Slashdot

Metallica's "Justice" And Napster

Posted by JonKatz on Friday April 28, @10:00AM
from the the-free-music-wars-get-bloody-and-ugly dept.
Last week, Metallica became the first major rock group (quickly followed by Dr Dre) to file suit against a music-sharing Web site, in this case Napster. They claim they're protecting their art, but they're also putting a big chill on the very notion of free software, open source, and the free movement of information and ideas on the Net. Prior to this, the battle -- currently in the federal courts -- was between the recording industry and so-called music "pirate" sites. Metallica managed to instantly spook Harvard, Yale and scores of other colleges into booting Napster off their servers. Whatever you think of the Napster flap, this is bad news for the idea of a barrier-free Internet. (Read More)

Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music on the Net than for its hits of yore. Even before the week was out, the rap group Dr Dre had followed suit. And Dr Dre took the music wars a step farther by threatening to sue music downloaders as well as the Web sites they use.

Metallica's lawsuit, filed two weeks ago in California, charged that Napster encourages music piracy by enabling users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers. The suit named a number of major colleges -- the University of Southern California, Harvard, Yale University (which immediately denied access to Napster through its network connections), and Indiana University. That action caps weeks of intensifying struggles over digitally-distributed music. It's significant, since if powerful schools like Yale cave, which they instantly did, more vulnerable institutions will quickly follow. Individual artists and bands have enough money to launch a wide arrange of expensive lawsuits, and a number of institutions, from colleges to cable service providers, are running for the hills. Early in April, the high-speed cable service provider Cox@HomeSanDiego told several hundred of its customers to stop running Napster or lose their cable modem accounts.

Metallica's lawsuit comes at a significant time legally. Napster and the music industry are already wrangling in federal court over whether the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed nearly two years ago, and the Audio Home Recording Act of l992 (AHRA) are constitutional and applicable to the distribution of music on the Net. Metallica's lawsuit is odd, and almost pointedly gratutious: the recording industry already filed suit filed against Napster in November, and Judge Marily Patel of the Northern California Federal Court is expected to resume testimony on that case next month. It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material. That has an enormous -- potentially devastating, in fact -- impact on the Net as a barrier-free environment where information can move freely.

But rather than wait for the outcomes of these court rulings, Metallica and Dr Dre dramatically clouded the issues surrounding digital music even farther.

"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives," said Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich in a press release. "We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy --- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever -- is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."

It's a disengenuous statement -- the key words being "business standpoint." On the Net, Metallica's music is actually being traded as the "art" it allegedly is, not as a commodity sold by record companies. Ulrich greatly oversimplified what has become one of the most complex and interesting cultural problems arising from the Net: whether conventional notions of copyright can still work in an environment increasingly influenced by the open-source ethic. Metallica apparently couldn't wait for the courts to try to resolve this thorny matter, lest it lose another nickel. This is a strange position for a band who sold most of its CDs in the pre-MP3 era, and which isn't starving.

Metallica may invoke the protection of their art, but lawsuits like this have a chilling effect on free speech and, in this case, on the use of software to transmit information freely. The cautious ISP, college, or business (and almost all of them are lawsuit-wary) will simply ban Napster or anything like it to stay out of potential legal trouble. This is the Net equivalent of what constitutional lawyers call "prior restraint," self-censorship by institutions who block out kinds of information to stay out of potential legal trouble. Traditional media have been radically influenced by the chilling effect of lawsuits. Fact-checkers and lawyers pore over anything even remotely controversial before it appears in papers, books or magazines. To date, the Net has been dramatically freer than the off-line information environment, a major reason it's so much more exciting, diverse and interesting.

"This action raises the same copyright issues as the lawsuit filed against Napster by the recording industry in federal court in San Francisco," Laurence Pulgram, Napster's lawyer, said Friday. "The complaint reads like it was written to inflame the press and intimidate universities rather than to present legal issues to the court. It is hard to understand why plaintiffs -- a group located in the San Francisco Bay Area -- saw it necessary to file a separate action in Los Angeles."

Pulgram got it precisely right, and the reason is pretty obvious. Metallica's suit made news all over the country and scared the wits out of even powerful educational institutions like Yale, whose legal counsel sent this e-mail to the entire university within hours:

"To the members of the Yale community,

"As you may have read, a lawsuit has been filed by the rock band, Metallica, against the music file-trading software site, Napster, Inc., and several universities, including Yale. In its lawsuit, Metallica makes claims of copyright infringement.

"The University is strongly committed to protecting intellectual property. In February we specifically alerted our residential college community to the requirements of Federal copyright law as they apply to individual use of Napster. See .

"The University condemns violation of copyright laws, as our policies and procedures clearly state. We also want to assist students and others in understanding and complying with the requirements of those laws. For information on University policies and procedures related to this issue, see www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html and www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html.

"Until we can clarify the legal issues surrounding Napster, access to napster.com will not be available from the Yale network. We will keep you apprised of developments."

The lawsuit seems also clearly meant to call attention to some of the more noxious provisions of the DMCA, which holds colleges and other institutions liable for copyright infringement unless they take active steps to remove from their Web sites software that transmits copyrighted material.

For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous. Confronted with the spectre of wealthy rock groups filing lawsuits along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), many more schools are expected to deny access to Napster as the result of Friday's court action.

Metallica's self-righteous and curiously unknowing statement doesn't take into account the fact that millions of Americans have been accessing free music for years now, and have come to see their music archives as both a right and an integral part of their lives. Nor will the lawsuit encourage artists or the music industry to explore the many alternative -- yet still profitable -- models of distribution that reflect the new realities of the Internet. Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.

Free and downloadable music will always be available to college kids with enough bandwith -- there remain hundreds, if not thousands of music- sharing software programs all over the Web, including AIM and ICQ.

Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands. Many artists have welcomed the spread of digital music distribution, claiming it frees them from the monopolistic control (and high cost of dealing with) record companies, permits them to reach new audiences, and generates interest in new forms of music. Meanwhile, Variety reports, the record companies made record profits last year -- $15 billion -- despite the endless handwringing about online pirates and the epidemic of lawsuits.

Ownership of ideas and creative works is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue. Institutions like Yale seem to have little idea what mayhem they're encouraging when get panicked into shutting down Napster, even before those issues are discussed or adjudicated. In bringing this lawsuit, Metallica has pitted itself against the nature of the Net, and its own fans -- especially working-class kids without T-2 lines who listen to the band's music.

Metallica's efforts to shroud its greed and publicity-seeking in morality is as transparent as it is self-righteous. The band ought to get its wish. Fans might consider stopping trading, downloading -- or buying -- the band's music in any form until it permits educational, legal and artistic institutions to try to come to grips with the new realities of law on the digital frontier.

<  Laptop Lojack? | Fighting UCITA  >

  

Slashdot Login

Nickname: Password: Don't have an account yet? Go Create One. A user account will allow you to customize all these nutty little boxes, tailor the stories you see, as well as remember your comment viewing preferences.

Related Links

Slashdot Wired Metallica's lawsuit struggles over digitally-distributed music www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html More on Music Also by JonKatz

Features

The latest installment of Geeks in Space is up at The Sync. Listen to CmdrTaco, Hemos, and Nate talk about the latest events to happen - or not happen in the computer world. Perhaps you are seeking Emmett's series of articles about making music with Linux. These articles include We're Getting There, Mastering, Bandwidth, and Synthesis and Notation And Alphabet Soup. For something different, try reading the Jon Katz essay Showdown With The Pinkertons about his encounter with the Pinkerton Special Services Group. Also, be sure to check out Katz's feature on Napster and Metallica, entitled Metallica's "Justice" And Napster Update: 05/02 05:10 by CowboyNeal: Past Features

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Metallica Chat... (Score:5, Interesting) by twiin (jairus-at-restraint-dot-org) on Friday April 28, @10:03AM EDT (#4) (User Info) http://www.restraint.org

Metallica is having an online chat on May the 2nd, as part of an ArtistDirect promotion... Somehow, the idea of a few thousand slashdotters arriving, and voicing their opinions about the Napster fiasco is amusing... At the very least, a good way to let them know what you think. Jairus Pryor restraint.org

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2, Interesting) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @10:11AM EDT (#18) (User Info)

Hold on: what do you think? Personally, I don't mind when I find one of my songs on Napster--but then they're mostly released on compilations that sell 2000 copies, so I'm only losing a few bucks. Metallica's making a living at this, so maybe I don't have a right to judge them the same way. Of course they're missing an issue that's obvious to us--it's the pirates that are to blame, not Napster (just like people who copy tapes are to blame, not tape decks with a record button). But from their point of view, they just want to stop this from going on, and they can't see any other way to do it. So just telling them they're wrong won't have much effect. We have to figure out how to explain to the artists that going after Napster isn't going to help them. And I'm not sure how to do that. no .sig, no slogan

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2, Insightful) by twiin (jairus-at-restraint-dot-org) on Friday April 28, @10:20AM EDT (#52) (User Info) http://www.restraint.org

Of course they're missing an issue that's obvious to us--it's the pirates that are to blame, not Napster (just like people who copy tapes are to blame, not tape decks with a record button). But from their point of view, they just want to stop this from going on, and they can't see any other way to do it. Are they trying to stop it from going on, or are they trying to get compensation? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's an honest question... Consider that Metallica did launch the lawsuit without ever contacting Napster, and seeing what could be done. They made a quick judgement, and it was (at least to us) the wrong one. While I'm not saying that Napster would have solved the problem had Metallica contacted them, I think it would have been good form, at the very least. It would have been a show to their fans that they're trying to protect their work, and work with the fans/Napster, instead of retaliate at people they feel have wronged them. Jairus Pryor restraint.org

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @10:35AM EDT (#109) (User Info)

OK, that's a good point. I think their longterm goal is to find some way to continue to be compensated for their music. They'd probably prefer to do that by stopping (or cutting down) piracy than by making money from lawsuits, but they'd also probably prefer either to not making money. The reality is, though, that they're not really working with their fans, because it's quite clear that their fans want to get the music for free (assuming it's Metallica fans who download Metallica songs, which I think is a safe assumption), and they don't want to give it away for free. How do you resolve such a fundamental dispute? no .sig, no slogan

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2, Interesting) by visigoth on Friday April 28, @11:37AM EDT (#278) (User Info)

Personal taste aside (their music is simplistic boring mainstream-sounding crap), I'm not at all surprised. They've always struck me as a "corporate band". I don't use Napster (don't have time to play around with it). A while back I downloaded or obtained from friends MP3's of some groups (and musical styles) I didn't know about, but really liked -- because of my "piracy", at least a dozen musical groups' bottom lines were improved when I subsequently bought their CDs. As for resolving this dispute: I don't think there are any "easy answers". Artists who devote their time to their work are trying to make a living just like the rest of us, and I can certainly respect their desires to not see their income reduced or eliminated when everybody wants their stuff for free (this includes Metallica and Dr. Dre even though I don't care for their work). I'm perfectly willing to pay (and help support) artists whose work I like and respect. I'd like to think that responding to this by "boycotting" their music would have a significant impact, but somehow I don't think so. How are they to calculate "damages" (lost revenue) in this? How many Napster users who acquired Metallica's music for free would have otherwise purchased their CDs? All of them (not!!)? A significant majority? I don't think so. Would it be valid to consider the present case (Metallica's current sales in a world where Napster enables sharing of Metallica MP3s) compared to a hypothetical present-day world without Napster (no, sales records from 3 years ago don't count)? It'd be hilarious if it turned out their sales were actually greater in the long run...

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Nasheer (me-at-world.net) on Saturday April 29, @12:38AM EDT (#593) (User Info)

because of my "piracy", at least a dozen musical groups' bottom lines were improved when I subsequently bought their CDs. And this is the way things should follow. But the music industry, that could sell CD for less than U$5,00 keeps the price above the stars, since CD's started existing. Compact discs are cheaper to produce and record than cassetes! But industry would never lower the prices. What can I say about that? Well done! They are paying for their crimes. I really don't care if they break because of MP3, I would LOVE it! I just fell sorry for the artists, that must be slaves of these thieves. - Signature? Where? It's mine!!!

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @11:48AM EDT (#292) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

The reality is, though, that they're not really working with their fans, because it's quite clear that their fans want to get the music for free (assuming it's Metallica fans who download Metallica songs, which I think is a safe assumption), and they don't want to give it away for free. How do you resolve such a fundamental dispute? hmm, band doesn't want fans to share music. Fans want to share music. If band doesn't want fans to share music, band doesn't release music. Seems simple to me. -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2, Insightful) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @11:57AM EDT (#299) (User Info)

RMS doesn't want someone to be able to take emacs, change the name, and release it as commercial software. People want to be able to take emacs, change the name, and release it as commercial software. Solution: Don't release emacs. Stephen King doesn't want people to email around transcriptions of his books. Fans want to email around transcriptions of his books. Solution: He doesn't release any books. What you're essentially saying is that nobody should ever release anything if they want to make any money off it, or retain any control over it. As I said before, after the People's Glorious Revolution, sure, all creative output should be free (like everything else--or at least everything that isn't scarce). But how do artists make a living until then? no .sig, no slogan

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @12:13PM EDT (#328) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

What you're essentially saying is that nobody should ever release anything if they want to make any money off it, or retain any control over it. What I'm saying is no one should release music if they want to retain absolute control over it. It's the government's job to make sure they are the only ones that profit from, it's the fan's job to make sure others know about it. But how do artists make a living until then? umm, how about, oh, say, something like...playing music. -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2, Insightful) by sredding (sandman nine three five at yahoo dot com) on Friday April 28, @02:21PM EDT (#448) (User Info) http://home.earthlink.net/~sandmanr/index.html

What you're essentially saying is that nobody should ever release anything if they want to make any money off it, or retain any control over it. There are bands that still manage to be successful and profitable without trying to control their product once it has been released to the masses. Bands like Offspring and Limp Bizkit have made it quite clear that they do not fear Napster. Just as the Grateful Dead did in the past, the Dave Matthews Band allows fans to record their concerts! Imagine that! Control is an illusion. Insert sig here.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by frost22 on Saturday April 29, @12:09PM EDT (#645) (User Info)

I have seen this argument comment over and over and over now Let me simplify it a bit. In old times, when a singer sang, he was paid for it. When nobody paid, he didn't sing. And apparantly many people paid - there is a wealth of Music from times nobody was discussing Copyright. Nowadays folks that have less musical talent than a piece of wood expect to get richer than Midas for some crap they made. It is nowhere written in stone that musicians have to be millionaires. If they could just make a decent living, the world would not come to an end. And if there's nobody to pay the singer, his music is most likely not that great anyway. He and the world would be better off if he worked as a store clerk. So don't believe their whining. Do you actually think the world would suffer if the Metallica guys would earn about as much as any decent auto mechanic ? f.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by G27 Radio on Friday April 28, @04:28PM EDT (#523) (User Info) http://g27.sourceforge.net

There are bands that still manage to be successful and profitable without trying to control their product once it has been released to the masses. Bands like Offspring and Limp Bizkit have made it quite clear that they do not fear Napster. Just as the Grateful Dead did in the past, the Dave Matthews Band allows fans to record their concerts! Imagine that! In fact, Limp Bizkit just announced that Napster is sponsoring their free tour. A whole month worth of gigs in major cities--all free. The mention Metallica's lame lawsuit in the press release as well as Fred Durst's view on the whole thing: Durst himself addressed Napster's sponsorship in a statement announcing the tour, noting, "We could care less about the older generation's need to do business as usual. We care more about what our fans want, and our fans want music on the Internet." If I didn't already have their latest album I'd go out and buy it. Too bad it's too late to return my Metallica CD's. By the way, here's the link where I read it: http://www.limp-bizkit.com/press/press. html numb We're a virus with shoes. I can prove it on an Etch-a-Sketch. End of story. --bathroom wall, Jax, FL (paraphrased from Bill Hicks)

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Saturday April 29, @07:08AM EDT (#635) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

Thanks for the link. If I hadn't seen that I wouldn't know their new album's name is "Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water." ROTFL, tell me that's a joke..? Regardless, I'll be in Denver to watch the riots of people trying to get in. And to buy some CD. -- currently at V.9

Napster users are the fans (Score:2, Interesting) by mplex (janus(@)mplex(.)cx) on Friday April 28, @02:09PM EDT (#438) (User Info) http://mplex.cx

Think about it, most of the people on napster are college students. I know there are a lot of others on there too but most of the users tend to be young and poor. They are also the ones who tend to love music the most, but they are also the ones with the most limited income in general. I would never go out and buy most of the music I download, I'll admit it, but the reason is I can't afford $15+ for each piece of music I want to hear. I may only want to hear it once. I have a totally different taste of music now thanks to napster. I have been exposed to almost every different type of music there is and it is great; it's the way it should be. I guess I have to admit, I have not bought a cd since I started using napster, but I have gone to see a lot more bands in concert than I would ever had. Whenever I hear of a band coming to town the first thing I do is get on napster and check them out. Anyone else who does this knows how great it is. The point is, piracy is great and you are never going to be able to convince people otherwise. We all know how awsome free information is, just look at all we get off the internet for free. Why do pay services not work on the internet? People do not want to pay for things they can get for free from somewhere else. It's a sad fact but it is so true. In the end, music will not die, it will just change. Just look at the bands that support trading of theor music between fans, bands like phish, the grateful dead, and marley among others. Look how well they have done. They make their money from performing for their fans. If bands are serious about their music and not money, this is how it should be. No one would agree that money is not nice to have, but how much do they deserve and how much does the industry deserve. I would not mind at all paying 50cents for a song, they get less than that anyway. Perhaps a pay per use to a certain extent would be good also. Listen once for free, 5 cents for each use after that until you hit 50 cents then you own it. I know people do not like these schemes and of course there will be ways around it, but if you really want to support the bands directly and not get screwed by bad music it's a descent plan. You must be able to listen once for free though. The only problem is, schemes like this must be accepted by all as fair. There will always be mp3's or a way around any copy protection scheme. The system has to be accepted by the users to make it work. Anything else is doomed. Forgive my speeling mistakes, I spent way to long typing this and must go before proofreading. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Re:Napster users are the fans (Score:1) by sredding (sandman nine three five at yahoo dot com) on Friday April 28, @02:59PM EDT (#473) (User Info) http://home.earthlink.net/~sandmanr/index.html

Think about it, most of the people on napster are college students. I know there are a lot of others on there too but most of the users tend to be young and poor. They are also the ones who tend to love music the most, but they are also the ones with the most limited income in general. I'm on your side, but your argument is flawed. You can't justify criminal acts by saying, "I'm poor" and don't be so sure that love of music fades after youth. There are plenty of people out there that are closer to 40 than they are to 30 that use Napster. I'm one of them. I typically use Napster to find older stuff of just single tracks that I don't feel like buying an entire album to get. So... call me a criminal. I speed while driving too. Insert sig here.

Re:Napster users are the fans (Score:1) by frost22 on Saturday April 29, @12:17PM EDT (#646) (User Info)

> You can't justify criminal acts by saying, "I'm poor" You actually can. At leat in Germany they can't prosecute you for stealing food if you don't have any. Which is a good thing f.

Re:Napster users are the fans (Score:1) by sredding (sandman nine three five at yahoo dot com) on Sunday April 30, @02:09PM EDT (#657) (User Info) http://home.earthlink.net/~sandmanr/index.html

Such is not the case in the United States. Insert sig here.

Re:Napster users are the fans (Score:2, Insightful) by Duane Dibbley (duane_dibbley&at;catlover˙com) on Friday April 28, @05:00PM EDT (#534) (User Info) http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/

I would never go out and buy most of the music I download, I'll admit it, but the reason is I can't afford $15+ for each piece of music I want to hear. This is a poor excuse but it's better than ``I wouldn't because I'd rather not.'' Unfortunately the rest of your comment invalidates this. If you don't think the band deserves the money, then don't listen to their music. Period. I'm not getting into legality or whether or not current IP law is any good (it's not, and I'm even an artist who favors copyright law), I'm getting into morality. Sure it's easy to dismiss and say I believe in complete freedom of information, but also remember that this kind of freedom of information means I should be able to close the source of GPL'ed code, distribute binaries and say, ``Fuck free software, I'm going to do what I want. This code wants to be free for me to do with as I please.'' That's where morality comes into it. Whether or not there's copyright law, you should still respect it. Remember, the same rules apply to music and to GPL'ed code. Treating them as any different would be hypocrisy. You might not mind GPL violations, but I hope anybody else reading this post understands this. You say software and music are both ``information that deserves to be free.'' Truly free code is public domain and does not have the same restrictions that the GPL does to ensure it remains free. Everyone should bear this in mind. They make their money from performing for their fans. Hahaha! No they don't! I forget which /.'er originally said it, but I'll ask you. Ever wonder why musicians always seem to tour right after they release a new album? Guess why... Go on. It's so people will buy the CD. Selling albums is how musicians make money. If bands are serious about their music and not money, this is how it should be. Yet another person who likes to criticize an artist's integrity if said artist feels the least bit concerned about finances. You know most musicians out there aren't rich and successfuly megastars. Everybody still seems to think this for some reason, though. Musicians usually have 2 jobs: music and something to pay for music. Music is fricking expensive. Your typical 4-piece rock-n-roll bar band that you support by paying a $7 cover fee to see probably has $4-5k worth of equipment on stage. That's just on stage. Doesn't include whatever it costs to make an album. You think $7 per person covers it? Sorry, venues are just as bad as record labels. I've seen bands lug $6k in equipment that they paid for by working at Burger King, play a show in front of 60 people for 45 minutes, and walk away with $20. Not each. Total. And they had a little table at the back and would periodically draw attention to it so that people would buy the CD. I would not mind at all paying 50cents for a song, they get less than that anyway. Perhaps a pay per use to a certain extent would be good also. On the first point you're right to the best of my knowledge. On the second point, though, I really have to wonder if you're trolling. Pay-per-use is bad. As a capitalist, I think it should be an option if somebody wants to try it, but stay away from pay-per-use philosophy. It's nice for artists, but it is bad for society. Your example about the try-before-you-buy method, though, sounds good. Unfortunately, Napster is already available. Nobody's going to log onto some website and do this by rationalizing that it's barely anything and it won't make a difference, that Napster's the same thing but free, or both. The system has to be accepted by the users to make it work. This is 100% correct. Piracy will occur only when people don't find the current model acceptable. Some people won't want to pay for anything, but most believe in supporting artists they like to some extent. The trick is to get a healthy balance where artists are compensated enough to cover their expenses while fans benefit from the artists actually being able to produce their work. That's something most people not familiar with music (or most other forms of publishing for that matter) - most artists are not even moderately successfuly. Most of them struggle and it costs a lot of money to reach people, which is why most artists have jobs rather than make art day in and day out. To be honest, I think musicians will need to offer incentives to purchase the CD because Napster will be almost impossible to shut down. First of all, it is wrong to shut down Napster. Dr. Dre had the best idea by going after copyright infringers because they are to blame, not Napster. Still, that's kind of tacky. Copyright laws are really not designed for individual people making a single copy, they're designed for shops that mass produce unauthorized copies (think Hong Kong). Whether or not Napster is moral, though, the music industry will have to adapt. My suggestion is to first legitimize Napster by fixing copyright law back to 12 years. This will put a lot of work in the public domain and would definitely be beneficial to society (but is kind of unrelated to Napster). The second is to further legitimize Napster (and AFAI can tell, was along the lines of their original plan anyway) -- make Napster in such a way that it is driven from advertising dollars, an appropriate proportion of which is paid to the RIAA in the same manner as a radio station. This way, all that trading is legitimate. People might not like the fact that Napster would have to log which songs are downloaded, but that's the price you pay for free music. The third and final change I think would help is for the music industry to include more goodies with CDs -- give people an incentive to buy the CD. Make it worth that $14-$18. Lot's of inserts, interviews, interactive CD-ROM content, etc. Stuff that you can't get from Napster. --- "Duane Dibbley?" -- Duane Dibbley

Metallica's finances are sound (no pun intended) (Score:2) by divec on Friday April 28, @09:26PM EDT (#571) (User Info) http://3334130452/

[Metallica] make their money from performing for their fans. Hahaha! No they don't! Actually, Metallica have been known to make more revenue from T-shirt sales than from CDs on some years. Maybe that's partly to do with the pathetic cut that music publishers give artists. If bands are serious about their music and not money, this is how it should be. Yet another person who likes to criticize an artist's integrity if [... they are] the least bit concerned about finances. You know most musicians out there aren't rich and successful megastars. True. But Metallica *are* rich and successful. BTW, "unlicensed" music is sometimes in accordance with the law. I've just ordered an album which will take weeks to get shipped to me. I'm listening to the mp3s right now. That's "fair use". I'm just "time-shifting" my album to somewhen more convenient. I couldn't have done that without a so-called "illegal" site. [Sig obliterated ;-) ]

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2, Interesting) by azwethinkweiz on Friday April 28, @03:09PM EDT (#483) (User Info)

to the question of whether they're trying to stop it or get compensation. as far as i know, napster doesn't charge money for their service (i know i didn't pay for it) and if they make any money it's very little. originally, i wondered how much metallica is sueing for, thinking that if it was more than 5 million or so then it was for the money, but now if it's for more than 5 million i think it can't be for the money. why? simple. napster doesn't have very much money and any large suit against them would only be to break the company (which is what the RIAA's suit is trying to do). fred durst as well as chino moreno of limp bizkit and the deftones, respectively, have voiced opinions in favor of mp3s and online trading. i don't think metallica has anything against mp3s. durst says that people can download mp3s using napster as an aid as to whether or not they'll buy the cd (perfect use for mp3s, in my opinion), but can't bands put mp3s on their webpages and do the same thing with no possibility of legal problems? maybe you say that not all bands have large, popular websites. well, of course not. in an interview that you can watch on http://www.abcnews.com the CEO of napster says napster is made for fans to find out about new music, to help underground bands. well if bands put mp3s on webpages, and napster didn't allow mp3 trading, then they'd be doing EXACTLY what their CEO says its for and i can't imagine any band having a problem with that. and i'll be sure and check out the chat tuesday.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Saturday April 29, @06:49AM EDT (#634) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

in an interview that you can watch on http://www.abcnews.com the CEO of napster says napster is made for fans to find out about new music, to help underground bands. This is something people forgot. This is what I use Napster for. I'm talking with a couple friends. Someone mentions a band. I go home, DL, and listen for a bit. Those of you "Napster is the Dread Pirate Roberts" whiners, need to hear some good music, it might open your mind a bit. And don't argue with me what Napster is for, argue with them. And you wonder why the RIAA is suing them for 100k a DL....the best way to capitalize a market is to destroy competition. -- currently at V.9

on metallica's money (Score:1) by stoobers (stoobers@cs.ucsb.edu) on Friday May 05, @05:28PM EDT (#674) (User Info)

napster is competitive. they charge nothing. cd's cost a lot. if the recording industry is to compete, it must be competitive. but how can one compete against something free? simple. read on! all it takes is an analysis of the oportunity cost. if i wanted a cd of metallica's music, i could download it and write it to a cd. or i could buy the cd. to buy the cd takes 5 minutes on line and 15 bucks. to write the cd myself, i must buy the blank cd for 50 cents, spend 30 minutes of download time (or more, for slow connections), around an hour to set up the songs and convert them and write the songs to cd. total time: over an hour. since i get paid 12 bucks an hour, it is cheaper for me to copy that cd. if, however, the studios and musicians would get their heads out of their greedy asses and drop the price of the cd's to 10 dollars, they will be out competing napster. all it takes is an analysis of opportunity cost. it is cheaper for me to spend an hour on a cd and copy the cd than to buy the cd. when the oportunity cost is such that it becomes cheaper for me to buy the cd than to copy it, i will buy the cd.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by um... Lucas (lk@caralis.com) on Friday April 28, @10:43AM EDT (#134) (User Info) http://www.dioxidized.com/

But napster is a network created to trade MP3's on. And, I'd wager that 99% of the MP3's on there aren't legally allowed to be traded. Plus, Napster turns a blind eye to the whole thing. It'd be one thing if they actively logged and displayed IP addresses to make users more accountable. Or required email address from an ISP rather than one of the free email services. They do none of that. It's like a bar that lets people sell drugs in their establishment. By turning their head and acting like nothing's going on, they become liable for the actions of their patrons. I really fail to see any legitmate use to Napster. If someone has a legitmate need to listen to a CD, they can listen to the CD, convert the track themselves, or register with Beam-It, tell Beam-It they have the CD, prove it, and be able to listen to it from anywhere. When 90%+ of the material Napster's network is illegal, obviously the idea, if it was a legitmate one to start out with, isn't working as planned and should be completely scrapped and revamped. Telling artists that their music should be free is like everyone saying that you know, sysadmins, network technicians, and programmers should do their work for free since they enjoy it so much... Maybe they can make money training other IT professionals, making motivational speaches, or something like that. They made their career choice just as everyone here did, or will once they graduate college. If the problem is that there's only one or two good songs on the CD, don't buy the CD. Find better artists that are able to produce a whole album's worth of good material. They still do exist, you know...

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2, Interesting) by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Friday April 28, @10:55AM EDT (#171) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/

> They made their career choice just as everyone > here did, or will once they graduate college. So did the people who used to work in the Ice industry. You know...the people whose job it was to go to places where water froze naturally and ship it into cities to be sold. New Technology (refridgeration) was invented and made affordable to everyone...everyone could make a cheap copy, that was practically in every way the same as the ice they would sell....so the ice industry disapeared. Now people still make plenty of ice, there are just no (or very few) professional, full time, ice makers/collectors. Most of the people who do it now are amature ice makers, who do it for the personal benefit they gain from making ice. -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by um... Lucas (lk@caralis.com) on Friday April 28, @11:18AM EDT (#234) (User Info) http://www.dioxidized.com/

Ice is a naturally occuring substance. Technology was created that allowed it to be created in places that it would not otherwise be suitable for. The music that you hear on the radio, on mtv, in the car, buy at record stores, etc... is not naturally occuring. That's a big difference. How many people here would program if they weren't ever going to see any money from their efforts? Programming for linux doesn't count, because the vast majority of linux developers do earn livings programming elsewhere. I'm talking period. If you were never going to earn a single cent programming, how many people would have even thought about it as a career choice? Maybe you could make money selling support? Doubtful. Would the technology world be where it is today if not? Again, very doubtful. We live in a capitalistic society. People expect and need to make money from their efforts. If America was Belgium or something, then perhaps the government would sponsor artists so they could go about making art and not worry about making ends meet. That's not where I live. That's not where the artists that are suing napster live, either. They've got bills to pay, kids to put through college, retirement to worry about, and all the other day to day stuff that we all deal with. Stop stealing!

