MP3.com Summit - The Music Revolution is Over 224
CBNobi writes: "CNet has an article (which is also located at ZDNet) describing this year's MP3.com Summit, held at San Diego, CA. Compared to last year's gathering, things seemed to settle down a lot. "There's no room for small companies to do big things anymore," said Michael Robertson, MP3.com's 34-year-old CEO." I liked the last sentence, which pretty much sums up the state of things - everything innovative in the music world has been crushed by lawsuits.
Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK up. (Score:1)
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:1)
Sure Madonna or the Back Street boys can make $20,000,000 a month by doing a few concerts but if you were to force all musicians to do that you limit a lot of them. What if they have a kid and can't tour but they can make a nice income by cutting some albums and living off the record contract and sales?
Re:Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK (Score:1)
Yes it is if we make it so.
Given a good enough P2P system music sharing will become so widely practised that enforcing the law would put most of the population in the jail.
So, just keep on showing your kids, neighbours and grandfathers/mothers how to swap files and they can't touch us!
Re:Independant labels (Score:1)
Man, good thing none of this shit ever happened in the sixties [monkees.com].
P2P is DOA (Score:1)
Once again, the Slashbots overestimate their own importance in the grand scheme of things.
Re:Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK (Score:1)
Of course... unless they truly believe the law is unjust. Scary huh? I teach my kids to think for themselves. Unlike you and your Oliver North ilk.
Did you know that it was "the law" that Rosa Parks give up her seat on the bus to a white person? Maybe you think she should hae obeyed the law?
Re: Query By Humming (Score:1)
Re:Independant labels (Score:1)
I doubt the validity of that statement. Underground hiphop has a large following, just like underground punk rock does, and underground techno, and underground whatever. Its by virtue of being underground that you only really know the extent of the scene of whatever particular flavour of music you like. I grew up listening to punk rock, and recently just lost interest or maybe "grew out" of it, I'm not really sure. Underground hiphop is what I've been listening to almost exclusively lately. Nearly everyone I knew in the punk scene considered everyone who listened to rap to be a gangsta wannabe. Everyone in the hiphop scene considered anyone who listened to punk to be a headbanging, slam dancing moron. Neither of these are accurate depictions of the scenes, although there are people in both who fit those descriptions. [Actually, you're far more likely to run into holier-than-thou egomanics in both scenes]. Before you go trashing it, try listening to some. Punk rock and hiphop are a *lot* more similar than most people in both scenes think, and its too bad they can't cooperate more often. Actually, maybe it's a good thing they don't -- the last thing the world needs is another rap-metal band.
Some links:
www.anticon.com
www.hieroglyphics.com
www.rhymesayers.com
www.non-prophets.com
www.fourwaystorock.com
I always post anonymously.
Re:Innovative? (Score:1)
It's not their property. Copyright under the Constitution is an artifical incentive that works by temporarily restraining the public's inherent rights (freedom of speech, freedom of the press) and the free market system. Copyright is not a recognition of property rights.
No, that's called compulsory licensing, and it is already in use for musical compositions & lyrics, as opposed to sound recording. If the Congress decides that it is not willing to give the copyright holder the exclusive right to control commercial distribution, but merely an exclusive right to collect royalties, because THAT would better serve the public good for which the Constitution authorizes copyright in the first place, that is not a gangster action.
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:2)
Yeah, eliminate the middle man, lets rip off the artists directly.
--
--
Ya know... (Score:2)
This is exactly what the RIAA would _like_ you to believe, because it equates to
"Everything innovative in the music world comes out of the RIAA labels"
I know it was fun downloading music from all across an RIAA-controlled recent history, but can we get a clue and start looking towards the future please? If I wasn't working _so_ hard at, literally, innovative things in the music world (that happen to be involved with digital mastering and dynamics processing, plus wordlength reduction), I would be insulted at this pronouncement.
As it is, it just makes ya look lazy ;)
Face it, there are loads of innovative, interesting things you can do with music that the RIAA has no jurisdiction over whatsoever. This includes online distribution- see ampcast.com, with their capacity to sell full Red Book audio CDs (not necessarily off mp3s- they can be original masters too) SANS JEWEL CASES to people who would want to store them in carrying cases or want to avoid jewel cases for other reasons. When was the last time you were offered the latest RIAA album at a special price for just the CD of it, no packaging?
I'm sorry Napster is history, but yeesh- move on!
Hah! (Score:2)
I'd say bringing high-end wordlength reduction, bandlimited sidechain compression, harmonic enhancement, and azimuth chasing into the GPL sphere is a kind of innovative :D
http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/MasteringTools ProSource.txt [airwindows.com]
And here's the homepage: http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/index.html [airwindows.com]
Cheers :)
Re:Umm. (Score:3)
Oh c'mon I'm sick of seeing everybody saying that besides what everybody says nobody really uses mp3 for legit purposes.
Yes I have thousands of illegal songs.
I also have -thousands- of legal songs, I have a HUGE cd collection I've ripped, I also listen to alot of mp3s from mp3.com's independent musicians.
I've even produced mp3's from my friend's band live performance that I put online, they don't have a record deal and their cd isn't out yet. They're getting a good following online, and they're opening for better than ezra next week. The fact that they're good helps, but a good online presense with the ability for everybody to listen to their mp3s helps too.
Let's not forget mp3s I've downloaded for cds that have been destroyed, and live bootlegs, remixes, and whatnot, which make up the majority of my collection.
Pirating music is wrong, yes, and I disagree with the outright pirating of music. People need to ralize though, something needs to be done about that, and the record industry is realizing that. The massive greed and the lawers will probobly win, but, I had mp3s before napster, and I'll have them after napster.
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Given that this guy is from mp3.com, it seems rather more likely that he's talking about mymp3.com, the service where -- once you proved you had access to a particular CD -- you could access the MP3s to match.
Re:The companies were crushed because they were du (Score:2)
It would help if our public airwaves weren't held by corporations who play corporate music, but then I mostly just listen to college stations now. But college stations can be obnoxious too, so nothing's perfect. Several online music vendors have a "if you like XXX you might like YYY or ZZZ too", which I think is a good way to find something new, and since it's based on all that information they strip from us (for good or bad) it usually presents a fair sampling of artists.
