The MP3 Troubles Continue 293
We've been choking on submissions about Napster and MP3 so here's a selection of them: Alexander Burke shared this ZDNet Article about how TVT Records (the fine folks who bring you Snoop Dogg) is getting into the let's-sue-Napster game. Borodir wrote in about how Suzanne Vega influenced the mp3 compression format, and Slashdot reader Napster Online told us about the Salon interview with Napster iCEO Hank Barry. Here's an editorial by John Perry Barlow about the whole Napster mess and a finally a ZD UK story about MP3 pirates
going to jail in the future.
Re:Show of hands... (Score:1)
Excellent points.
Consider the source (Score:1)
My name is Napster (Score:1)
I live on the second floor
I live upstairs from you
Yes I think you've seen me before
If you hear something late at night
Some kind of trouble, about copyrights
Just don't ask me what it was
Just don't ask me what it was
Just don't ask me what it was
I think it's 'cause I bandwidth hog
I try not to play MP3s too loud
Maybe it's 'cause I'm new technology
I try not to act too proud
Lars only hits until you cry
And after that you don't ask why
You just don't argue anymore
You just don't argue anymore
You just don't argue anymore
Yes I think I'm okay
I got slashdotted again
Well, if you ask that's what I'll say
And it's not your business anyway
I guess I'd like to be alone
With my venture cap, no law books thrown
Just don't ask about my IPO
Just don't ask about my IPO
Just don't ask about my IPO
Re:mp4? (Score:1)
Everything I know about MP4s I learned through Google [google.com]. Try M.I.T. [mit.edu] for the standard document.
I love search engines...
Re:Is it too late? (Score:1)
The Good Reverend
of course he'll buy cd's (Score:1)
If I go to jail for mp3s... (Score:1)
Re:Yet another article (Score:1)
-Newsweek (C)
Um... I like the "disposable" bit. Welcome, Sir Dumbass, to the disposable culture you and the rest of the corporate entities created. Ever notice how you can't buy stuff that doesn't break after a year or so of use? And you can't fix it, so you have to trash it and buy a new one? And suddenly you're all pissy and moaning when other forms of "property" are seen in the same light by those who have been trained from birth to use it and throw it away by society.
If you couldn't tell, I agree a lot with Sig11's post above on the subject. I think he hit the nail on the head.
"Worthless" is another good word... Fits right in with the likes of Brittany Spears and N'Sync...
--Fesh
Re:Prove to me that CD sales are hurt by MP3 tradi (Score:1)
Re:Henry David Thoreau (Score:2)
Anyway, just thought I'd point that out. Not sure if it has anything to do with the argument you two were having (sorry, I couldn't make much sense of either of your posts).
No Limit (Score:1)
Re:Interscope? (Score:1)
Re:Henry David Thoreau (Score:1)
No I got that.
Natural Law (from encyclopedia.com) theory that some laws are fundamental to human nature.
The right to listen to a song I create is in NO WAY a fundamental to human nature. All rights are societal constructs created over years of "civilization". There is nothing fundamental about it.
I think you missed my point, what I was trying to say was that we have no inherent rights to any of these things. We only have the rights provided to us by Government (explicitly and implicitly:in the U.S. I mean). There is no law that says you have a "right" to the internet/tv/nicer car then the one I have etc..
If this seems confusing it's because I'm tired and am not thinking completely clearly. Sorry.
Marcus
Flame all you want, I'll post more.
Re:Is it too late? (Score:1)
It's no longer necessary to work? Amazing.
Times are a-changin', old fella. Go back to work and get over it.
I am 24 I hope I'm not an "old fella" yet. :-)
You have missed the point. A person who can afford to be on the net should be able to afford to buy a CD. End of story.
Marcus
Re:Criminals (Score:1)
If you want to bitch about the RIAA complaining when people make MP3s of CDs they own, that's one thing. But just claiming "IP law is bogus" really denegrates what all this free software stuff is about as well. If you give can give me an MP3 of any song, then I can give folks copies of the Linux kernel (gcc, emacs, whatever) without any licensing, effectively making it too then public domain. Then anyone can create a nice operating system without these cumbersome restrictions.
Re:Yet another article (Score:1)
--Fesh
Re:Henry David Thoreau (Score:2)
Downloading MP3s is ALWAYS legal (Score:2)
Re:who's the criminal? (Score:1)
Um, it would be the people downloading pirated songs.
Or was this a rhetorical question?
Re:Criminals (Score:2)
How much? (Score:1)
I'm not standing up for Metallica or Dr. Dre, but I'm saying that they almost certainly had various suits whispering in their ears, "You know, those bad internet people are stealing your stuff!" It's the companies that are terrified, and it's the companies that are driving this whole thing.
It doesn't matter that much anyway. With Gnutella et al., they won't have anyone to sue because there's no centralized "enemy" for them to attach.
Quick! Spread out!
Re:How much? (Score:1)
Re:How much? (Score:3)
First, there are other ways than pay-per-copy for people to get paid for making art, music, literature, and software.
Second, people can, will, and do create stuff without getting paid for it. I've spent hundreds of hours making poetry and music, resulting a total material compensation of one free meal at the sadly defunt Planet X coffehouse (for an Italian sonnet contest I won), a few free beers at the bar where I often play at the open mic, and a grand total of maybe $50 in cash.
Re:Prove to me that CD sales are hurt by MP3 tradi (Score:1)
But... since you want hard proof. I um... know a guy who downloaded music off of Napster, and sold it to someone who would have definately bought the album in stores anyway, they even told him so
("Thanks. You just saved me $10). 1 case. Hard proof. Anything else you need?
Re:First (Score:1)
The United States Department of Justice. That's who.
bah (Score:1)
Re:When will they start sending linux zealots to j (Score:1)
Pulling your example into present day... (Score:1)
What about the portion of the population that already have natural (grey matter only) photographic memories?
