RIAA CEO Speaks 178
Non-Newtonian Fluid writes "Hilary Rosen, CEO and el presidente of the RIAA, has a guest editorial over on ZDNet. Go tell 'em what you think in the talk back section!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
RIAA CEO Speaks
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
The opossum is a very sophisticated animal. It doesn't even get up until 5 or 6 PM.
Theft? What is theft of music? (Score:5)
What constitutes theft of music? Is it actually possessing a CD or file, or is it simply the act of listening to a song without paying for it? As a story earlier today demonstrates, the RIAA seems to think that they can approach any person who plays music (netcasters in this case) and demand payment.
So where are we? If we listen to a CD at a friend's house, are we thieves? If we play our music at work and others enjoy it, is this theft? This area is terribly fuzzy, but I am certain that the RIAA's angle is on the far side of ridiculous.
Re:The RIAA's problem began 15 years ago... (Score:1)
And no, IANAL, but I know enough to know that making copies of a copyrighted work and distributing it IS wrong, and illegal.
And since you want to nitpick, can you cite the specific statutes that make it OK to copy an album you legally own on vinyl or CD?
I mean, in order to talk about legal issues, you need to be a lawyer, right?
Re:The situation in Russia (Score:2)
Keep in mind that this is a boilerplate contract, and almost all record contracts have similar wording.
Thousands and thousands of bands that ARE lucky enough to get signed get screwed daily (and voluntarily), and somehow this is a "functioning" free market.
Orb (Score:1)
I would post a link, but I'm lazy and the only place I checked was the "A" store. It was in stock and shipping within 24 hours though, so I figure you should be able to get it anywhere (at least online).
I also have similar experiences with online music, they usually get me to buy more. I found Tracy Bonham that way, for one.
Hilary...Darling...I've been there and can help... (Score:5)
Your convoluted thinking and misdirected anger clearly indicates that you are having trouble dealing with the impending death of someone close to you. Someone you've loved for a long, long time. Namely, Mr. Intellectual Property.
That's right...Mr. Intellectual Property is dying. He is dying from something new. Something both dangerous and wonderful at the same time. He is dying from complications from an invention capable of both tremendous benefit and harm for mankind. Digital Technology.
Sadly, there is no known cure for "Digitization". Once Digitized, Mr. Intellectual Property loses the physical substrate that was supporting him, stabilizing him, constraining him and keeping him where you wanted him to be. Without this substrate, Mr. Intellectual Property becomes free. Free to roam about the planet at the speed of light (well, close to it anyway), free to visit my computer, free to visit my neighbor's computer, free to visit your computer, free to visit anyone's computer!
Once Digitized and allowed to roam free, Mr. Intellectual Property dies and is instantly reborn as Mr. Digital Content. Mr. Digital Content is wild and free and replicates endlessly. He is wiley, quick and stealthy. He is everywhere and nowhere all at the same time. In fact, you can't rope Mr. Digital Content in, nor fence, nor stall, nor bind, nor lock nor contain Mr. Digital Content in any way.
The point of my little story here Hilary,...love, is that to overcome your grief and anger you MUST surrender your denial and embrace this truth:
Say it with me now...
YOU CANNOT SECURE DIGITAL CONTENT.
YOU CANNOT SECURE DIGITAL CONTENT.
YOU CANNOT SECURE DIGITAL CONTENT.
YOU CANNOT SECURE DIGITAL CONTENT.
The truth will set you free.
Dont agree with me? Need help?
Email me at mcswain@alanmcswain.com
Kisses.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
Re:Where does consent fit in all this? (Score:1)
My response... (Score:2)
--
napster sux (Score:2)
I mean really, about half the stuff I've found on Napster had screwed up ID3 tags, skips, dropouts, and cutoff songs, and took forever to download.
WHY don't the record companies SELL MP3s? Just set up a page on Amazon, B&N, CDnow, etc (cuz I don't know where the hell half the bands are signed, I want to look in one place). Offer MP3's with ID tags (ie, set the genre to Rock if it's a Rock song). Don't watermark it, don't encrypt it, don't embed anything in it. Just take the damn CD and rip it and say, Here, for $0.50 you get piece of mind that the artist is compensated, and you get the guarantee that the Mp3 will play. Set up a $9.95/month deal for unlimited downloads, etc.
I don't know about you, but I would use this regularly and often. Doesn't emusic do this already with some smaller labels? Hello? Big record companies? Remember us? Consumers? Without us you wouldn't exist?
Justifable Murder and Theft (Score:1)
Similarly the record industry have victimised consumers and musicians alike for ages, seems to me that stealing from the record industry should be considered justifiable theft.
The situation in Russia (Score:3)
NPR is almost as objective as they get.
Basically, the story was this: copyrights in Russia aren't protected very well. Pirates sell CDR copies of music for much less than bands sell them for, and as a result, 90% of the music is pirated.
Artists end up spending more time trying to figure out ways to make money and to get the pirates to pirate less than they do writing music. The successful bands are forced to tour at a strenuous pace. Even the most popular band spends most of their money on instruments and have to record in a very cramped apartment. The bands that are playing are basically doing it because they really really love to make music, not because they care about being able to do more than scrape by.
Maybe this is a sob-story, but it's an accurate reprentation of the situation in Russia. Listen to the story yourself, I may not have told it completely accurately.
Anyway, Napster opens up the possibility that America will be like that. Maybe you don't think musicians should make the enourmous amount of money they do now, but I don't think anyone wants the situation to get quite that bad.
--
Re:The RIAA's problem began 15 years ago... (Score:1)
Obviously, you're trolling. Next time, try to restrain yourself from spewing nonsense like "stealing via Napster," and perhaps more people will respond, and help feed your desire for attention.
But I want to clarify one thing. You have the Audio Home Recording Act totally backwards -- the AHRA specifically covers digital copies, not just analog copies [loc.gov]. The question of whether or not Napster can claim protection under the AHRA comes about because home computers may not be Digital Audio Recording Devices, as defined (fairly narrowly) by the AHRA.
The rest of your pablum could be refuted by anyone with a sixth grade education. Only the part about the AHRA not covering digital copies takes even the smallest amount of effort to refute. [loc.gov]
Unwanted Middlemen (Score:3)
Secondarily, some (but not all) artists want to be paid for their performances. Again, Record Labels and the RIAA are actually superfluous to this end. They are merely ONE WAY that an artist can collect revenue, but not the only -or even the most desirable way.
