Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

MP3 Creator On Sharing Music 231

Posted by timothy from the but-does-he-use-ogg dept.
EpsCylonB writes "The BBC has an article about Karlheinz Brandenburg, who is one of the creators of the MP3 music format. Interestingly he comments that he doesn't like Napster, he thinks that people should have easier access to music but that artists should get paid for what they do."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MP3 Creator On Sharing Music More

MP3 Creator On Sharing Music

Comments Filter:

  • Interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Evil Adrian ( 253301 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:21PM (#6429524) Homepage
    Interestingly he comments that he doesn't like Napster, he thinks that people should have easier access to music but that artists should get paid for what they do.

    How is that "interesting"? I think anyone with a sense of decency wants the artists to get paid...

    • Re:Interesting? (Score:2, Funny)

      by kp833 ( 608343 )
      But a name which will be unfamiliar to many is that of Karlheinz Brandenburg
      With a name like that no wonder, he is unfamiliar to many

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Interesting? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 )
        "...as long as it's not the listeners who have to pay them."

        Who says it's about price? The same people who want P2P also throw lots of money at neat little devices such as iPods. Money's not the focus here.

        "Call me embittered, cynical, and pissed off, but when I've posted something similar, I've tended to get flamed as a "stooge of the RIAA"."

        I can only speculate, but I think you get 'stooge of the RIAA' label because they make harsh assumptions about people's behaviour. "I'm a pirate simply becaus

        • Re:Interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @07:00PM (#6430626)
          Exactly. Americans make up only 5% of the worlds population, yet we have 50%+ of the worlds wealth. (Not that I am proud of that greed). However, the one concept that the RIAA/MPAA doesn't seem to get is that Americans love to spend money. We work all week, then get paid. We then pay the bills, put a little away and then want to treat ourselves to some entertainment. Maybe a movie, or dinner, or clothes, whatever. Give the people what they ask for and we will be glad to pay for that service. Treat us as thieves, assume that the only reason we buy a cd burner is to "pirate" and continue to attack us in this manner and you WILL get this type of backlash. I have no pity for the likes of the RIAA/MPAA anymore. If they would just make a service where people could get the music THEY want at a FAIR price using the OS, web browser that THEY want, then the problem would be gone. Sure there will always be a small portion of the population that wants to steal. There is NO way to handle that except on a case by case basis. Go to Walmart, HomeDepot, Lowes, etc. They have a lot of items on display OUTSIDE without anyone guarding it. That is because the feel that the average person WILL pay for goods/services and not steal. The few who do, usually get caught and are handled. However, if Walmart, HomeDepot, Lowes were to treat all thier customers as thieves, then they would not be as large as they are becuase that is not how a customer wants to be treated. Those three large corporations know that they are making a customer for life. In that life time an average American might spend $10,000, $20,000 or more at those stores. It is not worth losing that revenue by treating everyone as a thief to stop those few peopel who are going to steal $50 dollars in goods. If the RIAA/MPAA would wake up and see how much the average American spends on thier goods in a LIFE-TIME, then those few stolen cd's/downloads are not worth it. Except in the case of the RIAA/MPAA, they have assumed that we are all thieves and are trying to stop us all. They charge us taxes on blank media because they think the only use for the media is to pirate. They want to tax burners because they think the only use is to pirate, etc. This type of treatment is what is causing all the backlash. We the customer will not put up with it.
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • "I don't know. Certainly not I, the word "price" didn't appear in anything I wrote. "

            Here's what you said:

            "I guess it may be that the average slashdotter want the artists to be paid... ...as long as it's not the listeners who have to pay them."

            You were no clearer than that. You also mentioned 'stooge of the RIAA'. You have no reasonable expectation that I could have known what you really meant. My misinterpreation of your quote was a direct result of your own inadequate explanation of what happened
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • "Sorry, where does it say anything about price in the above? I can't see it. I can't see anything there suggesting price comes into the issue at all. "

                So what did you mean then? You're saying they don't want the money to go from them to the artists. What motivation is for that to take place if they don't want to pay for it? Even if you have some rationilization, how can you expect that people wouldn't default to the commonly held belief that if people don't want to give money to the artists that they d
                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                  • "So, basically, you read into my argument something that wasn't there, and you're blaming me for that? "

                    I didn't read past that. If you can't accept the idea that you left too much to the imagination, then I really don't see a whole lot of point in reading anything else you say. Honestly dude, this Rimmeresque 'blame everybody but yourself' attitude is hard to deal with when one has a head cold.
                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • " read the thing you just ignored, "

                      I don't see the point. You're intent on arguing with me on a detail that has no bearing on the outcome of what I said.