But it's just hard. It's like you have a make a lifestyle out of finding new music (and we all know the people for whom it's not just a hobby, but their primary identity). So normal people end up finding music by word of mouth and the radio. That doesn't make them ignorant and they don't deserve to be reviled for it.
Re:Get a grip, Timothy (Score:3)
It's a much better investment plan than dealing with all those damn artists.
Ever notice... (Score:2)
I wonder if there will be an uprising by the true artists against the RIAA.
Re:The music revolution is not over (Score:1)
Unlicenced use of "intellectual property" is merely an individual violating a state sponsored monopoly put in place in order to further public policy goals.
Copyright was never intended to create a new form or property or property rights. Attempting to call licence infringement "theft" is extremely disengenuous.
In small amounts, such activity by individuals isn't even considered criminal (by the actual law). Before recent revisions to the Copyright Act, NO AMOUNT of "piracy" by an individual was considered criminal.
These are some of the things that armchair moralists conveniently ignore in their rants.
Re:The music revolution is not over (Score:1)
Something like Napster just makes it remarkably easier for an individual not engaging in commercial profit to breach the threshhold that defines the current standard of criminal behaivor in this area.
Re:Ever notice... (Score:2)
Not true. Lars Ulrich of Metallica referred to his music as "art" and resented it being traded as a "commodity".
James Hetfield commented, "dam right we sold out- every seat in the stadium, baby!". (Something like that, anyway).
Re:Name this tune: "go with him......" (Score:2)
You need the sheet music for this, so it requires a bit more effort to set up than just collecting a bunch of mp3's, but the search algorithm itself is easy to write and efficient and the legal picture may be less ugly.
--
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:3)
Sure it does. I'm at least certain you're familiar with the conversion rate... a dime a dozen.
That logic doesn't stop drug laws... (Score:4)
[XXX] will become so widely practised that enforcing the law would put most of the population in the jail.
I do wish that logic actually held. It doesn't seem to make a bit of difference when it comes to marijuana laws.
I think the United States has shown its willingness to drop large sections of the populus in cages. Maybe you should rethink the protection you feel you have by virtue of "everyone else is doing it too." I would have for you to become the newest forced employee of our great nation's prison industry.
Re:Umm. (Score:2)
I might try it though anyway, just for kicks. $4 is nothing
Re:Umm. (Score:2)
Images don't always = static. Like I said though, I'm still a bit skeptical just because of the lameness factor in the way they word things on the site:
Search for whatever you want and maybe stumble across some of the thousands of private erotic files which are only distributed in this way.
(Their boldness) Puhleaaaze
Re:...and your plan when RIAA comes? (Score:2)
Anyway, the concept would basically be two things. Take the gnutella network and 1) Make a client that looked and felt exactly like Napster and 2) (not necessary) filter all but Ogg Vorbis files. Perhaps make it an alternative network for speed reason. The problem with the "geek" clients such as gnutella et al not being used by the average dude like Napster was is because they're unaware that they exist or they're too hard to use. If you made a Napster replacement using gnutella you would get around the legal reprecussions (no central server, nobody can shut it down) while letting all the ex-Napster users jump right in. The RIAA couldn't go after anyone except the software developer, and even then, they have no case since the software developer isn't running the network.
Filtering in the Ogg Vorbis stuff exclusively would be an additional benefit in getting the
Umm. (Score:5)
- Audiogalaxy
- Gnutella
- IRC
- FTPs
- Shoutcast Streams
- Direct Connect
and so on. 0 Day albums on IRC anyone? In fact, the MP3s I get are usually named better, categorized better, and easier to find then they were on Napster, since Napster has a very primitive interface and backend.
I feel bad for Napster as they keep getting nailed up to the cross.. but it's a good thing overall since the record companies can spend their time and money to crucify Napster while everyone else is just using other means. Until cops start arresting lots of people for pirating MP3s, the "piracy" of music will continue.
Something I was recently thinking about is starting a new channel of getting music along the lines of Napster's interface for simplicity (perhaps using the Gnutella protocol or whatever so there's no legal issues) which only distributed Ogg Vorbis format files. It would have to include a database backend like audiogalaxy and be smart about recognizing filenames and such. If Ogg were used exclusively in a new easy to use client for trading files, many college kids would probably jump on it and maybe, just maybe, we would have a standard open format for digial music.
Regardless, despite all the depression and pessimism by the small companies looking to make a buck off the music revolution, the end user hasn't had it better, and there's still places to innovate independently as long as you're not trying to get rich quick.
Re:The companies were crushed because they were du (Score:2)
If anyone is to blame for the status quo, it is consumers and those FEW artists that CHOOSE to sign. The consumers CLEARLY want music that is packaged up neatly for them. Consumers will buy music, but generally only if they're barraged by enough of it to find an "artist" that they (grow to) like; very few people spend the time to scout for talent themselves. Thus, it takes both cash and knowledge, to bring it to the consumers' ears. Popular radio, television, and other sources have finite air time, and thus will always be expensive. As long as this is true, any artist that wants access to the _mass markets_ will require the _resources_ of some large _entity_ (currently called the label).
The labels are not good. The labels are not evil. They're simply filling a need. In other words, do not blame the labels. This is just the way things are. Unless consumers suddenly change their habits, preferring to be truely unique and finding music of their own, it's going to be the same situation, perhaps just different individuals players. The economics are simply such that there is only room for a few players. Furthermore, the economics are setup in such a way that few artists will even break even. Save your cries for someone else.
The labels are, however, operating within the bounds of copyright law and the artists within the bounds of contract law, thus they deserve to be respected. If you want to change things, _create_ another _better_ alternative, rather than _destroying_ that which you happen to disagree with.
