Yeah? What's so surprising? K5 was hosted with the help of/. for a brief period, and the editors discussed the various methods of moderation back when it was first being implemented. I'd say the only loathing going on is that of a certain facton of K5's readership (including what's his name who made a big stink when he left Slashdot, and now I can't even remember who he was. Signal 11? Or did he just spoof the mod system?) who hates and despises/. for, imo, juvenile reasons. Sour grapes and "I'm leaving now and you'll all be sorry when you miss me!" diatribes marked the exit of some of the more vehement/. bashers on K5.
I'd say the lack of cross links between the two (since they share pretty much the same thematic news) is the fact that the majority of "stories" are comments on articles elsewhere on the net. So, when they share stories, most submittors just link to the primary source. Some of the meta news sites will credit with "Spotted at foo", but neither K5 or/. generally does, although it happens enough to make me think the submittors are the ones not crediting the link (which, again, imo, is unnecessary. If I wanted to read Fark, I'd go there).
I was about to go on a merciless tirade about careless/. editors who double-post stories, until your post made me recall the truth. Apparently, the story I was deja-vuing about was on k5 and not on Slashdot.
So, what, I'm confusing/. stories and k5 stories now? *shudder* What next? Total mental collapse? =)
For some reason, I remember the story I was deja-vuing about being just Mindless Link Propagation to some major news site. Of course, a quick check reveals that it isn't. I don't know why I remember it that way -- K5 moderators don't let as blatant MLP posts through to the front page as easily as the Slashdot PtBs do. At least some poor slashdot editor isn't guilty of MLPP (what MLPing an MLP post would be).
"What's next, they're gonna make chips outta chicken feathers?"
It was only a matter of time when the programmers of the ill faded art of p2p network coding died. Atleast with this article you can get some insight into how things were with AG.
It was only a matter of time when the programmers of the ill faded art of p2p network coding died.
Odd, I didn't catch that in the obituaries. Where they all at an ill fated convention?
That's because they are not listed in the obituaries...they are buried in a small mass grave just outside of town. The bottom of the tombstone inscription reads: R.I.[A.A.]P.
Hopefully AG will take a cue from Kazaa, go out of bussiness, and have another company (such as Sound Universe) located on an obscure Pacific Island with no extradition treaty take over the task of managing the central server and the distribution of the client....
AG seems to have caved in rather easily to RIAA pressure (consider their relatively early implementation of some file blocking, and their recent switch to subtractive blocking since additive blocking wasn't doing a very good job). I'm not sure if they even have the resources for a good legal defense, let alone a move offshore.
P.S. Your spelling is great. But your reasoning about English majors and correct spelling is a bit sloppy. =)
Note: I'm a Computer Engineer. I'm not an English Major. Do not reply just to critique my spelling.
Being an ECEN (Electrical/Computer Engineering) major myself, my comment on this is that if you're going to be an engineer, your past coursework and personal knowledge should have been sufficient enough to teach you proper spelling and grammar. If nothing else, take courses in college to improve your English.
That's pretty old news, I would think most have seen it already.
I read it a few weeks ago. The author attempted to portray his company as an innocent victim of the RIAA, and I certainly wouldn't support what they did. However, AudioGalaxy, at least the later versions, were a piece of trash. The most recent one before they were shutdown had tracking software that you couldn't not opt-out of. They were in the p2p business to make money through gathering consumer information and violating privacy, and I would support them no more than the RIAA.
While I agree that AG really did start shoving spyware down its users throats, you had many alternatives to the "official" AG satellite. The source was free, and there were several third-party satellites that didn't have spyware. I don't think they were really money grubbing as you suggest, but they needed to earn money somehow in order to support the servers and pay thier salaries. AG could have folded long ago due to bankrupcy.
AG was the best system for music, nothing else can match its organization and variety without having a central server. Decentralized P2P can never match centralized P2P.
The most recent one before they were shutdown had tracking software that you couldn't not opt-out of.
Sure you could have opted out of it...just use Audiogalaxy Lite instead. Better UI, no spyware. (I'm not going to bother finding a link to it because it's not like you'd be able to download anything with it now)
Anybody remember the original audiogalaxy? It was basically a glorified FTP search. For the sites it indexed, it also listed up/down ratios, access restrictions, etc. Both it and scour were the first ones out the door in terms of sharing beyond a P2P client. They both started hunting down windows shares, then indexing open windows shares (the owner of which would have no idea), then trying random logins to FTPs, etc. I had all this crap in my server logs as they tried to break into my Samba shares and FTP site to index my content. I had to ask to be removed more than a few times. Bastards.
Um... that should be a comma, not a period. Anyways though, there will always be more filesharing services... for every one that goes down, it seems like 5 spring up.
I still say the solution is that ISPs tack on an extra 5 USD (or equivilent in other currency) on to net connection bills, then allow free legal access. *shrug*
AG was always very efficient with its money; most of the people working there were college students, and we weren't paid as much as we might have been at another dotcom, but I was making way more then I would have been delivering pizzas, and I got to work on something I really believed in.
Quite a good ruse, roping college students in to write piracy software for peanuts. Of course it's something they really believe in, I remember when I was at college and wanted to get everything for free.
The moral thing to do, of course, is to actually buy the CDs and put money towards the artist, to reimburse them for providing you with nice music. But the vast majority of college students are just too selfish to realise that.
Record Labels and distributors get something like 90% of CD revenue
Propagating that myth doesn't make it any less immoral, you know.
To look at it another way, if the artist doesn't sell enough CDs then the label may well drop them. In which case, they get no further income from them at all.
Less "immoral"? So who are you to claim absolute knowledge of what is moral and immoral for the rest of us?
You're arguing on pretty subjective grounds.
I have no problems with my own conscience when I download an artist's MP3 song, or burn a copy of one of their music CDs.
Truly, I believe it always has been and always will be the nature of the music (and video) distribution business that a certain percentage of people will buy a given work, while another percentage will just make themselves a copy of it.
Right now, it seems to be believed that it's more profitable to bellyache about the artificial "losses" incurred from the "illegal copies" floating around than to take responsibility for one's own actions and try to produce better music. The quality of "popular music" is at an all-time low right now, and the only answer they can give for poor sales is music piracy.
I've purchased literally hundreds of CDs and hundreds of cassette tapes. Know what? Quite a few of those tapes are already worn out. Do they offer any type of replacement deal? Nope! Whether my tape happens to last 20 years, or only 2 - I'm stuck paying full retail price for a replacement. In a fair world, the music industry would realize that I already paid for my rights to listen to this particular album the first time, and only charge me the actual cost of the replacement media if my tape wore out.
So instead of re-buying the same stuff twice, I'm trying to download a lot of it as MP3's. Immoral? I think not... but some of you would, of course, decry this as absolutely wrong.
IAAM (I am a musician) and I know for a fact that most bands don't get shit for the CDs that are sold by the majors. We sell CDs at our live shows and we get all of the profit. Same with t-shirts and hats. The majors are in reality no different than the Mafia, except that they don't kill people (that I know about anyway). All they are in existence for is to rip off musicians and songwriters. I do both, I sell jingles to local radio stations and work (on the side) on background music. I make enough to (barely) pay for my equipment.
If you think it's a myth, check out this article [arancidamoeba.com] by Steve Albini. In case you don't know who he is, Albini is a career musician who, among his other accomplishments, produced at least one Nirvana album.
Make sure to check out his royalty breakdown at the bottom, based on his experience working in the record industry. It's pretty interesting stuff.
These arguments are valid... up to a point. Yes these "artists" are making a few million a year, which might be more than is fair.
But, the middlemen of the labels are making tens and even hundreds of millions a year.
Ideally, that kind of excess would be passed on to consumer savings, but that won't happen. I'd still rather see Brittany get the money (she does work hard at what she does, which is really more vaudeville than art) than some contract lawyer.
It's like the old professional sports arguments, the player's salaries seem crazy, until you look at the owners/managers.
Burn the CDs, see the show and buy a T-Shirt, the artist will get a much greater percentage of your money.
See the show: Very few tours make money for the artist. That's why some went for corporate sponsorship, just to help pay the bills. Do you know what it takes to put a show on the road? I do.
Buy a T-Shirt: The venue actually makes more money from the t-shirt sales than the artist does, due to the percentage of sales they get to keep.
The only people who really make money in the music business are the songwriters.
Think about it. A bar holds 200 people, if they are lucky that many will show up, who pay $8-12 a pop, there are 2-3 bands playing that makes $2000, split between as few as 10 people makes it about $200 per person (don't forget the roadie or 2 and they have to pay the sound guy), they need somewhere to sleep, to drive 200 miles between venues, and meals, usually dinner is provided by the venue, but breakfast and lunch is not. Profit comes down to less than $100 per show, and it is damned fucking hard work.
Read the Albini Baffler Article [arancidamoeba.com], it lists the touring costs, and it is a net RED
If your band can only fill a 200 person bar on a 3 band ticket, then you're not going to be profitable no matter what. There have been some great bands in that position, but never any profitable ones.
