Napster Aftermath: Fan Vs. Corporate Rights 450
The Napster court fight has become an unprecedently significant focal point for many competing interests -- corporations, fans, some artists -- grappling with intellectual property and copyright issues in the Net. It's also underscored the vulnerability and alienation of the tech culture, which may scorn Washington-style politicians, lawmakers and corporate lobbyists, but still is very much at their mercy.
The only real winners, of course, are the lawyers, as usual, and the handful of companies rich enough to pay and benefit them. The idea that individual artists are now safer and better protected by their good friends at RIAA, Sony, Bertelsmann (BMG), and AOL/Time-Warner may be the saddest and most wondrously naive legacy of the Napster flap. Maybe Little Red Riding Hood should have gotten into bed with the wolf, after all.
Everybody reading this knows who the real losers are -- the Net, music-lovers and sharers, artists not under contract to large conglomerates, individual consumers, and the notion of the Internet as a free and unrestricted space that connects individuals to information in culture in new and powerful ways. Rolled over by this ruling are the fans who've experienced years of extraordinary access to a shared culture, and have experienced access to music as an ingrained part of their lives and culture.
One legal expert after another has warned that the implications of RIAA's suit against Napster go far beyond music and will directly affect the sharing of other media as well. The ruling will definitely set the tone for how intellectual property is defined on the Internet, as it now stands, and pending further appeals, intellectual property will belong to a handful of super-corporations who can afford to acquire and defend copyrights. It also has implications for the open source and Free software movement, which have sparked a new and growing movement towards open media and new models of revenue for the information industry as well as for software. If the Napster judge's notions of copyright hold up, walls and fences will spring up all over the Net and the Web.
For more than a decade, music and other media fans have experienced an unprecedented period of free access to culture, particularly music -- a tradition many are now calling piracy. An entire generation has grown up learning, collecting and loving music, and entertainment companies have seen their profits continue to soar -- the much aggrieved recording industry posted a record $15 billion in profits last year. The recording industry has spent tens of millions of dollars in legal and public relations fees to turn this social evolution into a crime.
Lost in the mega-bucks brawling over copyright and intellectual property is the individual fan -- Napster says 20 milion people have downloaded its software -- who is not represented in court. But these people have some legitimate claims in this issue, although their concerns have been almost totally ignored. Conglomerates have also spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbyists who influence Congress, and now own most of the media outlets who cover Net issues like copyright. Fans and music lovers, like citizens, have no lobbyists in Congress.
Constitutional scholars will be brawling about this for years, but a convincing case can be made that new laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the basis for many recent legal actions against so-called copyright violators -- are a corporatist perversion of the whole idea behind copyright and intellectual property.
The framers of the Constitution were seeking to protect artists and authors when they enacted copyright laws. Their notion was that without some protection against copying and theft, writers would have no incentive to create new works. Copying books was difficult, and it was simple to enforce and prosecution laws against it. The Net is another story -- it's the biggest Xerox machine in the world, and it's almost impossible to completely shut down the copyrighting of intellectual property. Common sense would dictate that new ways of protecting artists and corporations be found that recognized the new reality of the Net.
Even then, people like Thomas Jefferson preached radical notions of open media. He feared the ownership of ideas: "that ideas should freely spread from one to another all over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man .."
What Jefferson was describing was the reality of the modern-day Internet, especially the rapidly-proliferating open source and open media idea: an environment using point-to-point, distributed architecture to move ideas freely and all over the world. Clearly, artists need to be paid for their work, and authors protected from theft. But there's no evidence that the entities copyright laws were meant to protect were billion dollar media corporatations with a distinctly unfair unadvantage over individuals when it comes to defining and enforcing copyright conventions.
In the last few years, spurred mostly by the proliferation of culture-sharing sites on the Web, media companies have launched a brilliantly successful blitzkrieg on behalf of corporate and "artistic" rights to control intellectual property, culminating in the DMCA and the spate of recent legal actions against Napster and individual music downloaders. No such campaign has been launched on behalf of music fans, who were literally bled dry for decades not just for artistic compensation but for fat corporate profits.
According to MIT's Henry Jenkins, writing in MIT's Technology Review, [http://www.techreview.com/articles/ma00/viewpoint.htm] no case involving fan rights has ever reached the courts. No civil-liberties organization has offered money or other support to fans who are denied access to their culture by corporate lawyers. Copyright and trademarks are now deemed legal "rights" granted to property owners, while fair use is a "defense" which can only be asserted in response to copyright infringement accusations. Most people caught in copyright battles, or on the receiving end of hundreds of thousands of warning letters being issues in response to the DMCA lack the financial resources or the political acumen to take on vast entertainment conglomerates in court.
And one of the most insidious consequences of the DMCA and the entertaining industry's war against sites like Napster is the elimination of the notion of "fair use" which gave fans and users some limited protection against absolute copyright enforcement. Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material, regardless of the wishes of the creator or owner of the material. A copyright gives the owner certain rights; fair use limits them. Under the right of fair use, you can quote from this column to criticize it, quote sections from it, and reproduce them to attack, support me, or disseminate my views. In these and other ways, you have the right to use this column independently of how I say it ought to be used,and that doesn't make you a "thief" or a "pirate." Copyright was never meant to be "absolute," or even long-standing, especially when it comes to intellectual, rather than physical property.
But the DMCA and recent court rulings against music-sharing eliminate any idea that the downloading of music constituted "fair use" of artistic work. Some fans and legal scholars have argued that sites like Napster, Gnutella, Free.net and Scour.net promote the sale of music, especially for personal use. A marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania commissioned one study that fond that over 91% of Napster users buy as much or more music than before they used Napster, with 28% purchasing more. Lawyers for Time Warner, Inc., Sony and Bertelsmann, represented by the RIAA, cited studies that found that 22% of Napster users said that because of Napster, they didn't buy CDs any more or bought fewer CD's. In the United States, it's possible to get studies supporting any conceivable point-of-view.
It seems logical that there is a significant amount of "fair use" involved in the downloading of music. It also seems logical that people who can download new CD's for free won't pay $16 for them, and perhaps shouldn't have to. At the same time, even music industry lobbyists concede that free music sites, from MP3.com to Napster to Gnutella, have provided new artists with new forums for their work, permitted music lovers to experiment with new forms of music, and generated tremendous interest in music that is contributing, directly or indirectly, to record music industry sales.
Rather than seek some new legal middle-ground -- sites that offer some free as well as paid music, for example, or experiment with new ways to provide artists with revenue -- the music industry has sought and won the most extreme legal remedies, ones that will continue to be undermined by new technologies and the evolution of new music-sharing sites, some legal and above-ground, some not. What seems inconceivable is that tens of millions of young music fans are going to return to a system where they can only listen to music they pay exorbitant prices for. That isn't going to happen.
But what does seem to be happening is that media companies are hijacking culture, and using artistic compensation as a smokescreen.
As Jenkins points out in his article, if Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll and the authors of the Bible were covered by the DMCA, none of their works would have received a fraction of the attention or influence they've generated.
Fans are more than consumers. They are entitled to have some rights, just as artists and corporations are. They pay the freight, especially in cyberspace, which has seen a mind-boggling flowering of fan zines, sites, mailing lists and Web pages. Fans are critics, journalists, and story-tellers. They are constituents in their own folklore and have rights of access to their own culture. Virtually all discussions of intellectual property in cyberspace are about responding to corporate and political anxieties about controlling text, images, sounds and information.
This leaves the fan out in the cold. Most of them can't afford to take on the lawyers for Viacom or Fox.
Fan Rights (Score:3)
We've sold our souls by buying this drivel for so long. Now we are paying the price.