Re:The companies were crushed because they were du (Score:2)
That said, virtually all the
Re:The companies were crushed because they were du (Score:3)
Corporate music? They are for profit corporations that consumers CHOOSE to listen to. The music they play is simply that which makes them the most money; they don't care whose money it is. The radio station owners and record industry owners are seperate parties and they have divergent interests. The problem, again, is that popular air time is very finite. Not everyone can get played. Those that want to get played must pay for the opportunity.
While I do enjoy some public radio, the fact of the matter is that the public shows a clear preference for corporate owned stations.
I don't revile them, I frankly don't care that much. The point is simply that if anyone has the power to change the situation, it is the customers. Killing the labels will solve nothing, because, as a result of consumer behavior, there is a need for such parties. They may not behave the exact same way, but the concerns would largely be the same.
Re:The companies were crushed because they were du (Score:2)
Well, Smashing Pumpkins is gone. I was at their last American concert *ever*. But, before they went, they released one more album in MP3 format only, on the web, free for download. I beleive that it was called "Machina II - The Friends and Enemies of Modern Music" which I've taken to be a statement about recording studios. Make what you will of it.
Re:Machina II - The Friends and Enemies of Modern. (Score:2)
http://www.slut-69.com/sp_machina2.html
Re:The companies were crushed because they were du (Score:2)
There is independant music on the web! (Score:2)
I work for a company called Emusic [emusic.com]. This is exactly
what Emusic is about. Emusic carrries loads of artists, many of them
(though not all of them) are independants. Emusic works on a
subscription model: you pay roughly the price of a CD every
month, and you get unlimited access to the entire collection
(and there's a one month trial period where you can play
with site and cancel the sub if you don't like). And
weirdly enough, the artists actually get paid royalties if
you listen to their stuff.
I submit that this is actually a fairly sensible business
model, as online businesses go. But
something-for-next-to-nothing just doesn't sound that
exciting compared to something-for-nothing, does it? Real
internet businesses didn't have a chance to get going when
the VC/stock speculation/tulip mania was going on... I'm
really glad to see all that bullshit go.
As for the idea that small guys can't do anything
interesting in the music world any more: Phfftpt.
Here's just one example: Limited Sedition [limitedsedition.com].
This is a CD-R record label that covers improvised music
in the bay area scene. Typical releases are limited to
something like 100 CDs, and it's all great, really strange,
creative music (albiet a little low on teen angst for some
tastes).
For any one who cares about music, there's a million
different directions to go now, for anyone who chooses
stick their head just a little bit above the LCD.
When the starts throw down there Britany's,
we will water capitol with our kidneys
Re:There is independant music on the web! (Score:2)
Oh, and in case it ain't obvious, while I work for Emusic, I don't speak for them.
It seems to me that a strategy of lots of different things with a narrow appeal can acheive a wide appeal. Whether an indie-only strategy would work (or is even desireable) I don't really know. But then Emusic isn't trying to be indie-only.
I don't have access to financial numbers at Emusic, which is good, because I wouldn't be allowed to talk about them if I did. I do know that people here are pretty happy with the way numbers of subscribers are ramping up. Supposedly EMusic has a record in the business for numbers of subscribers.
And actually, this is pretty impressive considering the weird absence of any media attention to Emusic. They keep running stories like "The online music biz is now switching to the subscription model! It'll be here in only a few years!".
By the way, a freind of mine points out that epitonic [epitonic.com] has some pretty cool music up, evidentally available for free download. I don't know if they're trying to be ad supported, or if they're just volunteers or what, but they're worth a look.
Robertson looking for scapegoats (Score:2)
This is such bullshit. Mp3.com's original and legitimate mission did not have any need for relationships with the big record companies. (I would even say that if anyone thinks they need a relationship with the big companies, then they're probably already out of the game, in terms of innovation.) It was only after they got into game of distributing 3rd-party music whom they didn't have a contract with, that these "relationships" became necessary.
Robertson has no one to blame but himself and his own greed. It wasn't the big record companies' fault that he had to sell out; it was mp3.com's foolish decision to offer other company's music on my.mp3.com. If they had not done that, they would have remained untouchable and could still have potential to be a major player in the future. Instead, they blew it and now they've accrued multimillion dollar liabilities so that they've no equity and can be easily assilimated/squashed.
There's probably some ego involved with this whole thing. It must be hard to Robertson to face the fact that he built and then destroyed something that was interesting. It's not surprising that he would look for scapegoats.
---
Hear'Say (Score:2)
Sugar Jones were the winners of Popstars here in Canada, and a recent newspaper article had the managers expressing disappointment because their album wasn't #1, ie. all attempts to essentially manufacture a "sure-fire" hit band failed because people didn't buy the record. I don't feel sorry for either "band" in the least.
Re:That logic doesn't stop drug laws... (Score:3)
Machina II - The Friends and Enemies of Modern... (Score:2)
Re:Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK (Score:2)
Do not weep for them . . . (Score:2)
Sorry, there was little innovative in Michael's contributions, just as there was little innovative in Napster. Both contributed a bunch of technology, and found themselves in a great place and time to ride the wave of some network effects.
This is not innovation. Both MP3 and Napster skipped quite a few steps in their race to market to position themselves to blow their competitors away. In doing so, legitimate uses of the internet and p2p for distributing good content was set back a decade or so, and it will take quite awhile until the Courts can set aright what these people (and their far uglier counterparts at RIAA) have set asunder.
Their contribution was not in content, the artists provided that. Their contribution was not in data format and technology, many others contributed that. Their contribution, if anything, was exploiting the opportunities of these technologies and content and beating others to market by stomping over rights of others.
Eventually, they paid. Unfortunately, hard cases make bad law, and the courts wielded a too-blunt instrument to slam down what they perceived to be a wrongdoing in view of the public policies stated by the Congress.
Don't get me wrong -- no lawyer I know is more critical than I of both the MP3 and Napster decisions, particularly the analysis at the District Court level. Those courts stomped on something, no doubt.
But they didn't stomp on Napster and MP3's innovations. Just their business models.