Are they commiting copyright violation every time they read a book?
Remember the end of the british film adaption of Farenheight 451? All the guys memorising and repeating the texts of banned and burned books?
I sure hope none of those books were copyrighted in the US. Forget the British laws requiring books to be burned. Those American copyright lawyers will pursue you to the ends of the Earth (well, to Norway at least), if they even THINK that you MIGHT be violating any copyright.
john
Much Ado About Nothing (Score:1)
And I think that MP3 is cool and the enforcers of copyrights are usually corporate pirates, with little of the gains going to the producers.
But I'm also sure that, since there are lawyers involved, noone will win.
Going to Jail? (Score:4)
On the other hand, this may become the newest excuse to break into people's homes. They got Al Capone with taxes, maybe they'll get people in the future for downloading Mp3s.
Re:"Mass exodus"? (Score:1)
no surprise (Score:1)
Re:Yet another article (Score:2)
Gee, could that guitar be connected to some sort of computer, which is capable of recording the notes he's playing? And gee, could he be setting up a program to record such sounds?
SUE HIM!
He may try playing Stairway to Heaven! Can't have that!
Bleh. Gotta love journalism.
Napster (Score:3)
i really like things that are free. it would be really nice if more things were free. i would like to get my music for free. however, i would also like to get my car for free. there are simply some things that are/never-will-be free. it is unfortunate, but deal with it! napster is great, but pirating songs is not great. we get upset when people violate the gpl, isn't it understandable that other folks would get upset when people violate their licenses? sure, cd's shouldn't cost as much as they do. stealing cd's is a sure-fire way not to get the price of music to go down! just because we don't like the law doesn't give us license to break it (especially when we depend on it ourselvs (gpl))...
</flamebait>
Since /. didn't post it... (Score:1)
Dig this article [internetwk.com] about some other rockers (albeit some sucky rockers) who are doing pretty much the same thing.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
who's the criminal? (Score:2)
To the industry - you brought this on yourself. You trained people too well to mindlessly consume, and now they do so without conscience. As you have so eloquently shown the general public, the only moral in this country left is the Dollar, and people have learned that lesson all too well - they now freely trade MP3s without any guilt. And I must ask, is it wrong? Motley Crue and Offspring are just a few of the many bands speaking out against you. Bands like Metallica and Dr. Dre who have sided with you and the pro-IP fight have met with icy criticism and a mass exodus of their fans.
Your grip on music in this country will be broken. We will download and trade, eat away at your margins, lay waste to your corporate image and take pleasure in doing so. We have no remorse. Afterall, we're consumers.. just like you taught us to be.
Re:Take a tip from TMBG (Tori Amos too?) (Score:2)
This is actually one of the BIG problems the record industry has with Napster. The full contents of new works are on Napster *before* they make it to the stores. They claim this hurts the *pop* of the album and all the free advertising that comes with early sales numbers and genre ranking.
They don't mention the free advertising that Napster does, but that side is debatable. Anyone want to?
--
Re:How much? (Score:1)
Re:Criminals (Score:2)
Ok, sounds good.
Then anyone can create a nice operating system without these cumbersome restrictions
Ok, sounds good too!
You make some excellent points!
Re:Is it too late? (Score:1)
Marcus
Aren't are jails crowded enough? (Score:1)
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto [nai.net]: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!
Re:Napster (Score:1)
Re:How much? (Score:1)
I'll be happy to see you in jail
Why, has it been lonely for you in jail since your last lover was released?
fair use? (Score:2)
The notion that sharing content in this way is illegal seems to have been created by the content industry, who would like to see content licensed preferably to individuals and maybe even on a pay-per-view basis.
Maybe what sites like Napster should do is to create a simple "license manager" scheme that ensures that multiple individuals don't listen to the same recording at the same time. It seems to me that the intent of traditional copyright law would be satisfied that way and the music industry wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Of course, if that catches on widely, their sales would still plummet precipitously, because nationwide people would only listen to a small number of copies of most recordings simultaneously.
Popularity versus Sales (Score:2)
making it so that you had to either buy the media
or have no way of listening to it, I think the
impact would be felt on the popularity of certain genres of music. Ever since the days of open reel
tape, music sharing has been a vehicle by which artists' popularity has grown, particularly those
artists whose works are not played on the radio.
There may be diminishing returns on the total strangulation of the trading community.
Re:Take a tip from TMBG (Score:2)
That is Dial-A-Song, and it still exists.
The phone # is 718 387-6962
It even has an (annoying flash) website at www.dialasong.com [dialasong.com].
Copy:
dialasong.com has bee updated and joined the on-line world. With the hip new flash streaming software, everyone is just a quick and easy click away from grooving to the new tracks from TMBG available at dialasong.com. Besides that, dial a song is also back on at 718 387-6962. After months of pure frustration with our computer based system, John and John have returned to the analog scene of the phone machine, and although the songs don't change as frequently, they are fresh fresh fresh and now we have a two song policy so you get more songs with every call.
Re:Henry David Thoreau (Score:2)
You have no intrinsic right to STOP people copying your work ad infinitum. (except by what means you have within yourself e.g. killing them.) Just as an artificially constructed law against killing people means that members of our society have a "right" to life, a law was invented that gives the creators of a work control over what other members of our society do with the work - the creators are granted an artificially constructed right, "copyright".
For example, the copyright holder of software under the GPL grants any member of the public permission to copy and modify the source code, provided said member of the public releases all modifications under the same restriction if he distrubtes them - thus, the GPL uses copyright law to guarantee source code availability.
The first copyright law I've ever heard of:
The Cathach, or the "Battle Book" is the oldest surviving Irish manuscript psalter. Dating from the middle of the sixth century, only fifty-eight leaves survive.
A copy of this psalter, known as the Battle Book of the Clan O'Donnell- kinsmen of Saint Colmcille (or Saint Columba)- was carried into battle to help its owners to victory.