                      I have taken a little time to think about where you're coming from though. I reread my original post, and I have one regret.

                      "Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that. If anything, people are avoiding being overcharged."

                      Wish I had been a little more tactful there. I'm s
                  • Hey! Look at this [slashdot.org] It's somebody who can explain their point of view! You should read that.
                  • You are defending the price aspect of that discussion way too hard, to the point of silliness I might add. You are claiming that you never said anything about price, yet the meaning of what he said is pretty much in line with your point.

                    I read your responses and I think "Man, this guy doesn't take a good rebuttal very well, does he?"

                    Simmer down. He didn't put words into your mouth, but he did point out evidence to the contrary of your point. You really should consider discussing with him instead of ar
                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • "Price isn't an issue, Nanogator insisted that I'd suggested it was."

                      Not exactly. I'd argue with you about it, but you and he have already had that discussion. Frankly, I'm not interested in the argument anyway. NG's response was understandable. (And no, he did not put words in your mouth.)

                      The real reason you're so focused on the 'price' aspect of the argument is that you found a weakness in his original post (a bad choice of words on NG's part, never mind that the rest of his point doesn't support y
                    • "I still don't understand what either of you have seen in my posts that implies that I think price is an issue. As I said, I haven't even used the word "price", and the one sentence NanoGator has quoted on the issue doesn't appear, to me at any rate, to raise any issue about price levels. "

                      Before we go any further, can you please explain to me how you're seeing his price comment? I think you explained it already but I want to be 100 percent clear. Do you think he means that people don't want to pay too
        • The money is there ready to be spent on artists who supply what people want.

          While I agree this is in general true, it isn't true of many demographics. I was at a party recently, where we were watching a Music TV station, and somebody commented that they couldn't remember the last time they'd paid for music. Yet this person had a full library of tracks.

          Now, before the flames start, let me make myself clear: I think the RIAA has overstepped and has treated the majority of their users unfairly. I think DRM a

          • "That being said, though, I think we do have to remember that some people use Kazaa et all in lieu of purchasing music. While the RIAA has gone too far in many respects, they do have a point. There are a lot of people out there who pirate music instead of buying any."

            There are some people like that, no argument there. The question is whether or not a lot of them are. I don't think that question is so easy to answer. There are a few more interesting questions too:

            - How many people are downloading songs
      • You're not by any chance reading at Score: 1, are you...? :-)
      • I'd love to see the artists getting paid. The RIAA companies, through a clever combination of slavery contracts, racketeering, payola and deceit are the main thing preventing artists from getting paid. For most artists it will be a cold day in hell before they get a single cent out of any CD sales.

        Then again, nobody accuses the RIAA of having a sense of decency...
      • Oh sure, you'll get a few people who say thy want it all for free and don't want to pay anyone. But they're unreasonable and illogical idiots. Personally, I buy all the music I want even if I think the prices are overinflated. Since I tend to like obscure stuff a lot of what I own is on minor labels and mostly import. THEN I rip them to MP3s or Ogg Vorbis for my own personal pleasure. For me, the MP3 and Vorbis files have replaced cassettes. At present, this is the way most logical and reasonable peop

    • Re:Interesting? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ticklemeozmo ( 595926 )
      but that artists should get paid for what they do

      I am damn tired of everyone saying "artists should get paid for what they do." No $hit!. We all feel that way. That was an extremely predictable comment. No one in the public eye would ever say "yeah, I'm glad I steal music, screw those commie bastards and their wussy space station" (South Park reference).

