The Heavenly Jukebox, From Hell 274
davecb linked us to a story at The Atlantic about the whole Napster, DeCSS, RIAA blah blah blah thats been all the rage with the kids these days. Talks about how this case is bigger then just Napster: its results will affect the future of democracy. It's a really well written piece that you definitely should read if you're following this stuff.
Re:The problem with protesters (rant) (Score:2)
What do you mean? They have perfect control over what gets out - they just don't play what they don't want to get out to anyone with a recording instrument.
Once they play in a public venue, or burn millions of CDs & distribute them worldwide - well, they chose to let that performance OUT.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:2)
The answer is that "fairness" is the wrong question. The question is not whether it is fair, but whether it has a bad or good effect on society. We have all sorts of "unfair" sin taxes, but that's the price of the privelages the society grants you.
That said, YES I think a lot of the control on things like software is just downright stupid and brainless. But there is a reason we have such tendencies to "unfairness".
Sorry :) (Score:3)
Dunno how involved you are on this level, but I've made upwards of $400 on mp3.com, where most of 'my competition' struggles to make $40 or $4, and I've told people how to do that and now some of the people I've told make more than me. I would love to think that people would do it your way but I am obliged to share the information of how to really do it with slashdotters, as I've seen other slashdotten musicians :)
First, go to mp3.com/chrisj [mp3.com] and download all of my music a lot and buy all my CDs *g* just kidding! *ducks flung boots and stuff* Seriously, I mean, please do, but that was a joke. The real point is simply this:
Free stuff beats restricted stuff for mindshare.
It's that simple. I made all my stuff available free. I know a lot of people who used to, or still are, putting up only 'sample tracks' and making full CDs available with lots more stuff. A lot of those people got trapped by their own tightfistedness- they behaved as if they did such wonderful stuff that people would _have_ to buy their CD, would be _forced_ to do business. Unfortunately mp3.com is like a microcosm of internet commerce in that there are a LOT of bands there, and every time, the listeners would listen to those few tunes, get bored and go somewhere else, to some page that had LOTS of tunes! for free! The top money-spinners of mp3.com ended up being various more or less mainstream-type artists who didn't need to force money out of people (for instance, 'Bassic') and who made very large amounts of music available free.
That's the dynamic, and there's no escaping it. This is how Microsoft killed Netscape. This is how any number of internet musicians will kill the ones who insist on full prepayment. You just click a link or search and bam, you've got 40 different bands and musicians who are just as good and who aren't insisting on any sort of payment at all. Some (such as myself) are happily getting a cut of the ad banner revenue or something- some might just be distributing freely because they want to be heard, and want the freedom to pursue their art with NO compromises whatsoever. That's a good motivation- another motivation might come from recognising this dynamic and realising, damn, the way to get enough mindshare to be _able_ to be paid at all for good work is to begin giving the work away and just don't stop- keep doing it and doing it, and count on eventually selling things like 'convenience CDs' (as I've done repeatedly, even though I supply not only mp3s for burning CDs from but even literally the cover art to print out and use for your privately burned CD- not a joke, go see for yourself [mp3.com]) or posters or special vinyl releases or special CD mixes- any or all of those things. Tchochkes. If you can be heard you can find a niche- people manage to find niches even by playing with tacky PC software to layer pre-made trance loops. Even this can sell CDs- given a bit of mindshare- but you can't tell people 'I ought to be able to do something great, give me money and I'll do something awesome!'. This can't compete with unrestricted free stuff...
Re:The problem with protesters (rant) (Score:2)
For the record, I think space-shifting and my.mp3.com is totally valid and fair use.
Some people also use it to obtain copies of music that they would otherwise have bought on CD.
And it is my contention that how they obtain this music should be determined by the artist. For instance the artist could set up a website with that new street corner performer service where people chuck some money in their pot.
I'm not sure if that is legal. Orrin Hatch asked if it would be legal to burn a copy for his wife in the Future of Digital Music hearing. Lending is different from copying because only one person has it. When you copy it then it's up to the copyright hold to determine whether or not you should be able to. If artists were in control they could simply say something like "Yeah, you can let a maximum of 5 friends copy it". That would solve the whole Napster problem without making artists look like assholes. I mean, really, if you are giving it to more than @5 people I think that's sort of crossing the line.
Re:Is Gnutella really that hard? (Score:2)
Re:Napster vs. Record Co. Irony (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/18/1351
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/18/13
I think we all have a libertarian streak through us, but I for one don't oppose (sensible) gun control. Libertarianism is fine and good but taken to extremes it is just plain irresponsible.
People, don't miss the point (Score:4)
Our economic system is bassed on scarcity. Basically, as long as there is not an unlimited supply of something, it has value. This works very well for physical objects like pork bellies and RAM chips. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this system falls apart in the virtual world. There is no scarcity... there is an unlimited supply, so the laws of supply and demand don't apply.
The RIAA (and MPAA, and SPA) are trying to apply real world economics to the virtual world, and this round peg won't fit in the square hole, no matter how hard they hammer.
Any economists out there?
Re:The problem with protesters (rant) (Score:2)
Somewhere there's a line between wrong (making copies and selling them) and right (making an archival copy), with a whole 16-bit gray scale that includes:
making a copy for the car;
making a copy for my wife's car (thanks, Orrin);
giving the copy I had in my car to a friend;
making a copy for a friend;
making copies for 20 friends and
making copies for 20 million friends.
Maybe we need to ask the Brunching Shuttlecocks [brunching.com] to do a Good or Bad [brunching.com] poll to find the line.
--
Re:A Philosophical Question (Score:2)
(see my other posts)
Re:This will never end until CD's disppear (Score:2)
And what if the RIAA members (who control both the price of their products and a large fraction of the overall supply) decide to raise the prices on CDs and/or sell SDMI music cheap? Do you really think Joe Average isn't going to sell his Fair Use rights to get Britney's new album for $10 less?
---
Re:Napster vs. Record Co. Irony (Score:2)
Honestly, the record industry already does just this, and much more- they've managed to seize the intellectual property of most of the artists forever (see the copyright reversion stuff tacked onto the Home Satellite act) and have destroyed the artists' ability to get out of ungodly horrible contracts even when the artists are literally bankrupted. That's 'losing all their money' not simply 'not earning lots of money'- that's 'taking the songs, the performances, the mechanicals and all the intellectual property and also taking all the money away from the artist and leaving them bankrupt and, as Courtney Love astutely pointed out, with no credit'.
Seeing as they already behave even worse than you suggest and Slashdot people are mostly oblivious, why would there be an uproar in support of artists if the record companies formalised this and stated outright what they already do anyhow? Slashdotters don't necessarily care all that much about artists, why should they? Let artists care about artists. Artists may not care as much about DeCSS and that's where slashdotters might find themselves more directly involved.
Personally, as an artist, I'm just happy a bunch of people are fans of a digital file format that I can distribute music with. Some slashdotters have really dug my music, some were like 'what?' and some made fun of me because I'm not Metallica :) go figure! At least there's somebody coding the formats I get to use as a 'content producer' ;) I still can't wait to see Ogg Vorbis eventually get to the Mac where I can make use of it, I'm _ready_ for that stuff...
I was talking about their track record (Score:2)
They said very nice things about Warp (you should look up the article), they made me want to try it, but it tanked. The Atlantic has a bad track record writing about technology.
It's just the predictions, and perhaps advice to switch, that was wrong.
If you can't see that distinction, then you're probably one of those people who judges things by their popularity rather than their merits. I bet you're wearing designer pants, Nike shoes, eat at McDonalds, listen to Britney
Spears/Limp Bizkit, and use IIS for your web server.
Reread what I said, I said it was the kiss of death.
I'm wearing Levi's (made by hard working American's), Bass shoes (made by hard working Americans), rarely eat at McDonald's, preferring to patronize my locally owned and established restaurants, don't listen to Britney Spears (rather, that American band from with RMS stole his ideas on free software and his dress code, the Grateful Dead) and use Linux or FreeBSD for my web server, plus whatever xoom uses.
Yeah, right. (Score:2)
Recording companies can't survive on the thin revenues of services to musicians. Of course the people who work in the studios and set up lighting at concerts will still be able to make a living doing what they know. A few might even acquire the names of the big record labels they work for now. That can't be described by any stretch of the imagination as record companies doing okay.
But they shouldn't exploit artists as if they were strawberry pickers.
Now we're drifting off topic, but I find this funny. Musicians are artists as in "starving artist", as in someone who works in a field that most people don't consider work and many participate in for free (a bit like trying to make a living as a male prostitute who only hires out to attractive women; too many others are willing to do it for free for it to be considered a reasonable business). I could take a walk around town today and find a dozen musicians with as much ability as the the ones I hear on the radio. The labels create their massive commercial value with large investments, it's totally artificial.
The ones who aren't being "exploited" usually aren't even making a living.
I have a lot more sympathy for an honest strawberry picker, getting a wage for a physically taxing job they'd rather not do, than for musicians, who chose their career because it is the thing they most enjoy doing, but they expect to get paid for it anyway.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Re:The problem with protesters (rant) (Score:2)
I don't see Napster promoting this world. As far as I know Napster has no compensation mechanisms, or even promotes it. At best Napster is standing idly by, playing off the all to easily supported image of being a saint, while it figures out how it can make money of this.
Just because Napster uses nifty technology we like doesn't mean it's the Right Thing. In a world where information is infinately copyable, one must rely on fostering the goodwill of consumers and fans towards the content providers, and providing convenient mechanism for compensation. I don't think Napster does this. Napster just seems to me a feeding frenzy for people who want a free ride. It takes control away from artists who want to participate and have control over the way they give or sell their music.
To copy a line from Nader who copied it from Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power". Napster undermines artists' power. And while we consumers looking for free rides love the "power" we are given, it is our *responsibility* to give a fair share back to the creators of the content.
Re:Artists ARE being paid for non-commercial copyi (Score:2)
A Philosophical Question (Score:2)
This is an interesting statement quoted from the article said to Lars in regards to Metallica wanting to control their music. A lot will be made of this statement and I must reiterate my consistent point on Napster et.al., I haven't a clue as to who is right or who is wrong.
Artists should be justly compensated for their work but they aren't being justly compensated right now by the record labels. A new paradigm for the music industry needs to be created.
The philosophical question this raises isn't new, but is a twist on an old favorite. Is music considered music if no one hears it?
I believe the statement, "Fuck you, Lars. It's our music too!" was not saying Metallica doesn't have a right to control their music but was saying that without the people who listen to their music, Metallica wouldn't exist.
This does not give anyone the right to deny them compensation for their music. What it does do is establish the fact that the fans, the people who make or break musicians, want a shift in how the music economy works.
Fair enough- now, what about this? (Score:2)
In other words, you may have Metallica on one hand and Limp Bizkit on the other. Imagine Limp Bizkit pulling a sort of 'IE destroying Netscape's business' by making all their stuff free, and hyping that a lot so it's everywhere. To what extent would this hurt Metallica, who will be trying to produce the expectation that you always pay for music? What if _lots_ of internet musicians and bankrupt major label refugees (including the big names of the last 30-40 years in pop music) began to pursue this strategy of keeping the same day job they had to have all along, and recording the music they especially liked, releasing it for free?
I think there comes a point where the amount of artist-driven free material will start to seriously impact the ability of a Metallica to create the expectation that music is something you meter and sell and restrict. That's not to say people won't go to a concert or buy a CD, but the business model of 'all the fans HAVE TO buy the CD' will die. And the consumer will feel no responsibility to pay the artist- when you read a book from the library, do you pay the author?
If there is any artist's power, it is in the rabid fans- the fanatics. In the early sixties they were cutting up _bedsheets_ that the Beatles had slept on, and selling them- how would free access to recordings diminish this sort of frenzy? You look to the heavy users, the fanatics, if you want to do business and earn money, because those are the people who think what you do is WORTH something. The uninterested consumer's natural degree of commitment only goes as far as sparing a bit of attention, and if you think you can squeeze money out of them you're conning yourself...
Re:The problem with protesters (rant) (Score:2)
Yes, short of copyright law, Metallica doesn't and shouldn't have control over what you do with the music you buy after you buy it. However, not only does Metallica give up that control, but, unless Lars handed you the CD himself, Metallica has *already* given up control by allowing record companies to distribute their music. That CD has filtered through a lot of middlemen before it ended up on the shelves for $17.49. This control, control of what happens *before* it leaves their hands, should not have to be given up. And Napster is no better. It undermines control of how Metallica represents and distributes its music before it reaches your hands. At best, power is shifting slightly from the record companies to Napster...and now they are in talks for joint efforts. So no real power is being granted to the artist by Napster. That should be on our conscience, and we should do the right thing by giving artists that control back.
Re:Artists ARE being paid for non-commercial copyi (Score:2)
Interestingly, in reversing the injunction against Napster, the appeals court rejected the theory that because hard drives are not taxed, the AHRA does not protect activities using hard drives. The appeals court said that Congress clearly intended to exempt all non-commercial copying, not just copying on 1201-taxed media and equipment. If you read the law, you'll find that only certain digital equipment is subject to the royalty tax, but the exemption from infringement applies both to analog and digital recorders and media.
If you want to read the entire law, do a web search on the "Audio Home Recording Act." It's worth the read and critical if you want to understand what is going on with Napster's defense.
The injunction reversal is very enlightening reading also. There is a complete media blackout of the actual content of the reversal, probably because the appeals court basically told the judge that she was completely wrong, and that the law is completely on Napster's side. You have to read it yourself. It isn't part of the media coverage.
Here comes the ISP tax (Score:2)
I read the article, this is what I think... (Score:2)
Maybe not...
But I'll tell you somthing - the day the net becomes this "un-free", is the day I work with every friend and neighbor I can to setup a neighborhood freenet using laser interconnects. I encourage everyone to give this thought, and learn how to do it yourself - there are many links and sites detailing this - heck, many HAM clubs and operators are doing it as well. Look up the terms "lasercomm", "laser comms", "laser communications". Read about the history of it. Buy the Forest Mimms books at Radio Shack that detail how to do it (to a limited degree). Get those interconnects set up, link to the net where you have to (via DSL, cable or whatnot), add radio links as well (2.4 GHz is currently unlicensed - mod an X-10 camera transceiver system - or an AirLink, whatever - add a Yagi - bammo!) for redundancy.
