RIAA Wants Opt-In Filtering For Napster 338
"So who would decide what songs go on this 'opt-in' list? The copyright holder or the RIAA?
In other words, if I want to distribute a 3-hour recording of me gargling (to which I would own the copyright), would I be able to add it to the opt-in list? If so, what's stopping anyone adding in any old song into the list. If not, who would be responsible for listening to all the material that is submitted, and deciding whether or not it should be added?"
I bet the completely trustworthy, infallably charitable Music Industry would like to be the one making that decision. They know what's best, and how much it should cost (per listen, ideally). Conceding control of what's on people's hard drives to large businesses with vested interests in limited fair use (however you define it) seems like a bad idea.
Re:Dorks. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
17 years too late (Score:5)
Sure, I say this with sarcasm now, but even if They can't take away our physical rights, why not our electronic ones? Right now there is the possibility that Napster could turn into the only RIAA approved file sharing system right? And it'll only stock "approved" titles. So what makes you think that after a good relationship is established that gnutella etc aren't going to be what They start going after?
I hate to be a conspiricy theorist, but I appreciate my fair use rights as much as the next guy. Soon you won't be able to download non-sanctioned music, you'll have people monitoring what you watch on your HDTV, you won't be able to record it, and your HDTV won't really be under your control anymore anyway, as it's remote control capabilities [slashdot.org] allow Them to turn it off when They see fit. Oh, and those DVDs you purchased? Wanna watch them on a non-approved OS or using a non-licensed player? Sorry bub, no joy. Rip a CD to listen in an un-approved manner? Good luck!
Sarcasm now, but lets see what it's like in a few years.
Re:Dammit! (Score:2)
I'm Slashdot User #580, who else?
I'm no kind of hero man. There are so many people out there who're just like me- turn away from the TV and commercial FM radio and you'll spot 'em all over the place. Maybe I'm just madder than most because I'm 32 and have spent _years_ learning about this stuff and learning how to do it myself instead of being a passive consumer person with a neat little role in society.
If you like what I have to say and want to cheer me up, then when I _do_ finish all this CD mastering and move over to Ampcast and start selling awesome CDs, buy some- I do enough very different sorts of music that probably there's something in there you'd like.
If you _really_ want to cheer me up, save your money and buy a guitar and start making your own damn art! -chris
Re:Dammit! (Score:3)
Of course, my cowardly friend! I do both kinds of music- country _and_ western ;)
Dammit! (Score:5)
I DON'T HAVE FUCKING TIME TO PERSONALLY AUTHORISE EVERY LITTLE DOWNLOAD!
_Apologies_ to anyone who is offended by this strong language- but I am _very_ angry here. As copyright holder it is UP TO ME how I want to license my stuff. As it happens, I use the statement "All commercial rights reserved- noncommercial copying OKAY", because I fully intend to completely permit ALL FORMS of fair use copying and EVERY sort of copying and sharing and trading that doesn't actually involve someone charging people for my stuff [besonic.com]. That is MY RIGHT under the law. _I!_ am the one who says what people can do with it.
Even _if_ the idea of this isn't 'submit your song to the RIAA to have Napster given permission to let YOU host it on YOUR computer only', even if the idea is that Napster keeps the records, I am really angry and finding this suggestion absolutely intolerable. As copyright holder _I_ have the right to authorise every listener I have to share my stuff on Napster. I've even asked people to do just this, repeatedly- I thought it would not only help me but would also add to the argument that Napster links to lots of different kinds of content.
I am not trying to get a free ride off the RIAA, okay? I'm not even _seeking_ fame and money and record contracts that are fair. I am perfectly content to do all the work for producing my own music, to seek out places like besonic and ampcast that aren't ripping me off, to accept that I may not sell zillions of CDs even once I finish the work of making them available from Ampcast. I'm not asking for help with all this, and I'm not getting any. I have to do it all myself and that suits me fine.
But I draw the line at having to be a _fucking_ performing rights organisation too, just because OTHER PEOPLE can't deal with the idea that people can exchange their artworks without paying. I am completely offended at this to the point that I begin to understand the feelings of some slashdotters and anarcholibertarians when confronted with unions: I am more socialist myself but here's a situation where I am forbidden to license my stuff under my own rules because that would mean people could legally share it on napster without my _personal_ authorisation. And I'm looking at a possible future where, every time some new sharing program or P2P thing comes around, I have to PERSONALLY go and give them an 'it's okay to share my music' before they're permitted. Goddammit, I write that on my CDs! I do not have TIME to piddle around being a performing rights organisation. The record companies have time and resources to do this kind of crap, and I do _not_.
