Senate Judiciary Committee On Digital Music 249
An unnamed correspondent writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the future of digital music at [this link]. Real Video's available from [The Washington Post] or on CSPAN. (I'd recommend using the CSPAN link, it appears to work better). Witnesses include Lars Ulrich of Metallica; Roger McGuinn of The Byrds; Hank Berry, CEO of Napster; Michael Robertson, Chairman and CEO of MP3.com; Fred Ehrlich, President of New Technology, Sony Music Entertainment; Gene Hoffman, Jr., Founder, CEO and President, Emusic.com; Gene Kan, Gnutella developer and Infrasearch founder; Jim Griffin, Founder and CEO, Cherry Lane Music. (A hard copy of their planned statements can be found at [the U.S. Senate Web site]." Of course, whether this is an issue that ought to be handled politically rather than in the marketplace is a question I hope the witnesses get around to in their spare moments.
Biased witnesses! (Score:1)
Limp Bizkit's take on things (Score:2)
Kate
Visit me on the web at http://pornforcomputers.com
Parralells With OpenSource (Score:1)
However in many cases this has proven just not to be true. Coders in the software industry (anologous to Musicians) are now getting payed for producing code that is totally free, and which in theory their companies wouldn't make a dime from (but they somehow do). The software industry, one that has had to deal with non-degrading copies for all of its life has figured out that sometimes its better not to charge for a product. Its also interesting to note that there are several companies that make money by selling free products (linux distributers spring to mind, selling CD's and service contracts for their Free versions of the OS).
In short the recording industry, the RIAA in particular, needs to take a long hard look at alternative revanue models, and accept the fact that the world is changing into a place where information DOES long to be free.
Pendragn
Shocking! (Score:1)
Perhaps this is the reason Ray Lane resigned here recently, he knew about the Napstergate tapes!
Re:Uh. All The Players? (Score:1)
Orrin Hatch, musician (Score:2)
Re:pissed off about the testimonies (Score:2)
carrying this over, it is up to the record labels to create both an incentive for the user to buy the cd, but also to make it so that either a user can't rip the mp3's or won't really want to. napster is only the transport mechanism.
Did you read either article? (Score:1)
They both made incredibly good points and both essentially said the same thing.
Big Rant (Score:4)
Just how many morons are there in the media? This is more than annoying, it gets kind of dangerous to know that this kind of misinformation is being propagated.
MP3.Com at least made an effort to protect artist's rights. Their regular mp3.com service doesn't even have anything to do with established contract-bound artists, and everyone in the know is familiar with their security strategy at my.mp3.com, which you have to admit was pretty effective. The security criticism was about how it was easy to give a friend your cds and have them put it in their accounts. But the lawsuit didn't have anything to do with piracy. The stupid thing about the lawsuit was that if the users had actually uploaded the tracks rather than uploading proof, the whole thing would have been legal. The whole thing only hinged on a technicality. my.mp3.com is an example of something that followed the spirit of the law, but not the letter.
Napster, however, is the opposite. Their whole defense strategy can be put in the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" category. "Oh, we just have a technology that enables people to do something illegal. We're not doing it OURSELVES." They write a utility whose express purpose is to enable this, and then put on a disclaimer saying they don't condone it. Uh, bullshit? And finding undiscovered music through it? Please. You search off of artist name and title. Yeah, you can browse other tracks in a person's directory, but I'd love to see the comparitive percentage usage of that feature. They are following the letter of the law, and not the spirit.
Their new strategy of arguing copyrights might work, but it still doesn't help ultimately. Say they win, and there's a precedent that trading any record company's tracks for free are legal. What about the artist?? Are they just SOL? For those of lazy morality, Napster is cool because they are against the RIAA. But Napster is also against the artist, and ultimately, the consumer. Lazy consumers can convince themselves that going against the RIAA and going against the artist are the same thing, but they are very different. Using the service and hurting artists will eventually hurt the consumer. Using Napster to protest the RIAA is short-sighted and immature.
For those interested in consumer rights versus just getting something for nothing, a real solution is to investigate the anti-competitive practices of the RIAA, and champion artists' rights. Don't defend your "right" to download and keep your free tracks from Napster and Gnutella. And be honest with yourself when you are telling yourself you are only downloading the tracks to see if you want to buy the album. How often have you rationalized this and then realized that the unpaid-for mp3s are still on your disk and playlist weeks later?
Protest the RIAA. Throw away your Napster client. Show your support for micropayment solutions. Write your congressman, write your favorite artists. And to take a break, go to your local open-mic night and drop some coins into the tip jar. Being a responsible consumer doesn't mean figuring out how to get the most while costing yourself the least; damn the consequences. It means to do your part to protect the free economy. To be responsible consumers, it is OUR duty to know when our actions are damaging or constructive in the long run.
tune
See this Interview with Lars and James Hetfield (Score:2)
http://www.joecartoon.com/buddie s/chaos/index.html [joecartoon.com]
or download a stand-alone
http://www.joecartoon.com
Ohh, man...
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:4)
This is where people like yourself just don't get it. Back in the days before the Internet, high bandwidth and GHz computers, consumers did not have the ABILITY to distribute music like their commercial counterparts
Now fast forward to the year 2000 where kids in dorms have FATTER PIPES than many corporate sites and you have a serious problem. Regardless if you're sharing your
The dynamic has shifted from one guy bootlegging a few tapes for his buddies to people sharing hundreds of thousands of albums that can be downloaded in a matter of MINUTES by anyone in the free world. Non-commercial or not, the IMPACT is what matters
Think of it this way
This is why your argument for "non-commercial" duplication and distribution is deemed to fail, it's a brave new world out there were the individual has gained a tremendous amount of publishing power, more than anyone could have ever dreamed
RHAT (Score:1)
Re:Lars (Score:1)
"Metallica used to annoy their parents; now that they're old enough to have children they annoy their kids."
"They'll be lucky to be playing at a Holiday Inn 3 years from now. They've pissed off a lot of people."
Re:Cost of Piracy my ASS (Score:1)
"Perfect digital copy" is a tough thing to pin down. I'd be willing to bet that most of us, given the average listening environment, couldn't hear the difference between a CD and a MiniDisc recording, even though the MD clips some of the dynamic range (why Sony is kosher with it). And there are people arguing that nothing less than DVD quality sound (with a dynamic range beyond what most humans are capable of appreciating) is the only way to go. I suppose CD is the nice break-even point. It's going to be a bitch to supercede.
I agree w/your points regarding the "price of piracy" - well said.
What rights??? (Score:1)
Just because the technology exists to allow you to pirate music, doesn't mean that you have a right and obligation to do so.
Re:Here's a good quote: (Score:1)
More Fodder (Score:4)
I can't wait for the inevitable campchaos [campchaos.com] cartoon about this one...the first 3 were hillarious....beer GOOD!
On a serious note, I hope they talk to people other than artists, record execs, and software makers about this. It would lend a great deal of credibility if your average mullet-head Joe Schmoe came up to the mic and testified that he ended up buying the entire Selloutica collection (well, up until the black album anyway)after hearing Sanitarium.mp3 from some random site. But then, given congress' inclination toward corporate welfare, don't expect a balanced & representative set of speakers.
I think the real issues here are twofold;
Some bands are starting to get this, and have (thankfully) put pressure on their management to adapt. It's not like we're going to be able to ban the MP3 format, eradicate Napster & Gnutella and their derivatives, or prosecute/sue everyone who does pirate a song. It's simply a change in the market that the record companies are going to have to deal with.
