EFF Ad Campaign On File Swapping 501
miladus writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is launching an ad campaign
to
counter the RIAA's lawsuits about file
swapping. There are more details available at the File Sharing: It's Music To Our Ears subsite." The press release kicking off this campaign says that "EFF's Let the Music Play campaign provides alternatives to the RIAA's litigation barrage, details EFF's efforts to defend peer-to-peer file sharing, and makes it easy for individuals to write members of Congress."
The best shot we've got... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because... (Score:2, Insightful)
So millions of people doing the wrong thing somehow makes it right. I don't think so.
Complications (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple, and to the point. However the site with more information [eff.org] is waaaaay too complicated for most people. I've been trying in recent times to explain to people why I stopped buying cd's. Why the RIAA suing for 98 billion dollars is recockulus. But people in general don't understand. And this site is too complicated. People will read it, say wtf is "compulsory licensing" and go back to downloading porn. What we need is a good site with the whole idea explained simply. That would be excellent.
In a democracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Proper Focus (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has it right, people will pay if there is a way to do so, otherwise they WILL just steal stuff.
Plan to make them listen: (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress needs to spend less time listening to record industry lobbyists [...]
...but the lobbyists are the ones taking our senators out for $250 steaks & donating millions of dollars to their respective party. With our current government, we need to convince congress that it is worth their while to listen to us 60 million americans. (FYI, 60M downloads != 60M users)
maybe we could start one of those pyramid schemes where you add your name to the bottom of the list & send $5 to everyone on the list; But we could do this with senator's names on the list instead of our own. Then we just give them a heads up that they'll be getting 10,000,000 $1 bills in the mail over the next 3 weeks & I bet our senators would even go so far as to make a law legalizing w4r3z.
get it on tv... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unauthorized copying is like... (Score:2, Insightful)
EFF wants alternatives to the current system (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders.
This is quite different from the 'illegal-file-sharing-rules!! the RIAA-sucks!!' idea I got from the slashdot story. I very much agree and support the EFF in this effort. Give the artists what they deserve, give me what I want and stop artificially inflating the music prices.
Re:There is no short term solution (Score:5, Insightful)
"How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time."
(Aside: If someone could please attibute this properly, I'd be grateful)
IOW, we have to start sometime even if it does take 20 years, and now is as good as any to get change underway.
Soko
can we just automod these "theft" posts down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is a facade: The elite run things (Score:2, Insightful)
at thier whim. When it comes to intellectual property the elite class will put its foot down and
not budge an inch. To reform copyright and patent law will take away control from the elite class, and
they will not allow any such reform to happen.
Re:That's because... (Score:3, Insightful)
A leap of logic there. It is not about right or wrong of "piracy" that is being discussed here. It is the number of people that would potentially be affected by the aggressive lobbying of RIAA/MPAA.
*HINT* (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting rid of RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
If we got rid of marketing, then it would perhaps be a good thing, but it would drastically change the face of music. Everybody would be looking for different songs, or would not know which songs to look for, whereas now everybody looks for only the most popular songs.
Re:get it on tv... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unauthorized copying is like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your reference is flawed because the arcade machine is OWNED by somebody, and if an arcade machine is on free play that's their problem.
Either they're being very generous, or they realize what you're doing and kick your ass out on the street.
In truth, electronic music/movie distribution HAS NO COLLARY because it is a system that has no personal enforcement, and thus encourages people to take advantage of the system.
You cannot easily go into a record store and walk out with an album, it's very likely you will be caught by the owner. But you can go online and download the album and burn it, with little likelyhood of prosecution.
Direct supervision keeps theives in check, and keeps honest folks honest. Indirect supervision is a field-day for theives, and tempts honest people.
WHY IS EVERYONE SO SURPRISED AT THIS? Just look at the percentages of people who violate speed limits whn nobody's looking versus the number of people who violate speed limits WHEN COPS ARE SPEED TRAPPING, and you'll see similar numbers.
I thought it was well understood by companies, after 20 years of trying to MAKE COPY PROTECTION WORK. If there's a link in the chain you cannot supervise personally, somebody is going to break it.
Re:That's because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thomas Thoreau beleived as you did, in an expedient Gov't. However, the gov't we have today tries to enforce it's own morals onto other people.