However, if you're able to draw 1000 fans or so in an urban setting, if you aren't making enough money to at least pay for equipment, hotels, and studio time, then someone is giving you the shaft.
as someone on VH1s "1 hit wonders" said "first thing you gotta do is get a good accountant and a good lawyer, and then get another good lawyer to look after those two guys"
Amusingly, I already linked that in another thread on here. I've been involved in helping bands tour, and I currently book shows. Tours can, and do, make money. NOT if you run it like the band in the Baffler article - that is, letting your "managers" handle everything. The bands that make money from touring are either popular, or simply smart. The more things you handle on your own, the less cuts come out. Instead of letting the record company handle your mechandise (and reap the majority of the profits), you arrange for them to be made, or better yet - make them yourself. It's mind-numbingly easy to screen shirts. You can make 200 in an afternoon at a cost of about $3 a shirt. If you sell these for $10 a pop, that's $1400 profit right there. Shirt sales and alnare the thing that keeps most small bands going on the road, more than door receipts.
it's the writers/producers who are the clever ones
Pete Waterman has had over 3000 number one singles around the world as a producer with artists such as Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Timmy Mallet, Mel and Kim
All pretty crud stuff but you can't argue with the numbers
The charts are about who can play the charts not who makes the best music, always have been, always will be.
Any time you have anything that says "sales and airplay" you've lost it
Yeah, I really don't want to spend 18-20 bucks on a CD if I just like one song. What if there's not a single available? I support the bands I like, I buy their CD's, go to shows, etc. . . Is it stealing? Probably. But as the other posters pointed out, it's only stealing 10% from recording artists and 90% from Music Companies, and if you ask me, they deserve the shaft for what they've done to radio.
They may get more money from you if you see the show and buy a shirt for every CD you download but if they don't sell CD's then will there be a tour and t-shirts next time around? But it doesn't justify your theft. Whenever I start believing this shit about the labels and distributors getting almost all of the money and the artists getting nothing, someone like Moby goes on a rant bitching how CD downloading is costing him money. Now who do I believe here, the artists complaining about file sharing hurting his wallet or the slashdot cheapskate with his cost to make a CD figures that he pulled out of his ass which is loosly based on a 50 CD spindle he recently purchased for $2.99 after rebates.
And where is the complaining about software, ie games. A popular RPG comes out and RPG fans who pre-order it or get it the week of release pay $54. In a matter of weeks the price drops $15. This to me is clearly gouging the fans of the game but we don't complain, probably because we are programmers and that would be slapping our own face.
The moral thing to do, of course, is to actually buy the CDs and put money towards the artist, to reimburse them for providing you with nice music.
No, the moral thing to do is to send the artist one or two dollars directly, rather than buying the CD.
Artists are generally at the mercy of the recording labels, and are typically paid $0.25 for each cd sold, while the recording label pockets the vast, vast majority of the profits. Supporting those institutions which are ripping off the artists, of which the recording industry is by far the worst offendor, is a very immoral act. Your $1.00 to the artist for downloading their entire CD off of whatever p2p or distributed service you use puts a great deal more money in their pocket than buying the CD legally does.
When it comes to buying the music online, where artists are paid fractions of a penny per song, the difference is even more pronounced and the artist treated even less fairly by the recording label. Download the ogg or mp3 file for free and pay the artist via fairtunes, or directly, instead. You will be doing a great deal more to support the artist than you will be if you go and buy their CD legally.
Note: I say this is the moral thing to do, not the legal thing to do (for those too clue-challenged to tell the difference). IANAL and am giving moral, or ethical, not legal, advice.
But the vast majority of college students are just too selfish to realise that.
Hearing that from someone who is promoting a "support the music industry, it is your moral imperetive" shill is really precious. I would simply point out that, for anyone defending the RIAA on this tack, to ponder the following words:
In comparison to what the Recording Industry has done to artists over the last 70 years, the p2p services and the worst non-commercial copyright violators on the planet are saints, and that includes those college students you so deride.
> Remember that they spend money promoting the bands too. You might not get to hear some good bands because the record comanies did not "discover" them.
Guess what ? Online music communities would just do that.
And that's exactly what record label fear. The end of their business model.
First, current technology has all but eliminated the need for million dollar studios, or million dollar equipment, in order to get production quality sound. Indeed, insisting on using such facilities is often one way the record companies rip off their artists and subsidize their own businesses.
The cost of printing CDs is also very low... witness the number of unsigned, independent artists who print their own CDs (and I'm not talking CDRs here, I'm talking true, silver, consumer-grade professionally pressed CDs).
I won't discuss how I can shoot better videos than much of what is out there, with a $2000 digital video camera and a couple of free software programs, except to note that the costs of making music videos are often as inflated as the costs of using a "recording studio" whose quality is easilly matched with about $10,000 worth of prosumer equipment and a PC.
I'm not saying that the artists shouldn't get paid more. I'm just saying that you have to understand that the record label has considerable expense in most of these situations.
It is an absolute myth that the recording companies pay these expenses. The front the money, but they do not pay the expenses.
All of those expenses are charged to the band, not paid by the record company, even while the record company pockets the lion's share of the profits. For details, see Courtney Love's detailed explanation [salon.com] of how the money breaks down, and how little the artists receive.
>But the vast majority of college students are just too selfish to realise that.
Maybe we should just become communist and solve that problem completely, huh?
I think the students are simply taking a page from the RIAAs super-uber-Capitalist stop at nothing to make money handbook, and it looks good on the RIAA that students are fighting the RIAAs greed with exactly same same level of greed.
Quite a good ruse, roping college students in to write piracy software for peanuts. Of course it's something they really believe in, I remember when I was at college and wanted to get everything for free.
Especially since the students never realized the company was getting them nearly for free. Is that integrity, or irony?
The moral thing to do, of course, is to actually buy the CDs and put money towards the artist, to reimburse them for providing you with nice music. But the vast majority of college students are just too selfish to realise that.
Excuse me? Did you really even go to college? Or did you go to a state school with a scholarship?
From your attitude, I doubt you had to pay anything for college. Maybe books?
I'm going to a small mid-western Liberal arts school. I've got about half covered in scholarships. That leaves me $15,000 or so to cover with cash money, help from my parents, and loans. My parents are not rich, nor am I. I don't get everything free either. I'd love to have enough money to but the things I want. When I'm almost broken on books, my first thoughts aren't on "Gee, I like so-and-so artist. I'm going to go spend $20 stupid dollars on their album." They're more along the lines of "Gee, I hope I have enough money for books, food and (Fraternity) house bills."
So, yes, I suppose I am selfish in that sense. I'd rather, you know, eat than buy some damn CD that will show the artist %5 of what I paid. Most of my friends were the same way, except the ones who had things handed to them. They'd go out and buy CDs. They had plenty of money. I Downloaded copies of office, though not illegal (campus wide license), from HL. I wasn't about to pay for that either. Talk to me when everything hasn't been handed to you.
Mod me up, mod me down. I don't really care right now.
It's different in UK. If your parents aren't rich you become eligible for a low-interest loan from these people [slc.co.uk], to be paid back when you earn over a certain amount. Also your tuition fees then get paid by the government. As for books, I got most of them out of the library. The student loan covered accomodation and food nicely and left me with a bit left over. Also, I worked during the holidays to earn a bit more.
So, you're right, I didn't have to pay much because I live in a country where the government actually gives you benefits if you're not so well-off.
We also have a national health system. See, our taxes actually go towards something more useful than lining the pockets of our rulers.
The moral thing to do, of course, is to actually buy the CDs....But the vast majority of college students are just too selfish to realise that.
Morals are a luxury for the rich. Most college students are poor. Show me a college student that isn't trying to get something for nothing and I'll show you our next president....because he's a damn good liar!
I buy my music and software now because I have the capital to buy it. My current view is $15 (or $50 for software) is a fine price for something I'm going to enjoy for many hours. That view differs strongly with my old college view of $15 = 15 bean burritos at Taco Bell, lets rip that cd....
No, music is a luxury. As much as I love listening to it I don't need a CD's worth of music per week to survive.
The moral thing to do is make sure the artist gets paid which is something the current P2P solutions do not do. If you can't afford it then turn on the radio.
You honestly havnt a clue what you are talking about.
I am angry you really think thats the best way to compensate musicians. Speaking as a musician, it isn't. Go to the show. Buy a tshirt. Whether or not you buy my CD means not so much.
> The moral thing to do
It might be the moral thing to do, but it probably wouldn't be if you understood that those who want you to never listen to music for free, and always to buy the CD happen to be those who will benifit the most from it - not artists, but a bunch of suits. Although, from the sound of it (particularly the dig at college students) you probably _are_ a suit.
Did you read the whole article? Like this part, for example:
"I bought a ridiculous number of CDs while I worked there, because I found out about music that I wouldn't have otherwise."
I can say the same thing. Over a half of my 200 CD collection is due to AudioGalaxy (it was my file sharing app of choice.) That's 100+ legitimate CD purchases due to file sharing, and file sharing only. Gee, who'd have figured, eh?
If Kennon Ballou did it, and I did it, it makes me wonder how many other people did too.