Re:Swimming upstream (Score:1)
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:1)
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
James hurt his back! (Score:1)
Re:pissed off about the testimonies (Score:1)
So if someone created, say, a bag that allowed people to carry conceled weapons into secure areas, such as airports, the creator of the product would not be somehow responsible for the use of the product?
Actually, legally speaking, no they would not. Just because you make a product does not mean that you must ensure that everyone who uses your product uses it in the manner intended. You might want to include some warnings or something, but you are not legally responsible for their actions while using your product.
Think about it this way, if someone were to kill another person using a spoon, would the maker of that spoon be responsible for the killing?
Thats an extreme example, but it points out how far something like this goes.
P.S. People already manufacture guns that I could walk into almost any airport in the world with. Think High temerature/preassure ceramics, caseless ammo, and plastic bullets.
Re:What a bunch of wankers! (Score:1)
Recognition does not put food on the table. And everyone's got to eat.
Think before you speak.
Re:How the times change... (Score:1)
Metallica isn't going against MP3s now... they are going against Napster.
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:1)
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium , or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
It doesn't say that a consumer can make recordings without being sued, it says that recording equipment manufacturers can't be sued for making stereos capable of making recordings, tape manufacturers can't be sued for making tapes, and neither can be sued if the person who buys the stereo or tape and uses them for non-commercial purposes. It also doesn't say anything in cases where the user uses equipment to make commercial copies...
IANAL. YMMV. RADBTM. HAND.
--Fesh
Aye, it be. (Score:1)
Ahh, but you see...
- Music can be transformed into files, through the miracle of modern technology.
- Gnutella lets you share files.
- Thus, Gnutella lets you get music you shouldn't have.
- Thus... Gnutella = SATAN!
After the evil people who wrote gnutella get shut down, the government and RIAA intend to look into other sinister methods of getting music you havn't paid for, including something used by "31337 h5x0rz" called "FTP"...Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:1)
with humpy love,
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:1)
--Fesh
Re:Viral Marketing? (Score:1)
Ironically, Speakeasy (my provider, and the ones with the 'screw metallica' ads here on /.) has a usage policy that pretty much says "We know you're going to be running a server. Duh! Why else would you want broadband access?". They also provide static IPs standard. But for the most part, you're right. Providers don't want you filling your upstream bandwidth.
Update the law (Score:1)
<p>
For certain, whatever the outcome is, people will continue trading them. Still I applause the Senate for reviewing the material!<p>
Take this seriously, folks (Score:5)
The [record companies] v. Napster lawsuit has finally brought to light the significance of digital music to Congress. Billions of dollars are at stake here--a figure big enough to catch Congress' attention--and an entire sector of the economy will be impacted in ways that will shape the landscape of intellectual property policy for decades.
You must get involved NOW while you still can, to push the tide of the law on our side rather than on the record companies'.
If you value your freedom--freedom to link and freedom to copy music for noncommercial purposes--now is the time to write your senators and demand that any legal issues regarding non-commercial copying of music be settled once and for all. We continue to live in a legal grey area in which recording company lawyers, backed by tremendous wads of cash, have the ability to coerce people to concede to their demands to stop all activity involving music that does not involve paying them $16+ for a brand new CD or tying the listening of digital music to our fingerprints.
While there is little doubt that linking should be made unequivocably legal, Congress could seriously limit our ability to share music--or even make backup copies--if we don't make clear our desires while their ears are open. Fight now, and fight hard! Make your opinions known, through phone call, letter or FAX.
Don't let the RIAA run away with our rights!
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:1)
with humpy love,
Re:Lars (Score:1)
My favorite part... Orrin compliments Lars! (Score:2)
"I was listening to Metallica this morning in my office," said [Sen. Orrin] Hatch, drawing laughter for the packed committee room. "Pretty darn good," he added.
My god. Look, Dee Snyder v. Tipper Gore - THAT was rock'n'roll. Zappa testifying - THAT's rock'n'roll. But Orrin Hatch, Orrin freakin' Hatch, of UTAH for chrissakes, complimenting your band in front of the whole nation... that's just sad. One minute you're an inexplicably popular headbanging band that has, in spite of itself, managed to cling to a few shreds of dignity, then suddenly whammo! Orrin Hatch digs ya.
It's like someone took away the Sammy Hagar and replaced him with Pat Boone. You'd have to feel a twinge of sympathy for Eddie Van Halen, no matter how much you hated him.
I say the only honorable path left for Metallica, besides seppuku, obviously, is the David Lee Roth path... squeeze into that rhinestone jumpsuit and brush up on your Mel Torme, Lars - next stop: Vegas!
Re:Swimming upstream (Score:2)
I once spent 14 hours on a flight to London, sitting next to a guy who was an independent accountant - he did audits on Music companies. My credibility on this, as gossip goes, is left as an excercise for the reader.
Suffice it to say, that the stories he told me, about how badly these guys cheat - and we're just talking about taxes and money-laundering here, they opened my eyes. Nobody more than me wants to see $3-$5/song die like a witness to Bill Clinton's sexual misadventures. But the thing is, they think they can get away with it. And why not? $19.99/CD is working. Even in the face of this rampant piracy, they're making obscene amounts of money.
There is the very valid argument that music labels and all that other stuff, DO serve a valid purpose. To filter out garbage. We've suggested an alternative model. But it can't work if the prices are set artificially high. Because you'll get this artificial market of the only people who can afford music (the bulk of the market) being 13-14 year old girls with rich daddies who want to spoil them rotten, and thus will give them TONS of money to buy a CD. The girlies didn't work for it, they don't know the value of it, so it's an easy sale. That is what is going on today, my friends. The music industry is happy to stick it to this niche market, they're profitable, handsomely. And they're getting their blowjobs.
Lars said one intersting thing in his latest address. He said he had no problem seeing the music industry move on to a new technology, one that was cheaper for production, and passed on the savings to the consumer . Also, if it protected the artists rights. I'm totally down with that. But what Lars didn't say, and probably won't say because he's a chicken shit, or maybe too dumb and rich to know, that CD's were supposed to be cheaper than LP's, and the cost savings were supposed to be passed onto the consumer. Instead, they were sold at a premium, because of the supposedly higher-quality audio, and prices have pretty much not gone down with the cost of production. If you go to non-mainstream CD sources (ie. Christian music, independents, what have you), you'll see CD's retailing at $4-$8. Perhaps closer to reality.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Ok.. this begs the question(s)... (Score:2)
How do they plan to get people to buy this crap? Will it be forced upon us by the government? Will the major industry players all get together on this one to make sure we don't get a choice? Will consumers be willing to fight them on it? Will we decide to give them all the power by letting them foist this stuff upon us? Will viable alternatives exist? What does the industry plan to do to deter us from buying alternatives?
Judging from the past, I suspect that most of us will be good little sheeple and buy these products.
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:5)
This is why your argument for "non-commercial" duplication and distribution is deemed to fail, it's a brave new world out there were the individual has gained a tremendous amount of publishing power, more than anyone could have ever dreamed
Luckily your argument is completely without any legal merit. According to the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, any non-commercial sharing of music is in fact perfectly legal and not copyright infringement at all. The method, scale, or "impact" of the copying has nothing to do with it. Period. So long as there is no fee or other quid pro quo exchange, trading music on Napster is not infringement.