Then get your guns - because it may come down to that...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Orrin Hatch asked... (Score:2)
Sorry, this is old news. It may be that the RIAA is having great success in taking away Orrin Hatch's right to legally burn a CD for his wife as fair use, but he had that right. Let's not be confused on that point- our government people went to a lot of trouble to arrange that we had a reasonable amount of fair use, and the laws are on the books. The fact that the RIAA is trying to overturn all this doesn't change the fact that fair use is the law, and it was put there on purpose, to allow people to do just these things.
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
Also, so far, the mp3.com contract does require both parties to consent to any changes that might be imposed in future. This is incredibly important as most major label contracts, and a lot of sleazy 'fake-indie' mp3-site contracts, give the label unrestricted freedom to unilaterally change the terms after you've agreed to them- check out farmclub.com's agreement for a particularly nasty example that forbids you to _imply_ they _endorse_ you in any way, on top of everything else :)
This is the new millenium, man- don't _ever_ sign a contract that's like you say. Don't _ever_ sign away all your rights and IP. You need to remain free to move as these issues develop :)
Napster != Public Library (Score:2)
Easy.
Library. I take out Book A. You come in, but find that Book A is currently unavailable until I return it. You cannot read Book A while I read Book A. There is only one copy of Book A from the library at any given time. (There may be other copies, but the library only has one, and cannot easily create another.)
Napster. I download Song A. You download Song A. We both listen to it at the same time. While listening to it, someone else downloads it again. There are now four copies (the original, my copy, your copy, and the random other person). Anyone can create a copy, and there is no reason to destroy the copy once you have it.
The difference can be summed up quite simply: Napster makes copies. Libraries don't. And that's really all this trouble comes from.
not all boats float on their own (Score:2)
Why would you think that? They have nothing of value to sell. They are simply acquisition-promotion-litigation engines which purchase IP at a low price, and pump the demand for it to sell access for a high price.
It won't work when the the most convenient delivery system is controlled by end-user choice rather than 3rd-party payments. Their only value to the musicians is that they can get the musicians' music into the ears of the paying public, which would be almost impossible otherwise. When, instead of a dozen radio stations, there are a million playlists to choose from, the listeners won't choose those on which a spot can be bought with bribes, and the record companies will no longer have the ear of the listening public. Musicians will start to do fine without signing on with a label, and then it will all be over.
They will "do fine" in the new information media, about as well as the currency traders would "do fine" if everyone went back to the gold standard.
They are dying, with no hope of survival. Their existence no longer makes sense, so we can't expect their actions to make sense. They will continue to thrash around wildly until they run out of money.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Re:The Atlantic Monthly is not for potheads (Score:2)
The first time Slashdot linked to 'em, I ended up spending _hours_ there reading article after article. They are _great_ articles, terrific journalism done with style and intelligence. At this point I would be much more likely to click on a link and read an article if I knew it was Atlantic Monthly, that's how favorably they impressed me. I strongly recommend going there and reading all the articles you can find :)
Re:Obviously.... (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply here. Napster is not a common carrier. Whoever sells them their bandwidth is a common carrier.
The service that Napster provides is very different. They arrange connections between people who want to distribute music files, most of which are probably illegal for them to distribute. They charge a fee for the service of assisting in the commission of what is - with very high probability - a crime. This can be construed as criminal behavior.
This is why Napster is terrible for the cause of intellectual freedom and fair use. It's hard to shout "I didn't do anything" while you're driving the getaway car, even if it's the guys with the guns who deserve most of the blame.
Hogwash. (Score:2)
The real costs are in promotions, marketing, and productions. Napster does absolutely nothing to address these concerns. They remain an issue for the artist. The fact is, fair or unfair, the vast majority of artists still choose to sign with these labels because they still need the functions of promotion, not because someone is holding a gun to their head. Napster has done absolutely zilche in the long run, other than feed a certain part of society's immediate desires, which ultimately may have a secondary effect on the long term outlook of the industry.
Re:What planet are you from? (Score:2)
This is really a seperate argument and it has little to do with production costs. IP has from the beginning been held by force of government. It is not as if napster or digital media has suddenly changed this.The only new question here is the extent of the means and the means which government should take to enforce it. This question is not obvious though and really comes down to a bunch of judgement calls.
Perhaps I'm not quite the optimist you are, but I do not see the realization of nanotechnology (to any extent) as resulting in the complete liberation of man. Sure, you lay it out as a hypothetical situation, but I question the very premise which you base it off of. Your production costs may be nil (and more likely only nil on certain tasks), but you still need brains. That means humans pushing paper. Engineers. Businessmen, etc. So long as there is a need for man, there will be a need for money, which really means a need for capitalism. It is just that simple.
Did it ever occur to you that this unwillingness to work may be present in everyone? In some more than others, sure... Having been a part of a number of startup companies, and seeing innovation first hand, I can tell you that there is a hell of a lot more to it than the mere desire to "stretch" your brain. Sometimes it is necessary to really work yourself and others hard,...I find it hard to believe that there will be a significant population that will organize around the mere desire to "stretch." Sure, you may see some academic-type efforts, so long as it doesn't involve too much blood, sweat, and tears....
...sleep.
Re:The problem with protesters (rant) (Score:2)
Napster == Public Library (Score:4)
Both are places where you can obtain a copy of a copyrighted work, and use and enjoy it in its intended manner, for free. In both, the original copy of a work is donated out of the generosity of their own heart by someone who has (presumably) legally bought and paid for the original copyrighted work. (Of course, in the case of a public library, such a person has done a "good deed", while with Napster they have engaged in "rampant piracy" or some such thing.) Sure, a library book doesn't have the same look-and-feel as one you'd buy yourself--yellowed pages, that krinkly plastic book jacket--but MP3's are even worse: no physical CD, no liner notes, no cover art; the risk of getting a bad recording, a recording that chirps or hiccups or cuts off just before the end of the song; and the certainty that no matter what you get it won't play on your stereo, and if it could it would sound like crap compared to the original CD.
Yes, you have to return or renew library books after two weeks, but the point is that's good enough for how most people enjoy most books--they read them once and never look at them again. Similarly, Napster allows you an experience that is "good enough for how most people enjoy most songs"--that is, if you've got some tune stuck in your head, or just want some background music while you surf the web, you fire up Napster and get it. No, a public library isn't good enough to replace ownership in the case of those really important books that really impact you and you just want to have around...but neither is Napster. For a truly moving musical experience, you need a real CD (or good vinyl) on a real stereo, not some 128 kpbs muddle, decrypted in an electrically noisy environment, coming out your cheap underpowered magnetically-shielded plastic speakers. That is, the fact that you don't get to keep library books is a look-and-feel issue, not a utility issue--and the public library is still ahead of MP3 in terms of look-and-feel.
If anything, libraries pose a much greater danger to the publishing industry than Napster does to the RIAA, because once you have checked a book out of the library and read it, you are almost certain never to purchase it. With Napster, on the other hand, downloading an MP3 arguably makes you more likely to purchase the CD than before; certainly there is conclusive evidence [jup.com] that Napster increases CD purchases overall.
And yet, public libraries are held up as the paragon of the public good, the ideal of a fostered community, the sort of thing politicians throw into speeches to demonstrate what's right about America (or, more likely, what used to be right about America but no longer exists). Meanwhile, Napster--which, if anything, encourages more community (libraries, after all, are known for explicitly discouraging chatting), illustrates the possibility for knowledge shared throughout humanity which is inherent in the Internet, leads to more legal music purchasing [jup.com], and facilitates an alternative to an industry which affords the artists much fewer rights and a much lower share of the monetary fruits of their labor than does the publishing industry--is sued, demonized, held up as an example of everything that's wrong and immoral about today's culture.
Huh? What gives?? Before the entertainment industry bought new copyright laws in 1997 and 1998, there was no legal concept of copyright infringement without corresponding non-commercial gains. And yet suddenly everyone believes that sharing music with others is not only illegal (it's still arguable whether that's true) but somehow immoral as well?? Somehow everyone has this ridiculous idea that copyright entitles a copyright holder to oversee every use his/her content is put to, fair use be damned?? (For those who don't understand why this is so absurd: copyright is automatically extended to every single piece of content ever created, no matter by whom or for what purpose. The above idea would mean you would need to get the permission of a gas station before you could submit the receipt they gave you as part of an expense account.)
Napster should be held up as an example of what's right with the world, of a way the promise of technology is enabling people to share the art they love, to expand their musical horizons, or just to get a copy of the new NSync song to play as a joke. It's an example of how the Internet will revolutionize an industry by opening up alternatives to a greedy oligopoly which stifles artists' rights to their own creations.
And yet even on
Re:Napster != Public Library (Score:2)
This is the legal difference. As I stated at the beginning, I'm aware of why Napster more easily falls prey to the accusation of copyright infringement.
This is not, however, a functional difference. Yes, when you go to the library the book you are looking for may be checked out. On the other hand, finding a particular song on Napster is a hit-and-miss affair as well. As a rough estimate, I'd say that the chance a particular song you're looking for is available on Napster when you happen to log in is, well, about as good as the chance the book you're looking for is available at the library when you happen to show up.
The function Napster fulfills in society is still identical to that of a public library, and its moral standing ought to be the same as well.
I love hackers (Score:2)
= )
I love that. It's beautiful.
That is the hacker spirit at its best.
"I cracked your copy protection, even though your product was being given away for free."
The same to you (Re:Hogwash.) (Score:2)
And under the current system, the artists actually wind up paying for it! If you read about the current system, the record company will advance the musicians money against their royalties to produce, promote, and market the album. This means that for the most part the musicians don't actually receive any royalties unless the album sells at least a million copies. If it doesn't, the musicians wind up in debt to the record company. It's basically like share cropping, where the system is stacked so that it's almost impossible to break away from one company.
In any case, it's dubious that promotions and marketing are really an essential part of the process, or that they can't be solved by going outside the traditional music industry approach. If you don't think that Napster is changing the promotions and marketing aspect of things, you really need to pay more attention.
Yet more irony on the subject (Score:2)
"sheet music was pirated, and that was good"
"in the Rennecianse (sp?), people just created for the sake of creating"
"Up until this century, artists mainly flourished on the patronage of their most wealthy fans and created for the rest of the world to enjoy".
This is the 21st century. The only way this is going to end amicably is if techologists (you) and the industry meet and device a 21st century solution that keeps everyone's best interests in mind. Musicians want to be paid. Labels want to be paid. You want to download music from the internet. Those are the arguments, aren't they?
How come no one out there is working feverishly on a new micropayment system, since none of the others were ever adopted? Or has Napster already spoiled it, by allowing people to download their music for free, will it increasingly be an expectation of consumers that whatever they want to download from the internet should always be free?
Re:Napster == Public Library (Score:2)
1) You actually had to drive or walk to a building somewhere to "check out" a song
So a library is wonderful, but a library that delivers would be immoral, illegal, and a threat to all we hold dear in society? What's your opinion of the Bookmobile???
and while it was checked out nobody else in the area could "check out" the same song (or only a limited number of people anyhoo)
Napster's "collection" is only as large as the number of people who happen to be connected at that particular time. The chance of finding the song you're looking for on Napster is about equal to the chance of finding the book you're looking for at the library. In either case, if it's not there the first time you check you can always go back later and try to get it again.
The difference is, with a library, you can be certain that eventually you will get to read--and thus not have to purchase--any book you want. Even if they don't have it in their collection, they will get it for you on inter-library loan. Put it another way--would you think Napster any more "ok" if, when the song you wanted wasn't available, you could put in a request and be guaranteed that the system would email you the MP3 within a couple weeks??
The library let you check out as many of their several million publications as you wanted at one time
First, I have never ever heard of a library which limits the number of titles you can check out at one time. People routinely come out of a library with as many as a dozen books in hand--equivalent to hundreds of hours of content. MP3's which provided the same amount of unique content (in terms of length of time) would fill an average hard drive.
Second, there are almost certainly more unique titles at a decent library than there are unique songs available on Napster. In any case, I'm sure you wouldn't think a public library was somehow a scourge on society because it happened to have an incredibly wide selection--you'd think it was a really good library.
and let you keep the publications.
See my original post for why the fact that you don't get to keep your library book as long as you want is irrelevant to the analogy. Basically, it's because what one typically does with a book one purchases--i.e. read it once--is different from what one does with music one purchases--i.e. listen to it many times. The restrictions a library book puts on your enjoyment of it are look-and-feel issues, not functional ones--just like the restrictions MP3 puts on your enjoyment of music.
Heh.. I could go on and on listing reasons why this is a terrible comparison, but I won't... in a hurry - no time to type 'em up
Please do, as your first list was rather lacking.
Obviously.... (Score:2)
Regardless of the outcome of these cases, I hope the plaintiffs fall flat on their faces, there will still be people out there willing to risk this kind of crap to bring new technology to the people.
Re:Hogwash. (Score:2)
If I recite a poem in a public place, or hum a melody to a friend, I should pay a royalty to the author? Or should I be paid for doing the promoting?
Metallica has a better point here than the RIAA. Metallica created the work, they SHOULD have the right to control it's distribution. But, open distribution is a method of promotion too, isn't it? The RIAA has WRONGFULLY (in the ethical sense IMO) duped Artists out of their rights via contracts. They are not the creators of content, and should die under a rock.
The point is that the very concept of IP - of copying data - is outdated by the technology. The fool.com article makes this point exceptionally clear.
What you're saying is that, since the 4th Commandment clearly states: "Thou shalt not kill!" then killing in self-defense, or even swatting a mosquito, is wrong. The context has changed and the concepts of IP no longer hold true.
Re:Atlantic Monthly (Score:2)
What I found very interesting was the history section, about how the the "fight for copyright" isn't anything new at all, and in fact has been fought pretty much since the beginning of recorded music. Heck, Sullivan (from Gilbert & Sullivan) was suing people his whole life! and that was for sheet music... you know? the kind that YOU have to play?
What scares me is that the music industry is using tactics which could affect not only the music industry, but like the article says, the core of democracy. I mean, just imagine if you would, a country where the government's control reached out and checked *everything* you did electronically. I know there are those out there that think this is happening right now, what with Carnivore and like floating around, but at least its not done openly and without harsh public critism/outcry. I'm talking about a society where government intervention is expected and accepted - where the people have completely placed their trust and security in the hands of the all-knowing government.