RIAA would like to rewrite the rules so they and the Recording Labels are assured of a place in the upcoming scheme. They may succeed, but I hope that with computers, databases, micropayments and MP3 that a direct listener-to-artist method can be found that would satisfy those not wishing to buy, sell or perform their music via the Record Labels.
As an afterthought, why is RIAA saying that an MP3 is "copying of music?" An MP3 recording has much lower quality than a CD. It is "good enough" in most instances, but I think that basically an MP3 is something to be used as a preview for a CD you'd like to get. Making an MP3 of a CD is analogous to a casette recording of a radio broadcast.
Re:Who's robbing who? (Score:1)
Re:are copyrights necessary? (Score:1)
It's only theft to you because you define it that way. If I teach you recursion, do you think you should pay me a royalty or be accused of theft if you use it? If I teach you to add, should you be barred from teaching anyone else... if I tell you a joke, should you be disallowed from telling someone else the joke!? We could just as easily say, if you speak (or sing) then you do not own the outflow. Saying there is ownership is the artificial choice. Alternatively, if you don't want me copying it, don't send your soundwaves to impinge on my skin and devices.
Re:are copyrights necessary? (Score:1)
Yeah, I do argue that one. If there were no copyrights, there'd be fewer record and movie companies. I claim there'd not only be as many artists, there'd be more of them because if you couldn't own them, there'd be no motive to create a small number of lip-synching "superstars" pumping out the same song to everybody in the world at the same time. If one song didn't have to please the most people, there'd be more variety.
Artists keep telling us how they are artists because they can't do anything else. Great: time to put their money where their mouths are.
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:1)
eudas
Some points just do not make sense... (Score:1)
We aren't against online music; we're leading the way
I'm sorry, Mrs. Rosen, what way are you leading ?
"Online music distribution" way ?
I'm still not able to download songs by most mainstream bands legally. The only lead we can see is Napster and such.
--
Re:are copyrights necessary? (Score:1)
I don't see the system "working" at all, and that's the case you need to make.
Definitely the system isn't working, but we still need copyright. I don't think any musician except the most generous would want to wake up one morning and find her music being sold on a CD with someone else's name on it. That is plagarism which to me is theft.
The rights of fair use should be closer aligned with the desires of the general population. For instance, why does the GPL work so well even though it's never been tested in court? Because the mass population (us) generally agrees with the spirit of the license, and it basically enforces itself.
Let's imagine a world exactly like what we have now, except that copying for non-commercial use is EXPLICITLY allowed.. would this world be so bad? Would it be without music or art? It would probably be a lot like this world but with a few lower-paid lawyers.
Or let's just convince more copyright holders to allow this with their works. Perhaps market forces will do the convincing.
Maybe a better compromise would be 5 years for a copyright.
This is definitely something important to think about. In what other job can your kids get paid for something you did 40+ years ago?
Re:My ZDNET Comments (Score:1)
I'm not even entirely sure at this point if copyrights themselves can be considered property.
It's also interesting that even after the first copyright laws came into effect in the US, they only covered books, maps and pamphlets. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Shakespeare would still have been out of luck. It took quite some time for people to forget about the inbuilt restrictions of the Copyright Clause.
Satan is not incarnate in the form of the RIAA (Score:1)
The majority of the people I know use services like Napster to download music etc. that they never have any intention of paying for. Comments like, "I haven't had to buy a CD in months!" abound. So, here the commons problem gets tested en masse, and the greedy short-sighted people screw us all over.
To those of us who who've got every album released in the last month filed away on a RAID somewhere, you are dumb. The correct solution to "CD prices are too high 'cause of the RIAA!" is not, "...soooo I'll steal 'em!"
Napster does not work. There will be another solution. It might be SDMI. That would be bad. Unfortunately, with the way online distribution has been going so far, we're not giving them many choices.
Run like hell, Hillary. (Score:5)
We aren't against online music; we're leading the way.
In that case, I'll start looking for "download our artist's new album here, only $1/song!" sites at RIAA members' pages right now.
What? There aren't any?
Never mind then.
Our concern is with those who consistently and intentionally fail to recognize that theft is theft simply because the method is new and their immediate benefit is great -- and then argue that stealing from a successful industry somehow justifies their actions.
Actually, this does describe a good chunk of Napster's userbase.
But that doesn't justify SDMI and watermarking. I make perfectly legal use of MP3s every day. So do thousands of others. Fight the pirate, not the technology.
[...] but rather one of defending the creative community's right to do with their craft and their property how they wish. And what they wish -- I assure you -- is to meet consumer demand and bring music to the Internet.
I'll come back to that first point. Smashing Pumpkins, the Offspring, Chuck D, Elvis Costello, a host of artists on MP3.com, and Bob-knows-how-many indie artists are already offering their music on the Internet, sometimes even selling it. What's your excuse?
Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright."
Divx. SDMI. The "licenses" that people agree to when they purchase CDs and DVDs. Thank you, goodnight.
The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it.
For one thing...artists that sign with labels don't own their own music, do they Hillary? They just "work for hire" - their efforts end up being owned by the company.
For another...consider the word "artist". The root word is "art". People who create works of art don't always do it for money. Oh, I know many do, and I don't begrudge them that right - they deserve to get paid for their hard work. But I don't think the fall of the record cartel would wipe out the music industry. It would just take a new form, hopefully one without an oligarchy controlling the production, distribtion, marketing, and ultimately all the money flowing in and out.
Some people make music because they want to; that's enough incentive.
Finally, he asks, as though his hand was just caught in the cookie jar, "Are you so snow-white perfect?"
Didn't Courtney Love make the same accusation in her Salon piece?
What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work and knowingly stealing another individual's copyrighted works.
Yes, Hillary. Individual's copyrighted works. Not corporations that try to get those individuals to sign away their copyright. More power to Elvis Costello for selling his back catalouge online, to Offspring for releasing the music and providing added value on the CD, to Smashing Pumpkins for releasing music they felt should be released when the label didn't want to let it out, to Chuck D for being forward-thinking, to every indie artist who puts up a website and sells CDs for the pure heck of it or to try and "make it big".
The tighter you squeeze, the more artists that will slip through your fingers. This isn't a prediction; it's already happening. It's conflict betweeen the artists and the marketing and control machines built around them that will destroy the industry far more than small-time MP3 copying.
-------------
He makes a good point (Score:1)
Going after peer to peer file sharing systems is not the way to go! You should arrest the speeder, not the highway crew!