What's more astonishing is how your argument is so completely...well, to be fair, so completely based on ethical norms which are opposite mine. You realize that the Internet has moved us into a "brave new world" of content distribution, where, amongst other things, music is no longer a scarce good (like, for example, a car) but a potentially nonscarce good (like air). According to any economic theory (especially free market Capitalism), goods only need to be controlled and sold for profit when they are scarce; once a good is ubiquitous, it ought to be freely available. It has nothing to do with how much the good is worth to someone--after all, air to breathe is undeniably worth more than any other possible good, but any economic system which suggested that air should be charged for would be both unconscionable and plain dumb.
The fact that our technology has partially moved music from the scarce category to the ubiquitous category should be cause for celebration, not handwringing and worry. Napster and programs like it are providing a positive service for humanity (or at least that portion with Internet access), and so are those who, like the poster you responded to, choose to share their music with others.
Yet you apparently don't see it this way at all. You view the "brave new world" the Internet has moved us all into, which allows everyone to (just in this example) share in all the world's musical art, as a negative to be handled with some extra-legal sense of "accountability"--which, by the tone of your post, apparently means "ignoring the possibilities inherent in the Internet".
Perhaps you cling to this view out of the mistaken idea that non-commercial sharing of music is illegal (it isn't) or that Napster is somehow "stealing" money from musical artists (click here [salon.com] to find out who's really stealing money from artists). Maybe you somehow believe it would be a bad thing if the record labels had to undergo actual competition to their monopoly-abusing business model; but even there you would be misinformed, because not only are both CD sales and the outrageous average selling price of CD's up for the past year, but studies show that most Napster users buy more CD's after Napster than they did before, and that their use of Napster is primarily as a sampling tool to try out songs before they commit to buying an album. (This is covered under the fair use doctrine of copyright law, BTW.)
I don't know. But I'm choosing to believe that you're simply misinformed or haven't thought the issues through completely rather than that you're against people being able to listen to more music, against economic progress through new technologies, or are just a record company shill.
So get informed: Napster's legal brief [napster.com] (PDF file) is a wonderful place to start. Of course, many people do disagree on this issue; still, I'd request that you at least read the brief through before making up your mind.
I'll take a stab at that... (Score:5)
I'll take a stab at explaining... Or at least why *I* would rather see Napster win than RIAA:
Part of it, of course, is my [probably over simplistic] ideology as a programmer. The guys at napster and gnutella each came up with a neat idea, and translated it into program code. It was never originally intended to be malicious, or to cause harm to anyone or any individual. IMHO, acts of creativity that are not inherrantly malicious should not be made illegal.
And as for the point that Napster is a corperate entity, and profits from people using it, my general reaction is "so what?". So they've managed to find a way to offer a service for free, and profit themselves in the process. So has Yahoo, along with most search engines. So have a lot of websites. (Slashdot included, I believe). The fact that someone profits from something does not, in my mind, immedietly make it evil.
I hope Napster wins this one, because if it doesn't, it will set what is in my mind a VERY dangerous precedent. Consider: Napster is not specifically designed to pirate, it is simply designed to move
If RIAA wins and shuts down Napster, then all they will have done is cured a symptom, not a disease. The problem is the people. If they want to pirate things, they will. Using whatever tools they find most convienent. Napster is under fire because at the moment, it is an extremely convienent tool. If you remove Napster, then all that you will accomplish is to remove one outlet, and force people to move to a different one. And if you continue the precedent of outlawing anything that could be used in a criminal activity, then before too long, we'll all end up living in a world of Nerf, programming in BASIC.
Re:Because there's no such thing as "free nothing" (Score:3)
So can drugs. Somehow I think that the cartels would be a bit less tolerant than the record industry if you stole drugs that they had produced. If you want to improve your mood, calm down or dance, grow your own, don't complain that others are charging money for product.
Are there any practical pay-for-music solutions? (Score:2)
Will anyone buy a copy-protected MP3 when they could get an unprotected one for free? Are you going to be able to play them at home and at work, or will they be attached to one computer? If a file you paid $1 for suddenly won't play because it thinks you pirated it, can you return it? Will SDMI-protected files play on Linux? Will the player be free (as in anything)? Will anyone use the new, restrictive player instead of Winamp/xmms?
Would you pay $1.50, as Gene suggests, to a random Napster user? Would you give him your credit card? Or would you grab a free MP3 off Gnutella in half the time it would take to enter your payment details into a new pay-napster?
All this talk is well and good, but these are questions that need to be addressed if we're going to advocate that the music industry move towards these new technologies.
OT: Lars (Score:3)
----
Down the Hatch... (Score:5)
Funny bit is, he did the same thing we've all been doing. Finding a group you wouldn't normally listen to a hearing what they sound like.
In a sad way he proved what some of us have been saying but didn't even notice it.
Malk-a-mite
handled in the marketplace? (Score:3)
This seems not to make sense; maybe I'm misunderstanding timothy. We're talking about a marketplace which could not exist save by political action (ie. IP law). We're dealing with the rules upon which the marketplace is predicated. A market-based solution doesn't quite make sense in this context; like we're trying to decide on the rules for chess, and someone proposes we settle the matter on the chessboard.
Re:Because there's no such thing as "free nothing" (Score:2)
Somehow I think that the cartels would be a bit less tolerant than the record industry if you stole drugs that they had produced.
Sure, but if you take a seed from the drugs you buy from them, plant it in your window box and give the resulting plant to your friend, will they care? I doubt it.
where's Courtney? (Score:2)
Re:Lars (Score:2)
napster doesn't do anyting illegal. Not a thing. The suit is total bullshit.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:Because there's no such thing as "free nothing" (Score:2)
As far as saying that you don't want to hurt the artists but don't mind hurting the record companies, you have to realize that alot of the time you can't have one without the other. Like it or not, the record companies ARE the middle men. If you take money out of their pockets then you take money out of the bands pockets as well.
Re:pissed off about the testimonies (Score:2)
A couple of ntpks
And neither of them are making any money off the deal, yet both of them are paying with effort and bandwidth.
And since currently their primary/only business is in enabling people to share/swap/copy music, one can presume that's how they intend to make their money.
That would make sense. They are providing the service of allowing music fans to listen to and share music. To make a somewhat real world analogy (keeping the same product and action) : Napster is a warehouse where millions of people can come and trade or borrow music from others. To keep the analogy real world, Napster also provides Personal Transporter Devices, which can instantly teleport you to the warehouse from any computer terminal. ALSO, Napster has created an amazing paging system (the Googo Searchamatic 5280) within the warehouse, where you can just shout out an artists name or a song title, (wait a bit) and you get a set of buttons you can press to jump immediately to the location of the music within the warehouse. You then take a few moments to fire up your Really Neat-o Replicator and make an exact copy of their music, while leaving their supply alone. You can do this as often as you like. Later, you can leave the Napster warehouse, and do anything you like. Including breaking other pre-existing laws or not, depending on your personal preferences. This is the service Napster offers.
Whether or not they should be allowed to profit from offering such a totally amazing out of this world service, is now left up to the courts. Personally, as a consumer, this is the type of service I expect from a company (because as a consumer I have a right to unrealistic expectations). I think they should be able to, for the reasons listed above.
And Napster devised the system that allowed this to happen. That's why Napster's bad.
Napster (or at least their real world equivalent) is damn cool. Whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up to a California(?) judge. But I seriously doubt, either way, that this will be the end of it. (and Gnutella gets to totally avoid the "company, VC, profit" thing.)
If you think music should be free, why don't you go out and make some for us and share it with the world??