1984 anyone? Animal Farm ring a bell? "Everyone is equal. Its just that some people are more equal than others." Don't tell me that it can't happen - Russia/USSR is just getting over something much like this right now.
You know, it kind of strikes me as a bit silly, all this running around the RIAA is doing... it seems to me, that what this is all about is one industry standing up and saying:
And as silly as that sounds, this is exactly what's happening. From the article:
I seriously doubt even the law-makers themselves can tell you all the ramifications one little law makes, let alone the massive DMCA! I was very glad to see that the RIAA was hauled before a senate(?) committee to "answer" for some of its actions the DMCA "allowed". It sounds like congress passed the law because of a lot of pressure from RIAA/MPAA - like a kid given a new baseball bat to replace the old broken one. Only now congress is hearing reports that the kid has been beating up the other children in the neighbourhood and taking their lunch money... It'll be interesting to see what kind of "parent" congress wants to play... I hope it'll be the one who leaves things pretty much alone, and lets the market figure things out for itself. 'Course, to do that they'd have to repeal the DMCA and few other things - this isn't impossible either.
Just imagine yourself being put in congress "by the people", and then suddenly finding out that 10% of your constituents are right royal pissed off at you because YOU helped shut down their Napster... Not exactly a perfect description, but pretty close I'd say.
I understand and agree that copyrights have to be upheld and all - but definitely *not* in their current form. Something like a 5 yr limit would be good. (or shorter, 5 is just a number). Hmm, remind you of another antiquated institution? coughUS Patent Officecough anyone?
Anywho, just my $0.035
Neil................
Re:not all boats float on their own (Score:2)
I am on my own side. (Score:2)
I don't care about these "artists" (I'm talking about all popular musicians here). They are absurdly rich because they entered into deals with the promoter/distributors to play their music for free into the ears of youth over the only convenient distribution systems that existed (radio, TV), until they got used to the music and felt a need to hear more. Their fame and riches stem from this deal more than from special musical ability. They are part of the machine, not victims of it.
Yes, good musicians deserve some compensation, but control is not part of the bargain! Any musician who wants to tell me how much I have to pay him to hear his music is never getting a cent from me. There are plenty of other musicians out there, and I've got money for them, when I like their music and when they don't try to attack me legally.
Compensation does not require control! [boswa.com] Getting enormously rich from your mediocre talent plus a large promotion budget does, though. That's what Metallica did, and that's what they're trying to protect.
To hell with them. I have no special love for the tiny wealthy minority of musicians in bed with the record companies (who then bitch that they aren't getting a big enough slice of the absurdly large revenue). I have a lot more sympathy for the other 99% of musicians who are working second jobs to support their hobby. Without control, maybe we'd see fewer rich whiners and more decent musicians making a living.
You're damned right I'm selfish. That's the way you're supposed to be in commercial transactions. Not stupidly selfish, but putting your own interests first. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to pick your pocket with his tongue.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Not demonstrably clear in the least (Score:2)
This function that the labels perform is one of marketing and distribution (not just in the sense that it's economical, but in the sense that it puts it in front of the right eyes). To ignore that, and act as if a change in physical production means they've necessarily outlived their usefullness is laughable. Before these online methods, the production costs were in the range of 2 dollars, yet they sell to the end user for, say, 15 dollars. That still leaves 13 dollars of value added going to various parties. There is nothing necessarily obvious in that the mere elimination of 2 of 15 dollars, means value added should hit 0.
Now you can make up all the warm and fuzzy ideas you want, but until you come up with a better alternative that up-and-coming artists actually sign on (and enjoy success with), it's hardly realistic to say napster and company are an acceptable alternative. Only through this proof, will you make it demonstrably clear that the major labels have outlived their usefullness. Even then, that doesn't mean the merit of IP is injured in the least, rather that the industry was too attached to the physical model of distribution--not necessarily to IP. More than likely, if anything succeeds, it will be something like mp3.com, not napster, which revolves substantially around IP.
Re:The same to you (Re:Hogwash.) (Score:2)
You know, maybe it is somewhat dubious. But there has been little honest discussion of all the other issues, just that physical production has gone from 2 to 0 dollars, and that there are a bunch of rotten eggs. And if you can't discuss the problem honestly and in detail, you're never going to realize an effective solution.
Napster is in my opinion, one of the many flawed "solutions" [even though that's not what Napster ever intended it to be, they even said so themselves] There is simply no way for an artist to promote themselves on napster! None. The only way an artist finds his way onto a new users harddrive, is if the artists' song happens to end up on the users query results, and if that user chooses to download it and then listen to it. And even then, even if the user enjoys the music, there is no clear path back to the artist. How is this artist supposed to make money? Where is the supposed "tip jar" even? Who promotes them? Who _makes_ people listen to them? Who filters out all the crap garage bands and what not?
Re:BAD english. (Score:2)
i never thought i'd see the day when *I* was correcting someone's grammar
--(koensayrATozemailDOTcomDOTau)
I didn't know Aussie's were so particular about the Queen's English... ;-) .
Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers
Oh CRAP (Score:2)
--
MotleyFool: `Intellectual Property Is an Oxymoron' (Score:5)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:Obviously.... (Score:2)
I stand corrected.
Hardly a secret that people would rather expend less money/effort than more. The secret is that the industry's "right" is an artificial constitutional construct intended to benefit the public, not an eternal gift from on high.
Are they within the letter of the law? It's one thing for a common carrier to say "we make a billion phone connections a year and only a few thousand of those are used to commit crimes, so what can we do?". It's quite another for Napster to say "well, the vast majority of people who use our service are using it to commit a crime, but why should that be our problem?" You might have a hard time convincing a judge that they're not a willing accessory.
The fact that there is huge public support for Napster shouldn't, in itself, excuse them. If anything, it should indicate that the law they're breaking may no longer be a good one and should be changed. On the other hand, I'm sure there'd be huge public support for "no more taxes ever" or "free movie admission for everyone", but that doesn't make it right.
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
This was true prior to 1992. In 1992 Congress took away your right to control non-commercial distribution of your work, and gave it back to the people, in exchange for royalty payments to the RIAA on the sale of blank media. Some of us opposed the AHRA. Did you?
Title 17, Chapter 10, Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title [Title 17, copyright law] alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Man I'm sick... (Score:2)
I guess the same can be said about Modern Rock. I could name off bands and sound all hoity-toity but I bet you all would have different bands to mention and the conversation becomes flaimbait. However, I think we'd all agree that music evolves, and what once was unheard-of is now pop. It's been like that for awhile... maybe not specific bands, but definately styles.
Like Music, MP3 & other CNNfN buzz words will continue to circulate our media, and I'm sick of it.
Can anyone name something interesting that will soon to be be exploited in the media? Screener/movie piracy? Electronic book piracy? The cycle will continue.
----
False analogy. (Score:2)
When a library makes a book available, they are generating at least one sale and that single book can only be used by one person concurrently. Given the purchasing and acquisition patterns of most library, this means that books in high demand (i.e., brand new best sellers) are scarce, and most times even unavailable. The library either purchases more books, or the patrons run out to the book store and buy a couple copies. Furthermore, except for classic and other highly reguarded books, most publishers make their sales off of these same new books--libraries are hardly able to squelsh this. In fact, most publishers will stop printing most books after a short while. Unless the demand is high, it simply doens't make economic sense for the publisher keep printing it--nor does it make sense for them to print large quantities and store them. In essence, libraries only become a deciding factor at the end, where most publishers aren't selling anyways. Libraries serve a clear and well known public function (not just one of pure entertainment) by acting as a repository for these books, so they don't simply fall out of print and away from people's eyes.
The gist of it is:
Cost for publishers: Low.
Benefit for society: High.
Are you honestly going to tell me the same applies to napster? Are you going to ignore the fact that napster is really much the opposite [despite the denials of some individuals]? Napster traffics the most popular songs in almost instantly, and theoretically, only one purchase needs to be made for this to happen! Yet when you search for truely rare songs, it has been my experience that they're NOT there. Something like 90% of the mp3s listed on there are redundant--only the most recent and currently popular songs. And while you may try to refute that sales will actually be hurt, that is unproven, and highly doubtfull. As that article in the Atlantic Monthly pointed out, CD sales around college campuses were down [though not in huge numbers], while national sales were up. This fact alone is cause for concern, or at least question. Combine this with the growth of the internet, increased publicity for napster, spreading of broadband, and other such factors, and you have a stark picture for the industry. And for all these possible [though I think they're highly likely, if napster, et. al, goes unchallenged] costs, what are the benefits? That people get to listen to music free? You're going to have a hard time arguing that music enriches the mind to the same extent that a good book does, especially when it's pop music!
The gist here:
Record industry cost: High
Benefit for society: Low
...good bye.
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
Would you rather sit next to Carson Daly and Fred Durst, so you can talk about the guy Christina gave head to first?
(sorry, I'm not an Eminem fan myself actually)
Re:Yet more irony on the subject (Score:2)
The obvious solution, then, is to promote the notion that any stranger, even (especially) your next door neighbor, is not your friend but your enemy. That way you'll close your eyes to Luke 18:23 etc. and keep your goods close to your side and gripped tight, which will benefit trade and investments. To sell this idea hypnotic-wise to the TV-watching public, we have for a while enjoyed "cinema verite" cop shows where you can thrill to vicariously grinding some handcuffed minority kid's face against a concrete walk, bringing into focus that big difference between you and him, and now, also, "Survivor".
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:False analogy. (Score:2)
Where has this been proven? Can you show me some evidence?? The fact is that libraries would continue to enjoy wide public support even if they were shown to hurt book sales, because they provide an undeniable public benefit, just as Napster does.
The same cannot be said, that napster will not hurt the sale of records.
In fact much more can be said: Napster actually helps the sale of records. [jup.com]
And while you may try to refute that sales will actually be hurt, that is unproven, and highly doubtful.
No it's not. Read the link. (I've included it several times in this thread, but you seem to have never clicked on it.) In case you're wondering, Jupiter Communications is one of the most respected media research and analysis in the world.
As that article in the Atlantic Monthly pointed out, CD sales around college campuses were down [though not in huge numbers], while national sales were up. This fact alone is cause for concern, or at least question.
Yes it is. Luckily, these questions have been answered. The research at issue was part of a study bought by the RIAA to use at the trial. Fortunately, there are myriad problems with its seemingly negative conclusions. Most egregiously, the study failed to take into account purchases of CDs at online stores like CDNow. Due to the fact that college students are among the most wired and moreover among the most likely to purchase items online of any demographic, this failing very likely explains entirely the fall in "college music store" sales. Further supporting this conclusion is the fact that the study found sales at "college music stores" fell more in the year before Napster came out than in the year after!! Thus the most likely conclusion to be drawn from this RIAA-sponsered study is that 1) online stores like CDNow and amazon.com have taken sales from record stores near college campuses, but 2) Napster has spurred CD sales enough amongst college students to partially reverse the trend.
And in any case, despite what you may believe, the average Napster user is *not* a college student. Besides, speaking from my own experience as a college student, Napster has actually limited my recent CD purchases, because I don't currently own a stereo besides my computer. Once I move out of my tiny dorm room into an apartment, though, you can bet I'll buy a good stereo, and plenty of CD's--many of them purchases I would never have made had I not had my enjoyment of different types of music enhanced by Napster.
Napster traffics the most popular songs in almost instantly, and theoretically, only one purchase needs to be made for this to happen!
Oh come on. For one thing, there are something like 100 different (unconnected) Napster servers, and most users are only logged on a small fraction of the time, so in any real world situation hundreds of source copies are necessary to cause any particular song to be available on Napster even remotely reliably. But this is all besides the point. Are you honestly telling me that only 1 (or very few) of Napster's 20 million users went out and bought, eg. the new N'Sync CD which sold 2.4 million copies in its first week? Obviously not. This is totally, patently absurd and has nothing to do with whatever real effect Napster has on CD sales.
Something like 90% of the mp3s listed on there are redundant--only the most recent and currently popular songs.
Just logged onto Napster now, and it's showing 765,685 songs being shared on this particular server alone. If we accept your 90% figure (I'd guess 95% is closer to the truth, but whatever), that means people are sharing over 75,000 unique songs at this moment on that server alone!! In comparison, the RIAA ensures that only 150 new songs get radio play in any given year. 150. So let's see which avenue of free music is more culturally enriching and offers more avenues away from the "most recent and currently popular songs":
radio--150 songs a year
Napster--75,000 songs at any given time
Hmm...looks like society and the spread of worthwhile art come out about 500 times better with Napster than with the old way of getting free music. Indeed, that 75,000 songs represents almost three times as many songs as are released by the major labels in an entire year! That's right--the major labels only released around 2,600 albums in 1999; meanwhile, over 3,000 artists have explicitly released their music for distribution over Napster (and an additional 14,000 have given their permission by joining Napster's new artist program). Let me restate that for you: there have been more songs expressly released to Internet public domain sharing since Napster debuted than there have been songs distributed by the major labels in the same time period.
And you want to claim that Napster consists only of "the most recent and currently popular songs"? Are you joking or just remarkably ignorant???
You're going to have a hard time arguing that music enriches the mind to the same extent that a good book does, especially when it's pop music!
Well now you've really made an idiot of yourself. Suffice it to say that no one with any appreciation of art or culture--least of all writers of important literature--would ever claim inherent superiority for any one particular medium of art over all others. In fact, most knowledgable people would argue that particular pieces of music can be every bit as expressive, enriching, artistic and important as the greatest works of literature, much less the trashy romance novel drivel which makes up the plurality of check outs at the typical public library. Nevermind Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms (although you can certainly find not only their works but those of almost every classical composer of note on Napster); nevermind even the great impact of jazz, argued by many to be the most important artistic movement of the 20th Century. There are plenty of challenging, important, "mind enriching" works of art to be found even amongst today's pop music. Any attempt to compare the artistic worth of the typical piece of fiction on the New York Times Bestseller List [nytimes.com] to, just to take a very successful and rather mainstream pop album, Radiohead's masterful Ok Computer, is laughable. For crying out loud, look at that list! It's all romance novels and police thrillers, with some battle-the-Antichrist born-again lit thrown for variety (#11). You have to go all the way to #16 (off the official list) to even find an important author. And this is without taking into account the NYT's recently spun-off Harry Potter Bestseller List [nytimes.com].