Dear Mrs Rosen (Score:5)
You are absolutely correct, this is about theft, but not as you portray it. This is about theft of culture. The RIAA represents an industry founded upon the idea that it is ok, to steal our culture from all of us, then sell it back to us in a neatly shrinkwrapped package. For thousands of years people have made music, and only recently have people fooled the public into thinking that it is morally justifiable to say to all of us that we no longer have a right to participate in our culture, unless we pay a tax to Sony or BMG.
You constantly say that musicians will not make music anymore if they are not guaranteed return. Well, newsflash, they aren't guaranteed that now, never have been, never will be. That is not the mindset of a true artist. That is the mindset of a businessperson. Many musicians make music because they like to make music, and will continue to make music, just as they have since we lived in caves. Music is art, and our art is our culture. Sure, somebody can 'own' the Mona Lisa, but they can't charge people to appreciating it. Mozart made music, because that was who he was in and out - no other way around it - he was going to make music whether there was profit or not.
One way or another, we WILL take back out culture from corporations that seek to rape it for all the profits they can get, and when we do, the artists who produce the rich tapestry of art, literature, music and movies will STILL be able to put food on their table. Why, because people care about the musicians and authors, and they will tip them, and they will pay to see them live, and to own their merchandise, even the CDs - but the music will flow unrestricted as it did before corporations chained it behind an artificial wall of copyright.
You represent the amoral corporations who only have one goal - to make money. And that is counterproductive to the creative process. When the corporations no longer have direct control over the music, the biggest benefit will be to the creativity of the individuals who weave the tapestry of our culture - because they will no longer have to bend their creativity towards what makes the most money, they can once again bend it towards what is most artistically pleasing to them - which make a higher quality for us all (AKA no more backstreet boys).
Fight us all you will, but one day we will liberate our culture from you.
Morality, hah (Score:1)
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:1)
Re:Dear Mrs Rosen (Score:1)
Check. I'm doing just that.
And I love to code, but giving my code away makes me poor.
Well, I've been giving away what I've been doing, and it has netted me quite a bit. Take a look at the NetBSD/i386 Firewall project [dubbele.com]. It has landed me a few projects, an article in
-John
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:1)
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:1)
You should call the FBI and report them, seriously.
Artists Respond To Napster, Mp3s, Et All (Score:2)
------------
CitizenC
The nice thing about ZDNews (Score:2)
If you haven't already added your comment, it is too late to add it to the article. It's been moved to a discussion forum [zdnet.com]. Anyways, maybe Hilary will check back and see the real public opinion.
Re:Everyone says the same thing... (Score:1)
Doun't youu meaun uus Briuts?
Re:What are the legal alternatives? (Score:1)
"oh ya, it a better quality format, cheaper to make and therefore will sell cheaper, but it will take a year or 2 too implment it fully, so CD prices will TEMPORARILY be higher than tapes." uhuh...much cheaper.
The real funny thing is if they stayed analogue, it would be much to hard for the average person to effectivly get the tunes onto thier computer and there wouldn't be wide spread ripping of music. fuckers...rm i mean suckers :-)
Does anyone take these people seriously anymore? (Score:1)
Poor baby!!! (Score:1)
"We're the hardest working band in the business...I don't care if we're the best!" -Iggy Pop with the Stooges
Playing devil's advocate (Score:1)
Second - you can walk around singing all the pop songs you want to and no one will care because very few (if any) people are going to find any satisfaction in this. However, once you start distributing free music this discourages others from buying music (ie it lowers the price because there is too much supply and not enough demand) - this is why the RIAA is pissed.
Everyone says the same thing... (Score:5)
What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work.
Courtney Love said the exact same thing [salon.com] -- about the recourd companies.
Re:Satan is not incarnate in the form of the RIAA (Score:1)
they do, it's called government subsidies and farm aid. we're so good at producing food that people can't make money at it anymore, so now we have to pay people to NOT make food. if everybody in the first world wanted to feed everybody in the third world, they could. but they don't want to.
besides, suffering of people makes a great way to not only oppress and exploit them, but also sucker those who want to help the sufferers into giving you money.
eudas
Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:2)
So, when are you dropping the Napster lawsuit?
Re:Satan is not incarnate in the form of the RIAA (Score:1)
The thing is, no, *you* downloading a CD from Napster and burning it doesn't affect a thing. The problem is when *everyone* downloads CDs from Napster and burns them.
So then, I restate my opinion with, "What if everyone downloaded CDs from Napster and burned them, then was just too damn lazy to find a way to pay the artist for their music?"
Or in terms some other guy up there used, "What if someone spent a whole lot of money to design and manufacture a car, then everyone came along with cloning devices and got nice cloned cars?"
Yes, everyone. That's the nature of the problem. Not you in particular, but everyone.
Another thing... the only thing "stealing" CDs by burning them from Napster "tells" the RIAA is that you're a thief, and so they're going to try to plug the hole in their system, which is what we see now. They don't see it as some kind of rebellion against high CD prices, unfortunately.
If you really think CD prices are too high, I'm sure there's a used CD store somewhere around you. Buy from there, or just don't buy from RIAA-affiliated labels at all (kinda hard to do, but my personal solution).
So... if instead of banning Napster, the RIAA looked for ways to lower CD prices (which shouldn't be too hard, obviously), then might we see an increase in CD sales and a decrease in Napster use?
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:1)
Are you implying that Napster isn't a search engine? The service provides one person connected to the internet with location and file attributes for a file stored by another person connected to the internet. The technology could just as easily be applied to any form of file transferal...
A copyright voilation has occurred, yes. But by the storer of copyrighted works and by the receiver of copyrighted works. All napster is is a file transfer utility that happens to make this easier that it normally would be. Apart from that there are legitimate LEGAL uses for napster which would also be lost were the technology ruled to be illegal.
RIAA's lawsuit is a bandaid solution to the real problem of digital audio utilities differentiating between copyrighted and non-copyrighted works and the further issue of whether or not they should have to.
Re:Hillary Speaks (Score:3)
If your tastes allow it, buy records from independent bands instead of pop sensations. The quality, individuality, and creativity of the music is almost always more evident in such labels, and you can feel good about the fact that no suit is getting rich off of your desire to listen to quality music.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Re:My ZDNET Comments (Score:5)
Bach and Beethoven were definitely paid for their compositions. (I imagine Brahms was too, but I don't know for sure.) The people who paid them had the power to dictate what was to be composed, and when it should be ready. Bach lived in a time when the notion of appeasing royalty was still quite contemporary, and this was the purpose of his Musical Offering, which he hoped would result in a job. (IIRC, it didn't.)
Musical compositions were definitely recognized as the products (if not the belongings) of their creators, and I'd be surprised to learn that they weren't "owned" by somebody, either the composer or the person hiring the composer. I believe information sans owner is probably the historically new idea, not the reverse.