You can divide these tasks. Some can make, some can share. That makes it easier for everyone. [wahcentral.net]
--
Viral Marketing? (Score:2)
From someone including GNU in the name of their software package, I found this all a little surprising.
Of paritcular note was his appeal for viral marketing. This one I hadn't heard of, despite digging through the comments of quite of few copyright/IP/now mp3 slashdot stories. Unfortunately he spent very little time describing what he seemed to consider the complete economic solution to the "problem". It seems like an semi-interesting idea, if anyone can provide more information about it. It doesn't seem like it'd be actually be viable, but I wouldn't mind knowing more about the full idea.
Finally, from Gene Kan: "When the telephone company comes to your house to install your DSL, they might charge 150 USD for installation and 50 USD per month. Using that line, an infinite amount of music and be downloaded with little hassle."
Downloaded yes. Uploaded, no. A broadband connection for $50 USD a month does not equate to unlimited bandwidth.
Many, many universities are now enforcing bandwidth caps (and outright blocking napster). I have never seen a sub-$100/month (unmetered) connection that did not prohibit servers, which napster generally counts as. Crackdowns on high-bandwidth servers are spotty around my town - however friends of mine around town have been shut down and forced to pay reconnection/penalty fees for Quake servers, ftp servers, and yes, napster from their Cable/DSL providers because they were sucking up (or actually, shooting out) enough bandwidth to draw the hammer down. My ISP, which provides a T1 to my apartment complex, banned napster a few months ago because the amount of traffic it was causing was incredible. While we do have a no-servers clause in our usage agreement, I've never heard of it being enforced, but once the traffic was great enough - bang.
Usage agreements are, among other things, a sort of limitation on bandwidth.
Once DSL/Cable rollout has stabilized in some areas and the companies mature, I am pretty sure you'll see the enforcement on usage agreements begin to tighten significantly. The hoardes of fellow napster users or the anonymity of FreeNet may protect you from violating copyright laws, but these will not protect you from your ISP asking for a lot more money to support your bandwidth habits. There may be a day when broadband connections with no restrictions on usage are availible for really cheap and ISPs have so much bandwidth availible they see no reason to charge bandwidth hogs any less than casual users, but that day is not anytime soon. The real crux here is - most people will pay for broadband regardless of whether that means they can run napster, gnutella, freenet, or not.
That said, assuming your primary outlet of bandwidth usage is serving up and sucking down mp3s in some form or another, would prefer paying for "legitmate" mp3's at a much lower cost than current CD prices, or would you prefer paying your ISP a hefty sum for a connection that will allow the "free" exchange of pirated files?
How the times change... (Score:5)
You know, I honestly wonder why Metallica is going against MP3s now...[ insert conspiracy theory here ]
--
Re:Expand gas gouging probe to CD prices... (Score:2)
Ha, what a farce. The Record Industry maintains a Barrier to Entry for all artists, which is essentially a legal monopoly. Until independant internet distribution takes off (and I mean REALLY takes off), this is the ONLY way for most artists to get a chance at making any money - sign their souls over to the devil.
-Paul Furio
Static Engine
http://www.staticengine.com
Because there's no such thing as "free nothing" (Score:3)
Just for kicks, imagine a worker in a record store (who does not own any of the CD's he is selling... he's just a clerk), copies a CD. His company realizes this, fires him, and takes the CD from him (assuming it was on company media, using company computers). The company owners don't want the CD, so they throw it away.
who owns the CD? If someone were to stroll by, could they pick it up and keep it? Are we no longer allowed to take things others throw away? If they do take it, would that be piracy, and if so, who is guilty?
Now, my point is, claiming that something easily transferable, yet nontangable in essence is "property" that can be owned is a fallacy. The fact that there is a multi billion dollar industry built upon it is unfortunate, but that's no reason to stop, well, reason. It's an evil allowed by another evil.
Conclusion:
Basically, some insanely rich people will lose some of their money (which they acquired through an "evil"), and some other less talented people will have to choose actual professions. boo hoo.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Re:Swimming upstream (Score:3)
First, please keep in mind that Gnutella doesn't have anything to do with getting around copy protection. Gnutella is simply a way to distribute files, no more, no less. Gnutella doesn't help crackers (please, no "hacker" vs "cracker" flames) break copy protection, just distribute the cracked files and/or utilties to crack those files.
Back in high school, I'd just borrow somebody's tape and copy it. There's always a way around copy protection.
You're 100% correct in that statement, as we have seen in the past. Copy protection methods have come and gone, and as of yet, none have withstood the ultimate test: time and ingenuity.
I feel the largest problem for the RIAA is they don't seem to have very much technical knowledge to employ in this argument. If they want to look at the issue from all sides, they should hire some geeks, have them research and report copy prevention techniques and ways around them in order to get a larger, "big picture" perspective of what they're "fighting" against.
The reason I say they should hire some geeks is becasue, quite simply, you'll never be able to make something that is 100% copy protected, and hopefully these geeks can enlighten them to this fact. Two cases in point: first, the drivers. That's right folks, the drivers. If any of you haven't heard about this theory before, decrypted data can be captured at the device driver level. All it takes is someone to write a modified Sound Blaster driver which will capture the data right before it's sent to the hardware (ie: sound card and speakers). The second case is capturing at the hardware level. This can be either as simple as putting a microphone up to your speakers and recording it back to the drive. Sure, not as good of quality, blah blah blah, but a copy none the less. The other example of capture at the hardware level is something I have seen on a few posts here on Slashdot as the past: digital or an alternative output from the sound device (sound card). Can't crack that encrypted music file? Play it and send the output to some sort of recording device (Sony Minidisc, Tape Player, input on another sound card on the machine, etc)
I hate to give them ideas, but here's what the RIAA really needs to do in order to take the next real step in copy protection: copy protection must be implemented at the hardware level. That's right, a special sound device (sound card) and perhaps output device (speakers, headphones, etc) that makes some sort of "secure" connection to eachother so that no decrypted data can be captured on the computer/device itself. Now, this still won't deter the old microphone method (you'll never be able to get around that one. If you can hear it, you can record it.), but it will deter the alternate output method, along with the driver method.
Oh yes, and please don't get me wrong. Copy protection at the hardware level wouldn't stop crackers, no siree Bob. It would make it harder, but keep in mind, the word "impossible" is a very strong, and often misused word.
Re:The legality of Gnutella (Score:3)
Record companies will go AAC (Score:2)
Unlike
Also, AAC files are designed to work closely with current copyright protection technologies, so it is a format that is supported by the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI). I think it's possible to encode AAC files so while you can download it for free, the file will become unusable after so many plays.
In fact, already a number of electronic manufacturers will soon sell portable players that can play AAC files. And we should see a proliferation of AAC player programs for Windows and Macintosh very soon.
Odd, because... (Score:2)
... she spends the entirety of the rest of the article refuting the arguements of him and his RIAA puppetmasters, affirming many of the pro-MP3 arguements, and does a fair bit of villification (of the anti-MP3 / geeks suck / napster must die cadre) of her own.
Nowhere does she demonise geeks as lars does... instead she takes issue (on the pro-MP3 side) with beancounter types, venture capitalists specifically (does *anyone* REALLY *like* dealing these guys?), calling them "sucka VCs". In fact, she later claims that "As a user, I love Napster", and she even goes so far as to quote Snow Crash. Sure sounds like the *bulk* of the article is geek-friendy to me.
As for that ONE instance (out of SIX pages) where she claims allegiance with metallica/RIAA... well, your guess is as good as mine. But that's ONE inconsistency in an overwhealming pro-MP3/geek article.