Re:Innovative? (Score:2)
See, I don't think "victory" involves being able to use someone's stuff however you like no matter what they say. Despite the fact that digital music is an easily reproducible "object", I had hoped that people would take a more rational approach than "d00d! free music!". I would like to see a business model in which everyone gets compensated for the work that they do. That includes the artist as well as the poor guy running a mixer in a recording studio.
Re:Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK (Score:2)
A COMMUNITY gives money to a library to BUY books to share among that COMMUNITY. The community in this case is the United States, which gives federal funding to libaries.
Re:Innovative? (Score:2)
Innovative? (Score:4)
Not by a long shot (Score:3)
If a single nation is able to garner support for a more flexible copyright system, then that nation will likely be able to place itself in a dominant role in the music business.
It is also unclear that the "copyright is obsolete" mob -- who are willing to engage in civil disobedience in subversive or even open way -- have seen their strength diminished at all by the litigation. In fact, I think just the opposite has occured -- their convictions are only deepened now.
The music industry still has no effective response to the simple fact that millions of Americans don't like them and are willing to share their music despite judicial decrees that this violates the law. Until something occurs to moderate the mob, there will be tremendous innovation.
Re:Get a grip, Timothy (Score:2)
It is a pity Slashdot doesn't have annual awards for the most incisive contributions to the system, cuz legLess, you'd get my nod for this one.
Sadly, your only reward is a cap on your Karma at 50. The Man strikes again.
Re:Innovative? (Score:2)
Re:Umm. (Score:2)
No, I don't work for them either. I just ran into it the other week.
----------------------------------
Re:Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK (Score:2)
Timothy has a point... (Score:2)
Which is, of course, is exactly what the RIAA/Record Companies were trying to do.
Lawsuits have been used as weapons for decades, couple that with bank accounts that make BillG blush, and you've got powerful enemies in the Record Companies (tm).
I just love how they keep telling us we're all assholes and thieves to use Napster (nobody uses Napster or Gnutella for any legal purpose, so they say) at exactly the same time the federal government was fining (suing!) them for price goughing us on CD prices (Wall Street Journal, Fall 2000).
Faaaaaaaaaaaggs. - Mr. Garrison, SouthPark
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:3)
Music for sheep crushed, not for music lovers... (Score:3)
Ho boy... not hardly. I have acess to thousands of hours of high quality live music from musicians all over the country... plus it's legal, with the artists' consent, no ads involved, and more importantly, no damn record companies!!
Check out sites like etree [etree.org], sugarmegs [sugarmegs.org], and gdlive [gdlive.com] for examples of how music is thriving on the net in a noncommercial environment. But I suppose those sites, though working well for users, have actually been crushed also... as the standard for 'crushed' apparently is 'failing to make money for corporations'.
Besides... really, Napster and the like sucked from the start, interesting computer science concept and great place to download mp3's of questionable quality at 1KB/sec though... if that's what you're into.
-Jackson
Re:Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK (Score:2)
The thing about a library is that it's based in the "first sale doctrine" that allows you to do what you want--resell it, lend it, destroy it, pretty much anything but copy the data onto something else--with the physical copy (book, CD, whatever) you bought. The first sale doctrine doesn't apply here.
You aren't allowed to go into a library and copy a book. (Yeah, I know that there are photocopiers in libraries, but those are intended for partial copies that fall under the "fair use" exemption. Most Napster-style music sharing is not fair use.)
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:2)
I think you are right that the recording companies need to stop gouging consumers and ripping off artists. I would gladly pay $4 to $8 for a cd album if I knew that everything except the cost of the media and the recording (which seems to figure to maybe $1 at most) went to the artists.
As it is I look for small bands that are on thier own labels or at least on small labels. MP3.com is like one of those small labels in a lot of ways. They really are just for promoting the author and the amount of money that gets through to the artist is significant.
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:2)
Recorded music should be a form of advertising an performance for the fans a way of making money. As for mp3.com they have really pioneered the way music is transfered over the internet. Yes the big traders will use message boards, ftps and irc but for the general public napster was it. I personally have seen 2 bands live now since i got a track from mp3.com (which IIRC they get paid for as well)
Actually, only a small fraction of the general population can see a band in concert -- there are only so many seats. Plus it is so expensive. Personally, I would like to see the artists distribute their music themselves. That way, you know that the (reasonable) fee to download it goes directly to them (+ minor overhead costs) instead of to the record companys. Free music does little to help the up and coming bands directly, although it does generate interest in their music. I think a good fraction of the population would be willing to pay reasonable rates for song downloads, if they then have the freedom to listen to it on any of their personal devices.
Re:Get a grip, Timothy (Score:2)
Beethoven, on the other hand, studied and had passion, and it shows. His work is several orders of magnitude above Hendrix. Truth is, though, that truly studied music isn't often heard today. People go to school to study music, and they learn the school's rote. In Beethoven's time, musicians were often educated like craftsmen - as apprentices to an acknowledged great.
angsty teenage idiots
So, you've never been a teenager? You've never felt angst? Or all teenagers who feel angst are idiots?
Cynicism may make you feel clever for a minute, but it's a lousy way to run your life. I hope you mature some before you decide to breed; it's unlikely that your teenage kids will avoid being "angsty idiots."
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Get a grip, Timothy (Score:5)
What exactly has been crushed by lawsuits? The idea that you can create a company founded on file-sharing software and supported by "eyeballs" or banner ads? The idea that you can distribute someone else's work without their permission? The idea that because it's now technically possible to share music faster and more widely that suddenly corporate music will roll over and die?
Music is created by people, and the rubber meets the road at your local music club. Sharing music on the web is a far fucking cry from being innovative. Innovation in music happens when some teenage kid has to choose between suicide and picking up his guitar, when some girl writes new lyrics while she's crying of a broken heart, when a fan skips work to catch his favorite band.
The Who said it best:
MP3.com has a CEO, and so does Napster. These are for-profit corporations, out for a buck just like all the rest. They're not the Great White Knights, selflessly trying to save the music world.If you want innovation in music, support your local bands. Go see their shows and scream 'til your throat hurts. To think that you can change the music scene by downloading a few songs from the web is sad.
