through them. It's why RIAA is so worked up; artists could use MP3 or related formats to distribute their music. Without going through them. In short, they're very quickly becoming obsolete, relics of the past which will die out as technology evolves and "natural" selection drives them out. They had a chance, once: had they embraced the technology early on they could well have enjoyed their dominant position even as smaller companies and individuals came into their own. But this can't happen; they sat on their hands for too long and now it may well be too late.
People have said in defense of piracy that "you can't stop the technology." They're not right to defend piracy with that argument, but the statement is still correct. You can't stop it. All you can do is embrace it. Problem is that RIAA pushed MP3 away for too long, and MPAA is doing the same with similar technologies. It may well no longer embrace back. And that's their fault, not that of the technology. The corporations had their chance. They blew it. And now they're going to reap what they've sown, and it won't taste good. I only pity the innocents who had nothing to do with it, but are going to feel the fallout because a few fatcat execs were too scared to take the plunge.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:5)
The GPL exists to protect your rights to use, share, and modify software. Without copyright, no one could stop you from using or sharing; and if pay-per-copy were eliminated, there'd be no motive for authors not to share their source code, and as more people understand the necessity of open source for quality, every reason for them to do so. (Note that today's "free beer" software always has a pay version, which shares a codebase.)
The GPL is a judo-type defense against copyright - it uses the attacker's power against them[*]. Take away the power to attack, and the defense goes away too - but since, by defintion, it's no longer needed, that's okay.
([*]Which isn't strictly true about judo; there are plenty of nasty attacks there. Whipping a choke on someone doesn't really use their power against them. But we'll ignore that for purposes of metaphor.)
Re:We should ALL support copyright law. (Score:3)
The GPL is sure as hell NOT a defense against copyrights! Quite the opposite! Without the GPL, I'd be able to take a copy of GPLed software, slap a couple minor changes on, and sell the result WITHOUT releasing source code and WITHOUT compensating the original authors. Without copyright, everything becomes public domain and anyone can do anything without anything, without regard to the original author's wish. The GPL exists to prevent this, using copyrights in a very straightforward fashion. It asserts the original authors' copyright in order to prevent types of use that the original authors don't want. The only difference between more traditional copyrighted work is that the original authors don't want money and don't reject changes to the work. Other than that, it is a normal copyright.
The statement "The GPL would not be necessary without copyright law!" is completely wrong. The correct statement would be "The GPL would not be possible without copyright law!". Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.
Copyright law prevents that.
Re:Why are these people opinions worthwhile? (Score:3)
The opinion of Linus counts because he has actually had to think about copyright issues, starting from the point when he released the first version of the kernel to the net. That is something you can't say about the average Napster pirate, whose only idea is to get "MP3's FREE!!!" - that is, it's "free beer" instead of "free speech" for them.
Well, I am sure that you will classify me as a zealot now, but I do agree with Linus. It's not actually that hard - what he says is just common sense. You don't have to agree with him, but at least you could show some respect and listen to what he has to say.
I've been against Napster and for Metallica ever since the they filed the suit. A lot of people have criticized Metallica for not having guts. I claim exactly the opposite - they are doing this because they are Metallica; they have the balls to do this. Other artists fear the negative publicity that they might get by going after Napster; Metallica knowingly puts themselves to the front, knowing they risk alienating their fans. There are issues that need to be brought forward, and now they are actively being discussed.