It's a democracy... so... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the EFF can mobilise popular support to legalise file sharing, at least on a limited level (so keep it illegal, say, for commercial pirates or profit making entities to copy music), then I would be all for it. You opinion might be different, which is why I hope that more voters agree with me
hm. (Score:1, Insightful)
The RIAA pisses me off not because of their "Stop stealing our music" stuff (which I agree with) but more importantly that they seem to want to stifle any technological advances that affects their music UNLESS it's spearheaded by a big player such as Apple.
Instead of them suing everyone and his mother I'd RATHER see them try and figure out a good way to let people get access to music online for a reasonable price - what the EFF is doing. So hurrah for the EFF! It's been forever since I've bought a CD and a solemnly refuse to do so until they (RIAA) become reasonable.
- utterly annoyed
The problem with emusic and iTunes (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that file-sharing and file-swapping serve a legitimate purpose. The RIAA would serve the interest of its affiliated artists far better by finding a way to legitimize file-swapping as a form of promotion, instead of trying to nail Kazaa users for offering a years out of press Bowie live club track for download. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no getting him back in. But he can be harnessed and put to work in a positive way. The RIAA needs to rethink its business dynamic in a big way. Online music libraries for legal download can only help matters in the long run.
Re:Plan to make them listen: (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can get those 60 million Americans to vote and make their voices heard to the politicians then no amount of steak dinners and golf outings are going to change their mind. Without votes they are powerless. The only reason they cozy up to the lobbyists is because they are the ones promising that they have control of the public opinion in whatever segment of the population they represent. If politicians start to doubt that then they'll tell them to go to hell in an effort to pander to their constituents.
Re:If we called it a more accurate name .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Using that term would be incorrect. Sharing MP3's may be a violation of copyright, but it is not theft.
Copyright laws have been overextended from their original goal. They were established to provide creators the ability to profit for a limited time. With the changes that have taken place over the years, however, that limited time can now be extended almost indefinitely. It takes away the balancing act of rights of the individual (the copyright holder) and the rights of society to use that product freely.
MP3's and file sharing are going, in the end, to help swing the pendulum back toward society. It will then slowly swing the other way once again.
The problem, however, is that now copyrighted material is being "protected" in such ways that your legal uses under copyright might be blocked. If that happens, then the copyright holder has, in effect, secured permanent exclusive rights, which is not what copyright is designed to provide.
Computers = Entertainment Devices (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was sent my first MP3 on IRC back in '96 I thought it was pretty cool. No longer did I need 10 meg
In any case, the word about MP3 spread like wildfire amoungst people 'in the know' and FTPs were set up all across the 'net housing files. This was a some what underground thing until Napster showed up. Once again, proving that the more you yell about somethig, the more popular it gets, Metallica single handedly made MP3 a household name.
By now, the idea of getting music online was so entrenched in everyones minds, the thought of not being able to play music on your computer became an almost alien concept. In my opinion this is where the RIAA, if they were sensitive to consumer opinion, could have stepped in and made a killing. As of now, they're only alieniating potential customers. As was said on Slashdot:
"I don't get it! I've threatened them, sued them, and they still won't buy my products!"
Apple has the right idea. They're selling single songs. Not only have they made a few million so far from this, but its proving that people _will_ buy music online. Why? Because the computer is now an entertainment device. There has been some opposition to this by people like Linken Park (do people really listen to this crap?) and Jewel (who openly admitted to downloading music a few years ago). Basically they say that their work is art and should be taken as a whole. But lets look at that.
You make a CD that kicks ass in every way possible, every track has you giving 100%, every second is thought out and wonderful (like say, Tool ). And then say you're some corperate crap band that makes _one_ good song. You'll both make the same money on CD sales because the prices are all the same. I think this is bad. If you put your blood, sweat and tears into a full 10 tracks, people will download them all, paying you for every ouce of effort you put forth. If you make _one_ good song, you make money off that one good song and thats _it_. This model that Apple has created is the best system of 'natural selection' amoungst artists I've come across. Personally I'm all for it.