Saint Colmcille was accused of secretly copying The Cathach, the property of his master, Saint Finnian. The celebrated case of the dispute of copyright (possibly the first dispute of copyright) led to High King Dermott's historic judgement, "to every cow its calf; to every book its copy". The O'Donnell's were ordered to return their copy.
Colmcille's disagreement with the verdict resulted in the battle of Culdreimhe, County Sligo, after which Colmcille, in repentance at the bloodshed, exiled himself from his beloved monastery at Derry Colmcille, and sailed to Iona in Scotland from where he lit the fire of Christianity in Britain.
Thus, copyright is an articial right, introduced by a society, that must enforced by some power withiun that society, in this case the High King Dermott and his forces. What has changed is that now, by international treaty, copyright law applies to most of the globe. There is no reason why this could not change in future, in the face of the drastic social restructuring due to the Internet.
Re:Is it too late? (Score:2)
The point is that spending $16 for a CD should not be considered a virtue. It ought to be considered really, really dumb, and it should make you feel like an idiot. You play into the hands of some very rich, arrogant, power-hungry people.
What you are suggesting is that good capitalists should work and spend there hard-earned money on expensive CD's, just because it's the "right" thing to do. You may call it theft to do otherwise, but some people just call it downloading. Some people want to change your definitions of things, and possibly make the world a better place. The information age is about making things so cheap as to be practicaly free - and that is a serious threat to capitalism. So, our government is being asked to legislate profits for the "owners of ideas and knowledge", for the purpose of perpetuating capitalism. Those of us on the other side of the fence want to start the process of ending capitalism in order to build something new and better, now that it's slowly becoming possible (because of technology). Most don't realize this is what the fighting is about, because most don't want to think it's capitalism vs communism (which it isn't, really, but I'm sure you're thinking that after reading this).
So, as I said, let's not make a virtue out of a necessity that's no longer a necessity (ie capitalism).
Re:Going to Jail? (Score:2)
In my day(our days, bet you
Nixon started the war on drugs 28 years ago; the RIAA and the MPAA just declared war this year, seemingly with the backing of our courts.
Let's hope this new war doesn't drag on quite as long.
Maybe it's time for another 'tea-party'!!
It's all about the donations...
Ask Al Gore. He invented the internet, he ought to be rolling in dough now!!
Re:Going to Jail? (Score:2)
The fact that you may own the CD, and hence, have the right to make a copy of that CD does *NOT* imply (though it sounds bizarre) that you have the right to copy it from another source (ie: napster). Also, as the person offering the file for download is doing so illegally, any download you make of it would also be illegal, as you are participating in an illegal transaction.
Re:Is it too late? (Score:2)
Charging 25 cents or 50 cents a song download will prevent piracy, generate the required publicity, and allow a broader range of consumers to legally consume. I don't think it will hurt anyone's bottom line one bit, and I still think there will be a vigorous demand for CDs - audiophile quality recordings with collateral materials:
My big thing is, there's WAY too much crap out there for me to even keep track of what music I like. I could buy all the CD's of all the bands I like, it would probably run in the thousands of dollars, but logistically, finding most of those CD,'s, figuring out which ones were ones I like and don't like, would be an impossibility. Being able to download MP3 tracks of everything for a few bucks more would make the task much easier for me, and believe me, would not compel me to not purchase a single CD of music I like. All it would do would be to prevent me from buying CD's I don't like. As it stands now, I was ready to go drop a few hundred bucks last month (stock options ROCK) on CDs of bands I liked in the 80's, most of which I have on Vinyl. I sat down and made a list, and couldn't find most of them at the record store. I ended up buying a Kid Rock CD, because I liked that Bawidibaw song. Every other song on that fucking CD was a peice of shit. So I decided not to buy any more CDs for the time being. Buying a $20 peice of shit is keeping me from spending probably hundreds of dollars on filling out the gaps in my music collection with other CDs. I have since amassed a large collection of MP3s, so I can better tell which ones I like.
RIAA - it is your business model that is screwed up, and in need of adjustment.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Take a tip from TMBG (Score:2)
LOTS of bands WISH they could do that, but
they're totally forbidden to do any such thing
by their record company contracts.
As soon as ONE of the big record companies realizes the potential to be had in embracing this technology, that company alone will have the technological advantage over all the others.
When the first bookstore went online, the rest had
to go online too...
When the first record company signs a contract with a band (and I mean A BAND, like, signs the
next Nirvana or even, tragically enough, the next
Britney Spears), and the contract states that the
band *MUST* release in digital format at specified
intervals, etc., it will be seen as a success story, and everyone else will follow suit, not
wanting to be left behind.
The "piracy" thing will be no more relevant after
that revolution than Radio is today.
If you had the engineers of the record mixing your
mp3 from the beginning, you'd have a high quality mix. Bundle it with some graphics that add a marketing angle to it, and you've got something that will distribute itself. There will still be
a reason to go buy the CD, online, or at the brick&mortar.
Re:Take a tip from TMBG (Score:2)
The MP3 Album ("Long Tall Weekend") is some of their best stuff. Every geek should get his hands on it, for the song "Older" alone if nothing else.
I hear they have a second offering (an "EP" this time) also for sale.
Plus the dial-a-song, the website (tmbg.com), the fan site (tmbg.org), and the mailing list... As if all that isn't cool enough, they have their own Internet radio station at WiredPlanet.com, which will let you listen to a continuous random selection of TMBG and Mono Puff music. Alas, the streaming client is MICROS~1 only, for now.
Re:Brandenburg and MP3 patent (Score:2)
Hmm. Pretty good explanation. Thanks. :-)
---
Re:Going to Jail? (Score:4)
No they're not. I defy you to show me one statute that says they are. That's pure rubbish.