You know what would really burn them... (Score:2)
Agh! (Score:4)
This is a battle happening in the courtrooms and pressrooms.. not one happening in my livingroom, where I will happily continue to download whatever I want, whenever I want. Attached are some links you'll want to follow after the shutdown. I've been handing them out via e-mail and on IRC. Cheers!
This friday (07/28) Napster will be shut down by a federal judge. Additional information can be found at the end of this e-mail. You all know what Napster is, and alot of you probably use it. The RIAA (the people shutting Napster down) believes this will put an end to people sharing music online.
Therefore, in light of this, I am presenting a dozen alternatives to Napster which you may utilize with the same functionality as Napster. I would also urge you to boycott the RIAA by not buying any of their music from your local retail outlets or online until they drop their suit. Either way remember that any fool can make a law (or a ruling) and any fool will mind it. Consider this my way of telling the RIAA where to stick their injunction. Cheers!
~ Signal 11
Napster clones
--------------
http://www.napigator.com/ Convert the Napster client to run on the OpenNAP servers, or search both networks simultaniously. Windows only.
http://opennap.sourceforge.net/
OpenNap: the open source napster server.
Napster alternatives
--------------------
http://gnutella.wego.com/
From their website: "Gnutella is a fully- distributed information-sharing technology. Loosely translated, it is what puts the power of information-sharing back into your hands."
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
FreeNet. From their website: "Freenet is a peer- to-peer network designed to allow the distribution of information over the Internet in an efficient manner, without fear of censorship. Freenet is completely decentralized, meaning that there is no person, computer, or organisation in control of Freenet or essential to its operation. This means that Freenet cannot be attacked like centralized peer-to-peer systems such as Napster.
http://sx.scour.net/
Scour Exchange. From the website: "With Scour Exchange you can share your favorite music, videos..." Windows only.
http://music.lycos.com/mp3/
Lycos' MP3 search engine.
http://www.cutemx.com/
CuteMX - From the website: "CuteMX is your own personal file server and a powerful search engine rolled into one. CuteMX eliminates the hassle of setting up FTP and web servers and its real-time search provides successful results." Website also features a free music download section.
http://www.shoutcast.com/
Not exactly downloadable music, but hey, I like it. Tune into hundreds, if not thousands, of online radio stations featuring every genre you could think of.
audiofind.com - no information
Information on the shutdown7 407,2608120,00.html
---------------------------
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/newsbursts/0,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20 000726/aponline200558_000. htm
http://www.msnbc.com/news/437532.asp?cp1=1
What some artists think of the RIAAv e/index.html 5 7235&cid=191
-----------------------------------
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
Courtney Love does the math
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/07/26/23
Chris Johnson on slashdot.org
Distribution of this e-mail is encouraged. Feel free to add more links to this if you decide to forward this on, I'm sure I missed a few. :)
Easy Mass Production (Score:5)
That's because during those times, you couldn't copy their entire work to your Zip Disk, take it to the office, and transfer it to Taiwan over your 100 Mbit/s LAN connection to the company T-3.
Why do you think DMCA and similar protective coverage originated? Why is Napster all of the sudden there when we've been taping songs off the radio for years? Because MP3 and CD burners are the printing press of digital music.
A flyer? (Score:4)
I'm considering designing a simple one-page flyer that can inform people about the issue. Something along the lines of, "This isn't a solicitation for you to vote for anyone. Just a reminder that democracy is a responsibility, and you have to watch what's going on in Washington." It can address various related issues, such as facts about the Napster lawsuit and about the Copyright Law being amended, extending the length of copyrights.
Does anyone think that such a thing is worthwhile? If I released a PDF of it, would anyone print it out and hand it out to people? Am I crazy?
--
Support your artist AND enjoy MP3s. (Score:5)
We believe this is one answer to the MP3 situation and have started a website at www.fairtunes.com [fairtunes.com] that allows you to do exactly that. It is the Stephen King model implemented for music. We allow you to securely send any amount of money using your credit to ANY artist.
But do we live in a society that can adjust to a voluntary system when we've lived so long in a system that has always set the price for us? Can we handle the freedom that Napster gives us? Can we be trusted to use Napster responsibly? Young kids will always pirate music, and we accept that, but is voluntary payment an option for everyone else?
Matt.
Time to get active? (Score:2)
It's a political year. If 10 million Napster users got seriously active and organized, there's actually a real possibility of pressuring congress into 'clarifying' the current Copyright rules to make it clear that things like napster are OK.
Push for an amendment to the copyright rules. Keep track of which reps are for it and which ones try and sabotage it. Make it real public. Be blunt.
Take back congress.
If properly managed, this could be a watershed moment for geekdom.
Danger to Culture--Danger to Economics (Score:2)
Don't lose hope. (Score:2)
The real losers? (Score:4)
The RIAA / artists obviously haven't lost anything.
The indie musicians were getting questionable value from Napster from anyone's viewpoint, so they really haven't lost anything.
Signed artists who want their MP3s distributed... well, they can get a website!
The only people who are "real losers" are Napster stockholders and employees. They're losing their gravy train, becasue they haven't fixed the problem (no way to stop piracy yet) or expanded into a more legitimate market (general file-swapping?)
So use what we have. (Score:4)
If there we so many servers out there that it became absolutely impossible for the RIAA to stop every single one then they might just give up. Kinda the reverse of what they're doing. "We'll spend millions of $$$ because they can't compete with us and afford all the legal fees." Fine you want to play that way... We will set up millions of servers and see if you can keep up with it.
-cpd
So what? POP culture is dead (Score:2)
One thing that I found about Naptser is it really REALLY sucked if you were looking for anything Indie or on a minor label. Unfortunally after checking out GNUtella & Freenet I don't see things getting any better for indies.
Maybe if someone policed napster and kept the major label copyright crap off it would still be open. But who am I to say? I put up free MP3's of my (C) artists. If I didn't people wouldn't buy.
www.cdtoad.com [cdtoad.com]
FTP (Score:5)
Re:Agh! (Score:4)
Re:Agh! (Score:3)
Heck, why ignore the press? My local Fox station ran a story on their 10o'clock news on Napster being shut down and they actually got most of those as alternatives. They took the time to display the links, and had the person actually say each link, giving plenty of time to write it down. I found that rather funny - here they are, listing five alternatives to Napster. They got Gnutella and Freenet, along with three others I don't remember. So, maybe the media response won't be what you seem to think it will be...
This case isn't so cut and dry (Score:2)
Would everyone think it's OK to pull a football game off the TV, rebroadcast is over the Internet, and substitute your own commercials? It's hard to do that now, but in a few years broadband will become easier to get. The Napster ruling isn't about "fan's rights" (whatever that means), it's about who decides how data (in whatever form) is distributed.
Now, the DMCA does not address this issue well at all. But I think there should be some limit to what and how data can be distributed by whom.
Just my $0.02 USD
Bad Move RIAA (Score:3)
Number of CDs I've purchased since downloading Napster 6 months ago: 23
Number of CDs I'll purchase in the next three years: 0
Not that bad (Score:2)
This says *nothing* of the individuals right to "home copy" or bootleg for pleasure (not profit).
Thad
The fat lady ain't sung yet. (Score:2)
This injunction is not permanent until after the Napster trial has concluded. A TRO (reporary restraining order) is very short term. A restraining order could last the length of the trial, but if Napster wins, then the restraining order would be disolved.
I would hope that Napster would win, and then the judge would be required to award large damages from the effect of the restraining order.
I have not bought any Music CDs or DVDs in quite a while. When in the stores, I have advised others that they should not buy them because of these lawsuits.
The very attitude displayed in the initial posts.. (Score:2)
You see, no one cared. "We'll go to Usenet." "This is crap." "They can't stop it everywhere."
Why not?