The average piece of new fiction sold today is almost certainly of lower cultural and artistic value some of the most popular new music. Sorry to destroy your illusions, but the average book checked out of a public library is probably of even lower quality.
But that's besides the point. The point of all this isn't to engage in cultural snobbery and certainly not to censor based on it. Despite, probably because of, the fact that libraries check out millions of copies of trashy romance novels a day, they are still vital institutions to society, providing important positive functions to their communities. Exactly the same, if not more, can be said of Napster.
On a side note, if you really don't believe that music can be as enriching as written words, you probably just haven't heard enough good music. Start exploring. [napster.com]
Re:not all boats float on their own (Score:2)
The highlighted portion is the reason there will still be music in the industry. There are millions of songs online, but how do I find the few hundred that I like. Just like the postal service had to change when the brown trucks came into town, RIAA and there crowd need to look at what their customers want. So far, they've turned music into a factory industry to benefit from economies of scale, but the market is turning to customization of everything. Henry Ford is dead. Don't tell me that I can have any music I like as long as it's by a 19yr old with a bad haircut.
Re:TROLL ALERT!!! PARENT LINK IS TOLL!!! MAN'S ANU (Score:2)
What planet are you from? (Score:2)
The basic guiding principle behind IP is every bit as valid today as it was yesterday. The relationship between risk and reward did not just evaporate. Just as Henry Ford's many innovations could have been stolen so many years ago with relative ease, software and music can be pirated today. Whether the margins are 2% of 90% is irrelevant, there is still a need to protect them. What you are effectively paying for is for future works and innovation, NOT for that particular product. So when you get on GNUtella and pirate software, it may seem as if you can download infinite copies and not "hurt" the artist , but you are doing nothing to encourage that next round of production.
It is still in society's interest to give legal protection to IP, even more so in many ways. The type of R&D we see today tends to be far far more capital intensive, and most of these products have very low production costs, provided they're produced on sufficient scale. It is ironic that you point to nanotechnology especially. Do you think people just develop these things because they want to? Is that it? What about the millions that have been spent on it already to create just one simple machine? What about new ones? You think they engineer themselves too? Get real.
A cooperative attitude seems to lift all boats (Score:3)
I have heard that the Church in Galileo's time didn't actually want to suppress his information about the solar system. They just begged him to give them a little more time, and let them publish the information themselves. They knew the truth had to come out, and were hoping they could adapt to the new age where the Earth was not at the center of the universe. Sounds like the RIAA trying to buy time until SDMI works.
Unfortunately for SDMI, it seems easier to make a technology that enables people to do things than one that disables them from doing things. Lessig's warnings in the "Code" book are still pertinent, but the tide seems to be going with those who want to share. I think that the record companies will do fine, like the Catholic Church (which, if you've been reading news stories about traffic jams in Rome this year, seems to be pretty robust).
Re:Napster etc etc (Score:2)
Ahem.
It's impossible to steal music.
Here's why (this isn't a cyber-hippy argument, I swear):
By definition, it is only possible to steal something that's owned. Conversely, if something cannot be owned, it cannot be stolen.
So music can't be stolen, because it can't be owned. And when I say that it can't be owned, I mean it. In order to own something, there are three requirements that must be met.
1)The owner must be able to make full use of the owned item
2)The owner must be able to control if and how others use the owned item
3)The owner must be able to dispose of (eg sell, destroy, give away) the owned item at will
So let's look at music, and how it fits with these things. Remember, we're talking about MUSIC. Not CDs. Not tapes. Not mp3s. Not even sound waves travelling through the air. None of those things are music, they are simply the media upon which music is transferred. Music is ultimately a concept.
1)If you write an original song, can you use it? Obviously the answer is yes. You can hum it, sing it, play it backwards to listen to the satanic messages, etc. (probably by having placed it onto a convenient medium, but hey, you might just be that good)
2)If you let me listen to the song, can you exert control over it? Here, the answer is no. You see, there are many seperate copies of the song floating around at this point.
There is the original copy, which exists within your mind. Don't believe me? Well let's prove it. Surely you know 'Doo Wah Diddy' - well can you hum it? Better yet, can you remember how it goes in your mind, without actually making any sounds? (eg when it gets stuck in your head) Then we've successfully demonstrated that music exists independently of any particular medium.
So what happens when you make a copy of the music in your mind onto a carrier like a soundwave, or sheet music, or a CD or mp3? Two copies exist. When I listen to the music, a third copy is created, within my mind. Even if I give back your CD, I can also do the trick with remembering how the song goes. (bear in mind that while most people have average memories, there are those with perfect recall that won't forget a note of the song)
Can you make me give back the copy in my mind? Not without a lobotomy, I'd warrant. And while you can demand that I not listen to the music in my mind, you can't enforce that in any way whatsoever, and neither can any court in the world. You simply do not have control over how I use the song.
3)So given that, can you get rid of the song? Perhaps by selling it or giving it away? Again, no. You can give people COPIES, but the original is basically stuck in your mind. And you can't give people the copies that exist in other listener's minds (like mine) either.
So music, or anything else that can be memorized, isn't able to fulfill the three traditional legal requirements for ownership. And without ownership, there can be no stealing or theft.
-----
What you _really_ mean is that people are commiting copyright infringement. Copyrights are ownable, but they're a package of rights governing legal transactions over an unownable piece of information. They do not pretend to be actual ownership of that information; that's impossible. (this is why the term 'Intellectual Property' is patently offensive. There is no such thing, nor would it be good if there were)
Additionally, do remember that from the dawn of humanity until about ~1730 there were no copyright laws. And yet the system worked, and there were books and songs and paintings all over the damn place. The system doesn't rely on copyright laws. I don't advocate totally getting rid of them, but they are in need of massive reform. More copyrights, as I've shown in another post, harm society. Few to no copyrights are optimal. And the fundementals of US copyright law exist for the benefit of society, not for copyright holders. Don't believe it? Read the Constitution.
Slavery in the label system (Score:2)
However, you can't pin the label of "wishful thinking" to the article's analysis of what was and what is, because it's right on the mark, not just in the author's view but in the view of musicians worldwide, often expressed by them in the music papers. They may not all have the eloquence of Courtney Love, but they feel the financial pain just the same. In brief, they're being sucked dry by the biggest and most cold-blooded pirate organization on the planet, the label/studio system. Anything is better than that kind of slavery.
Converting the monopoly (Score:2)
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
The concept of micropayments has been thrown around alot concerning e-mail, maybe music is what really needs a good micropayment sort of structure to be built for the internet. Then my afore mentioned "instant request internet radio" could lawfully pay the people who gave them the content to provide to their users. It has to happen, the only other options for getting music are theft, and being gouged for it.
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
In spite of the hostile tone of most of your post, I wish you were modded up to 5 for that comment alone.
As a musician totally agree that many musicians (especially pop musicians) have a distorted view of their craft as a result of the last Century of music copyright laws.
Preach on!
Let's just make sure will kill the right beast (Score:2)
Just to clarify, When I defend IP, I am not defending the industry at all. Far from it. The industry may well be thorougly flawed and corrupt, but those flaws are not an integral feature of intellectual property. Rather, while it is true that the nature of the industry can only exist in an IP-rich environment, these big record houses exist of a certain necessity [not that it justifies or necessitates all of their behavior]. This is an important point that elludes many people. The fact that artists still sign with these major labels today only bolsters my argument. Recording, promoting, marketing, getting spots on the radio, etc. are expensive [even though physical distribution is less and less of a concern today]. Artists sign because they want need and want these things, they can't do it themselves or through other alternatives.
Napster simply does nothing to address these problems. Napster pokes holes in IP, but does not offer a credible alternative in its place. I say, let us not flush the baby out with the bathwater. The big six may be cruel to the artist, but they're still an option. No one is making them sign. By breaking IP, not only do you reduce the "big six" option, but you break other more palatable alternatives that rely on IP.
In essense, I believe we should take reasonable measures to protect IP (i.e., make sure napster is kept in check)--and let the rest of the chips fall where they may. If IP is kept intact, I think it is far more likely a capitalistic evolution of sorts will happen with the dinosuars aka the "big six." Their pricing structures, which have long revolved too much around physical distribution, will fall--prices will come down a couple dollars--maybe even as much as half. Accompanying the fall of physical distribution, will be an increased number of competitors, which will mean more competition in the music industry (a la mp3.com) and better deals for the artist. However, I think these marketing issues will long remain. You may see a few grassroots style bands pop up, but by and large, those artists which wish to go Platinum will sign with someone who can effectively market. Those who already have tons of money, might be able to pay for themselves. But for the vast majority of up and coming artists, that means someone will essentially make an investment in them--someone will take the lions' share of the risk. Someone will still be very rich, there will still be some grumbling....but the situation will have improved.
PS: I don't regard monopolies to be a flaw in capitalism, anymore than I regard, say, assholes a flaw of freedom. Sh*t happens, but that doesn't mean people, or the government, should never intervene.
The problem with protesters (rant) (Score:4)
I get angry when the mindless bleating of wannabees overpowers the real issues that real protesters are attempting to make. For instance, like Lars here. I'm sick of hearing every johnny come lately ripping Metallica because it's the cool thing to do. Metallica has a point that some don't have the attention span to consider. Metallica is not anti-fan. Metallica is not pro-corporation. Metallica is not a sellout and corporate whore. Metallica wants one thing that we would otherwise be championing here on Slashdot: *artist control of their own music*. Metallica's point is not that Napster is inherently wrong, or that technology should be banned. Their point is that *they* should be able to decide what they want to do with their music. Not big record companies. Not Napster. And this isn't even about copyright infringement or "lost revenue". Metallica freely allows bootlegging. The problem is that with all our shouting about how Napster is the David to the record industries goliath, we have forgotten that the *artists* are the David to *everybody*. Napster is a great service. Gnutella is a great technology. Metallica's contention is that they, as the artist, should choose how they want to interact with their fans. And they only sued Napster to raise this issue. Just like Metallica should be able to decide what songs of theirs radio stations play, and what image they portray, they should be able to self-determine how they want to interact with their fans. Don't lump artists in with the record companies and Napster as the lone hero. It's the other way around. Napster is entering in exclusive deals with the record companies to jointly exploit artists.
Stop and think about what you're shouting about. Think about *who* you really support (I'm guessing you are pro-[your favorite band] not pro-[free music, gimme!]). While it tastes great, Naptster's free beer (music for free) is blocking Metallica's free speech (self-determination on what and how they express themselves to fans). I think the artists know just a little bit what they're talking about. Get behind them.
Still false, despite your loudness (Score:2)
This is not a popularity contest. The issue is public interest, not just the immediate whims of the public. Our nation was founded on the principles of Federalism for a reason [not to mention law]...
You are being awefully presumptious to assert that you know the public's desires. The mere fact that you feel music and books are on intellectual par does not make it so. Nor do you know how the public would respond to evidence of destruction of the music industry.
Excuse me, but I'm an indepedent thinker. It may be perfectly acceptable for you to swallow what you are fed whole, but I have serious doubts. I can't take this press release at face value. Statistics are very easy to manipulate and are easily skewed. What's more, the conclusion can be made sound very good, while actually remaining irrelevant or without any base in the results.
I don't see how they could gather a reliable sample. Napster is essentially anonymous, it would be virtually impossible to get a truely random sample here. They obviously did not do a before and after, and most likely it was not random in the least. The biggest hint we get is:
"But when we conducted our consumer survey, controlled for key music purchasing factors-such as existing spending level, age, income, gender, and online tenure-we still found that Napster usage is one of the strongest determinants of increased music buying." If you ever studied statistics, you would know this does not mean anything like: Those who start using napster, start buying more music. Quite the contrary, it means: Those who use napster, are more likely to buy music. In other words, Jupiter looked at a certain population based on the above controls, and determined that those who used napster were 45% more likely to buy CDs than those who appeared the same based on those criteria and did not use the service. The problem with this statistic is that it does not tell you whether or not those same music lovers in the selected populations would be more inclined to use napster and would be self-selecting in the survey. It does not deny the possibility that those users DECREASED their CD purchases since they started using napster
Until I see proof to the contrary, I will continue to assert that it is far more likely that these regular napster users have actually decreased their purchasing habits, and thus hurt industry. I'm far from ignorant here. Being one of the original #mp3 ops on undernet [not to mention efnet, etc.], I've been using mp3s for at least 5 years now. I actually bumped into napster a few times myself, and saw the service, and many before it grow. I know many regular users who have, in fact, essentially stopped purchasing CDs. These users are something of a bellwether; having used the internet for longer, having broadband before others, owning CDRs, etc. While they're not fully representive of the population, they are enjoying today [and have been for quite awhile] a fraction of the goodies that much of the population does not yet enjoy, but will soon.
Not that it is terribly relevent, but do you have any evidence to back that claim up? Or is that first hand experience? In any case, napster is _very_ commonly used at most universities, at least those with decent internet connections. In fact, it is used as a replacement at some. For instance, at atleast one eating club at Princeton [which I will not name] with which i'm familiar, the members actually purchased a CD-R with the sole intention of burning mp3s into audio CDs. Many students used this regularly, and most told me they wouldn't buy a CD so long as they could burn what they needed.
Obviously you lack experience with the internet and the vast quantities of warez (pirated software) available to those who know how to get it. If you had, you'd know that the warez groups are able to distribute warez out to thousands, and millions, of people with just one copy, in a compressed format, such that if even one byte is corrupt, the entire package is bad. Similar systems could easily be setup within napster, and in fact, there were atleast such groups when I used mp3s more regularly. They took responsibility for ensuring a clean rip and a decent encoding, not to mention distribution [which is largely moot now] With decreased file size sensitivity, these groups could essentially gaurantee very high quality mp3s.