And I am _pissed_ that they are even suggesting it. Sorry for all the strong language. I am _so_ pissed at this suggestion. I'm sorry, I put a great deal of effort into checking out the resources available to me (like ampcast, and for that matter CafePress [cafepress.com]) that let me offload some of the work in being an active, productive Internet artist and musician, and this ability is absolutely central to increasing the fluidity and efficiency of the Internet age and allowing people like me access to the world's commerce and media. It is _crucial_ that I am allowed to set my own terms on copyright and that this is _respected_: requiring me to authorise each new little P2P startup is refusing to honor the copyright licensing I already make that specifically authorizes noncommercial copying! I _must_ be allowed to authorise just-plain-listeners to share my stuff on P2P networks etc, do anything with it as long as it's noncommercial- because _I_ don't have the time to run around being a Publishing Rights Organisation and an IANAL and a publicist and an advertising flack and a suit. It's just not reasonable. Why the hell can't they at least let _me_ do my work and allow the random forces of the net to bring me whatever publicity or sales turn up? Why do they effectively plan to _force_ me to operate as a rights agent and individually authorize every little P2P thing that might turn up? I am so angry...
OK, that was messy and a lot of extrapolation but I've got a lot of work to do which these nice people at the RIAA are _not_ helping me do in any way shape or form, so I'd better go off and do it and hope other people can keep the RIAA from loading even _more_ compulsory work on me for the privilege of trying to distribute MY OWN music... I _so_ don't have the time to track down the relevant people and scream at them... if anyone wishes these views cleaned up for broader publication I'd be more than happy to do so and promise not to say F**K...
Re:All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:2)
So don't go telling me corporations are evil. If anything's evil here, it's human nature -- the willing pursuit of personal wellbeing even in instances where such pursuit involves direct and willful harm to others. And I don't think you can do anything about that.
Yer just flat out wrong here. (Score:2)
Erm. They can't. A significant part of it, maybe, depending on how much stock they own -- but actually claiming a company's assets as one's own is only possible in a sole proprietership, to a lesser extend in a partnership... absolutely not in a corporation.
Corporations are a useful thing - there are things you can ONLY do with lots of money. But corporations as people, that's a mechanism that doesn't need to be there, wasn't always there, and now serves primarily as a way for greedy assholes to increase the size of their dicks.
Not so. There's a very, very important reason corporations are considered people: If you're not a person, you can't sign contracts. Think about that for a moment.
In the case of a sole proprietership, for instance, the company cannot sign contracts -- though the owner (and his agents) can. The only thing is, it's the owner who is personally liable to these contracts, and not the company as a whole. The concept of corporation makes a distinction between the owner and the company -- and that's a Very Good Thing.
So Bill Gates can't spend the company's money, beyond what the board of directors authorizes. Control is already heavily delegated, flowing through people who eventually answer to, and can be kicked out by, the actual owners of stock. Hence, it's Not That Bad.
Re:All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:2)
If you can voluntarily transfer money to other people, you can use it to influence their actions. It doesn't matter if you're legally a corporation or any other kind of entity. If you can have enough power over a business to run it effectively (resource allocation, hiring and firing, etc) then you have enough power to make people do things they otherwise wouldn't. If you have enough money to amass material wealth, you have enough money to control. I totally miss how removing one particular (useful) legal fiction makes money and power only useful for good -- or how it limits their ability to be misused to a greater extent than it constrains their availability for more proper purposes.
If you propose that somehow a change in the law will have an effect upon men's souls -- or that there is any way other than through instilling individual ethics to eliminate corruption and evil -- then I've little alternative but to brand you a hopeless idealist. If you believe that it's only through a few, specific, easily eliminated means that men do each other harm, you're more than a bit naive. There's no way to separate the power that corrupts from that which gets things done... and personally, I think that this power, on the whole, does more good than evil.
If you see means to fight specific abuses which can take place without infringing on productive uses or individual rights -- good! However, I'm more than a bit concerned when I see movements which wish to throw the baby -- the high standard of living we enjoy -- out with the bathwater.
don't be so sure... (Score:2)
Content can not remain in (1) forever.
That remains to be seen.
Re:The simple question seems to be... (Score:2)
i.e. the point of the opt-in list.
Re:Could Be Good for Consumers (Score:2)
Re:Courts have already disagreed with you (Score:2)
RIAA's present business model has been ruled illegal. Whether they can find a legal business model or not is up to them.
Re:Courts have already disagreed with you (Score:2)
(Though hopefully the RIAA's business model may be ruled illegal soon as well; keep an eye out for Courtney Love vs. Universal Music.)
No you don't- you'd get food poisoning... (Score:2)
Actually... (Score:2)
Capitalism isn't what this country was founded on. (Score:2)
None of these are forms of governments as people mistake them for. Many of the communist countries have totalitarian or oligarchical regimes in charge of the government.