And to guard against the first few troll replies, yes, I know that one of the reasons Big Music is Big is that it controls all the distribution channels (e.g. radio, record stores). This is not news! It's been happening since before anyone here was born, and it will continue to happen as long as monopolies and oligarchies are rewarded by huge profits. The web never had a chance to "defeat" these companies. What's happened to popular music now that Napster has become an everyday word? Are we all listening to original, cutting-edge tunes? No - people still download Britney Spears and Metallica.
Yeah, many people have been exposed to music they otherwise wouldn't have heard by using Napster. That's true. And that will continue to happen. You don't a corporation's help to share or appreciate music. You need friends who like different music than you do, and you need to get off your ass and go see shows. Just like 10 years ago, just like when our parents were growing up.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Re:Innovative? (Score:2)
It would be something like "symmetry" if the "public" that "stole" from artists were to pay the artists directly. So far, efforts to make that happen have failed miserably.
I have 2 words of advice: (Score:5)
Yes, that's right, your local library. You know.. That physical structure made of brick and mortar that you actually have to leave your computer to get to. Chances are they have a lot of quality music on CD that you can borrow for free. Find yourself some classical, blues, jazz, ethnic, or whatever else looks interesting. Open your mind to more refined musical styles that you'll rarely find on the lame file sharing services. Once you gain a taste for good music, you'll never go back to crappy corporate pop musak marketed with excessive skin and a dozen layers of digital filters.
Then spread the word. And perhaps learn to play an instrument. Now that will be a music revolution.
What about open source? (Score:2)
Maybe Open Source and Free Software can start doing the "big things" now. Gnutella is still alive, while it's not as good as Napster, it hasn't been sued to death.
We need decentralized projects that can't be attacked by corporations. If a company in one country tries to attack a project, just change the project leaders to someone in another country. A project isn't a physical item, only the leaders are, and if all the project leaders are attacked, the whole project will go down. Setting up a project with a few close project leaders is putting all your eggs in one basket.
Not a real revolution at all - we need NEW stuff (Score:2)
If you really want a music revolution, start a website which is central to free music everywhere, get some good servers, and only put music on it where you have the explicit permission of the authors and it isn't a derivative product (except things like satire.) Then for goodness sake have a peer review system which ranks each file. THAT will be a new revolution - not swiping their stuff, but plowing their who industry into the ground. Take a page from the open source book - don't break or ignore their rules, but use them as weapons against them. Artists can still make money off of live concerts, and if they choose to release their music in such a fashion it will basically make a statement to the world that they believe they are good enough not to need the RIAA to market them.
Re:Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK (Score:2)
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:2)
Anyway, your analogy presupposes that money is equal to ideas, which doesn't hold water.
I know an inventor and he cannot patent an item and bring it to the market. He must patent it and then present it to Coleco or Milton Bradley or Siemens, because if he tried to enter the market, he would be copied immediately, the ways and means of production - and distribution! - being owned by the big boys.
The company id exploited this early on by providing free downloads of Doom demos over BBSes back in the day. The computer did a complete end-around on the s/w companies of the day and foreshadowed Napster. This created a new 'ways and means' mechanism.
By the way, companies like Disney, in the words of Eisner, want to make stealing content off the web like stealing an apple off a cart. You could do it, but it would be wrong, and if you got caught, life might be unpleasant for, oh, an hour. But what Eisner and fellow cronies don't want is Everybody taking all kinds of stuff all day thinking there is nothing wrong with that.
The fact that a lot of people were doing it is two-fold:
1) They wanted free Britney so they were perfectly willing to subjugate their sense of propriety to get it; and
2) they harbor resentment and a Machiavellian attitude toward companies as per my discussion above.
Finally, and I suppose this doesn't matter, but I sure miss Napster. I never tried to dl one single song that you could get on an existing CD - bandwidth is precious to me, a modem user - but I got about 500 bootleg recordings of live stuff. How enriching was that! To think that all those rare recordings that I might otherwise never have heard could be mine, all mine for free!
heh, don't two wrongs make a right?
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:3)
So we feel justified, nay, in fact Glorified! when we beat the system and stick it to The Man. Tell me: why is Courtney Love suing the RIAA? Why did Pearl Jam try, unsuccessfully, to stop Tickemaster's monopoly on concerts ticket sales?
What true artist who hasn't lost his soul to the capitalist ideal wouldn't attack the current system?
Here, I want you to read what Robert Fripp of King Crimson has to say: Go Here. [discipline...mobile.com] And then try to understand why we believe that once the distributor is out of the picture, then the artists will be better off than ever.
The reason is, to use Marx's words, that the distributor once possessed the "Ways and Means of Production", whereas in this day and age we all possess them, on our desktops. So the threshhold should have come down. But corps somehow convinced our elected officials to be their personal pit-bull lapdogs. I hope that it is a case of a desperate and futile trying to hold back the floodgates that will soon prove too time- and energy- consuming for our government to continue to fight, but, when I realize that this generation has allowed for more of their rights to be taken away than any other, I have less hope for the outcome. People are losing power daily.
I remember when this Napster thing was in it's infancy, before the dotcom gold rush, the attitude here at
Well, heh, it's not all that bad just yet; the net is a great source of raw information, but I don't like the trend I'm seeing...
Much hoopla for "Industry," little substance... (Score:3)
The week has been full of signs of the media giants' ascendance, looming over
Re:still some innovation (Score:2)
These days, there are no more free stuff for listening, but they still have some neat features. You can rate each song and album that gets played, so eventually it learns your tastes. Every once in a while it throws something else in there, too, so you get a taste of stuff you haven't heard before.
If you use the rating system for few days, you can completely get rid of Britney Spears, et al. It even remembers your preferences down to the album level, so if you love U2, but hate the "Unforgettable Fire" album, eventually you won't hear it anymore, but you'll still get other U2 stuff.
Unlike other streaming stations, you can immediately skip songs you don't like and the next one starts playing ASAP. If multiple people are listening to your "Station" (friends, coworkers) you can set the threshold to change the song, so if 10 are listening and two hate the song, tough shit. But if 7 hit the "skip" button, it goes away.