The very beginnings of censorship have started in countries that *I* personally would never have thought they would have started in. The U. S. especially is becoming more and more frightening every day, with myself shaking my head in amazement at the court rulings! If only the Supreme Court heard every case, we *might* stand a chance. But judges like the judge over the DeCSS case ruin any chance that freedom to innovate will continue. (Pun for those who caught it, intended.)
When we move from Napster to Usenet, will not the RIAA turn their guns to the news servers? Even though they are "service providers" these service providers might be found guilt of collusion for providing access to the newsgroups (alt.binaries.warez.whatever you love) because they have the *easy* ability to discontinue access to them - stop carrying the group.
Indeed, in the case of alt.young.* and alt.binaries.warez.* newsgroups, my ISP does not carry them. I do not care about alt.young.* - rather, the point is that it's not available. Because the ISP says so.
We cannot control the web, true. But ISPs can be forced to control where their users go, in some regards. And national and international efforts can lead to another "committee" whose sole goal is to produce web sites, newsgroups, and other areas of the web that we might create, that destroy these "poor corporations multi billion dollar industries." All it takes is some money and some political power.
Yet, we don't care.
Carnivore is accepted. The new law in the U. K. is accepted. Oh, we bitch, we whine, but we have given our rights up on a continuous basis. Maybe it would have been better if the Internet stayed non commercial - the information would still be free.
I'm in charge of a network of roughly 500 people and systems. I'm in charge of ensuring they do not access questionable content while they are working. That is my job. (No, I do *not* use filters. I use hand assembled URLs, and generally add them AFTER they've been visited. Not as effective, but I am not the Gestapo, and I will not be accused of mistaken filtering.) If the order came, from my government, to block access to nntp, or to port XXXX, I would do it.
I would have to, because I have a home, a wife, and a son that I must take care of.
I'd like to never see that day come.
--Talonius
Missing the Real Problem. (Score:3)
The facts are simple: many of the people who used Napster were either doing so with the intent to break the law, or believed that fair use would protect their use of the software. The courts seem to have ruled that this is not the case.
Now, I don't like large music companies. I don't like RIAA asking people to spend $20 or more for music that isn't particularly good. But no one is putting a gun to anyone's head. No one is forcing anyone to buy RIAA-sponsored music. We have lost no fundamental rights here, and it is ridiculous to suppose that we have.
Granted, Napster was a potential channel for independent artists everywhere, a distribution means that was not controlled by RIAA, was not horrifically expensive, and ensured that your music would get out to a wider audience. Guess what? So is a common web page. So is IRC. So are plenty of other distribution channels (not all of them Internet-based) that were completely untouched by this ruling.
I don't like RIAA. I think that they're a powerful force working for the cheapening of society for a few extra dollars. Spawn of hell that it is, though, they did have a point: many of the people who used this software were doing so to break the law. And while it pains me that it is that much harder for an independent to have a widely-heard voice, consider this: most of the music traded on Napster was from RIAA-sponsored bands.
Let's not be hypocritical, ladies and gentlemen. Let's realize that RIAA may be pandering to the lowest common denominator, but many people who cry out against RIAA were listening to music that they'd not have heard without it.
If you really want things to change, then you'll have to start with yourself. Eschew all RIAA products, whether you bought them or stole them or borrowed them. The more you give your minds over to them, the harder they will be to beat in the long run.
Fight the Power.
perversion of copyright and napster (Score:3)
However, that has nothing to do with Napster. Napster, in my mind, is not about copyright protection. It's about the independence of transport method. Let's say that 90% of all pirate videos were shipped fedex, and accounted for 90% of fedex's business (haha). Would fedex be a pirate courier service? No.
The same goes for Napster. It may be USED for a lot of piracy, but that doesn't make it responsible. It has the same policy as any ISP: they don't patrol their users, but they'll take action when it is reported to them. As shown with the Metallica/Dre lawsuit.
For me, nothing was more telling that this slashdot comment [slashdot.org]. The artist complains, "So- the judge is taking away a _major_ distribution channel from me, at the request of... my competition." Marilyn Hall Patel should have heard HIM in court.
Re:You Know What Sucks About Slashdot? (Score:2)
Frankly, i'm tired of whiny trolls like you. If you don't want to see it, get an account, go into your settings, and check the topics you DON'T WANT TO SEE. That's why Rob created the StarWars and Anime topics, so fools like you would have no reason to bitch about him adding them. If you don't like Jon Katz, he's there too. Go check him, and you'll never see his articles again. So stop whining, get an account, and SHUT UP.
Anonymous Cowards have no right to complain about the subjects, and people with accounts have no reason to.
Does that apply to everyone? (Score:3)
I mean, are you really just out to make a buck or are you doing it for your fans?
Protest Suggestion and a New Media Theory (Score:2)
First, we should immediately set up a link where users can send messages directly to congress. Last month Congress threatened to write formal legislation defining "Fair Use". Lets get them working on this. If even 10% of Napsters 20 million users send email to their Congressmen there is little doubt that somthing will happen. Get rid of the ambiguity in "Fair Use". Corporte America shouldn't be allowed to limit what information is exchanged between Americans. At best the onus should be on Corporate America to clearly identify specific Copyright infringments. Not wholesale trampling on peoples free-speech and assiciation rights. Just because a medium makes violating the law easier doesn't give them the right to abuse the legal system and harm the medium providers. Cars aren't governed to stay below 75mph.
Second, maybe the time is right to make more information free. With the economy of scale available to corporate america there is a strong argument that they don't need as much protection from IP theft and monopoly control over their IP product. Things have been swinging in corporate america's favor for far too long. There is an imbalance in the power structure. Let's not forget, companies exist as entities because we, the people allow them to. Corporations achieve an artificial status as citizens because we allow them to. For far too long corporations, as citizens have benefitted from the rights citizens inherit, withour taking of the full responsibilities that citizens inherit. They have too much voice, too much power and take very little responsibility. Its time to take corporate america to task and make them take responsibility. If they want to continue to profit from our work they will have to start giving back. "Special rights" given to corporations providing monopolistic power need to be reigned in.
Napster decision good ? (Score:2)
If the injunction stays then it will force everyone looking for music onto systems which are much more in keeping with Open Source/ GNU philosophy, such as GnuTella. In addition such distributed systems are going to be almost impossible to shutdown - it looks like its going to be DeCSS 'whack a mole' all over again
Let the good times roll!
Re:Easy Mass Production (Score:2)
There's always an option (Score:2)
By the way, Scour was down last night. I couldn't even register
Napster != Freedom (Score:2)
The point is, Free Beer is NOT the same as Free Speech, no matter HOW often Jon Katz chooses to rant. Napster offers the same freedoms as a pair of concrete shoes. Swimming in such freedom is not advisable.
Napster uses proprietary technology, trades (without authorisation) proprietary data, in a proprietary (and lossy) format, for the benefit of who, exactly?
For the benefit of the artists? But the artists are the ones most upset!
For the benefit of the music industry? Don't make me laugh. This may be the beginning of the end of an organised music industry.
For the benefit of diversity? Napster is doing a Microsoft, and killing all competitors with no regard to ethics, the law, or anything else.
For the benefit of the consumers? HOW??? If the only music you can get is music you've got, and the only way to play it is via a sound card, then consumers are quite capable of making their own music available over the Internet, to download at their leisure. Sure, it takes disk space, but HD's are cheap, so there's no longer any benefit in having a central store.
For the benefit of Napster? Being a de-facto monopoly, with absolute power and control over all large-scale music transfers (and potentially ALL music transfers, in total) is certainly a sizable benefit.
Herr Frankenstein, you have created a monster! And it's eating my CD collection!
It must be true: Metallica in dire straits (Score:2)
Freeloaders
Could the rock band Metallica be that hard up for cash?