Perhaps YOU need to reread the article.
I hardly think that one soundbyte quote equates to 'commending lars throughout the article'. And the only (pro MP3) people she calls anything close to a moron are venture capitalists, who she calls "suckers" (which might not be far from the truth, given the so-called dot-com-collapse of late).
And it's cute how you completely skirted my original point on how Love was articulate and well reasoned; while uh, lars was, well uh, totally, like, disjointed, er... inarticulate, and um... disjointed.. oops, did I uh, repeat myself?
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:2)
Don't you think that the media companies' agenda will be to ammend the Audio Home Recording Act, based exactly on the type of arguments that DaBuzz makes?
We're talking about senators here, not judges. The fact that senators are getting involving is a pretty good hint that someone wants the law changed. Saying that the 1992 act gives you the right to distribute nocommercially, totally misses the point. That act may be irrelevant pretty soon. Heads up.
---
Re:there is no such thing as a balanced view (Score:5)
Copying work without permission is illegal and wrong in many cases -- but there are certain legitimate types of fair-use copying such as archival backup, translation of purchased work to another data format, sampling for review, study, and parody, etc.
The law should enforce access to these particular exceptions every bit as strongly as it enforces copyright; and the penalties for cutting off the former should be no less severe than the penalties for infringing upon the latter. The purpose of legitimate law is to protect the rights of all concerned parties -- when someone is made an outlaw in the traditional sense (a person excluded from the protection of the law), he has every reason to become an outlaw in the modern colloquial sense (someone who regards the law with contempt and commits crimes whenever he thinks he can profit from it and get away with it).
/.
I think Lars' ending was rockin' (Score:2)
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:2)
But, non-commercial is the whole point. And since you've taken it this far, I get to bring up the other big point "promoting the arts and sciences." This is the whole reason for any type of copyright protection and it is being abused horribly by those who use it. The question is becoming how much of our privacy and right to use digital artifacts overrides the right of the artist to control it. The digital medium allows for huge distribution at almost no cost. By protecting the ultimate right to distribute to the copyright holder (which, BTW, is rarely an artist) you are subsidizing the value of that product. All of the value comes from the protection of the government that we pay for (FBI warnings in front of motion pictures). All the protection should be based on a profit/no-profit situation, or we will be subsidizing life +95 years monopolies to people who can change anything they want for a product that cost nothing to reproduce. And our government will be protecting them with our money to help the products we buy cost more, and have a cost that HAS NO REAL WORLD TIES to its value.
Digital media makes for a different situation.
For a fuller explanation of my position (and the reason I fuckin' hate the attitude of the RIAA) click on the
(now I'm gonna go home and watch the testimony)
--
Depends on which artists you're talking to... (Score:2)
>level-headed people in this whole debate, and
>certainly have a lot to add.
Look, for a moment, at which artitsts argue their cases more articulately... the ones who side WITH the geeks, or the ones that hate the geeks...
First, look at Courtney Love's suprisingly articulate, well thought out, reasoned piece in salon @:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
She put forth a well reasoned arguement on why the RIAA sucks, and why she supports MP3s. She even included a run down on the economics of CD sales, confirming what many people here who know a little about 'the biz' have been saying all along. The artist is *DAMN LUCKY* if she sees a whole 50 cents from a CD sale... the rest disappears into the RIAA void.
No go back through the Slashdot archives and find that pile of disjointed, inarticulate, sometimes incoherent, pile of drivel that finally spewed forth when lars denigned to address
It can be boiled down to:
Napster BAD!
I wish you people would die.
Um... Uh.... Eh... Um... Er...
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:3)
No. That's fair use. People do it all the time while doing research. What do you think those copiers in the libraries are for? If people weren't supposed to be able to copy sections from books and magazines, do you think libraries would spend the money to buy copiers?
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:2)
For a phenomenally good overview of the furor created when printing presses made publishing inexpensive, and thus threatened the profits and power of the traditional publishing houses, see [The Copyright Story] [hawaii.edu].
You'll certainly be able to see the parallels:
- how the publishers told tales of hardship and despair at the loss of their licensing control
- how publishers owned the works, not the authors
- how book piracy increased the popularity of books (and literacy) in Germany
- how authors eventually came to own their own works, instead of the damned publishers
- how copyright was originally intended to promote the development and spread of ideas, and came to be bastardized into mere corporate profits.
This is only one chapter of the fellow's dissertation. Give it a go!
--
I object to the term "pirate" (Score:2)
The LA Times and other major newspapers ran an ad today sponspored by Artists Against Piracy [artistsagainstpiracy.com]. Some well-known and not-so-well-known bands and performers have their names printed in the ad. I suggest the web site is due for a nasty Slashdotting. If they have a contact email address, that inbox should be filled up with your thoughts on the accusation they are making by the very name they chose for the organization (I can't tell if there is a contact email address on the site because it requires Shockwave, for which there is no Solaris plugin).
Re:Swimming upstream (Score:3)
But there is a market-force balance in play here - when you "steal" something, there is still a certain amount of effort and time that goes into the stealing. If the product's price is so low, that stealing it takes more effort than it's worth, then the balance has been achieved. I think we're there, now, with VHS video cassettes. The price of your average movie, $24.99, is low enough that every American can afford it. It's much cheaper than buying two VCR's, gold-plated monster cables, and a Macrovision-defeating filter, and blank tape.
25 cents a song, that's still a bit high in my estimate. More like 5 or 10 cents a song. All we need is a functional micropayments infrastructure, and you'll see Piracy drop off the radar screen faster than a passenger-laden 747 flying over a US Navy anti-aircraft test range. Unfortunately, the figures I'm hearing coming out of the record companies, (Sony), are in the 3-5 US Dollar per song range.
So of course, to command that kind of price, they're going to have to enact some kind of copy protection technology. The point of that isn't to make it impossible to copy. We've beaten that horse, and it smells really, really bad. The point of copy protection technology is to bring the "cost of piracy" up to the level equivalent to what the music companies want to be able to charge.
But as long as music is provided on CD's, in the format it's in today - there will always be people ripping MP3's, and sharing them on the net. Which is why the RIAA is whining to the government for protection. A few MP3 traderz get busted, go to jail, and suddenly, the "cost of piracy" goes up.
This covers their ass while the music industry migrates to a format that's technically easier for them to protect, like whatever evil spawn results from SMDI. I wouldn't buy any new CD-players if I were you, I think they're going the way of the do-do. Some DVD-derived technology will probably take it's place on PC's. And playing music CD's on unlicensed/unsecured hardware will be a thing of the past.
If folks hack that, then there's the DCMA. Raise the "cost of piracy", raise "value of commodity".
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:I object to the term "pirate" (Score:2)
Corporate supporters include the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, the Recording Industry Association of America, and Reciprocal, Inc, Cognicity, myplay, inc., PlayJ, Supertracks and The Walt Disney Company."
RIAA again. Is anyone surprised?
What Congress should hear -- by R. Heinlein (Score:5)
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all." -- Robert A. Heinlein ("Life-Line")
The Unified Theory (Score:2)
The computing paradigm is such.
From earlier concepts of Difference Engine to the ENIAC, the objective remains same - a machine that can takeover the iterative tasks and lets us do the thinking.
The PC revolution put that computing paradigm in a neatly package, on our desktops and laps. It changed the world, it excited many, captured imaginations and affected many. Changed the course of humanity, created heroes and fortunes, but it does do it's job - free us up to think more, achieve more and invent more.