Article on recording contracts (Score:1)
Major Tactical Error (Score:5)
After all this, to suggest that they are the noble defenders of the helpless artists against the immoral, thieving public is just a bit surreal, don't you think?
I'll post it on here cuz they wouldnt post it ther (Score:1)
What a contradiction (Score:1)
------------------------------------------
If God Droppd Acid, Would he see People???
They have three roles (Score:2)
The useful function is that they select and edit muscial content. Please don't tell me about your friend's great band and their self-produced demo. Or about live music, or your local folk scene. Or jazz. Particularly not jazz. The fact is, listen to ten albums put out by members of the RIAA, and listen to ten albums "directly marketed" by acts who have never touched RIAA member money (for why this is important, see below), and you won't have too many problems working out which ten it is that suck. Or at least, if this experiment doesn't work for you, then your taste is sooper l337, and you have to recognise the existence of a lot of people out there to whom they *are* providing a useful service. Studios and labels serve a useful purpose by filtering out bands that suck, something I would have to do myself if everyone was equal on the Net.
Second, they are a financing organisation. In order to produce good music, you often need time. Time to practice, rehearse, write, record, re-record, etc. Time which can't be spent also working nine-hour shifts, or doing work which saps your creativity, or in some cases, even gigging regularly. In order to eat during that period, you need someone to advance the cash up front, against sales of music which will come later, if at all. Banks don't want to get involved in this business. But recording labels, if they get to diversify their risk, will do. And that's why they take such a big percentage of Courtney Love and George Michael's earnings when they are big stars -- it's like the venture capital business; the few big successes pay for the thousands of little failures. Established artists selling their music outside the RIAA system are not a counterexample to copyright arguments, because they wouldn't be established artists if someone hadn't invested in them at some point in the past. Prince, for example, certainly wouldn't. They've paid back the investment now, but that doesn't mean to say they never needed it.
Finally, their destructive function is that they are marketing organisations. In a capitalist economy, there is a constant tendency to produce more than people really need to consume. As Marx noted, this gives capitalism a structural tendency to "crises of underconsumption" (later rediscovered as Keynesian recessions). In order to avert this tendency, capitalism need to create new, previously nonexistent needs, so it can then satisfy them. A lot of pop music has to be seen in this regard -- the Britney Spearses etc. It's a nasty, destructive activity; if people could be prevented from creating these ersatz needs, and from creating the structures needed to serve them, we'd all have more spare time and resources to do things of real value for ourselves. But it's intrinsic to the capitalist system, and if you're not against that system, I don't see how you can be against specific instances of the general rule.
Careful (Score:2)
Clockwork Orange (Score:2)
Can we still sing along? (Score:2)
Well, I'm not supposed to say this on ZDnet, but- (Score:2)
That about sums up the patience I have for dear Hilary and her organisation.
Rather than sit around on Slashdot composing an elaborate reply to Hilary and taking her oh so seriously, I did something better tonight- I remastered every track from my 'Dragons' album (that some people around here kinda liked) through a special passive resistance mixer I recently built just for the purpose. It kicks ass, now I have the masters for CDs that will sound _much_ bigger and better than the old mp3.com CDs (left that place 'cause they messed up the contract)
For technical geek slashdotters interested in building this sort of ADAT mixer, here are the key factors to the design:
- totally passive, no tone controls, just 8 attenuators and switching networks for pan- avoid loading the outputs of the ADAT too much or the resulting signal will be so soft that your computer will add noise again just amplifying it
- use good wire, that's about the only thing that can degrade the sound: no electronic parts unless you count resistors and pots and switches. No amplification at all: no IC or transistor or opamp or FET noise at all.
- Some limiting is useful as you can't make a glass master for CD pressing from a recording with overs (clipping the digital), but using this type of mixer the dynamic peaks are just unbelievably powerful- you'll be at -20 half the time unless those peaks can be limited somehow. And you can limit them without a single amplification stage- in an evil but clever way.
- A pair of diodes between the signal and ground produces a 'distortion box', only it has to be a very hot signal to clip. If they are on the output of the mixer network, almost nothing will actually clip through these diodes, but the hottest peaks will. To make things even more interesting you can put an inductor in series with the pair of diodes- then, only lower frequencies will be 'flattened' and the highs will be noticably enhanced because the diodes seem to show a bit of leakage- it's a subtle effect but very useful. I'm using a rotary switch and five different sets of inductors as the sole 'tone control' on the mixer- affects the mix's approach to 'presence'. It's a neat blend of total low noise low coloration passive mixing and still getting to limit peaks
:)
I've ordered CD blanks to make these and other CDs from- can hardly wait for them to arrive. It's been a huge amount of work but it's so worth it- the only way to deal with the music industry these days is to _scorn_ it and DIY, all the way. If you create you have the right to dictate your own terms: on every single CD blank (with full-color label print) I have the words "all commercial rights reserved- noncommercial copying OKAY"Bite me, Hilary! I don't care _how_ many people you brainwash into sneering at do-it-yourself artists, I don't care _how_ many artists you rip off. Normally I am not a combative person but enough is enough. Your people have done enough damage. Die!
Re:Make a good impression (Score:2)
What are the legal alternatives? (Score:2)
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:5)
>
> [a
Not really. We saw this played out for $150M during the mp3.com trial. It's the difference between an information-theory point of view and a meatspace point of view.
Hilary Rosen is thinking about swapping plastic discs that store a physical representation of music.
You and I are thinking in terms of swapping bits that store an informational representation of music.
Hilary has no problem with our swapping plastic discs, because the number of plastic discs remains constant after the swap. After thee swap, I can no longer hear the music on my piece of plastic, because the plastic's in your basement.
She's still got a big problem with our swapping bits, because me giving you my bits doesn't prevent me from continuing to use my bits. After we swap, we can both listen to the music encoded in both my bits and your bits.
(Indeed, the notion of "my" and "your" to denote ownership of "bits" in the context of swapping stuff is nonsensical, which is why Hilary gets angry, judges get confused, companies get sued, and geeks wonder what all the fuss is about, whenever people "swap CDs with their friends" from an information-theoretic point of view instead of a meatspace point of view.)
The record companies know how to sell plastic. They don't know how to deal with bits. They only know how to think plastic and scarcity. They can't think bits and plenitude.
Viewed this way, SDMI is merely an attempt to turn back the clock - to glue those bits back onto a piece of hardware, thereby making the bits scarce and consequently more valuable.
Won't work, of course. But at least now you know where she's coming from.