      Seriously though, this is a form of laziness. Everyone wants something, but hopes that someone else will do it for them. A message to everyone w

      • I am damn tired of everyone saying "artists should get paid for what they do." No $hit!. We all feel that way. Seriously though, this is a form of laziness. Everyone wants something, but hopes that someone else will do it for them. A message to everyone who is in the public eye: Do not only say you support things, for you have power and influence not only in your words. Support things with your person or pocketbook.
        Okay, let me make an extension to that statement. I want artists to be paid for what they

      • Re:Interesting? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NIN_INCH_NAILS ( 683497 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @04:19PM (#6429759)
        I'm tired of hearing this bullshit rhetoric put out by the RIAA and the Record companies.

        You know just think about whats really going on in our society. Tapes 1st. Easily re-recorded just had to sit down and spend the time to copy a tape, soon they came out with high speed dubbing. People bitched but nothing like this outrage happened.
        Along comes cds. Cds can be fairly easily and quickly copied. So they didn't complain about that cause they could lobby and get money tacked on to blank cds and they could drive album prices up to try to counter it. Along comes mp3; oh shit how are we going to tax it? How are we going to get our cut? Oh shit we aren't! Lobby to ban it, regulate it, sue for it. It's bullshit!

        Any artists knows that this is really about the record companies. First of all there has been a law suit against the record industry to return money to the public based on the fact that they unfairly inflated the price of music cds and blank cds. Secondly out of a fifteen dollar album an artist would be lucky to get .50cents to 1.00dollar per album.

        I for one would stick to my guns in saying that I would dish out from 3-5 bucks an album for an artist I appreciate by ordering it off their website. At that rate along with cutting out the record industry the artists would make much more money. A number of artists have done this with some success. Cutting out the middle man works.

        Having said that, I think we as Americans need to think about what is being done in our country righ t now.

        Information that is freely and publicly available is being restricted why, because of ease of access and use. Gov. Agencies and big business are sueing, restricting and limiting our access to information based on the fact that information has become too readily available and to easy to compile. If I'm not mistaken that was the whole point of the Technological Revolution?!
        So they want to be able to use all the tools we create and all the benefits of efficiency and ease of use to make profit and make weapons, but the common man can not download a fuckin mp3? Now their latest insult is suggesting that Record companies cut into Artist Tour profits to make up for the loss of cds sales. They have no fuckin right to do that! If we don't do something soon we are going to loose our freedom. We are creating the tools for a totalitarian state ruled by evil dictators who use our own creativity and innovation to watch over us like big brother, to restrict us like wardens and to limit the very creativity , the very lust for information and progress that is responsible for their enourmous and terribly intrusive power and authority.
        We must protect the essence of our country which is freedom. And if the government and big business is going to oppress freedom, then we must find ways to create new freedoms and new technologies that are not inclusive toward big business and gov.

        • but the common man can not download a fuckin mp3?
          Mon dieu! Until this very moment I hadn't realized it was all a vast government conspiracy to prevent us from getting music without paying!

          Here I was worried about wars and lies, oil and terrorism.
        • "Secondly out of a fifteen dollar album an artist would be lucky to get .50 cents to 1.00dollar per album."

          Dont forget that those 50 cents to 1 dollar per album gets discounted from the advance which is used to record the actual album (in the company owned price-inflated studios, of course). So after selling maybe 500k to a million albums, then the artist may begin seeing those lucky .50 cents, rather than "You've sold 250k albums. Your part of that makes 125k dollars. You now only owe us 375k dollars.".

          N
    • They want the artists to get paid yes, but not the smegging RIAA.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @04:10PM (#6429730)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Even real artists have to eat, and pay bills.

        • Did you know that recipes are not protected intellectual property under US law? One would expect that in this situation, there would be massive "recipe piracy"...and indeed there is. One would expect that most folks who create recipes would be unable to make a living at it...and indeed they are.

          Yet, somehow, there still seems to be no shortage of recipes in the US. Every amateur cook I know has books and books of the things clipped from magazines, copied from friends, hacked up to suit their tastes. No

          • Ah.. I see then you feel the amount of time it takes to create a decent recipe is comparable to the amount of time it takes to create a decent piece of art or music.