Capitalism is fantastic. One is rewarded for that one unique thing he/she can do - fair and square. Freedom. Whatever one needs to create wealth is right there within oneself - the skill, the motivation, the idea - whatever and a capitalist system.
An awesome paradigm was created by the name of software. Like a work of prose or poetry, software could be sold even though it had the least association with any physical form, it gave a new avtar to the computer it was installed on. The computer could do things that were not thought of originally e.g. a Honda Goldwing gone off-roading.
The paradigm matures. People understand and expect certain things that were assumptions before and hopes before that. The paradigm becomes commodity and people behind it cannot expect same response when there were just hopes.
Software became that arrogant kid. Everybody knows it's a genius and put up with many nuances but it doesn't give up. Corporations continue to charge people to worship in the temple where even though people had a new way of thinking, the ceremonies were ages old, some bordering on superstition and other forced by tradition. Open source comes along, made by people with limited resources for people with limited resources. The resource crunch fuels innovations, smarts and better software for anybody who wanted it. No temples, no cathedrals, just a friendly globe wide bazaar. A method to share intellect and an opportunity to participate, synergize and apply the thoughts that were allowed by the time created by the old paradigm. A group of explorers sharing knowledge by the fire side under a starry sky, because everybody wants to make the journey and amaze oneself, bring stories back to kids and their people. We are in this thing together. Simple.
Intellect and synergy. These are the foundations of all paradigms. Apply that to music. Somewhere music stirs the spiritual intellect, which if put in a summary would be a disaster. If the music does become commodity then it's time has come. Music itself has travelled from palaces, noblemen to everybody - almost. It, like any other paradigm, is going to take the next step - like it or not.
Re:Take this seriously, folks (Score:2)
In any case, the vast majority of musicians barely support themselves from the sale of their recordings under the current system anyways: most live out their careers in debt to their record companies, who force them to pay back all of their costs out of a measly 5% or so royalty from their album sale revenues. Imagine a system where all recordings were available for free, but the artists respectfully requested that their fans support them by paying for the privilege of their music, especially if they really enjoyed what they heard. Of course, the fact that distribution of new songs would be totally unrestricted would mean that many more people would get to hear a given album, and thus enlarge the pool of those who feel it's worth paying the artist who created it; let's say this makes the initial pool three times as large, although I'd say the actual effect will be much more than that. Now let's say that only 1/4 of them bother to pay for it--again, I'd bet more than that will, but we'll be conservative instead. And let's say that the going rate for these direct-to-the-artist donations is 1/3 the cost of a CD.
Even with those assumptions, the artist makes about 5 times as much money under this model than under the current one. When you say Napster is "only a means of distribution", you reveal how little you understand about the current industry model. The only reason artists have been shackled to the record companies for so long is that the record companies used to control the only means of distribution for recorded music. Yes, there are indie labels, but they can't buy the promotion and shelf space at record stores that the Big 4 labels can. By providing artists with a free means of distribution, the Internet allows perhaps an order of magnitude more people to enjoy an artist's music, and allows the artist to reap the complete fruits of their labor, rather than having 95% sucked up by record companies as a perverse sort of "distribution fee". Even allowing for lower prices and people who choose not to pay for their music, artists will be able to earn far more money, and, more importantly, reach many more listeners.
Re:Depends on which artists you're talking to... (Score:2)
This is where you're wrong, artists don't have control over MP3. Metallica is fighting Napster for this specific reason. The artist may have control over whether they sell MP3s, but they don't have control over people sharing MP3s (either legally bought ones, or ones ripped from CD). They can sell MP3s, but as soon as someone buys it, it goes on Napster and no one else has to buy it.
After all, they write and play the music; they're the ones that should have control over how it's distributed and sold, whether releasing some songs on MP3 as teasers, releasing back-catalogue MP3s for really cheap, or not using it at all. The point is, it's the artist's choice, and the artist's control, not some hairbrained exec that thinks they should get several times what "their" artists make.
After all, it should be the artists' choice, non? Some feel getting paid is an extra on top of being heard; for them, MP3 might be ideal. Others feel they should get paid for every song.
It's the artists' choice. The fact that they now have that choice is making some people very, very scared.
The fact of the matter is though that the artist doesn't have any choice. If someone wants to take your CD and rip it to MP3 and share it on Napster, you can't say no to that. That is what this is about. If you want to share your music via MP3, great. More power to you. But there is no way to not have your music shared. It gives the people who want to share a choice, and the people that don't want to share don't get a choice. Which seems a lot like it is now with record labels, only in reverse.
Re:pissed off about the testimonies (Score:2)
If it's a major airline, that regularly inspects luggage for illegal contents and fully cooperates with the U.S. government in using drug-sniffing dogs to inspect luggage and arrest passengers that are trying to smuggle drugs, it's pretty much not their fault.
If it's "Bob's Nudge-Nudge Wink-Wink Airlines" making daily runs from Columbia, no questions asked, they probably can be found at fault by the law. Not quite sure what the legal precedent is, but I'm guessing they could be found guilty as an accomplice of some sort.
Law isn't really as cut-and-dry as, say, computer science, and there is room for people (like judges and juries) to use their own judgement to determine things like intent and acting in good faith. That, I believe, is where Napster is running into trouble. The idea of "Don't blame us! How were we supposed to know there was illegal stuff going on?" doesn't really fly.
Obviously, Napster is not actively doing anything to Metallica. No Napster employee is going out and "hijacking" Metallica songs. But there is the idea of making a reasonable effort to prevent illegal activity on their service, and that's going to be tough for Napster to prove.
Re:Swimming upstream (Score:2)
The public is becoming informed -- and will become a lot more informed as more artists speak out -- about the abusive accounting system of the big music publishers.
There is no way in hell that I will *EVER* pay Sony $3-5 a song for an MP3 that I'm downloading over an Internet connection that *I* have to pay for.
Internet distribution effectively eliminates all the costs of delivery *for the publisher* and places that cost entirely on the consumer. And the consumer then carries *all* the cost of creating a permanent record of the music, either as an MP3 chewing up HD space, a CDROM or a minidisc.
The publishers gain huge advantage. The consumer is put over a barrel and takes it up the bum.
And the artists? They're right there with us consumers, getting buggered for their labour, going broke for being driven to make music.
No *FUCKING* way will Sony see me pay $3-5 a song over the Internet.
But would I pay an artist a buck a song? Damn straight I would, if I knew that the majority of my payment was going to the artist and not a sleazebag that's put her over a barrel.
I've no problem exchanging my money for products of fair value. A song that I listen to frequently -- that's worth a buck.
But only when that buck is making a difference to someone who really counts. And in my books, promoters, DJs, managers and Sony's CEO *DO NOT* count.
--
Re:pissed off about the testimonies (Score:2)
Somebody BOUGHT the Metallica CD.
That person then ripped the mp3s.
They then logged on to the Napster system.
Presumably, they began downloading someone else's music.
And other people started downloading music from them. Not only that, but the music that they're downloading can generally be assumed to be from another user who, like them, bought the CD. Neither of them bought the rights to the music to redistribute it. Neither of them are giving royalties to the band. And Napster devised the system that allowed this to happen. That's why Napster's bad.
No money is being made by anyone in this system (unless a user burns a cd and then ILLEGALLY sells it)
No one's making money right now. But napsters a company. They're taking VC cash. Since no venture capitalist would just give away money, the only assumption that can be made is that Napsters told them of how they intend to make money. And since currently their primary/only business is in enabling people to share/swap/copy music, one can presume that's how they intend to make their money. Hence, Napster will be making money from the artists and labels investments of their time and money.