How do I send say, (picking a mega-artist out at random) Robbie Williams, or Five or NSync a personal cheque? Is there a website somewhere listing their personal mailing addresses ??? Or their bank account details?
Didn't think so...
You would hav to go through their record companies, or maybe, if you could track them down, their agent - who would then no doubt take a cut...
Sorry guys, I loved it back when it was just the FTP search. Adding a place where artists could host stuff: great. Requiring a lameass client software riddled with spyware and adware: inexcusable.
Maybe AG should just be a promoter or distributor for the musicians instead of trying to be a napsterclone. Stick it to the RIAA that way.
Audiogalaxy was the ONLY place for small bands. You could look up a lesser-known like the Microphones or the Young Marble Giants and not only find every single release, but also a host of B-Sides, basement tapes, and live cuts. By the time AG shut down, I had over 5 hours of Neutral Milk Hotel material, and NMH, mind you, is a band with only 2 45 minute albums to their name.
I can safely say that Augiogalaxy made me go out and purchase CDs, and more importantly made me go out and see live shows (where artists make a much higher return) I miss that little service allready.
It's funny. The files the RIAA really wants to stop, Brittany, Nickelback, etc. are available on any one of the hundreds of P2P providers out there, they aren't stopping a single pirate by shutting down AG, but the lesser knowns and out of prints now are homeless.
It's funny. The files the RIAA really wants to stop, Brittany, Nickelback, etc. are available on any one of the hundreds of P2P providers out there, they aren't stopping a single pirate by shutting down AG, but the lesser knowns and out of prints now are homeless.
It's funny. The files the RIAA really wants to stop, Brittany, Nickelback, etc. are available on any one of the hundreds of P2P providers out there, they aren't stopping a single pirate by shutting down AG, but the lesser knowns and out of prints now are homeless.
Just think about this for a second. Which is the greater threat to the RIAA, 1000000 ripoffs of the latest Brittany single (maybe a thousand real sales lost) or the possibility of independent artists finding a way to distribute music and make money without needing the RIAA's member companies? I'd bet that RIAA is way more worried about the latter than the former.
I was exposed to a lot of cool and interesting music I otherwise wouldn't have heard about, thanks to various groups on Audiogalaxy. While I understand the music industry's rationale for suppressing this kind of thing, I wonder why there can't be a legal, commercially-based (if not very profitable) service of this kind, supported by the artists and labels. Is this an overly utopian idea?
If you're looking for an easy way to share MP3s, OGGs and other files between friends, you might be interested in my software Andromeda [turnstyle.com], which dynamically builds streaming web sites with PHP or ASP. It's not dependent on any centralized service. Take a look & I hope you like it. -Scott
I noticed this the other day on Kuro5hin too. In the discussion someone brought up an interesting point that I have wondered about as well; Why not just move the centeralized servers offshore to a data haven like SeaLand?
I thought it might be an ethics issue, I mean, what company would advertise on something so blatently illegal? Then I remembered that AG bundled Gator and other spyware! Doh!
Anyway, why not move it offshore? Isn't this the reason datahavens exist? I would think the folks from SeaLand would be falling all over themselves to get Audiogalaxy as a client. The publicity alone would be better than any advertising they could possibly buy.
Democrats don't know the answers, Republicans don't know the questions.
You can safely ignore anything kuro5hin has to say.
It is the home of "Hillary for President" and the "Al Gore Fan Club". It is so left wing that it
make communists look like Rush Limbaugh.
No orginal thought on kuro5hin, just regurgitated
leftism as learned at the unwashed feet of Mr. Randy, their
gay 10th grade civics teacher. It is a place where cop killer Mumia is king, and ordinary decent hard working people are dissed.
It is so left wing that it make communists
look like Rush Limbaugh
Um, try to decide; are they liberals (ie. central, neither left nor right-wing), or leftists? From the rant it seems latter, but referring to Gore & Hillary make me wonder, neither of them being particularly leftist nor liberal.
... yeah yeah, I should know better. For some peculiar reason, mainstream US political lingo is equating liberal to communist. Sigh. Just like in Russia (ex-)communists are called "conservatives", as they long for olden times of centralized communist regime.
I call nationalized health care, a fear of the internal combustion engine, tax and
spend economics, abortion on demand, and excessive gun control pretty damn
liberal and leftist in my book.
Nationalized health-care is neither liberal nor non-liberal. It is leftist, granted (and still adopted by most west-european countries, even those without strong socialistish governments).
Fear of polluting the globe to death is not limited to liberal or socialists.. I hope.
"Excessive" gun control is a term not commonly understood outside US of A; and certainly controls suggested by Woody & Klingon would be pretty much mainstream anywhere else (and laissez-faire fire arms tactics would be a fringe movement).
However, restrictions are seldom related to liberalism... so it's just that people for (sane) gun controls are labeled liberals or communists or whatever; instead of there being ideological connection.
Tax and spend economics are leftist, but not liberal (liberals probably would tend to be somewhere between vulture capitalism and centralized communism).
"Abortion-on-demand" is, once again, phrase only understood in religion-ridden countries, plus USA. Having abortion available is the standard in western countries, and except for some of more catholic-oriented countries (Ireland, Italy?) it seldom is considered to be any sort of a problem. Neither socialism nor liberalism has much to say about this subject, although communist countries used to have reasonably loose rules regarding abortion (possibly related to official loathing of religions communist regimes had).
FWIW, I think that mr. Gore was too much of a corporate and religious-right asskisser (during campaing... probably nothing genuine, I hope), and his wife hysteric "somebody please think of our children" idiot, supporting censorship. And mrs. Clinton had weird ideas about who actually was voted as the acting president. So my biggest worry would be tarnishing reputation of liberals or socialists, not that these terms were used "against" the aforementioned couple.
Fair enough. Although I somewhat disagree with some points, the point I was mostly trying to make was that the term "liberal" is unfortunately being used to label certain mix of political views, that is not close to the original meaning of liberal.
I think the simplest explanation is to say that US republicans are liberals in economic issues (plus things like firearms rights), but not in social issues (ie. they tend to support measures for limiting many of rights of expression, censoring porn, preventing equal rights for gays etc. etc.). Democrats on the other hand are more liberal in social issues (with the weird exception of Political Correctness, which is very non-liberal thing), but favour more society control in economic issues.
In a way, libertarians are "most liberal" of them all, yet they are often view as right-wing people. I guess in many ways they are both too liberal and too idealistic for my taste. Weird.
I lean to the republican side on many issues, but for others I am a bit of a black
sheep. What I and many republican's detest is programs
that favor one group over another. Hate crimes laws are one example.
Interestingly, I could say I more often agree with democrats, but that I too dislike
hate crime laws (plus the whole "political correctness" movement... but I don't want to spend too much time ranting about that one), and mostly exactly for
the reasons you point out. "Law is blind" is actually meant to be a good thing (meaning law is impartial, unbiased, objective).
"Thought police" can't even reliably determine motives, and
if it could, I don't think ideological killing can reliably and justifiably be punished on moral grounds.
Besides, in case of hate crimes, it should be fairly easy to prove pre-meditated intention to murder, if the fear is that cold-blooded killers are more likely to commit such crimes (I don't know if that's true... but that's the stereotypic image of a racist hate-killer?)
As to political party lines, I guess part of them is a "necesary evil" (not nearly all). To reach necessary consensus on a single issue (and to guarantee it's voted upon too), it's sometimes necessary to "trade votes".:-/ That's bad, but the alternative sometimes would be that nothing could be decided on, or at least no consistent sets of laws could be enacted. Especially with things like tax laws, bigger "packages" of laws have to pass, and negotiating those with hundreds of politicians (instead of having hierarchic system, where leaders of parties usually negotiate after meeting with party members) would be impractical.
I don't think anyone likes the fact that's how things go... but sometimes it may be lesser of evils?
AG always seemed to have far more songs, by far more artists, than other P2P apps. Since AG went to hell, I've tried BearShare, Morpheus, KaazaLite, some others, but can't find anything close to what AG offered. That range of choice is what made AG standout; that is was run using Apache/PHP/etc is impressive.
BTW, note to RIAA: AG prompted me to buy more CDs that I would have otherwise. I'm not paying $16-$20 for a CD unitl I get to listen to all of it several times.
His little sections about "corporate culture" made me realize what it was I really miss from the.com boom:
It wasn't the free soda, it wasn't the shitload of money thrown at everything (well, ok, I miss that, too), it wasn't the company buying beer on Fridays or paying for lunch...
What I miss is the "bright" and "young" aspect. The Silicon Valley of 2002 seems to have gotten a lot older. It makes sense -- most of the young people like myself moved out when they got laid off. Now, at 25, I'm still the youngest person in my office (and in many offices I interviewed in while I was job hunting). As such, many of the companies are lacking that energy that made working during the boom seem, well, special.
What I miss is the "bright" and "young" aspect. The Silicon Valley of 2002 seems to have gotten a lot older. It makes sense -- most of the young people like myself moved out when they got laid
Found something more interesting than coding, eh?