Problem is, Copyright law doesn't allow them that. (Score:5)
Re:All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:2)
I can't think of too many people in history who've gotten insanely rich - rich enough to be above the harassment of a corrupt policeman, let's say - without the help of a giant artificial person (a corporation).
A subtle point being missed here is - yes, corporations are legally the equivalent of giant people with super powers. But behind every corporation there's usually a few REAL people operating the controls - they thus have access to all the super powers of the giant they control. It's always bugged me that the heads of a corporation get to claim the value of the corporation as their own assets.
Beneath the surface it's all still about people with money fetishes and a mean streak. But what the current legal definition of "corporation" provides, is a WAY-too-easy way for such people to acquire godlike powers. You can't eat people and absorb their strength, but you can buy corporations and add their powers (and wealth) to your own, removing a potential competitor in the process.
Corporations are a useful thing - there are things you can ONLY do with lots of money. But corporations as people, that's a mechanism that doesn't need to be there, wasn't always there, and now serves primarily as a way for greedy assholes to increase the size of their dicks.
Consider if you removed the "person" aspect from a corporation, and severely limited its rights to behave as a giant person. That is, restore the legal concept of a corporation to what it was 100 years ago. How much damage can a Bill Gates do, if he can only spend his own money, not that of the company? What if corporate mergers were a big deal again, not "oh we bought another one" like it is today? Corporations wield power over the marketplace - but if your power over that corporation is now INdirect, and you can't use their power as your own (to write company checks to bribe politicians for example), owning a corporation no longer grants you godlike power, so even if you're rich, you can't buy power! You can only buy material wealth (which is fine by me), and your "power" if any comes from your ability to personally convince people to see things your way.
Just a thought exercise, pay it no mind.
Re:Could Be Good for Consumers (Score:2)
In addition, if the selection committee prevents bad music from appearing on napster, it will greatly increase the rate at which napster users find good, independent music.
Wow...
Now...I may get accused of flaming here, but aren't "good" and "bad" VERY subjective terms?
For example, I loathe country music. To me, it qualifies as "bad". Many of my friends share my view. Some don't. I also dislike music from the rap, "hip-hop", R&B and "popular" genres. I'd go so far as to rate these types of music as "bad". IMHO, of course.
Now, given that I have these views, were I selected to perform good/bad picks on various bits of music, that would weed a LOT of music out.
Is that fair? No. Those artists have a right to produce their music. Their fans have a right to listen to it. (no matter how "bad" *I* think it is) Imposing my preferences upon them would be wrong.
This goes the other way too. I would feel cheated if someone else imposed their musical preferences on me.
So...the question is - who gets to say what is "good" in your proposal - and why are they qualified to make those kinds of decisions for everyone? How will the balance be made between standard (RIAA approved) musical preferences and non-standard ones?
Re:Copyrights & Covers (Score:2)
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:5)
In other words, for Napster to distribute one of my spoken-word pieces, I'd have to tell Napster that it was okay to distribute it, exactly the same way I give permission to distribute my software by slapping a GPL on it. The presumption is that copyright exists and that people own their creations.
Having said that, I have severe misgivings about IP laws in general, but in this particular case, there doesn't appear to be anything questionable going on from a legal standpoint.
--
Re:Focusing on the wrong thing. (Score:2)
Not to sound too paranoid here... (Score:2)
Now, instead of just being charged with unlawfull distribution of copyrighted works, you can be charged with something more serious, as you must claim to be the copyright holder to "opt in" with whoever controls the list (even if it is napster). This probably opens up significant new areas for prosecution, perhaps moving the offense from misdemeanor to felony.
Of course, none of this matters to the slashdot crowd, who always argues in favor of napster in terms of exclusively non infringing usage.
Bill
They RIAA is desperately trying to step in sh*t (Score:2)
That a lot of fuss for music that's so bad that the jingles in the elevators are more interesting than the radio and for movies, (I read that "The Sopranos" rated higher than the Oscars,) we don't want to watch being pimped along with nine dolar pop-corn.
Personally, my life is a lot more serene and calm since I started listening only to the sound of one hand clapping and watch iTunes spin its images on my wife's iMac, in utter silence.
Its captivating, free, fill my eyes and ears and disturbs nobody. I spend the money I save on my wife and my life.
Re:All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:2)
The constitution provides for copyrights for a limited time (so how does that match up with "lifetime of the author plus seventy years?), for the public benefit.
However, there's no statement anywhere in the constitution that says that if you are making money right now, then you have the absolute right to continue to make money, despite whatever may happen in the future. Most buggy-whip manufacturers from the preceding century found this out the hard way.