If drugs are smuggled onto an airplane, is it the airplane's fault or the person carrying the drugs?
Depends on the person and the plane. If the plane crosses the border every night below radar, then not only will the flyer of the plane get in trouble, but in all likelihood, the owner will be busted as well. At the very least, in the US, they'll immediately lose possession of the plane. And we're not talking little Cesna's here... Napsters basically the Jumbo Jet with ton's of hidden compartments compared to every other way in the world you could pirate music.
If you think music should be free, why don't you go out and make some for us and share it with the world??
IP == Intellectual Property (Score:4)
Artists Organize (Score:5)
What was more interesting is that the artists have organized [slashdot.org]. This gives the Courtney Loves and Sheryl Crows (and yes, the Metallicas) a group to work with that isn't the RIAA.
Essentially, to this point it's been:
- RIAA to Napster: Die!
- Napster to RIAA, in response: No, you die!
Now the artists fly in from off the turnbuckle and scream "You both die!"I think the artists are probably the most level-headed people in this whole debate, and certainly have a lot to add. I'm glad they're organized now.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Where are consumer advocates ?? (Score:5)
What they missed were people who've done research on the history and meaning of copyright law in the US. People like RMS writing [gnu.org] or Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig [thestandard.com]. It is critical that the Congress hear from people who actually consider the intent of copyright law (hint - it is not only about making money from one's authorship).
Copyright is intended to pass into public domain after a limited period of monopolism of SOME rights. It is entirely unclear that we SHOULD or CAN enforce draconian copyright laws in cyberspace.
Re:Are there any practical pay-for-music solutions (Score:2)
As soon as you say "everyone knows", someone will disagree with you :-).
I would argue that the majority of musicians do not make a living from music. They have to find other means of paying the bills. It's a bit like sports. An elite few get rich, a somewhat larger group make a living at it, the vast majority make little or no money at it. So are we talking about musicians in the broader sense or the relatively small number of musicians who can quit their day job?
MyMP3 deal (Score:3)
Re:I'll take a stab at that... (Score:2)
The difference between your analogies and Napster is that Napster profits (arguably) at the cost of others and through very little merit of it's own.
"The point is, you can't (well, shouldn't, in my mind) outlaw something, because it MIGHT be used by someone bad to do something bad."
This argument has been beaten to death, but I'll step in for a dip. Per this reasoning, virtually no object should be illegal. From radar detectors to high quality lock picks to assault rifles. Virtually every object has a benign usage - I may want to buy a bunch of Anthrax simply to study it (pardon the extreme example, but I figured since we slid down the slippery slope all the way to banning compilers, I could go the other way).
The world is not black and white. Some tools/objects are far more prone for illegal use (by design or not) than others. If that's just about all it's good for, do you really have a problem considering the tool illegal?
Not to say I think Napster fits into this category - the *technology* behind it is not primarily used for illegal purposes. However the service Napster provides is primarily used for illegal purposes. In my mind, falls into a similar category as Ebay/Yahoo/Ubid/etc, where people sometimes auction illegal items. Should Ebay/Yahoo have any responsibility to monitor their auctions and remove these auctions? In my opinion, yes. The buck has to stop somewhere, and if you're providing a product/service which can potentially conflict with the law (such as, for instance, selling beer/cigs) you have a responsibility to keep yourself within the law.
Applying a little common sense and rationality isn't that hard. In the case of a service like Ebay, which makes an effort to remove the relatively miniscule number of illegal auctions it has, fine. When dealing with something on this scale (rather than being able to check every individual customers ID) a little common sense leeway in dealing with a gray area has to be applied: obviously *everything* won't be caught. In the case of napster, where 95%+ of what your service is facilitating is illegal and you're making no effort to prevent it, you're in a different bag, and you ought to be in trouble.
Now if you have a problem with the legality of the drinking/smoking age or in this case, copyright, that's a different argument, and one I don't think there's much else to be gleaned from.
Easy enough... (Score:2)
<BAD PUN>
Just goes to show, that metallica are the PUPPETS, and *not* the MASTERS.
</BAD PUN>
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Just sent this... (Score:2)
Date: 07/11/00
From: wbriggs@zoo.uvm.edu
Subject: Napster Hearings
To: Senator Leahy
Senator Leahy,
I am writing to you in regards to the recent Senate hearing involving Napster, MP3.com, et al. Being a computer science student at the University of Vermont, I try to keep myself as up to date as possible on technology issues. Having met you (briefly) in Washington during a trip to Princeton Model Congress and seeing that you also are knowledgeable in technology issues, I felt comfortable in sending this message. I am deeply concerned about the results of these proceedings. My concern is not simply for Napster. This may perhaps sound selfish, but never having used the Napster software, the demise of that particular company would not be of much concern to me, although I am conversant with the type of technology that Napster employs. My worry is that, if legislation were to be written in order to address the issue of online music, the effects could be farther reaching than first thought. It is possible that services will find themselves responsible for information that belongs to their users. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most of the online community, this would be extremely unfortunate. This would be similar to claiming that a telephone company is responsible for threatening phone calls; yes, these phone calls are illegal, but legitimate uses certainly exist for the telephone. Furthermore, it should be the responsibility of the _individual_ to not perform illegal acts, not the entity that provides a service to the individual. I have read the testimony given by Lars Ulrich, a member of the band Metallica, and I was extremely disheartened at the many fallacies contained therein. Unfortunately, many things that he gives as "facts" are merely gross simplifications and/or misconceptions made by someone not familiar with technology. I would ask you to look at statements made by another artist, Courtney Love, that contain a different point of view. I look forward to hearing your views on this matter (either directly or indirectly through the news), and will be reachable by email only for the summer; snail mail will be forced to await my return from CA. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
William Briggs
I would recommend that anyone who is able do the same. A list of members of the judiciary committee is available here.
---------
"There's no swimming in the heavy water, no playing in the acid rain.
there is no such thing as a balanced view (Score:3)
Sample Letter (Score:2)
Rep. *****,
Congress is presently holding hearings on electronic music formats, such as Napster, to determine how they should be regulated and whether they pose a threat to copyright.
Copyright law has become an issue of essential importance, as it affects not only our economy, but also our fundamental freedom of expression. Congressional regulation of electronic music can have a chilling effect on free speech on the Internet, just as Title V of the Telecommunications Reform Bill of 1996 (the so-called Computer Decency Act) almost had a chilling effect on Internet speech. Please keep the First Amendment in mind when considering any bill that affects electronic music formats -- or for that matter, any other 'intellectual property' bills.
I've included an article from the Oregon Law Review with this email; it is written by free software advocate Richard Stallman and is well worth the consideration of yourself and your peers on this issue.
Sincerely, (name, address, city, state, ZIP+4)
The Second Amendment Sisters [sas-aim.org]
Transcript of Lars's Testimony (Score:2)
Re:Down the Hatch... (Score:2)
It's all X (Score:3)
I must say, this sort of sentiment often makes me wonder about people with advanced educations. Each one seems to have his own mantra. Everything is biological. Everything is about power. Everything is about your childhood. Everything is about money. Everything is math. Most people with advanced educations want to reduce everything to their favorite something, and they've all got different somethings.
In the present case, I disagree: political systems seem to me an effect of the base functionality of society. I would be inclined to call that base commerce. Which is a function of lots of people acting according to what they think is their own best interests.