The RIAA needs to wake up. While, yes, its technically illegal to have music you didn't pay for, p2p by way of IRC and FTPs have been around since the early 90s. This isn't going to stop, even if every p2p network is shutdown perminatly. The _reason_ its not going to stop is because people have changed what they use computers for. As I said, they are now as much of an _entertainment_ device as a television. If the RIAA had responded at the time, or even takes Apples current model, people would not be downloading illegal music. I feel that as long as the RIAA uses these strongarm tactics against the very people that provide them with a living, people are going to pirate music.
Re:Solution to P2P poisoning (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I suspect if you tried to use the DMCA against RIAA/MPAA they would just get it revised. The law won't help you because they can change the law and you cannot.
Newsflash!! Collective punishment is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they stick a P2P theft tax on my cable modem bill, I won't pay it.
If they stick a tax on blank media, I'll just order it from overseas.
I don't download music, movies or software illegally (or at all), as SCO, RIAA and MPAA would have you believe and I will not pay for the actions of others in a collective punishment manner such as they propose.
That's just as wrong as saying that because a *few* bad people used guns to kill someone that everyone that owns a gun is a bad person and a killer..
Wrong answer, collective punishment is wrong.
Am I missing something? (Score:1, Insightful)
So, am I missing something here?
What about this? (Score:2, Insightful)
"The RIAA has stated that it will choose who to sue by using software that scans users' publicly available P2P directories and then identifies the ISP of each user."
Now I was wondering, why is this tactic by the RIAA not considered "unlawful access" to all the p2p computers? I mean, don't p2p users grant other such users access to their shared directory for a limited, specific purpose (file sharing) ONLY??? And if the RIAA uses software to HACK INTO these p2p computers (unauthorized access), they should be held accountable! I am thinking that COUNTERSUITS against the RIAA might be warranted.
Re:Getting rid of RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bzzt...Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
And when did these services go on-line? You have heard the president of Sony music saying the success of iTunes woke [macworld.com] the industry up, making them realise they could make money this way?
The problem has been, and always has been, the record labels refusing to give the customer what they wanted: diversity, choice and fair pricing. If you want to hear the songs of a new artist not on the Top 40 or Clear Channel's Can-Play list, or just listen to the back catalog of a New Wave 80s group, you basically had no option other than piracy and P2P. Internet Radio stations were few and far between, and their diversity was limited (for reasons we all know and love). The demand was there, but the RIAA just didn't want to give their customers what they wanted.
That, my good sir, is why P2P exists. It stepped up to fill a void by music buyers to try and discover before they buy. The idea that "sharing" people won't buy has been debunked so many times, it's not even worth my time to look up the links for you. You are defend ing the RIAA's stupidity and avarice. Their arguments don't hold water anymore, and it's time to find a new whine other than "theives and freeloaders!"
Re:That's because... (Score:1, Insightful)
You said:
And I certainly have a right not to have my life shortened by your filthy habit via second-hand smoke.
Shortened? Really? Well, as much as I would like you to fuck off and die, I seriously doubt that you will ever be in a situation where pot smoke is concentrated enough to actually affect your life span. Get your head out of your ass.
Nor am I overly enthusiastic about you getting a case of the munchies, getting into your car in a semi-coherent state, and speeding down the road to the grocery store as a freakin' one tone missile.
Huh? DUI is already a crime, jackass.
Very young children have not gained that insight, and might actually have their lives depend on you applying your brakes in timely manner. But that would be their mistake because you have a right to get high, yes?
You don't even make sense. Everybody's lives on the road depend on everyone putting their brakes on in a timely fashion. Everything from age to cough syrup to a bad day at work can slow down your reaction times. Go on your witchhunt at a MADD meeting.
Once you are willing to sign the equivalent of a contract stating that you WILL NOT leave the confines of your own home until the effects have worn off
This would be an amazing precedent, since no other drug requires this. Including morphine. It's a plant, ass.
That goes for any drug that, when taken in sufficient quantity, impairs mental ability.
Oh yeah? Like coffee, nicotine, demoral, Tylenol PM, Red Bull, and Coca Cola? Stop being such a pussy.
Re:That's because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask you neigbor, Mrs Jane Shmane, age 64, what is her opinion on legalization of cannabis. This should give you a general picture.
This is brilliant... (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider: while the RIAA and MPAA have been stealing our elected political representatives from us, while we saw the media companies' propaganda universally echoed from every mainstream news outlet, our response to date has amounted to little more than wailing, rending our hair and gnashing our teeth.