We know the band is embroiled in a lawsuit with Napster over copyright infringement but
Ed Suqi, a VIP host at Chicago's Glow nightclub, tells Inc. that the band left without paying the bill. And they stiffed Suqi on the tip too.
Suqi, 24, said the band ranked among the worst celebrities he has waited on. "They don't want people downloading their music for free," but they never even asked for the bill before they vamoosed, he said.
Nonetheless, at last report, the Metallica CD was still playing in Glow's jukebox.
Mouths for Metallica could not be reached for comment.
Re:Fan Rights (Score:4)
Re:So what? POP culture is dead (Score:2)
That's true, but at least it was possible to find indie or minor label stuff. If I go to my local mall, what are my odds of finding ANY of that much less sampling it?
Question to Signal 11 (Score:5)
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Re:Agh! (Score:2)
Hrm... couldn't this be construed as soon-to-be-illegal? Napster simply gives directions to data, helping people to infringe copyrights 80% of the time. So Fox-local gives directions to programs which give directions to data, helping people to infringe copyrights sometimes.
--
Re:IRC and usenet (Score:4)
Now let us look at the alternatives:
1. Other MP3 software (for arguments sake, let us say there are only 5 other programs, though any idiot can figure out that's a crock)
2. FTP
3. HTTP
4. IRC
5. (gasp, so sad) AOL
6. Email
7. Snail Mail (burn a cd and send it.. oh well)
So, RIAA attacks #1, gets a few shut down. Then people move to #2. Tag and move and tag and move, even if RIAA somehow limits all of the above (which any idiot knows is next to impossible) then people go down the list. Once you get to #7, more programs are coming out, move back to #1. Endless cycle.
This will be an endless cycle until RIAA stops fighting us, forcing us to "extend and make them embrace" our middle finger. There are more resources out there than ever before, and in case they didn't realize, we can always go back to ole tape and radio (although we won't).
Perhaps the only thing that can stop us is if JonKatz starts posting his entire text to his articles on each of these methods. If that happens, well, there are a lot more things that we have to worry about.
Re:Fan Rights (Score:3)
They are not "trading" or "swapping" music. Those terms indicate that the person they get the music from would no longer have it. They are copying it. They are copying large quantities of it because it is free.
These are high schoolers, or college kids either. These people are sysadmins, and programmers who all make plenty of money to buy the music, but they don't.
Just my observation. Personally, as someone who gets paid for creative work (programmer) I do pay for what I use, or I avoid buying it.
I agree with your point though that a lot of people would like to get rid of the middleman, but I'll have to disagree that its the impetus behind Napster.
Yep. Napster may stop. Copying & sharing will not. (Score:2)
Fry [talking to Beastie Boys as heads-in-jars]: Wow! Back in the 90s, I had all 5 of your albums. ... Can I borrow the new ones? ... And a couple of blank tapes?
band Member: That was over a thousand years ago! We've got seven now!
Fry: Cool!
Ya see, even the industry itself expects stuff like this to happen.
The Official Jon Katz Buzzword Detector (tm) (Score:5)
"Media corporations"...DING!
"Popular Culture"...DING!
"Copyright issue:...DING!
"Betrayl"..DING!
"Political Vulnerability"...DING!
"Tech Culture"...DING!
"Alienation"...DING!
"Information in culture"..DING!
"Shared culture"..DING!
"Lives and culture"...DING!
"Open media" DING**DING!!!
"Corporatist perversion" DING!
"New Reality" DING!
"Hijacking Culture"
"Media Companies" (twice!) DING!
As Katz points out, the media corporations control popular culture with political vulnerable Columbine issues, and copyright betrayls. Then again, the political corporations control popular media culture with vulnerable Columbine issues. Some might argue that Columbine political controls make corporate media culture issue betrayls as well.
I could write better drivel with a Perl script that randomly assembled blocks of text from Katz's buzzword-bingo writing style. Spare me.
Bowie J. Poag
It has nothing to do with culture... (Score:2)
The RIAA doesn't give a hoot about controlling the culture of our society, unless it promotes fattening their wallets. The real reason they are so active in controlling intellectual property in music is because they are afraid of losing their huge profits that they currently enjoy!
Re:Fan Rights (Score:2)
My intent is that we have made the labels what they are by buying almost exclusively from them.
It is a very self-perpetuating thing. We buy from them, and that gives them the money to promote the next thing we buy from them.
What needs to be done is to de-recruit some bands into a "no-middleman" setup. I personally believe that is the wave of the future, but its unproven as yet. Personally, I wouldn't know how to tell a millionaire that the way he's been making his millions is all wrong.
These guys like to make music. If they can make music, if they can continue to make a lot of money, without having to deal with any more of the business side (letting the label handle that), why the hell should they change?
Our biggest hope lies in convincing someone that has "enough" money to go ahead and try it, much like Stephen King is attempting with his serial right now.
Re:I can understand sales going up from Napster (Score:2)
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Fair use (Score:2)
As far as Napster goes the RIAA is barking up the wrong tree. It's like taking Ford to court because someone used a Ford vehicle in a bank robbery. What they should do is find out who the people are that are downloading and making available the protected works and sending them all invoices, or take them all to court, but it's easier to sue one entity rather than thousands.
Please help me do something about this.... (Score:5)
-colin
People already do... (Score:2)
----------------------------
Don't be fooled this isn't about piracy (Score:4)
An MP3 has a playback quality that rivals radio.
Radio stations play music for free.
People have listened to radio for the duration of the recorded music sales market.
People will continue to buy what they can get for free.
The real issue that I see in the Napster case is that the big record companies have lost control over what listeners hear for free. It used to be that these record companies could control the content of free music outlets(Radio, MTV, VH1, etc.) that's why crappy songs are hyped so much. Since people are cattle/lemming like in nature they buy what the media tells them is cool regardless of the artistic work's actual merit. Listeners are told music is good and are so insecure on their own tastes that they decide to conform to the corporate image of coolness/sophistication.
Napster came along and essentially allowed the individual to make his/her own programming decisions. They can listen to inferior to CD quality music and make a decision as to whether they want to buy it. Napster is essentially a listener programmed radio station without the adds.
What the record corporations are losing is the power to promote specific songs. This is why people buy CDs with only one good song for $16.95. That's also the reason why singles cost $7.95 or so. With Napster people are able to preview entire albums before they buy and that's going to ruin that nice little scam that record companies have been playing.
Don't think that this is about piracy. If that were the case they would have gone after radio stations a long time ago. If these guys win I could see them creating their own Napster with inferior MP3s of only the songs that they want to promote, geared solely to get you to buy those one-hit-wonder CDs.
GPL and this ruling (Score:2)
The Judge's ruling is essentially this: that one-to-one non-commercial file sharing violates the law.
However, source code has already been deemed free speech - and is thus covered under the first amendment. In this case Mp3's are binary, however both are files. Does this mean that free software repositories such as amug, freesoftware.com, and kernel.org are breaking the law? Or can this case be appealed just on the basis of an extremely clueless ruling? Or is this simply hype by Harry Bank. -- If the judge does rule this way then private ftp, http, the GPL, and networks in general can be challenged in the US.
Any ideas on this?
Re:Not that bad (Score:2)
Thad
Re:This case isn't so cut and dry (Score:2)
Whats to say that this shouldn't be done? Granted, I think proper permission and rights should be needed. However, there are very easy ways to get a football game you want to see.
Music is the tip of the iceberg. It is more a control issue. RIAA is not consumer oriented. However, they essentially have a monopoly over music culture. They own the production and distribution channels. Yes, there are some small indie labels; but a lot of their stuff is hard to get. Here comes the internet with its new, easily available distribution platform. Does RIAA embrace it and try to use it? NO! They try to destroy it any turn becuase it threatens their monopoly. RIAA's arguments on online music are as bad as when MPAA was trying to argue against VCR's.