            Similarly, I expect you feel the time it takes to come up with a new scientific theory is about the same amount of time that it takes to find out a basic fact about the universe. Yet somehow, even though nobody claims ownership of these facts, we're still discovering new ones, so why should we bother paying researchers to actively hunt them dow
      • "The primary goal of an artist should be to create art works by all means necessary...To worry about if an artist gets paid or not is pure reactionary bullshit. If the individual had no intention of paying in the first place, who cares? The art exists and is accessible, an artist is happy. "

        Perhaps, but that's only one flavor of artist. Some use their creative skills in order to make a living. Art is not simply a manifestation of self-expression, it is also used for entertainment, something people pay q

      • The primary goal of an artist should be to create art works by all means necessary.

        Um, says you. Who are you to decree what motivation an artist, or any person, should have, so long as it isn't criminal?

    • Sure, we all want artists to get paid - once, for creating or at least a performance. I don't know about you, but I get paid for writting code, but don't get any additional money if someone still uses it 10 years later. I don't see why an artist, RIAA or my employer should be any different. I promise I will not pirate any concert tickets.
    • Musicians get paid to perform, not from record sales. Despite the record companies waving the flag of artist protection, all the downloads in the world don't take a cent away from musicians. Record companies have been ripping off musicians for a century by writing recording contracts such that the musician rarely sees a penny. What musicians get out of record deals is fame, which enables them to charge more from performances.

      Musicians are starting to learn how to promote themselves by distributing their so
    • I should declare myself an artist too, so I can shit and get paid for it.
      • You're certain free to go out and seek patrons and maybe even a distributor who will enter into a contract to distribute your shit for you.

        I suspect you'll just find yourself playing around with your own shit in the end, though.
    • I agree that the artist should get paid. There's no reason why we can spend $5 for a hot dog at a baseball game, or $15 for popcorn and a soda at a movie, but we refuse to pay for music. The difference is, however, that music is more universal, especially since it is more readily available and easier to pirate than other things (it's pretty hard to steal a baseball game). That's not to say that some common ground can't be reached. Why not tax CR-R/RWs the same way that VHS tapes are, with a percentage o

  • well.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by waspleg ( 316038 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:22PM (#6429527) Journal
    if he had said, i'm so glad i created mp3's so that they would topple the music industry (pinky finger) don't you think he'd ahve RIAA lawyer's being airlifted by blackhawk to his house to litigate him and everything he owns into a smoking crater?

    somehow i would have called his stance extremely predictable

    • don't you think he'd ahve RIAA lawyer's being airlifted by blackhawk to his house to litigate him and everything he owns into a smoking crater?

      The dude lives in germany (AFAIK).
      • you act like americans odn't sell music there

        and that germans don't have similar laws

        i'm willing to bet that german p2pers could have lawsuits brought same as anyone else.. remember this is the age of the New World Order and One World gov't where there is no appeals process and only one world oligarchy run by the extremely rich err i mean 'democracy'

        although i admit to not knowing anything at all about german law

    • It could also be that a lot of the old time programmers (1989) still pretty much shared a belief in the capitalist system and saw software and music as something people would invest in and trade.

      It is not unbelieveable that the creator a music format has different beliefs than the creator of a file sharing system. I would be more shocked to find that they believed the exact same thing. My experience is that just about everyone in the world thinks different thoughts...counter, of course, to Schopenhauer wh

  • iTMS (Score:3, Informative)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:24PM (#6429532) Homepage Journal

    Interestingly he comments that he doesn't like Napster, he thinks that people should have easier access to music but that artists should get paid for what they do.

    iTMS [apple.com] anyone?

    • Re:iTMS (Score:3, Funny)

      by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) *
      iTMS uses AAC from Dolby.

      Evil! Evil! Not MP3! Not OGG!

      just kidding, I love and USE iTMS. Apple gets far too much of my money (looks at 3 day old 30GB iPod)
    • I'm sure its an excellent service....... if you own an Apple Mac!

      As soon as they release iTunes for Windows, I will at least give this service a look!
    • Hmm...

      no GNU/Linux support, but Windows support is on its way.

      So, wait for iTunes for Windows, emerge winex, hope to God that the Windows port works, fork over your CC number and start downloading!

      Not so easy. :(

      I prefer sending money orders of about $5 to the artist/band - skip the RIAA, skip the greedy record company, give more money to the artist and save $20!