Jesus, I am ever glad I'm not a teenager these days, and I sure feel sorry for my kids. We thought we had a police state going in the late 60s and early 70s, but it was nothing compared to the damn universal police state they're running now, and everywhere you look it's just getting worse. It seems like everything is illegal these days - for example, bootlegging a couple of pop songs is now a God damned felony, that is, the same category as armed robbery, rape and murder, in Wisconsin - and if you're under 21 the assumption of all these curfews and searches and pisstests and assorted harassments is that you're guilty until proven innocent. And the police are completely out of control, as the Diallo and Dorismond cases in New York demonstrate. And while there were thugs in police uniforms back then too, at least there was also a principled opposition, whereas these days there's absolutely no one in public life who's willing even to consider reining them back.
As far as all you jackasses I've read here with your "bootlegging songs means you are a criminal" crap, you're all a bunch of illiterate idiots, and I use the word "idiot" in its original etymological sense. A guy who clubs you over the head, or who robs you at gunpoint, or who breaks into your house and steals all your possesions, or who knocks a woman down and rapes her, now that's a criminal. For you blockheads to make a moral equivalence between real crimes like those and these trivial nitpicky little misdemeanors that these disgusting money-bloated tonedeaf RIAA swine are making such a howling fuss over, that only demonstrates that you suffer from the same complete lack of moral sense and proportion that the RIAA lawyers do. Have a happy police state, fools; I hope and expect that your blindered legalistic idiocy turns on you all someday.
Sincerely WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Interscope? (Score:2)
Re:Going to Jail? (Score:2)
"The fact that you may own the CD, and hence, have the right to make a copy of that CD does *NOT* imply (though it sounds bizarre) that you have the
right to copy it from another source (ie: napster). "
Yes, it does. Can you produce a cite, a ruling
to the contrary? You are stating something as if it a fact of (US?) law, that simply hasn't been
decided.
Napster is only getting more popular. (Score:2)
Re:Criminals (Score:2)
He certainly does have a leg to stand on. The point is, how much of IP law is reasonable. Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. If we continue down the path of ever strengthening IP laws against the tide of digital copying, we will get in trouble. Advocating civil disobedience has a long and honored history for us (in the US and elsewhere), and there are plenty of arguments to support his views.
Re:Napster (Score:3)
> When you make as much money as I do ($189K a year)
> you will start to see that some people frankly do
> not know what they are talking about.
Excuse me while I vomit on your shoes. Congratulations, with that one line you achieved the most disgusting post I've read here all year, makes the goatse.cx pic look inoffensive in comparison. "When you make as much money as I do," take your $189K, turn it into one-dollar bills, roll 'em up nice and tight, and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, moneyswine.
Sincerely WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
"Mass exodus"? (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that most Metallica/Dr. Dre fans even know what Napster is.
However, I'm sure you wouldn't have posted without evidence. Please show your figures demonstrating that enough fans of these bands are boycotting to make a significant impact on their bottom lines.
Take a tip from TMBG (Score:4)
--
Donald Roeber
That's a LOT more reasonable (Score:3)
If the music industry wants to throw the book at someone who makes copyrighted, commercially available recordings available for anonymous download, they have every right. Especially if the artists themselves are sick of having their recordings ripped off on a massive scale.
There is a difference between lending a CD to a friend and making it available to millions of strangers.
Sooner or later the RIAA or an artist will subpoena ISP logs, and some l33t mp3 p1mp will end up as Bubba's new bitch. And he'll have nothing to blame but his own stupidity for thinking that his IP address is sufficiently untraceable to commit a crime.
Interscope, Dr. Dre and Seagram (Score:2)
In any case, it's part of the Universal group, owned by that other recent newsmaker, Seagram.
Mere coincidence?
This just in.... (Score:4)
In a related piece, Russian artist Stravinsky is hoping to use Napster to jump start his popularity in the U.S., which has declined somewhat since the advent of radio.
Brandenburg and MP3 patent (Score:2)
Hmm.. I'm not sure how the Brandenburg article is about "troubles", but anyhow...
[snip]I get the impression that this guy's motivation for innovating was rather unrelated to the promise of a temporary monopoly, thanks to the patent. So what useful purpose did the patent serve in this case?
ObPlug: Ogg Vorbis [xiph.org]
---
Re:David Weekly was right... (Score:2)
Re:MP3.com Blew It with Beam-It (Score:2)
The most likely outcome is that there will be an out-of-court settlement, giving the RIAA control of mp3.com. Which will help them phase out unprotected MP3s as a format, marginalising it to the fringe, and later allowing them to intimidate player makers into removing MP3 support and ISPs into pulling sites hosting XMMS and LAME (using DeCSS as a precedent). De facto criminalisation of unencrypted music formats will follow, and once it's accepted by the public it will eventually be enshrined in law.
There are other formats out there?!?!? (Score:2)
Vorbis Tools 0.5 is about to go out, as soon as my web server will accept my upload! In the mean time, bother me [mailto] if you want tarballs. And of course you do
Scale (Score:2)
However, there is a BIG difference between this and making a CD available, at virtually master quality, by strangers anywhere on the Internet. It's a matter of scale.
The recordings belong to someone, who went to the trouble of creating them. The author of a work has a moral right to decide how it is to be licensed.
It's like the analogy another poster gave: if you touch someone, you'll probably kill a few of their skin cells. If you kill a few of someone's skin cells, they'll never notice; if you kill a large enough number, you'll injure or kill that person.
That is analogous to the difference between lending a CD you bought to a friend and putting it online for anyone to grab it.