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @12:04PM EDT (#308) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

Ice is a naturally occuring substance. Technology was created that allowed it to be created in places that it would not otherwise be suitable for. The music that you hear on the radio, on mtv, in the car, buy at record stores, etc... is not naturally occuring. That's a big difference. Art is a naturally occuring substance. You might not think so (We live in a capitalistic society. People expect and need to make money from their efforts), but I guarantee that people will be making music wether or not they might ever profit from it. And while "we" might live in a capitalistic society, the world does not (the world couldn't support humans if they all consumed liked Americans). The Internet covers the world, so local conventions can be easily dismissed as just that, local conventions. They've got bills to pay, kids to put through college, retirement to worry about, and all the other day to day stuff that we all deal with. Then maybe they should get a "real" job, unless, like some idiot said here a while back, you believe that anyone who makes music *must* be compensated for it. That's like saying anyone who plays football should be compensated, just because they are playing. The fact of the matter is that to make any money at "play" you have to be damn good at it, so good that people are willing to pay just to watch you play. Stop stealing! I'm not stealing, I'm sharing. But for a country that likes to teach kids to "say no to drugs" in the same schools which push ritalin on the same children, this kind of misunderstanding is common. -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by um... Lucas (lk@caralis.com) on Friday April 28, @12:19PM EDT (#337) (User Info) http://www.dioxidized.com/

Comparing creating Art to moving Ice is nonsense, in my eyes. Even back in the middle ages, minstrels moved from town to town with the earnest hope of earning a few coins so they could continue their adventures. One could liken that to making money touring, but the sad fact is that we live in a world dominated by MTV, oppressive record contracts, and an attatchment to a flavor of the week, so far as music goes. None of that bodes well for artists touring... For one, most tours are conducted at a loss in order to stimulate record sales. The majority of those sales go back to pay back the people that put up the money to record the CD in the first place. Unfortunately lots of artists have signed contracts giving the record company's their standard (and in my eyes, too large) cuts for their troubles. Not buying their CD as a form of protest against the record company simply screws the artist even more than they were in the first place. The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless". If they're worthless, why in the world are you even listening to their music? I love bringing this argument up... People constantly flame companies for "sharing" the changes they've made to GPLed products without complying fully with the license by releasing the source to their modifications, yet it's completely fine with the same group of people to "share" the music they have even when they have no right to share it. The internet may cover the world, but so should respect. After all, we wouldn't need any laws if people simply respected one another and did what was right all the time. Unfortunately that's not how we act, so that's why laws are created.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Zagadka (zagadka@linuxfan.com) on Friday April 28, @02:29PM EDT (#458) (User Info)

Art is a naturally occuring substance. You might not think so (We live in a capitalistic society. People expect and need to make money from their efforts), but I guarantee that people will be making music wether or not they might ever profit from it. Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it? Do you think weekend artists would be as skilled on average as full time artist? Then maybe they should get a "real" job, unless, like some idiot said here a while back, you believe that anyone who makes music *must* be compensated for it. That's like saying anyone who plays football should be compensated, just because they are playing. The fact of the matter is that to make any money at "play" you have to be damn good at it, so good that people are willing to pay just to watch you play. I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to. Nice to see that you discuss your point of view rationally, rather than resulting to name calling. If I am the person you're referring to, then you misinterpreted what I said. I believe that if someone creates something, they are entitled to ask whatever price they want for it, and if someone wants to benifit from that creation, they are required to pay the price. I don't think they must be compensated simply for creating. There's a significant difference. If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it. That's fine, and it's fair. It isn't fair for people who want the creation to obtain it without paying the creator's price. If you don't like the price, go elsewhere, or wait and see if the creator reduces their price. You could even try to convince the creator to lower the price, or perhaps convince them to change to a diferent business model. But simply obtaining the benefits of their work is It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways." You either pay the price, or find someone else who's got cucumbers at a lower price.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:4, Interesting) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @01:29PM EDT (#402) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

Even back in the middle ages, minstrels moved from town to town with the earnest hope of earning a few coins so they could continue their adventures. One could liken that to making money touring, but the sad fact is that we live in a world dominated by MTV, oppressive record contracts, and an attatchment to a flavor of the week, so far as music goes. None of that bodes well for artists touring... True, if it's going to be hard, why even try... As for the MTV dominated world (it's actually Viacom, who is currently lobbying the FCC to relax network ownership rules, since their recent merger with CBS(?) creates a bunch of illegal situations, luckily for them, they have the money to change the law...), we all shape the world we live in, identifying the bullshit is the first step, throwing it in the garbage is the second. For one, most tours are conducted at a loss in order to stimulate record sales. The majority of those sales go back to pay back the people that put up the money to record the CD in the first place. Well then stop losing money on tours. The big cost is promotion. If you let the music free on the Net, that takes care of itself. Tours are NOT money-losing as a rule, just as a side-effect of the current business model, which would have already crumbled into the dust of the past if they didn't have so many lawyers and ways to push music on children. The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless". No, the prevailing mentality is that the Internet completely devalues the business model that currently runs the music business. If you enjoy looking at a woman walking down the street, you should be paying for it. It's that simple. (the previous sentence contains sarcasm, parse it accordingly) The internet may cover the world, but so should respect. Yes, it should. Respect is a two-way street. The record business hasn't respected consumers since I've been alive, fuck 'em. The artists will come around...when they see what a good time we're having. -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Friday April 28, @01:40PM EDT (#413) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/

One could liken that to making money touring, but the sad fact is that we live in a world dominated by MTV, oppressive record contracts, and an attatchment to a flavor of the week, so far as music goes. None of that bodes well for artists touring... So, let's change the world, by giving every musician the power to distribute his work to the world and every listener the power to share the music they like! The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless". Nonsense. The mentality around here just says that the model for supporting artists shouldn't be state enforced pay-per-copy. If I like the guy playing at the bar, I put a buck or two in his tip jar. He doesn't come around and demand a nickel from me before he plays each song. I love bringing this argument up... People constantly flame companies for "sharing" the changes they've made to GPLed products without complying fully with the license by releasing the source to their modifications, yet it's completely fine with the same group of people to "share" the music they have even when they have no right to share it. These companies want to "share" their changes only to the extend of making me pay for a copy - then if I then tried to share that copy, they'd be all over me. That's hypocracy. It's always been recognized as ok to share music by performing it; now that recordings can be so easily shared, we need to realize that making a copy of a song you like for a friend is as natural as singing it for them. Making a copy should be viewed like performance - which is free for non-commercial personal, even if you're performing in front of a hundred people, but requires a royalty if you're making money off it. Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Zagadka (zagadka@linuxfan.com) on Friday April 28, @06:04PM EDT (#547) (User Info)

you've obviously never created any art :) BTW- neither has Metallica Re-read where I said FULL TIME. How can anyone do anything full time without getting paid enough to survive? Food and shelter cost money in the real world. If there was absolutely no money in art, there would be virtually no "full time" artists. They woould all have to do something else for a living, or perhaps live off of charity/welfare. That you must resort to personal attacks indicates that you can't think of a good argument. If you can't think of a good argument to support your opinion, then your reasoning is probably flawed. QED As for whether Metallica creates art: I don't know, nor do I care. They do create something that some perople want though. Those people should pay the creator's asking price, or do without. It's not that hard. That said, suing Napster and universities is not the right way to get what they want.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Saturday April 29, @10:22PM EDT (#652) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/

Not to be a nitpicker....but you have the sentance > Then your logic is probably flawed followed by: > QED If its "probably" then the QED is unjustified, all you have done is pointed at irrational assertions, which are a flag that tends to indicate flawed logic, not something that proves flaweed logic. Without having actually demonstrated the logic flawed, noting is QED. Also...that "personal attack" apears to have been intended as a joke, a little poking of fun, not something meant to be taken as a serious attack, would recomend having your humor parseing subroutines checked out. -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @09:09PM EDT (#568) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to. Yup, sure looks likes it. :) (you shouldn't make it so easy) Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it? Where did you get this idea that there was "no way they would get any compensation"? That's what the government's job is to do, IMHO, control who has the right to profit from protected works. M'kay? If the owner of the work is the only one who can legally profit from a work, why can't we give it away. This has never been an issue before. We used to have this thing called scarcity. That law alone said that you should never, economically, give stuff away. If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it. You remember supply and demand right? As a function for determining price? If you have an infinite supply, the price is zero (unless you have infinite demand*). So, if you follow simple market economics, the price for digital music should be $0, which is actually the exact same amount as it costs the original creator to attain worldwide distrubtion and produce (or allow to be produced) 6 billion copies (isn't this Internet thing cool?). You might be wondering how to make money in this situation, and if you're nice, I'll tell you..in the same vague philosophical terms this thread is producing.... It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways." It'd be like that if it was one of those farms were when you pull a cucumber out of the ground, it stay there for the next hungry man. Which is to say, it's not like a farm at all. You have to realize that scarcity is no longer an issue in this environment for this product, unless your examples include that attribute, they will be easily refuted. -- and in case you we're wondering what else I was doing while Typing this response, click below. God Bless /., America, and really good Trolling!! Big Hollow Band Page!! hehe. *be nice and I'll tell you how, although that would be a bit recursive, no? -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Eric the .5b on Friday April 28, @11:59PM EDT (#586) (User Info)

So, music should be free, because the supply due to copying can be infinite. Of course, if anyone can get someone's music for free, how can music get paid for? Right. It can't. And before you make any assinine claims that music should be free because it's a natural resource (how is it a 'natural resource' any more than anything YOU do and expect people to pay you for?), take a look at your pirated MP3 collection and tell me none of those files are ripped from CDs that were made in factories and mastered from studios that cost money to rent. Tell me that none of those intruments used on there cost money. Then tell me that ALL of the artists involved in all of your ripped songs would have gone to the trouble of dealing with a record label and spent time in that studio crafting a CD worth of professionally produced songs if they did not expect to get paid. In other words, without people paying for your free tunes, you can't GET your free tunes. The way you collect pirated music is parasitic, relying on the money that paying customers shell out, because without them, you wouldn't HAVE 99% of the music on your hard drives and CR-Rs.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Eric the .5b on Saturday April 29, @12:04AM EDT (#587) (User Info)

If you enjoy looking at a woman walking down the street, you should be paying for it. It's that simple. (the previous sentence contains sarcasm, parse it accordingly) If you put that into a context that has anything to do with reality, you'd have to be talking about a situation where people offer a service for money. The only one that remotely matches what you suggest is a strip club. Now, try taking a digital video camera into a strip club with the intent of taping shows and placing them on the Internet...Guess what, they won't appreciate it.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Saturday April 29, @12:29AM EDT (#590) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

should I calculate the money I've spent on music over the past month...hmmm, 3 cd's, 4 live shows, various cover charges....nope too much to keep track of. I understand your point, but you need to get this through your head. Just because it's free doesn't mean you can't support it. I would hazard a guess that to get a professionally (perhaps not as much as it takes to make Sugar Ray sound good) recorded CD costs around $10,000. Recording live shows (outside of the cost of musical instruments and amps, which are necessary regardless) costs about $300. Putting in on the Net costs less (and takes about half an hour). Building a radio station around it, costs less. My point? Stuff ain't so tough as it used to be. you wouldn't HAVE 99% of the music on your hard drives and CR-Rs. and my guess is that most people who play it like that don't listen to 99% of their music and are wasting disk space. I used to share video games when I was a kid too. Now I buy them. I could still get them for free, but I don't need too. And I understand that taking without giving any back doesn't work as a long term solution. But we have this really cool Internet thing, that makes a lot of the initial cost of making money off of music (reproduction, distrubution, and promotion!!) disappear. Why ignore it and act like a phonograph is our only avenue to musical appreciation. Why ignore it and keep supporting a broken system. Who taught you that sharing inexhaustible resources was wrong? -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Saturday April 29, @12:33AM EDT (#591) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

Now, try taking a digital video camera into a strip club with the intent of taping shows and placing them on the Internet...Guess what, they won't appreciate it. If you think that a videotape of a strip club would attract a single iota of attention on the Web, well, um, you just got here... Oh, and I think your sarcasm parser is a bit out of whack. *smacks Eric the .5b upside the head* Maybe that will help.;-) -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Eric the .5b on Saturday April 29, @02:13AM EDT (#611) (User Info)

You make some cogent points, actually, particularly in that you're at least willing to pay for some fraction of the music you listen to. I actually like the try-before-buying aspect of MP3s. But, unfortunately, it looks less and less like any significant number of people "try" instead of simply failing to "buy". While I think MP3s provide a viable musical medium, I for one don't want our musical culture to devolve into MP3s of garage bands. I *like* listening to music produced by talented professional musicians on instruments above pawn-shop quality. Further, I really am starting to wonder if the freeloader culture that seems dominant on places like Slashdot leaves any room for more than a few rare people to make any money by distributing MP3s of their work. Maybe if artists had jumped on it early enough to legitimize it, but MP3 is tainted with the "underground" attitude and the freeloading ethic. And no, I don't think that freely sharing my inexhaustible resources (or even exhaustible resources!) is wrong. However, the vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their creating artists. They've been stolen.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Eric the .5b on Saturday April 29, @02:17AM EDT (#615) (User Info)

Considering that companies make real money offering less on their web pages, I think you're the one who's new to the medium.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Saturday April 29, @05:41AM EDT (#631) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

Considering that companies make real money offering less on their web pages, That's true...and my point. Pr0n is one of the few businesses that is making money on the Net. It's not hard to find lots of it, but people can make money off you during the search. There is value in the traffic. I've seem both Media Metrix's and Nielson's raw numbers for traffic on the Net (I do have a real job outside of /. :). For Men aged Alive, pr0n is rather popular (pr0n as defined by me "media designed to increase sexual desire"). My point? Even when you have an infinite supply you can differentiate levels of quality. Flood the market with stuff, and the good stuff rises to the top and the simple MASS of all the rest gives a new type of value to the good stuff. Enough that peole will still pay despite having an infinite supply. Two other examples of this phenomenon are Doom (and later Quake) and the Greatful Dead (and later Phish). All of which inspire infinite demand (i.e. love) *cue touchy feely music* -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Saturday April 29, @06:29AM EDT (#633) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

particularly in that you're at least willing to pay for some fraction of the music you listen to. Thanks! I actually like the try-before-buying aspect of MP3s. But, unfortunately, it looks less and less like any significant number of people "try" instead of simply failing to "buy". Internet becomes popular in 1995, it's now 2000. Number of homes with broadband, 1995:Ha-ha, 1999: 3.25x10^6 Talk to your friends with 24-hour high-speed Net connections about "try" and "buy" musical consumption behaviour. It might be interesting..when it will be able to be studied in a few years. This whole market is just getting started. Further, I really am starting to wonder if the freeloader culture that seems dominant on places like Slashdot leaves any room for more than a few rare people to make any money by distributing MP3s of their work. O.k., this one set me off a bit. First off, let me make this clear, you will not find my name anywhere in the Linux kernel, nor the GNU Utils, or on much of any publicly (or privately) distributed software for that matter. However, I've only known about it for a year or so (one of the busiest of my life), so be patient.. That being said, I hardly see how you can call this culture freeloading. Unless you mean the most recent influx of /. folks who don't understand Free Software as a concept, or you mean Free Loading, as in introducing software into your life that is Free (Libre). However, the vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their creating artists. You might think this rebuttal a technicality, I think it's the whole fuckin' point (hey, it's 4:24 a.m...). The vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their copyright owners. They've been stolen. Now THAT, I'll agree with. And before you argue this one, I suggest you read this. Especially this quoted part (in light of this thread) How does work made for hire treatment benefit artists and consumers? Work made for hire treatment allows for the effective promotion and distribution of a recording so that payments can be made according to contractual agreements. If the termination right could be exercised by all collaborators on a sound recording, all of the collaborators would be in competition with each other and commercial exploitation (especially the offering of exclusive rights to the sound recording) would be impossible without the agreement of all of the collaborators, to the detriment of both artists and consumers. If that's not excessive hubris............ -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Saturday April 29, @10:35PM EDT (#653) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/

> The effects of alccohol and tobacco are already > bad enough. Why would you want to embed some > other dangerous drug in to the culture? Well...I will bite.... These drugs are already part of our culture. Cocaine is part of our culture. Cannabis is part of our culture (just as much so as alcohol, as far as I can tell...just more quite). LSD, heroin (I hate to list those two together) are part of our culture. Shootings, drugs cut with baking soda (both things you bring up) are NOT the result of drugs. They are the result of prohibition. They are the result of the fact that the drug trade is illegal, and thus run by a black market (black markets being completely without regulation...including those regulations that say its bad buisness to shoot people) -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Content (Score:1) by Eric the .5b on Sunday April 30, @01:18AM EDT (#655) (User Info)

Internet becomes popular in 1995, it's now 2000. Number of homes with broadband, 1995:Ha-ha, 1999: 3.25x10^6 Talk to your friends with 24-hour high-speed Net connections about "try" and "buy" musical consumption behaviour. It might be interesting..when it will be able to be studied in a few years. This whole market is just getting started. I had a conversation about this last night with friends, some of which have high-speed connections. Their general consensus was that they generally buy CDs of MP3s they gather, they think most people do such, and that enough people will choose to pay content-creators to allow creative industries to continue to exist. Unfortunately, they're a biased selection, as they are content-creators, and they'd hardly keep their jobs if they thought there was no hope of getting paid for them. I can only hope. That being said, I hardly see how you can call this culture freeloading. Unless you mean the most recent influx of /. folks who don't understand Free Software as a concept, or you mean Free Loading, as in introducing software into your life that is Free (Libre). This is a strange conflation, but one a lot of people make (including such as Jon Katz). There is no philosophical connection between the Free Software/Open Source movement (if you merge them together for simplicity) and piracy of intellectual property. Free Software/Open Source are forms of "giftware", ie software created and released with few or no limitations, as the free choice of the creators. Piracy is the duplication and/or distribution of works in a manner outside the choice of the creator(s). Whether it's d/ling a few albums worth of MP3s you never plan to pay for, copying a game onto someone else's computer when that's outside the license, or distributing altered versions of GLPed programs without the new source, it's a violation of the terms under which the creator(s) released it to the public. In short, one is giving a gift, the other is theft. When I refer to "freeloading", I mean specifically those who enjoy content that is released under a license requiring purchase without paying for it. This goes beyond even the simple act of violating the license of the creator. That content is produced at a cost, and released under terms designed to recoup those costs and even make a little money besides. That content wouldn't even be available in most cases without the money coming in. Therefore, those who don't pay for such content are parasites relying on the "rubes" who do pay for it. This does not apply to people using freely released software (though it would apply to someone who made software derivative of GPLed works without releasing the altered source - they would be freeloading off the work of GNU coders without abiding by their terms). And, whether or not one agrees with the license a work of another is released under or likes the terms the creator got for its distribution (and short of fraud or someone putting a gun to the artist's head, the artist agrees to those terms), simple honor requires one to either abide by the license or avoid the work in question. If you don't like the RIAA, don't buy CDs produced by artists working with participating record companies - and don't freeload off someone who did buy those CDs. If you dislike the GPL, avoid GNU software, don't break its terms. If honor doesn't suffice, simple self-interest should. If content creators can't release their content under terms (any terms) and expect anyone but a very few to abide by them, content creation as we know it, whether it's software, music, or anything else, will fade away to a minimum point far below what we enjoy now. No commercial software, no GNU software, no new CDs by anyone around the world...Or at least very little of any of those things, on very marginal budgets. Basically, we'll be down to hobby content. Some of that can be very good...but frankly, most of it is hobby quality now because no one is willing to pay for it. That won't change. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter. Thanks for presenting your stance intelligently, even if I disagree with it.

Re:Content (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Sunday April 30, @10:16PM EDT (#660) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

just a couple things, thanks for the discussion also. (here's a quick hello to everyone lurking,."Hello!") I had a conversation about this last night with friends, some of which have high-speed connections. Me too. We were listening to some of this (KVHW) using this. Them someone mentioned these guys. So I used this. And everyone heard what we were talking about. Which opened the door to summarize this discussion for them. :-) Later, I pointed out how we were all felons, pirates, and all that was evil in the world. Then, we went to this show, and made a night of it. There is no philosophical connection between the Free Software/Open Source movement (if you merge them together for simplicity) and piracy of intellectual property. Except that some folks in the FS/OM movement don't believe in piracy of intellectual property as a concept. I fall short of that extreme, but believe our current situation regarding IP, is, flawed. Therefore, those who don't pay for such content are parasites relying on the "rubes" who do pay for it. Then I guess I'm some sort of pararube, eh? Basically, we'll be down to hobby content. If Linux is an example of hobby content, then I'm all for this scenario. I like to think of Free Software (and hopefully someday Free Music) as the baseline for measuring software. If your commercial software isn't as good as the stuff I can get for free...your stuff sucks and isn't worth my money. As we raise the bar for what you can get for free, you have to raise even higher the bar of what you sell. This provides the necessary motivation to succeed, that other forms of communism (i.e. in the real world) lacked. Just so I can be honest with both you and myself on what I'm really talking about. Eliminating scarcity changes value fundamentally, it's time to deal with it. If you want to continue this, may I suggest e-mail? -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Rand Race (RRace@prosolar.mx) on Friday April 28, @01:43PM EDT (#416) (User Info)

"How many people here would program if they weren't ever going to see any money from their efforts? Programming for linux doesn't count, because the vast majority of linux developers do earn livings programming elsewhere. " What you are saying is that Linux programmers are not paid for their work but rather work for their pay. Sounds like something Metalica should look into. No really, it's a great model for the new era of IP. Metalica (and Dre and all the rest) can make their 'art' for arts sake releasing it freely on the net while contracting to advertisers (for instance) to create works for profit. They can also look to the model of Linux startups and market their albums with value added above and beyond the music itself (as Bad Religion is already doing with a pair of tickets for any show included with their CD). Times change (the current IP model is barely a century old) and using law to retard progress is the wrong response. The wainrights tried that a century ago and failed miserably, as was befitting to a dead technology. -=RR=-

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Keepiru on Friday April 28, @11:20AM EDT (#239) (User Info)

This is a poor argument, the icemakers were no longer required. The musicians still are. Admittedly, one part of your argument is good, that we can cut out the middlemen, perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on giving artists ways to produce and sell thier music without the recording industry, rather than pirating music. Which is illegal, and should be, in the society we live in, not everything can be free, the open model doesn't always work. (unless we move completely to a respect based society, which isn't going to happen any time soon).

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @12:06PM EDT (#313) (User Info)

"It's like a bar that lets people sell drugs in their establishment. By turning their head and acting like nothing's going on, they become liable for the actions of their patrons." Actually, they don't. If people are selling drugs in my establishment, I have no more responsibility to stop them than any other witness. On the other hand, I probably will try to stop them anyway, because otherwise, sooner or later, the cops are going to start coming in and arresting people at my bar, which will be bad for business. Especially if I'm doing anything illegal or questionable myself (like not checking ID's well enough). Having promoted clubs (ranging from deep underground to completely legit), and having friends that own venues, I know the line you have to walk--but it's not because there's a law saying I must patrol for illegal activities; it's just because it makes good business sense for me to do so. Napster is in exactly the same position (as you yourself say). They don't have any legal obligation to monitor everyone using their network, or to make it easier for others to do so--just like I don't have to snoop around for drug deals in my bar, or make all my walls out of glass so the cops can see into the bathroom stalls from the street. But if their main business actually is legal trading of MP3's (which I doubt it is), then it would be smart for them to do so, to avoid all the negative attention and lawsuits that will impede that business. (This is why mp3.com, whose business _is_ legal trading of MP3's, is so careful to make sure that anyone who uploads something has the rights to do so.) no .sig, no slogan

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2) by jms on Friday April 28, @02:30PM EDT (#459) (User Info)

Actually, they don't. If people are selling drugs in my establishment, I have no more responsibility to stop them than any other witness. Actually, in this case your establishment would be subject to civil forfeiture, meaning that the government could confiscate your establishment without even having to provide any evidence of wrongdoing on your part. Your only recourse would be to post 10% of the value of your establishment, then go to court and prove that your establishment wasn't used to sell drugs. Under the tortured logic of our "drug" laws, your property is presumed guilty unless you can prove it innocent. Don't presume that your constitutional rights apply when you are charged with a drug crime. They don't anymore. Check out fear.org

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Cyberdyne (JamesSutherland@gmx.net) on Friday April 28, @03:55PM EDT (#508) (User Info)

"It's like a bar that lets people sell drugs in their establishment. By turning their head and acting like nothing's going on, they become liable for the actions of their patrons." Actually, they don't. If people are selling drugs in my establishment, I have no more responsibility to stop them than any other witness. Under UK law, you do have a responsibility to stop them. Otherwise, you'll end up spending a couple of years in free accomodation with a lock on the outside of the door - as happened to "the Cambridge Two" a few months ago...

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by steffl (steffl_at_bigfoot_com) on Friday April 28, @03:02PM EDT (#474) (User Info) http://www.bigfoot.com/~steffl

"Telling artists that their music should be free is like everyone saying that you know, sysadmins, network technicians, and programmers should do their work for free since they enjoy it so much..."     food for thought: I work as a programmer, a company pays me a then, believe it or not, they run my program as many times as they want, without paying me. they can even trade my programs on the napster.     I guess the artists should be paid, but why should they be paid everytime their music is used/transferred etc?     note: the above is not worded as an argument (it's full of holes) but more as inspirational thoughts that can lead to a little bit further then where you went in your post...                 erik ...all excited, don't know why...

Beam-It (Score:1) by airos4 (dominodots@email.com) on Friday April 28, @10:32PM EDT (#579) (User Info)

Except that MP3.com just lost that lawsuit to the RIAA, so that whole convenience is probably going to go away too. I'm reminded of an old saying... "They came for the Polish and I'm not Polish, so I didn't say anything... then they came for the homosexuals and I'm not homosexual, so I didn't say anything... then they came for the Jews and I'm not Jewish, so I didn't say anything... and then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up."

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Hotaine (User Name: hotaine, Domain Name: acm.org) on Friday April 28, @11:10AM EDT (#206) (User Info) http://www.hotaine.net

Exactly. I'm just waiting for someone to file a lawsuit to try and shut down AT&T and MediaOne, since you can use their phone/cable lines to transmit illegally copied MP3's. Actually, not a bad idea. MediaOne needs shutting down. Free MP3's! Take 'em! Copy 'em! Pass 'em around!

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Twon (twon@PleaseDontSpamMe.ici.net) on Friday April 28, @11:22AM EDT (#245) (User Info)

No, goddammit! I've waited entirely too long for cable modem service in my town for someone to shut down MediaOne now! :)

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Hotaine (User Name: hotaine, Domain Name: acm.org) on Friday April 28, @01:06PM EDT (#385) (User Info) http://www.hotaine.net

No RCN where you live? MediaOne just sent around a nice announcement that they're increasing their fees (at least in metro Boston). You Bastards! Free MP3's! Take 'em! Copy 'em! Pass 'em around!

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by MushMouth (smushmoth@yahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @02:04PM EDT (#435) (User Info)

That is why they are sueing the Universities, I'm sure it will move on to the ISP's, which also have the power of killing napster in their routers.

Metallica used to rock... (Score:1) by The Queen (valvolene@SPAMSUX_holophrastic.com) on Friday April 28, @04:56PM EDT (#532) (User Info) http://holophrastic.com

Metallica's making a living at this Have you guys LISTENED to Metallica lately? I don't think it's Napster that's hurting their sales... The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk -Queen Valvolene-

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1) by Keepiru on Friday April 28, @11:28AM EDT (#262) (User Info)

Does it matter? Attacking the arguer rather than the issue is a logical fallacy. By your argument I should not pay for shareware software because I don't want the author buying junkfood and soda.

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1) by Noofus (glevinso@cs.jhu.edu) on Friday April 28, @11:29AM EDT (#265) (User Info) http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~gll12

how many pounds of cocaine and how many prostitutes won't they be able to buy because of the "loss" napster is causing them. That is the most unfair judgement I have ever heard. If you had taken just a few minutes to find out about who you were bashing you would know that Metallica is much "cleaner" than many other bands out there. It isnt fair to anyone to unjustly go accusing them of being druggies etc. Get your facts straight. -------------------------------------------------- Noofus *noofPtr = (Noofus*)malloc(sizeof(Noofus));

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1, Flamebait) by Nicolas MONNET (nico@nospam.monnet.to) on Friday April 28, @11:34AM EDT (#275) (User Info) http://monnet.to

Oh I'm so bad. Do you think I've hurt their feelings? I'm vaywwy sorry if that's the case. I wish that everybody was as nice as you and stop fucking calling people "pirates" as if they had killed and raped and stolen whereas they have just moved a few electrons around. And anyway, their music is crap for retarded acneic teenagers. Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1) by TheReverand (marc@ksac.com) on Friday April 28, @12:09PM EDT (#321) (User Info)

I wish that everybody was as nice as you and stop fucking calling people "pirates" as if they had killed and raped and stolen whereas they have just moved a few electrons around. And anyway, their music is crap for retarded acneic teenagers. You have shown quite conclusively that you are one of the retarded acneic teenagers that you seem to despise so much. I would recommend that you back up for a second, reread your post, take a deep breath, and chant "It's only Slashdot, It's only Slashdot". Most people who have passed their retarded acneic teenage years can find more constructive ways to counter an argument besides poorly thought out sarcasm and name calling. Hope this helps, -marc Flame all you want, I'll post more Flame all you want, I'll post more.

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:2) by Nicolas MONNET (nico@nospam.monnet.to) on Friday April 28, @12:27PM EDT (#353) (User Info) http://monnet.to

Flame all you want, I'll post more Speaking of which, you could really use some training in this area yourself. You have shown quite conclusively that you are one of the retarded acneic teenagers that you seem to despise so much. I'm not a teenager, I don't have acne, though I *might* be retarded depending on one's point of view. You should have phrased that as you're no better than an ..., that would have made more sense. I would recommend that you back up for a second, reread your post, take a deep breath, and chant "It's only Slashdot, It's only Slashdot". This is slashdot, and that is why I feel free to speak freely. Most people who have passed their retarded acneic teenage years can find more constructive ways to counter an argument besides poorly thought out sarcasm and name calling. As I said, you could really use some help and training in flaming and rhetoric. It was not an "argument" to begin with. It was opinion. Look that up for yourself in a dictionary, you might feel enlightened. And then ... here comes an actual argument: I've done name calling, I'm not ashamed of it, and I invite you to ask yourself ... what's worse, speaking one's mind strongly and honestly, or sueing Universities for bogus reasons just because you have the money and power to do so? Hope this helps, too. Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1) by TheReverand (marc@ksac.com) on Friday April 28, @01:04PM EDT (#382) (User Info)

From http://www.m-w.com Main Entry: ar·gu·ment Pronunciation: 'är-gy&-m&nt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere Date: 14th century 1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade The following section is being provided to remind you of what you posted. It is not verbatim. The argument Metallica has a right to complain. Your rebuttal No because they spend their money on on drugs and hookers. New Argument You have unjustly accused them. Your rebuttal "Sarcastic Comment""Name Calling" Now with regards to speaking one's mind strongly and honestly I wonder if all of your opinions consist of drawing conclusions without facts, and name calling. Is this what you mean by speaking honestly? Love, -Marc Flame all you want, I'll post more. Flame all you want, I'll post more.

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1, Offtopic) by Nicolas MONNET (nico@nospam.monnet.to) on Friday April 28, @01:08PM EDT (#387) (User Info) http://monnet.to

Your rebuttal No because they spend their money on on drugs and hookers. This was'nt a rebuttal. With that kind of stretching of words, you could as well call my comments bananas or power convertors. On top of that, my opinion is that Metallica's music suck and that it's crap for acneic retarded teenagers. That's what you were commenting on. Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1) by TheReverand (marc@ksac.com) on Friday April 28, @01:31PM EDT (#404) (User Info)

It's very interesting that you claim it is not a rebuttal when it is posted in response to this post. If this was a new topic it should have been posted as such, but obviously you were referring to what the parent had said about Metallica possibly being in the right. "With that kind of stretching of words, you could as well call my comments bananas or power convertors." Interesting use of hyperbole here, claiming that somehow I have taken your comments out of context, (interesting use of "could" here as opposed to the more correct "may" or "might" but hey, I'm no pedant) when in reality you are refusing to acknowledge that fact that you posted a weak, mindless comment and, when called on it, resorted to childish name calling. love, -Marc p.s. look up acneic at http://www.m-w.com!!! Flame all you want, I'll post more. Flame all you want, I'll post more.

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1) by Wraithlyn (bcairns@itpwebsolutions.com) on Friday April 28, @02:40PM EDT (#464) (User Info)

their music is crap for retarded acneic teenagers Normally I ignore such pathetic excuses for flamebait. Have you ever been to a Metallica concert? They formed in 1982, their concerts draw people from teenagers to 50 year olds, I would say the average being mid twenties. Their self titled black album sold 12 million copies worldwide, and they received 3 consecutive Grammy awards in 89-90-91. I suppose all the contemporary bands you listen to are far superior.. why don't you list some? They are exceptionally talented artists, and I personally find most of their music intricate, intelligent, inspiring and even beautiful. Yes, they're a heavy rock band whose music isn't for everyone's tastes. But your immature name calling and profanity only showcases your ignorance. As far as Napster is concerned, these artists DO have legitimate grievances... but suing Napster is the wrong move, Metallica acted hastily without considering all the issues. However this has absolutely no bearing on the quality of their music. I'm torn on the whole MP3 deal... on one hand downloading copywrited music you haven't paid for is WRONG. If you disagree your parents didn't raise you very well. All these flowery speeches about the open source movement and free information exchange are like the desperate pleas of children who are afraid of having their newest toy taken away... completely sidestepping the central issue: you are taking someone's work and not giving anything in return, against their explicit wishes. Now that every Napster user out there hates me, the other side of the coin is that I really don't see how downloading an MP3 is fundamentally any different from taping a song off of the radio, or a music video from MTV/Muchmusic.. you're simply making a local copy for personal use of something broadcast over a freely available medium. The only real change is that with the internet you don't have to wait for the song you want to be played. (I'm aware there are many tertiary issues such as audio quality, and advertising/sponsorship, but I believe the point is still sound) I don't think Napster should be liable for illegal activities initiated through their servers, however they are certainly negligent in excercising their exclusive ability (thanks to their centralized listing model) to prevent it... the only question is whether this negligence is criminal or not. I'm no lawyer, but I would bet on no. The glass is neither half empty or half full; it's just too damn big.

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1) by unitron (unitron@tacc.net) on Friday April 28, @11:36PM EDT (#582) (User Info)

So basically Metallica is a generation or 2 behind the kids at Yale, which means in a popularity contest there they'd be running neck and neck with Paul Whiteman or Louis Armstrong? By any chance has Metallica blown through most of what they've made so far, so that any dwindling further sales of their stuff takes on increased importance, making losses to "copiers" scarier than before? Sig(s) previously appearing in this space temporarily removed for maintenance

Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:1) by sredding (sandman nine three five at yahoo dot com) on Friday April 28, @03:06PM EDT (#479) (User Info) http://home.earthlink.net/~sandmanr/index.html

And anyway, their music is crap for retarded acneic teenagers. Do you realize that James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich are almost 40? Metallica makes music for middle-aged adolescents. As long as I keep it loud, I won't grow old. Insert sig here.

Re:Intellectualy Property (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @12:17PM EDT (#335) (User Info)

I'm not that interesting in protecting Metallica, but I have seen bands that I like break up because they coldn't afford to keep going. I remember Birmingham 6's last concert, halfway through their first American tour, and I'd much rather live in a world where I'd get to see them again, or at least hear a new album. Ideally, I'd like all good artists (read: artists that I like) to be completely supported (except the ones that actually create better art because of the struggle). But that's obviously not a realistic solution in our society. Paying the artists commercially for sales of their art isn't a great solution, but I don't want to throw that system away until we have a better one. And not all bands get worse as they get more popular. Pet Shop Boys, Gary Numan, Information Society, Front 242, Wolfsheim, and plenty of others released some of their best music at and even after their commercial peak. (Yes, those are all electronic bands--I don't think there's any loss of generality there, but maybe there is [more money = better gear, at least]; I'm just talking about what I know.) Sure, many bands never do anything interesting again after they start making money, but that's no reason to say that no bands should ever get any money.   As for your final point, it may be true that the current system is going to fall apart, but that's a separate issue from whether it _should_ fall apart. no .sig, no slogan

If a flame falls into slashdot.. (Score:1) by UberQwerty (oldschoolchazAThotmailDOTcom) on Friday April 28, @10:50AM EDT (#150) (User Info) http://www.slashdot.org

...and the poeple at whom it's aimed will never read it, is it still a flame? That one's up to you, moderators. I fucking hate metallica. As soon as I read this story, I went to delete all my metallica mp3s in zealot fury. Then I realized that a) this is what they want b) metallica music sucks, so I didn't have       any of their mp3s to begin with Instead, through sheer desperation, I went and downloaded a lot of metallica mp3s and tried listening to them Yup, they still suck. Sadly, metallica isn't losing any money on me having their mp3s since I'd never buy any of their albums anyway. I think I'll go delete the mp3s now. Clever-sounding slogans aren't usually very clever, so I don't have one. "Why" is not a concept inherant in the universe, only "how."

Forget deleting their MP3's (Score:1) by mcrandello (mcrandello@my-deja.com) on Friday April 28, @12:34PM EDT (#360) (User Info) http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=cyoa

I'm emailing my local rock station right now. Apparently Metallica just released another song. I'm writing WJRR to let them know that every time they play a Metallica song, any era, I'm switching to a different station for at least one hour. Even if you normally switch stations when you hear Metallica, write your radio stations and let them know this. Also email/write the sponsors of the radio stations. This is where Metallica fights for their marketshare, and if even a vocal few let the radio stations know that metallica=lost revenue they'll definately not get as much airplay as before. Let them sue for all they want. We should make it worth their while. Bored? Choose or create your own /. adventure!

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by jmccay on Friday April 28, @12:58PM EDT (#378) (User Info)

The best way to get something changed is to hurt them they can be hurt the most. In their walets. The industry will change its mind when they see sales drop. Stop buying CD, tapes, records etc. Stop helping them.       If you want them to make legal free music available to down load talk with your money. That is the best speaker in a society like ours (U.S.A.). Boycott them, boycott the companies that sponcier them and write them telling them why you are going to Boycott them.       I don't condon(sp?) or condem(sp?) the trade of MP3. I see good reasons to trade MP3. It allows you to isten to artist you have never heard beofre and don't want to fork out $15-$20 to buy a CD you'll hate. You can even find music you didn't know about.       It comes down to this. Stop complaining here and do something about it.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Wraithlyn (bcairns@itpwebsolutions.com) on Friday April 28, @02:55PM EDT (#470) (User Info)

I'm not sure about that whole boycott strategy. If record sales drop, they will almost certainly jump on that as "evidence" that MP3 trading is demolishing their industry.. this could even bolster anti-MP3 sentiments and facilitate harsher legislation. The glass is neither half empty or half full; it's just too damn big.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by jmccay on Monday May 01, @11:20AM EDT (#662) (User Info)

You have a good point. That is why the best way to go about the boycott would be to let them know what and why you are boycotting them. I assumed that people would know this. I gave them some credit.     For example, one could write a document stating the terms of the boycott. Someone could then sign it, and then pass it on to someone else. They in turn would pass it on to someone else. Once it starts to repeat itself ( or it gets back to the first person) you send it to the people (and/or organization(s) that are being boycotted).       That is just one way to handle it. My point is. Stop complaining here and do something if it bothers you. Show up at the Metallica chat and ask them why they are sueing. If enough people ask the sam quesiton, they may get the idea that it wasn't a good idea to sue Napster. Especially since sales haven't drop as a result of MP3 trades. What's next sueing for making a tape of your favorite songs? Movie clips we all enjoy when we want to know more about a movie?