In any kind of dynamic marketplace, consumer demand will move the market. In a monopoly, corporate ways move the consumer. Copyright laws were designed with individuals in mind. Not conglomerates. They have been bastardized and usurped as the corporations have taken control of the government. I can be sure that if you tried to go to Washington and meet with your Congressperson, you may get a minute or two from him/her and not really get any response. If you are a CEO from a multi-national conglomerate, you will get a nice long time slot.
The ordinary person no longer has a voice. Online music trading is a form of civil disobedience. Yeah, there is a section of folks who just want free music. I do believe it is a much smaller part than the people who want more control over what they can get.
This is but one fight that needs to be undertaken to restore the rights of the people that were given to us, in the US, by the constitution. I am using my right to bear arms for my free speech. My weapon will be digital one's and zero's. It is time for the the people to take back government from corporations.
I don't advocate violence, anarachy or any other achy. The laws are being abused. It is time to restore some of our rights and if I have to do it through civil disobedience and be a scofflaw, so be it. I will continue to pester my elected officials on copyrights, patents and privacy issues.
Errr...I guess I went into rant mode. Without consumers, there is no music industry. However, the industry has usrped some well thought of ideas and twisted them into weapons against the consumer. Unless the consumer votes in an econimic fashion and through the politcal channels, they will be steam rolled by the stronger and stronger companies. I dread the day when the United States of America changes its name to the United States of America, Inc.
Give Napster the Freedom to Innovate (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it doesn't look good - it's guilt by association, and if the blunt tool of the law has to bludgeon a few innocents in the name of protecting the property of the wealthy they'll do it. Since copyright protection is mostly by the honor system, and if people have the freedom to 'do the right thing' and some don't and it's impossible to enforce, then we ALL lose a freedom - which is what CSS is about, taking away some control over content (like on what we can play it) - all it takes is ONE person to abuse a freedom and the authorities use that as an excuse to lock us all down.
Re:So use what we have. (Score:2)
The only thing is, in what form should the Civil Disobedience take. Starting up servers isn't bad, the boycott is a good idea, but what will really make an impact? Anyone?
Can't get corporate pop culture w/o corporations (Score:5)
Wait just a second here. Corporations *created* popular culture. You can't go back now and claim that we want corporate-created popular culture but without the corporations.
In any town, you'll find many great bands, for example, that make you wonder why you don't hear them on the radio. And nobody's ever heard of those bands, except locals, and the locals often put them down for being, well, local. They play for half empty coffeehouses and provide background noise in clubs. But if one of these bands was promoted and hyped as being underground and pushed into rotation on MTV, then it would enter pop culture and people would be clamoring to hear them. And those same people want to be able to nab MP3s of that band's music. So now, after Moby, for example, has hit is big, you can't act like "screw the record company, screw the ticket agents, screw the suits," because they provided Moby to the masses.
If you want to be anti-corporate, then you need to walk the talk. Go local. Don't watch TV. Stop drinking Coke. Don't waste time armchair second-guessing what Apple or RedHat or Microsoft do.
Re:Agh! (Score:2)
They are giving very balanced coverage to this and actually educating the public about it. Just look at the fact that they went to the trouble to run a related story earlier in the broadcast to ensure that their listeners were aware of the issues before they heard the story about Napster and RIAA.
Re:Question to Signal 11 (Score:3)
Wonder if there's one in the works already...
Oh well, back to coding.
No, now THEY are paying the price (Score:3)
Collectively, the music industry is breathing a sigh of relief that mp3's are not CD quality. They are also relieved that so few people have computers with good enough speakers (relatively) to bother listening to music purely on their computer. But they know what is around the corner. Sire/Reprise, Time Warner, BMG, you better start saving your pennies now, because the consumer is no longer going to tolerate your abuse.
Re:Support your artist AND enjoy MP3s. (Score:2)
Also, you have to be 18+ to get a credit card (usually, at least that's the theory behind any "adult" site). ...It would be interesting to know how many kids use their parents credit cards to make online purchases? Is the online revolution going to push down the "age limit" on credit cards so that everyone can partake in ecommerce?
How will services like eMusic/MP3.com capture the under 18 market if that market can't buy their subscription services?
Matt.
sigh... (Score:2)
Theft and Stealing are based on the premise that you take someone elses property and in doing so, deny them the ability to use their property. There is NO denying of property use in napster. Therefore, it is NOT stealing. Saying someone commited murder, even though their victim is alive and well in the courtroom is like equating Napster to "stealing". It doesnt fit the definition.
Economically, the music industry is trying to create a scarcity of a good (music) in an environment where there is really no scarcity, and making incredibly high, abusive profits from it. If you want another example of an industry creating a false Scarcity, look at DeBeers and the whole diamond industry.
I dont understand how people can rationalize this with statements like "its the law, and the law must be followed" and "if you dont like their product, dont buy it - thats your right". It is also my right to hear and enjoy music of MY choice, not one of a companies.
Do not underestimate the impact of this case and fight on free speech and free press. This is banning mass distribution of media (communication) because some of it, even if a large portion of it has questionable legality. Its a horrible precedent, and far reaching.
Imagine if you could only print newspapers or flyers at corporate owned presses? Well, consider music distribution the same thing, and you quickly realize that we are talking about serious violations of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
tagline
Re:Support your artist AND enjoy MP3s. (Score:2)
This is something that the Stephen King experiment might shed some light on. I wrote a bit about it here [wahcentral.net]
It will, IMHO, come down to THE ARTISTS THEMSELVES making sure their fans know the score. Smart bands would put all or most of their mp3's on the home site. If most bands do this, what is the motivation for using napster or a similar service. The bands get the pr and build the fan base that no-cost promotion gains, and can set up their virtual "guitar case" on the same page IN BIG TYPE as the mp3s. Include a blurb by the band about how they feel the whole thing and why they feel they should share. None of this precludes the selling of other merchandise either, CDs and what not.
Anyway, the crux of it comes for the artists challenging their fans. The RIAA would never go for such a thing, because they don't feel it would work, and for them it wouldn't. I have no sympathy or desire to drop money into corporate coffers, especially this organization which has been screwing me for years, but given the chance to give directly to the artist I am appreciating, it makes a lot more sense.
Of course this brings something else to the point, and is my biggest caveat about the whole deal. THE MIDDLEMAN SHOULD NOT CONTROL THE MARKET.
--
Re:What a Lie (Score:2)
> to distribute that music however they want.
Your missing the point. Copyright is not the same as property.
Copyright is a concession. It is the legal embodiment of the people realizing that authorship is important and that printers/distributers have been taking advantage of authors.
Copyright is THE PEOPLE giving up their rights to copy and distribute a work for a LIMITED TIME. Note that deeds to property to not automatically expire with no way to renew after so many years. If you die, your fammily doesn't have to move out from your house 70 years later because the deed expires 70 years after your death.
In short, copyright was invented for the specific purpose of encouraging authors to produce works by stopping publishers from being able to take authors works and sell them without compensation to the author.
It was NOT invented because of authors "right to property". Property doesn't have a concept of "Fair Use" or "Compulsory Licence" (yes its true, you can legally distribute music for profit, as long as you pay royalties, and theres nothing that can be done to stop it)
> People need to grow up and realized they don't
> have the right to have everything handed to them
Then there are others who need to realize that just because they have a profitable buisness model here, today, doesn't mean that they have a 'right' to have it always be profittable.
People are free to try to make money. They do not have any sort of 'right to profit' any more than to fail.
I think its time to overhaul and redefine copyright. It is getting to be too much lik eproperty and used too often more as weapon for publishers than protection for authors. This makes it horribly broken and in need of fixing.