In case you are not aware, these servers are not that seperate. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. I go to the store, and buy the latest N'Sync CD the second it hits shelves. [actually, which reminds, these groups would actually obtain the software/songs before they hit the shelves]. It takes me about 30 minutes to rip and encode them, and then I make them available to napster. At that very instant, 100 teenie boppers are querying for the latest and greatest songs, they get a hit. I can support quite a few downloads, with a software max of 10 concurrent users. So within, say, 20 minutes, each of those 10 users now has the entire album. Another 10 copy from each of those 10 and so on. Someone signs on, and signs back on, grabs a new server, and suddenly a new server has the mp3s. It doesn't take a degree in mathematics to figure out that napster could easily be overrun the mp3s which I ripped, before stores on the west coast are even open!
Theoretically and empirically, all the ingredients are there for it. Combine this with the above mentioned "mp3 group", and it could happen with reliability [i.e., check summing schemes] What's more, these groups can get and distribute the songs before others can even buy them, they don't even half to wait....but people do anyways. I encourage you to look at the warez groups, it may give you a little insight here.
Books build on each other and on the mind in a way that music does not [part of the reason why libraries are key]. One can go to a library, and providing they have enough diligence, teach themselves hundreds of usefull things--even more than you think you know. The reader can improve themselves in ways that society can grasp and appreciate.
Music may be marvelous, but it is simply not interchangable with the many forms of books. Society has long placed a preference on reading, and has regarded music as a form of entertainment. Consider, for a moment, what portion of your curiculuum has been dedicated to books versus music. Most likely, your answer is something around 1/40th. If you were told that your kids weren't going to read anymore, but would listen to music in class instead, how would you react? You know damn well how you would react...It's a question of priorities, just one more reason why you can't quite make that analogy.
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:2)
//rdj
Is Gnutella really that hard? (Score:2)
- Connect to another host on the gnutellaNet
- Enter the words you are looking for
- Look through the search results
- Download the files
How is this so much harder than Napster with Napigator?<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:2)
Before spouting off with a bunch of fallacies, unproved claims and ad hominem attacks, why not try understanding this basic phrase: "Information wants to be free"?
It does not mean: "You should be forced to give me information for zero cost." It does mean: "Information tends towards a state of maximum dispersion (regardless of cost)."
You can feel free to join those who want to try to legislate against plain mathematics if you want. Be sure to look up the politician who wanted to set pi equal to 3 while you're at it.
--
Re:Still false, despite your loudness (Score:2)
As it turns out, there is apparently a large body of independent evidence backing up my claims that most Napster users engage in significant fair uses like sampling and space-shifting, and that the majority of their "non-fair uses" (if even there are any, since the AHRA explicitly legalizes all noncommercial copying of audio recordings) do not displace purchases which would otherwise be made. The Jupiter study is the only one I can find which has been released to the news media. (Sorry for relying on the press release; the actual study, like all their studies, is only available for a very large fee. However, it's worth noting that this was an independent study, not commissioned by Napster.) However, there are references to many others which substantially agree with the Jupiter study in Napster's court filings [napster.com]. I suggest you read the Opposition to RIAA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [napster.com] (182 kB PDF) and Napster's Brief Appealing Preliminary Injunction to the Ninth Circuit [napster.com] (216kB PDF) in particular. They not only include quite a lot of information on the various independent studies of Napster (plus the ones commissioned by Napster and the RIAA), but a lot of other data indicating that much if not most Napster traffic is non-infringing, even if the AHRA's safeguarding of non-commercial copying is disregarded, and that Napster use helps CD sales.
Beyond that general statement, I'd like to point out a few specific places where your argument is particularly lacking.
[re: the health of the publishing industry in the face of libraries] It's been empirically proven. The industry is healthy, despite the existence numerous of libraries.
LOL! This in no way precludes the fact that libraries have damaged book sales; all it says is that libraries haven't put the publishers out of business. Meanwhile, not only are the RIAA-member labels "empirically" "healthy", but their profits are the highest they have ever been in history, rising a remarkable 8% in the first half of 2000 over a year earlier, all whilst Napster's user base was ramping from 0 to 20 million! There are probably more Napster users than library users, and the recording industry has never had it this good.
[re: the Jupiter study]I don't see how they could gather a reliable sample. Napster is essentially anonymous, it would be virtually impossible to get a truely random sample here. They obviously did not do a before and after, and most likely it was not random in the least. The biggest hint we get is:
"But when we conducted our consumer survey, controlled for key music purchasing factors-such as existing spending level, age, income, gender, and online tenure-we still found that Napster usage is one of the strongest determinants of increased music buying." If you ever studied statistics, you would know this does not mean anything like: Those who start using napster, start buying more music. Quite the contrary, it means: Those who use napster, are more likely to buy music. In other words, Jupiter looked at a certain population based on the above controls, and determined that those who used napster were 45% more likely to buy CDs than those who appeared the same based on those criteria and did not use the service. The problem with this statistic is that it does not tell you whether or not those same music lovers in the selected populations would be more inclined to use napster and would be self-selecting in the survey. It does not deny the possibility that those users DECREASED their CD purchases since they started using napster
Unfortunately, your reading comprehension is apparently not so good. How, pray tell, do you conclude that Jupiter "obviously did not do a before and after" study when one of the factors they controlled for was "existing spending level"??? When the press release specifically said on numerous occasions that Napster users had "increased" spending levels rather than "greater" or "larger" or "higher" spending levels?? (For the English-challenged "increase" is a verb meaning to become greater or larger; it explicitly implies a period of time and a before-and-after comparison.) And for crying out loud, why on earth would a firm as respected as Jupiter release a study which made the horrifically obvious error of only measuring whether Napster users (i.e. music fans) buy more music than non-Napster users (non-music fans)? And by the way, in case you have never taken a statistics course, it is dreadfully easy to find a random selection of people and to measure their before/after music buying. One simple method for doing so:
1) Call random people on the phone (all telephone-based poll studies are seeded with randomly generated telephone numbers, checked only to make sure they are valid numbers).
2) Ask the person answering if they have ever used Napster. If no, thank them for their time and call someone else.
3) If yes, ask them a variety of questions on their demographic information/Napster using habits/music buying habits. For example, "how many CD's a month did you buy before you started using Napster?" and, "how many CD's a month have you bought since you started using Napster?"
4) Compile and realize that Napster use causes a 45% increase in CD buying over before the same person used Napster.
Obviously you lack experience with the internet and the vast quantities of warez (pirated software) available to those who know how to get it. If you had, you'd know that the warez groups are able to distribute warez out to thousands, and millions, of people with just one copy, in a compressed format, such that if even one byte is corrupt, the entire package is bad. Similar systems could easily be setup within napster, and in fact, there were atleast such groups when I used mp3s more regularly. They took responsibility for ensuring a clean rip and a decent encoding, not to mention distribution [which is largely moot now] With decreased file size sensitivity, these groups could essentially gaurantee very high quality mp3s.
...Combine this with the above mentioned "mp3 group", and it could happen with reliability [i.e., check summing schemes] What's more, these groups can get and distribute the songs before others can even buy them, they don't even half to wait....but people do anyways. I encourage you to look at the warez groups, it may give you a little insight here.
And I encourage you to actually go on Napster, as it will give you a great deal more insight into how songs actually get uploaded these days. Alright, I'll do it for you. Since we've used the new N'Sync CD as our example, I just searched for "It's Gonna Be Me" off of that album. In its current incarnation, Napster is limited to returning 100 results. But of those 100 results, there were fully 40 different filesizes. Thus we find that out of 100 files shared, there were 40 different rips. (To be fair, a couple of these were from N'Sync's performance at the MTV Music Awards; on the other hand, I believe all these live performances had the same filesize, so it's possible we would have gotten more source files if they were excluded.) To make sure that "It's Gonna Be Me" wasn't a bit of a fluke, I did the same experiment with Britney Spears' "Baby One More Time". 60 different source files in the first 100 results. I think this pretty much demolishes your argument. Now let's take a look at why.
You made the comparison to the warez scene and to the early MP3 scene, both of which you are apparently more familiar with than with Napster. First, let's go through the typical process by which a new game gets warezed.
1) A member of a warez cl4n, typically picked out in advance, buys the game the first day it comes out.
2) Then they get out their debugger and their disassembler and get to work. Most games these days ship with either a CD check mechanism or a key input mechanism as copy protection.
3) The cracker determines which is at work, or whether a more novel copy protection scheme has been utilized.
4a) If it's a CD check mechanism, the cracker "simply" needs to find the routine called in memory by the CD check (with his debugger), go there and figure out how it works (with his disassembler), find out where it is called from, and what it calls when the CD check is passed (debugger and disassembler needed here), then go back to the original calling function and hand edit the hex machine code to skip the CD check and call the function called after the check would normally be passed. Also they need to hope the scheme isn't more complicated than this, that the CD isn't expected any other time during the game. Oh, it is? You just need to change all of those functions too. And repackage the game with a new installer which copies files which would have otherwise been left on the CD off it. And maybe edit out any wasteful pieces of code, like video and CD audio tracks, that would make a full HD installation too large. All of this with your hex editor working on assembly or with an editor working on obfuscated decompiled junk. Then you need to test your edited game, make sure all the packaging works and installs correctly, and ship it out.
4b) If it's a key check, well you're in luck--you might be able to bypass it according to the above method. Or maybe you can't. In which case you need to code your own key generator. Don't worry; it's just a matter of finding the key-checking function with your debugger/disassembler, and reverse engineering it. In possibly obfuscated assembly code. What if it's a true cryptographic one-way hash? Well, it's back to square one. If you're lucky, though, you'll be able to figure it out and generate working keys. Now you just need to code that algorithm into your own app, package it with the original game, and ship it out.
5) Where do you post to? Well, you probably ship it to your warez d00dz buddies first, and then maybe you go on IRC for a couple hours to brag and barter for other warez. Or maybe you upload it to a ratio FTP site. Or maybe you post it on your own warez website, in which case you have to set up banner ads which will pay you a lot for click-throughs, because you'll require a password which can only be gotten by clicking on a series of ads.
6) Be sure to include a little text file detailing your crack, shouting out to your warez budz, etc. Sign it with a clever handle, hopefully something with lots of z's and x's. Be sure to include some neat ASCII art to top it off!
Phew. I may have gotten the process a bit off (you might be able to correct me; I was never into the whole BBS/warez scene, although some friends were), but I think it's mostly right. And who actually goes through the trouble to get warez? Kids with a lot of time on their hands. There's emphatically no Napster for warez, so the only way to get some is to have some (i.e. for ratio sites) or to jump through a lot of hoops on IRC or the web. Even if noncommercial software sharing were legal like noncommercial music sharing (it's not; the AHRA explicitly excludes software), little of what goes on in the warez community would qualify; ratio sites, barter exchanges on IRC, and even forced banner ad clicks all qualify as "commercial" under current law (the DMCA). Sharing files on Napster, on the other hand, is not, because there is no quid pro quo exchange.
Alrighty. Now, let's take a look at how the average song gets on Napster.
1) Someone buys a CD.
2) They are one of the millions of people who want to listen to it on their Rio/other portable MP3 player.
3) They rip it using one-click ripping software included with their Rio etc.
4) Some (large) portion of users will have their default MP3 directory shared on Napster; others may have to *gasp* move the file to their Napster directory.
5) Log onto Napster to get more MP3's, and don't even notice that you are sharing a new file.
That's it. In other words, there is a vast vast population (we're talking in the millions) who doesn't have to do anything intentional to provide a source file for Napster. Most of them certainly must realize what's going on, and probably many are slightly proud of providing new source material to Napster, since it's a form of giving back to a great service and community. But they don't have to go out of their way to do so. Furthermore, there is emphatically no subculture surrounding MP3's to increase one's standing in, and no way of signing "your" rips anyways (technically you could use the ID3 tags, although no one ever looks at those). There is no ego boost to doing something that thousands of people are going to do "accidentally" just by using their Rio's and signing on to Napster.
Frankly, your notion of an "MP3 ripping group" is anachronistic and laughable. The proportion of the 20 million Napster users who would even care who ripped their MP3s, much less be impressed by them the way warez kids are by warez clans, is miniscule. And in any case, they are the sort of people you used to hang out with on #mp3--the ones who would trade MP3s just as easily if Napster and every other peer-to-peer program were shut down.
They are the type who will actually buy huge hard drives and work out the technicalities of hooking up real speakers to a computer (or converting MP3's to
Books build on each other and on the mind in a way that music does not [part of the reason why libraries are key]. One can go to a library, and providing they have enough diligence, teach themselves hundreds of usefull things--even more than you think you know. The reader can improve themselves in ways that society can grasp and appreciate.
Music may be marvelous, but it is simply not interchangable with the many forms of books. Society has long placed a preference on reading, and has regarded music as a form of entertainment. Consider, for a moment, what portion of your curiculuum has been dedicated to books versus music. Most likely, your answer is something around 1/40th. If you were told that your kids weren't going to read anymore, but would listen to music in class instead, how would you react? You know damn well how you would react...It's a question of priorities, just one more reason why you can't quite make that analogy.
Books are more informational than music. Books have several academic uses that music has no analogue for. There is no musical equivalent to the textbook. However, the majority of library check-outs are for entertainment and artistic pleasure, and from a cultural or artistic perspective, there is no arguing that books are any more or less "superior" than music. As for why literature is more often studied in schools than is music, it's generally for the following reasons:
1) Music, like visual art, is more difficult to appreciate than are books. Most music is either not terribly artisticly redeeming, or is too subtle and complex for serious study much below the college level.
2) Furthermore, books tend to be more concrete and thus easier to teach than music or visual art. It's easier to write a paper on a book than a song, especially when you have more practice with the first. This doesn't mean they're any less worthy of individual study or appreciation, though.
3) Habit and prejudice.
In any case, there is no good argument that fictional books are more socially redeeming than music, and no good argument why we should have an almost infinite selection of (government-subsidized no less!) free books while we have to either pay for music or listen to the 150 predetermined hits/year the RIAA purchases radio time for.
Artists ARE being paid for non-commercial copying (Score:5)
You're contradicting yourself. Is sharing music a good or a bad thing? Is it a good thing when it is done quietly, behind closed doors, by a few people, but a bad thing when it is used "systematically"?
Napster isn't fair use anyway. Music sharing is explicitly authorized by the copyright laws. In 1992, the RIAA went to Congress in a state of hysteria -- Digital Audio Tape was about to destroy the entire recording industry! The RIAA wanted, among other things, to receive a "royalty" on all digital recorders and media to compensate for the loss of sales due to personal, non-commercial copying.