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by unitron (unitron@tacc.net) on Friday April 28, @11:45PM EDT (#583) (User Info)

So, if they won't let you have their product for free, you're going to quit buying it? I'm afraid you've optimized that code beyond my ability to follow the logic involved. Sig(s) previously appearing in this space temporarily removed for maintenance

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by jmccay on Monday May 01, @11:12AM EDT (#661) (User Info)

>So, if they won't let you have their product for free, you're going to quit buying it?       I personaly don't download MP3s. If I were too, it would be to determine if I like an artist and was considering forking the money over to buy the album, or if I already had the album and want the song in MP3 format. I know plenty of people who use MP3s in that way.       I was talking about stuff you do buy from record stores. Even if you download, I am sure you sometimes still buy cds.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by the_schnoov on Friday April 28, @02:00PM EDT (#433) (User Info)

Gee. that's a brilliant plan. Let's show that we can be jerks too by spoiling something for everyone, not just the people we have a problem with.

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by talesout (leenat@willinet.net) on Friday April 28, @02:38PM EDT (#463) (User Info)

The Napster situation is just the beginning of what I would like to "chat" about with Metallica. I suppose most people here are too young to remember, but Metallica used to actually make really good underground metal music (hence the name). Personally, I think since Cliff died, they should have changed the name to PoppyMakeABuckAllica. It sounds a lot more like what they are doing than Metallica does. I know I'm not the old school Metallica fan out there. Someone back me up on this. Where am I going with this? Well, this lawsuit is just the latest in a series of stupid, selfish and monetarily motivated moves on the part of Metallica. The comments by Lars in the article pretty much tell the story. Metallica is no longer a band, but a corporate entity. Bands want to see thier music out there (and yes, I know this from experience). I don't mind if one of the songs I've recorded is swapped about on tapes, MP3s or anything else. I would mind if someone else was claiming that they wrote the song, or that they were the ones that first performed it, but I don't think that is the issue. Bottom line, Metallica just keeps coming up, and will do anything to make a dollar. I personally went out of my way to avoid them when they started putting out radio pop rock. Of course, now that they suck thier music is played everywhere. So I quit listening to the radio except when I am forced to, and guess what, Metallica is all over the web, my favorite hang out, smearing thier marketing feces everywhere telling the world how the business of Metallica is far more important than the music of Metallica. I've got one thing to say to Metallica, not that they would listen: Get over yourselves. Cliff was what made you a kick ass band, and ever since you've been fighting to find out what your music should be. Well, enough. I'm outta here. Gotta go clean my ears out with my guitar amp cranked up to SCREEECHINGLY LOUD!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by the Man in Black on Friday April 28, @11:47AM EDT (#290) (User Info) http://www.frymulti.com/~jjackson

"Dr. Bates went on to say, "This free flow of information and ideas must stop! Free apps like Napster and free OSs like Linux must be purged from all Internet-connected computers! They are to blame for DDoS attacks AND massive piracy of music that should...no...MUST be paid for!" By the way, Slashdotters...when did the definition of piracy equal "Giving copyrighted material away free of charge". When I make a mix tape of songs for my girlfriend, am I committing copyright infringement? Should I be charging her per song on the tape, as well as cost and materials of making the tape? And I'm sure I should be sending each artist a percentage of the profit.... Give me a fscking break. All Napster does is make easier something that's been going on forever..."Hey, listen to this song! Will you dub this for me?" Digital or otherwise, it's not illegal unless you are profiting from copyrighted material. Am I wrong? ---And like that...*POOF!*...he's gone...

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @01:59PM EDT (#430) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

Digital or otherwise, it's not illegal unless you are profiting from copyrighted material. Am I wrong? Why do you think they had to draft the DMCA? We can't have people sharing, now can we? -- currently at V.9

Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:1) by puppet10 on Friday April 28, @02:09PM EDT (#439) (User Info)

Actually I think you are wrong, it is copyright infringment to do this. However, it is completely unenforcable and has become socially acceptable, hence it is sort of like speeding 5-10 mph over the limit, wrong but not generally a big deal. The problem is that unlike speeding, if someone decides to pursue the issue copyright infringement the penalties are serious ($100,000 fine 10? years in prison, federal charges), but generally the only cases pursued are people infringing wholesale, and selling the copied product for profit. The chilling thing about these recent cases is that the companies are trying to pursue the small time infringers through threats (Metallica) and direct lawsuits (Dr.Dre), who have become a bigger problem to them because of programs like Napster. -------- This space intentionally left blank --------

Metallica (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @10:05AM EDT (#6)

If Metallica could release a decent fucking album I don't think this would be happening. Fucking pussies cut their hair.

My Defense of Napster (Score:5, Insightful) by Neuronix (igotfucked@yahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @10:05AM EDT (#8) (User Info)

Alright, I'm tired of hearing the same old arguement over and over again, so here's the reasons I use Napster now instead of buying CDs (I own several hundred CDs btw). First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc... Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA... Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise. Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase. The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews. I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on. (P.S. I've posted this before, but it never gets moderated up very high, if at all)

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @10:15AM EDT (#33)

To pick up on point 3 - just because you can't afford the CD (or don't consider it worth spending money on, as most people who claim not to be able to afford CD's seem to be able to spend money on other non essentials) does NOT give you the right to steal it. There are plenty of things in life I can't afford, and I will simply have to wait until I can before I get to have them.

When you don't have the right ... (Score:2) by Nicolas MONNET (nico@nospam.monnet.to) on Friday April 28, @11:03AM EDT (#189) (User Info) http://monnet.to

... take the left. Oh how much I hate moralizing Anonymous Cowards. Stealing from a poor person is extremely bad. Stealing from an undecently wealthy bastard is just fair. Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?

Re:When you don't have the right ... (Score:1) by waynem77 on Monday May 01, @08:18PM EDT (#664) (User Info) http://www.tiac.net/users/waynem/

I may be misunderstanding you, (I hope I'm misunderstanding you) but are you asserting that it's perfectly moral to steal, provided the victim has more money to start with than the thief? That seems like a rather mean-spirited philosophy. I won't argue that stealing is wrong, period. I can think of some cases where theft is perfectly justified. I think your system, however, is morally flawed.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2, Insightful) by barracg8 on Friday April 28, @11:32AM EDT (#271) (User Info)

Hmmm. An analogy: If a student wants to have a half decent OS (ie. non-win9x) on their computer the choice boils down to this: either install Linux or get a pirate of Windows NT. (I'm simplifying - be/bsd/whatever people please don't bother flaming) Technically the piracy of NT is stealing - but it doesn't cost Microsoft anything. The student learns the microsoft product and not linux. When he becomes an IT proffesional he uses WinNT systems not Unix. The piracy of Microsoft software by people who could not afford to buy it in the first place, who are learning and experimenting with OSes, is GOOD for MS. People who cannot afford the music would not be buying it anyway. The band lose nothing, and gain a bigger fan base. Sorry for mentioning MS on /. - I know it offends a lot of people, but it had to be done :-)

Oh yeah, and as a side... (Score:1) by Neuronix (igotfucked@yahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @10:17AM EDT (#38) (User Info)

Once I used to listen to Metallica, several of their CDs are mixed in with that several hundred I own. If I didn't find Napster, I may still be listening to Metallica today for lack of something better to listen to. Another motive for stifling online trade of music completely? I'm sure that the big record companies want as little competition as possible, but with the Internet, they cannot control all of the music like they do with MTV or radio.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2, Informative) by spiralx (spiralx@REMOVETHIS.spazmail.com) on Friday April 28, @10:22AM EDT (#63) (User Info)

First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc... I take it you mean the harder trance stuff rather than the progressive house stuff that's so prevalent today. I'm personally into acid techno and minimal techno, and they're even harder to find - it's all on vinyl as singles, and mixes are as rare as gold. In fact, finding it on Napster is still a challenge. Actually, if you're in the US then I can imagine it's pretty hard to find decent stuff. I know dance music is just about taking off over there - there's quite a big acid techno scene in NY nowadays, but it's not quite as universal as it is here in the UK and across Europe. Try Hard To Find Records for decent stuff, and they do worldwide delivery as well. Okay, it's not free, but it's better than the local store I'm sure ;) "An intellectual is someone who has been moderated beyond their intelligence."

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2, Insightful) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @10:24AM EDT (#67) (User Info)

You're making the exact same points that people make when they justify pirating software. And my position is the same here. I agree that it would be ultra-spiffy if the laws allowed us to treat everything as "shareware" (download the songs, and then either buy them or destroy them), but what you're advocating is allowing us to treat everything as free for the taking, and I definitely don't agree.     Why? Well, personally, I like the idea that people can make a living as songwriters and performers (even if I probably never will...). I suppose that after the people's revolution against capitalism, this won't be an issue, but until then, do you really want your favorite musicians to have to keep a day job?     There is one more point in your post: The musicians (and labels) are making enough damn money, so your stealing from them is ok. Well, there are a lot of people who aren't making as much as Metallica--who are, in fact, making just enough that they have to make the tough choice between giving up their day job or putting less effort into their musical career. Many of the bands I listen to are in that position. As Napster gets bigger and bigger, and their earnings go down, fewer and fewer of them will make the choice I want them to. no .sig, no slogan

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Friday April 28, @02:22PM EDT (#450) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/

Well, personally, I like the idea that people can make a living as songwriters and performers (even if I probably never will...). So do I. (Although post-copyright I suspect that fewer people will be able to do so, while more people will be able to write or perform as a part-time job or lucrative hobby.) But a pay-per-copy model isn't the way to do it. Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by n1x0n on Friday April 28, @10:25AM EDT (#75) (User Info)

I'm not going to comment on the availability of trance. It's probably like you say, that there isn't much trance to be bought in the record stores, but then again, most trance artists don't sue people for spreading their music so if Napster was only about spreading trance music there wouldn't be much controversy surrounding it. As for the rest of your post, what you are saying is that: 1. You do not want to buy music that you haven't heard. If you try asking the people who work at the record store they will probably let you listen to the record once (or maybe even twice) before buying the record. So that's not a big problem. 2. You can't afford to buy records. Well, I feel sorry for you, but it's still not okay to steal something just because you can't afford it. (If I'm wrong here you are welcome to explain to me when it's okay, I have some stuff I can't afford myself.) 3. Other people buy the records, so the artists will make money anyway. Okay, so Metallica probably will continue to make money despite Napster, but as more people start stealing music, the sales will go down and it is the artists that don't sell too many records (trance?..) that will lose the most money. So, even if Napster is a great way to get the MP3's you want, you should be aware that you are doing something wrong everytime you download a copyrighted song. I think it's right to try to limit the effectiveness of tools like Napster by banning them at campuses. The bandwidth that the pirates suck up can be put to better use (by using it for Allegiance for instance...). /n1x0n

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Serf (matthews@softhome.net) on Friday April 28, @10:52AM EDT (#158) (User Info) http://serf.cjb.net/

If you try asking the people who work at the record store they will probably let you listen to the record once (or maybe even twice) before buying the record. Vinyl (which most trance comes out on), yeah, that's usually the case. But I assume you're talking about CD's, so I'd just like to know which music store you go to. The best I've seen are stores that let you listen to any used CD you want - but, generally, anything w/ shrink wrap is off-limits. And it doesn't sound like this guy has a turntable, anyway. (Or like he could afford one.) You can't afford to buy records. Well, I feel sorry for you, but it's still not okay to steal something just because you can't afford it. If he goes out and does buy it when he has money, please explain to me how anybody is losing money from this. and it is the artists that don't sell too many records (trance?..) that will lose the most money. Really? Generally, the artists that don't sell many records are VERY hard to find, even on Napster, and specifically, trance has to come out on vinyl, because DJs have to use it. (Would most DJ's even consider using MP3's, or anything that had ever been MP3 encoded? Probably not. Swirly hi-hats and other similar audio disasters are not good things.) I'll admit it, I've pirated songs using Napster before. And, sometimes, I went right out and bought the CD's. Why? MP3 sound quality isn't all that great, if you're downloading a mix you have to choose between downloading a single huge track and downloading separate tracks with annoying jumps between the songs, and it's the right thing. No artist (even record label, for that matter) is getting any less money from me because of Napster. Listen to bad music here.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by n1x0n on Friday April 28, @11:12AM EDT (#216) (User Info)

But I assume you're talking about CD's, so I'd just like to know which music store you go to. It doesn't really depend much on which store I go to, here in Stockholm most of there stores will let me listen to a record before I buy it. (I usually just listen to some of the tracks at - dare I say it? - amazon.com before I buy a record though.) As with the "the smallest artists will lose most" thing, I believe that artists like Metallica will continue to make a lot of money from other stuff than the actual records, like concerts and t-shirts, etc. Smaller artists don't have same ability to do that. Also, not all who listen to trance are DJ's and therefore don't need the vinyl. And since Napster seems to be by far the easiest way to get for instance trance music, those small artists will continue to lose opportunities to sell records since people just download the music instead of searching for it off the net. /n1x0n

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Serf (matthews@softhome.net) on Friday April 28, @11:35AM EDT (#277) (User Info) http://serf.cjb.net/

It doesn't really depend much on which store I go to, here in Stockholm most of there stores will let me listen to a record before I buy it. And then, here in Beijing, it doesn't matter because they're all about US$1 apiece and none are any good anyways. :) But my experience before I came here, back in the States, was that pretty much anything with shrink wrap was off-limits - even at stores that weren't big chains. (I usually just listen to some of the tracks at - dare I say it? - amazon.com before I buy a record though.) This worked for me for a while, but I've found that I really have to have more than that to make a decision. I need to listen to a few full songs to see if I like more than a particular 30 seconds worth of the first 4 tracks. Smaller artists don't have same ability to do that. Yes, but the more widely their music is distributed, the more power they have to do that. I've lost the link, but somebody here a few weeks back was posting a link to an article that detailed what a typical artist gets in a typical record deal - screwed. They almost never earn out the advance (and have to spend most of that on producing the album anyway), and only have any sort of opportunity to make money on the tours and merchandise. Having said that, I'm not a small, struggling artist with a record deal, so if anyone who is or ever has been one has had a different experience, feel free to correct me. Also, not all who listen to trance are DJ's and therefore don't need the vinyl. I'm one. And since Napster seems to be by far the easiest way to get for instance trance music, those small artists will continue to lose opportunities to sell records since people just download the music instead of searching for it off the net. Well, I never would have found out that I really liked trance if it weren't for Napster. And I'm not sure what kind of cut artists get from inclusion on a mix album, but quite a few have gotten that much more from me because of Napster. Listen to bad music here.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by DeekGeek (deekgeek at chapeldata dot com) on Friday April 28, @12:39PM EDT (#366) (User Info)

Would most DJ's even consider using MP3's, or anything that had ever been MP3 encoded? Probably not. IANADJ, but I find this statement interesting. There's a company in Clearwater, Florida that makes an MP3-based DJ system, and their newspaper interview described it as the perfect way to be a portable DJ. Probably nothing but company hype, but then again... Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress. - Mahatma Gandhi

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2) by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Friday April 28, @11:09AM EDT (#203) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/

> 2. You can't afford to buy records. Well, I feel > sorry for you, but it's still not okay to steal > something just because you can't afford it. (If > I'm wrong here you are welcome to explain to me > when it's okay, I have some stuff I can't afford > myself.) I really don't want to start ANOTHER flamewar on this point but...here goes.... Trying to reason out...why is stealing wrong? In my view of morality, there is 1 and only 1 reason why stealing is morally unacceptable. Simply put, if I steal your car, you lose a car. The fact that I have the car is irrelavent. it is not wrong because "I have it" it is wrong because You don't. Therefore I can not take it, without depriviving the rightful owner of it. With music, this is not the case. It is copying. If I see you have a fountain in your yard, and I decide I want a fountain...so I go down to the hardware store, buy some cement, pipes whatever and build myself a copy of your fountain, then I have a very hard time calling that "stealing". You are completely not involved in the transaction , it has nothing to do with you. This is the very nature of a "Copy". > So, even if Napster is a great way to get the > MP3's you want, you should be aware that you are > doing something wrong everytime you download a > copyrighted song. Yup...the same way women all over the world are doing something wrong by leaving their house without covering ALL body hair. (according to islamic law). Its morally wrong, the Koran says so. You should be aware of it. Oh yea, and not everyone agrees with your moral veiwpoint (see above). Much like those billions of women who go out without all of their face and hair covered. -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by grarg (thatsaboutenoughspamthanks@hotmail.com) on Friday April 28, @12:22PM EDT (#344) (User Info) http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~morpheus

The common phrase in the business world is "opportunity cost". If you download the MP3 instead of buying the album, the artist loses out. That's always been the argument against music/software "piracy". Thing is: I don't believe this argument necessarily applies. Having MP3s to play while you're at your computer is all very well, but it's so bloody hard to get decent quality tracks from the web; they're either scrambled, have too much treble/bass, , are too loud/quiet or the server dies before you're finished. I'm a perfectionist - I don't just want lots of music, but I want it to stand the test of being listenable when I record it onto my MD walkman (stop thief!) so ultimately, I'm most likely to buy the CD and THEN rip it. "The conclusion of your syllogism", I said lightly, "is fallacious, being based upon licensed premises"

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Friday April 28, @12:48PM EDT (#373) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/

> The common phrase in the business world is > "opportunity cost". If you download the MP3 > instead of buying the album, the artist loses > out. That's always been the argument against > music/software "piracy". Well "common sense" has 2 major problems: 1) Noon seems to agree on what is common sense and what isn't. 2) Its often wrong, or based on things that are unprovable (like moral arguments, and assume that everyone used the same metrics for their morality) Also...again as many have said...what about the case when a person downloads an MP3, but would not have bpurchased the CD even if they couldn't get the mp3? Another failing of this "oppertunity cost". I agree with your other argument tho. The major reason I stopped looking for songs I like in mp3 is the quality. Whenever I buy a CD, I rip it to mp3 at 192 kBps. (well most things...not everything needs it)...normally the quality of the free mp3s blows....at least thats how it was a few years ago. So I go and buy CDs, then rip them and add them to my private mp3 collection. Works much nicer. -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by MushMouth (smushmoth@yahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @02:13PM EDT (#440) (User Info)

This is funny when someone violates the GPL, nobody is hurt or "loses" anything, yet the violator is boycotted, called a thief, e-mail bombed...... Stop with the double standard here, Metallica makes music, and give you terms to use it and listen to it, you don't like those terms don't listen to their music. What is going to end up happening is that routers on all the ISP's (who will be sued, and rightly so) are going to shut off napster, and any sort of clone. Napster could do the right thing, but they are choosing not to play the game by the rules that the artist's who make the music set.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Friday April 28, @02:26PM EDT (#453) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/

> This is funny when someone violates the GPL, > nobody is hurt or "loses" anything, yet the > violator is boycotted, called a thief, e-mail > bombed...... > > Stop with the double standard here, Excuse me? Did I email bomb anyone? I have never done that in my life. Have I been applying a double standard here? Not me. You are acusing me of a double standard because of the actions and words of other people. As far as boycotting, thats another story...I reserve the right to nbot buy the product of ANY company at ANY time, and to advocate the non-use of their products. No double standard needed. If I don't agree with something they do (be it operating sweat shops, or making proprietary software) then I may decide to not purchase their product. This is my right. As for napster....napster is a service, like the phone company. They simply provide a means for sharing files, no differnet than the WWW or even ICQ...its just a little easier. What people do, or do not do, with napster is their own buisness. As for bloacking any "clones" that would be nearly impossible....unless you know how to write a piece of code that checks a network packet, sees its content, and is able to determine with 100% accuracy if the originator of the packet has the legal "right" to distribute the software. > Napster could do the right thing, You mean enforce economic censorship? Thats not their buisness...they simply provide people with the means for easy file sharing. It is not their job to police everything, any more than it is the job of the phone company to monitor your phone conversations, toi make sure you aren't breaking "the law". -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:"You still have your source" (Score:2) by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Friday April 28, @12:04PM EDT (#309) (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/

> And how about your own web page: "This page is > the sole property of The Carp". Then you go on > to list terms on which other people can copy it, > such as "proper credit is given to the author". > > You hypocrite. Good eye...however...what you don't know about those pages is that I wrote them a LONG time ago. That page has not been updated in a LONG time. In fact...that particular page probably hasn't been substantially updated in 4 years. (other than perhaps when I converted some of the gif's to PNGs....I don't know if I even uploaded that update to the public pages.) Rest assured, when I come out with my new pages, and take those down, that statment will apear nowhere in the text....As I no longer believe that I have the right to say it. > Hey, guess what. I just made a copy of your > site. Next I'll see if I can sell advertising on > it, Hey cool! I am glad you like it. Have fun with it. However I would apreciate it if you would not call it MY pages, since, when you put it up, its no longer my pages, and claiming I said or put up pages that you have put up would be a form of fraud. Beyond that....enjoy. I am glad that something I wrote may be useful to someone. (actually I know some parts have been useful to people already - so I already feel good about it) -Steve -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by CSG_SurferDude (moc.66tr@aadew) on Friday April 28, @12:24PM EDT (#346) (User Info) http://www.rt66.com/~wedaa

1. You do not want to buy music that you haven't heard. If you try asking the people who work at the record store they will probably let you listen to the record once (or maybe even twice) before buying the record. So that's not a big problem. Really? What record store do you shop at? We have three chain stores that sell CDs where I live. Two of them only have a "Store only" CD player. You think that they'll let me play an entire CD of my "Esoteric" music to the entire store? NOT! The other store actually has a "Listening Post", but it's just preprogrammed, so you can only listen to the CDs that they want you to listen to. In other words, you live in a different universe than mine! ;-) CSG_Surferdude www.fuml.org

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2, Troll) by unicorn (kentbunn@hotmail.com) on Friday April 28, @10:35AM EDT (#107) (User Info)

"(I own several hundred CDs btw)" Bully for you, and entirely irrelevant. Unless you are only collecting mp3's for things that you own already, in which case you still don't need Napster. "First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..." So because you have "rarified tastes", you suddenly have carte blanche to steal whatever you want. I'm sure that the stuff is available somewhere, otherwise, it wouldn't be available as mp3's. You could always try and join/build a community of trancers, that would let people know what's new, and good, and where to get it. I'm sure that you could legitimately pay for what you use, if you only wanted to. "Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA..." So don't buy the stuff you don't like. And everyone buys CD's that have dreck on them. Just don't buy more from that band, if you don't like the direction that they're going. If it's worth stealing tho, it ought to be worth buying. Caveat Emptor. And if it's available outside the US, I'm sure that there is some channel that you could use to get it here as well. What with all the online music vendors. "Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise." So because it's a "victimless crime", it's perfectly ok? Or because you're poor, you should have a different set of guidelines, than someone that makes more money? Get a job. If the music is so important to you, that you HAVE TO HAVE IT, then get a second job. It's a matter of priorities. The things that really matter to you, you can find a way to facilitate. "Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase." So because you are stealing from people that might be better able to afford it, it's suddenly acceptable? I'm sure that breaking and entering, carries a much lighter sentence when you bust into Bill Gates's house, than when you bust into mine. Makes sense. Yeah, record company greed does suck. But just because they are greedy, doesn't justify the fact that you are too. Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"? "The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews." If you don't like the sales help, don't patronize the store. The fact that you don't like the salesclerks at Tower Records, doesn't suddenly give you carte blanche to steal the products elsewhere. And sure buying online is a risk, you don't know if you'll like what you're buying. In case you didn't catch it earlier, it's called caveat emptor. Buyer beware. Build a community of friends whose tastes you do trust. Find legitimate samples of the musicians work, so you can taste before you buy. Become an informed consumer, rather than a petty theif. "I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on." I'm sure you do love it. You get to take whatever you want, without actually having to walk into a store, and risk getting popped for shoplifting. It's great for you. But you're not the only person involved. The artists have rights as well, and in stealing their work, you are trampling all over their rights. ------ Count me grateful to MS. If they make it too easy to use, I'll have to get a real job.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by krogoth (krogoth2 at softhome dot net) on Friday April 28, @10:54AM EDT (#165) (User Info) http://freed.sourceforge.net

"So because you have "rarified tastes", you suddenly have carte blanche to steal whatever you want." I think what he wanted to say was that he could only get this music through napster. If metallica didn't sell CDs (or any recordings), and then complained that people were pirating MP3s, what would you think? Napster is mostly used illegaly, but some people do use it to distribute their music that isn't sold anywhere, or to find music that isn't sold anywhere. If these lawsuits shut down napster, this legal music distribution will be stopped of slowed. -Krogoth

actually... (Score:1) by unicorn (kentbunn@hotmail.com) on Friday April 28, @11:25AM EDT (#255) (User Info)

Actually, his original comment was:   "First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..." Where he plainly admits that it's difficult to get, but does say that he could get trance elsewhere. And one other reply to his comments listed a source for hard to find music that would ship anywhere in the world. His comments actually started at least one thread of the type that I repeated advocated for him. The rudest beginnings of a community, that would allow him to legitimately obtain that which he is so unwilling to pay for. Too bad he's not interested in being aboveboard. ------ Count me grateful to MS. If they make it too easy to use, I'll have to get a real job.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Tim Doran (tjdoran(at)bigfoot.com) on Friday April 28, @11:32AM EDT (#272) (User Info) http://www.bigfoot.com/~col_archive

Interesting... I think the original post was more notable for what it said about the current music distribution model than its defense of Napster. 1. He can't find the music he likes. The current model leaves lots of room for Mariah and Will Smith, but simply doesn't allow for small-run releases... if your tastes vary from the mainstream, you're going to have to look long and hard to find anything you like. 2. Most music for sale can't be listened to prior to purchase. Some stores will make a small number of CD's available for preview, but the vast majority of the music is shrinkwrapped and you have to take your chances. 3. Prices are artificially high. How do I know? Cassettes generally sell for $5-7 LESS than CD's, despite their much smaller appeal and more expensive manufacture. I'm no conspiracy nut, but it looks to me like the music business has gotten the public hooked on CD's then jacked up the price. I don't think an argument can be made that Napster is legal, or somehow not an infringement of copyright. What I do expect is that legislation and litigation will be unable to keep up with technology, and that the technology is going to (finally) force a change in this exploitative business model. "You're an ugly little girl. You're going to grow up to be a fat cashier and nobody's going to marry you." - 'Satan', Highway 61

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by AshleyB (Ashleyb@microsoft.com) on Friday April 28, @10:35AM EDT (#108) (User Info)

Did I just read someone say that a proper defense of Napster is you are POOR and can't afford cd's? Furthermore, when you buy cd's they are crappy? There is a reason that doesn't get moderated up...what kind of explanation for theft is 'I can't afford to legally buy them'. Most people can't afford a Ferrari either...you don't see people heisting them. The reason you will find more often is that 'I just DON'T want to pay for them'; At least those people are being honest. Napster's (and gnutella's) primary purpose is to distribute copyrighted material between people who just don't want to pay for it. Sure some people say that they just want a preview before they buy a cd, or that they want rare stuff they can't find anywhere else. I don't think that those reasons represent the vast majority of the users. Ultimately Napster will lose, shut down and that will be that OR they will win a long battle while other similar products (like gnutella) sneak past radars and become awesomely powerful. There are lots of baseless lawsuits in this country but this is not one of them...the artists have a legitimate claim. But it doesn't matter...the entire country is in such a rush to extend the web into everything that these type of programs will not be stopped. Plus you can't underestimate the desire for people to get free stuff. Bottom line: Metallica et al are correct in their opinion but they can't stop the oncoming landslide of similar programs. They just have to deal with it. sigh...just read the user bio.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2) by Nicolas MONNET (nico@nospam.monnet.to) on Friday April 28, @11:07AM EDT (#201) (User Info) http://monnet.to

There is a reason that doesn't get moderated up...what kind of explanation for theft is 'I can't afford to legally buy them'. Most people can't afford a Ferrari either...you don't see people heisting them. When you steal a Ferrari, the owner won't have it anymore. SO YOUR POINT IS VOID, EMPTY, NULL, NADA, BOLLOCKS, NICHTS, RIEN DU TOUT. (PS: are you really at microsoft.com?) Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?

Agreed - the Ferrari analogy is no good (Score:1) by Serf (matthews@softhome.net) on Friday April 28, @11:21AM EDT (#242) (User Info) http://serf.cjb.net/

And so are all its variations. When you steal a Ferrari, the owner won't have it anymore. If I steal a Ferrari, the company doesn't get more exposure. If I steal a Ferrari, the company won't get more people coming to its shows. If I steal a Ferrari, that isn't going to make more people want to buy/steal one. If I borrow a Ferrari, the owner can't use it while it's gone. If I steal a Ferrari, I'm probably going to damage it in the process. On the other hand, if I steal a Ferrari, the "artist" (Ferrari) gains - the insurance company loses. There are plenty of good anti-Napster arguments (just as there are plenty of good pro-Napster arguments), but this isn't one of them. Listen to bad music here.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by AshleyB (Ashleyb@microsoft.com) on Friday April 28, @12:00PM EDT (#300) (User Info)

You forgot BUPKUS:) The Ferrari analogy was merely to point out that just because you can't afford something that it NOT a valid excuse for stealing it. Your point is saying that stealing music is not the same because a Ferrari is a single object while an mp3 is infinitely reproducible. Granted, but that was not my point. I was expressing disbelief at the assertion that the inability to afford something was being used to defend stealing. But just to follow a train of thought...pretty dumb actually, but what if you COULD replicate a Ferrari? Would Joe Ferrari have a problem with you coming down to the dealership, scanning in the latest model, saying "computer, replicate" and driving away? Kinda makes the value of one drop, doesn't it? Stealing bread because you can't afford it I will debate you on, but that argument cannot be used for music. (PS: read the user bio:)) sigh...just read the user bio.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Nodatadj (u07ih@NOSPAM.abdn.ac.uk) on Friday April 28, @04:17PM EDT (#516) (User Info) http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~u07ih/spamfree/

Finally someone with some sense...(although you work for M$, but I guess we all make mistakes). Music is a luxury, like a ferrai is a luxury. Even if they are traded like commodities, they are still luxuries. Likewise, I would argue that stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family really depends on the circumstances, because bread is a commodity. This really had no point, but there's so many people complaining that stealing music is fine, that I was glad to see someone thinking straight.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Stonehand (lw2j@cs.cmu.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:47AM EDT (#145) (User Info) http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~lw2j

Irrelevant. Convenience does not equal justice. Happiness, actually, does not equal justice, either. What's at issue is the ability of a creative artist to possess rights related to the control of his work, and his ability to transfer those rights to others (publishing companies) as desired. There exists no right to gratification. If the artist(s) wish for their audience to freely access their music, most are presumably capable of eventually producing works unencumbered by contracts and distributing it themselves, for as low or no cost as they desire. Most, clearly, have not taken that route, and that position should be honored. Transactions should be cooperative and voluntary. That means that there is no right to compel the transfer of rights of others, barring a compelling public interest -- such as where the execution of those rights would interfere with the fundamental rights of others. Playing with shaped charges and uranium hemispheres, for instance, may suddenly infringe upon the right of your neighbors to not be slain without due cause -- in this case, via instant disintegration. Consequently, the normal doctrine of property rights would be inhibited slightly. Creative works, however, did not exist until creation. Consequently, others can hardly claim to be deprived if they lack access to such, unless the creator implements unusual discriminatory terms such as refusing to sell to those above 30... -- the silly student / he writes really bad haiku / readers all go mad

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2) by barleyguy on Friday April 28, @11:27AM EDT (#259) (User Info)

Happiness, actually, does not equal justice, either. Actually, the whole concept of justice is based on the pursuit of happiness. So happiness, is a sense, DOES equal justice. You have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It can't be taken away by an government, period. This is regardless of whether they think they can. Transactions should be cooperative and voluntary. When an artist sells me a CD, that transaction is cooperative and voluntary. When I play that CD for a friend, or show my list of CD's on Napster, that transaction is also cooperative and voluntary. What you are assuming is that some third party has a say in how two people transact. You speak of rights as though they are granted. Rights can never be granted. You are given freewill the instant you exist in the universe. Rights can only be taken away. In the case of modern government, this is accomplished through fear. You speak as though the government has a right to cause that fear, and that you must yield to it, and ask permission to pursue happiness. All I can say is - no chance. screw that. Live Free. As far as Napster goes, if Metallica and Dr. Dre don't want me download their songs from Napster, I'll quit. Voluntarily. However, I'll stop buying their CD's and going to their concerts as well. (Not that I've ever bought a Dr. Dre album, though I've liked Metallica since Master of Puppets.) I'll support bands that support freedom. In today's context, that means supporting bands that support Napster. By the way, the bands Offspring and Limp Biskit have both spoke out in favor of Napster. I'm considering buying the new Offspring album, and sending them an e-mail to tell them why I bought it. --- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits

Try buying Bad Religion or The Descendents instead (Score:1) by evilpete (peteratgoodtechdotcodotuk) on Friday April 28, @12:07PM EDT (#315) (User Info) http://ds.dial.pipex.com/setchells/pete/

Offspring sound OK and they're pretty fun live - but their music is fairly derivative. Their main success comes from bringing an eMpTyV marketing ethic to a sound that originated with much more creative bands. The bands that did it first did it better and deserve your money more than the offspring. Try picking up music by Bad Religion, The Descendents or maybe some Dead Kennedys stuff. If you want something punk but a little louder and faster then try some NYHC like Sick of it All or Agnostic Front. +++++ sorry i'm late, fell asleep meditating.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Woolfie on Friday April 28, @10:54AM EDT (#161) (User Info)

1) "You are into trance": Yes, it is difficult to find that kind of music in stores. We are starting an online music shop esp. for this kind of music soon. Our problem: Almost NONE of the small labels is willing to sell music over the net as plain mp3 any more. They all require us to put some kind of copy protection on it. And Napster is to blame for that. Small labels need to sell their music to survive. They now think it will get copied over and over and they don't get money for their work any more. Btw, you'll find us at www.soundg.com 2) "Junk": Well, you need to listen to what you are going to buy. You can do that in every good record store and you can do that online in legal music-on-demand stores. 3) "You are poor": There are lots of good, free music. Most of the musicians that play the kind of music that you like, "are poor", too. They need every cent. 4) "Record sales are booming": This is the typical "the others pay anyway, so why should I?" argument. Not a very good argument. I hope you don't feel flamed by this. I have just been talking to so many musicians within the last few months. And their statements were much more thought through than anything I hear here from the music industry as well as from the self-proclaimed promotors of freedom (on other's cost, of course).

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Serf (matthews@softhome.net) on Friday April 28, @11:19AM EDT (#235) (User Info) http://serf.cjb.net/

Hm - perhaps I'm wrong here, but I thought this wouldn't be as much of a problem for electronic music (or at least the dance-oriented varietiees). About how much of the market is DJ's, and about how much is home listeners? And of those DJ's, are any significant number actually willing to use MP3's (or former MP3's)? Wouldn't the sound quality put them off? Listen to bad music here.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Woolfie on Friday April 28, @11:28AM EDT (#260) (User Info)

you are right, the dance-oriented stuff is much easier to get than ambient or trance music. We actually have a couple of DJs in our team and the reason they love the internet is: you can get out many remixes and variants of a song easily, the listeners decide which of the remixes they like. The sound quality is perfect for this kind of music. The problem is: now, with all the Napster trouble and the RIAA and SDMI warning everyone, many of them are pretty reluctant to put anything at all on the internet without any copy protection.