Hence, I think in the present case, we can ignore the politicians without much peril at all. Society will do as it pleases, and the politicians will (eventually) dance along.
what about the brief? (Score:2)
exaggerated claims (Score:3)
First off, many of the people downloading a song start multiple downloads(to find a good connection), and some might have a previous copy, and are just trying to get a higher quality version. Also, since an album includes say 15 songs, you can't claim that each downloaded song represents one lost sale.
But most importantly, this whole notion rests on the assumption that if not for Napster, people would be buying the songs. That's not true. Many people could just switch back to FTP sites if Napster was gone, but even those who didn't would be unlikely to spend their money on the music. I download tons of music from Napster, but before that I'd only ever bought one CD. I didn't think buying a CD was worth it, so I never did. If I couldn't get the songs off the net, I just wouldn't listen to them at all.
I'd like to see the music industry put out some real proof of it's claims of lost revenue. I see nothing of the sort: they're revenue has actually been going up recently.
It's ALL Political (Score:2)
Almost all of the controversey surrounding digital music involves copyright infringement (*sigh*duh). Those were legislative decisions made by politicians. Ultimately those people will decide all of our crucial issues.
Quit dissing politics. It's the way this society makes the rules. Either take up arms or work within the system. Or ignore the politicians at your very great peril. They're easily bought--who has more money, the Napsterites or the RIAA?
Sapere Aude!
Yes, it's a political issue. (Score:2)
This is (at least at the moment) a political issue - it can't (unfortunately) be sorted out by the marketplace.
And why not? Because when the opposition (esp. Metallica and the RIAA) bring the judiciary into the fight, it becomes a legal issue. Bad, but there is really no choice.
Be involved - this will become precedent, whatever happens....
Sen. Hatch gets it. (Score:2)
Working at a company with their own take [destinympe.com] on selling music online, I can attest here that Sen. Hatch is so right. The major labels are in complete Fear-And-Loathing denial mode of what online distribution means to their business model (at a corporate level, I hasten to add; individual employees are often very savvy indeed) and after a few months of watching developments, I've come to the conclusion that the existing labels need to be Amazoned by somebody who gets online distribution before they start acting sensible on their own.
Yup... (Score:2)
>so they throw it away. who owns the CD? If
>someone were to stroll by, could they pick it
>up and keep it?
Once it's in the trash, it's fair game for anyone who wants to grab it and do whatever they like. There was a court case, quite awhile back, (I dunno if it went all the way to the supremes tho), that affirmed this.
This was established back in the AT&T monopoly phone phreaking days, when ma bell tried to sue people who took discarded copies of phoneCo manuals.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Re:Depends on which artists you're talking to... (Score:2)
However, she did come out swinging on the side of MP3, saying it took control out of the hands of labels and "sucka VCs". What something like MP3 does (and what's really making the RIAA crap itself) is the possibility that they are no longer the gatekeepers. Finally, there is a format that can easily be distributed far and wide that the artists have control over.
After all, they write and play the music; they're the ones that should have control over how it's distributed and sold, whether releasing some songs on MP3 as teasers, releasing back-catalogue MP3s for really cheap, or not using it at all. The point is, it's the artist's choice, and the artist's control, not some hairbrained exec that thinks they should get several times what "their" artists make.
After all, it should be the artists' choice, non? Some feel getting paid is an extra on top of being heard; for them, MP3 might be ideal. Others feel they should get paid for every song.
It's the artists' choice. The fact that they now have that choice is making some people very, very scared.
I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA tries to advocate legislation banning "music formats that do not offer copyright protection" or some such crud. And I also wouldn't be surprised to see certain software entities throw their support behind such a drive.
It's time to be afraid if you're a consumer. It's time to fight for your rights as an artist; even if you don't like having your music copied endlessly by kiddiez, at least fight to have the choice of using a free format there for those artists that wish to use it.
Re:Artists Organize (Score:2)
[8P=
Re:Artists Organize (Score:3)
You might have heard about this a few days ago, but my submission got rejected.
This one didn't.
from the link
The Recording Industry Association of America is a special interest group that claims from time to time to lobby on behalf of musicians, but it is funded by, and represents the interests of, the major record companies - the same corporations traditionally known to be the primary exploiters of the musicians that the RIAA claims to represent. The RIAA simply cannot be trusted to serve two distinct masters - the record companies and the artists. An important example is the "work for hire" issue: the RIAA pushed legislation that gives major labels the right to own musicians' master tapes in perpetuity, changing an existing law that allowed some artists to regain the rights to their masters after 35 years.
--
Great stuff in these testimonies (Score:4)
Mr. McGuinn's very short and to the point testimony can be found here [senate.gov].
Burris
Uh. All The Players? (Score:5)
Oh well, it could be worse. At least we don't have actors from Hollywood getting involved like they do in everything else. "I once played a musician in a movie and am thus qualified to provide professional commentary to this committee on the subject at hand."
Once it hits congress, it's all down hill from here.
---
seumas.com
Respect my authoritay... (Score:2)
Napster is a pretty damn efficient way to find and evaluate music that I want. I'm sorry that Lars and the RIAA aren't in control of that, but tough. It's my money.
Napster found an easy, cheap, fast way to distribute music online, and in doing so, woke up the music industry...which had been sitting on its collective butt.
When the music industry gives me a way to purchase music that's as easy as Napster, we'll talk.
pissed off about the testimonies (Score:3)
""We have many issues with Napster. First and foremost: Napster hijacked our music without asking. They never sought our permission-our catalog of music simply became available as free downloads on the Napster system. ""
HOLD UP! Napster hijacked their music? the Napster system?
Napster didn't touch their music. Lets look at this logically...
Somebody BOUGHT the Metallica CD.
That person then ripped the mp3s.
They then logged on to the Napster system.
Presumably, they began downloading someone else's music.
Now, where in this scheme does Napster touch the music? Why would they have to ask someone if they can use their music since they have nothing to do with the content? WHY AREN'T NAPSTER'S LAWYERS SAYING THIS?!?!
Instead, they say this...
"Napster has said that the company cannot be held accountable if some members use the server to exchange copyrighted material. The songs are not stored on Napster's computers, nor do they pass through the company's servers when users download music from one another.
"The Napster directory is a list of all the files that members of the community are willing to share," Hank Barry, the chief executive of Napster, told the committee. "
No money is being made by anyone in this system (unless a user burns a cd and then ILLEGALLY sells it)
Why do tech companies have to come off sounding oh so high and mighty instead of just sticking to the facts. Users are the ones, if anyone, that could be breaking the laws concerning copyright. The Napster software is just the transport mechanism.
If drugs are smuggled onto an airplane, is it the airplane's fault or the person carrying the drugs?
Re:Sorry, Bad Analogy, You're Wrong (Score:2)
In this world there are products and there are services. Music as you define it falls under the "services" category. It's like going to a mechanic and not paying him to fix your car because the work isn't tangible.
Furthermore while I am on the subject of warez let me say that the open source movement is NOT similar to downloading pirated MP3's. Lot's of people want to make the connection between free software and "free" (read: PIRATED) music. There is a vast difference between the two. Free software is about making your own version of a commercial product from scratch, not just stealing a copy of the commercial product itself.
I'm sorry, back the boat up.... (Score:5)
"We traced the source of this leak to a corporation called Napster." - Lars
Want to try that again there little drummer boy?
I believe the leak would be traced back to someone who had access to the demo tapes!
Unless the claim is that the employee's of Napster were sneaking in at night to your studio and stealing the tapes while you slept.
Malk-a-mite