Companies such as that still exist; but they weren't built on naivete or hype. They were built on products that were usable in the marketplace. Those companies that don't discriminate against youngin's get their skills, usually for less $$$ because their demand isn't so high.
My company has 3 21 and at least 6 25. We're still going well, even in these times.
Funny how the old guys are still there only because the young turks saved their ass with 20 hour work days.
This isn't a question of who is "bright" or not. The young members of the tech field were filled with youthful idealism. They still believed in the American Dream; that a little guy could be number one. That the corporate bullshit which plagued the 80s and 90s could be torn down and rebuilt anew. I will grant you that a large number of dot coms were fucked from the first investment capital to fall into their hands, but there were many competent dot coms that were crushed by the self-consumed stock market.
The only thing the old school biz guys have done is perpetuate an outmoded business model. The societal revolution is still coming..you have just added more fuel to the fire, as the average joe becomes more affected by corporate scandal and the me-first attitude of old school business.
Outmoded business model ?.COM had a simple business model
a) Get a VP to give you x million dollars
b) Spend x million dollars with a view to breaking even in 4 years (normal.com time scales)
c) After spending x million in 1 year ask VP for y million to cover you for the next 3 years
d) Spend y million, or float and get y+z million
e) NEVER EVER MAKE A PROFIT
f) Go Bust
This is nothing about "new" and "old" business models, its about "bollocks" and "business".
In the 1980s and 90s Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison demonstrated that someone could become number 1 by being smart and having a business that MADE A PROFIT. During the.com boom people like Sun, IBM et al made a fortune out of the "new" economy, Gates, Jobs and Ellison made even more.
A small guy can set up a business and become number 1, especially in the tech sector, but at the end of the day profitable businesses are what stay in business..com was about mystical ideas of "future" sales, where your mother would buy everything over the internet but NOT AT THE SAME SHOPS THAT HAVE GIVEN HER GREAT SERVICE FOR 20 YEARS.
Do you go back to the same shop often ? Does their service mean you would go to them in another State ? The same principle applies, but.com muppets won't admit that its true.
This guy notes that the two things that distinguished Audiogalaxy from other p2p clients were the "use a web based interface, and [the ability to] queue songs for delivery later."
I've often wondered why this feature is lacking in gnutella clients. I, for one, am frustrated when I have to continually search for that one song I want. Shouldn't I be able to tell gnutella to search for a specific song and download it when I find it (without resorting to macros)? Is there any development going on in this area?
Nope it's been available for a really really long time as a "harvester" of sorts.
napshare allows you to set up bot rules to snag everything that matches "butthole surfers mp3 moving to florida" will attempt to snage EVERYTHING that matches that search. so if you leave it running for a week, you're hard drive will be full of 90,000 copies of that song.... that's the bad part. the good part? leave it going overnight, and delete the 80 crappy ones and keep that one 256VBR ot 192 bitrate mp3 that was encoded propery and with a good encoder.
remember just getting it is the easy part... getting an mp3 that isn't crappy is the hard part.... only one out of every 20 mp3's of the same song is worth downloading, the other 19 are crap. and the ratio is getting worse.
leave it going overnight, and delete the 80 crappy ones and keep that one 256VBR ot 192 bitrate mp3 that was encoded propery and with a good encoder.
Well I suppose it's better, but it's hardly good.
Especially if you have bandwidth limits and you don't want to go crashing over them. I don't find the notion of wasting 320 meg to find one decent 4 meg MP3 particulary appealing.
check out napshare. Napeshare is a gnutella client for X that does exactly what you say, you enter in some search terms, and a minimum file size, and then click go. It downloads anything that matches. it works very well.
oh man, the submission didn't provide much detail, so i did something i, and most other/.'ers don't do often, i read the article, it's really intresting, some of his opnions may be biased, such as saying AG was the best, but atleast he provides some reasoning for it... what he said about the RIAA was very intresting, about how they claimed that they weren't doing a very effective job at blocking songs, but making filters is very hard, and the final way, with checksums on the first megabyte of mp3's was an ingenious way. i'm starting to feel that those who infringe on copyrights are hurting the P2P systems originally designed to share non copyrighted data, that's just trying to find some limelite. i agree with what the RIAA is doing on focusing more on the users who are sharing copy right infringement, i also feel that they need to question the user as to whether he owns a legal version and is just excercising fair use. in anycase RTFA (article) it's really quite good
*sigh* Why is it always the good ones that go down, while spyware whores like Kazaa run around free? (yes yes, I know the specific reasons, I'm speaking generally here).
At least we still have WinMX.
The only good thing about Napster was that it took the brunt of the traffic and hype from AG. While Napster was changing and millions of people were flooding the system, AG was running along quite happily.
Of course, the best feature was that you didn't have to search for the song. Just throw whatever you want in the queue, come back a little later and you had all the songs you wanted.
"I made you a star, and I can take it away!" This has been repeated by record company leeches to artists like a mantra. Peer to peer file sharing made it possible for artists to see that fans alone decide who is and isn't a star. This terrifies the recording industry. While Napster, Audiogalaxy, and the like were in their heyday, new artists were able to find their audiences without selling their souls. This pointed out how unneccesary the leeches really were. Read more at www.dontbuycds.org [dontbuycds.org] be sure to check out the article, What is piracy? [uncoveror.com]
*The numbers in this rant were acquired from Sniffer Pro.*
Personally, I'm glad AG is down. At my university of choice AG was taking up, at any given time 50%-80% of the badnwidth. That is just ridiculous. It was the only (music) sharing software the campus hadn't blocked (aside from Good ol' Hotline, RIP [vivahx.com]). Of course, everyone knew how to use AG, 10 people used Hotline (myself included). Maybe.
It just got frustrating being taken down to 4K for legit downloads. My roommate started playing with Gentoo. That's a fun install if your bandwidth is castrated. When I was needing to do work, it was frustrating to know that I couldn't get decent connection rates because everyone else was getting their fix it Britney and N'Sync. Of course, I was also occasionally nabbing things from HL(got to test drive XP[thank you, but no]), but I didn't care what rates I got there. There was always a resume DL feature.
Though, honestly, it wouldn't have been as bad if they'd download and close the connection. I think 60-70% of the AG traffic was out-going.
If AG is truly dead, may they rest in peace. I, OTOH, enjoy my bandwidth.
I would like to point out that AG has a "Bandwidth Throttle" option, which was one of the reasons I really liked it--I could set the bandwidth throttle to near-minimal and even when I was at nearly deserted educational institution over the summer, sitting on a barely used T1, it would only use slightly more than modem-rate bandwidth.
The "download and close" option is the one supported by my college's IT department (well, under the "if you must use the app" heading), but I find that to be a horrible solution--if everyone did that, there would be nothing to download because it would never stay online. That defeats the way p2p is supposed to work--you're essentially turning a p2p community into a client/server environment, which doesn't work in a grander scheme.
the problem with a bandwidth throttle is that no matter how much you throttle it, when 10000 people on one network are using it, it ruins the bandwidth for legitimate downloads.
Self-contained, proprietary p2p agents will be stomped by the RIIA et al. We need a core GNU distributed p2p agent. The agent should implement all downloads via stripped-down HTTP and perhaps all search functions as stripped-down LDAP. It should not be audio/video centric.
If the agent is released by some party as "GNU p2p" under the GPL, we might be able to get the FSF and also MIT to defend it, as well as the EFF.
Each of the remaining p2p players needs to endorse and convert to the new protocols before they get stomped by the RIIA. Kazaa and friends can still stamp their version with all their spyware and other "value-add."
As the agent matures to circumvent blocking techniques, the network moves as a whole.
If the thing is POSIX, this might be a good way to get a minimal Cygwin on a whole lot of systems.
The one thing that has been able to put a stop to Microsoft at this point is the GPL. Perhaps it could be useful against the RIIA - somebody should try and see. The value of the IP behind any of these systems is not that great - the GPL would be a fantastic curve-ball.
p.s. IANAL, nor am I a win32 programmer, so I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Because the indexing worked so well, that meant you could queue up a song and the system had a good idea of where to find it. It would look for someone who had a file with the same artistID/songID pair, and then alert the two clients to begin the transaction. Once you began downloading a particular file, it would make sure you would only get the file with that specific file size/check sum. Doing it this way also allowed the satellites to resume easily and transparently. It was awesome to jump on the web site before you went to bed, queue up a few hundred songs, and when you woke up in the morning most of them were there. You didn't have to care about who had the songs, it did that for you. I can't stand having to micromanage my downloads, having to pick 5 different versions of a file to assure myself of getting one of them. Some of the newer p2p apps are much better at this, but still none can compare.
YES! This is, by far, what made AudioGalaxy so much better then Gnutella, OpenNap, KaZaa, FastTrack, and any of the others. The result of the above feature is that you could find the rarest stuff out there, because the system would automatically start transfering the song when it found a host.
Does anybody know of any other applications which operate in a similar manner?
To all slashdotters out there just dying to put their two cents in:
Get your ass down to kuro5hin and post over there! If you happen to have an intelligent, well-thought remark regarding this writing, then please post your messages on the site that ORIGINALLY RAN THE STORY!