However, buggy whip manufacturers of this century (read: RIAA, MPAA) are screaming bloody murder. The frightening thing is that judges are listening to their sorry tales, and are making stupid decisions ("sorry, you may not link to that page!") for the sole benefit that these buggy-whip manufacturers continue to rake in their billions of unearned dollars.
--
All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:4)
The RIAA's idea is that you must get your music file onto their "approved" list before you can share it with anybody.
And, of course, the RIAA wouldn't want to provide such a service to their competitors for free, would they? That's right. This is just a simple, slimey trick that would allow the RIAA to extort money from ALL music distributors if they want their music on Napster.
So, the big companies get richer, and the smaller companies take it up the ***.
I guess the "government by the people, for the people, and of the people" is redefining the word "people" as multi-national corporations.
[sigh]
--
Napster Naming (Score:2)
It would be trivial to implement and include in a napster application an automatic translation from names to numbers. Filtering becomes completely useless because only the numbers are stored in Napster.
You have to PROVE they're restraining trade (Score:2)
Re:You have to PROVE they're restraining trade (Score:2)
Re:You have to PROVE they're restraining trade (Score:2)
Second, your prices totally fail to take into account the fact that marketing and promoting those 15 dollar CDs that you like to listen to IS very expensive. Now you combine that expense with the fact that they industry takes a certain amount of risk by promoting a song that may well fail, and you have to add more money on.
Third, they're not fixing Napster's "price". Napster has no price, it's a totally artificial "market". They effectively leach off the industry.
This might not be a bad thing. (Score:2)
I've downloaded lots of stuff from Napster. Most of it was because I was too lazy to rip it from my own collection. There were two kinds of songs that I ripped from Napster:
1) The kind that I listened to, then bought the album.
2) The kind that I would not have bought, whether or not I got it from napster.
The third kind - The kind I would have bought, but didn't because I got it on Napster, doesn't exist for me. For the kind of people who buy CDs regularly, I don't think this exists. Anyway, back to the point.
Consider the following scenario:
This judgement passes. Non-RIAA bands are all that is on Napster. Napster becomes the source for all "non-commercial" music. Although it doesn't seem likely, it would be pretty interesting to have such an entity. Right now, it's so hard to see this working, but...
Imagine we went a step further. Since Napster would be totally in-the-clear, in terms of the law, there would be no reason to be afraid to get on. If Napster could compile ratings for bands, as well as associations: people who like band x like band y, and Band W sounds similar to band Z, you could have a very interesting, unbiased, recommendation system for listeners.
When I look at mp3.com's artists(of which I am one) and system, I see a big haystack. The best artists are the needles. Through the use of statistics and voluntary recommendations, I think the haystack could be turned into place where the music that is recommended is better than what you'll find on the MTVs of the world.(my farts sound better than what's on MTV).
More simply put, an unbiased, tracking, review, and recommendation system could allow you to get better yields with less effort(and cost) than the current system. The current system being personal recommendations and media hype.
I could see some advantages for indie bands who can't seem to make it through the RIAA gauntlet and come out heard.
rhadc
http://www.mp3.com/badboogaloo
An artist who -WANTS- his music traded on Napster.
What about it? (Score:2)
What about it? It wouldn't be effected by this, since RIAA's demand isn't being made on behalf of those copyright holders.
On the other hand, this would be a pretty good policy for dealing with non-RIAA stuff as well. Give Napster permission to index your stuff, and they can. Don't give permission, and they can't. I can't imagine any copyright holder objecting to people asking for permission, instead of just assuming that it was given.
(Except for that weird little presumption that indexing without permission is contributory infringement, this makes a lot of sense.)
---
Re:Oh BULLSHIT! (Score:2)
There isn't a shred of a hint of a whiff of an iota of a suggestion in the BBC article that RIAA is asking for this.
---
Musicians Not Censored (Score:2)
And you could still do this, if Napster handles this right. The only difference is that when you release music, the files would be PGP-signed (or something like that) with a bit set that basically says, "I own the copyright to this music and authorize redistribution" or "I assert that this music is public domain", and Napster would have have your public key on file. Then, when they index a file that is signed by you, they see, "Yeah, we know this sig" and everything works.
This wouldn't be censorship. It would just be a matter of Napster covering their ass by only indexing files that somebody else has agreed to take responsibility for.
---
Re:Musicians Not Censored (Score:2)
They don't need to. They just need to get a legal ruling (which it sounds like they are right now on the verge of getting) that Napster is responsible for any files that whose signer can't be authenticated after the fact. If Napster can't produce a real life name and address and proof that the identity is associated with the key that signed the file, then it's Napster's problem, and RIAA gets to collect damages from Napster.