Congress said, "Ok
The RIAA, more concerned with destroying the DAT format, agreed, and both Congress and the RIAA released announcements that an agreement had been reached that would break the legal gridlock, and bring digital recording to the masses. The result of this little insider lovefest is known as Title 17 Chapter 10.
Title 17 Chapter 10 is a nice little exercise in dirty lawmaking. Let's go through it.
Section 1001 defines all the terms.
Section 1002 says that all consumer digital audio recorders must include SCMS -- which prevents second-generation copies of DAT tapes.
Section 1003 says that anyone manufacturing digital audio recording equipment or media, including audio CDRs, has to make "royalty" payments.
Section 1004 says how much the royalty payments are.
Section 1005 says that the royalty payments are to be deposited in an account controlled and managed by the U.S. Treasury.
Section 1006 specifies how the loot is to be divided up. It's basically a list of the sponsors of the bill.
(1.75%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Musicians, to be paid to "non-featured" musicians (studio musicians)
(0.92%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, to be paid to "non-featured" vocalists (backup vocalists)
(25.60%) of the royalties are paid to "featured recording artists", including such bands as Metallica.
(38.40%) of the royalties are paid to "copyright owners" (the RIAA companies)
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to "music publishers"
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to music writers, including such bands as Metallica who write their own songs.
Section 1007 specifies procedures for distributing the royalties. Anyone interesting in sharing the loot basically reports their record sales to the Librarian of Congress, and the loot is divided up proportionally. Thus, the RIAA, which controls the vast majority of record sales, gets nearly all of the money.
Section 1008 is what makes Napster legal. This is what the general public receives in exchange for all this money being taken by the government and spread around the recording industry:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1009 specifies awards for damages
Section 1010 provides for binding arbitration -- a provision that allows a company to obtain legal assurance that they are selling a legal product before bringing it to market.
So, in conclusion, you are right
Bottom line, if you want to find out what your rights are, don't expect the RIAA to help you find them out. Read the law instead.
OT: Trade Katz for Schneier (Score:2)
I know there's already been a Slashdot interview with Bruce Schneier, but I'd love to see one at least twice a year.
Better yet: put Jon Katz on waivers and sign Bruce as a free agent. Katz has been in a slump since the middle of last season and he just doesn't play like he belongs on the field anymore. Slashdot could offer Schneier a three-year deal with incentives that would keep them out of salary-cap trouble and still plug the holes in Coach Taco's middle line. If Andover doesn't want to eat Katz's contract they can find a place for him on special teams, covering kickoffs and getting his ass whupped.
"They're not booing, they're shouting 'Bruce'!"
Kong
Re:Still false, despite your loudness (Score:2)
Similarly, you fail to clearly see the threat of an unchecked napster today. You figure gee, well, my mp3s sound sort of scratchy, so it must be scratchy of necessity--lower quality than what I can buy. Your internet isn't fast enough...You don't have the devices...and so on.
I see the facts. Things like:
A) There is no reason why mp3s have to be lower quality than tape. In fact, it's been proven that with a little more attention to detail and a higher bitrate, even the experts have a very difficult time distinguishing mp3s from their CD source.
B) The strong correlation between high bandwidth and the attractiveness of mp3s. Despite the much-accepted multimillion user figure of napster, only a fraction of this country is in the position to take advantage of the service. Only some 1.5 million people in the US had broadband last year. Some connections are vastly better than others. Certainly not all are young/big media spenders.... So how can a reasonable person be expected to take news that a nationwide increase in record sales as proof that napster can't hurt sales? How can you ignore similarly high growth in other similar sectors of the economy? How can you ignore the fact that napster is very new to most users?
C) The growth of cheaper media and devices. Current mp3 players are expensive, but this won't always be the case. Prices are falling. When a user can fit 100 hours of high quality mp3s into something the size of a discman (i.e., the nomad something or other), why would they pine for CDs? Why even buy CDs if you're just going to convert them to mp3? Why not just visit napster instead?
D) If napster were given carte blanche to ride over IP, other similar services and modifications could be made. You complain of corrupted files? Well there is no reason why a parallel database of checksums of "perfect" mp3s couldn't be stored. You would never have to waste your time with bad mp3s. If the courts would clear the way for napster, they would clear the way for corporate interests to make these things a reality.
E) The hundreds of holes and incoherencies in the denials...
All these concerns feed off each other too. When broadband has sufficiently penetrated the US, higher quality mp3s will become more prevelent. When more users sign up, more mp3s will become available. When computers become more and more common, users will be less intimidated by these interfaces. If napster becomes common, the market for mp3s goes up. As the mp3 market grows, the prices of devices will come down. And so on and so on.
However, I don't believe the recording industry will allow that to happen. They will stop napster in court, in one way or another. Mark my words. Napster-like clones that are willing to defy the law, will lack the cash to pay for the servers. Foreign and pirate servers won't stand up to US courts either. Certainly a few renegades will stick around no matter what, but not with enough stability for the average user to assemble around--but easy enough for those willing to go to ends like mp3 users of yesteryear. Likewise, GNUTella and similar P2P arrangements are based on flawed concepts. They are too instable to withstand the stresses of a large network, which is necessary for widespread usage.
A few not so minor specific flaws in your statements:
You were refuting the ability of this model of distribution. The fact that it IS a problem and is highly inefficient only strengthens my argument. People can distribute large blocks of illicit data across the internet, through many generations, without the need to supplement them with additional copies.
Napster simply lubricates the entire process by a factor of 50. The situation might not be exactly analogous, but the key ingredients are the same. We have motive, because you say quality is so bad that you're effectively forced to buy a CD. Yet this can be solved by scofflaws, where, with a system like napster in place, they just need to provide an assuredly clean rip. That's ~17 dollars they're saving you with one fifth the effort of the warez kiddies. Would you not seek out high quality rips if it were available to you every time? You're telling me you don't see anyone around who'd be willing to do this? To hurt RIAA? Perhaps the K-Rad hax0rs may not be drawn to this, but there are always the self-righteous (maybe even yourself?)fools who'd think they're doing the world a favor. A democratic system/database of sorts could even do much of the work, providing a database of known high quality files that works passively without user interaction.
Sure, they were. But software has improved. Things have changed. Most common CD burning software provides automatic decoding into their software (gee you think that might be a response to broad demand??). And no, it's not all about a couple loosers saving money, ego, principle, or what have you. It's gotten to the point that those in the right situation don't have to be any of those things. Witness the likes of the eating club at princeton that I mentioned. It had a wideswath of people using it. Most are busy. Most have money. Many are women. Few are nerds. Few technically literate users. In short, none of them were jaurez pups. They used it because it's gotten that easy and convenient. I see no reason to believe that the rest of the CD buying population would be any different when, and if, the means reach them.
First and foremost, the issue is what society thinks. You can argue intrinsic worth till you turn blue in the face, but you're not going to prove it to society unless you can back it up with tangibles. When you send kids to the library, they learn to read. When they learn to read and write, their brains develop. The better they can read, the better they can compete in school. Reading improves writing, which improves the ability to handle complex logic. All of these things have definite economic benefits for society.
In fact, one might even argue that, even if libraries were to have some nominally negative impact on the percentage of book sales, a more classically educated public is more economically fit and better able to compete globally. A strong economy would lead to a larger market in all likelihood.
Not even the press release claimed Napster causes an increase in purchases, that is entirely your imagination. If that is what they meant, they would have said so. Instead, they said "Napster Users Are 45 Percent More Likely to Increase Music Spending". That is not cause and effect, that is correlation. What little description they excludes your assertion, and points strongly to a mere correlation. It was, however, a little deceptive. Much like saying that there is a strong relationship between icecream consumption and drowning, while failing to mention that both are done almost exclusively during the summer.
As I mentioned earlier, Jupiter's options were limited. Although it is true, that they can make some random phone calls, I ask you to consider some of the difficulties. First, unlike with most of these surveys, the market penetration is low--even lower if you only count regular usage. Second, the majority of the users are quite young, and less available than others. (i.e., parents probably dont know what their kids do exactly online, let alone when they want to purchase the next N'Sync CD) Let's imagine they want a sample of, say 2k, napster users. If you assume that less than 1% of the people who answer their phones are napster users, this means they've got to call roughly 20k people. Then you've got to find willing participants. Pad that again. That costs more money than you would imagine. How many are going to remember when they started using napster? How many remember their purchases before and after? Pad it again...you could be looking at tens of thousands of calls.
Furthermore, whoever said the user is likely to be candid over the phone? Many people will lie about such issues. Many would also LIKE to believe they'd buy more--it is, after all, the partyline. Not so terribly different from what you'd get on IRC.
Jupiter did not lie (based on the available facts, though they do depend on the internet's success....mmmm...motive). They made a weak statement sound a little stronger than it actually is, perhaps taking a few less intellectually prepared people in unintentionally. The press release is trying to imply that, with their data, napster users are still more willing than the rest of the population to buy RIAA's music [though they do conclude napster does not spell the end for RIAA, that is not supported]. Though I can argue with even that conclusion, it is not necessary because it is really quite meaningless. The only thing fact that might be contested on its face is that income, wealth, age, etc. were not they deciding factor in the increases in the their survey. That sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I've yet to hear of a litmus test for music lovers, other than their historic purchases. You can take two people of the exact same economic class, age, race, etc., and the odds are that one of them is going to like music significantly more than the other. Nor would it be terribly suprising if that one person also tended to use napster....
...gotta run
Juicy bits... (Score:2)
It's true, though -- if you want to watch a high quality film, chances are you're not going to be able to download a DVD from the internet. Music, on the other hand, is already fit for distribution because it was already cut down to 3-4 minutes for radio anyways.
"...the writers of the Constitution viewed copyright in utilitarian terms. By granting a temporary monopoly on distribution to creators, the Founders hoped to stimulate the creation of new ideas."
I just love that qoute -- had to throw it in.
--
Re:Still false, despite your loudness (Score:2)
No, what I mean to say is that your perspective is skewed because you have much more experience with the "early adopters"--who will go to such great lengths to get something for free that they will be very unlikely to pay for the legitimate product in addition--than you do with the "mainstream adopters"--who use MP3 for mainly fair uses and for whom Napster causes an increase rather than a decrease in legitimate music buying.
One thing I actually meant to stick in my previous reply which I forgot (as if it wasn't long enough already!) was the following statement [slashdot.org] (elsewhere in this thread) from jtregear, which confirmed what I'd only guessed when I started this thread: "First, I want to say that I've enjoyed reading this exchange very much. IAMTAL (I Am Married To A Librarian) and my wife and I have been discussing the similarities between Napster and libraries for a while now.... I also wanted to say that from my experience living with an avid reader and library patron, that dedicated library patrons NEVER buy books. My wife reads approximately four books a week and in the twenty years we have been married she has never bought a single book." The point, of course, is that with both libraries and Napster there is a "hardcore" community who use the library/Napster as a replacement for buying books/music; however, in both cases, the majority of users use the library/Napster to supplement their continuing purchases of books/music. Research shows that, in its current incarnation at least, Napster actually helps record sales; I would guess, based on the fact that most people read books only once but listen to a piece of music indefinitely, that the same cannot be said of libraries overall. While this sort of calculus is important in determining how we feel about a content sharing system, in the end it is only one piece of the puzzle: we not only allow but laud and publicly subsize libraries because most people feel that their function in bettering society outweighs the probable loss of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, publishers attempted to sue libraries out of existence with the same arguments the RIAA is currently making about Napster (just as the MPAA tried to sue VCR's out of existence 20 years ago). They lost, because their best interests were at odds with the best interests of society--and it is society, not publishers or even artists--for whom copyright law exists. In the case of Napster, which offers the same societal benefits as libraries and even has the side effect of increasing record sales, the choice is even easier--and thus we should expect Napster to be lauded (and subsidized??) even more than public libraries.
Now, you raise some interesting long-term questions about where all this is heading. I do obviously realize that as bandwidth increases, bitrates will go up and MP3 quality will get closer to CD quality. As I commented elsewhere in this thread, this in itself will have little effect on what is the primary limiter of MP3 sound quality for the vast majority of people: namely, that computers are simply not stereos. They are hideously electrically noisy environments, and even now with expensive computer speakers becoming more common, speaker quality is far inferior to that of real speakers, due to small size, poor listener placement (2 feet in front of the speakers), plastic housing, magnetic shielding, etc. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as Moore's Law for speakers, so speakers of any quality will continue to be big and wooden and expensive, and be designed to fill a large room with sound, not direct it at an individual 2 feet away. While it's concievable that some people will hook up real speakers to their computers to play MP3s--indeed, I've seen it done--the vast majority of people will use their computers as cheap sampling devices and leave their high-quality speakers connected to their real stereo. In any case, the reason I said downloading MP3s to burn to CD-R sounds worse than a tape is that there are two lossy conversions going on: wav->MP3->wav. (The last isn't technically "lossy" but involves a loss of actual quality just as any change of format does.)
If napster becomes common, the market for mp3s goes up. As the mp3 market grows, the prices of devices will come down. And so on and so on.
But you'll always get crappy sound quality from a cheap Rio, with or without 5 cent headphones. Just like you still get crappy sound quality from a Discman. Might Rio's cannibalize the market for Discmen? Sure, but as I doubt too many people have their Discman as their only CD player, it shouldn't hurt the market for CD's too much. If people do only own a Discman, they're getting ripped off, because they're paying for full CD quality and playing it back on a device that sounds worse than an 8-track player.
If napster were given carte blanche to ride over IP, other similar services and modifications could be made. You complain of corrupted files? Well there is no reason why a parallel database of checksums of "perfect" mp3s couldn't be stored. You would never have to waste your time with bad mp3s. If the courts would clear the way for napster, they would clear the way for corporate interests to make these things a reality.