We could not conceive of any effective way to combat their mindshare amongst the apathetic population-at-large, and without which we could never get sufficient leverage to move the politicians.
At the same time the EFF struggled valiantly on our behalf but their voice is relatively tiny, representing (as it appeared to be) only the tiny fraction of the population that is geekdom.
The answer was staring us in the face the whole time.
- * The EFF adopts the same media tactics as our enemies.
Go EFF! Why the fsck didn't anybody think of this before ?! (smacks head repeatedly on desk)* They effectively rebrand themselves as representing the much larger number of people who mainly use the internet to download music etc.
* The EFF becomes a truly popular movement with mass appeal - fingers crossed - and the pro-digital-rights community in general gets a significant mindshare at last.
* The EFF gets a big funding boost from new subscriptions - fingers crossed again - and at last, at last, the battle will be fought on a much more level playing field.
Re:EFF wants alternatives to the current system (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about control of the distribution channel. They'd rather control 100% of a smaller market than %75 of a much larger one.
The "how-will-the-artist-get-paid" fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans were making music long before the concept of "intelectual property" existed... and we will be making music long after the concept of "copyright" is a distant memory.
Artists have always found a way to make enough money to survive and to create, struggle though they may. The current system of granting special monopoly rights to the copyright "owners" benefits only RIAA excecutives, politicians, and a few mostly mediocre "stars." It harms the rest of us by forcing us to give up our freedoms to shore up a system that benefits only the few and is doomed to soon collapse.
Re:It's a democracy... so... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct. Actually, that would make a reasonable definition of a democracy. But this is a story about US copyright issues. The US is not and never has been a democracy. It was formed as a representative republic and has degraded into a corporate republic. The public has little input into the political process.
Unless the voters that agree with you can outspend the RIAA in the political arena, their opinions mean little.
60 million people vs the RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Should 60 million people go to jail just so the RIAA can stay in business? I dont think so.
The law must be changed because the people want it changed. Thats how democracy works.
Re:60 million people vs the RIAA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are 100 thousand people more important?! (Score:2, Insightful)
What makes these hundreds of thousands of people more important than the rights and freedoms of 60 million people?
Oh wait, money buys freedom and those hundreds of thousands of people have the money.
Look, geekee, just because you own a copyright, or a patent doesnt mean 99.9 percent of the worlds population cares, the rest of the world does not own any copyright or patent, and if they do the copyright or patent they own is of no value because they sold it to some CEO such as yourself.
Re:60 million people vs the RIAA. (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA's business model is outdated, but that is the most asinine argument for a change that I've ever heard. In case you're still going by what the government schools' "social studies" classes drilled into your head, the United States is not a democracy. It never has been and, God willing, never will be. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner...while it's great for the majority, it tends to walk all over the rights of minorities if left to its own devices.
Sending people to jail for downloading music when murderers and rapists are being set free as a result of overcrowding is wrong, but try to come up with something better than warmed-over communism if you want to see things change.
Re:copyright was always broken (Score:3, Insightful)
The EFF rocks! The RIAA sucks. Don't buy CDs. [dontbuycds.org]
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright vs Freedom. (Score:1, Insightful)
Promote Free Music (Score:1, Insightful)
Rather than fighting to get copyright law changed and such, why doesn't the EFF just promote free music? Besides being legal to swap, it may also open peoples' eyes to what's really out there.
Re:copyright was always broken (Score:3, Insightful)
Also I look down the road, the way the world currently works, he who owns the money owns all the knowledge, imagine if you have no money, well you wont be able to get knowledge either, its like slavery. When there was slavery, slaves werent taught to read so they would stay stupid, its the same thing, why let the masses have access to information, the rich elite can keep all the information to themselves and always have the advantage on us.
I bet they hate the internet because now the playing field is leveled, a kid in nigeria can learn C, learn all the technology, and get a job as a programmer.
Re:That's because... (Score:4, Insightful)
So far, so good. My right to do anything doesn't give me the right to trample on your rights.