-Steve
Re:IRC and usenet (Score:2)
Coalition for the Future of Music (Score:2)
--
How to stand up (Score:2)
Re:The Official Jon Katz Buzzword Detector (tm) (Score:2)
- Robin
'Blocks' looks interesting, too (Score:2)
It's about controlling what we hear/see (Score:2)
I was in my local Blockbuster Video last night and was appauled at the lack of selection. Even though most of their revenue is still from video tape rentals, they've converted half their store to DVD. Not just that, but there was no foreign section, and a very limited "Special Interests Section".
What does this have to do with Napster? Well, like the MPAA, the RIAA does not care what we, the public want, they only want to control what we're exposed to. When new distribution models and technology spring up, these two organizations either wish to make them proprietary (DVD) and take away the consumers' rights, or destroy them (Napster, VCR). This is why the RIAA doesn't care about the money-making potential of Napster (a centralized, controlable exchange medium, as opposed to client-to-client piracy), and why the MPAA thought DVD was so hot, but blew their top when De-CSS hit the scene.
Re:The Official Jon Katz Buzzword Detector (tm) (Score:2)
(Although he may have, I tend to just skim Jon's articles nowadays)
I don't normally comment on Katz, but... (Score:4)
...my weaselometer needle has jammed in the little red wedge on the right hand side of the dial.
The point about copyright is that it, and the other intellectual property rights, made modern life possible.
Copyright started as a response to the printing press, that made large-scale copying (hundreds of accurate copies per worker in the time it took a monastic scribe to do one innacurate one) possible.
Suddenly, there was a reason why ideas had value over and above their intrinsic value, and a mechanism to make the authors and the printers rich sort of evolved from there. Suddenly it was possible to get rich by having and developing ideas; it was no coincidence that copyright and patents were developed at or around the start of the industrial revolution (which begat the technological infrastructure that you're reading this on, via a number of intermediary steps). The one makes the other possible - simple as that, and the whole thing is powered by the inexhaustibel resource of human greed. Would Watt have bothered if he and Boulton couldn't have got as rich as Croesus?
Katz tells us that "artists themselves have important rights", but it's a weasel qualifier. I suspect he's uncomfortable with the argument he's deploying, because he hasn't thought it through. The important right of the artist - of any creative individual - is to sell his or her work for a price he or she deems appropriate (zero in a lot of cases, but that's not mandatory).
That price, plus cost of sales and middleman's fees, gets paid by the people who get the benefit of the artist's work. And it should be paid: commercial work is not a gift, nor should it be.
The only justifiable objection to be raised to the RIAA/Metallica action is that the middlemen involved - RIAA's members, who Metallica chose to use in the ordinary course of their business - appear to overcharge mightily. There are two options here: cut out the middleman (for which Stephen King is to be applauded in showing a very plausible way forward) or use a cheaper middleman. Is that possible? It may be that the promotion and marketing that RIAA members supply justifies the high cost to the end-user, and their massive profits arise from a small take on each of billions of units. Maybe not, in which case there's room to undercut them. If there is, eventually the market will produce such an undercutter, but don't hold your breath. It's more profitable to join 'em than beat 'em, mostly.
Be all that as it may, no-one can, without hypocrisy, complain about the ordinary operation of capitalism unless and until they're prepared to stick up for the other possibilities. I ain't, simply because I enjoy the idea of living off the back of sweated third-world labour (we all are, or at least everyone with the technical and fiscal wherewithal to read slashdot is).
If Katz is sincere - and he may be - his argument is, roughly, equivalent to suggesting that you should have a right to go steal ripe crops from fields in protest at the mark-up applied by the commodities exchanges, wholesalers, distributors, bakeries and supermarkets on the price of bread.
Re:Peace out, napster. (Score:2)
I smell a digital Boston tea party on it's way.
New music (Score:2)
I seriously considered getting the CD. As a teacher, my pockets are lined with cash to spend on CD's that have only 1 or 2 good songs on it. I believe in encouraging good artists, and from what I heard, Nickleback have more than two good songs on the CD.
If it weren't for Napster, I would have never heard of Nickleback, so they would have never gotten my money. Unfortunately it is a canadian band, and I am going to buy the CD just to encourage canadian kick-ass bands, but knowing that a lot of money goes to the RIAA makes me sick. So here's my money, RIAA, enjoy it while it lasts, cuz now that napster won't exist anymore, you won't see me buy any new CD's!
This will probably lurk in under-moderated hell... (Score:2)
I want to write a program called "Katzster", wherein, I take every work by Jon Katz, scan it in via OCR, and "share" it with everyone on the 'net. Who's with me?
I'm tired of paying the big buisness, coporatist, publishing companies that publish books, Besides, this is the digital age where all media should be free.
Of course, Jon Katz should have no objection.. he's fine with Musicians losing the right to enforce their copyrights.
Re:Question to Signal 11 (Score:2)
That, to me, is the funniest thing about this. By taking an antagonistic stance, the RIAA is probably doing more to ensure that powerful, anonymous, distributed file-sharing networks will be created than anyone elese. They fired the first shot in the digital distribution war, and amazingly they were pointing the gun at themselves.
-Vercingetorix
Sorry, but you don't have a clue. (Score:2)
--------
Give Me Brittney Spears Or Give Me Death! (Score:2)
Just like CmdrTaco and others bitching about Open Source and then firing up DiabloII on their Windoze machines.
Shakespeare was published by a 'pirate' (Score:4)
This history also points out that what are now known as copyrights were used long ago to limit who could and could not print almost anything. Once again the privilege (and money) generally went to the rich and well-connected.
Don't Bitch About the Judge...Change the Laws! (Score:2)
"The popularity of Napster shows that copyright law has to evolve," she said. "This ruling may be technically right, but there will be a time when you look back on this as The Early Days."
--From ZDNews
So, the real question for the
Liberty or Death -- Don't Tread on Me
Re:A flyer? (Score:2)
Re:You Know What Sucks About Slashdot? (Score:2)
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com [webword.co...wsandmore.] -- Usability Vortal
Re:New music (Score:2)
Singer/songwriters, on the other hand, have this notion that coming up with a pretty good 3-and-a-half minute song (which is really in ABABCBB[fade] format, so we are talking about maybe 72 bars of actual music written, with a poem to sing on top of it), that they should somehow have the world laid at their feet for it.
Let me be the first to say to the person that wrote "Hit Me Baby, One More Time" for Brittany Spears, if even you got one thin dime for that lump of crap you were massively overpaid!
Seeing as the typical beginning songwriter is making $10 an hour at their day job schlepping coffee at Starbucks, if they make anything over $200 off the royalties on their song they are coming out way ahead for doing something they love, and have no right to complain about 12-year-old kids dubbing tapes or downloading MP3's without paying for them.
The way I see it ... (Score:2)
Napster shuts down (Venture Cap's lose investment)
Napster employees shrug, get jobs elsewhere
Users shrug, DL Napigator/Gnutella/Freenet etc... MP3 sharing continues.
Winners: Lawyers
Neutral: Users, Employees
Losers: RIAA, VCs
---
Re:I don't normally comment on Katz, but... (Score:2)
It is not now, nor has it ever been, a realistic goal to get rich by the value of your ideas alone. Most artists and inventors do not profit very much from their ideas. 99% of the time, it is the owner of the press, distribution network, or manufacturing facility that gets rich, usually AT THE EXPENSE of the innovator. Copyright and patent are shams that were perverted from their orginal intent to promote the creation and distribution of new ideas, into a tool which allows a priviledged minority to exercise total control over ideas (usually other people's ideas).
-Vercingetorix
Re:The real losers? (Score:2)
The only issue at question here was whether anybody else had the right to manufacture and distribute RIAA members' music, and the court said "No", which was in fact about the only rational thing they could say.