Agreed. (Score:1) by barracg8 on Friday April 28, @11:02AM EDT (#187) (User Info)

Brilliant post. When I was a kid I had hundreds of copied tapes, and the MP3s are just a modern extension of this. I'm sure most people copy music for the same two reasons: I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. I remember hearing a story about the band U2. BBC Radio 1 were broadcasting live a concert they were playing, so they got a uk music magazine (Q/nme?) to print an inlay card for a tape, with a full track listing of the set they intended to play. They wanted to encourage people to tape and copy their music, bypassing the established music industry, and associated means of distribution, to get their music heard by as many people as possible. The more a bands music is distributed over the net -> the more people listening to their music -> the more fans they have. Simple :-) I'm poor. Yup. Why deny someone the music if they can't afford it anyway? everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase. The thing is taped recordings were always poor quality. If you liked the music and could afford to you would go out and buy the CD. So long as record companies can keep producing a commercial product which is better than the 'pirated' alternative (eg. music videos/interactive content/dvd audio), then they have nothing to fear, and people copying music will help promote artists more than it hinders sales.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @11:11AM EDT (#209) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. I'm sure you've seen it, but here's a good stream for those of you that like to try new things. I'm damn glad I've got the net, 'cause I like this kind of music, and without it, I never would have been exposed to it. It's great for long periods of time that require extended concentration, if any of you are ever in a position like that... -- currently at V.9

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by gravious (igravious at yahoo dot com) on Friday April 28, @11:12AM EDT (#211) (User Info)

Your argument is rubbish. I too am into electronica and so understand the difficulty in obtaining good quality trance/house stuff cheaply among all the MTV crap in most record stores. To say that Napster alleviates this problem is bullshit. Napster seems to me to provide the same proportion of boring music as in any Virgin or HMV record store I've gone into. Therefore I would contend that the music you are downloading is in fact stuff by bands like Underworld / Orbital / BT and so on. Stuff that is easy to get anywhere and you know it. Stray off the beaten track musically on Napster and your search will reveal 0 hits. It has for me again and again. So my friend, you are stealing, plain and simple, not "rooting out" undiscovered, hard to find gems. I personally believe that Napster itself is not at fault (how could it be, it is just a mechanism) but the people who place copyrighted MP3s up for grabs and the people who snaffle them. Don't get all bleeding high and mighty or i'm a poor student on me. When I was a student I just went to the record store and stole the damn tape or CD because I didn't have the money. I never turned around and said, "I had to, I was broke!" I am all for music industry reform and a world in which artist is connected to the audience without mega-corporations taking a huge slice of the monetary transaction but until that fine day I am going to continue to steal. Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by chemguru (chemguru@vol.com) on Friday April 28, @11:19AM EDT (#236) (User Info)

This is all wrong. Music artists that are crying because they are losing money due to the "mp3 scene" aren't really artists. How many sculpture artists do you know of that sculpt just for the money?? "Oh no! I made $4 mil of of this album, and this guy is steal ~$15 from me." Nevermind the fact that it's 15.00x 2100 (currently online) people on Napster. My God! is $4 million not enough, you greedy a$$3$!??!? Look at Limp Bizkit. They are playing a free concert tour ( that is being sponsored by Napster, btw =] ). They are in the music world to play their music. They want people to LISTEN to their music, not debate on whom to spend their hard earned $$ on. I'm curious as to what Dr. Dre, et. al., thinks about LB doing this free tour sponsored by the company they are suing. That WAS Dr. Dre in Limp's "Break Stuff" video, right? ( Click Here for "Break Stuff" video ) ---Chemguru I'm one step closer in finding the critical mass of U-236... or maybe I'm not. =]

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2, Informative) by ordu (ebola@DIESPAMDIE.gotpr0n.com) on Friday April 28, @11:32AM EDT (#269) (User Info) http://www.gotpr0n.com/~ebola

I once thought it was impossible to obtain over the net too, here are some links: http://www.spectralpsy.com - they sell mostly psytrance and goa. http://www.x-radio.com - they sell all sorts of electronica but they dont get the latest releases as often as other companies. http://www.sosrecords.com/ - another company selling all sorts of electronica. They get new stock all the time. They FINALLY take credit cards. http://www3.mistral.co.uk/chaosunltd/frchaos.htm - sells mostly psytrance/goa but you have to deal with import fees/delays :( I've found that most labels have a web page with online ordering. It's fairly obvious that I listen to mostly psytrance and goa, so most of my links are geared twords those sites. Flying Rhino, Matsuri, Edgecore, Blueroom, Twisted, etc, etc all have websites with online ordering and most have mp3/ra samples of the material. Hope this helps

Napster death = good ? (Score:1) by Betcour on Friday April 28, @11:35AM EDT (#276) (User Info)

Nasper death could be the greatest thing because that would move all the users to GNUtella or even Freenet, which are both much harder to track and control. I'd like to see the RIAA and Metalica going after GNUTella pirates - they'll regret dearly the good old Napster and its centralised access point. I just can't wait to see how Freenet will evolve - this thing will put the final nail in the coffin of all those who want to restrict the flow of information. Good or bad, we are headed toward a society where copyrights is something of the past.

My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:5, Informative) by Carnage4Life on Friday April 28, @11:46AM EDT (#289) (User Info) http://www.25hoursaday.com

I recently posted to the Dr.Dre lawsuit thread about why lawsuits against Napster are inevitable and how the record industry has shown itself to be more forward thinking than most slashdotters. Instead of rehashing the points I made before I'll briefly (I have to go code, no time) enumerate more reasons why slashdot's advocacy of piracy has begun to turn my stomach and will address some of the responses to my original post. Slashdot and Jon Katz claim to be about people's rights then openly advocate that the rights of musicians to profit from their work be ignored and trodden upon. Slashdot and Slashdotters have proven themselves to be the biggest hypocrites alive with the way they can castigate companies for abusing the GPL (which exists solely because there are copyright laws) in one breathe then say it's OK to steal music that was expensive to create, produce, and market. Some people have posted comparing the online music revolution to automobiles vs. coaches and printing presses vs. the bookmakers guild and have argued that the record industry should die and be replaced the same way that the coaches and bookmaker's guilds were replaced by automoblies and printing presses. The problem with this analogy is that both those revolutions took power out of the few and gave to the masses. Thus everyone (with enough income) could now print a book or get themselves from point A to point B. The Internet (along with other advances in other technology) have made it possible for anyone to create, market and sell music. Strangely enough after a watching places like MP3.com it is clear even though people have been freed of the yoke of music distribution pressure there is still a need for record labels. MP3.com is yet to produce any stars while most people I have met (as well as myself) who use Napster download music from established artists who have cost the record labels million$ of dollars to find, produce and market. So it seems that to compare this so-called revolution to the printing presses vs. bookmakers guilds or coaches vs. automobiles is only valid if printing presses could copy book's painstakingly hand-engraved by bookmakers or if automobiles gave people the ability to sneak rides on coaches without paying Concerts. Several people have commented that artists and record labels should give up on trying to make money from CD sales and should look to concerts as revenue earners. There are several flaws with this proposal. How are are small artistes supposed to pay for concerts? With this reasoning an artist can be massively popular but unable to afford to cover studio costs let alone put on shows. This of course will lead to a new ominous figure in the lives of artists: Concert sponsors : who will probably sign exclusive concerts et al until it's the entire record label fiasco again but limited to concerts. Secondly, how about forms of music that don't translate well to concerts. I have been to several rap concerts in the past few years and half of them sounded like shit even though the actual music when played at home/in the car/on a walkman sounded simply heavenly. Does this mean rap artists (the largest growing and second most lucrative music form in the U.S.) don't deserve to be paid but rock groups do? The I'm a poor student argument. I am a poor student but unlike most Americans don't believe I have a right to stuff simply because I am alive. The "everyone has this so must I" attitude is probably one of the most disgusting aspects of modern American life. <kinda offtopic> I just had a discussion with my girlfriend last night where she made the illogical argument that Macy's is like drug dealers because they both sell things that cause youth to commit crime and hence must be punished in some way. Such abdication of personal responsibility is very distressing <\kinda offtopic >. Not being able to afford it does not give you the right to steal it and then redistribute the stolen music. If someone broke into an HMV or a Sam Goody's, stole some CDs, kept the originals and burned a bunch of copies, then gave them away on the corner because he was poor is that somehow excusable? The fact that the artists are rich is also a stupid argument. There is no law in the U.S. (where the lawsuits are being filed) that says "To each give according to his needs, but from each take according to his ability". The monetary success of Metallica and Dr. Dre is what gives them the ability to sue Napster. Do you think that struggling college bands whose music is being spread all across the net with no remuneration wouldn't sue if they could affors to and they were being ripped of as much as Dr. Dre and Metallica (every single one of their songs is on Napster). The amount of money the artists have is irrelevant what is relevant is that they are being robbed by so-called fans (who refuse to pay for the music). In my original post I asked that instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates we should instead discuss how the music industry (artists included) can survive in a digital world. Please read my original post and respond below. Damn, I have to go code.... PS: I think it was stupid of Dre's lawyer's to mention something as ridiculous and difficult to enforce as suing Napster users. "Real programmers read slashdot but don't post, they are too busy writing code." - Carnage4Life

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2, Interesting) by Pinball Wizard (josheverist@yahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @12:24PM EDT (#347) (User Info)

Before I started down my path as a programmer, I played guitar in a rock band. Back in 92 when we put our only album out, I would have loved it if my music was spread freely throughout the internet. Do you even have a clue as to how corporate-controlled the radio stations all are? In my city, one big company controls about 90% of the radio market. So for anyone who really wants to spread their music, the internet is a Good Thing.(TM) The entire record industry is built on corporate control and manipulation. The entire concept of selling recordings is a 20th century invention. Music on the other hand, has always been around, has always been free, and one way or other always will be. Not only that, but I would bet if anyone did a study they would find that the free transmission of MP3's works to increase a given artists sales, not decrease them. hypocrat, noun; A person representing an authoritative entity, such as a corporation, that behaves in a manner contrary to its stated policies.

And this justifies it how? (Score:2) by FallLine on Friday April 28, @09:56PM EDT (#574) (User Info)

Ok so radio stations are corporate controlled. So what? How does Metallica suing Napster for their stuff being illegally distributed really stop you from distributing your stuff on the internet? It is not as if Napster is the only way to distribute "indy" music on the internet. In fact, dare I say it, it's a horrible way to do it because the user can only search for substrings; this is hardly an ideal way to promote your music. Mp3.com, numerous ftp sites, and the like provide a far far better way to get your music out to the masses. Nor is it as if, metallica is suing to stop YOUR music from being distributed for free against your wishes; they are only suing for their own IP. If napster is all it claims to be, then the absolute absence of pirated music should not interfere with its more legitimate activities (although everyone knows in reality that that piracy is the only reason they exist). In addition, this "information wants to be free" line is crap. There is no way in hell anyone could have ever produced an exact copy of metallica's mp3s. In other words, Metallica's attempts to stop the illegal distribution of mp3 of their CDs does nothing to stop the legitimate sharing of "free" music. Unlike the possible argument with other forms of IP protection, it does not possibly restrain anyone from indepedantly creating their own works. Metallica would only produce their music if they could make a living from it, and maybe even a "killing". Thus, given the choice between everything being "free" (read: No metallica) versus somethings costing money (read: metallica), even the rational cheapskate should prefer the latter. Even if the person personally don't want to purchase (or lack the funds) Metallica, they can still listen to it on the radio, copy their music, and generally benefit from its existence.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by spiel on Friday April 28, @12:33PM EDT (#359) (User Info)

"...millions of Americans have been accessing free music for years now, and have come to see their music archives as both a right and an integral part of their lives...." Hey, I've been accessing free books for years now at my local library. I myself have come to see access to free books as a right and an integral part of my life. So, Jon, how about putting your books on line and make them available for free download? You can always find alternative means of generating revenue to support yourself and your family.... Suburban Detective T-shirts.... Jon Katz refrigerator magnets... The Dude abides -- Jeffrey Lebowski

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by pohl (pohl@screaming.org) on Friday April 28, @12:41PM EDT (#369) (User Info)

Your claim that slashdotters are guilty of hipocracy betrays shallow thinking on your part. Imagine that you're reading the opinion page of a newspaper, say the Washington Post. On that page, you read two letters to the editor, on different subjects. Say that each of these letters contains a statement that, if they came from the same person, would be considered "hypocrisy". But note that they did not come from the same person. Nevertheless, you go off on a rant about how "Washington Posters" are hypocritical. Get my drift?

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by pohl (pohl@screaming.org) on Friday April 28, @06:44PM EDT (#551) (User Info)

The original poster, from my reading, literally accused slashdotters of hipocrisy, not Katz.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by KahunaBurger on Friday April 28, @10:05PM EDT (#575) (User Info)

The original poster, from my reading, literally accused slashdotters of hipocrisy, not Katz. And I'd have to agree with it because I've seen it. One poster was talking about "good government" and said that copyright wouldn't be enforced because its restriction of speach, but GPL would be because thats a matter of human rights. I suppose that its possible that outside of this single case that the massive number of /.ers advocating controll over your own information and respect for GPL are completely non-overlapping with the group saying that artists don't have the right to say how their work will be distributed, but there's no good reason to believe it. -Kahuna Burger

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by pohl (pohl@screaming.org) on Friday April 28, @06:46PM EDT (#552) (User Info)

...Slashdot and Slashdotters have proven themselves to be the biggest hypocrites alive with the way they can castigate companies

Whats the Issue (Score:2, Interesting) by infra-red on Friday April 28, @01:01PM EDT (#380) (User Info)

Downloading MP3's of copyright music is wrong. Someone put alot of effort into creating this art, and their intention was to receive some financial reward for their efforts. I have no problem with this, and I have no problem providing a portion of their reward if I believe it is worthy of my hard earned money. My issue with these lawsuits is that napster is a distribution method, and nothing more. It allows people to share their MP3's. The mistake is in equating copyrighted music with MP3's. An MP3 is simply a format that contains encoded music. This music may be illegal, or it may be legitimate shareable content. That depends on the source of the file, not its mere existence. Napster makes a tool which allows people to distribute MP3 files to other people. It doesn't care what the contents of these files are. It seems to me that charging Napster for making a distribution tool is wrong. This would be like charging PKware for making compression programs that can be used to aid in the distribution of illegal software. I mean, why else would you compress something on your machine. Perhaps every system that runs a news server should be charged since they are running a service that permits the distribution of illegal software. You may believe that the statement of suing Napster users is ridiculous. IMHO they are the only ones who have really violated the copyright of the artists. The reason that Napster is the target, is because it is perceived as a control point. Take it out and you have the ability to affect the highest number of users. The music industry is fighting this out as a war, and really doesn't care about anything more then buisness.

Re:Whats the Issue (Score:1) by NullLogic on Saturday April 29, @10:54AM EDT (#641) (User Info)

You may believe that the statement of suing Napster users is ridiculous. IMHO they are the only ones who have really violated the copyright of the artists. The reason that Napster is the target, is because it is perceived as a control point. Take it out and you have the ability to affect the highest number of users. The music industry is fighting this out as a war, and really doesn't care about anything more then buisness. You took the words right out of my mouth. Don't get me wrong, though. I think Metallica is doing the right thing (protecting their legally recognized copyright), but they're doing it the wrong way. I suppose they'll try to sue altavista and yahoo next. A quick search on either will get you their mp3's at least as reliably as Napster would. If that doesn't work, maybe they can lobby to have ftp banned. Or maybe they can sue Netscape for making a web browser that lets you do the same thing. Or NullSoft, for making software that lets you play these 'pirated' mp3's. The effect is the same either way. If they were to win a law suit against napster, then they'd be setting a major precedence which would limit the freedom of the net for years to come. Napster is no more responsible for the theft of their music than any retail outlet is responsible for some shoplifter stealing it. Of course, in the case of the retailer, Metallica makes their money anyways, and the store takes the loss, so that's ok for Metallica. Hell. Napster doesn't even host the mp3's. Did Lars Ulrich or anyone else even bother to fill out the form Napster has for complaints of copyright infringement they have on their site? BTW, searching yahoo brought up this.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by rumpDad on Friday April 28, @01:15PM EDT (#396) (User Info)

"MP3.com is yet to produce any stars while most people I have met (as well as myself) who use Napster download music from established artists who have cost the record labels million$ of dollars to find, produce and market" Maybe the death of the rock star is another step in the evolution of the music industry. We just aren't completly there yet.

Re:against the RIAA's self interest (Score:1) by TMB on Friday April 28, @01:36PM EDT (#409) (User Info)

A lot of good points. Using Napster to download all the songs from an album and then not buying that album is illegal and immoral. But is that what the main use of Napster is? I don't think it is. I'm going to assume that I'm a pretty typical Napster user. I just went through my 282 MP3s (about 1.3 Gb) and catalogued them by type. Here's the result: Bootleg / Unavailable: 104 Trying out: 51 Public domain: 12 Wouldn't buy: 70 Immoral: 45 "Bootleg / Unavailable" means the track is something I wouldn't be able to buy on a CD the artist released (either because they're bootleg live tracks, bootleg remixes, or are out of print). "Trying out" are tracks where I'm interested in finding out whether I should buy a CD from that artist. "Public domain" should be obvious, as is "Wouldn't buy". "Immoral" means that there is a CD that the artist has released with that track on it which I would like to have but don't. The "Trying out" section used to be larger, but it's shrunk a lot because I've either (a) listened to the song, said "I don't like this", and deleted it, or (b) listened to the song, said "I like this", and bought the CD. I've bought 4 CDs within the last week that were in the "Trying out" section. I'm about to write a cheque to buy 2 CDs with tracks from the "Public domain" section. The RIAA is not poorer for me having Napster; quite the opposite. Are 59% of my MP3s illegal? Yeah, sure. Do I feel guilty about that? Not as long as they're better off as a result. And anything that introduces me to more artists is going to be good for them. I'm sure there are people who completely and totally abuse Napster and use it to download entire albums that they should buy. And I'm sure that the libertarian /. crowd are high among those. But I'd be very surprised if they are more typical than me, especially when averaged over the amount of money the RIAA should make off us. [TMB]

Re:against the RIAA's self interest (Score:1) by NaughtyEddie (eddie@nospam.naughtydog.com) on Friday April 28, @03:06PM EDT (#478) (User Info)

These are good points, but I fail to see what the RIAA has to do with it. You're putting the cart before the horse. Screw the RIAA, that's what I say, they are the figurehead of a disgusting international cartel. On the other hand, it's not the RIAA that suffers when music gets pirated. It's (a) the record company and (b) the artist. I have no sympathy for the record company either, but they are a legal entity with a right to do business within the bounds set by the legal system, and as such demand the protection of the courts. Shit, guys, get over it! The thing that disgusts me is that nowhere in all these "oh I used Napster but I'm still a good person" arguments is that no-one gives a toss about the artists who literally did work their arses off to write and record their music - and then work harder touring to promote sales of their albums. I am a games programmer, and when I see my games being pirated (they're usually on the warez sites a good few weeks before they are on the shelves of EB) I get sick to the stomach. Yeah, fuck the publisher, I don't give a toss if they lose money - they just paid us to make this game. But what about the royalties I deserve to make from this? What about the hard work I put it? The salary I earn doesn't match the work I do making a game; we all (in the games industry) hope for a success in order to make some royalties which will adequately compensate us for the work we did. Rarely does this happen - just as, for a band, rarely will they become a hit. But when I see the stuff being traded for no money, by people who are so arrogant they claim that this is their right, that makes me want to vomit. You pirates - ALL you pirates - just stop and think a minute about who you are affecting by your actions. And, if you have imagination enough to claim that it is morally justifiable to commit theft, you should have enough imagination to work out WHY the DMCA exists, WHY it is being pounded so hard, and WHY we are going to end up with a society full of shit art and controlled by the RIAA and so on ... the WHY of it is BECAUSE OF YOU FUCKERS. Just STOP PIRACY and you might get the distribution model you so desire, WHEN that distribution model is mature and viable enough to be commercially acceptable. That's enough of my ranting, this is an emotive subject for me ;)

Re:against the RIAA's self interest (Score:1) by spyderbyte23 (spyderbyte23@hNOSPAMotmail.com) on Friday April 28, @07:33PM EDT (#555) (User Info) http://www.netwalk.com/~memanuele

The salary I earn doesn't match the work I do making a game; we all (in the games industry) hope for a success in order to make some royalties which will adequately compensate us for the work we did. The salary I earn taking tech support calls doesn't match the work I do taking them. Face it; everybody thinks they're worth more than they're actually earning. Is that the new standard for intellectual property laws? The amount of money the person responsible for creating the IP wishes to have?

Re:against the RIAA's self interest (Score:1) by NaughtyEddie (eddie@nospam.naughtydog.com) on Friday April 28, @07:56PM EDT (#564) (User Info)

Good question. In the games industry, many companies pay well under the odds for programmers (compared to other sectors of the programming industry) and make it up with a bonus or royalty scheme. When that bonus fails to appear because of piracy, I end up being underpaid. This is different from just a vague desire to earn more money (I have that too, of course ;) Tech support has no IP component so I fail to see the relevance of that. I wouldn't do it as a job, but there you go - if you're not happy, quit and do something more lucrative. If you can get a better salary doing the same work, go for that too. But at least you'll know you didn't take a salary hit so that some warez d00d could prove what a big dick he has. But, to answer your last point, YES. Not a standard for intellectual property laws, but a standard for the pricing of IP. The owner of the IP gets to set the price. That's fundamental. The IP owner decides the price; the market determines the success or failure of that IP based on the price relative to the IP's "worth" (whatever that means). Piracy places a zero price on IP regardless of worth, and totally screws up the whole calculation. It makes IP more expensive for everyone else, leading to a lower market acceptance because of the higher price, leading to the failure of more IP creators. This is what piracy does. It is *not* harmless. If the company you did tech support for had a lot of theft, I bet your salary would be lower too.

Re:against the RIAA's self interest (Score:1) by TMB on Saturday April 29, @03:03PM EDT (#647) (User Info)

The thing that disgusts me is that nowhere in all these "oh I used Napster but I'm still a good person" arguments is that no-one gives a toss about the artists who literally did work their arses off to write and record their music - and then work harder touring to promote sales of their albums. I'm a musician. I bet you weren't expecting that one, eh? Maybe in the software industry, you actually make money from royalties, but musicians don't. Not unless they're unbelievably succesful. As a musician, you might make money from playing live (but more often you'll do slightly worse than break even and consider that an advertising expense so that your future shows will be more likely to make money). But unless you are ordained by the record company as someone who's going to sell a hell of a lot, you won't break even on selling your music. Given that, free advertising is a Good Thing. I have nothing against napster. [TMB]

Bullshit (Score:1) by Eric the .5b on Saturday April 29, @12:21AM EDT (#589) (User Info)

Here's the result: Bootleg / Unavailable: 104 Trying out: 51 Public domain: 12 Wouldn't buy: 70 Immoral: 45 Songs you "wouldn't buy", but for some reason keep in your archives, are just as much indefensible freeloading as the "immoral" section. I'm sure there are people who completely and totally abuse Napster and use it to download entire albums that they should buy. And I'm sure that the libertarian /. crowd are high among those. If you divorce the term 'libertarian' from any hint of meaning and use it to refer to the whiny, grasping segment of the population here who wants Microsoft broken up, all source code free by law, and no punishment for IP piracy, sure, I suppose so.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by ewhac on Friday April 28, @02:05PM EDT (#436) (User Info) http://www.best.com/~ewhac/

Slashdot and Jon Katz claim to be about people's rights then openly advocate that the rights of musicians to profit from their work be ignored and trodden upon. I believe your thinking here is a little muddy. I believe few here would dispute that an artist has the right to dictate how their work may be disposed of. However, at the same time, we are free to hold opinions about the artist's particular choice of disposition. Any cursory reading of Slashdot will reveal megabytes of flames concerning the merits of BSD vs. GPL vs. MPL vs. SCSL, et al. And in a universe of infinite abundance (as is the digital universe), it's difficult to imagine an artist's wish to impose artificial scarcity being regarded as anything but foolish. Slashdot and Slashdotters have proven themselves to be the biggest hypocrites alive with the way they can castigate companies for abusing the GPL (which exists solely because there are copyright laws) in one breathe [sic] then say it's OK to steal music that was expensive to create, produce, and market. The acts of creation and distribution have always been orthogonal activities; they are unrelated. With the advent of digital media, this is even more true; distribution is virtually automatic. It took me about half an hour to create this post, and I think it has value. Yet, I am offering it to you for free (beer and speech, what a deal!). Does that make me a complete rube who doesn't understand the value of information? After all, I could have submitted this to WiReD and made a few bucks. Or is it just possible I'm motivated by factors outside traditional economic theory? The argument, "It was expensive to produce, therefore I'm entitled to recover those costs," does not stand scrutiny. It's rather like trying to claim ownership to the oxygen produced by the plants on your property. After all, you spent a considerable amount of time and energy planting the garden and tending to it. Oxygen also has a good deal of independent value; you can't live without it. No one disputes that they're your plants growing on your property, and they flourish under your care. So shouldn't you be compensated for the oxygen your plants created? You see how unsustainable this line of reasoning is? The issue of how to compensate and reward artists for their work is extremely important. However, digital artifacts are infinitely copyable at zero cost, and this has never been a secret. Therefore, the market for digital artifacts does not exist, and we'll need to come up with new models for compensating artists, since sales of their artifacts (in digital form) can no longer meaningfully happen. At the risk of killing my credibility, this issue to me seems identical to the issue of how to compensate the crew of the Starship Enterprise. After all, they have replicators everywhere, and can get anything they want or need at any time. So what models are used to compensate and reward the crew for good work? If you can come up with a model that will work in the Star Trek universe, you'll have something that will work in the digital universe. Thinking caps on, everyone... Schwab

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2) by G27 Radio on Friday April 28, @02:50PM EDT (#468) (User Info) http://g27.sourceforge.net

Slashdot and Jon Katz claim to be about people's rights then openly advocate that the rights of musicians to profit from their work be ignored and trodden upon. Slashdot and Slashdotters have proven themselves to be the biggest hypocrites alive with the way they can castigate companies for abusing the GPL (which exists solely because there are copyright laws) in one breathe then say it's OK to steal music that was expensive to create, produce, and market. One of these days people will realize that trying to group all "Slashdotters" in to one set of beliefs is kind of silly. Anyway what really stands out here is your belief that musicians have a right to profit from their work. If it were a "right" then there would be a lot less starving musicians. The hipocrasy you point at looks more like consistency to me. They're standing up for the freedom of their software, not trying to keep it locked into a particular distibution pattern. As far as the analogies go, I have to agree most of them (if not all) have had pretty serious flaws. Yours about breaking into a CD store was no winner either. MP3.com is yet to produce any stars while most people I have met (as well as myself) who use Napster download music from established artists who have cost the record labels million$ of dollars to find, produce and market. I doubt MP3.com will produce many stars in the immediate future. It's not like you can tune into MP3.com as easily as MTV and passively watch videos. When technology reaches that point you'll probably see more "stars" coming from the net. Also, I'd have to argue that good music does not cost millions of dollars to make. Making it popular sometimes costs that much, but how good it is isn't directly related to the money. Concerts. Several people have commented that artists and record labels should give up on trying to make money from CD sales and should look to concerts as revenue earners. There are several flaws with this proposal. How are are small artistes supposed to pay for concerts? With this reasoning an artist can be massively popular but unable to afford to cover studio costs let alone put on shows.This of course will lead to a new ominous figure in the lives of artists: Concert sponsors : who will probably sign exclusive concerts et al until it's the entire record label fiasco again but limited to concerts. Secondly, how about forms of music that don't translate well to concerts. I have been to several rap concerts in the past few years and half of them sounded like shit even though the actual music when played at home/in the car/on a walkman sounded simply heavenly. Does this mean rap artists (the largest growing and second most lucrative music form in the U.S.) don't deserve to be paid but rock groups do? You're putting the cart before the horse here. Small artists don't pay for concerts. I'm assuming that by concert you mean a performance at a very large venue. I've been to several stadium shows and had a good time, but the fact is that stadiums really suck for seeing a live performance. If you sign an exclusive contract with a "concert sponsor" or anyone else, it's your own fault if it doesn't work out. As far as rap/rock goes--if they have something to sell that people want to pay for then they get money for it. Whether it's a performance, CD, MP3, or other merchandise. The I'm a poor student argument. I am a poor student but unlike most Americans don't believe I have a right to stuff simply because I am alive. The "everyone has this so must I" attitude is probably one of the most disgusting aspects of modern American life. You do have a right to some stuff, and you probably deserve more. I agree with you about the attitude that you refer to, but that was not the vibe I got from the poor student that you're refering to. The vibe I got was that he wasn't going to pay money for the music either way. The difference that Napster made was that he got to listen to it, he appreciates the music, and he passes on his appreciation of music to his friends. The monetary success of Metallica and Dr. Dre is what gives them the ability to sue Napster. Do you think that struggling college bands whose music is being spread all across the net with no remuneration wouldn't sue if they could affors to and they were being ripped of as much as Dr. Dre and Metallica (every single one of their songs is on Napster). If they have that whole sense of entitlement thing going on then I'm sure they would. The musicians that I know (about ten of them that I hang out with on a regular basis) are thrilled when their music is passed around. And yeah, they are struggling--every single one of them. But then again, they're doing it because they love music. If they loved money as much as they loved music they'd probably have better paying jobs. After saying all this I should point out that I've only used Napster once. I really wanted to hear my Final Cut CD, but when I opened the case it was gone. Couldn't find it anywhere. So I downloaded it. I know it was illegal and all but f*ck it. That was already the second copy of that CD I'd bought--the other disappeared too. The MP3's I do distribute are all with the permission--gratitude in fact--of the artists. I used to be a lot more supportive of laws to protect against "piracy." Now that free distribution of music is being threatened and facing hurdles due to these laws I'm getting sick of them. They're not worth the damage anymore. The RIAA and MPAA keep pushing the idea that free distribution and piracy are the same thing. And people are falling for it--hook, line, and sinker. Free distribution will not be the death of music. Free distribution is a boon to people that care about making and listening to music. It's the people that care about the money more than the music that are pissed off. Now, I do think that musicians should have the rights to the music they make. They should be able to sell it, make a profit off of it, lock it in a vault--whatever. It's their music they can do whatever they want with it. But don't come crying to me if you can't control what happens to it once it's released into the general public. And especially DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT SOFTWARE I CAN OR CAN NOT USE TO DISTRIBUTE MUSIC BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT. PS: Looks like this former local act gets it -- they're sponsored by Napster. Their press release even mentions Metallica's suit. numb We're a virus with shoes. I can prove it on an Etch-a-Sketch. End of story. --bathroom wall, Jax, FL (paraphrased from Bill Hicks)

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by Nodatadj (u07ih@NOSPAM.abdn.ac.uk) on Friday April 28, @03:51PM EDT (#504) (User Info) http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~u07ih/spamfree/

"The vibe I got was that he wasn't going to pay money for the music either way. The difference that Napster made was that he got to listen to it, he appreciates the music" I may not be going to pay for a TV, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to go and steal one. Music is a luxury. If you want to hear the music and you have to pay to hear it, then that is how you have to hear the music, otherwise it is stealing. No matter how you try to justify it. People need to realise the differences between luxury and comodities.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2) by G27 Radio on Friday April 28, @05:47PM EDT (#544) (User Info) http://g27.sourceforge.net

Regarding the "poor student" downloading MP3's you made an analogy to stealing a TV from the store. I pointed out that he was not going to buy the music either way--so there was no money to be made off him. I also pointed out that buy getting the music it increased his appreciation of the music which was passed on--we (people that enjoy music) usually tell our friends about it so they can get the same music. Anyway, how this equates to stealing a TV is beyond me. Of course, I do get your point about it being stealing. Yeah, I've done it before and I did end up feeling guilty about those that I didn't buy. I've made a pact with myself since then. If the artist doesn't want me to download their music and check it out, I won't. Chances are that I won't buy their CD either, but it's their music, and I willingly respect their wishes. Music is a luxury. If you want to hear the music and you have to pay to hear it, then that is how you have to hear the music, otherwise it is stealing. No matter how you try to justify it. People need to realise the differences between luxury and comodities. For most of my life so far music has been a luxury. Now I hear as much as I want and contribute back willingly. Is that the difference between a luxury and a commodity? You're right that I should know the difference, but you can explain it if you'd like. Also I'll explain the difference between the past and the present if you'd like. Music was a luxury. Now it's not. As the Wah says, "The Internet makes control of digital media impossible. Deal with it." Anyway, the gist of my comment is really contained at the end, not the beginning. Pay special attention to the part in caps. I'll repeat in case you didn't get that far: Now, I do think that musicians should have the rights to the music they make. They should be able to sell it, make a profit off of it, lock it in a vault--whatever. It's their music they can do whatever they want with it. But don't come crying to me if you can't control what happens to it once it's released into the general public. And especially DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT SOFTWARE I CAN OR CAN NOT USE TO DISTRIBUTE MUSIC BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT. numb We're a virus with shoes. I can prove it on an Etch-a-Sketch. End of story. --bathroom wall, Jax, FL (paraphrased from Bill Hicks)

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by Nodatadj (u07ih@NOSPAM.abdn.ac.uk) on Friday April 28, @10:44PM EDT (#581) (User Info) http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~u07ih/spamfree/

The Tv analogy wasn't a direct one, however, I might not be going to buy a TV, so there's no money to be made from me either... A luxury: Something that is not essential to living. A commodity: Something that is essential to living. I would argue that a begger stealing a loaf of bread could be a justifiable crime, bread is a commodity. However, a begger stealing a CD to hear the latest "Toonz" is however not a justifiable crime. Plus, the last bit in caps just makes me sick. DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT DO WITH MY GUN BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO LIVE. In fact, if you had posted this comment a week ago, I could have used you as an example of why Anarchy would not work. You are a perfect example of my dispair for the human race. Yes, you have the freedom to do what you want, but with this freedom comes responsibility to use it correctly, otherwise, the next time, your freedom will be curtailed, and you won't like that.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by Redking (redking@ranger.army.net) on Saturday April 29, @01:21AM EDT (#597) (User Info)

Nodatadj said: Plus, the last bit in caps just makes me sick. DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT DO WITH MY GUN BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO LIVE. Um, I dunno about the UK, but the Right to Live (tm),is a genuine right in the United States Constitution. IIRC, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". So your analogy doesn't work. I don't give two shits about what you do with your gun as long as you don't interfere with my basic rights and don't break the law. G27 Radio said: DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT SOFTWARE I CAN OR CAN NOT USE TO DISTRIBUTE MUSIC BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT. That's absolutely correct. If you want to stop mp3s, stop people from making them and downloading them. Don't sue Napster, it's just a piece of software that is used for "good" and "evil" purposes. If you're going to sue Napster, sue every FTP client, AIM, ICQ, Scour and Hotline. Please no more gun analogies. They really don't apply.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by Nodatadj (u07ih@NOSPAM.abdn.ac.uk) on Saturday April 29, @11:04AM EDT (#642) (User Info) http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~u07ih/spamfree/