Re:Morality, hah (Score:2)
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Re:Careful (Score:2)
Out of 30 "successful" bands, only a few actually get a decent cut of the profit after everybody else takes their share.
Re:the way to "talk back" is with your wallet... (Score:2)
really? (Score:3)
Hmm, where does one draw the line between swapping a CDs with friends and distribution to the masses online?
Re:I have one question... (Score:3)
Of course people say, but I buy more cds now because of mp3s. Of course there will be a short term blip of people buying more cds because they are exposed to music they may not listen to before. But this is a short term blip. Why?
Portable mp3 players are expensive vs cd players (I can get a cd player for less the $50, an mp3 player will run me at least $150).
CD Players that play mp3 files are not mainstream.
MP3 players in general are a small market.
In a nutsell, if I want to listen to my music anywhere, my best chance is to put it on an old fashioned CD (read: buying it). When mp3's on cds become more common as well as better priced mp3 players come to market, we will see an exodus away from cd sales.
But when mp3 player prices become reasonable in price, (portable cd players can be found for less than $50, while portable mp3 players cost more than $150 and will be obsolete in a year because newer players will blow them away) mp3 players become more common to play from cd
My posting on their board (Score:2)
Reads like this:
Quoted from the article:
This completely ignores the fact that the record companies fail to adequately reward the artists in many cases. The internet music scene and private labels are changing this; Of course, most of the record labels who do actually give their artists more than, say, four points of the *profit* are not members of the RIAA.
As long as the record companies continue to inflate the prices of CDs to $17 when CDs are actually cheaper to put on the store shelf than tapes, people will continue to "steal" music. Of course, the RIAA hasn't been going after people who tape music off the radio, or off of friends' tapes or CDs, but we're already aware that this is not entirely about people not paying for music. It's about the record companies sensing that the world is spinning out of their control, and like any good illuminatus they are trying to keep it well within their grasp. But it's doomed to fail for the same reason that SDMI is doomed to fail, and that's that what people can put together, people can take apart. Just glance over at the berlin wall... woops, too late.
Okay, okay, so it was a little trite, but look at the audience over there.
Re:The RIAA's problem began 15 years ago... (Score:4)
It's *NEVER* been legally wrong. The RIAA mind-control goons just want us to believe that.
Re:are copyrights necessary? (Score:2)
This stuff was expensive to create and promote. So pay up, you bastard.
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:2)
Re:Theft? What is theft of music? (Score:2)
That is; owning the CD (having it on the shelf where your friends can see it, see how cool you are for liking that band), or listening to the CD for your own enjoyment (or cultural indoctrination, however you want to look at it), or playing the CD for your friends (see situation #1).
Re:My ZDNET Comments (Score:2)
No one is saying that they will cease to exist. But they will be fewer in number. If you have an artistic talent you have the choice of earning a living by your talent full time, or taking a job outside of your talent (waiting tables) and only getting to create on the weekends. If artists are allowed to own their own works they will be encouraged to produce more.
And before some numbskull announces that artists don't own their works, the RIAA does, remember that there are thousands of independant artists out there despite the existance of copyright.
Interesting that Bach, Beethoven and Brahms all had to acquire the patronage of the ruling aristocracy before they were able to produce their music full time. Shakespeare had to earn his living for quite some time by producing performances of his works. His earnings from the works themselves were next to nil. If he were not a producer as well as artist...
Re:The situation in Russia (Score:3)
Even the most popular band spends most of their money on instruments and have to record in a very cramped apartment.
Russian doctors make less money than American burger flippers. Tiger Woods makes more money than the entire payroll for the vietnamese factory that makes his shirts. ($100 million vs. $1.25 a day... think about it...)
Yes, russian bands are poor and starving. So are russian doctors, lawyers, truck drivers, peasants, plumbers, and just about everyone else. And they've got SO much disposable income for CD's.
Not trying to flame you here, but good god man! Get a grip. America spent over a million dollars last year buying I love Lucy re-runs that they could have "pirated" by using their VCR.
THINK!
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:2)
The Big-5 (and thus RIAA) will spend >$50 million in legal expenses every year. They are able to write the laws in their favor, and then spend a bunch defending these laws after that.
With that kind of money, time, and legal defense, they are capable of doing almost anything. And if they somehow can't, they will stoop to any level to do just that. Such as trying to break into your system, just to get proof against you in court. Do you know how much trouble law enforcement would get into, if they obtained information that way?
If you're not making this story up, you need to keep hard copy records, and file a report. With the media hype today against "hackers" , they would eat up this charge against the RIAA trying to crack your systems.
Rader
What we are REALLY paying for - (Score:3)
Bullshit. The costs of marketing these steaming piles of crap are what is making the execs go insane over the bottom line.
"The studios better stop chasing an opening weekend where they're spending 80' to make a dollar," says Jeff Berg of International Creative Management. Studio executives agree that marketing costs are crippling the business, but that doesn't mean star salaries don't take their toll."
- from Time [time.com]
So I'm not allowed to download a couple of MP3s or stream a movie over the net b/c I might stiffle the profits that pay for the insane marketing machine that bombards me 24/7 with the most shallow and regurgitated media which makes me want to run to Siberia, just to escape it all?
Fuck. Let's all start downloading and stop paying for CDs and movies. Maybe the industries would collapse, like the Valentis and Rosens predict. But people were making movies and music before it was ever billion dollar profitable to do so - and they will do so again. Maybe the entities that rise up in place of the MPAAs and RIAAs will be more humane to the people who support them.
-------
Distrib/Mktg costs = $0 now, we should steal back (Score:2)
-= Griffis =- http://www.rounin.com
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:2)
Never, apparently. Not only are they bullying people with smaller wallets around, they're being vindictive sons of bitches too. A couple of weeks ago, Georgia Tech refused to ban Napster, claiming that they are just another ISP. Try to sue Gatech, and you have to go up against wallets such as AOL's and MSN's.
Anyway, this must have pissed them off, because they've been scanning port 21s here at Tech constantly. My server logged them trying to get in around 2:30pm today, around the same time that they tried on all my friends. If they find a server they can get into (they tried 6 or 7 passwords with mine), they send Tech a nasty letter and Tech shuts down your ethernet port until they can give you a slap on the wrist for violating the computer usage policy. Has anyone at other colleges (those who have or haven't tried to block Napster) noticed this? I'm now keeping logs for all login attempts for longer than just a day to see how many times this happens. The outcome could be interesting, especially if they keep trying to crack my password. If I find a list of IPs that look suspicious, I'll post them and we can all add them to our ban lists.