  • if only... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dfj225 ( 587560 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:25PM (#6429540) Homepage Journal
    there was a way to download music and pay the artists and not the RIAA.

    • Re:if only... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tunabomber ( 259585 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:59PM (#6429688) Homepage
      [if only...] there was a way to download music and pay the artists and not the RIAA.

      There are tons of artists that do this- they have albums that are self-released or released on indy labels. Some of them just publish their MP3's on the web and ask for donations.
      There's just one catch- they're small and you probably haven't heard of them.
      For any artist to become popular, they usually have to rely on the pimps at the RIAA for promotion & marketing. Yeah, there are a few exceptions- Ani DiFranco, NOFX, Fugazi etc. But the general rule is that if you hear some big-name artist on your local ClearChannel clone station, it's safe to say that an oil drum full of cash has been used to get them on the radio.
      So, if you want to pay artists in a more direct manner, you have to shun paying attention to any mass-media advertising, because if you do, you are (and should be) supporting the major labels' promotional infrastructure.
      Instead go to local shows and get to know the artists in your area. Most small bands make more money from touring than they do from selling CD's. Often, they will be selling CD's for $6-10 at their concerts if you decide you like them. On top of that, it's just a much more rewarding way of experiencing music than from the big media feeding tube.

  • Interestingly? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    He helped create a format, why would that lead to the conclusion that he'd probably like it used for copyright infringement? I am aware that legal sharing was probably going on on napster, but we all know that the majority of transfers were illegal.

  • That article was very short on real content (Score:4, Funny)

    by thedbp ( 443047 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:29PM (#6429553)
    Jeez, you'd think if it was posted to /. it would have more meat to the story. I'd like to see an "Ask Slashdot" with this guy, perhaps a more in-depth interview, but this article was really lackluster.

    And he doesn't like Napster. Go figure. I guess he prefers Kazaa, where its easier to get apps and movies too. ;)
  • How is this news?

    he thinks that people should have easier access to music but that artists should get paid for what they do."

    Come on, this is such a tired argument. Someone thinks artists should get paid. Holy shit I've never heard that before.

  • MP3 creators were never friends of P2P (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:31PM (#6429574)
    As I understand it, Fraunhofer IIS-A charged hefty fees for developers to incorporate mp3 compression technology. Hence OGG and an (effectively) reverse engineered open and free implementation.

    Come on slash eds, this is not a revelation - read around the topic before posting an article.
    • Yes, but remember that OGG was developed AFTER mp3. It's always easier to copy something that has been proven than to be the first one with a new concept. Perhaps, OGG users don't have to, and shouldn't pay to MP3 consortium, Linux users don't have to pay AT&T or SCO and so on. But they can still say "thanks".

  • Artists... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:32PM (#6429579)
    Yeah, I believe that the artists should be getting paid for what they do too. This is why I don't bother buying CDs, since they don't get paid for what they do anyway, the RIAA gets paid for what they do...
    • That's exactly why the artists don't get paid what they do - because people like you (and me - I do buy CD's sometimes, but I have pirated a lot more, so it's not an excuse) don't buy their CD's.

      • Re:Artists... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TWX ( 665546 )
        That's the thing, though. I just don't bother at all with it anymore. I'll go to a coffee shop to listen to the live performer, or I'll go to a dance with a live band. They'll get tipped at these locations. Granted, they're not making a lot of money, but they're doing something that they like to do for an appreciative audience.

        I used to listen to the radio, but the ClearChannelification of the radiowaves doesn't make for good music.
    • If the RIAA gets paid to fuck the artists then can we bring them up on charges of prostitution?

  • No, he just doesn't like piracy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tunabomber ( 259585 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:34PM (#6429589) Homepage
    Actual quote:

    "I don't like the Napster idea that all music should be free to everybody."


    I don't think he means he doesn't like the idea of Napster technology, but rather the ethics (or lack thereof) of the people who use filesharing networks.
    Shortly after this, he says that record companies should find a way to use technology to better serve both the artists and listeners.
    In conclusion, the tone of the article makes it sound like Dr. Brandenburg isn't against filesharing technologies, but rather just people using them as an excuse for partaking in an orgy of piracy. Seems like a pretty moderate viewpoint to me.