I would think that the right to make money from something you own is a constitutionally protected right too. However, as has seen in the past, things in the consititution are quite easily ignored. No, it didn't fit perfectly (it wasn't supposed to), but why is your right to use naptser as you feel like it more important than a music companies right to make money from their artists? Why is the music companies right only a "so called" right. It not. Your right to something, is no more important, and when 2 rights clash there has to be a trade off. The "Do not sue napster, sue the users, and the MP3 makers" argument is just so incredibly stupid (even if it is the right answer in the long run.) It is impossible to sue everyone, but as I have NEVER seen naptser used for anything other than trading illegal mp3s I feel the artists have the right to sue napster as opposed to the users. It may not be right, but it is the only possible thing they can do.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2) by G27 Radio on Sunday April 30, @08:37PM EDT (#658) (User Info) http://g27.sourceforge.net

The "Do not sue napster, sue the users, and the MP3 makers" argument is just so incredibly stupid (even if it is the right answer in the long run.) It is impossible to sue everyone, but as I have NEVER seen naptser used for anything other than trading illegal mp3s I feel the artists have the right to sue napster as opposed to the users. It may not be right, but it is the only possible thing they can do. I think suing the people trading the MP3's would be stupid too. But it's within their rights to do so. As long as people are allowed to distribute music some will distribute music that they do not have permission to distribute. This is in effect stealing as you've pointed out. It's wrong for people do this against the artists' wishes. They should stop but we both know that they won't. So the record companies either learn to deal with the new environment--by the way they've had record sales this past year--or they find a way to stop people from being able to distribute music for free. If they could stop people from distributing music for free, which is impossible technology-wise, they'd have the added benefit of less competition. Killing Napster means killing a distribution channel for artists that can't have or don't want a record company to do it for them. That's definately the greater evil. It's not the only option the record companies have. They should try something more creative like: "Buy and download our cd quality music and get a free album on vinyl." Sell something more than a cheap jewelbox and a piece of plastic and aluminum. Free distribution of music may hurt the record companies, but stopping free distribution hurts the music and the people that love it. How can it not hurt the record companies to have competition in a market they've pretty much controlled for years. Even if I had any pity for the record labels I still wouldn't be able to just allow them to interfere with free distribution channels. numb We're a virus with shoes. I can prove it on an Etch-a-Sketch. End of story. --bathroom wall, Jax, FL (paraphrased from Bill Hicks)

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2) by G27 Radio on Sunday April 30, @08:41PM EDT (#659) (User Info) http://g27.sourceforge.net

I think suing the people trading the MP3's would be stupid too. Just to clarify, I believe red king's point was that it was stupid but if the record companies could do it, they would. numb We're a virus with shoes. I can prove it on an Etch-a-Sketch. End of story. --bathroom wall, Jax, FL (paraphrased from Bill Hicks)

Concerts aren't expensive to produce (Score:1) by Rimbo (jrimmer1@san.ihatefuckingspam.rr.com) on Friday April 28, @03:10PM EDT (#485) (User Info)

Granted, a Metallica-style three-act show using a massive venue with thousands of watts of power, colored lights, explosions, flashy backgrounds, roadies to tune your guitars for you and ensure your equipment is set up, and the like isn't cheap, but most concerts aren't like that. Most of the time, a band throws together a demo tape and finds a different venu that pays for the artist to show up. Sometimes bars, sometimes restaurants, sometimes frat-boy parties. Most concerts are just you, your friends, everyone you know that you could drag to the show and everyone they know, and lots of spirit. Snobs Need Not Apply. All you need is a few power outlets and enough good songs to capture people's attention before the cops arrive or the next band has to play. Eventually, after doing this for a while, you get to be able to quit your day job. Of course, now, with the net, you can go to MP3.com and sell your music that way as well. Or sell CDs and T-shirts and other groovy merchandise. You think Metallica makes money only from their music? They also have merchandising up the wazoo. Anyhow...it's just like anything -- you start at the bottom and have to work your way up. The 80's dream of getting rich quick by being "discovered" was just that...a dream. The rest of us have to work at it. "If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn." --Fahrenheit 451

Right on, Carnage (Score:1) by ddt (ddt_nospamplease@transmeta.com) on Friday April 28, @03:31PM EDT (#496) (User Info)

I agree completely with your post, Carnage.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by wishus on Friday April 28, @03:44PM EDT (#501) (User Info)

In this post "the software" will apply not only to napster, but to gnutella, and other various clones of the same or similar idea. Let me start off by agreeing with your claim that music piracy is wrong. You are correct, there are no valid excuses for music piracy. But you fail to make a very important distinction, between the software (and its authors) and the users of the software. The software is not responsible for its use. And furthermore, the authors of the software are not responsible for its use. If I have my story correctly, the inventor of dynamite (wasn't it Nobel?) made it to blow up buildings and mountains and peaceful stuff, not to be used in war. In fact, he was horrified when he found out it was being used in war. It's not his fault, or the dynamite's fault, or the company that manufactured the dynamite's fault if someone uses it for bad things - it is that person's fault. Likewise, it is not the software's fault, or the authors' fault, if someone uses the software for piracy. You can't sue someone for making something that allows people to commit crimes. We might as well sue Microsoft, because their operating system allows people to use a computer for commiting crime. I think most "slashdotters" would agree (and I'm sure they will correct me if they do not :) that the concern is the limiting of freedom to use a piece of software, because some choose to misuse it. later wish --- $ su who are you? $ whoami whoami: no login associated with uid 1010.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by squidsoup (NOmurakamiSPAM@ihug.co.nz) on Friday April 28, @10:07PM EDT (#577) (User Info)

Certainly, Metallica have every right to protect their copyright. What I am having trouble understanding is how Napster in any way has infringed upon this right. Those that are ripping copyright material and distributing them are. Napster is a utility that allows you to transfer and search for mp3s. You would have to be somewhat niave to think that the authors intentions were entirely honorable, and that Napster is provided *only* for the distribution of legal material. That is beside the point however; napster is little more than a glorified ftp client. I can use my ftp client to d/l warez or legal software. Why is it that we have not seen the authors of Cuteftp and ncftp attacked by software vendors? There is something very wrong with this whole situation. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the author of napster cannot be held accountable, only the users themselves that choose to infringe upon an artists copyright. Fair enough, this is hard to enforce and regulate, and the record industry need to point there finger at someone. It is unfortunate that they behave like spoilt children, rather than attempting to find a constructive means of utilising this very nifty technology.

Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:1) by asymptote^8 on Friday May 05, @08:11PM EDT (#676) (User Info)

The reason that the big name record companies are the only ones with the hits is because they have the monopoly on the music industry. Many radio stations are also a monopoly, as more and more stations are being bought out by single large companies. The big name record companies are the ones with the money, and the ones who can afford to make themselfs known. Thus, they are the ones on the radio. Many people do not use mp3s and still rely on the radio for new music, which is not what the radio tends to play. I'm sure i'm not alone in the fusteration of having to listen to the same song for the 50 thousandth time on the radio. Until now, having a career as a successfull musician was almost imposible. For once, the people might get to find new bands they like, regardless of the size or wealth of the group. Heaven forbid. If the little small bands are the ones that are going to be hurt so badly by this, then why is it Metallica, Dr Dre, and the big name record companies who are sueing? If it does anything, it helps get the smaller band's names out. As for concerts, smaller bands get smaller gigs and therefore move themselfs up the latter as such. Concerts are not nessisarily huge and costly. Metallica does recieve money for its art; and plenty of it at that. Which is why it can afford to do what it does. A large reason many people download mp3s is to see if they would like to buy the cd at all. Even if the spread of copywrited mp3s are immoral or bad, this doesn't justify for the law suits anyway. Napster merely allows you to download files. These files can just as well be legal, the user decides that one. It would, therefore, be unconstitutional if it was to be illiminated.

Question about bootlegs & unreleased albums: (Score:1) by god_of_the_machine (slashdot.SPAM.ME.NOT@ryanthiessen.com) on Friday April 28, @12:41PM EDT (#368) (User Info) http://www.ryanthiessen.com

My primary use for napster is to get bootlegs (recordings of live concerts) and albums that the label is holding back to build hype (for example, the new "A Perfect Cirle"). Does anyone know the copyright law regarding any of these examples?? -rt- ** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy here **

Devil's Advocate (Score:1) by MikeV (nospam@mikeatmjv.com) on Friday April 28, @12:59PM EDT (#379) (User Info) http://dotfile.net/

There's a difference in the free exchange of information and piracy. What you can and can't do with CD music is usually printed on the back - if you don't like the terms, don't buy the CD. Those terms basically say you can't reproduce the contents of the CD without prior authorization of the producer. So, is everyone publishing music ripped from CD on the Napster contacting the appropriate parties and getting permission? Not. I think this kind of abuse actually hurts the Open Source and Open Information movements by placing a stain of piracy and theft on them. Once again - if you don't like the terms of the agreement - then don't buy the CD. That's why I don't use Microsoft - I disagree with their terms. I'm not about to go out and because I disagree with a license purposefully break it by sending free copies of it over the internet or selling copies of it to friends. Color it how you want, but in short - it's piracy and disrespectfull. Put together a movement for the free transfer of music produced by musicians that have given permission. The music industry may try to fight that too - but at least you've got some honorable grounds to stand on. Napster has no honorable grounds to stand on because of the rampant abuse it has allowed. Napster is a great program - but has fallen into misuse and has given fuel to the corporate big-wigs that don't like Free anything. This really isn't helping our case against stupid patents and unconstitutional legistlation at all. If you disagree with the rules and system, change it rather than break it. If you break it, it will only add justification to these rules and systems. Now these guys will say "See? This is why we need to protect our market with these patents and rules - else everyone will pirate and steal our product." And the judge will agree. Please, let's stop screwing ourselves and focus our energy on changing the regulations, rules, patent system, etc... It will end up being good for all of us. Mike To email, remove nospam@ and replace at with @

the I'm poor so let me steal argument (Score:1) by #FF6600 (pdresslar@northernxDOTCOM) on Friday April 28, @01:08PM EDT (#386) (User Info)

I see this argument for Napster and its ilk quite a bit. "I'm a poor (college student, single parent, heroin junkie, whatever) and I don't have money to buy stuff. Thus I download it, free, regardless of the law. Screw The Man, anyway." People get really passionate arguing this. One would think listening to the latest Garbage single was a life-or-death situation. It isn't. Your plea might garner a bit more sympathy if you were using Napster to download bread and water. PS: I'm too poor to buy a Lear Jet. Should I go steal one?

the I can't buy trance anywhere argument (Score:1) by #FF6600 (pdresslar@northernxDOTCOM) on Friday April 28, @01:11PM EDT (#392) (User Info)

um, have you tried amazon? yep, i think they have trance on amazon.

the sometimes I buy sucky music argument (Score:1) by #FF6600 (pdresslar@northernxDOTCOM) on Friday April 28, @01:15PM EDT (#397) (User Info)

oh, come on. it's called being a consumer.

Insidious new way to get free music (Score:1) by Japhy (dvoeks@facstaff.wisc.spam.sure.does.suck.edu) on Friday April 28, @03:30PM EDT (#495) (User Info)

Metallica is dead-right in suing Napster. But they seem to be missing the boat entirely on an even easier way to distribute free music: this new plague upon the recording industry doesn't even require any expensive hardware or pricey ISP--it's transmitted by electromagnetic radiation! This technology, known only as "Radio", threatens to tear the whole recording industry apart. Look out RIAA...

SUPPORT THE U-G SCENE! (+getting trance) READ (Score:1) by di'jital (melondoc at 'oh bugger!' dot com) on Friday April 28, @10:07PM EDT (#576) (User Info)

While not a big fan (in the slightest!), I find it hard to beleive that you can't locate any trance music! Perhaps you should try your luck from a UK online store. Hard To Find Records (i forget url, do a search) delivers worldwide. Even Amazon.co.uk has quite a large selection of trance. It's far and away the most commercial form of dance music there is here, so forgive my incredulity that you can't find any! While I have no sympathy for, say, Sash!, or for that matter any of the big commercial bloodsuckers riding this awful trend - if you are into underground trance, then remember that these guys don't have the protection of a big record company, and so you run the risk of killing off the only remaning sources of true innovation in music, leaving us all to the mercy of 'economies of scale' that only the majors and their insipid carbon copies can support!! So please, I ask everyone to support innovative and independent music of any genre by BUYING the releases, preferably from your local mom+pop record store, where the biggest cuts get to the artists. The Majors might deserve everything they get for fixing prices way above what they should be, but give the real artists a break!

Re:SUPPORT THE U-G SCENE! (+getting trance) READ (Score:1) by di'jital (melondoc at 'oh bugger!' dot com) on Friday April 28, @10:10PM EDT (#578) (User Info)

THIS GOT TACKED ON TO THE END OF THE WRONG BLOODY POST!!! (please refer to the previous trancey defence of napster and forgive my stupidity!) ps the underground argument is still valid.

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1, Flamebait) by Nicolas MONNET (nico@nospam.monnet.to) on Friday April 28, @11:15AM EDT (#227) (User Info) http://monnet.to

A big problem with people nowadays is that they think they are entitled to everything and anything. Its the "me" syndrome. So what about the problem with wealthy corporate bastards who own most of the world's wealth? What about those fucking bastards who keep waiving unattainable goods, using very sophisticated techniques AKA marketing and advertising to wet our appetites ... and then tell us that we can't have it? I'm not poor myself, at least, not anymore, thanks to the IT boom. I might even get reasonably rich within 2 years if my company does well. I don't "steal" anything -- hell, I might have a dozen "illegal" MP3s around, for around a hundred CDs I own. And I use free software anyway. I'm just sick of hearing the moralizing bullshit the copyright holders serve us. I'm not a communist, I'm not necessarily on the side of the poor, I just know I'm not on the side of the indecent few who do nothing but amass immense wealth without giving back. Keep your moralizing bullshit for yourself, it's not even moral. Money is no moral. Rich people don't deserve any kind of support -- they already can afford it for themselves. Praise the talented, the caring, the ingenious, .... I don't think Metallica and Dr Dre are any of that. They're just a bunch of marketing machines. What they sell is worth their weight of fart. Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?

Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:1) by Mojojojo Monkey Inc. (jakecarlin@hotmail.spam) on Friday April 28, @02:57PM EDT (#472) (User Info)

Yes, I have electronic music on my computer. Most of them are of CDs I already own. What's that? Most? If you own mp3s that you didn't pay for (that are meant to be distributed for free) then you're just as *evil* as the person you're flaming. Next time you make a blatant flame like this, make sure you're not including yourself. -o moving forward not backward... upward not downward... and always spinning spinning spinning toward freedom o-

We're pretty much doomed. (Score:4, Informative) by mind21_98 on Friday April 28, @10:08AM EDT (#10) (User Info) http://www.translator.cx/

But you can help now. This page allows you to write to government officals concerning laws like the DMCA and others. (This was rejected by Slashdot earlier BTW) Getting on topic now, I think everyone's just greedy. We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others. Information will also not have limits on it, and limits would be barred. I doubt this will happen though. People won't live without a way to gain power and control.

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2, Interesting) by Kraken137 (kraken@drunkmonkey.org) on Friday April 28, @10:13AM EDT (#25) (User Info) http://drunkmonkey.org

It's interesting though, that at the same time Metallica and Dr. Dre are suing Napster, a band like Limp Bizkit is preparing to embark on a series of free concerts, sponsored by Napster.

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by gazz (gaz@silverhand.eidosnet.co.uk) on Friday April 28, @10:32AM EDT (#96) (User Info)

hmmmm....that sounds rather familiar

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by skumm (s_k_u_m_m@hotmail.com) on Friday April 28, @11:05AM EDT (#194) (User Info) http://24.112.58.42

They're doing it for the nookie...

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2) by Kaa (freedomdotnet!kaa) on Friday April 28, @10:47AM EDT (#143) (User Info)

I think everyone's just greedy. We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others. Ah, the classic "cut everybody down to the lowest common denominator" idea, aka socialism (communism to the West). Sorry to disappoint you, but it has been tried. Didn't work all that well. The price of the experiment has been quite high, though. Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by bludstone on Friday April 28, @11:21AM EDT (#241) (User Info)

Digital Socialism would work perfectly since there is really no limitation on how many times you can copy files. Hence, regardless of the size of the demand there would always be enough for everyone. (This is after they are able to afford a computer and internet services of course) With this ability, why not just share everything? The limitations placed on the physical world simply cant be held in the digital world. Infinite copying makes socialism entirely feasable. the anime mafia? "hello navi." "hello lain." atanime.com

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2) by Kaa (freedomdotnet!kaa) on Friday April 28, @12:12PM EDT (#325) (User Info)

You didn't look at post I was replying to. The original poster said: We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others. and this is much more than the abolishment of intellectual property which you advocate. This is not about property any more, but rather about whether some people are/can be better than other people. And your "Digital Socialism" is basically abolishment of copyright, correct? This subject has been rehased many many times, especially in debated between RMS and his opponents. Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2) by Hard_Code on Friday April 28, @12:29PM EDT (#355) (User Info)

Ah, the classic "cut everybody down to the lowest common denominator" idea, aka socialism (communism to the West). Sorry to disappoint you, but it has been tried. Didn't work all that well. The price of the experiment has been quite high, though. Yes, equalization of "classes" doesn't work well with capitalism, because it stratifies by it's very nature (at least when money==prestige). However, much of Europe is democratic socialism in one form or another. Many countries have very high taxes, but provide for their citizens SOCIALIZED health care and education, and in many (democratic) countries industry is socialized. Heck, Medicare is a socialist healthcare program, and the FCC and Dpt. of Energy does a good job of effectively "socializing" telecommunications and the energy industry ("socializing" being hand picking the few companies that are allow to compete and setting very strict rules). In a non-capitalist society, /class/ socialism might actually work. In such a case, it is the non-capitalist part that is the detriment of the society. The USSR didn't fall because it was socialist or communist...it fell because it could not compete economically. Jazilla - Pure Java Browser

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by Stonehand (lw2j@cs.cmu.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:55AM EDT (#170) (User Info) http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~lw2j

Hardly. People don't start equal in ability, as they are not identical. They only option is to have equal *rights*, which is pretty much what we have except for the legal biases towards certain minorities (in particular, minority-owned businesses). THAT is what is meant by "created equal": in the eyes of the law. Can you pitch a no-hitter against a MLB team? Research theoretical physics and derive new consequences of particle-wave equivalency? Climb Mt. Everest? Lead a community through calamity? Face it. People have different levels of ability. There is minimal probablity that an individual with Down's syndrome will ever deservedly become the leader of the free world, nor would paraplegics make good paratroopers. -- the silly student / he writes really bad haiku / readers all go mad

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by cvillopillil on Saturday May 06, @02:52PM EDT (#678) (User Info)

Yep. Sounds like a teacher who thinks a student won't become anything (highly self-importation incantation mode): The world is broken into various groups of people. Unfortunately, if you don't do well at school, you won't make anything of yourself. This is just the way the world is. You must accept that. Sorry, buddy. I just don't believe that people are pre-destined to succeed. I know some religious fanatics are Lutherans who believe that everything is determined before you're born - maybe you're one of them, maybe you're not. But really. This is ridiculous. In almost all areas, especially intelligence, there are too many grey areas to be certain about anything. You can't just point at a kid and say: "You can't do this, this and that." And point to another one and say: "You can do this, this and that, but not this." Sounds like you want to become a Nazi state where kids with certain DNA patterns are trained from 2yrs old to do certain functions. Considering the opinion you're arguing against, I wouldn't put it past you. Why couldn't Microsoft have made NT a multiuser/multitasking version of MS DOS ?

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by pen (slashdot@digdug.cx) on Friday April 28, @11:20AM EDT (#238) (User Info) http://digdug.cx/

We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others. Sounds familiar, no? :) -- GeekIssues: yet another Slashdot wannabe...

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by pen (slashdot@digdug.cx) on Friday April 28, @11:21AM EDT (#243) (User Info) http://digdug.cx/

Whoops sorry... Will use preview button will use preview button will use preview button. Meant to link this. -- GeekIssues: yet another Slashdot wannabe...

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by frode on Friday April 28, @12:44PM EDT (#370) (User Info)

I once read a story where a society was crafted where everyone was made equal, in every way. If you were a better athlete you were made to where heavy clothes to impare you. If you were very intelligent youd have a small device implanted to every so often disrupt you concentration. The point in short is that equal is not necessarily free. I've downloaded mp3's off the net but I knew it was wrong and never tried to convince people that my stealing what others had made, no matter how greedy, evil, or otherwises demented had made. Should I be able to go into you room and say I'm going to live here now, we'll share the room cause mine isn't as nice and I can't afford what you have. Napster isn't a tool to spread ideas its purpose is to make it easier for people to share music they haven't paid for. It's not about a revolution to free information it just the far more mundane search for free and easy entertainment. But that's just one Frode's opinion. z Mortal men should not give up wives, sleep, and death for any service, lest the face of failure become too abhorrent to be endured - S.R.Donaldson

Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:1) by Destacona on Friday April 28, @01:45PM EDT (#417) (User Info)

Getting on topic now, I think everyone's just greedy. We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others. Information will also not have limits on it, and limits would be barred. I agree with your statement. Our current economic system in western culture endorses greed to the point where it has become an attribute rather than a fault. People without money make me sick. People who can't afford to feed and shelter their families properly. 3rd world nations where the majority of the population does not have an opertunity to rise above the rest in some sort of darwinian model. What makes me ill is not that these people don't have money, but the fact that there are other people with so much money that they would never know what to do with it. And how did it get this way? Greed. I may be preaching and generalizing, but please consider what I've said.

Copyrighted Material (Score:1) by kuzinov (kuzinov@islanderis.net) on Friday April 28, @10:08AM EDT (#11) (User Info)

No,we're talking about kids in college trading copyrighted material with a program to do just that.Would you buy a cd when you can just download the .mp3's ripped off it?This isn't a "freedom" issue it's a copyright issue and it's easy for you to bitch about bands like Metallica when it's not your work being traded around.It might be a good thing this is going to court because there are issues that need sorting out.Remember music on a cd isn't Linux and it ain't open-source or maybe I should just scrape the resin out of brain

Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:1) by Snoop on Friday April 28, @10:26AM EDT (#77) (User Info)

Why go after Napster though? I'm sure the geeks at Yale said "oh, we can't use napster? Oh well" and started up an IRC channel "#BannedFromTheNap" and continued trading and discussing music, and the discussion was not about a comodity, but an art, and how much they liked or hated certain music.

Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:1) by Ricdude on Friday April 28, @10:34AM EDT (#102) (User Info) http://www.tux.org/~ricdude

No,we're talking about kids in college trading copyrighted material with a program to do just that. You could say the same thing of any FTP client, or web browser, for that matter. As long as *some* of the napster traffic is legal (local band promos, public domain, etc.), the courts *can't* find napster at fault. Precedent is set by the fact you can't sue the phone company for fraud committed by phone. It's the driver, not the road that's to blame. How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL

Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:1) by rockhome on Friday April 28, @11:41AM EDT (#284) (User Info)

the courts *can't* find napster at fault. Precedent is set by the fact you can't sue the phone company for fraud committed by phone. It's the driver, not the road that's to blame Once again, people have missed the point. With the phone company, there are no reasonable steps that can be taken to revent fraud. Napster is a different story. Napster exists for the sole purpose of exchanging music, and Napster itself recognizes that some of this music may infringe on another's copyright. It is then incumbent upon Napster to ensure that the content available through its service is legal. Certainly the phone company is not responsible for fraud, but it must take reasonable steps to prevent fraud. Napster makes it clear on the Napster website that some music may be infringing on copyrights and that those users should be reported. Given this, Napster should take action and actively police its users. If I own a building where drug dealing is on and I know about it, if I do nothing, I am certainly liable, as is Napster for illegal MP3's.

Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:2) by acb on Friday April 28, @12:21PM EDT (#341) (User Info) http://dev.null.org

On the other hand, FTP wasn't designed specifically for allowing anonymous exchanges of music files from decentralised sites, in a way that makes prosecuting copyright violation difficult. Napster was. As a band promotion tool, Napster makes little sense. Say you have a band and want to get the word out. Which do you do: (a) Set up a web site with bios, photos, a mailing list and some MP3s (b) Put your material up on mp3.com or some similar site (c) Put a bunch of mp3 files, with no information or contact details other than filenames and ID3 tags, on a file server and hook it up to a centralised search engine so that surfers can download them Clearly (c) doesn't facilitate selling CDs, promoting upcoming shows or forging any sort of relationship with the audience, but merely serving out the files. Which makes it a lousy solution for promoting a band, but a great one for swapping large amounts of pirated music with strangers. Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of the recording industry, I personally think MP3 is great, and I believe that the big labels deserve to be taken down a few notches. However, in this case, Napster have a little bit too much chutzpah. Metallica Ate My Napster

Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:1) by tralfamador on Friday April 28, @10:37AM EDT (#116) (User Info)

It might be a good thing this is going to court because there are issues that need sorting out That's the point of the article tho'. It is already in court. Metallica is just clouding the issue by jumping on the "me too" bandwagon before the suit with RIAA is over. And yes, I would buy a cd even though I can download the mp3s, I do it all the time. This isn't a "freedom" issue it's a copyright issue Yes, it is a "freedom" issue when you consider that Napster can be used for more than transferring music, and that if they're going to stop the ability to transfer music across the Internet, then they're going to have to get rid of FTP and a whole host of other things. Oh, and Lars, you're a suck-ass drummer and you haven't had a good album since "Justice."

Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:1) by vawlk on Friday April 28, @10:40AM EDT (#127) (User Info) http://www.backroomwarehouse.com

I'm personally sick of buying a CD for $15 for an "artist" in which 1 song is worth anything and the rest is garbage. Thanks to CDNOW i can atleast listen to part of the songs before I purchase a CD. In Metallicas Case. This winter I grabbed the Metallica S&M Concert in mp3. It had been awhile since I had dug out the old Metallica CDs and even longer since I've seen them in concert. After Listening to the S&M mp3s, I promptly bought a concert ticket for their next show. Reasons I d/l mp3s: 1: Record companies will push out any 2 bit band with 1 good song. $15 for 1 song is insane. 2: I almost have any time to go to the store (I know, not a reason) so why can I STILL not buy songs individually online for .50-1.00. Hell I'll even pay for the cdr. No manufacturing costs for them, whats taking them so long! (I know there is a few, but its not mainstream) 3. ***MOST IMPORTANT** Since I have broadband access at home, I've started d/ling songs that I have never even heard of. There are atleast 7-10 bands out there that have more money in their pocket because I d/l'd there pirated music. 4. Can't find the music. Old stuff...hard to find. Needed some Czech wedding song...boom thank you. Just a few...already getting to be too longs..soo

Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:1) by akmed (akmedatinamedotcom) on Friday April 28, @11:03AM EDT (#191) (User Info) http://www.albany.edu/~akmed/

Yes. I would buy a CD. In fact I've bought a couple of CDs of bands that I didn't know at all before I heard them on a friends computer because I liked their music a lot. I wouldn't have known this however if I had no opportunity to hear them. That's the freedom that is being taken away. If the bands would wise up to the potential and release a couple of songs which people could legally distribute then I think everyone who's complaining would have nothing to complain about. That's the easiest way to shut up people who you think are wrong. Remove their ability to argue their point. -Mike

Yes, I Would, And Did... (Score:1) by Orne (bennes AT pjm DOT com) on Friday April 28, @11:24AM EDT (#252) (User Info) http://www.geocities.com/polysillycon

Have you heard of Moby? I found MP3's of this guy in 1995, because someone put 2 of his MP3's on the LAN. I went out and (over the course of a year) bought 5 CDs because of it, and I think a lot of others have also, because now his songs are (finally) making it to the Top 20's. Or how about Delerium? These folks put about 3 album's worth of MP3's on their webpage, and now their songs are appearing in movies and television ads, which generate a lot more money for them ... It's a darn good cooincidence to me... Exposure. Thats what generates money in this age, and nothing does it better than the Internet. Its a perfect parallel to the 1980's casette tape (please tell me you know what these are) craze , where everyone and their neighbor traded their favorites. To the record companies, it's short term loss for long term gain. And ever notice who's doing all the complaining? Its the old-school groups like Metallica and Dr. Dre, who realize that, hey, if the public can listen to new bands that do the same genre we do, then they might not listen to us anymore, so lets kill off their means of exposure, since we already have ours. Why the rucus? Because the establishment isn't making money. They realize that the MPAA/etc. can't be the middle-man anymore, so they don't get a cut of the profit. It used to be that MTV and the Record Labels told us what we could listen to, but it doesn't have to be that way anymore, and they're scared. Without MP3's, how many of you would even know that Techno (all the flavors) and/or Goth exists? Or would you still be listening to InSync and Backstreet Boys, because thats all the Radio tells us is out there?

Huh? (Score:1) by Caball (tgaffney@monmouth.com) on Friday April 28, @10:09AM EDT (#13) (User Info)

"Whatever you think of the Napster flap, this is bad news for the idea of a barrier-free Internet." Since when is the protection of copyrigted material bad for anything? The internet is a means of communication and sharing. It was not intended to allow you to skirt the law. That being said, where the hell did I put my zip with my Moby MP3's? I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer. -Homer Simpson

Re:Huh? (Score:1) by Soam Vasani (soam@users.sourceforge) on Friday April 28, @10:34AM EDT (#101) (User Info)

Since when is the protection of copyrigted material bad for anything? protection of copyrighted software has always been bad for people who use software. The case for free(as in freedom) music is much the same as the case for free software. The only difference is that refusing to share software causes material harm to the other person, because it something you use, and without which you cannot do the job. The case for free music is weaker because music is not something you use. But everything else said about software being free applies to music also.

Re:Huh? (Score:1) by NullLogic on Saturday April 29, @11:28AM EDT (#643) (User Info)

protection of copyrighted software has always been bad for people who use software. Huh? Name ONE operating system that is not copyrighted. Linux? Wrong. The GPL IS a copyright, and it SHOULD be protected. Metallica's music is copyrighted, and IT should be protected. Metallica may be suing the wrong people, but by no means does that strip them of their right to protect their intellectual property. Seems to me that Metallica is acting out one of their own songs (tired, can't think which one) about an old man who feels victimized and angry, and is lashing out at the first available target without considering whether or not they're even responsible.

It is piracy (Score:2, Insightful) by ericlj on Friday April 28, @10:11AM EDT (#19) (User Info)

In the end, this is not an issue of free software. People using napster are engaging (for the most part) in piracy. Most open source advocates recognize that not all software projects are really suitable for open source solutions; why do so many people believe that all music should be free (as in beer, not speech). The argument that the people who download the music will then go out and buy the CD is specious. I remember college and I know that if I had music from 600 CDs already recorded somewhere, not only would I not feel any need to buy the music, I would not be able to afford it. For those who can/do buy all the CDs they listen to, there is a solution. Take the CD off your CD rack, put it in your computer, rip it yourself.

UH, there are no 'pirates' anymore. (Score:3, Interesting) by Ech3lon (ech3lon@SPAMnEGGSyahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @10:21AM EDT (#54) (User Info)

Piracy schmiracy! Arrgh, matey! The word 'pirate' is misleading as all hell. don't believe the hype

They're pirating _my_ money (Score:1) by yerricde (slash©pineight.8m.COM) on Friday April 28, @10:28AM EDT (#81) (User Info) http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~yerricde/sd.html

If a CD has three listenable songs, I buy it. I hate artists who release an album with seven listenable minutes and sixty minutes of pure $#!+ and then charge $20 for what amounts to a single. What a ripoff. Kill viruses. Kill hamsters. Infringe patents.

Re:They're pirating _my_ money (Score:1) by mjjareo on Friday April 28, @01:35PM EDT (#408) (User Info)

Don't patronize them then.

Re:It is piracy (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @10:31AM EDT (#94) (User Info)

Personally, I often download music and buy it later. Sometimes it's because I can't find the album, or I already ordered it and can't wait for it to arrive from Europe. More often, it's because I want to hear the album before I decide to buy it (and they don't have a copy at the Virgin listening stations).   For example, I recently downloaded Apoptygma Berzerk's new album in its entirety. I'd heard only one song from it, and didn't want to either spend $30 at a local store, or spend $20 and wait a week to get it. After hearing it, I decided to send off the $20, and soon I'll have the album legally.   I also often download things that are just impossible to find because they've never been legally released. For example, someone recorded S.P.O.C.K. covering "We're Not Gonna Take It" off a live radio broadcast in Sweden. I can't buy that, so how else am I going to get it?   Of course I realize that I'm not in the majority. (I also admit that I'm not perfect, and there are a lot of MP3s on my drive that I do listen to even though I haven't bought the CD, but let's ignore that for the moment.) Ideally, I'd like what I do to be legal, but piracy that makes it impossible for composers and musicians to make a living to be illegal. (While I'm wishing, I'd also like to be able to get import albums for a reasonable price.) But I have no idea how such a system would work.   P.S., while I'm advocating the whole shareware concept of music purchasing, if anyone finds an Ice IX song on Napster and likes it, instead of finding the comp it came from and giving $12 to the label, feel free to just send me $1 in the mail....   no .sig, no slogan

Re:It is piracy (Score:2) by FigWig on Friday April 28, @01:51PM EDT (#425) (User Info) http://www.forum2000.org/Gateway/www.slashdot.org

The argument that the people who download the music will then go out and buy the CD is specious. I remember college and I know that if I had music from 600 CDs already recorded somewhere, not only would I not feel any need to buy the music, I would not be able to afford it. Purely anectodotal, but I am a college student (doing ok financially at this point) who uses napster from time to time. This year I have purchased 4 CDs that I wouldn't have even considered except I came upon them somewhat by accident - for example a group remixed by one I was looking for. I have also downloaded tracks that I was too lazy to rip myself (yes, it is easier to click one button than to dig up my CD and start up cdparanoia, then notlame, then set the ID3 tags correctly). The best part of Napster though is downloading remixes and live tracks that you just can't find anywhere else. Of course, this is all anectdotal, and I know there are people out there with 30GB of music that they will never listen to. "Any suficiently stupid /. poster is indistinguishable from a troll" -- ME

Money (Score:1) by doomicon (doomicn@oz-online.net) on Friday April 28, @10:12AM EDT (#20) (User Info)

Why can't they at least be honest? It's not about art, it's about money. "oh whoa is us, people are listening to our music without paying" I agree with another post, put out an album worth a shit, and maybe people will buy it. The last album I bought that totally kicked ass was Master in 88'. Justice was the last one worth a shit...

I'm very disappointed... (Score:1) by aTRaTiCa (hades@nospam.psu.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:12AM EDT (#21) (User Info)

I can't believe Metallica is filing a lawsuit like this. Metallica has been one of my favorite bans since their first album back in the 80's. I remember listening to songs like And Justice for All, and listening to the messages they broadcast. Metallica was all about being rebellious and different... Any diehard Metallica fan knows about the "selling out" phase the band was going through. Wether or not you believe they sold or not is not the point I'm trying to stress. Metallica would play anywhere... Remember the release of the Album (ugh) Load? Metallica was renting flatbed trucks and doing free shows in parking lots (which brought legal problems too I recall) for fans. I haven't liked Load or Reload, I've heard both in Mp3 before I purchased the albums, however I did purchase them anyway. I wish bands of today would realize the money their already making from live shows and album sales and realize that their already making a nice share of money. I'm a musician myself. I woulnd't mind if people would 'pirate' my songs. That's what the musical art is all aobut IMHO... Well, I hope I haven't gone off topic too much... I just hope Metallica looks back at what they've always been about and realize their contradictory... It kinda' brings a damper to the way I think of Metallica, but I'll ALWAYS enjoy listening to popping in my Kill 'Em All and Master of Puppet CD's on a rainy day... ------- What exactly is real?