Napster doesn't want to pay damages. So it will be up to them not to index any files for which they aren't damn sure are signed by someone they are sure about. It won't be RIAA's problem.
The idea is that there will always be someone real (not fuckyou@hotmail.com) to blame: either an authenticated file signer, or if Napster can't produce that person, then it's Napster themselves.
---
RSN (Score:2)
They want digital music dead, so the only market that exists is the one they understand and control. If not dead, then delayed.
Re:All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:2)
Indeed. Corporations, originally a legal fiction to give companies the same rights before the law that human beings had, now effectively have more rights. Why? Because they have the resources to enforce their rights. If a cop threatens to arrest if you don't let him search your car, what are you going to do? Most people can't afford to call their your boss and say "I won't be in today...I've been arrested." Most people can't afford to sue the police department for harassment, particularly in the face of a blue wall of silence.
But try sometime to get your local law enforcement to violate the rights of a corporation. Try to get a cop through the locked door of a company headquarters without a court order. It won't happen. The corps are more powerful than most local law enforcement agencies and some federal ones (DOJ, anyone?). Those agencies know it and won't pick fights they don't think they can win.
YOU, however, are small potatoes and can't fight back. You have the right to be harassed.
Ooh, i have a suggestion! (Score:5)
--
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:2)
Moderator: Please Pay Attention (Score:2)
You must know the moderator, because you're Trolling, if I ever saw it. That remark certainly didn't deserve a 4.
And to the point: Napster isn't eroding anyone's rights. Their business is not illegal. The constitution clearly lays out the right to trade creative works, specifically saying that there may be a very limited amount of time in which the works are protected from this -- to support the ARTIST, not the record companies and RIAA. Jefferson and Franklin, among others, expressed fear that this very thing would be happening, that lawyers and greedy buffoons would sell the idea that there is such a thing as owning ideas (they call it "intellectual property", an oxymoron).
You cannot own ideas. You cannot own a series of bits, no matter how unique. This is obvious to anyone who thinks enough about it. Copyright was supposed to exist for a short period to give artists more reason to create -- not to create property. You're telling me that if I know a song you wrote, you own the part of my brain that knows it? That's not only bullshit, that's tatamount to slavery.
The thing is, you know all this, and you're just saying the opposite to get us to flame you. My score for your post: 0. Troll and Flamebait.
I hope I get to moderate the moderator who gave you the "4. Interesting."
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:2)
Napster should be able to list any songs a user tells it (implicitly, by pointing Napster to them) are okay, unless specifically told otherwise.
This is GREAT! (Score:2)
Well of course they do! (Score:2)
Napster simply isn't designed to run this way. MP3.COM is. Of course, if I remember correctly the RIAA doesn't care much for MP3.COM either.
-Restil
Dear Mr. Napster (Score:2)
pig_latin_metallica.mp3
Thank you,
Joe Ripper.
Re:The simple question seems to be... (Score:3)
None of my bands have ever been a part of the RIAA andhopefully never will. I wrote it. I recorded it.. I produced it. Not the RIAA. If any of these major "artists" would actually stand up for their rights we wouldn't be in this mess.
There is a reason for the ethics of indie lables and why they have always been and will always be around. Alot of these new "alternative" bands tout their indie and/or punk ethics but I have yet to see one follow through. The cash keeps coming in so it doesn't really affect them.
The would be one benefit with this scenario (Score:3)
--
Or they'll do what? (Score:2)
Re:Where has all the fun gone? (Score:2)
now... if you could decipher the insane DATA statements at the end of C64 programs, i'd be impressed.
tagline
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:2)
No, it makes you a D.A. in Tex-ass 8-P
That's a joke, for the humor-impaired.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:The simple question seems to be... (Score:2)
Put it even more simply; if we can all stuff our songs on web servers, who the hell needs Napster? The whole POINT is to turn our local hard drives into temporary servers and create an automatic index. The solution you propose reminds me of all the times my parents asked me to turn the music down, repeatedly, until I couldn't hear it with my ears pressed to the speaker. If you're going to insist the music can't be heard, just fucking turn it off and admit that's what you are doing.
No, I don't have any answers, either. This is going to get a lot more complicated before it gets better.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:2)
1. Copyright
2. Public Domain
The RIAA plan does not account for works already in (2). Further, to paraphrase: "In the end, all works are Public Domain" - that is, Content can not remain in (1) forever. Thus, any proposal regarding "Opting In" would need to account for this.
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:2)
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:5)
The RIAA's behavior seems to indicate that they believe that Copyright lasts forever. This cannot be the case under the current Constitution.