The Ten Commandments of Napster (Score:3)
II. Thou shoult not make unto Napster any incomplete MP3s
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the lord, Napster, in vain
IV. Remember to use Napster every day to keep it holy
V. Honor Napster's Father, IRC, and its Mother, Fraunhoffer
VI. Thou shalt not
VII. Thou shalt not try to pick up horny thirteen year old girls on Napster
VIII. Thou shalt download MP3s that you do not have the CD of
IIX. Thau shalt not lie to Metallica just to have your account re-activiated
IX. Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbors DSL connection
X. Nor their MP3 Files, or any other 'property' of thiers
Is it too late? (Score:4)
My point? Net users (especially young people, who don't have a lot of money to spare) have been accustomed to having free music. Sure, most still pay for cds, etc. Don't we all? I'll be the first to admit that downloading mp3s can lead to buy cds, as it happened to me, and not only once. But the fact is that very few of us are paying for more than 50% of their music.
Don't hide your hand in the sands there, I know some of you will avoid any kind of piracy, but you just can't fail to see that it's not the case of the majority. I think that artists will simply have to adapt, probably by selling their tunes directly to the customer over the net at a very reasonable price, say, US $50 cents, so that a lot more will be willing to support their favorite groups. It's certainly sad news for the record industry. However, I think they will have to drop cd production to go back to what is their primary goal, after all : publicity for new artists. I'm sure they will be able to find a profit on the net, as everyone will eventually have to. It's the dawn of a new economic model, in which providers of products and services will have a more "direct" access to their customers than they had previously.
The net will make it easier for everyone with a genial idea to profit from it. Because here it will matter less what you will hear about a product from publicity, but more what you hear your friends saying in chat rooms, forums, etc. It will finally allow customers to decide for themselves what's a good idea and what's not. Innovations, (true ones, not the kind claimed by Microsoft) will come with less resistance and will have a better chance to impose. Truly, a new kind of economics.
Re:Gravity Kills (a TVT band) has mp3s online (Score:2)
legal implications of MP3 (Score:2)
I base these statements on material I have "read" and come to think are true.
That said...
Distribution of someone else's copy-righted work against their wishes is illegal. What's the difference between distributing an MP3 or MS Office 2000 over the net? Granted a lot more man hours probably went into Office 2000, but it is the artistic and creative talent ( beit good or bad ) of the artists. Though they may be altruistic ( such as free software or demo/free MP3s ), some earn a living off of it and thus can't afford to do so. ( A big record company, for example is probably not going to be able to fund itself solely through advertisements and concerts )
Additionally, if in our market, if we don't like the price or quality of something, we really should boycott them. The market can work when we're not all materialistic. Prices are enormous because our Demand is excessively high. Hell, I'm sure that they could charge a lot more and even make more money ( e.g. the Demand curve is probably pretty steep ). You can't impose regulations on prices and still be a capitalist nation. ( Salary caps in baseball, for example was a demand-side issue. It was only because of a trust between demanders of baseball ( a virtual monopsony ) that prices were checked )
I would not advocate illegal activities as a justifiable solution. ( With the exception of illegal laws ). Napster can be used in an illegal fashion, and it is indeed the responsibilty of the user to prevent using it in such an illegal fashion. I can see prosecuting individuals who violate the distribution laws ( even though I personally disagree with the prices of records and the supposed harm that MP3s cause the record industry ).
Now the real controversy from my point of view are those that download or even make MP3s. If I'm using napster to download an assortment of MP3s. Some are actually legal ( though their quantity and value is questionable ). Since nobody really marks illegal MP3s as such, am I responsible if I download one? Under some circumstances, possetion is 9/10 of the law. If I don't own a metallica CD but I am found to have their entire works in MP3 form, am I in violation? I would believe this to be a violation of personal rights ( but this does impose a strong raise the same sorts of issues as drugs.. If the Demand is exceptional, Supply will find a way, no matter how drastic ).
The issue of making a personal copy is where I'm specifically concerned. RIO and all those portable MP3 players are a great idea. I can have near-CD quality and convinience in a solid state-form. When used legally, it's of great value and of no harm to anyone. Of course, the legality limits us to a single copy. What does this mean, for example, if my children also get a RIO? Are they allowed to make copies off the same CD, or must I purchase 2 or 3 more CD's just as if we weren't using an MP3 player. Well, personally I find it ludicrous to have to make this purchase, especially since the limiited memory on a RIO requires me to erase it if I want to replace it with another CD. ( side: I don't own a portable MP3 player ). I'm sure the music industry would fight for those few extra dollars if they could, but really that is beyond our control. The 1-CD, 1-backup-copy idea is essential; what happens if I break, lose or wear out the CD, which often happens?
Next, what happens when joe small company owner has an employee that has a massive array of hard drives ( a hundred Gig or so ) and tries to place his entire CD collection on it for his own personal enjoyment. Well, that's cool; one copy and all. But now what if he wants this same collection at work.. Well, he's willing to shell out the money to expand his workstation. Now he has two copies. Well, it stretches the law, but I would argue that it doesn't violate the spirit of the law..
Next comes the communal nature of MP3s. If I invite some friends over, we can all listen to a CD. There is no way that the MPAA is going to charge per house-hold listener. Likewise if I make a single MP3 copy from a CD and it plays off a single computer and there's a bunch of friends around I shouldn't be in any violation. But what happens when I allow coworker friends to stream audio off of my shared hard drive? They are not physically making a copy of the MP3 and thus I am not distributing it ( unless some rogue co-worker makes a copy and potentially ignorantly makes it availabe on napster ). The solution to this problem would be a sort of MP3 jukebox client/server software with a potentially encrypted data channel.