Re:I'm very disappointed... (Score:1) by jenzinas on Friday April 28, @11:13AM EDT (#221) (User Info)

You're right. Weather they sold out or not is not relevant. However, it's pretty clear that they are being complete patsies to the RIAA. look at the wording they used: " this is about piracy --- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever -- is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods." they are parroting RIAA propaganda. almost word for word. Conspiracy theory time: Both Metallica and Dr. Dre were chosen as effective tools for sending a message. They are mainstream enough to be taken seriously but they still have enough of the alternative edge to appeal to the target audience: the Napster users.

This is why (Score:4, Insightful) by flink (danello@danky.com) on Friday April 28, @10:12AM EDT (#22) (User Info) http://danky.com

...projects like Freenet are so important. It denies the media heavies an organization to sue, and the .edu's a central site to block. If your university starts blocking traffic on port 19114, just start your node on 80 ;-).

Unless... (Score:2) by prizog (turnerd at reed.edu) on Friday April 28, @11:16AM EDT (#229) (User Info) http://www.reed.edu/~turnerd

That works, until they start blocking all incomming connections, on any port. That's what my school did, although they claim to be doing it for security reasons. IF YOU WANT TO RUN ANY SORT OF SERVER, DO NOT GO TO REED COLLEGE! I asked for an exception to the firewall months ago, and I have recieved no reply. -Dave Turner. "And we've all come a long way since then, including us." - Lars Ulrich My cphack mirror.

Huh? (Score:1) by Rombuu (rombuu@surfree.com) on Friday April 28, @10:13AM EDT (#24) (User Info)

They claim they're protecting their art, but they're also putting a big chill on the very notion of free software, open source, and the free movement of information and ideas on the Net. No they aren't. They are trying to stop theft, which we have had laws against for thousands of years. Space is Big / Space is Dark / It's Hard to Find / A Place to Park - Burma Shave

Re:Huh? (Score:1) by inful on Friday April 28, @10:32AM EDT (#97) (User Info)

Nope, this is not theft. We've had laws against theft of physical objects for thousands of years. I would agree on theft if I stole the CD on which the music was stored. Music, ideas and stories have not been a commodity for thousands of years, they have been freely available, and shared. It wasn't before we got the possibility of mass producing media like books, and somebody started making money on publishing, we got copyrights. The copyright is in my eyes not a tool made to protect the artist/composer, it is a tool mad to protect the publisher. -- BLiP!

Re:Huh? (Score:1) by JacksonG on Friday April 28, @11:50AM EDT (#296) (User Info)

Music, ideas and stories have not been a commodity for thousands of years, they have been freely available, and shared. Codswallop! Before the advent of the ability to record and distribute personal copies of a musical work the only way you would hear a musician perform their work was to *PAY* them to play it for you or a group of people. Minstrels would survive by wondering the country and entertaining a crowd in a pub for a meal and a room over their head. Either way the artist was paid for their work. Of course, if you had enough talent you could listen to the composition and recreate it yourself whenever you wanted to listen to it - something you're still free to do, get some instruments, record the song yourself and keep it in your personal collection and voila - a legal copy [although publishing it may incur a small license fee]. With the advent of personal recording systems it became blatantly obvious that this model would no longer work since the artist would only ever get to do the performance once, everybody would record it, pass copies around and byebye goes any hope the artist had of furthur income unless they were to come up with a brand new song every single day. This is what copyright protects with music. Very, very few bands are big enough to actually make cash out of touring, putting on a big tour can incur a whole truckload of expenses and the proift margins can be small [since the promoter takes a whole wedge for fronting up the cash in the first place thereby leaving a not very big cut for the artists.] So, if an artist can't make a living from their music what incentive is there for them to even bother creating it in the first place. J I am not a Frog. I am a Free Womble!

great (Score:1) by ArchieBunker (root@[127.0.0.1]) on Friday April 28, @12:02PM EDT (#303) (User Info) http://www.warroom.com/ausguncontrol.htm

Say you wrote a few reports for a college class, then I guess you woulnd't mind if I made copies and turned them in as my work. After all, there was no theft I just copied it. Theft does not always have to be physical. Its also ok to break laws you don't think are fair? Why not go about changing them instead? The truth about RMS http://tlug.linux.or.jp/rms.html

Re:Huh? (Score:1) by Eccles (abell@mindspringdotcom) on Friday April 28, @10:36AM EDT (#112) (User Info)

No they aren't. They are trying to stop theft, which we have had laws against for thousands of years. But what is Napster? It's a program that allows anyone to set up a downloadable archive of files and basically publish a directory of that archive. How is that fundamentally different from the Web? The web certainly has been used for distributing illegal mp3 files. Yet has anyone gone after Netscape for distributing a browser? How about the search engines? It's the program users who are breaking the law, not Napster. When does rampant illegal activity by users make the creator of a program liable?

Re:Huh? (Score:1) by inful on Friday April 28, @10:40AM EDT (#124) (User Info)

Hey, let's sue the Bible for causing wars and suffering throughout the history. Hell, while we're at it, let's just sue God... -- BLiP!

I think I buy it though (Score:1) by Qeyser (keyser at jay aitch yoo dot ee dee yoo) on Friday April 28, @10:39AM EDT (#121) (User Info)

I think that I buy the idea of "protecting one's art." Sure Metalica and Dre are successfull, but they are the one-in-a-million that made it. If it becomes no longer profitable, (or at least substantive) to make music, then people wont. The art will suffer. Of course, Metalica and Dre *have* made it. Arguably they are both rolling in cash - so why should they care about the money: in the end $3 mil in sales is no different than $3.5 mil. I think that they realize what it took to get where they are; but they still want to protect the ability to make a living off of music, and protect the rights of thousands of struggling musicians that need to sell CD's. -Vince

Re:I think I buy it though (Score:2) by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Friday April 28, @02:15PM EDT (#443) (User Info)

end $3 mil in sales is no different than $3.5 mil Well why stop there? I could just as easily say that $2.5 mil is no different than your $3 mil. And $2 mil's should be plenty for anyone, who really needs $2.5 mil? Our forefathers somehow managed to thrive without being multimillionaires, and they're a Hell of a lot smarter than most people around today, so nobody should need more than $1 million. But ya know, Metallica alreay has a $20 million recording contract, so it's not like they'd even notice whether or not they got that extra $1 million -- that settles it, all their music should be free. Any argument starting with the premise that someone has too much money, or more than they need, is an inherently evil one with the real purpose wanting to take away your freedom to do what you want with your own money. Why the fsck is it any of your business how much I make, how much you think I need, or whether or not I decide to blow it all on the most frivolous, self-indulgent crap ever known to man. Mind your own damn business. (And when I say "you" up there, I'm talking about the general you, not aiming that at you, Vince.) Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Re:Huh? (Score:2) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Friday April 28, @02:33PM EDT (#461) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/

They are trying to stop theft, which we have had laws against for thousands of years. No they aren't. They're trying to stop copying of musical recording, which we've had bad laws against for a few decades. Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

Intellectual Property (Score:1) by MidKnight on Friday April 28, @10:14AM EDT (#29) (User Info)

As far as I can tell, this is yet another intellectual property issue. The ease of digitizing and transmitting of such property has been an obvious concern for anyone who thinks their creations are their's alone. Our dubious opinionated scribe has taken the point of saying (excuse the paraphrase, Jon) "Shame on you, Metallica, we thought you were cool." I almost spit my morning coffee out my nose. Guess what? It is against the law to duplicate Metallica's music, then send it to someone else. The ease of doing it over the Internet does not negate the law. Sorry for the possibly antagonistic tone, but this is almost too silly to comment on. --Mid "Time wounds all heels" -- Robert Heinlein

Re:Intellectual Property (Score:3, Insightful) by Teethgrinder (sd@oos.org) on Friday April 28, @11:07AM EDT (#200) (User Info) http://www.oos.org/

The ease of doing it over the Internet does not negate the law But that's exactly the point - they are suing "the ease of doing it" instead of the people that do it. While I admit that this would be practicly impossible that ought to be the only way to do it. This suit doesnt go anywhere. If they'd be more consequent they should just sue Cisco and 3Com and whoever for building routers and network cards also. The internet and its inherent possibilities are a fact now - we should either try to live with it or else shut the whole damn thing down. The fact that Napster is mainly used illegaly is mainly because there is no legal alternative that offers the same functionality/features. I actually liked the idea of paylars.com - give musicians money for the songs you like/listen to. I dont know why none of the big recording companies hasnt yet come up with an intelligent idea for marketing mp3s (well, probably because musicians would soon realize that they dont need them) but that isnt my problem. And it certainly shouldnt be the problem of Universities... Argh... I'll just stop now...

Art is priceless (Score:1) by Ech3lon (ech3lon@SPAMnEGGSyahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @10:14AM EDT (#30) (User Info)

"art is being traded like a commodity" Yeah...but uh, for free? Kinda de-comodifies the commodity then, doesn't it? Get used to it. Ya can't stop the bum rush. Napster is probably screwed so ... GO GNUTELLA!. don't believe the hype

Don't be mean.... (Score:1) by BrotherPope (master@mari.net) on Friday April 28, @10:14AM EDT (#31) (User Info)

"We don't have to be mean. 'Cause, remember, no matter where you go..... there you are." --Buckaroo Banzai Yes, we all know Jon is about as clued up on the music scene as BillG is on Linux Kernel programming or a YRO poster is on the law (Sorry )... But play nice. Just because he gets some facts wrong doesn't invalidate his point.

Napster as Radio. (Score:1) by lonely (lonely@spamx.eh.org) on Friday April 28, @10:15AM EDT (#32) (User Info)

Would it help bands if the band though of Napster as a form of broadcast medium, like radio, rather than a pirating method? As many people have said, they will gladly buy the CD of band they have heard on Napster. Perhaps release albums as MP3 with adverts in them even? Make some money that way?

Re:Napster as Radio. (Score:1) by -brazil- on Friday April 28, @10:30AM EDT (#85) (User Info) http://www.in.tum.de/~borgward/goodies.html

Would it help bands if the band though of Napster as a form of broadcast medium, like radio, rather than a pirating method? Maybe, but then you would be forced to distribute only 32kbps files... Michael "Brazil" Borgwardt --- Member of #WASHU# and Her would-be guinea-pig.

Even Icecast streams are "public performance" (Score:1) by yerricde (slash©pineight.8m.COM) on Friday April 28, @10:36AM EDT (#111) (User Info) http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~yerricde/sd.html

Would it help bands if the band though of Napster as a form of broadcast medium, like radio You're thinking of MPEG radio systems such as Shoutcast and Icecast systems. Even if Napster is like the radio (I do see the connection), broadcast is still "public performance" under the law and is exclusively controlled by the copyright holder except for fair use and compulsory license. Perhaps release albums as MP3 with adverts in them even? Make some money that way? AMP3.com already does this. Actually, in locations with weak copyright laws, the success of a media product depends on product-placement advertising (think "I like girls that wear Abercrombie & Fitch"). Kill viruses. Kill hamsters. Infringe patents.

I Love Napster too, but........... (Score:1, Interesting) by superid on Friday April 28, @10:16AM EDT (#35) (User Info)

I'm sure to get moderated *way* down for this (inflammatory, or whatever) but I'm afraid that for the most part, I agree with these lawsuits. Copying Dr. Dre, Metallica, et al is *clearly* a violation of *current* copyright laws (IANAL). Don't rationalize it, don't say that "the record companies make too much money", don't say its just for your own use, or that "I'm going to delete them in 24 hours, so its legal" (Hint, it's not). I've seen groups of people in irc chat rooms flaming people unmercifully when they ask questions about hacking/cracking, and these same people have mp3 collections worth *far* more than the commercial software on their systems. This is so hypocritical it drives me crazy. Yes, I have napster, yes I use it, yes it has opened me up to music that I would not ordinarily listen to and now I'll probably go out and buy some cds that I probably would not have (Nawfel is *really* cool)...but if you don't admit that it's piracy then you are deluding yourself.

Re:I Love Napster too, but........... (Score:1) by BluFinger on Friday April 28, @12:07PM EDT (#314) (User Info) http://www.libbench.com/

They're not suing the pirates. They're suing people who make a tool with legitimate uses that happens to be used by pirates. Therefore the lawsuits suck ass. Lib.BENCH the only site you'll ever need!

Re:I Love Napster too, but........... (Score:1) by Spectra72 on Friday April 28, @11:44AM EDT (#287) (User Info) http://mrhat.penguinpowered.com

So why don't you ask Sierra? Send them an email. Dear Sierra, my friend and I are sharing a Half-Life CD, but, don't worry, he went and bought Opposing Force too. Make sure you use your real name too, so they can reward you.

Stealing is stealing (Score:2, Insightful) by PatMouser (stjeanp@pat-st-jean.com) on Friday April 28, @10:16AM EDT (#36) (User Info) http://www.pat-st-jean.com/stjeanp

Please try to ignore all of the rhetoric on both sides and look at the facts. The vast majority of MP3s out there were not created with the artist's or the record company's consent. Wether or not they "deserve" the money is besides the point. MP3s are no different than warez because in both cases the rightful owner of the copyright didn't give permission for the copy to be made. Remember the flap about Be using some ethernet drivers without following the terms of the license? Is this any different? I don't think so. Why is it that the fact that the copyright on the material in question is owned by some large corporation changing perspectives so much? Fundamentally, the amount of wealth and power that the copyright holder has shouldn't be altering the equation one bit. Making copies without the copyright holder's permission is wrong, both morally and legally.

It's only theft if that's how you define it (Score:1) by fhwang (fphwang@NO.excite.SPAM.com) on Friday April 28, @10:37AM EDT (#113) (User Info) http://www.echonyc.com/~fhwang

One thing that seems to be getting lost in all this discussion is that property (and, conversely, theft) is defined by society. That is, there's nothing natural or intrinsic about the fact that one person can own an idea. Our intellectual property laws are economic and legal schemes designed by society, hopefully for society's benefit. For example, copyrights exist in large part because our society decided it's good for everybody that artists are compensated for their creations. Patents were created so that inventors wouldn't hoard their secrets jealously and lead to the possibility of trade secrets dying with their innovators. These have been useful schemes, but they are far from natural, intrinsic, or perfect. Many people have argued, for example, against the current extension of patents to algorithms, or the fact that corporations can now hold copyrights nearly indefinitely. And when these schemes are no longer useful or practical, we as a society can decide to amend or discard them. In this case, digital technology is making it trivially easy to copy music, and many users do it because they don't see it as theft, since it's creating another copy of something, not depriving someone else of their own copy. We don't need artists and record labels suing Napster. We need to figure out how to treat intellectual property in a way that is consistent with our technological facilities and our own sense of ethics. On one hand, it would be a shame if our society devoted a tremendous amount of legal resources to prosecuting an ever-growing wave of people who insist on trading this stuff freely. On the other hand, we need to make sure artists have some chance of making a living. Francis Hwang Writer/Coder/Cartoonist/Designer

Re:It's only theft if that's how you define it (Score:1) by HiQ on Friday April 28, @10:57AM EDT (#175) (User Info)

So, just because music and for example booktexts, are not physical objects, it's allright to label it as 'intellectual property'? I think it simply like this: I make something, and other people can buy that, whatever the form. The things that I make can be physical objects, but also advice or a service of some kind. No matter how you label things, it's still theft! How to make a sig without having an idea just made a HiQ

The solution is obvious (Score:1) by elgardo on Friday April 28, @12:02PM EDT (#304) (User Info) http://gard.scriba.org/

Why limit yourself to the record industry. If you don't like someone's behaviour, do what the US is doing to Cuba - don't support them. I, for on, am disgusted with Metallica's way of handling the case, and will refrain from buying their CDs. In fact, the commercial record industry in the US is so bad these days, that I am spending less and less on that market, and putting my money in other markets, such as European music and, of course, MP3.com. It is actually interesting to note that through Napster, I have been introduced to new music that I'm now hunting up and down to get the original CD of. Alas, these artists would never have gotten my money if I had not stumbled over them by accident. Which also shows that just because I'm able to get the MP3 for free, doesn't mean that I don't buy the CD. In fact, this is one of the things that draws me towards making more business with MP3.com - that, and the fact that I know that more of my money is indeed going to the artist. For that reason alone, I support MP3.com's business model much more than the model of the traditional record industry. If this is really what you feel, then put your buck where your heart is (and do not put your heart where your buck is). Do business with the people who "behave" within your standards, and boycott those you "don't like". I mean... just because you like their music doesn't mean you need to have it. There are plenty of alternatives.

Re:The solution is obvious (Score:1) by elgardo on Friday April 28, @05:08PM EDT (#536) (User Info) http://gard.scriba.org/

You don't know if it is good or bad before you have listened to it. On Napster and mp3.com alike, I have experimented by searching for keywords that would give me a wide range of responses. Try, for example, to search for "Milk" (because it was in a glass on my computer desk at the moment I was searching). I found lots of bands I had never heard of. Downloaded, played, found that some of it was crap, and some of it was good. Music that I don't like, I delete. I mean, why waste the disk space on crap? Music I like, I go out of my way to find "real life", because I like to have "the entire package". However, without said method, there would be no way I would ever know that this band existed. The 30 second samples you get on CDNow.com etc are often not representative for the entire song, and it doesn't give me enough to get a good FEEL for the song. I really need the entire song to figure out if I really would want it. And hey... a lot of the MP3s I have gotten through Napster were flawed anyway. A great number of the MP3s have been quickly ripped and never tested, so there's the occational skip and bad data "and stuff". But that's just my own experience with Napster. I think I have answered your questions... though being a little bit too lengthy with it.

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:1) by krogoth (krogoth2 at softhome dot net) on Friday April 28, @10:48AM EDT (#149) (User Info) http://freed.sourceforge.net

I know this is illegal, but as i've said below, if I could pay 50 cents per MP3, directly to metallica, i would. For one CD, what do they get, a few $? If i bought one CD's worth of MP3s under this system, I would pay less, and they would get more. This would make it easier to buy the music too, for 2 reasons: 1: It's a lot easier to download an MP3 than to go buy a CD. I can only play it on my computer, but that's where i spend (waste) most of my time that i can listen to music, so it wouldn't make much difference 2: It's easier to pay 50 cents than 20$. 50 cents is nothing to me. I can throw away two quarters and i won't care, so why not pay metallica? 20$ is different. That's 1/3 of what i get in a month, so I don't spend 20$ every day. -Krogoth

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:1) by Mowgli on Friday April 28, @10:51AM EDT (#153) (User Info)

For the most part, I have to agree with you. Stealing is wrong; however, there are some issues that should be explored here. It is my understanding that it is not illegal to make a recording of a radio broadcast (IANAL) that is playing copyrighted material. If that is true, and it is not illegal for me to record my local radio station playing Metallica, then how is Napster so different? On a different note, I don't see why Napster should be liable for the actions of the people that use it. For instance, is the owner of the land on which a swap meet occurs liable if someone there trafics in stolen goods? I don't think so.

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:1) by jblackman (blackman@mail.utexas.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:58AM EDT (#180) (User Info) http://129.116.45.102

Please try to ignore all of the rhetoric on both sides and look at the facts. The vast majority of MP3s out there were not created with the artist's or the record company's consent. Wether or not they "deserve" the money is besides the point. MP3s are no different than warez because in both cases the rightful owner of the copyright didn't give permission for the copy to be made. That's a point I've been wondering about for some time now. As far as I understand it, it's legal for me to take a CD that I own, and create mp3's for my own personal use. But what if, instead of ripping the CD myself, I just download it off Napster? As I have the right to posess an mp3 of a song that I own, does it matter how I obtain it? Isn't this the principle that my.mp3.com works on? I know the RIAA took exception to that, but is it strictly illegal? By the way, you say that the mp3's were created without the consent of the record companies. Seeing as how someone had to own CD from which the mp3 was initially made, the first copy was probably legit. The issues of legality arise in the subsequent distrbution. (Right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) It's a subtle point, but an important one, I would think.

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:4, Insightful) by Palin Majere (satan@kiva.net) on Friday April 28, @11:22AM EDT (#246) (User Info) http://www.kiva.net/

You're right. Stealing is stealing, and the vast majority of MP3s out that _weren't_ created with the artist's or the record company's consent. However, you're wrong in thinking that this is about stealing. That's what the RIAA, the MPAA, Metallica, and the rest of those people filing lawsuits against Napster and college universities wants you to think. I live in Bloomington, Indiana, which is the home of Indiana University, one of the colleges initially named in the Metallica lawsuit. Immediately after the lawsuit was filed, University officials were contacted for comment. IU's lawyers have stated that IU was acting legally and responsibly, and that it would have been shielded from any sort of lawsuit like the one Metallica filed, on the grounds that it's a content provider along the same lines as an ISP. So, with their lawyers telling them that they're in the clear, what do the school officials do? They pull access to Napster. The university that helped Napster restructure its network protocol to minimize bandwidth usage is now _pulling_ from its network the same product it helped reengineer. Apparently, IU (and the other universities pulling Napster access based on an overblown threat of litigation) are more interested in their own pocketbooks than the rights and freedoms of their students. This lawsuit, and the others like it, long ago went beyond "We wan't just compensation for our work". It's now about control of information, and about control of the Internet. I don't want _anybody_, whether it's Metallica or the Russian government, telling how and where I can express myself, and that's the fundamental level these lawsuits are operating on. So what if they win the lawsuits, you might ask? Well, for starters, they can immediately make moves on the http, ftp, and irc protocols and their authors. Why? Because their encouraging piraacy by allowing for the free transmission of data. What do you think was the primary source for pirated mp3s prior to Napster? And do you honestly think that with a precedent like that that the RIAA and the MPAA would _not_ take advantage of it? This is a case with the capacity of setting a _very_ dangerous precedent, because it asks the question "Is the method of transmission responsible for what's transmitted?". There are many wonderful real-life analogies that can be drawn here, but I'm sure you can figure them out. What kind of world would it be if you could be sued anytime you helped someone that later went on to do criminal acts? Suing Napster is one thing. Suing the Universities that provide Napster access is another, and I find it absolutely disgusting that universities are bowing to legal pressure when _their own layers_ are telling them that they're legally safe. >Making copies without the copyright holder's >permission is wrong, both morally and legally. I'd like to quickly point out that morality in does not require you to follow written laws. Morals are something that each invidual decides for themselves. Legally, copyright infringement is against law. Morally, it depends entirely on the situation. Would you infringe someone else's copyright to save a life? Would you be morally wrong for doing so? -- "You'll get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than with just a kind word." Marcus Cole, Ranger

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:1) by PatMouser (stjeanp@pat-st-jean.com) on Friday April 28, @12:32PM EDT (#357) (User Info) http://www.pat-st-jean.com/stjeanp

I'd like to quickly point out that morality in does not require you to follow written laws. Morals are something that each invidual decides for themselves. Legally, copyright infringement is against law. Morally, it depends entirely on the situation. Would you infringe someone else's copyright to save a life? Would you be morally wrong for doing so? You're right. I should have clarified that. What I actually meant was in this case it's wrong. I'm sorry for the confusion

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:1) by _xeno_ on Friday April 28, @01:47PM EDT (#420) (User Info)

So what if they win the lawsuits, you might ask? Well, for starters, they can immediately make moves on the http, ftp, and irc protocols and their authors. Why? Because their encouraging piracy by allowing for the free transmission of data. What do you think was the primary source for pirated mp3s prior to Napster? And do you honestly think that with a precedent like that that the RIAA and the MPAA would _not_ take advantage of it? This is a case with the capacity of setting a _very_ dangerous precedent, because it asks the question "Is the method of transmission responsible for what's transmitted?". Except that Napster is designed to only allow the transmission of MP3s. And most MP3's are illegally owned. Yes, I've got some MP3's I've ripped for personal usage, I don't use Napster, but still, most MP3's are illegal. (And most people seem not to want Final Fantasy VII's OST - but anyway...) FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of binary data, and the person with the server is responsible for the information which goes over those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of free ISO images, or the latest open source project I'm working on. All of this would be legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most people) illegal. Napster on the other hand is designed for transmitting MP3s and nothing else. (And I know about wrapster, it's a cheap ploy to try and expand the usefullness of Napster.) Just because you WANT to pirate the latest tracks from your favorite band doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it, it's still illegal, and morally objectionable. Either that, or you wouldn't mind if I decide to modify some GPL'ed project, and then release the changes under a restrictive licence. Then I'd be violating a copyright again. Would you mind?

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:2) by Palin Majere (satan@kiva.net) on Friday April 28, @02:33PM EDT (#460) (User Info) http://www.kiva.net/

>Except that Napster is designed to only allow the >transmission of MP3s. And most MP3's are >illegally owned. Yes, I've got some MP3's I've >ripped for personal usage, I don't use Napster, >but still, most MP3's are illegal. (And most >people seem not to want Final Fantasy VII's OST - >but anyway...) So you're saying that since "most" mp3s are illegal, that's an excuse to infringe on the perfectly valid uses of Napster? I wonder if there are statistics for firearms like this. Would you advocate the abolishment of firearms if it turned out most were used by criminals? What if it was "most bullets" instead of most firearms? What if a study is done, and we find that 51% of mp3s are legitimate, and 49% are pirated? Where do you draw the line? I don't have those statistics. And, for that matter, nobody has those kinds of statistics for mp3s, either. We're just taking reasonable guesses based on observations. However, Napster _does_ have legitimate purposes and it _is_ being used in that fashion. >FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of >binary data, and the person with the server is >responsible for the information which goes over >those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to >allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of >free ISO images, or the latest open source >project I'm working on. All of this would be >legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up >through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most >people) illegal. And here you are _wrong_. Under US law, your ISP is not help responsible for your illegal content until they are notified about it. At which point, most ISPs react by removing the content, and terminating the offender's account. This is EXACTLY what Napster has been doing, even going so far as to ban the ips of offenders to insure that they don't just sign on under a new username. The people to blame (and sue) in this case would be the end user, or the ISP if it failed to remove the illegal content. ISPs are NOT required to actively check every file on their system to see whether it's legal or not. They're only responsible for the things they've been notified of. As I said previously, and I'll say again (and again): The people the RIAA, the MPAA, Metallica, Dr. Dre, and the rest should be suing are the people pirating the software. You don't sue the car manufacturer for providing the get-away car. You don't sue the ski-mask maker for making the ski mask. You DO sue the person that pirates the files. You DO sue the person that is responsible for making them publicly available. You do NOT sue that person's ISP, nor that ISP's backbone provider. Nor do you sue the manufacturer of that person's computer. The dangers of this suit are what's being attacked, and the precedent that it sets. I personally believe that copyright infringement is wrong, and should be stopped. But this NOT the way to do it. -- "You'll get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than with just a kind word." Marcus Cole, Ranger

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:1) by _xeno_ on Friday April 28, @03:21PM EDT (#487) (User Info)

I wrote: FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of binary data, and the person with the server is responsible for the information which goes over those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of free ISO images, or the latest open source project I'm working on. All of this would be legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most people) illegal. Palin Majere wrote: And here you are _wrong_. Under US law, your ISP is not help responsible for your illegal content until they are notified about it. At which point, most ISPs react by removing the content, and terminating the offender's account. This is EXACTLY what Napster has been doing, even going so far as to ban the ips of offenders to insure that they don't just sign on under a new username. How does banning IPs help? Most ISP uses dynamic IPs anyway... Moving along, what I said wasn't very clearly worded, but what I meant is that FTP and HTTP are designed just for data. Hence, they are not designed for pirating. They can be used for pirating, but often are not. And I was talking from the perspective of running at FTP or HTTP server, since I currently have them running on my box, and have material on them. (Like the RedHat 6.2 ISOs, mirrored from ftp.redhat.com, they're legal.) I've also have some episodes of Geeks in Space online to see if I'd get in trouble for having MP3s available for download. So far, I haven't. You can't sue Napster's users effectively. It's quite near impossible to just go after the users, even though they are in theory the ones doing the pirating. Most people I know think that MP3s are illegal right out. Trying to explain the difference between an audio format and using an audio format to spread copyrighted matterial is getting annoying... I don't know, but couldn't Napster set up a blacklist of copyrighted songs which can't go over the service? I can't think of any way personally, but could it be done? This actually gets into another area, where allowing people to download copyrighted material is legal. For example, video game ROMs, binary duplicates of the data on those carts for the early Nintendo, or the Sega Genisis, etc. As most people do not have the ability to dump the ROMs into their computer, it is legal to have copies of the files available for download so that users can use their licence for copyrighted material even after the original cartridge failed. Sticky issue, as it also allows people to play games which they aren't legally allowed to. But through the usage of ROMs, I can now play the original Legend of Zelda game even though the original cartridge has died. (To Nintendo's credit, my original NES deck still works!) Personally, I can't condone Napster in any way. I don't see it as a method for artists to spread MP3s, because as far as I know, you really need to search for specific songs - needing to know the title first. I've never used Napster though, mainly because it's been blocked at my college... (Although they claim it's due to bandwidth restriction... Of course, since the network crapped out on me while I tried to submit this comment, I find that idea highly suspect...)

Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:1) by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. on Friday April 28, @02:28PM EDT (#456) (User Info)

Why would a university appease commercial interests even if their lawyers say they are safe? Perhaps getting sued is not their only concern. Perhaps they do not want to annoy a large company, because then that would be one less potential corporate sponsor. One less entity the university could sell part of its soul for in exchange for cash, and let's face it, that is all many of these places care about. As an aside, keep in mind that many universities will allow companies to get patents on research done by the universities, so their own students aren't allowed to use the technology. On the other hand one can't always blame the university. This country keeps cutting funding for higher education, some places have to make up the difference any way the can to survive.

It's piracy (Score:1) by akamil (piracy@microsoft.com) on Friday April 28, @10:16AM EDT (#37) (User Info)

I don't understand the logic of people who support Napster. It's sole purpose is to allow the free exchange of music over the internet, so it is designed to pirate music, making it illegal. There are absolutely no arguments supporting Napster, and the "online community" bull is just a transparent excuse to defend piracy. Napster is illegal and therefore should be banned. Also, I'm surprised that more universities haven't banned Napster, considering its effect on bandwith. My brother says that his dorm's T3 line is slower than his modem because of all the people dowloading pirated music. If you want music for free, then get it from some amateur group, don't steal it from someone else. And don't complain about the price. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Re:It's piracy (Score:1) by -brazil- on Friday April 28, @10:25AM EDT (#74) (User Info) http://www.in.tum.de/~borgward/goodies.html

I don't understand the logic of people who support Napster. It's sole purpose is to allow the free exchange of music over the internet, so it is designed to pirate music, making it illegal. There are absolutely no arguments supporting Napster, and the "online community" bull is just a transparent excuse to defend piracy. This if, of course, also bull. Hint: Napster is used for making music files available. There is nothing inherently illegal about music files. Napster is illegal and therefore should be banned. Double bull. Napster is not illegal. It can be used for something illegal, and that's probably what it's being used for most of the time, but that doesn't make the program itself illegal. If you want music for free, then get it from some amateur group, don't steal it from someone else. And how, genius, is Napster unable to distibute music from amateur groups? Michael "Brazil" Borgwardt --- Member of #WASHU# and Her would-be guinea-pig.

Is this piracy too? :-) (Score:1) by yerricde (slash©pineight.8m.COM) on Friday April 28, @10:41AM EDT (#129) (User Info) http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~yerricde/sd.html

I don't understand the logic of people who support FTP. Its sole purpose is to allow the free exchange of software over the internet, so it is designed to pirate software, making it illegal. There are absolutely no arguments supporting FTP, and the "online community" bull is just a transparent excuse to defend piracy. FTP is illegal and therefore should be banned. Also, I'm surprised that more universities haven't banned FTP, considering its effect on bandwidth. My brother says that his dorm's T3 line is slower than his modem because of all the people dowloading pirated software. If you want software for free, then get it from some open-source project, don't steal it from someone else. And don't complain about the price. If you don't like it, don't buy it. See how silly your argument is? Napster technology is just a distribution medium. It was originally designed for your "amateur groups," but users abuse it and trade audio clips without authorization. Kill viruses. Kill hamsters. Infringe patents.

Re: It's piracy (Score:1) by j_d (theeaterofsocks@hotmail.com) on Friday April 28, @10:45AM EDT (#140) (User Info)

It's sole purpose is to allow the free exchange of music over the internet, so it is designed to pirate music, making it illegal. There are absolutely no arguments supporting Napster, and the "online community" bull is just a transparent excuse to defend piracy This is just mindboggling. You're either the devil's advocate, a troll, or a moron. I'm wavering between trying to craft some remarkably witty, intelligent reply, and flaming you for being an utter dumbfuck with an "if'n ye hain't wi' us, ye gainst us" mentality with your "free exchange=piracy" (and I'll use this next word loosely) "logic". The only songs I've got on Napster are the one's I've created. There's your fucking reason. Stay the fuck away from how I choose to share my music. Maybe you'd like to ban, oh, JPGs since I could scan an article from Time Magazine and post it on a web page without paying Time, or golly, you could ban the whole Web since anyone could scan and post articles and trade them, but then we'd still have those pesky FTP sites with leet mp3s and jpgs to shut down to preserve your brother's precious fucking T3 bandwidth. As an amature artist, I'm happy to use and endorse Napster as a LEGITIMATE means of distributing my music. And don't give me that "but you're a minority" crap, because I don't give a rat's ass as to what you expect most people to do, since most people couldn't find their asses with a map and a tour guide. In short, Napster has legitimate uses, much like the "evil" blank cassette tapes and blank VHS tapes that would bottom out the tape and video industries, even though that never happened.

Natural Selection (Score:1, Redundant) by Industrial Disease (bmokeefe@hotbot.com) on Friday April 28, @10:18AM EDT (#41) (User Info) http://www.io.com/%7Ebmokeefe/harmful/

There are some bands which appeal to an audience which is mature enough to pay for value received, and is willing to support the artists they enjoy, whether they are forced to or not. There are other bands which do not appeal to such an audience. The bands who do will find ways to profit from the free exchange of music. The bands who don't, well... -- Weblogging Considered Harmful: http://www.io.com/%7Ebmokeefe/harmful/

Re:Natural Selection (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @10:57AM EDT (#174) (User Info)

That's an interesting point. Instead of trying to find bands that have the widest possible appeal, labels would have to find bands that have the highest-income appeal. So instead of top-40 bands, we'd have bands that tend to appeal to, say, well-paid net.geeks and executives rather than bands that appeal to middle-class teenagers. (Instead of 98 Degrees and Metallica, the stores would be full of Aphex Twin and Kenny G?) It's almost interesting enough to make me want to leave my computer job and go back into music publicity.... no .sig, no slogan

This is ridiculous!! (Score:1) by Omicron (jdost223@spammers.should.die.uwsp.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:18AM EDT (#42) (User Info)

I may accidentally drop into a rant here, so I apologize in advance if I do. I'm not meaning to get into a flame war :). I just find this ridiculous. I work for a university that recently decided to ban Napster. We haven't received any threats, it just happens to be against the policies of network use that have been around for quite awhile, and the policies are also fair. I have an interesting perspective on this - while I work as a programmer/IT jack of all trades for this university, I am also a student. I had been playing around with Napster for awhile, but I prefer other ways of getting multimedia on the net. I was also shocked at the blatant piracy running rampant on Napster. Yes, I know that the company is not liable in a way - it's kind of like IRC. I just don't see how people can justify their use of the program, when instead of going out and buying the latest Eifel 65 album they just grab it off of the net. "But it's my right!", they cry! Your right?!?! Where do you get the idea that it is your right to unlawfully steal someone elses work? I just don't understand the mentality of people that shout out against universities that block Napster. They yell how it is their right to download music, get free this, blah, blah, blah. To be bluntly honest, it isn't your right. I know CD sales are up, I know all the open source arguments, and I am also an open source advocate. I am still do not see how enforcing copyright laws is going to destroy the open source movement. What do you think people are doing when they GPL code? Sure, they are giving it away for free, but there are laws on how and what you can do with it. Just like music! I just wish someone could explain to me how someone can be so arrogant and ignorant as to think it is their right to download, I mean pirate, copyrighted music. If anyone could do that, I would be greatly appreciative. I think this loop is infinite - gads.