--
Re:Morality, hah (Score:2)
The money that goes into the computer, and the internet account, is good for many many other things besides Napster. Many useful beneficial things, like email, balancing checkbooks, online shopping, online education, news, etc.
Then there's the point you make that the music is not portable.
Get a CD Burner, and it's portable to any other CD player.
Get a portable MP3 player, and it's likewise, portable.
Plus, you save yourself the trouble of getting screwed when you pay $15 for a CD with one good song on it. Plus, you have the FANTASTIC flexibility and convenience of burning your own mix CDs of your favorite songs from various artists, but perhaps most worthwhile of all, if you do OWN the music as a CD copy, you don't have to worry about scratching or losing your only copy, and having to buy another COSTLY RIAA-sanctioned copy. You have backups.
All in all, the MP3-situation is good for the consumer in almost every way. Superior to the old model. And far superior to the new models I've heard proposed by the RIAA (SDMI). Any new model that comes along will have to compete with the current MP3 model in all of these convenience and safety features - not simply cost (free!).
However, I believe in the basic goodness of humans, and I believe that once the record industry hits on a technology that offers the same flexibility and convenience, that people would rather pay for the "official" "licensed" version, than have to have that nagging little voice in the back of their heads reminding them that they stole. (even though they didn't, because it's covered under fair use; loan a CD to one friend, share an MP3 with 6 million friends, it's THE SAME). But we'll all feel better when we don't have "borrowed" or "shared" stuff, when we own our own property that we paid (a fair price, like 5-10 cents a song) for.
Leadership (Score:5)
The member companies of the RIAA are certainly not 'leading' sites like MP3.com when it comes to number of digital music downloads, or revenue generated. Several RIAA members don't distribute music online; those that do use the least innovative methods of digital distribution.
Consider my recent experience when I visited Sony Music's first online music offering: the Digital Download. I had to really want my Digital Download, because the mystifying site layout made it very difficult to find what I was looking for.
I finally found a list of under 100 single tracks available from Sony's entire catalog. The cost per download? $2.50. The file format? I don't have any fucking clue. I spent ten minutes on the site looking for indication of what I would be getting if I paid them money for their top-40 rotation music file. MP3? Liquid Audio? WMF? Who the hell is going to overpay for a music file when they don't even know what hardware or software is capable of playing the file?
So I am struggling to understand Hillary's definition of 'leadership' in online music. Ah, yes, I remember. RIAA member companies are leading all other companies in threatening legal action against artists that attempt to distribute their own music online.
Corby
Where does consent fit in all this? (Score:3)
I understand that people are pissed at the record companies. I have some sympathy with the view, my stomach turns every time I look at the prices of CDs in my local music stores. I don't know how a 50c CD with some similar amount in royalties for the artist ends up getting a 1500% mark up. But then, I don't know what the raw prices of many of the goods I buy are. And I don't know what's involved in creating a record company. I know Branson's original business model of using a record company to fund an airline was supposed to be to use the high turnover but apparently low profit of Virgin records to fund the high profit but needful of large loans Virgin Air.
But I digress. The issue I start to worry about is when /.'ers say they feel record companies deserve what's coming to them because they use a dead business model. The question I ask is, ok, they may well do so, but given that music was created by an artist on the understanding that they would be paid under a particular system, and that the recording industry funded the production of the music and putting into music stores across the country on the understanding that people who wanted to listen to the music, and own a copy themselves would pay them a once-off fee for a copy to use as they will, is it fair to then remove the viability of that distribution model from them, and enjoy what they produced for you under that system?
If people here were saying "Bastard recording industry. Rips us off. I'm not buying any more records", or "Screw them, I'm going to organize a boycott of Acme Records Inc.", then I'd have no objection. But to say "Hey dudes, your model where I have to pay you to listen to your music just sucks! I'm going to listen to your work, which I'll get for free from one of the few people who bought it, I'm going to exploit what you did, and I'm going to do that and pass on copies to all my friends, and not pay you a penny", well, that's something else? Someone has the right, unquestionably, to refuse to pay for something and not use it, but to refuse to pay and use it? Or to encourage others to refuse to pay and exploit it?
The artists and producers have, what I feel to be, a legitimate complaint that they didn't consent to this. They produced something on the understanding it would be paid for by those who exploit it. And Napster in particular was/is a business that has ignores the wishes of those who paid for the work done, be it through direct work (the artists), or through organizational work and investment (the producers.) It doesn't seem fair to me, and I'm not quite sure why so many on /. seem to believe the entire music piracy business is a cause to support.
Re:The RIAA's problem began 15 years ago... (Score:2)
Great article... (Score:5)
See, the problem with that article is that it had very little to do with the real world. In our world (unpleasent place that it is), artists are in the business of exchanging music for money, and listeners exchange money for music. But the RIAA (and the recording studios the RIAA represents)...what are they around for?
Time was, a few years back, that both artists and listeners needed them. An artist might have a great song idea, but for that song to end up as a record or tape in my hands wasn't easy. Thus, we have the RIAA. But that is no longer the case. An artist can write, perform, record, distribute and promote a song, even an album, with no help from a recording studio. It's no wonder the RIAA finds this a little scary.
"...the recording industry -- whose business is finding new ways to make music available to more people..." Really? If this were so, I'd be first in line for nominating the RIAA and Ms. Rosen for a public service award. But it ain't, as Ms. Rosen knows as well as any. Of course, as everyone should know and expect, the RIAA is in business to make money. On the other hand, the best way to make music available to as many people as possible is Napster and bootleg CD-presses in China. I'm hardly advocating copyright violation, but Ms. Rosen apparently IS. Which is why her excellent article is...fiction.
This ZDNet interview should be rated -1 Troll (Score:2)
And then we see them redefining fair use and standing in the way of systems that clearly pay the artists for their music. (spaceshifting services)
Do we believe it? No.
Do they believe it? No.
Does this change anything? No.
When I complete the orbital space lasers, the RIAA will be one of the first to go.
Zipwow
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:2)
I think Napster could be beat. Just for a minute, let's say that Napster doesn't lose, and they continue on in some type of incarnation of distributing music...
About 6 months ago, some friends and I thought we could do better than Napster (who didn't?) and started writing our own application. Of course, as most pipe dreams go, it went nowhere, although I'd like to think it was because my idiot friends didn't like the idea of actually "working" on it..."Oh, you mean we can't just talk about it", or "I don't know how to program"... blah blah.
But one of the things I did get out of it, was a large list of features, and reasons Napster could be beat at their own game.