Lastly, and here is the kicker. I'm having a wedding and I'm going to DJ. But I don't have a couple songs that everyone loves. So I pool my resources with several friends.. I'm "borrowing" their music for a time and publicly displaying it. This pushes the law to the limit ( since a commerical establishment can't just play records for its customers ). Is there any difference between that and all of my friends bringing me their CDs and having me encode them int MP3 and store on my publicly sharable hard drive? Each user gets his/her own directory so they are technically making their own MP3 copies and it is achnoledged as theirs; It just happens to be on a network drive. So long as nobody listens to anyone else's directory, there should be no violation of law ( especially if this is the only copy ). But it is obsurd to believe that a shared drive is not going to share its contents. Thus it should be viewed as if all are able to read each others MP3s. This is kind of like the wedding situation where a community can make use of the pooled resources. So long as nobody actually copies the MP3s to their own drive or makes a CD burn of the MP3s there is no literal violation of the law. But essentially we are providing a dynamic juke-box to all employees. The only saving argument is that the bandwidth requirements will not scale very well ( especially on an inexpensive IDE device ). Thus we're not talking about all of IBM providing a juke-box to it's employees. There are of course caveats. Namely that drives are typically tape-backuped, so if the drive were destroyed ( say because a CD was being sold and thus the license is no longer valid, or because the owner of the drive is moving ), the company could simply restore from backup ( or even take the tape home in order to copy to their home machines ).
Personally I believe that the law should allow this sort of activity, simply because there is a minimal infringement. So long as the copy of the MP3 drive is not distributed, and the owner of the drive can reproduce the individual CDs there is no evident violation. ( Thus, the same people that allowed the drive-owner to initially borrow the CDs should always be available for proof-of-license. ) A co-worker that brings the tape-backup home may not have all the contacts necesary to validate the hundreds/ thousands of CDs, and would thus be in violation. Thus a legal jukebox system would keep track of the owners of the associated CDs and for auditing purposes. Of course, I doubt the back-up system would have much justification since the "backup" is really the original CD. But it is, of course, impratical to re-encode thousands of CDs every time a drive is upgraded or otherwise replaced; Especially in a RAID configuration.
Compressed audio are a leap forward in walk-man technology: solid-state ( shock-resistent, potentially water-proof ), infinite storage potential, ease of replication for multiple audio devices ( car, walk-man, home office, work office can all have the same CD-contents without requiring carring the CD or even player ( when player is cheap enough ) ).
Compressed audio is a leap forward in jukebox systems: Multiplexing literally an infinite number of songs ( at $2xx for 40Gig ) to an infinite number of users ( limited by bandwidth and server capabilities, which are rarely dedicated and thus must compete for real-work resources ).
Post-Lastly, to my knowledge you can not broadcast a song that has human voice in it without paying royalties ( hense elevator music in department stores ). Thus it would be illegal to broadcast this MP3 jukebox ( even in a legally secured/licensed fashion ) over the loud-speakers. It therefore becomes questionable at which point ( e.g. with how many users ) does a privately owned juke-box setup become considered broadcasting. 20 employees? 100 employees? To me, the very discrete nature of client/server suggests that so long as only individuals access the juke-box, it is not broadcast; We are not using multi-cast afterall; Aside from spending $50K on a ultra-RAID setup ( with redundant copies ), and multiple servers with independant ether-lines for different sections of the building.
Culturejamming in SF (Score:2)
Re:Napster (Score:2)
Ya know, some people would have said the same thing about music a few years ago. As to your car example...nanotechnology. It (hopefully) promises to, in a sense, make the whole world digital. We need to learn, as a society, how to deal with infinite products. Music is our first challenge, and it should be an easy one. It's art and beauty after all, why shouldn't we share it?
The problem comes if we decide to treat IP *exactly* like PP (physical property) then we will end up with a government that does nothing but protect the profits of corporations who have lobbied that government to change the laws to protect them. I don't want to wake up and find a world where the only thing that stands between me giving away a new car (that used to be a pile of sand) is a soldier with a rifle.
And you are indeed a burning man [burningman.com]
--
Metallica & Dre have the same lawyer... (Score:3)
Anyone know who's representing TVT?
-Isaac
Re:Henry David Thoreau (Score:2)
Also, the only sensible way for you to stop someone taking your work, in the absence of copyright, is not to release it.
Once you release it, in the absence of copyright, you shouldn't be surprised if someone copies it (if it's any good), and there would be nothing you can do about it, thus, you have no "natural right" to stop people copying it. If people can take it, then in the absence of a legal framework, they have a "natural right" (i.e. ability) to make a copy of it - i.e. they can. It is this right that copyright restricts. Remember, they are not taking something from you (since that would leave you with less), they are copying.
Think about it. In the absence of copyright,all you really have is the power to decide whether to release/make something or not. Once you do that, you have no say if people can copy it. If it's a physical object, you can certainly stop people *taking* it, but taking isn't the same as copying, is it?
Remember, copyright violation isn't exactly theft (although it may be artificially defined to be). Why? You still have the work, whatever it may be, even if I copy it.
The concept of "taking == copying" you express in your post is thus inappropriate in the absence of copyright framework to give this concept any weight... so your argument is circular.
Note that I'm not against copyright per se,This comment [slashdot.org] I made some time ago expresses my opinion - basically, copyright as a concept isn't too bad, but the current system has been perverted to the needs of corporations rather than the artists and society (e.g. American copyright can now last significantly longer than the average human lifespan. This is hardly in the interest of the artist, but is certainly in the interest of corporations with an indefinite lifespan, e.g. Disney).
Why Napster is different to CD copying (Score:2)
I'm just wondering why they're not suing people for burning music CDs (cd-to-cd copy),
CD copying is very similar to home taping. They don't like it, but they know that it's a small scale thing. I might copy a CD for one friend, but I'm very unlikely to stand on a street corner handing them out to strangers. Similarly ripping MP3s for a Diamond Rio, or whatever is still only losing one (potential) sale, for some non-trivial time investment on my part -- it's self-limiting.
Napster changes all that. It's not only a good means of doing the previous level of minor copying, but it's also a better mass publication medium than commercial servers can offer ! Napster one track and that's several thousand lost sales, as a low estimate.