OTOH, if you have nothing better to say than "OMG, I'm SO going to miss AG! It ROOLD!!!", by all means please abstain.
How does something gain value? There are a few ways, but the best way for something that's readily available to gain value is to manufacture scarcity. That's right, make people think they can't get the stuff anywhere else, and all of the sudden you can charge them an arm and a leg for it.
This is what the RIAA has done, and continues to do. This is why the RIAA wants to make mp3 sharing illegal, unless of course you're paying them for songs on their labels. You see, if we can share any music we ever find, on a label or not, popular band or garage band, then the manufactured scarcity of good music is destroyed, and therefore it loses it's monetary value. When that happens, the bands will start making all the money off of touring or other means, because with all that competition they'll actually have to earn their money, and that will in turn put the RIAA and those big labels out of business because they won't be needed. Who needs sony's promotion when people just want to see your concert because they heard all your mp3's?
I could go on and on about this, but I just wanted to say a quick word or two because reading this article really made me see that this little theory of mine is pretty close to what's actually happening. AG and it's community really did open my eyes up to music I never would have appreciated before, and some of the band names I had never heard of and haven't heard of since. There's great music out there by all sorts of people and the only reason the RIAA, labels, or anyone for that matter can make money from a lot of the crap bands (like the lip-synching N-SYNC) is because they unethically (and hopefully one day illegally) control the market so that people can't get access to other, more original, artists.
I was a user of napster for a bit, I was on dial up at the time, so it was a slow process, but I did download songs..
When napster shut down, the next thing I went to was audiogalaxy.. I had also got a cable modem at about that time, and I probably downloaded 20 gigs of mp3's that first month that I had it.
One of the things that I thought made audiogalaxy the best way of searching for music was that when you searched on an artist lets say, it would show you what other artists people had searched for that had also searched for the artist that I was searching for. This opened me up to a lot of music that I had otherwise not known about.
They also had all the music categorized by the genre, and I could sit there and browse thru these for days on end.
Its too bad that its gone, but luckily I think I have all the music I would want now, and I can grab the few songs I might need here and there from kazaa-lite..
I think it's kind of funny that so much controversy has been going on over what is basically a re-engineeering of one of the oldest internet services. Why not just resurrect Archie?
While I agree that Audiogalaxy was, by far, the best p2p system (if you were looking for mp3s, that is), this story depicts it in a pretty flattering way.
I'll take it step by step (disregarding whatever views I have about RIAA and it's business model): RIAA sells music. They have the rights to the music (this may not be entirely correct, but I'm over-simplifying. Walk with me). AG lets people share that music - that is, they help someone get the music, who have not paid for rights to it. AG is a company, who wants to make money. They charge other companies money, so they can ship programs with the Satellite. AG is now, effectively, making money off of RIAA's property, without them getting a dime.
This is not strange, people. RIAA needs to protect it's own backyard. They may, or may not, make a whole lot of money, but they can't just stand beside and watch this.
Now, I agree that RIAA's (or rather, the companies whose interests they protect) business model is flawed, outdated and unfair. Unfair to both the artists, who create what RIAA sells, and the consumers who buy what the artists create. Compare RIAA to an estate agent. They take, what, 10% from the seller? RIAA takes more like 90%, leaving the artist with the crumbs. They can do this because no one else is providing the artist with an advance, with studio time, engineers, directors, etc. But all of this costs, and guess who's paying the bill? The artist, that's who. So a record company is more like a mix of an agent and a bank, with really, REALLY high interest charge.
All of this is about to change, fortunately - and it's not gonna be because companies like Napster, Audiogalaxy and Kazaa tries to make money off of anyone elses back. It's because, finally, some of the artists are staring to wake up, and smell the coffee. I'm not talking about "Really Small Garage Band" or "Joe Troubadour" here either, but BIG artists like Courtney Love, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Bono and Bruce Springsteen. Rapper Mos Def recently likened his deal with MCA to slavery (he ended up in that deal when MCA bought Rawkus), Michael Jackson claims the Big Five record companies are treating everyone bad, and black artists even worse, Courtney Love sewed Universal, claiming that record deals are unfair. Things are really about to happen, and when they do, we will see different distribution channels, new means of running radio stations, music television networks, concert promotions, everything.
One more thing though - one of RIAA's biggest concerns with Audiogalaxy, I think, was not that everyone and their brother was getting the new Britney track for free, but that new, unestablished artists saw this as a new way out. They could hire cheap studio time, get their music out there, do live performances, selling their own CDs, and become successful without the "help" of RIAA's world encompassing music monopoly. And that, my friends, scares the fsck out of them.
well in high school, i hung around the computer lab after word processing class and helped shut down all the PC's for the day. after HS, when I worked at Taco Bell, the POS units were windows based and i would reboot them when they hung or blue screened. so i'm not completely clueless, asshole.
So most of the artists on the site are there illegally...
Therein lies the problem. AG never actually *hosted* any of the artists they got sued for, they just allowing people to SEARCH FOR OTHER MACHINES WHICH DID HOST THEM. The RIAA apparently didn't care about that, even given that AG wasn't actually hosting the vast majority of the music - they (the RIAA) forced them to shut down their search of *everything*, including ARTISTS WHO ARE NOT SIGNED BY THE RIAA !!
Get it through your head that AG wasn't doing anything wrong, they were just acting as a search engine, the same as google or yahoo, but only for files whose last four characters happened to be '.mp3' !
MP3z (Score:4, Funny)
Re:MP3z (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you need to get a copy of The Usenet Binary Harvester [sourceforge.net]. Works perfectly on my Mac OS X system.
Obligatory editing snipe (Score:1)
I suppose that it really is too much to ask. Editors to perform the most basic. Submission proofing.
Kuro5hin (Score:4, Funny)
Erm. Wait.
Re:Kuro5hin (Score:2)
Re:Kuro5hin (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah? What's so surprising? K5 was hosted with the help of /. for a brief period, and the editors discussed the various methods of moderation back when it was first being implemented. I'd say the only loathing going on is that of a certain facton of K5's readership (including what's his name who made a big stink when he left Slashdot, and now I can't even remember who he was. Signal 11? Or did he just spoof the mod system?) who hates and despises /. for, imo, juvenile reasons. Sour grapes and "I'm leaving now and you'll all be sorry when you miss me!" diatribes marked the exit of some of the more vehement /. bashers on K5.
I'd say the lack of cross links between the two (since they share pretty much the same thematic news) is the fact that the majority of "stories" are comments on articles elsewhere on the net. So, when they share stories, most submittors just link to the primary source. Some of the meta news sites will credit with "Spotted at foo", but neither K5 or /. generally does, although it happens enough to make me think the submittors are the ones not crediting the link (which, again, imo, is unnecessary. If I wanted to read Fark, I'd go there).
--
Evan
That could explain it... (Score:2)
So, what, I'm confusing
For some reason, I remember the story I was deja-vuing about being just Mindless Link Propagation to some major news site. Of course, a quick check reveals that it isn't. I don't know why I remember it that way -- K5 moderators don't let as blatant MLP posts through to the front page as easily as the Slashdot PtBs do. At least some poor slashdot editor isn't guilty of MLPP (what MLPing an MLP post would be).
"What's next, they're gonna make chips outta chicken feathers?"
Don't joke about that, man. =)
P2P = Dead (Score:1)
Re:P2P = Dead (Score:1)
Odd, I didn't catch that in the obituaries.
Where they all at an ill fated convention?
Re:P2P = Dead (Score:3, Funny)
That's because they are not listed in the obituaries...they are buried in a small mass grave just outside of town.
The bottom of the tombstone inscription reads:
R.I.[A.A.]P.
Re:P2P = Dead (Score:2)
the news.com story [com.com]
what they should do... (Score:5, Funny)
But do they want to? (Score:2)
P.S. Your spelling is great. But your reasoning about English majors and correct spelling is a bit sloppy. =)
Re:what they should do... (Score:2)
Being an ECEN (Electrical/Computer Engineering) major myself, my comment on this is that if you're going to be an engineer, your past coursework and personal knowledge should have been sufficient enough to teach you proper spelling and grammar. If nothing else, take courses in college to improve your English.
Don't most Slashdot readers read K5? (Score:3, Insightful)
I read it a few weeks ago. The author attempted to portray his company as an innocent victim of the RIAA, and I certainly wouldn't support what they did. However, AudioGalaxy, at least the later versions, were a piece of trash. The most recent one before they were shutdown had tracking software that you couldn't not opt-out of. They were in the p2p business to make money through gathering consumer information and violating privacy, and I would support them no more than the RIAA.
Spyware in AG (Score:3, Interesting)
AG was the best system for music, nothing else can match its organization and variety without having a central server. Decentralized P2P can never match centralized P2P.