What record store? (Score:1) by yerricde (slash©pineight.8m.COM) on Friday April 28, @10:44AM EDT (#139) (User Info) http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~yerricde/sd.html

when instead of going out and buying the latest Eifel 65 album they just grab it off of the net. Going out where? I have never seen Eiffel 65 in any local record store; otherwise, I would already have added the CD to my collection. Kill viruses. Kill hamsters. Infringe patents.

Re:What record store? (Score:1) by Omicron (jdost223@spammers.should.die.uwsp.edu) on Friday April 28, @07:45PM EDT (#557) (User Info)

Your on the net (obviously). CDNow, Amazon, etc, etc. The fact is, you don't need to pirate the music to hear it. I think this loop is infinite - gads.

Everybody head to BN.com to pick up some CDs! (Score:1) by yerricde (slash©pineight.8m.COM) on Friday April 28, @09:12PM EDT (#569) (User Info) http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~yerricde/sd.html

CDNow, Amazon, etc, etc. Amazon: boycotting them because of their stupid one-click patent CDNow: Uses TroubleClick for banner ads, and they 404 me if I'm blocking ad.doubleclick.net in /etc/hosts Barnes & Noble: Oh, there it is! And with short snips of the first five tracks, there's hardly a chance that a fella will unwittingly buy a disc full of shit. Verdict: BN.com rocks. I'm blue. If I was green, I would die. If I was green, I would die... Kill viruses. Kill hamsters. Infringe patents.

Re:This is ridiculous!! (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @11:01AM EDT (#186) (User Info)

You're making the same mistake that Metallica and Dre are making. I _do_ have a right to use Napster. I do _not_ have a right to use Napster to download copyrighted music. It's as simple as that. no .sig, no slogan

Re:This is ridiculous!! (Score:1) by Omicron (jdost223@spammers.should.die.uwsp.edu) on Friday April 28, @07:47PM EDT (#559) (User Info)

I don't want to flame you w/ this comment, I just want to say thanks for pointing that out. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and it's just my oversight that I didn't make that clear in my comment. I think this loop is infinite - gads.

They need to work with napster (Score:1) by krogoth (krogoth2 at softhome dot net) on Friday April 28, @10:19AM EDT (#44) (User Info) http://freed.sourceforge.net

Metallica needs to work with napster. I've downloaded a few of their MP3's, and i would buy the CD, but if i could pay them 50 cents per MP3, and the money went directly to them, i would do it. They probably don't get that much from one CD, so if we could pay less, and directly to them, they would get more. And it's much easier to download an MP3 than to go and buy a CD, so they would get more sales. -Krogoth

Re:They need to work with napster (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @11:04AM EDT (#192) (User Info)

mp3.com has been doing this for a long time now. There are some major bands that have decided to sell music this way (either instead of, or in addition to, traditional CD sales). Even better, a lot of bands that couldn't get a record contract (or, worse, could get a contract like some of the ones I've signed in the past--where you give up control over your music to a company that can't get you into most stores, can't support you, and half the time doesn't even send you the checks unless you harass them) are using mp3.com to sell their music. But even if you got with mp3.com, or a similar distribution method, the same problem exists. In fact, it's even easier for you to buy my MP3 and then upload it to people via Napster than to buy my CD, rip it, and upload it to people via Napster.... I've already mentioned elsewhere in this thread that I think shareware music would be an even cooler idea: You download the songs you want to hear, and if you want to keep them, you send me money. I've convinced a few bands to do this (the price model is usually $1/song, or $5 for a whole album), and I plan to do it in the future. But saying that all bands should be forced to release their music as shareware is like saying that all commercial software should be forced to be sold as shareware. no .sig, no slogan

How else will artists get paid? (Score:2, Insightful) by DeepDarkSky on Friday April 28, @10:19AM EDT (#45) (User Info)

Music artists will be worried about piracy, although many of them probably do not want to inflame the issue and alienate some of their largest potential audience members. It is precisely because Metallica is pretty comfortable from all the record albumns that they sold the they can afford to do this. They have a point in saying simply this: "We have a right to get paid for our work". The music/recording industry have always been there to control and run everything, including making sure that the artists "get paid for their work". Of course, the problem is that the artists don't get the majority of the proceeds from record sales. The music industry does. The music industry and the artists alike are concerned about potential widespread (implicitly endorsed by general population - if you've used napster to download a copyrighted work, you've implicitly endorsed it) piracy. We complain about high prices that are charged for these CDs and some point to it as a reason for Napster's popularity - that if CDs were cheaper, we'd buy more of them, and Napster and/or piracy would not be so relevant. But the high prices are from the music/recording labels. They have high overhead in terms of promotions, distributions and so on. They have to spend all that money to promote the albumns so that they can sell more and pay everybody. Of course, a lot of the money line the pockets of a few very rich people too - not necessarily the artist either. Until there's a way that artists can be paid for their work without having to charge a lot of money for their works because they have to pay for all the music/recording label's work, artists will worry about piracy. After all, this is their livelihood too. can you imagine...a Beowulf Cluster of 31337 JonKatzes pouring hot grits down their pants and trolling for Natalie Portman?

Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:1) by e-gold (_NOSPAM_jray@omnipay.net) on Friday April 28, @10:59AM EDT (#182) (User Info) http://www.FlyingRat.com

(I may bite my tongue a lot, but I can never resist subject-lines like "How else will artists get paid?"!) Until there's a way that artists can be paid for their work without having to charge a lot of money for their works because they have to pay for all the music/recording label's work, artists will worry about piracy. After all, this is their livelihood too. I was at CFP99, where there was a shouting match onstage regarding the MP3 issue. Afterward, I walked up to folks involved on all sides, handed them my card, and tried to make the point that a successful music distribution system -- especially one that cut out the corporate monopolist types everyone seems to hate -- would require the ability for potential customers to successfully send micropayments, either as actual payments or as donations. Let's face it, music is great stuff and can make lots of money for artists who deserve it, but a the best song in the world isn't worth more to me individually than today's lunch at lunchtime. Anyway, I'd hand them my card, tell them "hey, try our system out, it's free to create an account and I'm a sucker for clicking ANYBODY a little bit to see how it works, so there's no risk to you at all" and I'd get this blank "but why aren't you shouting like everybody else?" look from these people. Nobody seemed interested in the issue of how to get paid reliably and irrevocably because it was a lot more fun to scream "you THIEF!!!" at other people. Sheesh. IF there were a way to pay a reasonable price to download a song on Napster, and know that the payment went mostly to an artist instead of a corporation (especially an offensive one, like Time-Warner) I think that most users -- even the poor college student variety -- would pay. There's no way to be SURE this is true, and survey responses don't always track behavior, and there will always be warez-kiddies who refuse to pay for anything, but I think most folks (even poor students) are honest and would want to pay. The issue is how to implement it, and how to get folks to understand that payments don't have to be dollars, they just have to be good! Grams have been working better & better for over four years despite minimal media notice or advertising. As usual, any Slashdot reader who asks me in e-mail can have enough e-gold to personally see the difference between our cheap, "push" payment system and credit cards' sometimes costly, "pull" systems, today -- right now. I may be greedy & self-interested in making this offer to give away gold, but at least I admit it -- I'm here to help, whether or not anybody's actually listening this time... JMR regards, Jim Ray Opinions are, as always, my own.

Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:2) by jd on Friday April 28, @11:06AM EDT (#196) (User Info)

I agree. First off, Jon Katz is not in the music business, is not a member of Metallica (thank God!) and has never managed them. This gives Jon Katz exactly ZERO right to say how Metallica should licence their music. If Metallica wish to GPL or BSD some of their music, fine! If they don't, oh well! Either way, it's nobody else's business but theirs as to what licence is used for THEIR music. Secondly, Jon Katz is sounding like this is a done deal. Sorry, but there's this guy called a judge, who - uh - sorta listens to both sides and says who's in the right, here. So far as I know, Jon Katz has not been called to the Bar, and is not the duly-selected judge to preside this case. Thirdly, this has nothing to do with Free Music (ie: music distributed under an Open Source-type licence), which absolutely NONE of the music in question is.

Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @11:09AM EDT (#204) (User Info)

"But the high prices are from the music/recording labels. They have high overhead in terms of promotions, distributions and so on. They have to spend all that money to promote the albumns so that they can sell more and pay everybody."   Bullshit. That's like saying that medicine is as expensive as it is because it costs a lot of money for HMOs to keep track of all of their doctors and patients. I've worked in the music industry, and I know how much these things cost. The real reason music costs so much is that between you and the artist, there are three layers--the label, the distributor, and the store--and the first two layers have obscenely high profits.   You can argue that they deserve to make these profits, and that we need this multi-layered system to "filter" the good music from the bad (otherwise every store would have to guess what would and wouldn't sell, deal with hundreds of labels, etc.), and so forth. But make these arguments, don't just assume that CDs cost this much because they have to.   no .sig, no slogan

Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:2) by DeepDarkSky on Friday April 28, @11:37AM EDT (#279) (User Info)

No, no, no. That's precisely my point. My point is that the artists may not know of an alternative or is not willing to forego the service the the music labels provide. The only way they know of to make more money is to go with a music label that can help sell a lot of records. A small percentage of a very big pie is better than s large percentage of a microscopic pie, meaning even though a lot of the money from the proceeds of the sales of their work goes to the middle layers, they still get more than they would otherwise. I'm not saying CDs cost that much because they have to - I'm sayin CDs cost that much because we are all led to believe - both artists and consumers - that they have to cost that much, that the middle layers are absolutely essential. can you imagine...a Beowulf Cluster of 31337 JonKatzes pouring hot grits down their pants and trolling for Natalie Portman?

Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:1) by NeverEnough (wevans@mindspring.com) on Saturday April 29, @03:29AM EDT (#625) (User Info) http://www.open-source-music.org

There's a lot of truth in this. The multi-tiered distribution system raises the cost of a CD substantially. The corporate culture of record companies, though, is to sell artists like brand names. That's where the rest of the money goes. Bill Evans open-source-music.org

Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:2) by roman_mir on Friday April 28, @11:28AM EDT (#263) (User Info)

If the music is good, they shouldn't be worried about getting their money for it. Music is unlike many other products, if it's good, you will listen to it more than once, isn't that true? This means, Metallica and the others must create a new market that will allow people to download any music and listen to it a few times (2-3 times) and decide whether they want to pay for this specific song. A dialog box with a request for payment would appear and if you like the song and want to have the right to listen to it again you would pay a couple of bucks, right? Then you get your license for this song into your music license directory and they record your right to listen to the song in their database. Otherwise you will not have the right to have the song stored on any media in your possesion. Listen, the bands must understand this and actually promote this and work with the networks in order to get this thing working. You can download any song you want anytime anyway you want, FTP sites, HTTP sites, Email, Napster, Gnutella, Hotline, FreeNet etc etc etc. There is no way of stopping it, why not start controlling it? (I would like to insert a picture with thousands of hands holding burning candlesticks and lighters right here...) (I would like to insert a picture with thousands of hands holding burning candlesticks and lighters right here...)(tm, pending patent, cr)

Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:2) by DeepDarkSky on Friday April 28, @12:01PM EDT (#301) (User Info)

Hmmm...this brings up some interesting ideas... Napster and Gnutella are different in that Napster controls the database, right? With Gnutella, anybody can run a server, right? My take on this is that at a subconscious level, Napster wants to become a distribution channel for music. The music industry is struggling against this, of course, but they may actually embrace Napster if Napster agrees to become a legitimate distribution channel. After all, Napster has central control over the database. Gnutella, then, is vastly more dangerous because it's not a an entity and centralized database that can be controlled. I don't think that Napster becoming a distribution channel would actually work, but it would seem that with a large user base, they have significant power. What the music industry should really worry about is something like Gnutella, if they are really concerned about piracy. can you imagine...a Beowulf Cluster of 31337 JonKatzes pouring hot grits down their pants and trolling for Natalie Portman?

Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:2) by roman_mir on Friday April 28, @12:27PM EDT (#351) (User Info)

I have being using Napster for almost a year now, I am running Gnutella on my machine, also Hotline and FreeNet. Napster uses central server to coordinate network nodes and it performs searches in its own database. Gnutella is a server/client and all searches go through the entire network of all nodes and every node performs its own search, no central database (same for Hotline and FreeNet). Anyway, if we could make the Internet working, can't we figure out some kind of Microtransaction mechanism over this network and provide software that does all this stuff right? Even Gnutella, Freenet and Hotline may incorporate the necessary changes in their design to handle microtransactions if necessary. In the case of Napster it is for sure much easier to do, so Metallica will chop down the branch it's sitting on if they don't take advantage of the opportunity to link to millions of customers on Napster. They are simply blind if they don't see a market window, not a niche, a whole new market window! (I would like to insert a picture with thousands of hands holding burning candlesticks and lighters right here...)(tm, pending patent, cr)

You misunderstand CD pricing (Score:1) by Ars-Fartsica on Friday April 28, @11:39AM EDT (#283) (User Info)

Sorry, but there have been numerous class-action lawsuits awarded with regards to high CD prices. The actual costs involved in producing and promoting a CD are not nearly as high as you indicate. Also, super-rich artists are a recent phenomena. In their early years, acts like the Beatles made barely a sliver of what some of today's mediocore label artists make. They've been getting away with murder, just like pro atheletes, and sooner or later the market tends to correct such incredible disequilibriums.

Re:You misunderstand CD pricing (Score:2) by DeepDarkSky on Friday April 28, @12:08PM EDT (#320) (User Info)

Well, no. Like I said, the actual cost of producing and promoting the CD is not high enough to justify the cost - and that's why I believe that a lot of that money is going towards "lining the pockets of a few very rich people - not necessarily the artists" A lot of the money that consumers spend are buying into the image that the music industry "create" of the actual artists anyway. The artists are often not like what the record labels promote them to be anyway. Then there's also a matter of production, of artists who create and artists who perform, and artists who do both. can you imagine...a Beowulf Cluster of 31337 JonKatzes pouring hot grits down their pants and trolling for Natalie Portman?

Pay artists like we pay waiters and buskers (Score:1) by Yogurt on Friday April 28, @01:11PM EDT (#391) (User Info) http://tim.pitas.com

DeepDarkSky asked: "How else will artists get paid?" If there were a button on Winamp that said "tip the artist," I would use it. When I was a student, maybe I'd set my tip button at 50 cents. When I remember how to become an Internet billionaire, maybe I'll set it at $100. Of course, there would be thousands of twits who would never tip, just like there are people who stiff their waiters or stand in front of buskers and never pay. However, small contributions from thousands of honest fans would add up. Maybe no Madonna-fortunes could be made and some people would give up music as a result. Would we miss them? Obviously, the backend of a tip button is a serious technical feat. But it's what artists and companies like PayPal (or e-gold above) should be thinking about, because the music industry isn't going to be looking for solutions that cut them out of the loop. For a long time, there have been musicians who played for free and got paid if people liked them. Now these artists have a chance to play for an audience of millions. Yogurt Tim Mitchell

It's too late. (Score:3, Insightful) by Ron Harwood (harwoodr-AT-technologist.calm) on Friday April 28, @10:19AM EDT (#46) (User Info) http://theGEEK.org

You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle. The internet is international, and not subject to the laws of one country... Sure Napster might suffer, but the same thing could spring up tomorrow in Canada, France, China, whervere... Cliche as it is, knowledge is power, and the true force behind the internet is knowledge. Did your Slashdot submission get declined? theGEEK will take it!

Re:It's too late. (Score:1) by Stonehand (lw2j@cs.cmu.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:31AM EDT (#93) (User Info) http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~lw2j

How would a recording of each song on "Jagged Little Pill" or, say, "The 1812 Overture" constitute *knowledge* ? Pleasure, perhaps. But knowledge? It's not like every duplicate contains a new scientific revelation that some evil company is trying to suppress. -- the silly student / he writes really bad haiku / readers all go mad

Re:It's too late. (Score:2) by Ron Harwood (harwoodr-AT-technologist.calm) on Friday April 28, @10:55AM EDT (#169) (User Info) http://theGEEK.org

Umm, not exactly what I meant, but funny none the less. My point was that if someone could make the infrastructure for napster - then someone else could do it just as easily if napster were to go away. If it is popular, there's no killing it off. Did your Slashdot submission get declined? theGEEK will take it!

Like I said B4, Metallica only hurts themselves (Score:1, Insightful) by loomis on Friday April 28, @10:19AM EDT (#48) (User Info)

There is little money in CD sales, as opposed to concert tickets. I know, I've done some promting work. Anyway, mp3's create fans, just as the radio does. Increased fans = increased concert attendance. We must remember that the fans are the ones with the mp3's. Therefore, Metallica is screwing themselves.

Re:Like I said B4, Metallica only hurts themselves (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Friday April 28, @11:12AM EDT (#212) (User Info)

That's true at the small end of the scale (when you're selling 2000 albums and making your living--or at least free drinks--off small club shows) and the large end (when you're selling out Dodger Stadium), but it's not true in between. For medium-sized bands (and their labels), a tour is a necessary expense to promote album sales. Of course Metallica and Dre both fit in at the large end of the scale. But I see plenty of MP3s on Napster for bands in the middle range (hell, that's most of what I download), and those bands are definitely losing money. no .sig, no slogan

Re:Like I said B4, Metallica only hurts themselves (Score:1) by loftwyr on Friday April 28, @12:13PM EDT (#329) (User Info)

There is little money in CD sales, as opposed to concert tickets Actually, there's no money in ticket sales either, tours pay for the promotion of the CDs. It's the tshirts and other crap that makes them money. All of that is irrelevant. The main thing Metallica is doing is bowing to the pressure from their record label. The record label needed a band to sue so the whole thing could have any credibility. Well, They looked around and told Metallica to do it. Lars, himself, may not care about MP3s. His label does. And they simply tell him to say these things otherwise, they drop him from his contract. There's a threat no bad will withstand. If they get dropped for this, they could be blacklisted as a band that doesn't work well with management. Why these two artists? The labels needed Metallica and Dr. Dre to cover the two main forms of music. Now everyone knows (or at least will be told by someone with authority/fame) that MP3s are bad. Are they? Who knows. Asks an economist. S/he'll tell you the impact of a free distribution channel much faster than all the people yelling yes or no right now.

Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful) by Hrunting (hrunting@nospam.texas.net) on Friday April 28, @10:20AM EDT (#49) (User Info) http://hrunting.home.texas.net/

All right, let's get one thing straight. Metallica is not attacking free speech and free software. Not one bit. The trailer into this article is damn well the most misleading statement ever. I challenge anyone to go into court on a copyright violation charge and try to defend themselves using their first amendment rights. Let's pose a hypothetical for all the Slashdotters out there. Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. You contact them, you talk to them, you threaten them, and maybe you get the FSF to help you sue them, I dunno. But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right? When Metallica releases their music, they're doing it under a sort of license, called a copyright. When some violates this copyright, that gives Metallica the right to sue. When some organization aids in this lawbreaking, they are guilty of basically being an accomplice. Napster's in a grey area because their systems are being used to break the law, but they can theoretically claim a sort of immunity as a service provider. I like MP3s. I think they're a great way to preview music. I've even pirated MP3s to try out new music that I've heard was good. But I don't grab a program like Napster, grab all the MP3s I want, and when someone accuses me of theft, claim that the information wants to be free and that I'm being denied my right to download free music. You have no fscking right. You don't even have the privilege because you don't have the permission. Jon, quit trolling Slashdot. This is a story aimed at getting a large percentage of Slashdot behind you. The fact is, it's illegal, and if someone were to copy your entire book which you make money off of and give it away for free online, you or your publisher would sue the bastards. The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by Overfiend (branden@ecn.purdue.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:54AM EDT (#164) (User Info) http://roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/

Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. You contact them, you talk to them, you threaten them, and maybe you get the FSF to help you sue them, I dunno. But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right? Conservative copyright apologists trot this old saw out dozens of times over, everytime an article about digital music distribution is posted to Slashdot. It overlooks a fundamental principle: licensing parameters need to be appropriate to that which is being distributed. The GPL (and other free software licenses) are widely considered appropriate for many (perhaps all) kinds of software. If this were not the case, a site like Slashdot might not even exist. A piece of software is not a ham sandwich. Until Star Trek's replicators become a reality, I can't duplicate your ham sandwich for myself if I want to eat it -- I have to take yours from you. I can duplicate your copy of GCC without removing yours. So is a digital audio file closer to a program or a ham sandwich?

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by Isldeur on Friday April 28, @11:08AM EDT (#202) (User Info) http://absinthe.org

This argument is a ham sandwich. (And I'll take the bad karma for that one.)

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @11:19AM EDT (#237)

And you overlook a fundamental principle. People have the right to release their software, music, etc under whatever license they feel appropriate. Just because you don't like the license (ie. don't feel its appropriate) does not give you the right to break the license.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by Overfiend (branden@ecn.purdue.edu) on Friday April 28, @03:03PM EDT (#475) (User Info) http://roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/

And you overlook a fundamental principle. People have the right to release their software, music, etc under whatever license they feel appropriate. Just because you don't like the license (ie. don't feel its appropriate) does not give you the right to break the license. Note to moderator: Restating the thesis of the post to which I replied is redundant, not insightful. :) The interesting issue is not whether someone does or doesn't "like" a license. The issue is whether the license is appropriate for the product. The penumbra of appropriateness includes questions like "Are the license terms consonant with the intended purpose of copyright law as stated in the Constitution (for U.S. copyrights)?" and "Are the license terms practically enforceable?" The latter question is not some minor point, either. Clauses of contracts are routinely found invalid because their enforcement, if feasible, would demand the compromise of legal or societal norms that are jurisprudentially regarded as more important. For instance, clause three of the erstwhile four-clause BSD license was recently retracted by the Regents of the University of California because it was not enforceable in many (any?) jurisdictions in the United States. The law evolves. Is the GPL, for instance, legally enforceable in all its terms? We don't know yet. At present, it functions more like a social contract. You may *choose* to respect the terms of the GPL, or you may choose not to, and see what happens. In practice, the GPL is flouted every day by some software authors (and, in all likelihood you've heard of their software). Furthermore, even supportive laws or legal precedents do not equate to moral legitimacy. If you don't believe me, try convincing various BSD advocates of the "moral legitimacy" of the GPL. You may find some minds difficult to change -- and this will be utterly orthogonal to the issue of whether or not they elect to abide by the terms of the GPL or not. Since corporations have taken it upon themselves to draft legislation for federal and state lawmakers, and then bribe or lobby these laws into ratification (as they have with the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the Home Recording Act, and UCITA), I think the principle of civil disobedience must apply just as well to large, moneyed interests as it does to governments. Let me substitue some nouns into your statement: Just because you don't like the war in Vietnam does not give you the right to tear up your draft card. The simplistic world-view of the corporate apologists cannot stand, or we might as well trade in our constitutional form of government for a Board of Directors.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by Psiren on Friday April 28, @10:55AM EDT (#168) (User Info) http://www.hibernaculum.demon.co.uk

Thank you! Someone with a clue at last. Why do so many people fail to see the obvious here? You download pirated MP3's, you break the law. There's no wriggling out of that fact. Yes, the Record Companies are money grabbing bastards, and yes, they should be made to stop ripping us off. That doesn't alter the above statement though. Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead. http://www.linuxuk.co.uk

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by interiot (newcumdb at cs blaupunkt purdue grunpunkt edu) on Friday April 28, @12:39PM EDT (#365) (User Info)

Yes, the Record Companies are money grabbing bastards, and yes, they should be made to stop ripping us off. That doesn't alter the above statement though. Damn straight. There are two issues here: Is this particular lisence legal within the constraints of the first amendment or other laws, and Should the major music and movie companies be dragged outside and beaten for using monopolistic practices? If mega-corporations abuse their power to gain a more monopolistic position, and then go on to use a particular law in their favor... that doesn't necessariy imply that the law is faulty. I just wish the two arguments would be separated. Yes, RIAA and MPAA seem to be using their clout to raise barriers to entry along with other monopolistic practices. And yes, the DMCA seems wrong in places, but they are separate issues. Even if MP3's and the DMCA didn't exist, the RIAA should be punished. And if the RIAA didn't exist, then the issue of MP3 pirating and DMCA might be less confusing of an issue to mull over, but it'd still be an important one. --

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Friday April 28, @03:24PM EDT (#490) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/

Thank you! Someone with a clue at last. Why do so many people fail to see the obvious here? You download pirated MP3's, you break the law. There's no wriggling out of that fact. So what? Said law is now outdated and irrelevant; there's no wriggling out of that fact. We break the law all the time. My crimes include speeding and other traffic violation, underage drinking, violation of open container laws, forbidden consensual sexual activities, and even blasphemy (yes, the laws are still on the books here in Maryland). I'm sure there are others that I don't even know I'm commiting, since I don't have the entire legal code memorized. (I do think that ignorance of the law should be an excuse, when the law is bloated, volumous, and obfuscated such that no citizen can fully know it...but I digress.) There's nothing sacred about the law; anyone who thinks otherwise would have made a fine slave catcher. Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3, Insightful) by Signal 11 (signal11@mediaone.net?Subject=Slashdot comment) on Friday April 28, @11:12AM EDT (#210) (User Info) http://www.malign.net/~bojay/

It's alittle more basic than free speech or your "rights". It's about the government sanctioning something a large portion (the majority, if I may be so bold) of the population disapproves of. The DMCA was not passed by the common man in this country. The WIPO member countries never asked their citizens whether to pass that either. All around us is a growing aura of corporatism - back during the cold war it was called the "industrial-military complex". The assertion was that the two were inseperable - what benefits one benefits the other, what harms one harms the other. A symbiotic relationship. I think they got it almost right - it's more along the lines of a commercial-government complex - the government in this country does not listen to it's citizens - it listens to the dollar sign and money'd interests. Which is dissapointing, considering that we were supposed to be a democracy. I have yet to find an (informed) individual out there who agrees that the DMCA is necessary, or that Metallica should be suing it's fans (great way to encourage sales, eh?). I DO however see on a daily basis the rising frustration with our government - it is largely ineffective at solving the day to day problems people want solved. Here's what people want solved - they want their big screen TVs, SUVs and low gas prices. They want job security and freedom from advertising/marketing. They want access to the internet so they can easily satisfy their need for entertainment - whether it be listening to music, reading/watching the evening news, grabbing the latest Southpark episode. They want to watch the Matrix on anything with a DVD player, or for that matter the Titanic or the next "chick-flick". The flip-side of this is that they want to feel safe doing this - they want to explore the internet without fear that some government or corporation is watching their every move. They want to be able to hop online and gossip about the above-mentioned things. They want to be able to do it as easily and efficiently as possible. As geeks, we built the infrastructure to allow this - most of it, anyway. Online people can satisfy their entertainment needs. With alittle help from software we produced, they can also provide a good measure of privacy for themselves. They can e-mail their friends to gossip, or hop into chatrooms. Key point: people are going to keep doing the same things online that they were doing in the real world before the 'net existed. Now along comes the corporations and say "Hey, where's my share?" And then all hell breaks loose - the government "swings" into action at about 1 foot a fortnight and starts passing draconian legislation, trying to restrict these people's newfound freedom (freedom of choice, not freedom of speech) - and they are rightfully pissed. This is the core of the matter, and why people are pounding their fists on the table - they have everything they want.. and now some greedy corporation is coming to make it harder to get ahold of, more expensive, and less appealing. Only one problem - it is backfiring badly for the corporations - they trained these people to blindly consume and consume and consume.. and now they can't make them stop. It's going to be a long, bloody, legal war to get this one straightened out. -o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3, Flamebait) by Kaa (freedomdotnet!kaa) on Friday April 28, @11:14AM EDT (#224) (User Info)

let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right? You mean ftp, right? We should all go and sue everybody whose code ever got into any ftp software. Or maybe you mean Usenet? That's even better -- let's sue all sites that carry news. Or maybe you mean the web -- you know, this newfangled way to "transfer material to anyone else in the world instantaneously"? Then we can sue AOL (current owners of Netscape) and Microsoft -- woo-hoo! We'll be coming into some serious money! Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by gargle on Friday April 28, @01:30PM EDT (#403) (User Info)

You mean ftp, right? We should all go and sue everybody whose code ever got into any ftp software. Or maybe you mean Usenet? No, that would be unreasonable. We should instead sue the people who run ftp warez servers. Your comparison of Napster to ftp software is ridiculous. Napster doesn't just supply code. Napster plays an active role in the trading of mp3s: the filenames are listed on their servers, and it would be a simple thing for Napster to take minimal steps to block the listing of certain files on request by musicians; a filter would not be perfect, but it would be a step, but they have arrogantly refused to take even this step. Not surprising, if you just think about what Napster's motivations are: they know, as well as you do, that Napster has been immensely popular because it makes it easy to pirate copyrighted music. I admit, I download music through Napster too, but I don't kid myself into thinking that I have a right to take without permission. If you think Metallica is doing themselves a diservice by suing Napster, then let them do themselves a disservice. Fans will boycott them, people will hate them, and Metallica will die. And good riddance. But if they prefer this course over having their music distributed through Napster, then so be it.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by Kaa (freedomdotnet!kaa) on Friday April 28, @01:59PM EDT (#432) (User Info)

Napster plays an active role in the trading of mp3s: the filenames are listed on their servers So, on the basis of a filename you are willing to make conclusions whether copying the contents is a copyright violation? And I still don't see what Napster is guilty of. It provides information that makes it easy to commit copyright violations. So what? Anarchist's Cookbook provides information that makes it easy to make bombs. A chemistry textbook provides information that makes it easy to make poison gas. Napster is sued for the sole reason that it can be sued. The correct defendant should be the users, but it's obvious that going after the users is not going to do any good, money-wise or public-relations-wise. Besides, what about Usenet? There is a huge load of copyrighted material (most of it porn) that's floating through Usenet every day. So what about the machines that carry news -- shouldn't they install filters, too? Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by gargle on Friday April 28, @03:22PM EDT (#488) (User Info)

So, on the basis of a filename you are willing to make conclusions whether copying the contents is a copyright violation? If the filename contains "metallica" and "the name of some metallica song", then I can say with 99.9% certainty that a Metallica song is being traded. So yes, I'm willing to come to that conclusion. What the copyright owner asked (and Napster refused to do) is "Please stop listing my songs." A simple and perfectly reasonable request, no? And I still don't see what Napster is guilty of Napster may not be "guilty" of anything. But a very good case can be made that Napster should stop listing songs upon request by the copyright owner.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by Kaa (freedomdotnet!kaa) on Friday April 28, @03:36PM EDT (#498) (User Info)

Napster may not be "guilty" of anything. But a very good case can be made that Napster should stop listing songs upon request by the copyright owner. I don't understand. If Napster is not guilty of anything, why should it listen to RIAA? Out of courtesy? That's a bit too much to ask. Out of a moral sense? Well, it's hard to talk about the morals of a corporation, but they are its own business. Because it legally has to? Well, that's the question being asked right now. Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by gargle on Friday April 28, @04:10PM EDT (#513) (User Info)

Out of courtesy? That's a bit too much to ask. Out of a moral sense? ... Because it legally has to? Well, that's the question being asked right now. Slashdot isn't a court. Slashdot readers don't have the knowledge or authority to decide on legal issues. I can only speak from a moral point of view, that from what I see, Napster's refusal to stop listing songs at the request of the copyright owner, are wrong and unreasonable.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by Kaa (freedomdotnet!kaa) on Friday April 28, @04:24PM EDT (#522) (User Info)

don't have the knowledge or authority to decide on legal issues Since when has this stopped anyone, courts included? I can only speak from a moral point of view, Your own, I presume. So if you were running Napster, you would honor requests for blocking listings. Fine. Of course, other people will not necessarily have the same set of morals as you do. I have no problems with people who think that what Napster does in morally repugnant. I do have problems with people who think that because they believe so, everybody else should act according to their beliefs. Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by gargle on Friday April 28, @04:36PM EDT (#528) (User Info)

Your own, I presume. So if you were running Napster, you would honor requests for blocking listings. Fine. Of course, other people will not necessarily have the same set of morals as you do. I have no problems with people who think that what Napster does in morally repugnant. I do have problems with people who think that because they believe so, everybody else should act according to their beliefs. So according to you, all morality is relative. There's no room for a discussion of ethics. Everyone do as you please. If I kill and rape*, that's merely because my beliefs differ from yours. Certainly I do not, and should not, be able to enforce my moral values on you. That's something for a court of law to decide. I can, however, make an argument for a certain course of action. *I'm not suggesting here that music piracy is at the same level as murder. I'm just pointing out the problems with moral relativism.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by Kaa (freedomdotnet!kaa) on Saturday April 29, @10:00PM EDT (#651) (User Info)

So according to you, all morality is relative Morality is relative, yes. There's no room for a discussion of ethics Why? There could be a lot of fruitful discussion of morality and ethics. You can persuade other people that your moral system is better -- it has happened often enough. Everyone do as you please. If I kill and rape*, that's merely because my beliefs differ from yours. You are mixing up two things. One is moral justification. The other one is consequences in the real world. I may kill a person because in my moral system he had to die. That doesn't mean that the society will not catch me and hang me from the nearest lamppost. One is nor really related to another. The question that we're discussing is whether there is "objective", absolute good and evil, or they are just social constructs, artifacts of human mind. Certainly I do not, and should not, be able to enforce my moral values on you. That's something for a court of law to decide. I can, however, make an argument for a certain course of action Well, the court of law decides whether certain rules were broken. Whether these rules are connected with morality is a separate question and not a simple one at that. As to the argument for your point of view, of course you can make it. I was not saying that you should not argue your point of view -- it's just that there are people who find it hard to believe that somebody else could think differently than they do... Kaa Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2, Interesting) by Keeper on Friday April 28, @11:21AM EDT (#240) (User Info)

What Metalica is saying is that Napster has no legitimate use, and it's only use is to pirate copywrited music. I can go to mp3.com and download several thousand mp3's that don't have this problem, and napster can transfer them legally. Metallica is so full of themselves that they think that the only kind of music that anyone would want to trade is copywrited. As a result they want to sue the makes of the software that allows people to pirate the music. Why don't they sue the people who make CDR drives? How about the makes of cassettes? What about manufacturers of VCRs and VCR tapes?