I still don't know if Napster is the best thing for music since recording, or the worst thing. All I do know is that it's simply incompatible with the current model of the music industry; poor quality bands sold by high quality hype.
Re:Is it too late? (Score:2)
No one is thinking far enough into the future. (Score:4)
Eventually we will be able to make digital cameras that are equivalent to eyes in terms of size and viewing range and all the technical aspects. Then we make microphones small enough to fit in the ear. Then we will have digital storage to record everything we see and hear. Combine this with a wireless link and the entire world can share.
What will copyrights mean then?
You read a book, you are scanning a book, once you read a book anyone can read a book.
You see a movie you record your exact vision and exact sound. Then everyone can see the movie through your eyes and ears.
You hear a music, everyone hears music.
Once technology progresses enough to replicate our actual organs' capabilities, there will be no use for copyright. You will be able to replay experiences exactly as you experience them. Others will be able to replay those same experiences.
We are not there yet, but OCR will progress until we can reliably scan books just by photographing or reading them.
Minidisc and mp3 recorders will get smaller and smaller.
Digital camcorders will shrink.
We will probably not achieve perfection of the replication or sights and sounds, but at what level of quality will it not matter. The audio-philes will still be upset, the video-philes will never be pleased, but most of humanity will be able to share everything they experience at a sufficently advanced level of quality.
What then? There is no copyright, unless you ban all recording of anything. This might be possible, but is it ethical to assume that something you can see and hear you can't record? Why? You are already experiencing it, are you not allowed to have memories? Or is it only ethical to have bad memories.
What about hearing aids, or vision aids for people will impared sight? Are those illegal. Can they be modified to record?
What does this mean now. Can I carry a digital camcorder around everywhere I go, watching movies, visiting concerts, probably not. Why not?
We must start thinking about what happens when technology changes all our old assumptions. This is merely the beginning.
Yet another article (Score:2)
Put me in jail but let the rapist go free.. (Score:2)
wtf has this planet come to? Charge for speech but let people who do the real crime run free because real crime keeps corporate america on its feet (wonder how many insurance companies would exist if people were shot for stealing.. how many.. i know the RIAA would loose about 23% of its profits if people were not constantly buying 2nd/3rd copies of there cd's and tapes after being robbed/stolen/broken or missing somehow).
So how about we start our own litigation group to force our rights and freedoms and first ammedments rather then listen to some people who make money off other peoples livliehood and raise crackhead children to run the underground and criminalized music scene?
People are supposed to evolve, a community is built around music and the ideas behind that music. I for one listen to it for my own reasons, and i could care less how rich someone else gets.. the same goes for my job, i work for someone elses reasons and i don't have anyone litigating in court to protect my job and my publishings and my speech, so wtf should musicians get any better treatment? Insure your success by being who you are. People by Tool music to hear Maynord sing, people listen to Prince to see his crazy acts, girlies like the backsteet boys because they're cute. Nothing the RIAA does or will do can change that, so why today in a market that exists like this would artists dip into there earnings to protect the interests of corporate america and why do they think it benifets themselves to screw the very people that have probably purchased there music anyhow? Maybe i pirated it, but my friend bought it because he never heard it, or maybe i didn't have any money but i'm enjoying it.
People steal my shit all the time, and the police for sure could care less, and the mayors and people who can make decisions live pretty and don't see what goes on until its too late.
So "pirate on" and do whatever your heart desires. Until the government can uphold our rights as a citizen of the states, i won't respect the rights of corporatism and political wheelin and deeling persons.
BTW, i paid 50.00 to see NIN and Perfect Circle.. you bet i took my recorder with me to have an archive of something i paid for. (and btw, yes.. someone stole the 35.00 shirt they stiffed everyone for).
So RIAA, quit crying, and i hope to god none of my tax money supports your group.
Henry David Thoreau (Score:3)
Sure it does, if the law is unfair. It's called civil disobedience [walden.org].
Unfortunately, I don't think this law is unfair. However, should a law infringe on our basic natural rights, then it is not just our right to disobey it, it is our duty as well. At least accoring to Thoreau, who has inspired some really great people in history. But the next time something like DeCSS happens and you want a historical context for spreading the source around, remember Thoreau's essay.
Disclaimer: No, you really don't have a right to break any law you disagree with.
change the damn business model (Score:2)
My Home: Apartment6 [apartment6.org]
Re:How much? (Score:2)
Metallica has already said (numerous times) that their suit is mostly driven by their personal managers (who apparently have been with them almost since day 1 and who they consider the "fifth and sixth members of Metallica."
Further, Dr. Dre hardly seems to be being "manipulated" by "various suits". He's made it clear that the thing that he's most concerned about, above any artistic integrity or idealism, is his paycheck.
Doo Doo Doo Doot, Doo Doo Doo Doot. (Score:2)
I haven't bought an album I didn't like in the past two years. Before that, my CD collection was a hit-and-miss set of Micheal Jackson albums. Now, I can grab any CD out of my CD pile and have a smooth seventy-four minutes of aural pleasure. For every good song on my hard drive, I've got the CD within arm's reach.
Napster may die, but I wouldn't worry about MP3 going away. Everybody's got them, and other trading mediums like IRC and newsgroups still exist. The beat will still go on, and Napster's presence in it is moot, at best.
So, as a note to the RIAA and kin, get in on the action before she goes home. Does anyone have an official lawsuit count, so far?
I stopped listening to Metallica (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that most Metallica/Dr. Dre fans even know what Napster is.
I used to listen to Metallica's older albums quite a bit before I heard about their intent to interfere with non-commercial sharing of copyrighted music between individuals via Napster. Now I'm so angry with them that I refuse to buy or listen to any of their music ever again. Bad laws are bad enough without strongarm enforcement of them through DMCA process abuse and civil lawsuits by deep-pocketed members of the copyright cartel.
Your figures seem to support my point. (Score:3)
Follow your own links. I see a couple of hundred names on the most populated sites - and fewer than ten names on most links.