Quite frankly, I will agree that Napster itself was taking fire that, in a sense, they don't deserve. The real thieves, abviously, were their users. Napster functioned more like bazaar for petty criminals.
You don't like the RIAA? Don't buy their music. Don't sign with their members. Sell your own music only at concerts, or door-to-door, or through a web site. Don't record music at all -- play only live shows. Sew your lips and ears shut, if you like. Stick it to the man, power to the people, whatever.
The RIAA has no authority over any music you create, and never has. Their members have authority over the music they create. Is this really so hard to grok?
Re:Don't be fooled this isn't about piracy (Score:3)
Let's leave the artist out of the argument. He's getting screwed out of his work regardless. I'd be in favor of paying for the MP3's that I download from Napster if I knew that it was actually going to the artist, but it isn't, not much of it anyway.
My analogy to radio is in regards to people taping music from the airwaves. Which I am saying is ripping off artist as much, if not more, than downloading MP3s off of Napster.
I agree that artists should be compensated for their work. What you are either unaware of, or omitting, is that the artistic work(music) under recording contracts doesn't belong to the artist. It belongs to the record companies.
It isn't the pirates who are screwing the artists. Ask any musician what they think about their record company and they will tell you that they are getting raped.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like you think that those royalties go straight to the musicians. It doesn't. A recording contract is a work for hire that is the artist records the music and it becomes the sole property of the record company. The royalties are paid to the record company and if it is included in the contract, a fraction of that amount is paid to the artist.
It isn't napster who is screwing the artists!!!
Re:contracts and values (Score:2)
I've never heard of Copyright described in terms of a contract, but the definition actually fits quite nicely.
The first party to the contract is the artists.
The second party to the contract is the public.
The artists agree to make their work available, and commit it to the public domain. This is embodied in the "limited times" language of the constitution. The work is consideration.
The public, as represented by the government, agrees to, in exchange, grant a limited commercial monopoly over the work. The monopoly is limited both in the sense that the copyright must expire, and also by various doctrines, such as first sale, and fair use.
Both sides benefit from this arrangement. The artists gain a commercial monopoly over their work, and the public receives the work into the public domain, creating the national heritage.
The RIAA and MPAA are attempting, through a combination of technical measures and new laws, to eliminate both the first sale and fair use provisions. They have already effectively eliminated the concept of copyright expiration by the simple expedience of bribing Congress to extend the copyright terms 20 years at a time. They also bought the DMCA, and are fighting tooth and nail to secure their purchase -- they have purchased the elimination of fair use.
Quite simply, the RIAA and MPAA want to change the copyright system from an exchange of consideration -- a contract -- between artists and the public, into a public subsidy, where copyright owners acrue all the benefits perpetually, and the public acrues only the "benefit" of being subject to the complete control of the media industry.
That is the "free lunch" that the MPAA and RIAA want. Napster is the public saying, "NO."
Re:Question to Signal 11 (Score:2)
Re:You know what would really burn them... (Score:2)
All I know is that OS and all this 7 gig disk (which I can't count as one of my disks since its at work) is about half full...and thats including mp3s lots and lots of packages (debian user
Maybe I overestimated the number of packages that
I have installed.
-Steve
Re:Fan Rights (Score:2)
Anyone got some space (processing time and bandwidth) for this?
Re:I don't normally comment on Katz, but... (Score:2)
By way of counter-examples to your proposition that it has not now, and never has been possible to get rich by having ideas (which you acknowledge with your caveat that it's only true 99 per cent of the time, and I'd dispute that figure as it happens):
And the list goes on. Your central thesis rather seems to support the point I was making, though, which is that the real argument here is with the middlemen, not the right of creators to be paid and to protect that right to be paid.
A significant number of creators (which term I use so as to take in artists and inventors) cut out the middleman and get seriously rich. Even some of the guys who used middlemen got rich - the Beatles, Pink Floyd, the Stones - two per cent of billions is still a lot of money.
Let's frame it this way: the fact that the middleman is ripping off the creator is no reason to join in and rip off the creator even more. Even if only a pittance of the sale goes where it ought to, that is no reason to stop even that pittance at source.
Me, if I was inclined to listen to music at all, I'd download the MP3 and send the cost of the CD to the artist. There's a way to go, eh? Offer downloads for free, payment of some minimum sum on the honour system. Well done again, Mr King.
Re:Can't get corporate pop culture w/o corporation (Score:2)
Not so. Pick most any band, and you'll find they were slingshotted into fame by distribution and marketing. For example, right *now* you'll find bands in Seattle that are better than the well-known Seattle bands of the 1990s. They may be amazing. They may have local fans. But are they pop culture? Not in the least. You don't see them on MTV. You don't have hundreds of wannabe bands trying to imitate them. You won't find their CDs on the desks of engineers and stockbrokers. But if Big Record Company X pushed money behind them and put them on MTV and promoted them in a way to make people think they were hip and underground, then they'd move into pop culture. This doesn't happen in today's world without corporate muscle.
Re:Please help me do something about this.... (Score:2)
http://www.gnu.org/philos ophy/reevaluating-copyright.html [gnu.org]
Re:who spent billions of dollars on what?!? (Score:2)
That is utterly untrue.
The CD's that the MP3's were ripped from were lawfully purchased, they were neither shoplifted nor stolen off some loading dock.
"You mean set the tone that artists actually have some right not to have their work ripped off for free?"
You utterly ignore the issue that most music artists will strongly state that it is they who are being ripped-off by the RIAA.
Read Roger McGuinn's Senate Testimony [senate.gov]
"In most cases a modest advance against royalties was all the money I received for my participation in these recording projects."
"The only money I've received for these albums was the modest advance paid prior to each recording."
"Even though the song "Don't You Write Her Off" was a top 40 hit, the only money I received from Capitol Records was in the form of a modest advance."
"My performing work is how I make my living. Even though I've recorded over twenty-five records, I cannot support my family on record royalties alone."
This is from someone who knows what he's talking about.
The RIAA has been ripping-off musicians for decades and decades.
Napster users are not!
t_t_b
--
too early; and you have a choice anyway (Score:2)
More importantly, however, you still have a choice in the media you consume. Nobody is forcing you to become a consumer to the products of a large, commercialized media conglomerate. Don't buy commercial music, don't read big commercial newspapers, don't watch TV, etc. Most of those media are increasingly laden with advertising, harmful social messages, violence, and psychological trickery. We can help build an alternative media culture, both by contributing and by consuming outside the corporate media wasteland.
Re:Don't be fooled this isn't about piracy (Score:2)
So now, due to the artists inability to negotiate a contract with his record company that he is actually okay with, its okay to steal from the record companys?
Gee.. I offered Dodge 45 bucks for a new viper, but they told me I couldnt have it.. so I stole it.. its fair anyway, cause everyone KNOWS that car companys and dealers jack up prices.
...Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like you think that those royalties go straight to the musicians. It doesn't. A recording contract is a work for hire that is the artist records the music and it becomes the sole property of the record company. The royalties are paid to the record company and if it is included in the contract, a fraction of that amount is paid to the artist...
You are at least partially wrong on one count that I know of. When Bad Religion/Epitaph records got picked up by a major label, they retained rights to the entire catalog, as WELL as negotiating it into the contract that that major label must distribute Epitaph bands *EVERYWHERE* they sell their mainstream music. Its more the fault of dumb lawyers and musicians looking for a get rick quick or a quick payoff than anything else.