What the RIAA wants... (Score:2)
is for Napster to no longer be Napster. And actually, I don't think the RIAA is the actual litigant in this case, just for accuracy's sake - it's the record comapines (except Bertelsmann) that comprise the RIAA.
Is it just me, or do the record companies and the courts still not understand what Napster is? Napster does not now and never has stored a single copyright-infringing work on any server. They have never transferred copyright-infringing material through their network. All they've ever done is list what people have on their hard drives available for other people to transfer.
There is no way of creating an opt-in list in this scenario that's any better than the blocking filter they're already trying to use. Napster doesn't have a database of file signatures to block/allow - because they never receive a copy of the song - and filenames are useless for filtering/allowing, as we've already seen.
All the record companies want is to continually raise the bar of compliance until Napster finally concedes "We can't comply with this!" and the court shuts them down. It wouldn't matter if Napster successfully complied with every court order that gets cooked up - the record companies will still claim non-compliance.
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:2)
Technically feasible? (Score:2)
If I perform PD music, I don't want Napster Inc. bothering me just because a lot of my fans want to trade it over Napster -- what if I refuse?
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
Re:Modest College Radio Station... (Score:2)
what an opt-in list will do to napster will be the following:
-restrict the audience, as music from other countries will probably not be included in the list. If they are, it will slow the appearance of such music, making napster useless outside the US and canada
-No more things like 'Jelle', which started out as a parody on eminem's 'Stan' on Napster and was later released on some record-label(a lawsuit helped to give it publicity). So much for free music.
an opt-in list will be the final straw that makes napster useless.
//rdj
RIAA and Napster: The Perfect Setup (Score:2)
1. A college kid creates napster, and it starts getting some underground attention.
2. Napster gains immense popularity across the world
3. While gaining popularity, literally millions of copyrighted mp3's are being shared between millions of Napster users
4. The RIAA takes notice, and slams a suit on Napster (since they obviously own all copyrighted work that lives on Napster)
5. Napster and Bertelsmann make an alliance. Wouldn't ya know? Bertelsmann is one of the biggest labels behind the RIAA.
6. So, now that Bertelsmann practically owns Napster, and the RIAA has a big-time suit nipin' Napster in the butt, they're turning Napster into RIAAp$ter.
As much as I hate these turns of events, it seems like the RIAA had this planned out all along. Maybe they've had the better of the Napster Community?
-------------------
Re:Xcuse me if I'm mistaken... (Score:2)
I feel dirty now.
-----------------------
I know I'm not the average Napster user. (Score:2)
I also use Napster to find the things I can't get in record stores. Live stuff, music out of print, music that was never "officially" released. The majority of it not available for sale through any venue. Where's the stealing there? These songs also would beco0me unavailable to me through Napster.
Back to IRC......just like the old days I suppose, before all the silly kids jumped on the bandwagon.
Re:The simple question seems to be... (Score:2)
mp3.com's model (Score:2)
-
Revealed! RIAA opt-in filter source code... (Score:2)
#import All_Frank Wojnarowski_Polka_Music
#import Survivor_Eye_of_the_Tiger
#import Everything_by_Liberace
#import Engelbert_Humperdinck_sings_Janis_Joplin
#import Golden_Throats_Volume_1
public static void main() {
System.out.println("Thank you for using Napster - now with only 15 days to live!");
}
Re:Revealed! RIAA opt-in filter source code... (Score:2)
-drin
While I am against this solution... (Score:2)
Re:Musicians Not Censored (Score:2)
The only way that the RIAA can get what they want is if they or Napster personally authenticate every file and/or PGP signer before allowing the signed files to appear on the Napster directories. The RIAA isn't going to trust Napster to do it properly, and if the RIAA is making decisions about which files or people are okay to be shared or do sharing, you'd be a moron to think there's not going to be some kind of bias against non-RIAA interests.
Re:spelling (Score:2)
this would be my concern. there are quite a few of my mixes and tracks up on Napster, and i love that they're being distributed. the problem is that people rename the MP3s all the time, perhaps to fit into their naming convention on their disk, or to a name that's more descriptive to them.
i see these variations all the time, and up until now it hasn't really been a problem (in fact, it usually means more people start finding the mixes under these slightly different file names). now i have to write to Napster every time somebody renames one of my tracks? give me a break! the RIAA are going to have to realize that they're not the only people out there distributing music, and they're certainly not the people distributing good music. but i always believed the whole Napster issue was more about music distribution than copyright infringement.
- j
Re:Radio does NOT pay the RIAA (Score:2)
Since virtually all artists sign over their copyrights to the recording companies, radio broadcasters are paying the companies that make up the RIAA.
I would not dispute that radio is not free. However, it seems rather trivial that I may listen to, and record, any song played on the airways, and play it back at my leisure (protected by the fourth amendment).