They have some neat tech going over there, hopefully they will stay in business. (And yes, they have one of the best, most creative uses of Flash I've ever seen.)
Re:|Seriously (Score:2)
Seriously though, do you know how many news servers there are?
Re:Precedent="Public Libraries". So shut the FUCK (Score:2)
This might be one of the most interesting AC posts I've seen in a while. Laws which exist, but EVERYONE is breaking, generally do end up unenforced, or enforced so rarely that everyone ends up breaking them anyway.
Let's say that there is a P2P sharing system that becomes so good, so easy, that EVERYONE starts just using it. Easier than Napster, I mean everyone with a computer. Are 75 year old Grandmas's downloading Lawrence Welk going to be arrested? Probably not.
P.S. Next time login so you start at 1 instead of 0, so more people can see your interesting thoughts.
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:2)
Wha??? Have you even SEEN Pearl Jam live? Maybe now they are getting kind of old and don't rock anymore, but I would say that 5 or 6 years ago, the CONCERTS were 100 times better than the ALBUMS.
Re:Umm. (Score:2)
If you drill down one more level on AudioGalaxy (instead of clicking the little sattelite icon), you can get a list of all the files, sorted by bitrate.
Obviously, that doesn't help when the encoder is bad, but at least you can choose the higher bitrate stuff which will eliminate a lot of the garbage.
Re:Umm. (Score:2)
Hmm. Okay, I checked it out. The "430564 users online" number is a GRAPHIC. Read: static, not a real indication of the usage of the system. In addition, your post reads like an ad. Also, their software claims to cost $3.95 a month, yet there is 'no central server'. Well, who am I paying then, and how can they stop someone from just copying the executable from a buddy and firing it up? It doesn't make sense.
I'm halfway ready to cry 'bullshit' since I've never heard it mentioned anywhere before. But there's a first time for everything. Can any others comment on this service?
Re:The companies were crushed because they were du (Score:2)
Re:There is independant music on the web! (Score:2)
I don't want to rain on your parade - I think you guys are doing a great job, and really making headway. But what eMusic needs is to land the next Backstreet Boys. An artist of that 'caliber' (LOL!) would legitimize you guys as on online music label. Because although you have lots of good stuff, I think the impression a lot of people have is "oh, eMusic, I tried them but I couldn't get Britney Spears/Limp Biscuit/whatever."
Is it your opinion that you can be profitable and grow selling only independent artists? That's a real question, I'm not trying to piss you off. Are you/how close are you to making money?
Anyway, good luck with your endevour.
Re:Offspring (Score:2)
Re:P2P is DOA (Score:3)
You are so, so, so wrong. It's mainstream now. The Napster court cases inspired TONS of people to download and try Napster, Audio Galaxy, etc. Look at the number of nodes connected to Gnutella, Audio Galaxy, whatever. There are already more people connected than the # of geeks that EXIST.
The companies were crushed because they were dumb (Score:5)
No, everything in the online music world has been crushed by the stupidity of the companies that thought they could get away with ripping off what belongs to others.
To this day, I still can't believe that none of the online "music labels" (for lack of a better word) tried to go legit. That is, why didn't anyone try to sign some big names - example, Hole, Smashing Pumpkins, etc. and get the ball rolling with some music that DIDN'T come from the big 5 music companies?
Instead they just became part of the machine - distributing the same works that are produced by the cartel they claim to be obsoleting.
Absolutely NOTHING is preventing a .com (lord knows they had the $) from signing up independent artists and promoting and distributing their music. The only problem is that the majority of consumers don't seem to want that kind of music.
The music revolution is just beginning... (Score:2)
There's been a huge shift in public attitude towards the music industry. More people are aware of how much artists are often ripped off by their own labels. More people want artists to get more money. More people are not happy with the music industry in it's present form. More people are buying and listening to more music.
There are people who are also abusing the power of mp3s, there are always people who abuse the system. But right now, there's not a lot of alternatives. There will be in the future. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow... but it's coming...
Until then, put some support into places like Fairtunes.com [fairtunes.com], they're one of (surely not the only) the stepping stones to the future.
Revolutions like this don't happen overnight, but when there's a market for something, eventually someone will pick up the ball and run with it...
Huh? (Score:2)
Like what? Napster? That's the only thing I can think of that you could have meant by that. And Napster is hardly "innovative in the music world." Innovative, bleeding-edge music, song, dance, etc is not really in danger of being "crushed by lawsuits."
They are incorrect. (Score:5)
The me-too college kids and music industry types have had their ideas fail. Those looking for a quick buck aren't investing money anymore. That is the real reason mp3.com's summit attendance is down from the insane attendance a year or two ago.
But that is a good thing.
The revolution is well underway by those who aren't jumping on this week's stock bandwagon. Much like the death of much commercial online "content", the people who are REALLY revolutionary are increasing in popularity while the pets.com's of the world are withering away. Witness slashdot.
Much like people who dump stocks when the markets are low, business stay away from technologies until everyone is already doing it. In reality, the BEST time to invest is when the marekts are low. Likewise, the best chance for a real revolution is when the market isn't crowded with every MBA starting an online "audio delivery" service.
This is the best time in the short history of recorded sound to be in the audio business. The difference between Joe Blow record exec and the next revolutionary is that the revolutionary understands that and seizes the opportunity.
Starving artists? That's BS.... (Score:5)
If you want an example of music without the taint of big record labels, take a close look at jazz. Jazz is a flexible musical community dedicated to innovation and improvisation. The head and chords of good tunes become standards, played for decades to come. Musicians use each other's work, playing it with their own spin, building on what they learn from each other, and always trying to push the envelope a little further.
I saw Shelly Berg (a jazz pianist) last week at a show. I talked to him after the first set about his playing. Have you ever talked to Britney Spears?
To put it simply, in jazz, you don't do well unless you're a good musician. Nobody cares what you or the cover of your record looks like. Good jazz musicians stick around, they arent one-hit-wonders like in other genres. Dave Brubeck is playing near here next month, and he's over 80 years old. Now that's what music is all about.