Re:Don't most Slashdot readers read K5? (Score:2)
Sure you could have opted out of it...just use Audiogalaxy Lite instead. Better UI, no spyware. (I'm not going to bother finding a link to it because it's not like you'd be able to download anything with it now)
original audiogalaxy blew (Score:5, Interesting)
Idea. (Score:1)
I still say the solution is that ISPs tack on an extra 5 USD (or equivilent in other currency) on to net connection bills, then allow free legal access. *shrug*
Re:Idea. (Score:2)
Good plan, though (Score:2, Interesting)
The moral thing to do, of course, is to actually buy the CDs and put money towards the artist, to reimburse them for providing you with nice music. But the vast majority of college students are just too selfish to realise that.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:5, Informative)
Record Labels and distributors get something like 90% of CD revenue.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:1)
- Record Labels and distributors get something like 90% of CD revenue
Propagating that myth doesn't make it any less immoral, you know.To look at it another way, if the artist doesn't sell enough CDs then the label may well drop them. In which case, they get no further income from them at all.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
You're arguing on pretty subjective grounds.
I have no problems with my own conscience when I download an artist's MP3 song, or burn a copy of one of their music CDs.
Truly, I believe it always has been and always will be the nature of the music (and video) distribution business that a certain percentage of people will buy a given work, while another percentage will just make themselves a copy of it.
Right now, it seems to be believed that it's more profitable to bellyache about the artificial "losses" incurred from the "illegal copies" floating around than to take responsibility for one's own actions and try to produce better music. The quality of "popular music" is at an all-time low right now, and the only answer they can give for poor sales is music piracy.
I've purchased literally hundreds of CDs and hundreds of cassette tapes. Know what? Quite a few of those tapes are already worn out. Do they offer any type of replacement deal? Nope! Whether my tape happens to last 20 years, or only 2 - I'm stuck paying full retail price for a replacement. In a fair world, the music industry would realize that I already paid for my rights to listen to this particular album the first time, and only charge me the actual cost of the replacement media if my tape wore out.
So instead of re-buying the same stuff twice, I'm trying to download a lot of it as MP3's. Immoral? I think not... but some of you would, of course, decry this as absolutely wrong.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good plan, though (Score:5, Informative)
Make sure to check out his royalty breakdown at the bottom, based on his experience working in the record industry. It's pretty interesting stuff.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
But, the middlemen of the labels are making tens and even hundreds of millions a year.
Ideally, that kind of excess would be passed on to consumer savings, but that won't happen. I'd still rather see Brittany get the money (she does work hard at what she does, which is really more vaudeville than art) than some contract lawyer.
It's like the old professional sports arguments, the player's salaries seem crazy, until you look at the owners/managers.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:1)
Buy a T-Shirt: The venue actually makes more money from the t-shirt sales than the artist does, due to the percentage of sales they get to keep.
The only people who really make money in the music business are the songwriters.
It's simply expensive to tour (Score:2)
Read the Albini Baffler Article [arancidamoeba.com], it lists the touring costs, and it is a net RED
Re:It's simply expensive to tour (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if you're able to draw 1000 fans or so in an urban setting, if you aren't making enough money to at least pay for equipment, hotels, and studio time, then someone is giving you the shaft.
as someone on VH1s "1 hit wonders" said "first thing you gotta do is get a good accountant and a good lawyer, and then get another good lawyer to look after those two guys"
Re:It's simply expensive to tour (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
Pete Waterman has had over 3000 number one singles around the world as a producer with artists such as Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Timmy Mallet, Mel and Kim
All pretty crud stuff but you can't argue with the numbers
The charts are about who can play the charts not who makes the best music, always have been, always will be.
Any time you have anything that says "sales and airplay" you've lost it
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2, Funny)
Is it stealing? Probably. But as the other posters pointed out, it's only stealing 10% from recording artists and 90% from Music Companies, and if you ask me, they deserve the shaft for what they've done to radio.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
And where is the complaining about software, ie games. A popular RPG comes out and RPG fans who pre-order it or get it the week of release pay $54. In a matter of weeks the price drops $15. This to me is clearly gouging the fans of the game but we don't complain, probably because we are programmers and that would be slapping our own face.
The Moral Thing to do (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the moral thing to do is to send the artist one or two dollars directly, rather than buying the CD.
Artists are generally at the mercy of the recording labels, and are typically paid $0.25 for each cd sold, while the recording label pockets the vast, vast majority of the profits. Supporting those institutions which are ripping off the artists, of which the recording industry is by far the worst offendor, is a very immoral act. Your $1.00 to the artist for downloading their entire CD off of whatever p2p or distributed service you use puts a great deal more money in their pocket than buying the CD legally does.
When it comes to buying the music online, where artists are paid fractions of a penny per song, the difference is even more pronounced and the artist treated even less fairly by the recording label. Download the ogg or mp3 file for free and pay the artist via fairtunes, or directly, instead. You will be doing a great deal more to support the artist than you will be if you go and buy their CD legally.
Note: I say this is the moral thing to do, not the legal thing to do (for those too clue-challenged to tell the difference). IANAL and am giving moral, or ethical, not legal, advice.
But the vast majority of college students are just too selfish to realise that.
Hearing that from someone who is promoting a "support the music industry, it is your moral imperetive" shill is really precious. I would simply point out that, for anyone defending the RIAA on this tack, to ponder the following words:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Mote. Beam. Eye.
Glass Houses. Stones.
In comparison to what the Recording Industry has done to artists over the last 70 years, the p2p services and the worst non-commercial copyright violators on the planet are saints, and that includes those college students you so deride.
Re:The Moral Thing to do (Score:2, Informative)
Guess what ? Online music communities would just do that.
And that's exactly what record label fear. The end of their business model.
Right back at ya, satan ;-) (Score:2)
Right back at ya, Satan
First, current technology has all but eliminated the need for million dollar studios, or million dollar equipment, in order to get production quality sound. Indeed, insisting on using such facilities is often one way the record companies rip off their artists and subsidize their own businesses.
The cost of printing CDs is also very low
I won't discuss how I can shoot better videos than much of what is out there, with a $2000 digital video camera and a couple of free software programs, except to note that the costs of making music videos are often as inflated as the costs of using a "recording studio" whose quality is easilly matched with about $10,000 worth of prosumer equipment and a PC.
I'm not saying that the artists shouldn't get paid more. I'm just saying that you have to understand that the record label has considerable expense in most of these situations.
It is an absolute myth that the recording companies pay these expenses. The front the money, but they do not pay the expenses.
All of those expenses are charged to the band, not paid by the record company, even while the record company pockets the lion's share of the profits. For details, see Courtney Love's detailed explanation [salon.com] of how the money breaks down, and how little the artists receive.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
Maybe we should just become communist and solve that problem completely, huh?
I think the students are simply taking a page from the RIAAs super-uber-Capitalist stop at nothing to make money handbook, and it looks good on the RIAA that students are fighting the RIAAs greed with exactly same same level of greed.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
Especially since the students never realized the company was getting them nearly for free. Is that integrity, or irony?
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
Excuse me? Did you really even go to college? Or did you go to a state school with a scholarship?
From your attitude, I doubt you had to pay anything for college. Maybe books?
I'm going to a small mid-western Liberal arts school. I've got about half covered in scholarships. That leaves me $15,000 or so to cover with cash money, help from my parents, and loans. My parents are not rich, nor am I. I don't get everything free either. I'd love to have enough money to but the things I want. When I'm almost broken on books, my first thoughts aren't on "Gee, I like so-and-so artist. I'm going to go spend $20 stupid dollars on their album." They're more along the lines of "Gee, I hope I have enough money for books, food and (Fraternity) house bills."
So, yes, I suppose I am selfish in that sense. I'd rather, you know, eat than buy some damn CD that will show the artist %5 of what I paid. Most of my friends were the same way, except the ones who had things handed to them. They'd go out and buy CDs. They had plenty of money. I Downloaded copies of office, though not illegal (campus wide license), from HL. I wasn't about to pay for that either. Talk to me when everything hasn't been handed to you.
Mod me up, mod me down. I don't really care right now.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
So, you're right, I didn't have to pay much because I live in a country where the government actually gives you benefits if you're not so well-off.
We also have a national health system. See, our taxes actually go towards something more useful than lining the pockets of our rulers.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
Morals are a luxury for the rich. Most college students are poor. Show me a college student that isn't trying to get something for nothing and I'll show you our next president....because he's a damn good liar!
I buy my music and software now because I have the capital to buy it. My current view is $15 (or $50 for software) is a fine price for something I'm going to enjoy for many hours. That view differs strongly with my old college view of $15 = 15 bean burritos at Taco Bell, lets rip that cd....
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
No, music is a luxury. As much as I love listening to it I don't need a CD's worth of music per week to survive.
The moral thing to do is make sure the artist gets paid which is something the current P2P solutions do not do. If you can't afford it then turn on the radio.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
Can I do that without funding the RIAA slimeballs?
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
I am angry you really think thats the best way to compensate musicians. Speaking as a musician, it isn't. Go to the show. Buy a tshirt. Whether or not you buy my CD means not so much.