Do It Yourself music has been around for years.. (Alternative Tentacles, Minor Threat, most punk bands) and it *WORKS*.. (look at the Misfits, for an example). So anyone who claims that the record industry is "screwing the musician" is only seeing part of the story. The fact of the matter is, the person getting screwed here is the audience. Do you *REALLY* think that that CD is worth 17 or 18 dollars? How about those Depeche Mode CD's that are a million years old, that arent being advertised, or promo'd, but now cost more (re-released) than the originals cost? WHY ARE WE BUYING THEM? if we only paid 5 bucks for a new CD, the record company would *STILL* be contractually obligated to pay the musicians up front.. getting them their money. And maybe I wouldnt have to put up with the Back Door BOys on every channel on TV for months at a shot.
Basically, the RIAA is trying to protect its financial interests.. not the musicians. Lars said on day one "this isnt about money, its about morals".
Maeryk
Re:What about hurting small stores? (Score:2)
I don't want to sound like a hard-ass, but where is it written that a record store has any right to turn a profit? It seems to me, the only thing they have a right to do is run a business and hope it is successful. If they are losing money, then perhaps it's time they changed their line of business? It just might be that we are nearing a time when there is no longer a need for the corner record store. This might be a sad occurence, but it is neither good nor bad. It's simply the current state of the market. The same goes for big record labels. If the market squeezes them out, then they have two choices; either adapt and enter a new line of work, or simply go away. This whole affair of trying to legislate your profitiability and using the courts to support your business model is sickening.
-Vercingetorix
I met the hypocritical Devil in a music store. (Score:3)
So he asked me what I thought of his company, to which I replied "I think you are ripping the artist off". He said smugly "We just don't have copyrighted work, we are a way for independent artists to distribute thier work". Ever try to search napster for a band or song whose name you haven't heard of? What a crock! Then he tried to tell me "what the artist wants". I informed him that many artists signed with a label...many well known new artists in fact are currently in debt to their contracts (not that this is fair) and it's not just the record company that gets screwed if they don't have as many of thier records sold as possible and can't get out of that debt. Look at a band like TLC. They declared bankruptcy after their biggest hit album.
It's a hard life for these bands (outside of the glory of being on stage and the screaming fans). Many working musicians under contract have to spend thier lives on tour working much harder than any programmer. It must be nice hustle a stupid greedy VC, get advertisers for your site and be able to buy all that stuff and still claim you are doing the artist a favor.
It became very apparent that he really had no clue as to the life of the typical working musician. So then I wanted to hear him play that guitar that he just bought. He can barely play!
Now I'm no big fan of the RIAA, and philosophically I believe there is a need change the paradigm of music distribution. Frankly I think that OpenNap and Freenet are a good thing...because they are free and open...and only the fans gain. But I have a hard time when some 19 punk profits as much as a record company exec and then tries to sell me and the rest of the world on his virtuous arguments that he had to scramble to come up with because he's all of a sudden feeling the heat.
Shopping (Score:2)
Go ahead, those kids in China need their $1/day pay.
Why don't you buy some DVDs? Send some donations to the MPAA and RIAA legal funds too?
His own best argument against his own points (Score:2)
So the copyright protections were created to protect content back when it was expensive and difficult to copy the works. Now it's cheap and easy to copy IP, and it's somehow less necessary for protections. Typically when an unwanted behavior becomes less difficult to do, the protections against it would deserve strengthening not weakening.
No such campaign has been launched on behalf of music fans, who were literally bled dry for decades not just for artistic compensation but for fat corporate profits.
They were willingly bled dry. I think it would be very difficult to prove that anyone was in a position where not spending money on music would have injured them in any significant way.
Fans are more than consumers. They are entitled to have some rights, just as artists and corporations are. They pay the freight, especially in cyberspace...
None of which flows to the people creating the art that is being freely distributed. Just like paying a fence for something does not suddenly make the purchase legitimate "but officer I paid someone for the car, and it was a hell of a deal too!"
They are constituents in their own folklore and have rights of access to their own culture.
And all they have to do is pay what the person that has a legal right of ownership to that work wants, and they are free to use a copy for their own personal use.
Huh? (Score:2)
These people are paid, by the record company, with a flat fee for services rendered. The janitor doesn't get per-CD royalties, bugg...
That includes the company who delivers the CDs, the company that presses the CDs, the record store
But with music downloaded over the internet, none of those companies provide any service at all, and should be paid accordingly.
It's not as if the head of the RIAA pockets $11 with every purchase, you know.
Right; the janitor gets per-CD royalties, but the record company doesn't?
Re:I don't normally comment on Katz, but... (Score:2)
But I do agree that it is the middle-men who ultimately muck things up. The question then, is, how do you fight to ensure that the money goes to the true creators and not the scabs who live off them? I think avoiding tools like Napster and being a good little corporate citizen is not the answer. The money will just keep flowing into the RIAA's pockets and nothing will change. The other response is to stop buying all RIAA products. This will also never work because the majority of conumers are too weak-willed and apathetic to carry-through with such a plan on a scale large enough to make a difference. The only other answer is to share files to your heart's content, until such time as the mechanisms are put in place by the creators of the work to enable them to receive *fair* payment for it (and an added salute if you independently send some $$ to the artist). Ultimately it is up to the consumers who drive the market to force the market to bend to their will. And the same goes for laws - successful legislation usually conforms to the general will of the public; laws which seek to constrain activities which the general public engages in have historically been doomed to failure.
-Vercingetorix
Interesting fact: (Score:2)
How to uninstall him (Score:3)
Scroll down a bit to 'Authors'
Check 'JonKatz' from the list.
Click 'savehome'.
He was interesting the first couple of times I read his stories. Now I just think he's an alarmist troll.
Re:contracts and values (Score:3)
Back in 1992, the record companies went to Congress to try and obtain royalty payments on blank digital audio media.
Congress made them compromise. Both sides got something.
The record companies have, for the last 8 years, received a payment for each and every digital audio tape and blank audio CDR sold. This was to compensate the record industry for lost sales due to non-commercial, home copying.
However, Congress does not like to pass laws in which people are taxed on one hand, and the activity they are being taxed on is made illegal on the other hand, so they added this provision:
USC Title 17, Chapter 10, Paragraph 1008:
No action may be brought under this title [Title 17 == the copyright code] 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.
In short, Congress said that if the Recording industry wanted Congress to tax home recording media, then that home recording would have to be legalized.
They did just that. Paragraph 1008 defines all non-commercial copying of copyrighted music as non-infringing. It isn't illegal!
The Napster judge tried to ignore this law, but the Court of Appeals basically told the judge that her reasoning was completely wrong:
The court below ignored, however, that 17 U.S.C. 1008 permits non-commercial copying by consumers using either analog or digital audio recording devices or "such a device"; that the legislative history makes clear that Congress intended by that language to immunize all non-commercial copying of music by consumers;
When Congress passed the AHRA, the music industry was not up in arms. Instead, the industry was quite happy, because they were to begin to receive, and have received continuously for 8 years, a stream of "royalties" from the sale of blank digital audio recording media. At the time, I, and many others, thought that this law was extremely unfair, because it created a royalty on ALL media, not just those media used to copy other people's copyrighted works. In other words, if a garage band bought blank CDRs to press their album on, they paid royalties to the RIAA, which distributed the royalties based on their own sales figures.
In retrospect, if the courts can be bothered to uphold paragraph 1008, this law will show itself to be the biggest bargain ever struck between the people and the Recording industry, because it completely and unambiguously legalized all Napster-like activity!
If the recording industry no longer feel that the royalties they are receiving are adaquate, they have every right to go to Congress and ask that the royalty rate be increased. However, Napster is NOT stealing, because they record industry IS receiving payment, in the form of a tax on recording media.
The mere fact that this consumer right has been mostly dormant for 8 years (while record industry profits from blank digital audio media have HARDLY been dormant) is no reason to assert that it no longer exists now that the technology has matured that allows users to exercise that consumer right.