Ahhh, here we go, the second hand smoke gambit. This has worked to curtail the freedoms of tobacco smokers, to the point that in many areas, it's pretty much illegal to smoke tobacco anywhere but in your own home. That's not to say that I think second hand smoke is harmless -- I am of the opinion that it can cause real harm. But I think this carping about second hand smoke has gotten out of hand.
We already have such a contract. It's a social contract enforced through laws which prohibit driving under the influence of any drug (even over-the-counter drugs you pick up at your local pharmacy or grocery store). People who do any drug, legal or not, and then get behind the wheel of a car, are criminals. So why criminalize the substance when it's the behavioral problem that is the issue?
Prohibitions don't work -- history has shown this. Both pot smoking and file sharing will become decriminalized soon, if not made fully legal, because public opinion is swinging in that direction. It might take another decade or two, but the change will happen.
Re:The majority decides the rights of the minority (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's this fallacy that has led to most of our problems. Human rights ARE dictated by those with the biggest stick - so long as I have the power to control you, and you do not have the power to resist my control, I effectively own you, and there's nothing you can do about it. All government is coercive force, and it's high time we own up to it and start working with it instead of pretending it ain't so while we manipulate it from behind.
The only reason we are given as many rights as we have been is because it's easier than fighting off the constant attempts at revolution and terrorism that would result from clamping down - and as those above us in the hierarchy find better and better ways to dupe us into complacency, those rights become less and less relevant.
The bottom line is, whoever has the most power and the strongest will to use it will make the rules, and this whole copyright fiasco is just a big play to see who has the most power and the strongest will to use it.
Alright, first off filesharing isn't exactly bad.. (Score:4, Insightful)
What people need to undestand is that copyright law wasn't meant to be abused like this. First, copyright as it stands right now is forever, or rather, forever minus a day as congress has extended it 11 times thanks to disney. Copyright, patents, etc ensures artists have incentive in our society to get money and hence to be rewarded and make more art, they never had nor never should have the control the riaa says they should have. The fantisy that you make a cd and earn fabulous prizes, millions of dollers, women chasing after you etc is an outright lie and in addition stupid and it's something that damages our society as greed tears it apart.
At some point your art becomes public domain for others to build onto and to use. Why? Because capitalism is a system where you are rewarded at your level of ability and it needs to be understood that if eminem makes 30 million, he'd probably goto the bank and live out the rest of his life fat n' lazy and never make another piece of art. If enimen got payed nothing, he wouldn't make the music and if he got payed too much he wouldn't make it, so there's a point where copyright law should protect but not too much. Music and art are our culture, it barrows from past ideas and adds to future ideas and if we let companies pick apart everything to the finest detail nothing will be left and we'll stop advancing as a culture becuase as soon as you take 3-4 inventions, stick them together with other inventions you'll have large corperations on your ass within seconds asking for money.
Corperations want you to think making a profit and maximizing profit are good things, and a lot of people think they are but in reality the people who made copyright and pantent law never intended for things like microsoft to come into being. They never intended buisness to get so huge and for our school system to teach dependance to the point that almost everyone is dependant for a job on large companies and hence, subject to that companies abuse. What if the fortune 500 companies decided chipping their employees was manditory and if you didn't get a rice-shaped chip implanted into the back of your skull you were fired? That's a lot of influence these companies have to do very terrible things and copyright and pantent lawmakers never intended for that to happen and our goverment isn't handling these things very well, infact the fda approved chipping. Tells you what side they are on.
Copyright law hasn't answered how much money should someone be allowed to make, and the people have rather nicely. P2P is here to stay unless congress puts forth some serious cash to regulate the internet into hell. AS the OSS community has taught us they can do anything, and if someone want's their mp3's free bad enough they'll sit down and make some code that exploite some bug in the system that can't fix.
Now, back on subject, I think the EFF is doing an awesome thing here. Going on the p2p apps and spamming "hey, file sharing is legal have fun!" is a great way to ease some of the fud the RIAA has been spreading and they can do it cheaply. Writing letters isn't going to do much without a lot of punch at the voting booth so spread the word around college campuses. $20 worth of paper and ink now means you aren't in manditory slave labor later on becuase the riaa decided you downloading music not lisenced by them is a bad thing. Don't believe me? Listen to the tales of the afternow.
http://theafternow.com/listen.php
Good thing the US is not a democracy... (Score:2, Insightful)
RIAA can lobby; EFF can't (Score:4, Insightful)
However, RIAA can do things that EFF can never do. RIAA is a political action committee and can give money to congressional election campaigns; EFF is a 501(c)(3) charity and cannot.