Anyways, I also think that article has a strange slant on this situation. Of course Napster et al has had an impact on the turnout for the convention, but the real reason is that this is the first year people realize that the internet isn't a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end. Take away all the people at a convention like that looking to get rich, and you're left with revolutionaries and those that are still struggling to hang on to what they have.
Also let me say that free music is certainly not dead. Free music has been available online years and years before napster and is still going strong. I remember the first CD I was prompted to buy because of online music was a SoundGarden album, and theyve been gone for years. Honestly, if you can't find free music online, you just don't want to look or don't know where to start.
That's just it though - it's not over. (Score:2)
The COMMERCIAL Music revolution, IS over. Some companies rebelled, and decided to try new business models with music distribution. The RIAA, head firmly buried in the sand, crushed them and won that war, deciding that music *companies* would remain in the past. All this means is that companies will stop trying to turn a profit off the "magic" of mp3's. All this means is that the myth that Napster was something amazing, and Fanning had some secret business savvy, has been exploded for the bullshit it was. Music listeners remain determined to move into the future.
The only way to stop the eventual changeover to free replication of audio files (and e-texts, and we can already see the publishers tooling up for THAT war...), the only way to stop this replication technology is to utterly destroy it or utterly control it. Destroying it is out of the question at this late stage (if it was ever possible), and completely controlling it? That's the music industry's new goal. They've realized finally that they can't destroy it. From now on, or at least until we nuke ourselves into the Stone Age, there will always be the potential for free replication technology, making scarcity an obsolete business model for all things replicatible! So, with content protection schemes and watermarks, they will try to control it. They will enforce scarcity. Then I'm sure they have some half-assed scheme of embracing and extending, MS-style, to stamp out the "promiscuous" audio formats that let anyone copy them. I'm sure they intend to do this by convincing the unwashed masses that their formats have better sound, or are smaller, or whatnot.
The only revolution that has ended, was a small revolt by some companies who had other plans. They've been duly squashed, and now the RIAA et al are moving ahead with their plans with new determination. Fortunately, we still have the nice folks working on Ogg Vorbis. =)
-Kasreyn
Re:Starving artists? That's BS.... (Score:2)
I have some bootlegs of stevie ray vaughan on tape (live@bluebird in Ft Worth TX), these will never see a store shelf and they are better than anything I've ever heard recorded of his. I'm sure not many people have actual tapes of this it would be a shame if I didn't preserve them. I would hope fans of his music would agree. In any case the demise of free music have been greatly exaggerated.
Re:I have 2 words of advice: (Score:3)
Re:Not by a long shot (Score:4)
"
The response will be one of two things... Either the government will respond to the will of the people, or (more likely)....
Another "drug war".
I can see new twisted laws, abandonment of civil liberty, in the name of protecting an obsolete business model against information.... Why will it happen? First off, government only responds to MONEY, and the IP cartels have a lot of it. Secondly, the law enforcement establishment will see this as yet another avenue to incresed funding, more employment. Imagine the RICO act and "civil asset forefiture" being applied to the homes and property of those who trade MP3's...
Why do I forsee doom and gloom? Because of the wisdom of the Founders, who wrote that the "natural" way of things was for government to become more powerful and the people less so (which is why they wrote a Constitution that placed SEVERE limitations on the power and scope of government).
But now law, not even a Constitution has any more power than those in power have the will or honor to enforce it. And in the past 80 years there has been less and less of both among our leadership.
Independant labels (Score:4)
The independant music scene still thrived, but was under closer watch, and a bit frightful of good bands selling out. Now, finally, the music industry has moved on to concentrating on pop.
Independant music is still thriving. Mp3.com only added a new vehicle for independant bands to release music. Overall, though, the independant bands on independant labels will have to continue to work the bar/club scene, gaining followings. Thats just the way it is and will be. Thankfully.
Re:The music revolution is not over (Score:2)
We'll have a "revolution" only when the CREATORS of music start to understand that the transformation to digital information technologies puts the means of production in their hands. As long as the Majors run the labels, own the content, are in cahoots over concerts, tickets, and promotion, and are in bed with the radio and media conglomerates, your file-trading "revolution is about as significant as someone paying for one newspaper, grabbing a stack out of the machine, and passing them out on the bus. It wouldn't make USA Today any less of a corporate fluff propaganda rag, and Gnutella doesn't make music any more free except in the most limited and shallow sense for a very small percentage of the population.
You and the other geeks can, maybe. (Score:2)
But what the RIAA accomplished in it's demolition of Napster was the removal of an icon that people knew about, that they associated with free music. No more Napster? No more free music.
At my high school, everyone used Napster. I have not heard anyone but the geeks mention any of the alternatives on your list. The music industry didn't win the removal of the ability to get free music.. they just removed the one way most people knew about - which is all that matters.
I care why? (Score:3)
For obscure and fringe songs, sure, let it be free. For popular songs, give the artists (NOT the distributors!!!!!!) some bucks! Then they can make more good music. Just skip the middle-man of the big distribution houses.
Re:Umm. (Score:2)
Uh, no, read the (slightly modified) question.
If you're using music without paying, why would you care about using the the mp3 format without paying?
For those getting their panties in a twist, I don't care in either case, so I find it a little strange that you'd care about one and not the other. Try and not assume that every question is an attack, huh?
Re:Get a grip, Timothy (Score:2)
- Britney oiled up a bathtub of vibrators (or whatever's next).
You're probably closer than you thinkActually, I wasn't being facetious (ok, a little). I was discussing this with some chums way back when, and we plotted the whole Britney Master Plan, from wide eyed innocent (then), to wannabe super-soft pop-rock chick (now, correct), to overweight alcoholic/junkie cum slut trailer trash (that's next, and cue dumb marriage #1), to born again puritan on a fad diet (and dumb marriage #2), to (self proclaimed) serious grown up diva (single, probably an accessory kid, possibly lesbian).