I won't bore you with ALL the reason (like how there was no chat feature at the time) but the main reason was content & popularity. It's either an upward spiral or a downward spiral. Back then, at any time, you could get almost 200,000 songs to choose from on Napster. The problem with other wannabe-sites were that there was no content. Do a search on Scour back then, you'd get back nothing. Do a search on iMesh, or whatever it was called, and you might find it, but the user was logged off at the time (And never to come back, because Napster was a better place to go).
So, due to nothing being found, you wouldn't go back, even if they had better ideas and better features than Napster.
So what a company needs to do, is come up with a program with better features, less bugs, and survive long enough to get over the "hump". The hump being enough of a selection so that users kept coming back.... thus keeping it alive (and growing).
We thought the "hump" would be easy to beat. My own collection alone, was 1/8th of Napster's. (25,000+ songs - no dupes either) I figured that if I grew my collection a bit, or get a few more "large collector's" out there to always be logged on... That people would stick around long enough.
Of course, it would never do -- if I was logged in with 25,000 songs... so I'd have to set up a few dummy accounts with 5,000 each or so. Or even maybe buy some college kid in another state a nice big computer, and cable modem, and the only price he had to pay was to keep his mouth shut, and to be logged in all the time......(I always wondered if the Napster kids did that to get it going)
Now, I know that it'd take some money too. I think the last I heard, Napster was using an OC48, and that was quite a while ago. However, I think Napster is doing all the dirty work and spending all their money, where another company could jump right in, and get started with only a million dollars or so. (Or whatever chump change is to VC's is now-a-days).
Of course mp3.com would love to flex their collection a bit. Don't forget, they have 80,000 full albums ripped. At a conservative 10 songs/album, that's 800,000 songs. (with no dupes)
Rader
No, Sonny Bono was Disney's idea. (Score:2)
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was Disney's idea. Have you ever noticed how copyright extensions always come just in time before "Steamboat Willie" (first Mickey Mouse cartoon) goes PD?
Yes, perpetual copyright is constitutional [everything2.com].
<O
( \
XPlay Tetris On Drugs [8m.com]!
Hillary Speaks (Score:5)
Thank you for the great quotes and double-speak:
"Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright." The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music".
So what has the RIAA done to help protect artists owning their own music? The Sonny Bono Copyright protection act?
The RIAA has constantly fought for the ability of the recording industry to take away all of the rights of the artists over their creations.
Nice shot Hillary.
Chris
The RIAA's problem began 15 years ago... (Score:2)
Their laziness in not addressing this issue is what spawned the current problem. They virtually CONDONED the tape copying, because they knew the quality would degrade, and people would eventually get the tape.
So now we have people who never thought twice about copying music before, because it was never "wrong" in the eyes of the RIAA.
It's always been *legally* wrong, but now it's just easier, and better, and the RIAA doesn't want to lie in the bed it has made.
My ZDNET Comments (Score:5)
"The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it."
Right. The greatest composers of all time, such as Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms, would never have written music if there were no copyright -- hey, wait a minute, there WERE no copyrights. True artists would continue to create, because the act of creation is its own reward. What you really mean to say, is that leeches that make a living promoting, advertising, and distributing other peoples creations would no longer have any incentive to do so -- and would be forced to go out and get REAL jobs, rather than surviving by exploiting the creations of truly talented people.
Why do people persist in this fallacious argument, that without copyright, artists would cease to create? Artists created virtually all the the best -loved music, paintings, sculpture, and architecture before the legal pretense of copyright was even a gleam in some evil lawyer's eye. True artists would continue to do so without it. Of course, those are the exact same people that have refused to sell their souls to the RIAA in the first place...
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:3)
Re:The situation in Russia (Score:2)
Nels
Slashdot Interview of Hilary Rosen? (Score:3)
Re:are copyrights necessary? (Score:4)
This idea, I think, is the key. If there were no copyrights, there would be fewer artists, and we all lose. (Yeah, you can argue that one, but a lot of people are only in it for the _big_ money, which you probably can't reach without the money-sucking corporate structure.) However, if copyrights are changed back to a "limited term", as they were originally intended to be ... suddenly, if the artists want to keep those profits rolling in, they have to keep on creating. It seems strange to me than someone should expect to be paid horrendous amounts of money for something they did 30 years ago. I really think that limiting copyrights (and then really enforcing them) would be the best way to deal with the opposing interests of artists and consumers.
Re:My ZDNET Comments (Score:2)
Then be suprised.
I believe information sans owner is probably the historically new idea, not the reverse
Then believe wrongly.
The first restricitions on copying were esstablished merely "to raise government revenue and to give governing authorities control over publication contents [britannica.com]."
The first law to ever acknowledge publishers or writers as having ownership rights to their works (as opposed to publishers having royally-granted monopolies on the buisness of publishing) was the Statute of Anne, passed in England in 1710. More than 6,000 years after the origin of the written word.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Who's robbing who? (Score:3)
Steve Albini, Recording Engineer, who's recorded albums for Nirvana, PJ Harvey, the Breeders, the Pixies, Helmet, Cheap trick, Jesus Lizard and Bush, just to name a few, wrote an excellent article entitled "The Problem with Music" [stormy-mondays.com] for Maximum Rock n' Roll magizine in the mid-90's. While it's a little out of date and hence there's no mention of the internet-driven digital music craze, it definately outlines some of the major problems that musicians have to face when trying to get their music out to the people. Give it a read.
Re:My ZDNET Comments (Score:2)
And this kind of pay for composition still takes place all the time. John Williams didn't just happen to write a bunch of music that people liked and decided to turn into movie scores. Big Hollywood studios came to him and asked him to write the scores for their new movies. The same thing is true of a lot of other artists who write for movies, Broadway, TV, etc.
There's still plenty of space for commissioned compositions in the world today. Even apart from themes for movies and TV, there are many successful live performing groups that commission new pieces. Major metripolitan orchestras and operas want new music for their listeners, and they're willing to pay for it. With a bit of work, I'm pretty confident that we could also re-popularize the idea of having works commissioned for special occasions. Imagine Paul Allen opening his new mansion with a song written to celebrate Jimmi Hendrix, or Intel accompanying the rollout of the Itanium with The Itanium March by John Williams. It just takes a couple of big wheels doing it to make it really popular.
I couldn't finish the article (Score:4)
What follows is various passages and my responses to them. Yes I am just a bit cycinal. -- enjoy.
Kibo
Our concern is with those who consistently and intentionally fail to recognize that theft is theft simply because the method is new and their immediate benefit is great -- and then argue that stealing from a successful industry somehow justifies their actions.