What EFF needs to do here is follow the example of NORML: set up a parallel organization with separate accounting [norml.org], except make it a PAC instead of a charity. NORML routes lobbying through the PAC and advertising through the charity. Donations to NORML Foundation are tax-deductible; donations to NORML PAC aren't.
Simple Solution -- Maybe Too Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Before recording technology, musicians made money only by performing. Recording technology could have changed that but it didn't. Because record companies were in a position to dictate how the system would work, they set it up to give themselves all the profits. Standard ecording contracts are written such that all the expenses of producing and distributing a record are paid out of the musician's percentage, usually leaving zero. What musicians get out of a recording contract is exposure, which leads to them getting more and more lucrative gigs. They make a living by performing, just like in the days before records were invented. And that's the ones who have recording contracts. The vast majority of working musicians don't.
File sharing gives musicians exposure just like record sales do, and they make the same amount of money from it. The people who might stand to lose something from file sharing are the copymakers, whose role in the system is becoming obsolete. It's not at all clear to me why an obsolete industry should be kept on life support, or why the replacement system should try to implement the mythical concept of musicians being compensated when copies of their work are distributed. It didn't use to work that way and it doesn't work that way now. Why should it suddenly be a priority?
Let musicians benefit from the exposure afforded by file-sharing, the same way they have always benefited by the exposure from record sales, and they will continue to make money from live performances. Why can't we leave it at that???
I am an artist. (Score:3, Insightful)
suppose coming up with this belief helps a lot to reduce the pangs of guilt while you are ripping off other working class people like artists.
Eminem is working class?
Not a single one of these people owns an expensive car. None of them jet off to london to jam with the stones. Only a few of them own their own house, something that has long been heralded as basic achievement of working class people. Many work part or full time in record stores, recording studios, restaurants and bars. When we go out to lunch most of the time it's at a place that a burrito and a coke will cost you less than $5.
Really? So how do musicians make their money? Thats right they get on a jet and go to London to play their music in front of thousands of fans.
Let me tell you the other side of the story. I know dozens of people who make their living either in whole or in part due to creating music on records.
Artists dont make money off records, record companies make money off records. What artist do you know who makes 100% of their income from record sales? Most artists i know make the majority of their money at the clubs and concerts, they call it the scene, and its the scene that produces income, not the records.
These are the upper class elite you're talking about?
Eminem, Dr.Dre, and the corperate CEOs who own most of the copyright and who sell most of the CDs. Most of the people you mention arent making any money because they are too stupid to go on tour, and use the internet to build enough popularity to have a big enough fanbase to go on tour.
Are these the greedy people bilking you out of your hard earned money to scam you with music? No, they are working class americans. Based on your arguments about the evils of capitalism and copyright one would assume that file swappers would not be sharing music by these people, right? Well, of course they are though. Search for any number of these bands on p2p apps and you'll find their whole albums ready to download.
Bullshit, the people who work for the RIAA arent creating any music, these guys are suddenly working class? Hilary Rosen is working class? Where do you get this bullshit from?
A few years ago, an old friend joined their band... Now this guy was a bit different, he had been in a popular san francisco band that had toured internationally and consequently had made somewhat of a name for himself. Him joining was probably going to help them all make more of a living out of making their music. They made a new album and played a few shows locally to introduce the new guy. The album was available for sale on their website. About a month after their cd release I was told a sobering tale from my friend the sound engineer. The band had recieved a large amount of positive feedback on the new album... over a hundred and fifty people had written to tell them that the new album was great, that they loved it. The problem? Between the CD sales at the concerts and online, they had sold less than 100 copies
Maybe if you and your band werent such idiots, you'd instead of worrying about selling your CD, you'd use it to promote your tours. Your CD is marketing, just like for movies, the trailers are marketing to get you to go to the theater, use the marketing, if so many people liked your music, why dont you go on tour and play before a sellout crowd, you'd make x10 more money than you'd make selling CDs, of course its more work to go on tour, and you are just too afraid to admit that you are lazy. Maybe if you worked hard you'd make money, but thinking people will buy your CD in this era, forget it.