  • Does this sound P2P friendly? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BillsPetMonkey ( 654200 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:37PM (#6429602)
    From Frauenhofer patent enforcement available here [chillingeffects.org]:

    To make, sell and/or distribute products using the standard and thus our patents, you need to obtain a license under these patents from us.

    In the past, we have licensed several companies under different models for different products, e.g.:
    - Software encoder licenses against a per unit royalty starting at $ 25,00 and decreasing for high volumes; and
    - Pay-audio licenses against a royalty of $ 0,01 per song or 1 % of the selling price.

    And now after interviewing MP3 standard's inventor, there's this revelation that he doesn't like P2P?

    Come on slash eds - this aint news!

  • What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:42PM (#6429618) Homepage
    Unlike the creators of Ogg, the guy who created MP3 did it for profit, not fun. You have to pay an insanely huge license fee to use it, even if you write your own implimentation.

    I bet he isn't best pleased that hundreds of thousands of people are neglecting to pay him a massive pile of cash, let alone the RIAA.
    • I agree with you 100%. Any standard for data storage/transmission should be free and open. This will benefits everyone by making information accessible to everyone and at the same time leaves room for competition in implementing the means for storage/transmission. The other (closed/pay for licensing the standard ) only benefits...well, you read the article about one of the people it benefits. Which way do you think is better?

  • Darkness... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dodge This ( 654497 )
    On a (very) loosely related note, I'd just like to comment about how new DRM copy protection schemes are actually hurting the music industry. I know that not everyone is the same but I certainly won't be buying any CDs that have copy protection included.

    I've just bought an original copy of the "The Darkness" album, fantasic album, sad that I can't listen to it as I want.

    Firstly it does work in my PC and doesn't crash it, you may not be so lucky. When I got the CD I was shocked to find the copy protection.

  • Yeah but the middleman... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Manhigh ( 148034 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:54PM (#6429666)
    I'm all in favor of paying the artist. But I think technology is at the point where the middleman (record labels) is irrelevant.
    • How exactly do you think you'd hear about new music without a middleman? I don't think that there are very many artists out there with enough startup capital and personal clout to get themselves heard by ANYONE outside their immediate family. To get yourself produced and heard you need money and you need power at your backs... individual artists have neither. If we cut out the middle men tomorrow, the only music that would be produced would be currently established artists, children of already establishe
      • Back in the time when the dinosaurs ruled the earth, and the RIAA was not around... bands would travel the usa and play at bars or taverns or at the local community center, without any exhorbant prices, without any 'middleman'. they seemed to do just fine.

        now the middleman is the internet, there is no need to promote things. websites like http://www.audioscrobbler.com are popping up, watching what you listen to, what other people listen to, matching them and you up and giving you reccomendations.

        with prog
      • Whatever happened to playing gigs? Isn't that how most decent bands/etc get started?

        Once you get popular locally, you can easly burn off a some CDs, or give a few songs away free from your site, or get it played on the radio. Combine it with word-and-mouth advertising, and if you do have talent, you're on your way.

        Without the middle men, you just won't hear as much commercialisd crap.

        Talented groups only sign up with big labels when they are already on their way to the top.

      • Without the middleman that wouldnt be a problem. The middleman today is what makes it expensive to get heard because they'll pay for ensuring that only their music gets heard.

        It's far cheaper to produce decent quality material these days; well within reach of most smalltime bands.

        Without the RIAA, maybe those radio djs would have to go back to making their own playlists by doing some research or listening to mp3's sent to them by the artists... oh, horror of horrors.

  • EMusic.com (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mawbid ( 3993 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @05:07PM (#6430043)
    I'm surprised emusic.com [emusic.com] doesn't get mentioned in every music story around here. Can it be that few Slashdotters know about it?

    Emusic is the kind of online music service I think most of us want. You pay a monthly fee to download high quality MP3s. No DRM, no embedded advertising. If they had all the music you might want, there would be nothing more to wish for.

    And that's the main thing, of course. They don't generally have the name bands, so your satisfaction with the service depends on you being open to discovering lesser known music.