> The moral thing to do
It might be the moral thing to do, but it probably wouldn't be if you understood that those who want you to never listen to music for free, and always to buy the CD happen to be those who will benifit the most from it - not artists, but a bunch of suits. Although, from the sound of it (particularly the dig at college students) you probably _are_ a suit.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:3, Informative)
"I bought a ridiculous number of CDs while I worked there, because I found out about music that I wouldn't have otherwise."
I can say the same thing. Over a half of my 200 CD collection is due to AudioGalaxy (it was my file sharing app of choice.) That's 100+ legitimate CD purchases due to file sharing, and file sharing only.
Gee, who'd have figured, eh?
If Kennon Ballou did it, and I did it, it makes me wonder how many other people did too.
Re:Good plan, though (Score:2)
How do I send say, (picking a mega-artist out at random) Robbie Williams, or Five or NSync a personal cheque? Is there a website somewhere listing their personal mailing addresses ??? Or their bank account details?
Didn't think so...
You would hav to go through their record companies, or maybe, if you could track them down, their agent - who would then no doubt take a cut...
Audiogalaxy lost it. (Score:2)
Maybe AG should just be a promoter or distributor for the musicians instead of trying to be a napsterclone. Stick it to the RIAA that way.
Re:Audiogalaxy lost it. (Score:2)
I can safely say that Augiogalaxy made me go out and purchase CDs, and more importantly made me go out and see live shows (where artists make a much higher return) I miss that little service allready.
It's funny. The files the RIAA really wants to stop, Brittany, Nickelback, etc. are available on any one of the hundreds of P2P providers out there, they aren't stopping a single pirate by shutting down AG, but the lesser knowns and out of prints now are homeless.
Re:Audiogalaxy lost it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Audiogalaxy lost it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think about this for a second. Which is the greater threat to the RIAA, 1000000 ripoffs of the latest Brittany single (maybe a thousand real sales lost) or the possibility of independent artists finding a way to distribute music and make money without needing the RIAA's member companies? I'd bet that RIAA is way more worried about the latter than the former.
AG will be missed (Score:2, Interesting)
Share between friends... (Score:1)
Or save $35 (Score:2)
Re:Or save $35 (Score:2)
Options? (Score:1)
kuro5hin: home of the Ultra Liberal (Score:1, Funny)
No orginal thought on kuro5hin, just regurgitated leftism as learned at the unwashed feet of Mr. Randy, their gay 10th grade civics teacher. It is a place where cop killer Mumia is king, and ordinary decent hard working people are dissed.
Re:kuro5hin: home of the Ultra Liberal (Score:2)
Please ignore this AC, he has no idea what he's saying...
Liberal != communist (Score:2)
It is so left wing that it make communists look like Rush Limbaugh
Um, try to decide; are they liberals (ie. central, neither left nor right-wing), or leftists? From the rant it seems latter, but referring to Gore & Hillary make me wonder, neither of them being particularly leftist nor liberal.
Re:Liberal != communist (Score:2)
Nationalized health-care is neither liberal nor non-liberal. It is leftist, granted (and still adopted by most west-european countries, even those without strong socialistish governments).
Fear of polluting the globe to death is not limited to liberal or socialists.. I hope.
"Excessive" gun control is a term not commonly understood outside US of A; and certainly controls suggested by Woody & Klingon would be pretty much mainstream anywhere else (and laissez-faire fire arms tactics would be a fringe movement). However, restrictions are seldom related to liberalism... so it's just that people for (sane) gun controls are labeled liberals or communists or whatever; instead of there being ideological connection.
Tax and spend economics are leftist, but not liberal (liberals probably would tend to be somewhere between vulture capitalism and centralized communism).
"Abortion-on-demand" is, once again, phrase only understood in religion-ridden countries, plus USA. Having abortion available is the standard in western countries, and except for some of more catholic-oriented countries (Ireland, Italy?) it seldom is considered to be any sort of a problem. Neither socialism nor liberalism has much to say about this subject, although communist countries used to have reasonably loose rules regarding abortion (possibly related to official loathing of religions communist regimes had).
FWIW, I think that mr. Gore was too much of a corporate and religious-right asskisser (during campaing... probably nothing genuine, I hope), and his wife hysteric "somebody please think of our children" idiot, supporting censorship.
And mrs. Clinton had weird ideas about who actually was voted as the acting president. So my biggest worry would be tarnishing reputation of liberals or socialists, not that these terms were used "against" the aforementioned couple.
Re:Liberal != communist (Score:2)
I think the simplest explanation is to say that US republicans are liberals in economic issues (plus things like firearms rights), but not in social issues (ie. they tend to support measures for limiting many of rights of expression, censoring porn, preventing equal rights for gays etc. etc.). Democrats on the other hand are more liberal in social issues (with the weird exception of Political Correctness, which is very non-liberal thing), but favour more society control in economic issues.
In a way, libertarians are "most liberal" of them all, yet they are often view as right-wing people. I guess in many ways they are both too liberal and too idealistic for my taste. Weird.
Re:Liberal != communist (Score:2)
What I and many republican's detest is programs that favor one group over another. Hate crimes laws are one example.
Interestingly, I could say I more often agree with democrats, but that I too dislike hate crime laws (plus the whole "political correctness" movement... but I don't want to spend too much time ranting about that one), and mostly exactly for the reasons you point out. "Law is blind" is actually meant to be a good thing (meaning law is impartial, unbiased, objective). "Thought police" can't even reliably determine motives, and if it could, I don't think ideological killing can reliably and justifiably be punished on moral grounds. Besides, in case of hate crimes, it should be fairly easy to prove pre-meditated intention to murder, if the fear is that cold-blooded killers are more likely to commit such crimes (I don't know if that's true... but that's the stereotypic image of a racist hate-killer?)
As to political party lines, I guess part of them is a "necesary evil" (not nearly all). To reach necessary consensus on a single issue (and to guarantee it's voted upon too), it's sometimes necessary to "trade votes". :-/
That's bad, but the alternative sometimes would be that nothing could be decided on, or at least no consistent sets of laws could be enacted. Especially with things like tax laws, bigger "packages" of laws have to pass, and negotiating those with hundreds of politicians (instead of having hierarchic system, where leaders of parties usually negotiate after meeting with party members) would be impractical.
I don't think anyone likes the fact that's how things go... but sometimes it may be lesser of evils?
Impressive Community (Score:2)
BTW, note to RIAA: AG prompted me to buy more CDs that I would have otherwise. I'm not paying $16-$20 for a CD unitl I get to listen to all of it several times.
Re:Impressive Community (Score:2)
Actually, I just installed it today, and yes, it is much better than the others. Thanks.
Making me miss 1999 again (Score:5, Interesting)
It wasn't the free soda, it wasn't the shitload of money thrown at everything (well, ok, I miss that, too), it wasn't the company buying beer on Fridays or paying for lunch...
What I miss is the "bright" and "young" aspect. The Silicon Valley of 2002 seems to have gotten a lot older. It makes sense -- most of the young people like myself moved out when they got laid off. Now, at 25, I'm still the youngest person in my office (and in many offices I interviewed in while I was job hunting). As such, many of the companies are lacking that energy that made working during the boom seem, well, special.
I miss that.
Fun with word wrapping... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Making me miss 1999 again (Score:2)
My company has 3 21 and at least 6 25. We're still going well, even in these times.
and the irony is... (Score:2)
Maybe it's just as well your dot com went the way of James Dean...
Re:Young and not so bright... (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't a question of who is "bright" or not. The young members of the tech field were filled with youthful idealism. They still believed in the American Dream; that a little guy could be number one. That the corporate bullshit which plagued the 80s and 90s could be torn down and rebuilt anew. I will grant you that a large number of dot coms were fucked from the first investment capital to fall into their hands, but there were many competent dot coms that were crushed by the self-consumed stock market.
The only thing the old school biz guys have done is perpetuate an outmoded business model. The societal revolution is still coming..you have just added more fuel to the fire, as the average joe becomes more affected by corporate scandal and the me-first attitude of old school business.
Oh please... (Score:2)
Outmoded business model ?
a) Get a VP to give you x million dollars
b) Spend x million dollars with a view to breaking even in 4 years (normal
c) After spending x million in 1 year ask VP for y million to cover you for the next 3 years
d) Spend y million, or float and get y+z million
e) NEVER EVER MAKE A PROFIT
f) Go Bust
This is nothing about "new" and "old" business models, its about "bollocks" and "business".
In the 1980s and 90s Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison demonstrated that someone could become number 1 by being smart and having a business that MADE A PROFIT. During the
A small guy can set up a business and become number 1, especially in the tech sector, but at the end of the day profitable businesses are what stay in business.
Do you go back to the same shop often ? Does their service mean you would go to them in another State ? The same principle applies, but
Download Queues & Gnutella (Score:2, Insightful)
This guy notes that the two things that distinguished Audiogalaxy from other p2p clients were the "use a web based interface, and [the ability to] queue songs for delivery later."