Just a nitpick, really, but this is false. If (when) Napster wins this case, it will either be because 1) the music copying that goes on over Napster is individual-to-individual, and thus non-commercial, and thus legal under the AHRA or 2) the songs made available on Napster are chosen and by individuals, not Napster; thus, as Napster merely facilitates the transfer, it is legal so long as their system is "capable of significant noninfringing uses" (quotation taken from the Supreme Court's decision in the MPAA v. Betamax case). Neither of these defenses would likely be available for a company which offered the service of "perfect" MP3s (which cannot exist anyways, since even at the highest bitrates it's still a lossy codec). The first wouldn't hold water, because the party offering the file would be a company, and thus not noncommercial; the second wouldn't work either, because a court could then legitimately ask them not to offer just those songs which they don't have rights to, without impacting any noninfringing uses. As I noted before, I seriously doubt your notion of "MP3 clans" will ever regain much currency. "A democratic system/database of sorts" is a more plausible idea to me. Still, even a high quality MP3 is still lossy, and as I said the more important quality concern relates to hardware, not software.
But all this is besides the point. The content part of the book you get at the library is generally of the same quality as the one you get in the store (same print quality, etc.), assuming no one has underlined or highlighted it. People still pay for books (as you noted), because they generally want to compensate those who give them worthwhile services, and because of the added look-and-feel issues of owning a nice crisp new book. These same reasons will always remain for legitimately buying physical media, and it's not hard to imagine ways artists could "value-add" to their authorized sales of MP3s.
Getting warez may not be as easy as using Napster, but even amongst those who are entirely capable of finding whatever warez they want, the vast majority still purchase their software. People will pay for something if it's worth it to them. Most people don't steal, even though they could. And that's why most people buy music they've already downloaded off Napster--because it's the right thing to do. However, people still want the right to exercise fair uses of music, things like sampling and space-shifting. People also tend to believe that there's no moral problem with being able to listen to a lower quality version of a song that they like to have around for kicks but would never pay for. And they're right. Just like they were right to believe that making mix-tapes for friends was moral, even while the recording industry claimed it was theft. If I were the music industry, I would start reinforcing with people these moral issues, rather than trying to sue technology and loudly proclaiming that all "unauthorized" copying of music is "stealing." The first is obviously doomed to failure, but possibly not before taking away some basic civil rights. The second serves only to muddy the moral waters and make people believe that there is no moral difference between using MP3 to discover new music to buy and using it to replace music buying altogether.
Despite the much-accepted multimillion user figure of napster, only a fraction of this country is in the position to take advantage of the service. Only some 1.5 million people in the US had broadband last year.
First off, that number is very rapidly increasing. Second off, it doesn't include college students or businesses; while as I said earlier the demographics of Napster have changed such that college students are no longer the majority, they are still something like 40 or 45% of the user base, and most of them have broadband.
So how can a reasonable person be expected to take news that a nationwide increase in record sales as proof that napster can't hurt sales? How can you ignore similarly high growth in other similar sectors of the economy? How can you ignore the fact that napster is very new to most users?
Good points all. But I wasn't offering evidence of the record industry's record profits as proof in-and-of-itself that Napster helps record sales, but rather as evidence supporting the various targeted studies showing this effect. The point is that you're arguing that Napster will have such a large negative effect on record sales as to effectively shut down the record industry and prevent new songs from being recorded. (Or, is this your point? Have you stated your point??) To put it mildly, if this were the case then one doubts that the year in which the number of Napster users jumped from 0 to 20 million would be the year the record industry would record not just record profits, but record profit growth. (That's a lot of "records", huh.) My argument is not that Napster is good because it increases CD sales. My argument is that Napster is good in-and-of-itself, and would only be bad if it catastrophically decreased CD sales to the point where less new music was recorded. I think by now we have proven that the latter is emphatically not the case, especially because Napster serves as a conduit for more unsigned new music. And that's all we need to declare Napster an overall benefit to society.
[re: why my warez analogy doesn't apply to current Napster users] They used it because it's gotten that easy and convenient. I see no reason to believe that the rest of the CD buying population would be any different when, and if, the means reach them.
This is exactly the point. Warez kids generally have some money as well (or more to the point, don't even use a lot of what they warez, like Photoshop etc.). The point is that when a technology is new and difficult, only those who are willing to put in a lot of time and effort, those who care about the technology itself and the subculture that surrounds it, are the ones who use it. Thus these people tend to be the most hardcore users of the technology. And to justify the time and aggravation, they need to make sure the technology has a large impact in their lives--so they use it to take the much larger step of replacing CD buying.
When the technology becomes widespread, easy to use, and convenient, on the other hand, then normal people will start incorporating it into their everyday lives. Because it's now easy to use, they don't need to replace CD buying completely in order to get use out of it. (Also, Napster makes it much easier to try out new music you haven't heard of than it was in the days of IRC, difficult-to-use rippers, much smaller MP3 selection, and 14.4 modems.) Since they don't have all the time and effort invested in the technology, they don't need to give up the moral claim of compensating the artist in order to justify their small time and energy investment.
Put it another way: people who just want all their music for free, and want it bad enough to dismiss the moral problems with this, are the ones who got into MP3s 3, 4 years ago. People who just want to use MP3 for convenience and trying out new music (the vastly larger group) are going to wait until it's convenient and easy to find new music. Because you were involved in the MP3 scene years ago, you mistakenly believe that all people are like the first group, when instead 98% of people fit more in the second group. That's why Napster increases CD sales, not decreases them--and why it will increase them more as more and more people begin to use it.
Now onto the Jupiter stuff. This is the last time I'm going to discuss this, as I'm getting tired of explaining a simple study to you. Let me first point out that if, as you say, the study doesn't mean what I say it does, the RIAA would have jumped all over it, just as Napster has jumped all over the RIAA's flawed "college music stores" study. The Napster legal filings are chock full of detailed refutations of the RIAA's one measly study and with evidence from the several independent studies which support their position. The RIAA's legal briefs tend to be silent on the issue...
Not even the press release claimed Napster causes an increase in purchases, that is entirely your imagination. If that is what they meant, they would have said so. Instead, they said "Napster Users Are 45 Percent More Likely to Increase Music Spending".
Yes. Exactly Napster users are 45% more likely to increase music spending than non-Napster users. People who use Napster are more likely than people who don't to be buying more CDs than they used to. Indeed, this goes directly to your point above that the strong economy might be responsible for the increase in music sales. Of course, it is to a very large extent. But correspondingly more of the increase in music sales comes from Napster users than non-users.
And the effect remains even after controlling for all relevant demographic factors. Yes, it's a correlation and not a proof of cause-and-effect, but you can never prove more than correlation. But while we can't see the methodology they used, if the study shows at all what the press release claims it does, then it appears to be about as close to cause-and-effect as one can expect to get.
Much like saying that there is a strong relationship between icecream consumption and drowning, while failing to mention that both are done almost exclusively during the summer.
No...it's like saying that icecream consumers are 45% more likely to drown than non-icecream consumers, even after controlling for factors like season, weather, swimming ability, proximity to a body of water, and previous rate of drowning before icecream was invented.
Although it is true, that they can make some random phone calls, I ask you to consider some of the difficulties.
Virtually every study starts out with random phone calls. It could be that Jupiter convened a focus group (in which case they would offer participants money), but they would still start out with random phone calls to seed the focus groups.
. First, unlike with most of these surveys, the market penetration is low--even lower if you only count regular usage.
20 million people is "low market penetration"?? Especially when you consider that this really means 20 million computers, not 20 million people, this represents and astounding market penetration. Indeed, last I'd heard there were "only" about 50 million households/individuals in America connected to the Internet. Obviously not all 20 million are American, but a large majority probably are.
Let's imagine they want a sample of, say 2k, napster users.
You don't need a sample nearly that high. 500 people is enough for a 5% margin of error on a yes/no question; I don't know the math, but with a quantitative question (how many CD's/month did you buy before/after Napster use), considerably fewer are needed to generate accurate results.
If you assume that less than 1% of the people who answer their phones are napster users, this means they've got to call roughly 20k people.
Based on the above, as many as 40% of American Internet connected PC's have a Napster account on them. After correcting for various factors (non-Americans, multiple accounts, people who haven't used it enough to qualify) I think 20% is a fair estimate. 1% is absurd.
All in all, we're looking at enough calls to get at most 1-2k respondants (including the non-Napster users group). Maybe a bit more so that they have enough data to control for various demographic concerns. Definitely not much larger than your average election poll, or your average study of this type.
Furthermore, whoever said the user is likely to be candid over the phone? Many people will lie about such issues. Many would also LIKE to believe they'd buy more--it is, after all, the partyline. Not so terribly different from what you'd get on IRC.
Most of the 20 million Napster users don't know there is a party line. It's too big a group for there to be such ingrained dogma that a significant number of people will lie over it.
Jupiter did not lie (based on the available facts, though they do depend on the internet's success....mmmm...motive).
That's ridiculous.
The press release is trying to imply that, with their data, napster users are still more willing than the rest of the population to buy RIAA's music [though they do conclude napster does not spell the end for RIAA, that is not supported].
No, it states (not implies) that Napster users are willing to buy more music than they personally did before they used Napster, to a greater degree than the rest of the population. Reading comprehension!
Though I can argue with even that conclusion, it is not necessary because it is really quite meaningless. The only thing fact that might be contested on its face is that income, wealth, age, etc. were not they deciding factor in the increases in the their survey. That sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I've yet to hear of a litmus test for music lovers, other than their historic purchases.
Their historic purchases were controlled for in the study! Reading comprehension!!
As regards the redeeming value of books vs. music conversation, I have to say I think it's getting a bit silly. But here goes anyways:
First and foremost, the issue is what society thinks.
We're miscommunicating here. My entire point was that society should value Napster as much as it does public libraries. I totally agree that society tends to have a knee-jerk bias towards books being more culturally or artistically redeeming than music, especially non-classical music. Part of my point was that this bias is not based in any meaningful distinction and that most knowledgable people would disagree with it, and thus that Napster ought to get as much respect as libraries do, in a fairer world.
You can argue intrinsic worth till you turn blue in the face, but you're not going to prove it to society unless you can back it up with tangibles. When you send kids to the library, they learn to read. When they learn to read and write, their brains develop. The better they can read, the better they can compete in school. Reading improves writing, which improves the ability to handle complex logic. All of these things have definite economic benefits for society.
In fact, one might even argue that, even if libraries were to have some nominally negative impact on the percentage of book sales, a more classically educated public is more economically fit and better able to compete globally. A strong economy would lead to a larger market in all likelihood.
Frankly, I think it's a bit chilling that you seem to think that culture is only socially relevant if it has a measurable positive economic impact! I'm pretty sure most of society agrees with me on this one. In any case, music theory comprehension has been shown to increase mathematical abilities, although it's arguable how much of an effect listening to pop music has on that. On the other hand, just like most of Napster sharing is pop music, most of what libraries check out is "nonredeemable" fiction purely for entertainment value. Sorry, but I doubt you're going to convince me that middle-aged women reading the latest Danielle Steele romance novel is going to enhance our global competitiveness. Yet libraries still manage to hold a cherished position in society.
And finally (phew!) we haven't even touched on the current nature of the recording industry, in which a small oligopoly of record labels controls nearly all of what music is produced, what is heard on the radio, what gets shelf space in stores, and which due to this chokehold on a musician's prospects for success, is able to get away with unconscionable contracts keeping the vast majority of the profits to themselves while keeping most artists--even successful ones--in debt for their entire recording careers. In case you haven't read it before, here's Courtney Love's enlightening speech on the subject [salon.com]. Frankly, after reading this I'm unhappy that Napster promotes CD sales. But thankfully, what Napster also does is loosen the major's grip on the industry, and offers an alternative model for new artists. This can only lead to fairer contracts for musicians choosing to stay within the system.
The big question is whether artists will be able to sell their recordings on their own over the Internet. You would probably argue that Napster makes this type of thing less likely, but I strongly disagree. Because of the math involved in typical record contracts, a band could sell only 1/10 as many albums as before and still come out ahead; Napster could and would provide a forum for new bands to get noticed and appreciated far easier than they could in the old model. Due to Napster's enhanced distribution model (well, and mostly cause it's free), perhaps 5-10 times as many people would download a particular musician's songs as would buy it under the old system. If only 1-2% of them actually paid for the song online or bought a CD direct from them, the artist would come out ahead!
But if Napster is shut down, this type of much needed reform in the music industry would probably get shut down with it. This, of course, is why the fight for Napster is so important morally. The fact that my library analogy is entirely correct is sort of beside the point--it just serves as a means to show that the RIAA's demonization of Napster is counter to commonly accepted principles of society.
Re:Still false, despite your loudness (Score:2)
This argument is becoming absurdly academic, so I will not spend anymore time on it. However, I'd like to remind you that you can't merely ignore scale on these issues--the math is terribly important. Due to the nominal scale and virtue of libraries, the potential for inflicting harm on the publishers is low, thus society can still benefit on the aggregate. The same cannot be said for napster. Napster knows no such physical tethers. Napster's potential to inflict harm on the industry, and consequently society, is great. In other words, if you believe that napster will destroy the industry, and you believe industry is necessary for bringing music to the people, you have little choice but to reject napster.
It seems the only reason, that you believe in, for anyone to actually buy a CD is because mp3s can't be reproduced sufficiently well for listening. Yet you ignore the fact that most people today have mediocre speakers in both their primary listening places, be it their hi-fi, their car, or even their headphones. As any hi-fi nut will tell you, it is speakers that make all the difference, not your source. Through the average American stereo it frankly makes little difference whether they listen to CD, mp3, or tape. As long as the source is devoid of scratches and the like, the vast majority of people will remain oblivious (especially with pop music).
Not only do Americans place a low preference on sound quality, but mp3s can sound every bit as good CD. Providing there are high quality mp3s available, they can be played back in any number of ways:
Headphones (an affordable way to get quality today)
Mp3 devices (prices will come down), no reason why their playback needs to degrade the mp3's potential at all.
Multipurpose players. There are already a number of DVD/mp3/CD combos on the market which possess the ability to play back mp3s quite well.
Computer speakers. With the growth of computer gaming and multimedia, there is a growing demand for higher quality speakers. One needn't necessarily make a special purchase.
Sound Card->Stereo. One needn't switch their speakers about. For a measly 5 dollars you can run out to radio shack and plug your stereo out to an AUX-in on your amp/reciever. I do this at home and it works great. What's more, with digital output becoming more common, it's possible to reliably avoid these issues of interference.