Re:This will be easily blocked (Score:2)
Re:Courts have already disagreed with you (Score:2)
The injunction against the last court order basically said that the court order had to allow for non-infringing uses of Napster - hence the revised court order which said Napster had to block identified copyrighted material from the plaintiffs. Any decision by this court will be reasonably bound by the appeals court to allow for non-infringing uses. To allow blocking of non-infringing uses is akin to saying you cannot host a web site in which people freely exchange free information.
This will be easily blocked (Score:5)
Basically, a long long time ago, the RIAA opened a really bad Pandora's box called radio. In this scheme, the radio stations pay the RIAA to play music, and the consumer gets music for free. Well, it is only a small leap in the consumer's mind from free music over the radio to free music on demand via Napster.
If it were not for free music to the consumer, the RIAA would be nearly worthless. That is their dominant form of advertising - radio, MTV, et al. Now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
Re:Copyrights (Score:2)
They are arguing for the ability to say "Only approved mp3s can be distributed".
This brings up the question of "Who can aprove"?
There is no magic wand that you can wave over an mp3 and determine the copyright holder of the music. For all Napster knows, thats 3 hours of my neibor gargling that I bootlegged and am distributing without permission.
If the average user can "aprove" something, then they can aprove anything. I can rename Metalica's "For who the bell tolls" to "Music by steve" and say "Hey I am the copyright holder of this, aprove it".
In which case, they again have no control, and everything reverts to buisness as usual.
If only the RIAA and big wigs like them can make aprovals, then anyone who DOES make hom emusic, or other audio (like 3 hgours of gagling) is screwed.
Basically... these restrictions can either be pointless (ie anyone can aprove) or, they have to screw over the very people that Napster was intended to help (at least in part)
Sounds to me like a setup for a circular argument actually... impose restrictions so that only aproved music, by the RIAA can be distribiuted. Then they can claim that nothing is aproved, and since only they can aprove, any argument that napster is used by independant artists is untrue, since they are now barred by napster... so napster is just a medium for copyright infringement with no value to independant artists.
--Steve
-Steve
spelling (Score:2)
Re:Oh BULLSHIT! (Score:2)
--
Re:All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:2)
--
Re:All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:2)
--
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
What about their rights? What about the law that says you can't copy stuff without the copyright owners consent?
--
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Just because they lack the resources doesn't mean anything. People declair bankruptcy every day, businesses close up all the time because they lost a legal fight and couldn't pay the fine/comply with the law.
--
Re:WTF? (Score:4)
I'm assuming that the copyright holder of the music is to contact napster and then opt in themselves. Most music will be owned by RIAA (per the artists record contract). Anything else (stuff I recorded in my garage) will have to have the permission of me. So I send that permission to Napster and all is well.
Doesn't sound like that bad of a deal to me. Who knows, there might be non-signed bands that don't wait their music on napster and don't have the money/time/resources to sue people trading their copyrighted works without their permission.
--
The RIAA (Score:4)
Re:17 years too late (Score:2)
Just wanted to point out - we already only drive government sanctioned cars.
Re:The simple question seems to be... (Score:2)
--Fesh
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:2)
Land Grab of Rights (Score:2)
And is there anyone that doesn't think the RIAA would put its slowest, most detail-oriented people on the queue for submissions. Every cover band will be tossed off for not having permission to record...every bootleg will be yanked...anything with even the slightest hint of copyright will be yanked.
Oh, and just like Yahoo! and the other search engines, I'm sure the queue will have several months backup [slashdot.org]... it'll be just like ordering from a record club like BMG or Columbia House. Everything will be nice and delayed while the record companies figure out how to maximize their profits... and minimize everyone else's rights.
==
Re:The simple question seems to be... (Score:2)
That is so arrogant. (Score:2)
Screw the RIAA. They're messing with me now.
Re:Dammit! (Score:2)
The simple question seems to be... (Score:5)
Since when does the RIAA speak for artists OUTSIDE of the US?
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:3)
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:3)
This is not illegal restraint of trade, because a) it hasn't friggin' happened yet, it's only that RIAA has asked a court to order it, and b) even if it did happen, something ordered by a court is assumed to be legal unless it's overturned, and even if it is it's ultimately the court's fault, and not the petitioner.
If I ask a court to kill my neighbor, that in itself does not make me a murderer.
Next time your knee jerks, don't let it hit you in the head and cause brain damage.
Focusing on the wrong thing. (Score:5)
Re:not a company (Score:4)
Yes, but the Sherman Act prohibits agreements, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade. RIAA is a combination of companies looking to restrain trade. 'Nuff said.