The search returned about 280 pages. The Fermis out to maybe ten thousand names, if you're *EXTREMELY* optimistic.
Contrast that to the vast number of albums sold. Looking considerably less significant, isn't it?
Of course, the industry has a few words about the impact on sales as well.
Looks like a typical fluff piece written by a third-party journalist. What of it?
Now, about those figures... look here, here and since some fans even feel they are directly harming metallica they've setup a site to pay lars back.
Your first link states that CD sales are declining near universities. By 7 percent.
What fraction of the population goes to university? Relatively small.
What fraction of the population buys CDs? Relatively large.
You become Enlightened.
Or, take the geographic approach. Assume that 5% of all stores selling CDs are near a university. They've had sales drop by 7%. This gives you a whopping 0.35% sales hit. Not looking terribly significant.
Your second link seems to be another third-party journalist article advertising "GoodNoise". There is a link included to an RIAA statement providing "evidence", but this link is dead. This article, lacking a critical component, supports neither of our cases.
Your third link, to the "pay Lars" site, lists a grand total of $399.00 raised at the time of my viewing (during the writing of this message).
If the number of people on this site is supposed to be representative of the number of people boycotting, then the boycott is in a sorry state indeed.
Let's take the more plausible approach, and say that the ratio of payLars-ers to boycotters is equal to the ratio of boycotters to CD buyers. This boosts the number of assumed boycotters very substantially.
It's still not enough. To make the numbers easier, let's assume that Metallica makes the piddlingly small sum of $4 million on sales. Using the ratios above, this gives an estimate of the number of CD buyers per boycotter as being sqrt($4m / $400), or 100. Again, the boycotters are at at most a 1% level.
Try this again with Metallica's real income. Or better yet, stick to counting boycotters themselves so that you have a real number.
Summary: Your figures serve only to underscore how few boycotters there are, compared to the CD-buying masses.
I eagerly await your rebuttal.
Re:Going to Jail? (Score:2)
Nobody is going after anybody for illegally downloading songs from Napster. No one is going after anyone and requesting proof that they own the CD since they downloaded songs from it. The grounds that the labels, bands and lawyers are using are that the people they're going after are makind their (the artists) copyrighted materials available for download by people who don't have the legal right to do so.
No search of a house is necessary. They can just say "look at this college student. Now look at the 10,000 songs in his shared Napster directory. He made each and every one of these songs available for the entire internet population to download.
It's a point that seems to get overlooked over and over... Napster helps perpetuate it, I think. But the fack of the matter is that no one's is gettting yelled at or risking getting in trouble or being kicked off of napster for downloading songs. That's happening because they're making those songs available to other Napster users...
Well, actually... (Score:2)
...yes, we are. But you keep posting the stories. Too bad I can't filter out any story with "MP3" in the title or story blurb.
Barlow editorial unavailable for a few hours (Score:3)
Bruce
Re:First (Score:2)
This indicates to me greater profit-taking by members of the supply-side, even while more records are sold (remember also that this period has dramatically lowered the costs of production of the physical medium). In fact, this is almost a given with the higher volumes sold (when Britney Spears is becoming a multi-millionaire, it must necessarily be a goldrush).
I am not saying you are dead wrong, but I think the economic picture is optimized for maximum profitability, and maybe we from the outside do not see all revenue outcomes, especially in a mature big-money business.
-L
Re:Take a tip from TMBG (Score:4)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I wish more bands would do things like that. But i don't think we should force any band to do it. If you want to release MP3's, go right ahead. Give away all the music you want, do whatever you want with your music. The catch is you can't make other people do what you want with THEIR music. If TMBG want to give away songs, more power to them. But if Metallica doesn't, you shouldn't steal them. It's similar to the GPL. It's a great license, but just because it's a great license doesn't mean we should force everyone to use it. It's one choice of many, just like releasing MP3's is a choice you can make.
mp4? (Score:2)
"The world doesn't really need more busy people, maybe not even more intelligent people. It needs 'deep people'..."
Re:Napster (Score:2)
just because we don't like the law doesn't give us license to break it
Did you ever study the Boston Tea Party in history class?
The Americans were protesting both a tax on tea(taxation without representation) and the perceived monopoly of the East India Company. [britannica.com]
If it weren't for our ancestors breaking "the law." We'd still be under the rule of Britain.
acm
Re:Is it too late? (Score:2)
Maybe they should spend less time on the net and more time at a job. Back in the Good Old Days(tm)(c)(r) (you know, the stone age like 10 years ago) I had to work so I could buy my favorite CD. Was that so bad? No. I think this is one problem in our country as kids are growing up with no work ethic. Life is so hard I have to download MP3's because I can't afford a $12 CD
Get a job and get over it.
Marcus
Flame all you want, I'll post more.
Theft is NOT a right. (Score:2)
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
Criminals (Score:2)
Yes. The law is clear here. They are violating the record industry's copyrights on the vast majority of downloaded files.
The lawmakers who passed silly IP laws like this?
Yep, lots of them are criminals, but not because they pass silly laws. No law against passing silly laws. And laws which protect the works of an individual are not that silly.
the courts for upholding such laws against public opinion and the constitution?
It's not the court's duty to rule based on public opinion (thank God!). I also don't see how copyright violations are a constitutional issue.
The RIAA for engaging in unethical and monopolistic business practices?
Probably.
Come on, this is silly. Sorry you want all your music for free. It's not legally available for free. That's clear. That's the law. Heck, I don't even think it's a bad law.
Don't get me wrong, when the RIAA tells me it's "illegal" for me to convert my OWN CD to MP3 format, I get really really pissed at their attitude... But you don't have a leg to stand on when you advocate theft of copyrighted material.
---
Re:Is it too late? (Score:2)
Times are a-changin', old fella. Go back to work and get over it.