Do as I say and not as I do huh? Your industry has been robbing consumers out of their mind for years. The price of a CD has remained relatively the same since it's inception. Look at the price of a CD in 1985 comparied to today
Again, let's not forget the underlying issue. This is not a matter profits and losses or of one industry attempting to stifle another, but rather one of defending the creative community's right to do with their craft and their property how they wish. And what they wish -- I assure you -- is to meet consumer demand and bring music to the Internet.
Not a matter of profits and losses??!?!... Isn't that what you've been complaining about? The only thing the RIAA is interested in is lining their pocketbooks. Your industry doesn't give two shits about the creative rights of your artists. Never mind the fact that you don't own any of the artist's songs THEY DO!
Clearly ignoring the intent of current copyright law and questioning the legal definition of "fair use," Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright." The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it.
It's quite obvious to me you want to replace ownership with rental. You've even gone so far as to demand that Radio stations pay royalty fees for on-line broadcasts.
An advancement in technology isn't wrong. Swapping CDs with your friends isn't wrong. What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work and knowingly stealing another individual's copyrighted works. That is what will ultimately hurt the evolution of online music-- a lesson Mr. Somerson should learn.
You didn't give up any blood sweat and tears to make any of the music your industry promotes. Telling me that you think swapping CD's isn't wrong is a bold faced lie... I think your suit against Napster is proof of that. -- how stupid to you think consumers are? You claim that swapping CD's isn't wrong, however it is prohibited by the DMCA. A set of Laws that your industry had a fair hand in writing. How can I respect someone who feels it's OK to violate laws that they themselves wrote?
are copyrights necessary? (Score:4)
If I steal your food for lunch, surely, I'm stealing. But if I could make "free" copies of your lunch to the extent that we could end world hunger... would that be "stealing"? Would it be unethical? Back in the old days, if I saw you hunting buffalo with a better method, I could copy it... is there something wrong with that?
Back in the old days, if you wanted to listen to music, you tossed a few coppers at a minstrel. If the minstrel sang a song and left, you could sing the song after he was gone. But today with copyrights, there are very few musicians around, and the recording industry, concentrated in a few companies, controls all, not the artists. Say what you will about how "necessary" copyrights are... blah blah blah, I've heard the arguments before. I don't see the system "working" at all, and that's the case you need to make.
Maybe a better compromise would be 5 years for a copyright. What have you done for us lately.
Make a good impression (Score:5)
Re:Conceding your lawsuit is baseless? (Score:2)
No, I don't think this means that they're going to drop the napster lawsuit, but I think they are going to also start going after people who provide DSL, Cable Modem services, T1, and OC3 lines. They are the ones making a killing off of all this because of all the people installing high speed internet connections to their house so they can download MP3s faster.
Like she gives a fuck about the artist (Score:3)
Hell they can't even tell good music from bad. They just use the shotgun method and hope they hit something that catches on. Ostensibly that's why CD prices are so high; you're subsidising the failed CDs with the price you spend over what would be considered a "Reasonable" profit.
Of course, other distribution/payment methods could arise. They know this, but they're not creative to come up with something themselves, so they just tie everything up in court until they can get a "Secure" distribution format in place. A format which won't deter the pirates, will eliminate fair use abilites for Joe Average User, and which will make it an order of magnititude for anyone not sanctioned by them to get into the business of distributing music.
I'm hoping that when they roll out that format, that the subsequent consumer revolt takes all these people's careers down the tubes. With any luck it'll be divx all over again.
rosen the moderate (Score:5)
What strikes me most about these (and perhaps most all)
This is, in a sense, what slashdot prides itself on, and perhaps it is not such a bad thing. Spontaneous initial discussions are almost by definition knee-jerk in nature, as they solicit people's immediate reactions to a piece of news ("MS did what?!? Those *&%#$s!") and go from there.
But it seems to me this is not an altogether advantageous trait when
Members of the
Perhaps unlike most of the posters (and non-posters here), I've actually met Hilary Rosen (for a few minutes, not long ago, with all this chaos in full swing). What strikes me most about the ZDNet article and the response to it here is the disconnect between her relatively moderate stance (my opinion, nothing more) with regard to the rest of the RIAA, and the unabashed extremism of this community.
I think we would all do well, certainly this "pro file-sharing, anti-corporate leeches" community, to make a good faith effort to understand the RIAA's real position on this matter and how it is evolving. Better information can only strengthen our arguments and thus improve the chances that our opinions will carry some real weight outside these walls.
jMC
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
the way to "talk back" is with your wallet... (Score:2)
Execs listen to money. Nothing else will convince them to change.
Re:The situation in Russia (Score:3)
So our system enable 30 bands per year (out of thousands and thousands of unknown bands) to make a seriously fat paycheck per year, and you have the gall to say that copyrights WORK in this country?
Please, spare me.
Being Really Nitpicky... (Score:2)
But anyway. =)
Re:Everyone says the same thing... (Score:2)
Actually, US Copyright Code says nothing at all about third parties profiting from your works. It says almost nothing about money. The exclusive rights [cornell.edu] given to the author include right to copy, right to perform, etc...
The reason is that an increase of sales in one product often indirectly increases sales of a separate product. For instance, if madonna's CDs become 10 times more popular, you can bet that CD player sales will shoot through the roof. (yeah, the destination organizations in this case are the same, but they don't have to be) And it's impossible to calculate exactly how much one product affects another.
Yes, it seems ethical that the person who authors a work should be the one who benifits from it most. But the law says nothing of the sort because the line is fuzzy.
--
if the riaa really was embacing new technology... (Score:3)
If the RIAA really was embracing new technology, they would not have attacked Napster and MP3.com, to name a few....They would've realized that Napster and MP3.com, having gone mainstream, have a huge share of the mp3 market...the RIAA would have developed a partnership with either system so that either lower-quality mp3s ofartists are available to listen (in order to hear their sound before purchasing the cd, as an mp3 at 64k is good enough to hear, but not worthy to burn and make a cd) and/or allow high-quality mp3s to be bought and downloaded...
THAT would be embracing new technology and "finding new ways to make music available to more people" nad still allow to artist to make money....
However, THAT would also mean that the RIAA (and it's members) would have to share much of the profits with the partner...it's easier to sue, force the company out of business, and then eventually use the same business model to get ALL of the profits, and call that "embracng new technology"...
--------------
I *CAN* get some satisfaction after all! (Score:4)
The flamage, the carnage, oh, the humanity!
I love it. I guess stuff like this is why I stick around this dump.