Restraint of Trade (Score:5)
Modest College Radio Station... (Score:3)
I work at a modest college radio station and we have a fairly large collection of CDs, vinyls and 7 inches. Despite our amassment music we do not have some albums. For the last couple of months, our solution has been to use Napster to download and then play the songs over the air; a supplement for the music we don't have. And it has been working very well.
We delete the MP3's after our shows - we only have a finite amount of space after all. There's no stealing here. If anything, we are helping promote the bands by playing the music we love so much.
I guess it's an interesting case in which we are using Napster, but the end results is good for the bands, RIAA and the people who are listening to our shows.
It'll just be harder to play some music or fill requests for music which I haven't gotten around to buying or which the station doesn't have in it's library. Oh well! We lived before Napster and we will live after. But some things just made life a bit easier.
This isn't so bad. (Score:5)
Re:The RIAA (Score:3)
The answer would be an unqualified no. The big record companies have plenty of chances to expose themselves to independent music. They don't do it now. This would just be like the slush pile at a publishing house. They'd ignore it more steadfastly than before. Go to Salon and read this [salon.com] article for more edification. The opportunity already exists and is not taken. Independent records do exist and are made. They are not, however, marketed at all. Putting the shit online will solve nothing and make the recording industry an unstoppable monolith. For a truly independent artist such as myself, this system would be a disaster.
Naptser : PLEASE DIE NOW. (Score:5)
They simply are going to act like spoiled little children and keep yelling "NO" and name calling the RIAA. They aren't fighting for me or anyone elses rights. They are fighting to keep their stock value and their salaries. They are damn willing to use the users of their service as cannon fodder in their attempt to stay in an illegal business.
So what happens, the RIAA keeps dragging them into court, and popping out new ideas to screw over the rest of us. Unfortunately everyone damn twit jumps on them instead of facing the fact that is is BOTH the RIAA and Napster that are quickly eroding our rights.
Napster and RIAA both operate on one principal, and that is GREED. The only difference between the two is which came first.
Who choose to opt-in? (Score:3)
A) The Record Company
B) The Artist
An Artist like the Dave Matthews Band, Madonna, Courtney Love, Fred Durst, and many more have voiced their approval of Napster, but they are all under contract with RIAA member companies.
Will their music be available?
Thats a hoot... (Score:4)
artists with out RIAA recognition (which grow by the truckloads thanks to home recording software and such) will get pushed off to the side as so much rubish, so they wont be competition for the RIAA pop music slush.
Thank the fates that I know that the RIAA will never completly succeed in recreating their previous monoploy just do to the simple saying:
The bigger the wall, the more cracks in it.
the harder they try and squash the people trading the music, the more people they will have to squash (nothing draws a crowd like a crowd), and the more creative those people will get.
people should pay for the music they listen too, but people should also be able to do what they want with what they pay for.
Re:All pay homage to the RIAA... (Score:3)
He who controls the language controls the debate. While it's convenient short hand, "They may sell the majority of all music recordings" is conceding too much. At most, we might allow that "Of recorded music that is sold for money, RIAA members control a majority as measured by number of copies sold." (And we don't even have a stat in front of us that proves that.)
The RIAA is concerned only with music that is sold for money. And rightly so, as they represent companies whose only goal is to make money. The RIAA is not concerned with variety -- they would rather have 10 top songs that sell 1,000,000+ copies per year than have 1,000 songs that sell only 500 copies per year. The RIAA is not concerned with artistic innovation -- the middle of the bell curve pays more. The RIAA is not concerned with promoting widespread or good musicianship -- they know that if the only music available anywhere is theirs, we'll buy it even if it's bad.
The glorious revolution is that today smaller publishers and self publishers exist and can cheaply distribute their creations to the public. (And maybe even get paid a little by us, while avoiding corporate overhead.) This is why Napster, or some free song sharing service, must survive.
Recorded music has had a detrimental effect on professional musicians and amatuer musicianship over the last century or so, decreasing the numbers of both. Why pay a live player when you can buy a stereo cheaper? (Yes, yes, I acknowledge that recorded music has also had beneficial effects on collaboration, mass accessibility, etc. Flame if you must, but one post can only cover so many topics.) My point is that free, or at least zero-overhead, song sharing has the potential to make small-scale artists and bands into viable business ventures and careers again.
The situation 'on the ground' was considerably different when the following was written:
In that age, freedom of the press amounted to "he who owns a printing press may print whatever truth he feels like (and can afford to print)." Well guess what? Today, we all have a press of our own. I've got a 600MHz press on my desk and a 75MHz press in my closet that I've been tinkering on for a decade now.I wonder what I'll print today. . . . I wonder what you'll print tomorrow.