The reason that this is (honestly) relevant to this thread is that we reckoned in all seriousness that her management had "her" (i.e. insert identikit replacement) entire career plotted from day one, with marketing budgets, life crises, shifting fan bases and everything. Hell, they've probably already got her post cum slut "I was so screwed up, but I know now the Lord Jesus Christ was always with me" disclosure articles outlined and pre-signed with the gossip magazines.
Every time I think I'm being too cynical, the music industry spits out another anonymous boy band, Britney clone, or (super rich) angry young rappa and spends millions telling me how great they are, and I just grind my teeth and spin up my Stan Rogers CDs again.
Re:Umm. (Score:3)
Uh, if you're ripping copyrighted music, why would you care that it's in a open source format rather than a proprietary one?
Re:Get a grip, Timothy (Score:3)
Patience, young padewan. The problem that I have with big labels is that they pick 10% of the (blandest) tracks they have available and then spend 90% of their budget promoting them. Promotion of their back catalogue is limited to retro movie soundtracks. For the price of one Britney video, they could run a "great music you've never heard of" promotion for a year. So why don't they? I assume because they reckon they can make more by spending it on filming Britney oiled up a bathtub of vibrators (or whatever's next).
So the first step to addressing this is to break the cycle of "big promotion bucks = big chart sales". If Bertelsmann want to pay megabucks to persuade me that Britney's next album has actual music on it (no sniggering at the back), fine, but even if they brainwash me thus far, I'll still be downloading it for nothing, simply because it's easier than buying it. (Argue the morality, but not that fact please.)
It's a small hope, but maybe, just maybe, if they get reamed on promoting bland chart twaddle, the labels will start paying radio and MTV to sample some of their back catalogue, and just maybe I'll like it so much that I'll buy it, if I can buy and download it online at a sensible price direct from them, with minimal hassle or arsing about with copy control crap, or promising them my first born son.
For me, the most ironic thing about killing Napster is that it was the best source for finding obscure back catalogue that the industry isn't bothering to promote. But if I happen to like a million dollar video in a paid MTV slot, I can still very easily get it in any of a half dozen places. The RIAA have only managed to limit sharing to the tracks that they're currently paying the most to promote! You really have to pity these guys.
So let's be patient. Let them feel the effect of their actions for a while. They're not the sharpest tools in the box, but give them a year or so and maybe, just maybe, they'll stop shooting themselves in the foot and make it easier for us to find music we like, and for us to give them money for it, a little at a time, and at our pace and not theirs.
Re:The companies were crushed because they were du (Score:3)
What kind of music exactly? A company with enough $$$ to effectively promote in competition with the big 5 would (I submit) quickly become no different from them. They could only afford to promote zero risk, focus group oriented teeny trash.
I suggest that the problem here is the amount of money that gets spent on promotion, and on only a few new tracks. Step 1 towards fixing that is to punish them for pushing Britney clones on us. However, they seem to have just helped us with that by killing the best source for back catalogue stuff, Napster. Now it's easier to get Metallica than Stan Rogers. Nice move, RIAA>
Re:Get a grip, Timothy (Score:2)
No, that's how you get "adult contemporary."
Truely innovative artists (in any field) are usually fucked up in one way or another. They're rarely whiney adolescents, but they're very rarely "balanced."
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:5)
Recorded music should be a form of advertising an performance for the fans a way of making money. As for mp3.com they have really pioneered the way music is transfered over the internet. Yes the big traders will use message boards, ftps and irc but for the general public napster was it. I personally have seen 2 bands live now since i got a track from mp3.com (which IIRC they get paid for as well)
nice try (Score:2)
Dude, before you go flaming the editors, check the byline. That's not timothy [slashdot.org], that's michael [slashdot.org]. Nice try.
Re:I dont think it is quite over yet.. (Score:2)
since napster's death, it's been pretty hard to get easy access to mp3s of non-famous bands.[1] gnutella, limewire, imesh, etc, are all great and stuff, but they're missing the one factor that made napster stand head and shoulders above the others: they're not massively popular.
napster's popularity was both it's blessing and it's demise: users knew of it and joined up, making lots of diverse music available. then again, companies (and metallica[2], and dr. dre, etc.) also knew of it, making it a great target.
napster is(was) probably the main reason that broadband was making as good headway into homes as it was. now that there's no large centralised version of it (or similar) there's not going to be a whole lot of reason to switch over from dial-up to cable/dsl (for most consumers in the U.S., anyway.) i'm pretty sure that this is the result of apathy and nothing else; if you're shopping for something on the web, do you really care if amazon.com loads a little slower on your dial-up? do you feel the need to look through cdnow at cable/DSL speeds?
mp3.com's songs as advertising model isn't working very well for most people simply because you (the artist whose sonsg are on the mp3.com site) have to pay to use it (afaik, i haven't been to mp3.com in quite a while). basically it only really works for already established acts, like whitehouse [mp3.com]. other acts who don't have a lot going for them (advertising or underground following-wise,) aren't really going to make money doing that.
[1] real world example: i'm a big fan of a recording project of bryn jones, who recorded under the name muslimgauze [pretentious.net] or http://pretentious.net/muslimgauze for the goatse.cx paranoid. there's a lot of records of his out there. (to give you an idea: he died in january of 1999; since then, there have been roughly 37 releases of his music, most of them NOT re-issues). so anyway, trying to sample the records is a bit of a pain, cos some are GREAT and others are absolute shit. napster helped me decide to get a few discs i would otherwise have skipped over.
[2] who have sucked ever since '91's "the black album". i know it's cheap to make a dig based on personal opinions of art, but hey: if you suck, expect to get called on it.
-d.
--
Slashdot: When News Breaks, We Give You The Pieces
Name this tune: "go with him......" (Score:3)
Remember that episode of 'Married with Children' [force9.co.uk] where Al couldn't remember the name of a record of a tune he had stuck in his head? He kept asking everyone if they knew where `"go with him..."' was from, but no one knew.
Wasn't MIT working on something like this? Some kind of fuzzy waveform pattern recognition?
(There's still the same old problem of needing legal access to ALL recorded songs known to man, in order to have a complete search domain.)
The Music World? (Score:2)
---