    If that's what you're looking for, you'll find plenty. Go check it out. Also, there are some things there that you may already want, and you could maybe get a good deal by signing up for the minimum term and downloading, say, just the Pixies and a truckload of comedy albums.

    It's probably too much to hope for, but if they continue to grow, they may expand their catalog to the point where most music is available from them, free of restrictions.

    Unfortunately, it's not all wine and roses, but close enough for me. Here are some things that may turn you off:

    • They recently angered their Linux-using customers by making their closed source download manager mandatory. The Linux version sucks rather badly. Some customers can't download at all.
    • Use the service excessively (in their view) and they cut you off. There's a 2000 track/month limit.
    • The download manager only allows you to queue up 45 tracks. Limiting this is probably the reason they made the DLM mandatory. Why they don't do this on the server side, I can't imagine.
    • Some albums are only available to US subscribers.
    • You have to commit for 3 or 12 months.
    • If you have extreme audio quality demands, the VBR MP3s (about 192kbps average) may not be enough. I've heard warbling in a couple of files. I listen with Sennheiser HD600's.
    Now, I don't want to hear any more whining about the RIAA being evil and not producing anything worth listening to anyway. Whine about either one seperately if you want, but if you were about to whine about both, go to emusic instead. ...And spread the word!
  • I read a similar article when the whole Napster deal was taking place. Everyone back then was saying the mp3 format was created for the sole purpose of p2p transfer. Finally, it appears he's getting to tell his half of the story.

    mp3 is a great format. There's no doubt about it. There might be better formats now. But mp3 still has it's place. And has.

    Unless everyone is willing to work for free, recording artists shouldn't have to either. I code for cash, I'm sure many others here have day jobs as we
  • "Interestingly he comments that he doesn't like Napster, he thinks that people should have easier access to music but that artists should get paid for what they do."

    That's exactly why I want the RIAA and recording companies struck down. They don't allow easy access to the music, and the artists aren't fairly compensated. Instead you have a group of crusty old middlemen who market singers to the majority based on trends, not unlike movie-licence games (Minory Report, The Hulk, Enter The Matrix) which also

  • Rinse. Repeat. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NeverEnough ( 179791 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @07:39PM (#6430841) Homepage
    I work as a publicist and producer in the pop music industry. And was the first person to implement the Ogg Vorbis format at a commercial record company.

    OK, so what? So, I've read the same, tired posts, over and over, about P2P on Slashdot. Three things has become abundantly clear:

    1) No one here seems to have a fucking clue about the music industry.
    2) Nearly everyone here has a hyper-inflated sense of entitlement.
    3) People seem to equate feeling strongly about something with being knowledgeable about it.

    The music business is very complex. Record companies are not always "middlemen." Artists depend on them for many things. You don't -- that doesn't mean they're not important. And just because they sometimes rip off artists does not provide justification for you to do so. Blah blah blah.

    Bill Evans

  • You know, the BBC should know better.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Build6 ( 164888 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @07:59PM (#6430926)
    What this article does is, it states clearly and distinctly WHO is responsible and WHEN/WHERE it happened that MP3s came into existence... .

    We better hope the RIAA doesn't send something back in time and Terminate him before he creates the standard!!!
  • BBC World's ClickOnline [bbcworld.com] program (a load of crap IMO), also has the interview with him, but in video form [bbcworld.com].
  • All of the anti-p2p pundits cite the fact that the artists deserve to get paid for their work. Since when have artists ever gotten paid for their work? Since the beginning of commerce, artists have gotten paid a pittance of the value of their work compared to what the resellers, pimps, agents, distributors, etc. make off of the work. Let's call a donkey a donkey here. This debate is really desk jockeys with lawyers versus teenagers with 20s. We're all rooting for the teenagers, but we all know they don
  • "but that artists should get paid for what they do."

    Again and again it must be said: Artists are not getting paid for their music -- not the vast, vast majority.

    The music corporations are eating all of the money. And the artists cannot, by law, force their publishers to open the books to check the accounting -- a singular exception to normal business law.

    The latest in such gall is the news that the music companies are now demanding a part of the concert income -- up to now, the only way a musician can

Slashdot Top Deals

IOT trap -- core dumped

Close