Mp3->wav->CD: Works well with todays technologies and costs very little. I've done this a number of times, especially with automated software. Though you claim it's lossy, it's no more lossy than normal mp3 playback which has to convert anyways.
I'm sure I can think of more, but that is plenty. What's more, I personally find mp3s to have huge advantages in the sense that I can safely archive my music and get instant access to all of it without any physical searching. Nor do I have to contend with issues like scratching, losing, or loaning my CDs out to friends. This feature alone is sufficiently compelling for me to consider buying some of these disc based mp3 players (i.e., the empeg) [If people are going to have such devices, buying CDs are just an EXTRA and unnecessary step].
I disagree. If napster can use the defence, napster, or whomever provides that service, can offer the same argument for the "reliability" service. They can claim that they're just facilitating the transfer, while offering substantial legitimate uses [i.e., reliable downloads of legitimate music]. Just as RIAA can theoretically go after napster users, RIAA can theoretically go after the posting users. In addition, once the courts accept that napster cannot be held liable in that fashion, RIAA can hardly go back when things really begin to heat up. If, for instance, all of those quality issues (not that I agree with 95% of them) were solved tomorrow, the precedent would become no less valid. Legally and logistically speaking, RIAA had little choice but to act when they did. [And no, I disagree with RIAA on many issues, but this is not one of them.]
As for the whole jupiter thing, you implied a strong cause-and-effect relationship between napster usage and CD purchasing a number of times. You have frequently said things like "Napster actually helps the sale of records". That is simply undemonstrated by that survey. What's more, you have refuted other arguments which assert that it is possible that Napster actually reduces purchases using this same survey. You were simply wrong.
As for the rest of this argument, it's gotten too long, too academic, and i'm bored. Perhaps later....
Well Tom the Dancing Bug agrees with me! (Score:2)
Beyond that, I agree that this argument is getting old and picayune. We've gotten horribly worked up about some trivial details in what, after all, was meant more to be a whimsical but thought-provoking analogy than an iron-clad argument.
I do happen to think I'm right on these details (especially that of whether Jupiter conducts meaningful surveys or misleading ones), but I do take your general point that one crucial difference is that while libraries don't change much from year to year, Napster and MP3 sharing in general may yet morph into something potentially dangerous for the music industry. Or rather, I believe (and hope) that they will turn out at least mildly dangerous for the record labels, while believing quite strongly that they will turn out to spur, rather than stifle, artistic creativity and the overall quality and quantity of music available for society. Of course I realize that the last point is anything but a sure thing, and that no one can predict exactly what will happen. It does make sense to point out that the arts have always survived the emergence of new technologies predicted to destroy them; whether those who have sought to control and profit off the work of artists will make the transition as well is happily less certain. MP3 might turn out disasterous for the record labels and maybe might impact the earnings of a few of the most successful musicians, but I have little doubt that it will not only spread the art of the average musician to a much wider audience, but make him or her more money as well. Still, it's too early to know for certain.
And with that, I think I'm done, unless you have anything else to say. I would like to point out that if you've just been arguing with me because I happened to say something in that Bush/Gore/Clinton/economics thread that, on reflection, sounded rather stuck up (the "look at my email addy" comment), well, I didn't mean it to sound that way and you've certainly wasted a lot of your time being mad at me. Course, you've wasted just as much of my time, so let's call it a draw.
Re:Well Tom the Dancing Bug agrees with me! (Score:2)
None of this is to say that I don't believe in open markets. If Napster [or any other entity] wants to distribute "free" [or alternatively distributed/promoted/recorded] music, and thereby destroy RIAA I have no problem with that. I just take issue when people claim that reducing avenues of choice is not a problem because they [wildy] presume the alternatives (i.e., napster, mp3.com, etc) are better. It is a fundamentally arrogant position to assume that you can out think the function of these markets [and yes, I know many people will hastily add comments about regulating monopolies. But that is a different creature in my opinion, as we're talking about a specific entity judged by law to be against the common good, not an idea, not a way, and not by individuals thinking of themselves alone], especially if they are not terribly familiar with the key issues of popular artists [i.e., promotion]. In other words, let the friggen markets decide.
In any case, I hope I've made myself clear. I'm not just targeting you. Though I did find that "addy" comment a little lame, I hardly found it earth shattering, or even personally offensive. Because such comments say more about the speaker than the reader, I hardly had any reason to jump all over you for that [particularly if you knew my background]. The reason I spoke up was because I objected to your: a) position [and to the many people who blindly agree--I think it needed a voice of reason] b) premises c) "facts" d) your general tone, to a much lesser degree. I believe a "news" page needs to hear honest to God intellectual discussion, not just a stream of invective, one sided stats/figures, and loose analogies.
I bear no grudges [well...rarely...I avoid them as much as possible]. Have a good weekend. Bye
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:2)
Excuse me, but you seem to have over generalized here, only downloading copyrighted works MAY be illegal. There are some bands just trying to get their music out, they WANT you to download their stuff.
``Music should be free.'' HA! (Score:2)
I know it's awfully popular here on /. to say that all information should be free, particularly music. I'll ignore all the ideological arguments, and reduce it to what the issue really is: every Napster advocate out there is just too cheap to pay for music.
Notice how the local population, trolls and otherwise, loves to pounce on anyone who uses GPLed code, or even unlicensed (and therefore just plain copyrighted code) without permission. Around here, that's a stoning offence.
Don't you people think that musicians have rights to their music, too?! Juicy quote from that article:
They're kidding, right? Last I checked, music belongs to whoever wrote it. Same with books. Same with software. Whoever wrote it may then choose to share it. And they always choose to share it under their terms. Most of the Slashdot crowd seems to desparately want to ensure that their creations (for the small handful that actually has done anything for open-source/free software) are only distributed on their terms. They spit on Metallica for wanting to do the same.
I can understand disliking the RIAA for imposing ridiculous contracts on musicians. But in articles like this one, I see that the hatred is focused primarily on the handful of artists who decided to stand up for their rights. If you hate the RIAA because it forces musicians to sign their souls away, then that is a very legitimate concern. But do not fight the recording industry by stealing works that properly belong and should be bringing profit to artists.
Everyone who makes the argument that the RIAA is not losing money from Napster and its ilk must be smoking crack. The only reason revenues are increasing is because the consumer economy is fueling a faster rate of growth than anything Napster kiddies can do to destroy it. For now. Music piracy grows by leaps and bounds, every day. If things were to continue as they are now, I guarantee that in two years time, maximum, the music industry will be posting catastrophic losses. And guess what happens then? No one will get recorded. Independent labels are few and far between for one very good reason: it takes a fucking lot of money to make a good recording. (Granted, most of the stuff that gets recorded these days by major labels is utter shit, both musically and acoustically, but that is a different issue. Plenty of labels, particularly classic ones, release good quality recordings.)
Radio is not free. Radio pays royalties for every single track they air, so the comparison with radio is ludicrous. They finance this by airing hours of advertisements (except NPR, who finance their existence by begging for money from listeners 4 times a year).
Finally, I sincerely hope that record stores do not disappear from the face of the earth. Speaking as a music lover, I'll say that lossy compression codecs suck. I dislike the MP3 standard, because the quality loss, for me, is unacceptable. I find that the only MP3s remotely listenable to are ones I make myself, encoded at 192kbps or more. And even so they do not match the quality of CDs or MDs, let alone vinyl or DAT. It will be a sad day when everyone moves to recording stuff as MP3s, or Ogg Vorbis, or whatever the latest and greatest codec is, and physical media designed for genuine high fidelity is abandoned.
Sorry about the long rant, but the article was sufficiently inflammatory that I had to get this out. Fortunately I have the karma to spare for the inevitable bashing it's going to take :)
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
As far as the story is concerned, I can see Lars is concerned. As far as the big money is concerend he (and his pissy band) are the "heavy metal" band so his stuff get pushed on to the 14 yr old market segment. Napster allows that market to hear new stuff which makes them look like shit. Its not like he's got it anymore and their last stuff rocked less than J Jett/L Ford did when there were doing suff under the name the Runaways and they where maybe 16 when they did that.
As far as the recent ruling thanks to the fine price fixers at the MPAA. There is a solution. Its a simple solution but will make people reading this sick. Its write a windows program (yes I mentioned the w word) that rips DVDs and puts them into several ISO images and then another program that takes the ISO images and plays a DVD quality movie. If you think these bozos are hot under the coller now, wait till that gets released. It would be even more amusing if the name of the program was something you wouldn't want to say to a judge. Hell if they don't do something about theater prices in Australia (a movie is now running US$8.50), I may write the damn thing myself.
Is it me... (Score:2)
Most geeks don't understand sports (Score:2)
Anyhow, we can hope Katz fails a random drug test for crack.
Napster etc etc (Score:2)
Except it and shut-up - don't try to justify it with pathetic pseudo cyber-hippy arguements like "big-corporations don't deserve our money 'cos they over charge us"!
I.T. has the some of the most inflated rates of any industry. I'm sure most of you are well familiar with the concept of over-charging!
And has it occured to anyone that in the end someone MUST pay - otherwise the system breaks down. People cannot persevere in any field without making money enough to live on.
If you're so bothered about having a new world where everything is free why not give up your job and go and live in a self sufficient commune, grow you own vegtables and sit in pig shit all day. I think you might miss your Coke, Pizza, Cable TV and other assorted luxuries provided to you by various "evil" corporations.
Or better still, do your current job for nothing because thats is basically what you expecting others to do!
Grow up!
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:2)
Imagine this, content could be priced not on the basis of demand, not on where it sold, but on the person is buying it. "Ah, from your credit history we see that you have disposible income, that will be $100 please.'
Content could be produced with restrictions on who it may be sold to. "What, you're not a Republican, well you can't buy Rush's new book, cause, you know, you dirty liberals like to criticize."
Content could be produced with restrictions that prevent its use in an educational setting. "Sorry, mam, but you'll need to buy a copy of Democracy in America for each individual student, even if if you only refence it in your lessons. Yes mam, I know its public domain, but we own the footnotes, you'll have to buy the book to extract the text. Yes mam, I miss libraries too, but its more important for us to make money."
Re:Yet more irony on the subject (Score:2)
You missed one: I want to be able to share my CDs with my friends in exactly the same sense I share my cdplayer.
--
I see several things here... (Score:2)
Gonzo
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
Want a copy? Pre-alpha, and kind of has a bad habit of padding the last disc, but still workable.
Re:``Music should be free.'' HA! (Score:2)
Re:flamebait. (Score:2)
Atlantic Monthly (Score:4)
I found the article interesting and insightful. It certainly reflects the the authors own mixed feelings about the technology. This section from part four was particularly amusing:
Not everyone is a network security guru, y'know. But there is alot more in the article, and at least the guy was trying to think about this.Maybe this isn't news. maybe it should be.
Re:the Law (Score:3)
DMCA, 1998.
--
Re:Napster vs. Record Co. Irony (Score:4)
I think you'll see a lot less support for Napster (as in Inc.) once they start trying to make a profit. Right now they're just giving us software, server time, disk space and connectivity. What geek wouldn't love that?
--
the Law (Score:3)
Another interesting note though, is that the article links to the No Electronic Theft Act [usdoj.gov], which says the following:
The criminal copyright and trademark provisions in titles 17 and 18 of the U.S. Code are amended to:
Now wait a minute, doesn't that say that if I go out on Napster or Gnutella or what have you, and get copies of lots of copyrighted songs, that I am exempt from criminal prosecution? As long as I don't steal anything worth more than $1,000 (per work, right, not total value?) or willfully distributed these songs?
Is there a catch? Am I to be civilly prosecuted, instead of criminally? Or is there a new law (since 1997) that changes this?
Or can you really not be busted for piracy unless you willfully distribute or pirate more than $1,000 at a time? This is much like making it legal to own and smoke pot, merely illegal to be a pot dealer.
Re:Is Gnutella really that hard? (Score:4)
- Start client.
- Go to http://gnutella.wego.com to find a host.
- Try the host.
- Try another host.
- Repeat until you can get four good connections. (This can take several minutes on a bad day, on a dial-up connection.)
- Enter the words you are looking for.
- Wait.
- Wait.
- Wait.
- Wait.
- Download the files.
- Realize that they're pr0n, ads, or VB script. (Newbies don't know the difference between a
.mp3 and a .mp3.vbs file.)
- Repeat the process until you've retrieved the file you're looking for.
Gnutella is a nice start, but it's really a curiosity more than a practical replacement for Napster. On a dial-up connection with 4 gnet connections, more than half of your bandwidth goes to (trying to) routing packets.Re:The problem with ranters (protest) (Score:5)
What's actually at issue is the real right (backed by copyright law) of the public, once having purchased Metallica's music, to do whatever they want with it, including making copies and sharing them with their friends. Free use of information, including things like recordings of Metallica performances, is legally recognized as the default state. As a matter of public policy in order to encourage the creation of artistic works, and not because of a "right" of an artist to be in permanent control of his work even after he's sold it, the law grants a limited, temporary monopoly on the commercial distribution of the artist's work--but that's the exception, not the rule--and the law makes it clear that the limited temporary monopoly does not override the underlying right of the consumer to use the work (including making copies for non-commercial purposes, excerpting for reviews, and all the other things that fall under "fair use").
The record companies have been doing everything in their power to convert that limited temporary monopoly into a permanent, unlimited one, and erase the fundamental distinction between information (which can be copied infinitely without making anyone poorer) and real property (which cannot).
Re:flamebait. (Score:3)
well my response is:
Fucking get a job starving musician. Since when does playing music give you the right to have a upper-class lifestyle? Make music for the sake of music, not your fucking wallet. Hey, sure if you can get people to PAY you to play for them, great! But I don't think that you have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to expect people to compensate you. You say something in public you don't go around expecting everybody who heard it to pay you if they repeat or record it. Music is expression not product.
I don't use Napster. I also don't think it is useful to pretend that "napster helps the struggling artists" much the same way that I don't see the use in those "medical marijuana" campaigns. Sure there are a percentage that believe that MJ relieves pain that other drugs cannot for some people. But if you want to smoke MJ and you don't think you should go to jail for it, then fucking change the law and be EXPLICIT about it. You do have the right to do what you will with your own mind. And be honest about what you think in regards to our rights to enjoy music and other forms of expression.
Oops, I mean "intellectual property."