More people had loved the album enough to write in an congratulate them on it than had bought the album in the first place. And we know most people who get an album (either bought or copied) aren't going to write the band. So here were working class guys with a shot at getting a bit more for their labor essentially shot down by music pira
Confidential to RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I think it's important to share that, while I have probably downloaded thousands of songs in my day, I delete the ones that I don't like, and I'll buy an album if there are enough decent songs on the album to buy it. Also, most of the MP3s I download lead me to (a) delete them because they suck or (b) buy the album -- thanks for letting me sample the sound! The few that do neither are either an isolated good song on a crappy album, or they are live performances, remixes, or otherwise rare tracks that can not be acquired on any album.
If I had to choose a side, I would choose the RIAA's side. I buy enough CDs and I have enough friends in the music business that I can see clearly why there is a problem with downloading as much music as some people do. At the same time, there is something clearly wrong with the way music is presented to society. It seems that only the artists that the industry chooses will sell records, and anyone they don't like get to suffer. Sorry, that isn't how it's supposed to work.
When you come up with a way to allow all music to be heard for what it is so the consumers get to decide what is good and what is not -- so good music is sold and bad music is not -- then I won't have to download music to figure out what's good or not.
p.s.-- Thank the powers that be that I was able to download a copy of Metallica's St. Anger before I rushed out to buy it. Ironic, isn't it, that their newest album is probably the best example of why we should be allowed to hear the music before purchasing it! I would have hated it if I had spent money buying that crap before knowing what it sounded like...
Re:The best shot we've got... (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally weak.
How many years would we have had to wait for these electronic music formats and system if Napster never came into being? NEVER.
And even now, they are still quoting the same B.S. they quotes back in '98. "We are actively researching online blah blah blah to get music to our customers in the way they want blah blah blah"
5 years and counting. They have OVER a $100 million dollar budget just for their in-house legal department. And they still are dragging their feet on a viable online solution. A real one. Not iTunes crap.
It took a broke college kid only one semester to copy Napster from a sleeping Seth Green. The Music Cartel...just...doesn't...want...to.
They completely control all aspects of their distribution now, why would they ever want to take a cut in their 5 billion dollar monopoly to spread into a new medium?
Re:The best shot we've got... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem is, is that it won't make them money. Sure, to you and me, the $5 million dollar mark from iTunes is a lot of money. But to them, it looks like a drop in the bucket. A long ways to go to get to $5 billion dollars.
I have watched the mp3 phenomenon very closely over the last 5 years, and I have to say that without a doubt... They would rather make all of the $5 billion dollars, than make 50% of a $14 billion dollar market. For some reason, they want absolute complete control of the market. I can only guess that it is because they feel safer controlling all aspects of the monopoly. And I suppose it's been working quite well for the last half century, so who am I to argue their motives.
Their past "attempts" to please customers in the digital medium:
SDMI.
Sue Diamond because of their mp3 player.
Sue mp3.com because they tried to provide a streaming service.
Destroy Napster
Sue all P2P softwares
Make everyone pay a CD-R tax.
Attempting to add $500 tax to hard drives in Canada
Liquid Audio???
Crippled CD's
Extra content on CD's: Download 2 songs for free! Wowwy.
Turn in your friend: 1-800 hotline number
Lots of $$$ donated to politicians
NET act passed
Fair use rights revoked
DMCA passed
Busted for price fixing
Singers are now work-for-hire, never own the copyright
Copyrights extended forever
More legislation being bought
Call me cynical, but that list shows that they've been busy, with cash and money, to crush the digital technology, and take down anyone in the way.
Personally, I can't argue on the side of pirating music. But I don't think I should go to jail longer than a drug deale,r and fined more than the folks responsible for Enron and go into bankrupcy. It's out of hand. The world shouldn't have technology slowed down because one business doesn't feel like it's profitable to them. A business is not guaranteed by the government to be profitable. Especially in a recession. History has shown the government stepping in for certain key markets that they deemed worthy for national safety: Steel workers, Farmers, Oil, Transportation, Communication, etc.
Music? Sorry, but it's the money talking at the Hill.
Re:Newsflash!! Collective punishment is wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)