I've often wondered why this feature is lacking in gnutella clients. I, for one, am frustrated when I have to continually search for that one song I want. Shouldn't I be able to tell gnutella to search for a specific song and download it when I find it (without resorting to macros)? Is there any development going on in this area?Re:Download Queues & Gnutella (Score:3, Informative)
napshare allows you to set up bot rules to snag everything that matches "butthole surfers mp3 moving to florida" will attempt to snage EVERYTHING that matches that search. so if you leave it running for a week, you're hard drive will be full of 90,000 copies of that song.... that's the bad part. the good part? leave it going overnight, and delete the 80 crappy ones and keep that one 256VBR ot 192 bitrate mp3 that was encoded propery and with a good encoder.
remember just getting it is the easy part... getting an mp3 that isn't crappy is the hard part.... only one out of every 20 mp3's of the same song is worth downloading, the other 19 are crap. and the ratio is getting worse.
Re:Download Queues & Gnutella (Score:2)
Well I suppose it's better, but it's hardly good.
Especially if you have bandwidth limits and you don't want to go crashing over them. I don't find the notion of wasting 320 meg to find one decent 4 meg MP3 particulary appealing.
Re:Download Queues & Gnutella (Score:2)
Very intresting (Score:1)
Re:Very intresting (Score:3, Interesting)
Good lord! Its a good thing most
Don't encourage them!
Another one bites the dust... (Score:1)
AG was the best... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, the best feature was that you didn't have to search for the song. Just throw whatever you want in the queue, come back a little later and you had all the songs you wanted.
RIAA is afraid of losing power over artists. (Score:2)
be sure to check out the article, What is piracy? [uncoveror.com]
Dontbuycds.com (Score:2)
Re:Dontbuycds.com (Score:2)
.....And one time, at band camp..... (Score:2, Funny)
/.'ed (Score:5, Funny)
Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I'm glad AG is down. At my university of choice AG was taking up, at any given time 50%-80% of the badnwidth. That is just ridiculous. It was the only (music) sharing software the campus hadn't blocked (aside from Good ol' Hotline, RIP [vivahx.com]). Of course, everyone knew how to use AG, 10 people used Hotline (myself included). Maybe.
It just got frustrating being taken down to 4K for legit downloads. My roommate started playing with Gentoo. That's a fun install if your bandwidth is castrated. When I was needing to do work, it was frustrating to know that I couldn't get decent connection rates because everyone else was getting their fix it Britney and N'Sync. Of course, I was also occasionally nabbing things from HL(got to test drive XP[thank you, but no]), but I didn't care what rates I got there. There was always a resume DL feature.
Though, honestly, it wouldn't have been as bad if they'd download and close the connection. I think 60-70% of the AG traffic was out-going.
If AG is truly dead, may they rest in peace. I, OTOH, enjoy my bandwidth.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
I would like to point out that AG has a "Bandwidth Throttle" option, which was one of the reasons I really liked it--I could set the bandwidth throttle to near-minimal and even when I was at nearly deserted educational institution over the summer, sitting on a barely used T1, it would only use slightly more than modem-rate bandwidth.
The "download and close" option is the one supported by my college's IT department (well, under the "if you must use the app" heading), but I find that to be a horrible solution--if everyone did that, there would be nothing to download because it would never stay online. That defeats the way p2p is supposed to work--you're essentially turning a p2p community into a client/server environment, which doesn't work in a grander scheme.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Time to re-think p2p (Score:3, Insightful)
The one thing that has been able to put a stop to Microsoft at this point is the GPL. Perhaps it could be useful against the RIIA - somebody should try and see. The value of the IP behind any of these systems is not that great - the GPL would be a fantastic curve-ball.
Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anybody know of any other applications which operate in a similar manner?
Due credit to K5 (Score:2)
Get your ass down to kuro5hin and post over there! If you happen to have an intelligent, well-thought remark regarding this writing, then please post your messages on the site that ORIGINALLY RAN THE STORY!
OTOH, if you have nothing better to say than "OMG, I'm SO going to miss AG! It ROOLD!!!", by all means please abstain.
This story proves the RIAA's real motives (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what the RIAA has done, and continues to do. This is why the RIAA wants to make mp3 sharing illegal, unless of course you're paying them for songs on their labels. You see, if we can share any music we ever find, on a label or not, popular band or garage band, then the manufactured scarcity of good music is destroyed, and therefore it loses it's monetary value. When that happens, the bands will start making all the money off of touring or other means, because with all that competition they'll actually have to earn their money, and that will in turn put the RIAA and those big labels out of business because they won't be needed. Who needs sony's promotion when people just want to see your concert because they heard all your mp3's?
I could go on and on about this, but I just wanted to say a quick word or two because reading this article really made me see that this little theory of mine is pretty close to what's actually happening. AG and it's community really did open my eyes up to music I never would have appreciated before, and some of the band names I had never heard of and haven't heard of since. There's great music out there by all sorts of people and the only reason the RIAA, labels, or anyone for that matter can make money from a lot of the crap bands (like the lip-synching N-SYNC) is because they unethically (and hopefully one day illegally) control the market so that people can't get access to other, more original, artists.
The Question RIAA wil never ask Consumers(Cust..) (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems the perfect solution but wiat than how does RIAA members get us to buy bloated albums then?
Trials in Australia are already happenign with these burn your won music kiosks..it wil come to US as well..
The old business model of labels in selling bloated albums adn the RIAA is dead we just have not buried them yet!
But the funeral pyre is being heated up as we speak..
Mirror (Score:2)
OK, since k5 has been slashdotted, here's a high-bandwidth mirror [lancs.ac.uk]
OOPS, wrong port (Score:2)
My experience with audiogalaxy.. (Score:2)
When napster shut down, the next thing I went to was audiogalaxy.. I had also got a cable modem at about that time, and I probably downloaded 20 gigs of mp3's that first month that I had it.
One of the things that I thought made audiogalaxy the best way of searching for music was that when you searched on an artist lets say, it would show you what other artists people had searched for that had also searched for the artist that I was searching for. This opened me up to a lot of music that I had otherwise not known about.
They also had all the music categorized by the genre, and I could sit there and browse thru these for days on end.
Its too bad that its gone, but luckily I think I have all the music I would want now, and I can grab the few songs I might need here and there from kazaa-lite..
Archie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthur (Score:2)
ALl the LEGAL, ONLINE, LIVE music you can have. check it out now...
Let's see... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll take it step by step (disregarding whatever views I have about RIAA and it's business model):
RIAA sells music. They have the rights to the music (this may not be entirely correct, but I'm over-simplifying. Walk with me).
AG lets people share that music - that is, they help someone get the music, who have not paid for rights to it.
AG is a company, who wants to make money. They charge other companies money, so they can ship programs with the Satellite.
AG is now, effectively, making money off of RIAA's property, without them getting a dime.
This is not strange, people. RIAA needs to protect it's own backyard. They may, or may not, make a whole lot of money, but they can't just stand beside and watch this.
Now, I agree that RIAA's (or rather, the companies whose interests they protect) business model is flawed, outdated and unfair. Unfair to both the artists, who create what RIAA sells, and the consumers who buy what the artists create.
Compare RIAA to an estate agent. They take, what, 10% from the seller? RIAA takes more like 90%, leaving the artist with the crumbs. They can do this because no one else is providing the artist with an advance, with studio time, engineers, directors, etc. But all of this costs, and guess who's paying the bill? The artist, that's who. So a record company is more like a mix of an agent and a bank, with really, REALLY high interest charge.
All of this is about to change, fortunately - and it's not gonna be because companies like Napster, Audiogalaxy and Kazaa tries to make money off of anyone elses back. It's because, finally, some of the artists are staring to wake up, and smell the coffee. I'm not talking about "Really Small Garage Band" or "Joe Troubadour" here either, but BIG artists like Courtney Love, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Bono and Bruce Springsteen.
Rapper Mos Def recently likened his deal with MCA to slavery (he ended up in that deal when MCA bought Rawkus), Michael Jackson claims the Big Five record companies are treating everyone bad, and black artists even worse, Courtney Love sewed Universal, claiming that record deals are unfair. Things are really about to happen, and when they do, we will see different distribution channels, new means of running radio stations, music television networks, concert promotions, everything.
One more thing though - one of RIAA's biggest concerns with Audiogalaxy, I think, was not that everyone and their brother was getting the new Britney track for free, but that new, unestablished artists saw this as a new way out. They could hire cheap studio time, get their music out there, do live performances, selling their own CDs, and become successful without the "help" of RIAA's world encompassing music monopoly. And that, my friends, scares the fsck out of them.
Re:WOOOO!! MY MCSE IS HERRREE!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:what bothers me about services like this... (Score:2)
So most of the artists on the site are there illegally...
Therein lies the problem. AG never actually *hosted* any of the artists they got sued for, they just allowing people to SEARCH FOR OTHER MACHINES WHICH DID HOST THEM. The RIAA apparently didn't care about that, even given that AG wasn't actually hosting the vast majority of the music - they (the RIAA) forced them to shut down their search of *everything*, including ARTISTS WHO ARE NOT SIGNED BY THE RIAA !!
Get it through your head that AG wasn't doing anything wrong, they were just acting as a search engine, the same as google or yahoo, but only for files whose last four characters happened to be '.mp3' !