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1, Troll) by gravious (igravious at yahoo dot com) on Friday April 28, @11:24AM EDT (#254) (User Info)

Yeah Jon, shut up and grow a brain. As Mr. Molter here obviously has a spare one maybe he should take up your job. Its fscking features like this that will in time drive me away from Slashdot. For fsck's sake think before you post something as neuronically challenged as this again. I bet you thought copying your friends' tapes or CDs wasn't illegal either, huh? Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3, Redundant) by MillMan (millmanatthekeyboarddotcom) on Friday April 28, @11:29AM EDT (#264) (User Info)

Damn it, I'm so sick of people who don't understand this. Napster is not illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes. Do understand the consequences of this if it were law? Lets see: get rid of all ftp servers / clients because I can download warez get rid of all web servers / clients because I can download kiddie porn get rid of all guns because their owners are able to commit murder Do you have a better picture now? MP3's are not inherently illegal anyway!! They have to be copyrighted works to begin with. This fact alone should nullify any suit against them. Look, I know 99% of napster use is illegal, but this is NOT, I repeat NOT the way to go about solving this problem. There is no solution that works for the average person as well as the corporations. You either end up with a very reactionary and contolling economy and government, or you move to a type of "infromation is free" type of economy. Isn't technology supposed to be for the benefit of all?

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by hypnotik (mbardeen@yahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @12:28PM EDT (#354) (User Info) http://home1.gte.net/mbardeen

Personally, I advocate the extinction of the human race. If there is nobody left alive to commit illegal acts, the world would be safe. BTW: Technology is not for the benefit of all. It is for the benefit of the people that make it and those people that can afford to buy it. But what do I know?   (I am only an egg)

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by MoooKow on Friday April 28, @12:35PM EDT (#361) (User Info)

Yes, getting rid of guns just becaus the owners are able to commit murder would be a silly thing to do, but lets say 99% of gun owners used their guns to kill other people... would you still say it was a bad thing to do?

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by MillMan (millmanatthekeyboarddotcom) on Friday April 28, @01:14PM EDT (#394) (User Info)

I'm actually a pretty strong advocate for gun control. I'm not a libertarian. It just made for a good example in this case. Life and death has to be treated differently that material wealth.

Re:napster != ftp (Score:1) by tburkhol (tburkhol lives at oip gatech edu) on Friday April 28, @01:56PM EDT (#428) (User Info)

Why? Because unlike napster, ftp & http have legitimate uses. I can't get a kernel update over napster; I can't use it to buy a shirt from the Gap. I can only use it to transfer music which (in general) I did not make.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @11:31AM EDT (#267) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

just because it's friday and I like talking about the future on friday's... Metallica is not attacking free speech and free software. Not one bit. I'm not sure if you're talking about Free Software or not, but regardless, Metallica is simply publishing to world exactly how far they have sold out. And they are attacking free speech, quite a few bits of it to be exact. The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual. Now that it's so easy to break soo many of these laws, don't you think that it's the laws that are the problem? Don't give me any "murder everyone if you like it" argument either. The laws we have for copyright and IP and WOEFULLY unprepared for the digital future. The DMCA, our most modern rendition, makes that very clear. "But you're stealing music" you whine. No, I'm not, I'm listening to it. The only way to "steal" music is to profit from it unfairly. Nobody using Napster is doing that, but a whole bunch of them are "sharing" it. -- currently at V.9

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2, Insightful) by Smallest (smallest@smalleranimals.com) on Friday April 28, @12:46PM EDT (#372) (User Info) http://www.smalleranimals.com

Now that it's so easy to break soo many of these laws, don't you think that it's the laws that are the problem? i have a car that will happily go 120 MPH. does that mean the speed limit laws are "WOEFULLY" unprepared for me? the laws are fine. that they are easy to break in no way invalidates them. it only means you have to exercise a little self-control. you act like you have a god-given right to listen to music. you don't. get over yourself. -c I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @01:46PM EDT (#418) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

i have a car that will happily go 120 MPH. Wow, you can go 120 MPH a hundred times an hour from the comfort of your living room? Amazing, or did you not understand what I meant by easy. you act like you have a god-given right to listen to music. you don't. get over yourself. This might be a bit on the philosophical side for you, but I do have a god given right to listen to music. But I have a man-taken one (called copyright or intellectual property) that says I don't. -- currently at V.9

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by Smallest (smallest@smalleranimals.com) on Friday April 28, @02:22PM EDT (#449) (User Info) http://www.smalleranimals.com

Wow, you can go 120 MPH a hundred times an hour from the comfort of your living room? Amazing, or did you not understand what I meant by easy. it will go 120 as well as it will go 45. so, yes, it's easy from my perspective. This might be a bit on the philosophical side for you, but I do have a god given right to listen to music. But I have a man-taken one (called copyright or intellectual property) that says I don't. you're right. i mis-spoke. to listen, yes. to freely copy and distribute, no, you don't. if you don't like the law, write a letter to someone who can re-write it. but breaking the law because it's easy to break is still breaking the law. -c I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by Wah (Hello!?thewah@uswest.netWhat?!) on Friday April 28, @03:56PM EDT (#509) (User Info) http://wahcentral.net

so, yes, it's easy from my perspective. We're still talking about two different easies. You still can't do it 100 times an hour from your living room. My only point is that laws like that are stupid, and if we keep them around everyone will be breaking them constantly and they will only be selectively prosecuted. I would rather avoid that situation. if you don't like the law, write a letter to someone who can re-write it. but breaking the law because it's easy to break is still breaking the law. I've actually done more than that. I sat down with my congressman and tried to explain my position, on software patents, the DMCA, and IP in general. He really didn't understand it too much, maybe it's time to visit again. I also have been taught through our cultural history, that one way to get the law changed is to break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly. When you keep doing that, and all of a sudden everyone realizes, that your aren't, in fact, doing something that should be illegal, then the law changes. -- currently at V.9

Of copyrights and communities... (Score:1) by Infosquawk on Friday April 28, @12:04PM EDT (#311) (User Info)

You are of course correct that much of the activity on Napster violates copyright. But you can't honestly believe that Napster has a moral imperative to police all of the activity that goes on through the use of its program? I mean, do you hold FTP programs responsible for trade in "warez"? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater man... You mention the GPL... It's not entirely impossible that some very good, non-greedy bands will release their music using some similar device. Wouldn't it be cool if we hadn't eliminated napster when they show up? OoO Please do not publish outside of /.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by darkbabbit on Friday April 28, @12:21PM EDT (#342) (User Info)

Another item to add to this wonder bit of insight is the concept of choice. Some programmers release code under the GPL and other free software licenses by choice. Other programmers release binary only freeware programs, others release binary only shareware programs, ect.... They have put the time and effort into creating something and they have the right to choose how it is to be distrubuted. Artists (musicians, writters, painters, animators, ect...) also have this choice. They have put the time and effort into creating something and they have the right to choose how it is to be distrubuted. Consumers also have a choice. In the computer world, if a programmer doesn't like the GPL, he doesn't have to use software released under it. In the music world, if a music fan doesn't want to pay for song, then they don't have to listen to it.

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Friday April 28, @03:11PM EDT (#486) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/

Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. Ok. Now, presumably they're doing this in order to sell their binary-only software, right? After all, if you're giving away a program, there's no reason not to include the code. (Companies giving away free-beer programs today generally also have a pay version built from the same code base. Either that, or they've got something to hide and ought not to be trusted.) But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the worldinstantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right? No, I'd be laughing my ass off at the Cosmic Justice of it all. Some bad person tried to take my ideas and make something that they could keep for themselves, but your "turkey"'s program has prevented them from doing so. The GPL is a response to copyright, a defense against the use of copyright to hinder your rights to use, copy, and modify software. Remove copyright, and the need for the GPL pretty much goes away - without copyright, no one can step on your right to use or share software, and social pressure and market forces will be sufficient to keep the code open and defend your right to modify it. Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by Jace (jace@SraPdiAolMink.net) on Saturday April 29, @11:53AM EDT (#644) (User Info) http://www.ufies.org/~trion

Hey, you're getting this the wrong way round. What do you mean by someone taking free software and making a binary-only release designed to be easily replicatable over the Net? It's the open source version that's going to spread faster: it's the version that's better suited to being modified for easier distribution. Kiran Jonnalagadda http://lunateks.com

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by JohnBoy00 on Monday May 01, @02:55PM EDT (#663) (User Info)

I'm 100% in agreement with hrunting (and I'm a HUGE Metallica fan, BTW). I've downloaded MP3s of current, copyrighted music and recorded them to CD, but I know it's wrong and wouldn't even attempt to justify it--morally or legally. I did it only because I could, and it wouldn't bother me at all if all MP3s dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow. Can I make copies of [pick a pc game] and distribute them to my friends? Sure I can, but would I defend my legal right to do so? NO! How could I?

Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:1) by kaoshin (intelligreed@yahoo.com) on Tuesday May 09, @12:06PM EDT (#683) (User Info)

When Metallica releases their music, they're doing it under a sort of license, called a copyright. When some violates this copyright, that gives Metallica the right to sue. When some organization aids in this lawbreaking, they are guilty of basically being an accomplice. Napster's in a grey area because their systems are being used to break the law, but they can theoretically claim a sort of immunity as a service provider. So is Xerox also guilty of basically being an accomplice by aiding people in copying copyrighted paper media? Or does this make the US Postal service an accomplice for making it easy to distribute paper media? Is the phone company responsible for people using telephones for illegal activity? All we need is more laws anyway to hurt independent musicians by closing thier distribution channels. At least for my band, this is a big one. This is totally greedy. What makes me laugh though is that the only musicians who cared enough to sue are Metallica and Dr. Dre. If this is hurting musicians so badly, why aren't tons of professional musicians in on this? Why do musicians need pimps anyway?

The rap group Dr.Dre (Score:1) by freq on Friday April 28, @10:20AM EDT (#51) (User Info) http://lala.com

Even before the week was out, the rap group Dr Dre had followed suit. uh... Dr Dre is a guy.. not a group... i really like that led zeppelin guy xoxo "Repetition is a form of change" --oblique strategy

Metallica's Roots.. (Score:3, Insightful) by Snoop on Friday April 28, @10:20AM EDT (#53) (User Info)

Metallica got a big boost when them started out by the boot legging industry with "No Life...Leather". Now they have the money and public eye, they turn like snakes? What kind of meassage does that send to fans? What about the 15-16 yr olds that aren't making much money, but want to hear the orignal "Garage Days" CD and cannot pay the large marked up price? "Sorry kid, you can't hear our 'art' if you don't have the cash" Does this seem like somthing an artist would say? Will Picasso sue me next for having my wallpaper set to one of his paintings downloaded from the net? I also enjoy hearing live stuff, and there aren't many metallica albums live. Would they rather not have thier music heard unless it means turning a dollar for every song? I'm disenchanted... They owe allmost everything to there fans... Oh well... I still have Nine Inch Nails. They might have an internet-only album out in 4-5 months. "Justice has been raped..." Snoop

Re:Metallica's Roots.. (Score:1) by Stonehand (lw2j@cs.cmu.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:34AM EDT (#104) (User Info) http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~lw2j

Ask them whether they'll perform for free. You'll have your answer as to whether they prefer making money or not. Poverty's not really a valid excuse, given that music is hardly necessary for a meaningful existence, and the default state is that you do *not* start with the music... -- the silly student / he writes really bad haiku / readers all go mad

Re:Metallica's Roots.. (Score:1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @10:38AM EDT (#118)

I already hated Metallica since they sold out but now I hate them even more with this about-face. Do they even remember how they got their start? A lot of people would have never heard of Metallica if it wasn't for tape traders in the early 80's. They even encouraged their fans to boot-leg their concerts and send it to them. That is how they put out their first video "Cliff 'Em All", with boot-leg video footage from their shows. After I head a friend's tape, I bought their albums, and when CD's came out I bought all their early releases until they musically sold out. It overjoyed me to see a band like Limp Bizkit embrace Napster, who is now sponsering a tour for them. This isn't about 'getting stuff for free'. It's about getting your music out there and heard by the world. When people respect your music, they will respect the artist, and gladly get a proper version of their releases. If it wasn't for MP3's, I would have never bought Limp Bizkit's latest album in the first place! Nigel

Re:Metallica's Roots.. (Score:1) by toolfann on Friday April 28, @11:03AM EDT (#190) (User Info)

i was thinking the same thing. when did these guys forget that with out the "metal underground" of the early '80's and fans copying and trading tapes like baseball cards is the ONLY reason they made it anywhere. they even talk about it on there VH1 special thingy. "people with metallica patches on ther jackets with their backs turned on the supporting band giving them the finger". these are the same fans that had dubbed copies of "NO life...". i still have one in a box somewhere. as well tapes of the first three records. maybe if people started e-mailing, writing letters to these "artists" (lars and co., Dr. Dre) saying "...while i have no .mp3's of your music, i am destroying all records, tapes and CD's purchased.." "...you won't be recieving any more airtime on our station..." (insert obligatory comment/argument/rant about how the bands don't make money off records sales anyway here)

Re:Metallica's Roots.. (Score:1) by kingkai27 on Thursday May 04, @11:28PM EDT (#671) (User Info) http://carldrawings.dk3.com

ahhh....but you can buy the original garage days revisited songs. they're on garage inc. metallica does love their money. Rock 'n Roll, Not Pop 'n Soul carldrawings.dk3.com

Suprising, or not? (Score:2, Insightful) by 78spb89 (lauasanf@spam_this.bellsouth.net) on Friday April 28, @10:21AM EDT (#55) (User Info)

This really shouldn't have come as a suprise to anyone. It had to happen sooner or later. I'm suprised that Metallica was the first band to do it. Cliff Burton's early compositions for them made them underground metal gods back in the early and mid eighties, and they sold albums to wierd people like me that couldn't find anything intense enough for their liking on the radio. I don't think back then that they would have realized any loss from something like the "horrible N", they toured, made a little money, and wrote some more songs. They had a good time. I hope they're still having a good time. But clearly they are making more money now. Every other song they release is on the radio. Note that I am not one of those people that sold out. It's this simple: Now Metallica is "childs play" when you have people like Manson and ICP running around. Metallica seems rather tame. However, I remember being sent home from school for wearing the Ride the Lightning shirt with the man in the electric chair. Its the standard today. Add to that, the fact that the early songs were long: 6-8 minutes a piece. Songs that long don't get much radio play. People with classical composition backrounds (like Burton) write songs that long because they know how to, because the can set a mood with it. Metallica may still occasionally pop out a song that long, but most of them are radio length now. So, considering the amount of money they CAN make now, it doesn't suprise they want to make all of it. I hate to say "Even artists have to make a living" but its true. And besides, tell me that if your band was one of the most popular bands in the world, you wouldn't want to run your hands through the money like a mieser. Go on ....say it. You know you would. Raging into the night, a never ending plight, the dripping sounds, my life abounds, tied to a pale green light.

How would you feel? (Score:1) by Godfree^ (me@thisisnurgle.org.uk.NOSPAM) on Friday April 28, @10:22AM EDT (#60) (User Info) http://www.thisisnurgle.org.uk

Before you free software fanatics out there start bitching about freedom (as in liberty), think how you would react to someone violating the GPL when it comes to distribution of the software? When a band such as Metallica spend months/year son an album, they don't want it just thrown all over the 'net without getting some kind of benefits (they're allready famous, so they wouldn't benefit from the publicity). Napster and the like take away the artists rights to do with thir music what they want. If they want to sell THEIR music, then let them. If you like it, go out and buy a CD. Don't leech of over people and complain when the artists get stroppy about people stealing their music. I'm going to listen to S&M now.... - Damnit, I'm dead Jim

Re:How would you feel? (Score:1) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Friday April 28, @03:39PM EDT (#499) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/

Before you free software fanatics out there start bitching about freedom (as in liberty), think how you would react to someone violating the GPL when it comes to distribution of the software? I answer that here. Napster and the like take away the artists rights to do with thir music what they want. No, the musicians can still do what they what with it. What they can't do effectively any more is control what other people do with it. Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

Netscape and IE? (Score:1) by Evernight (crowe@evernight.net) on Friday April 28, @10:22AM EDT (#61) (User Info) http://monarchy.shareplay.com/

It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material. Hopefully Katz is poorly paraphrasing the law, cause wouldn't that include web browsers? Neu

Re:Netscape and IE? (Score:1) by nojomofo on Friday April 28, @10:42AM EDT (#133) (User Info)

Hopefully Katz is poorly paraphrasing the law, cause wouldn't that include web browser Or email software, or ftp servers and clients, or printing presses or....

no boundaries is no protection (Score:1) by elgonzzo on Friday April 28, @10:24AM EDT (#66) (User Info)

Boundaries are not ment to keep everyone out, just those you do not want, those who have no business. No one wants people coming in to their homes poking around as they please. A boundaryless internet allows not just good and useful information to flow, but also harmful and untruthful information. Groups such as the Klan and child molesters are flurishing on the net because the walls that contained them do not exist. Completely censoring the net would be bad, but leaving it unrestraned would be equally bad. "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreackers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for adulterers and perverts, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for nurderers, for slave traders and liers and perjurers" 1 Timothy 1:10

Cause and Effect (Score:1) by Ransom342 on Friday April 28, @10:24AM EDT (#69) (User Info)

I understand that Metallica and Others have a right to protect thier copyrights. But is sueing Napster and Different than sueing gun manufacturers in wrongfull death cases? Or do we sue the guys who made the bullets for the gun? If someone is injured by a drunk driver who do we sue? the Automobile Company? the Distillers? the store or bar who sold it? Why dont the sue Sony and TDK for making the cassettes that I had all of my Metallica music on? They certainly have more money than napster! But then again, i could be wrong.....

Pirated Music != Free Music (Score:4, Insightful) by Cool Hand Luke (grlee@alum.mit.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:26AM EDT (#76) (User Info) http://portents.ne.mediaone.net/~george/

Short version: Jon, you're full of crap. Long version: Jon, arguing that Metallica's exercising of their right to protect their copyright is going to crush the open source movement is equivalent to arguing that a homeowner protecting the crap on his/her lawn from thief is going to destroy the yard sale movement. Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music Oh, so because they (were) "rebellious", they can't be concerned about copyrights and other "corporate matters". Give me a break! This is their living. If they didn't care about who was and wasn't buying their records, the Black album, "Load", "Re-Load", "Full'er Up Again", etc., wouldn't happened. (Wait... that might be a good thing...) IMO, "Free" music is music that is given away for free by the artist. "Pirated" music is music given away for free by someone other than the artist. One has *nothing* to do with the other. And a final point, if Napster folds and dies because "pirated" music doesn't flow though its service, I don't think it deserved to live in the first place. They even have a policy against piracy; if their survival *depends* on it, doesn't that make them hypocritical? George Lee I like to think of my job as a paid vacation - Space Ghost

Comrade Katz is wrong (Score:1) by Figec on Friday April 28, @10:27AM EDT (#78) (User Info) http://www.consorti.com/jason

Once again Comrade Katz would have you believe that the distribution of someone else's efforts, without a true exchange of goods of services, will benefit mankind. This thinking is wrong. When you COPY someone else's intellectual property, and trade (or even give away) that property without the creator's permission, you are STEALING it. You are profiting from somebody else's work when you engage in piracy. You did not earn the fruits that are beared when you trade your copied music with somebody else. This is as if Comrade Katz himself showed up to your work on pay day and took your paycheck and handed it to some charity of his choice. Shame on Katz for pushing this notion of everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves.

Re:Comrade Katz is wrong (Score:2) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Friday April 28, @03:28PM EDT (#493) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/

When you COPY someone else's intellectual property, and trade (or even give away) that property without the creator's permission, you are STEALING it. Copying information is not stealing, and putting it in all caps won't make it so. You are profiting from somebody else's work when you engage in piracy. Piracy is robbery and murder on the high seas, not the making of unauthorized copies. You did not earn the fruits that are beared when you trade your copied music with somebody else. I didn't "earn" the fruits I enjoyed when I read that borrowed book, or listened to a friend play a song (off a recording, or on their guitar) at a party. But no one expects me to pay the author when I memorize (copy into my brain) a poem from a library book. This is as if Comrade Katz himself showed up to your work on pay day and took your paycheck and handed it to some charity of his choice. No, it's not. I would then be down some money. If he copies a song I write and record, I'm down nothing. I may even gain in reputation, which could allow me to make some money in some manner other than a state backed pay-per-copy scheme. Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

Re:Comrade Katz is wrong (Score:1) by Figec on Friday April 28, @05:29PM EDT (#538) (User Info) http://www.consorti.com/jason

Copying information is not stealing, and putting it in all caps won't make it so. You're right. But I stand by my full statement that when you copy and trade that copy, you are stealing. Caps have nothing to do with it, except to add emphasis. Piracy is robbery and murder on the high seas... Rather smarmy. I didn't "earn" the fruits I enjoyed when I read that borrowed book That because you borrowed it. listened to a friend play a song (off a recording, or on their guitar) at a party My friends don't charge me to listen. I don't know about yours. If he copies a song I write and record, I'm down nothing. Another convienent paraphrase. If he copies the song you write, and sold that piece, you are down the revenue you should have received by that sale. I know this is baiting you, but socialism "burns my goat" and I feel compelled to speak out whenever I see it creeping along. Jon Katz is a socialist, pure and simple, and his views of redistributing property in the name of the betterment of mankind are flawed.

Re:Comrade Katz is wrong (Score:2) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Friday April 28, @06:36PM EDT (#550) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/

But I stand by my full statement that when you copy and trade that copy, you are stealing. So we're agreed that if I borrow a CD from a friend and rip a copy for myself, that's not stealing, since there's no trade involved. Right? listened to a friend play a song (off a recording, or on their guitar) at a party My friends don't charge me to listen. I don't know about yours. That was rather my point. (Although I have seen friends play at venues that charged a cover, so in a sense they were charging me to listen.) I get to enjoy the songwriter's creation without having "earned" anything, and no one says that's a problem; so arguing that I didn't "earn" the right to get a copy of a recording doesn't wash. Another convienent paraphrase. If he copies the song you write, and sold that piece, you are down the revenue you should have received by that sale. If he sells it, then I might be entitled to a cut. But if he gives it away, who's to say that there should have been revenue? If I'm playing music in a bar that's charging a dollar a head to get in, and someone charges seventy-five cents to get you in the back door, yeah, I want a cut. But if you're standing outside on a public street listening to the music come through the open window I have no claim that you owe me a buck. Jon Katz is a socialist, pure and simple, and his views of redistributing property in the name of the betterment of mankind are flawed. I have no idea whether Katz is a socialist or not, but ignorant criticism of socialism "burns my goat". In its broadest sense, "socialism" just means an economic system based on labor, rather than on capital - it means seeing that property is a human invention, meant to promote human liberty (for without private property, there can be no private decisions) and happiness. When it becomes destructive of those ends, perhaps a change in defintions - "redistribution" - is indeed in order. "Redistributing property" sits at the basis of capitalism, too - find me a piece of property that isn't based on a government definition, on taking something from one party and granting it to another. It's just that capitalism has tended to make one-time grants, then allowed the favored owners to trade. Almost every bit of land and natural resources in the US was stolen from the Indian nations (who, of course, occasionally used to steal it from each other too) by the European or American governments, and most of it assigned to private hands. "Intellectual" property is even more purely a state creation - there's no natural right to prevent others from making copies. It's a concept that was introduced to promote liberty and freedom, and it's now no longer appropriate for those ends (if it ever was). Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

The REAL reason..... (Score:1) by ChadM (ozzyosbourne@snotmail.com) on Friday April 28, @10:27AM EDT (#79) (User Info)

Metallica doesn't want all the junior high kids to D/L a song from reload or S&M and realize how much they suck before they buy them and then decide not to. I have religiously followed Metallica's music for a long time(Kill em All - Garage Inc). I probably shouldn't have bought Load or Reload because they sucked but i wanted the braggins rights of "I have all of Metallica's albums". S&M sucked, hard. I will never buy that album or any more albums of theirs unless they drop this stupid Napster lawsuit and start to sound like they used to. That means I probably will not be buying any more Metallica albums. lol When they sit down and listen to RTL or MOP, then Reload they have to feel like a bunch of retards. S&M was a pathetic attempt to rehash and reuse old(good) material. From what I've seen in other bands this is about the stage in development when they realize that they suck now and break up. I hope to god Metallica will break up soon and save what little dignity they have left(if it hasn't gone negative yet). snotmail=hotmail to mail me.

Re:The REAL reason..... (Score:1) by ChadM (ozzyosbourne@snotmail.com) on Saturday April 29, @04:04AM EDT (#627) (User Info)

>>What the hell are you talking about. If metallica was to conform to the "taste" that all you so called "metalheads" want, they would not be where they are at today..You fag heads are >>always sayin, "they should go back to their old stuff", but dont realize, they've been there and done that. why would you want to do the same thing for 20 yrs? I think that they sound >>better now than they did when Kill em'All came out. S&M is a musicians dream, but you wouldnt know about that, since you probably listen to boy bands, and think that's music. >>Just to propose the old cliche, if you dont like it, dont buy it, but then again, metallica doesnt need your 2 cents. So go ahead and D/L method man or something you fucking poser!!! Like I said in my post, I will not be buying any new metallica albums because I do not like them. Your attempts to call me names and stereotype me are nothing short of pathetic. As for your "been there and done that" argument all i have to say is "if its not broken dont fix it". They're a bunch of old losers now. Their fans are the people who put them where they are and as corny as it may sound, they owe us. New Metallica(load and reload) are pathetic by ANY standard not just compared to their old work, IMHO. Garage Inc and S&M weren't as bad but in case you haven't noticed they haven't created much of anything new(2 new songs on S&M). So I reiterate, they're just rehashing, remixing, and basically mangling any good material they ever created, which leads me to believe that their original creative talent has run dry. If you think I'm biased by their age I'll have you know that PLENTY of older people in bands still have my respect(Dave Mustaine, his newer stuff is far superior to Metallica albums of the same time. His older stuff is really good too. Ozzy always has been and will continue to be one of my favorite performers of all time. Jimmy Paige still plays a killer guitar. Metallica has been going downhill in musical quality since they released the Load album). Nothing haunts me more than to see memories of a great band shattered by stupid little retards with Reload patches running around chanting "gimme fuel give me fire". As my rant has clearly stated, I have lost all respect for Metallica as musical performers, and now with the Napster lawsuit, my respect for them as people. Lars used to seem reasonably intelligent to me before I heard his stupid little quote. As for the quote "Yes we sold out, each and every show." They are just hiding behind the fact that they suck at music writing now and have alienated a large portion of their fan base. They no longer have me for a fan, I will boycott them and encourage other people to do the same. BTW i hate boy bands and you must be a real genius to tell me what I "probably like" without knowing me. Goob Job snotmail=hotmail to mail me.

It's about misuse of tools (Score:1) by Skruffy (spam@skruffy.demon.co.uk) on Friday April 28, @10:28AM EDT (#83) (User Info)

While this is all very interesting from a legal point of view, I think that the article got it right. Napster is just the sacrificial icon - it represents what the band is annoyed about, namely piracy. The fact of the matter is that there are any number of ways of distributing music (including tv and radio), so if people want to pirate music, they will always be able to. (they'd have to ban everything down to sound cards and radios if they really wanted to stamp out piracy - who'd listen to their music then) Cutting off the Hydras head is pointless - unless you want to be a bit cynical and say that Metallica must realise this and is just going after a bit of easy publicity. Guess I must be a cynic... =) --- If something doesn't feel right, you're probably not feeling the right thing.

Screw those sell-outs! (Score:1) by SpanishInquisition on Friday April 28, @10:29AM EDT (#84) (User Info)

I'm this close of burning all of my Metallica CDs, I mean they used to make great music with great attitude, 'And Justice for All..' is IMO one of the best album of the 80's but now all they seem to be able to do is crap both musically and philosophically. This is so sad but I think we should make an example of those bastards and stop listening to their music. At least will have Megadeth and Slayer who also do bad music today but at least try to show some respect for their fan. We should put up a site or something.

i just cant stand the DMCA (Score:1) by WJenness (jenness_wayn at bentley.nospam.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:30AM EDT (#87) (User Info)

i mean hell according to: It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material. i might as well get rid of icq, ftp, aim and any other 'file transmission' type program, cuz according to the DMCA they should all be banned anyway. what is to prevent me from sending some TMBG mp3s to my friend via ICQ.... nothing, so therefore it should be banned. gotta love the politics, "we dont know how to control it" "thats ok we will just ban it" "to hell with creative thinking" im sick of this bullshit.... oh well enough ranting.... i really should be writing that paper thats due in three hours. looks like i will fireup my mp3s and get some work done.

Doesn`t anyone think they may have a point?? (Score:1) by login: (m_long at telusplanet.net) on Friday April 28, @10:30AM EDT (#88) (User Info)

I am probably going to get moderated way down for this - but I really don`t see the problem with the lawsuit. Who really cares if the members of the band have millions of dollars? If they want to continue selling their product, and prevent people from obtaining it without paying for it, why shouldn`t they be allowed to do everything in their power to achieve this? Like it or not, these songs are intellectual property belonging to Metallica, and for our community (in particular) to not respect IP is hypocritical. How many stories/comments have I seen in the last week blasting Be and Abit because they have taken someone else's intellectual property and not used it in the manner it was intended? How would everyone here feel if companies took GPL'd code, modified it a bit, and then released it as closed source, commercial software? Don't you think legal action would be taken then as well? If Metallica wanted to release some of their music under a public license - great.. more power to them, but the decision is theirs.

Open Source Music? (Score:1) by Ech3lon (ech3lon@SPAMnEGGSyahoo.com) on Friday April 28, @10:30AM EDT (#89) (User Info)

Here's a random thought...maybe we'll see a new generation of Open Source Music Advocates in the coming years. Kids might realize that only a select few get rich off recorded music and start putting out tons of tracks for free. Then musicians would actually have to play live to make money. Imagine...if there were less BIG bands, the small bands in your town might actually get an audience. AND then all these record company execs might have to learn a trade. The trend has already started! GO GNUTELLA don't believe the hype

Re:Open Source Music? (Score:1) by NeverEnough (wevans@mindspring.com) on Saturday April 29, @03:20AM EDT (#623) (User Info) http://www.open-source-music.org

Well, my heart is definately with you. Big bands don't get most of the money they generate. And they're thrown out like yesterday's news when they don't go gold anymore. I've been working on starting an open source music movement with several music industry leaders and well-known recording artists. Progress is slow, but we'll get there. Bill Evans open-source-music.org

Copyrighted music is NOT OPEN SOURCE (Score:1) by Trevers on Friday April 28, @10:31AM EDT (#90) (User Info)

Lest you forget... Music that is copyrighted is NOT FREE. As soon as Metallica puts out open souce music on the internet then you will be free to trade it as you like. In the meantime you (if you are a law abiding citizen) should continue to purchase music on CD (and if you are cheap or poor buy it used). IMHO: MP3s no matter what bit rate it is encoded at sound awful, but that does not stop me from coping my CD collection to MP3 for listening at work. This is still legal. It is no worse than making a "mix tape" for listening in the car. Just don't support MASS bootlegging like Napster does. Napster is just as bad as the proliferation of Chinese CD pirates, giving you substandard product that profits some one else than the creator of the bootlegged material.

Remember... (Score:2) by Stiletto (stiletto_NO@SPAM_.mediaone.net) on Friday April 28, @10:31AM EDT (#92) (User Info) http://www.pompano.net/~stiletto

"Copyright" and "Intellectual Property" are ideas invented by corporations, and forced through the law-making process by corporations. It's no surprise that when people violate these so-called laws, it's corporations that get all excited. I challenge anyone to name one instance where a "Copyright" has helped a consumer, rather than an information-hoarder. Ryan Drake Disclamer: I work for a hardware company. I post when I feel critical of something, whether it be my employer or a competitor. Happy??

Re:Remember... (Score:1) by micromuncher on Friday April 28, @10:43AM EDT (#135) (User Info)

Exaclty! Id should write games for us for free. Give me a break. Anyone that invests time, effort, or money into a project needs an incentive. That's how the world works. We trade resources. To make it fair, we imply ethics - codes of conduct - for all people. We make morality to get those people that just cannot figure out that behaving unfairly is disruptive to a community. Without Copyright, I'd be hurt as consumer, because I wouldn't be able to get access to STUFF that otherwise would be too hard/costly to do. Will you feed Metallica while they work their trade? How about Id?

Re:Remember... (Score:1) by Cool Hand Luke (grlee@alum.mit.edu) on Friday April 28, @10:52AM EDT (#159) (User Info) http://portents.ne.mediaone.net/~george/

I challenge anyone to name one instance where a "Copyright" has helped a consumer, rather than an information-hoarder. The fact copyrights protect an artist from having someone else steal their work gives them incentive to actually PUBISH their work, which customers can buy. No copyrights mean much less money to be made publishing works of art, meaning less works for customers to buy. Remember, the CUSTOMER wanting to buy books/music/movies etc. create the market for the books/music/movies. If the market goes *poof*, so do the works. Back before recordable media, artists were paid by rich kings and nobles to create their works for an once time fee. Else they created their works as a hobby for free. I don't think there were that many books back then as there is now. (Not totally a bad thing... there weren't many trashy books-based-on-movies back and cheezy romance novels back then.) ;) George Lee I like to think of my job as a paid vacation - Space Ghost

Re:Remember... (Score:1) by mwkohout on Friday April 28, @11:06AM EDT (#198) (User Info)

1)patents and copyrights are a mechanism in which helps owners of products and methods and such to inforce a contract. 2)the right to inforce a contract is a clause in the US Constitution(and also many other countries). While this idea of an enforcable contract was put in by very rich men, it in the long run has helped the general consumer. Why? Because unless companies or individuals or even musical groups can protect their work, they will never even attempt the work. Medicines that require millions of dollars of research to perfect would never be invented. The computer you are typing your comment on would never have been invented. Even Open Source Software wouldn't be around if we did have computers(it depends on the ability to enforce a contract as well). Hell, you would never have even heard of Metallica--the company that has a record contract wouldn't exist, because 1) they couldn't enforce the contract they have with Metallica, and 2) they wouldn't have exclusive rights to distribute that music, so they couldn't make any money. to say that copyrights or patents aren't good things is stupid. sure, there are instinces where patents or copyrights shouldn't have been granted, but to say that they are inherently bad for consumers isn't correct.

Re:Remember... (Score:1) by blane.bramble on Friday April 28, @11:12AM EDT (#214) (User Info)

No, copyright is an idea intended to protect the individual. That is why you automatically have copyright on any original works you produce unless you assign it to someone else. So, if you as an individual paint a picture, write a book, some computer software, etc. You have control over who can or cannot make copies, and under what circumstances. This is a very basic, and very powerful individual right. Patents as they currently stand benefit corporations, but not copyright. The attitudes that copyright is somehow wrong tends to be stated by people who have never put effort into creating something. Even if you don't expect to make a profit, it is not unreasonable to want control over how your creation is distributed.

Not invented by corporations (Score:1) by wiredog (kitcase@nospam.netutah.com) on Friday April 28, @11:13AM EDT (#217) (User Info)

It's in THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

Re:Not invented by corporations (Score:1) by ktakki on Friday April 28, @03:03PM EDT (#476) (User Info) http://www.xensei.com/users/ktakki/vcr.html

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. I had no idea Hunter S. Thompson helped draft the Constitution. This explains a lot. k. -- "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

The value of copyrights (Score:2) by frankie (yahoo_com@francis.uy) on Friday April 28, @12:09PM EDT (#323) (User Info)