Metallica's "Justice" And Napster 530
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.
Living Up to Their Lyrics (Score:2)
Problem with Napster (Score:2)
Of course no one will ever argue that in a court of law, but it does seem to be the real issue.
oy (Score:2)
Oh, isn't that _special_. I'm told their recent albums suck and are really weak and lame compared to when they were hungrier. Don't talk to me about grueling creative process :P want to talk grueling? I'm reading this after pulling an all-nighter 12-hour-continuous composing session on the techno album I'm producing- an album which pushes a lot of limits such as tonalities and metrical forms. I have to stay up because I'm heading to the bank to deposit all the change in my pocket after blowing my checkbook to a shriveled heap paying for unexpected rip fees on promotional posters for my released album, "anima". And what does Lars want to do to help out? He wants to take mp3 away from me, to poison the well. Granted, my life would be simpler right now if I did _not_ have access to worldwide media (through of course the obligatory link [mp3.com] to my music, which kicks butt in many ways), and it would be easier on me if I had no hope of being a working musician after the open-source independent coder model. Do I thank him for attempting to simplify my life by limiting my horizons? I don't f**king think so.
He's _coasting_. Grueling creative process, hell. Grueling creative process, Lars, is when you're running low on food and you're sick and you're exhausted but you keep going anyway because there is this thing programmers know about called Deep Hack Mode, and DIY musicians know about this as well, know that the journey is the goal.
Plus, I hear that Metallica's recent albums are caving in to commercial expectations and are soft and inoffensive compared to their earlier, hungrier stuff, so it annoys me to see him talking in grandiose terms of their Creativity and Where Metallica Is At That Very Moment In Their Lives. Spare me- if they are becoming old and stale who cares if it's depicted honestly in their music? If I said the piece I just uploaded was Where I Am At At This Very Moment In My Life, they'd put me away ;) it's crazy music, pushes boundaries real hard- uses fiendish polyrhythms and has a midsection where the whole track simply goes insane with schizophrenic counterpoint for a little while. I _like_ music like that and will never get it from the mainstream industry again- the days when they'd release, say, Beefheart's "The Spotlight Kid" with 'Click Clack' doing that, are gone. But that daring is alive because suck it up and deal, I am going to do what _I_ like to hear and mp3 lets me get it heard. I'll fight for that as long as I have breath in my body.
Only one link today- I'm exhausted, disenchanted, people are _still_ behaving like the mainstream industry needs protecting and coddling (I'd sooner cuddle a cobra) and I have no energy to beg after the all-nighter. Much deep thanks to the Slashdotter who apparently bought my CD for $5.99- I love you man (or woman as the case may be) and would love to know who you were, thank you more personally. I thank everyone who's helped me out with downloads and things- it does matter- did you know musicians fight amongst themselves begging each other for a simple download? That's how tough it is to get indie credibility after decades of industry brainwashing. The site (mp3.com), run by mad Michael, is thinking of putting 'pay for play' income on each artist's page, and many people are flipping out, saying "If my fans see that I only made 12 cents that day, they'll leave and not listen to me anymore!" If that _is_ true, it's sad- and incredibly, horribly wrong. Personally, I don't mind that being posted about me because I don't pretend to be anything other than I am- underground, outmarketed, and I need help. But now I'm tired, f**k it, moderate this down into oblivion because I don't count and am not a REAL musician, don't go visit that page in the one link I habitually gave, whatever.
I'm still going to make music anyway. This time in history may just quietly close down and music will never have a freedom movement like programming had with Linux- maybe the RIAA will win and I'll be back to copying off cassette tapes for friends (assuming that is still allowed! The physical media could simply be unavailable to consumers, eventually). But I will still make music anyway- I did it for almost 20 years, secluded in my room with nobody listening, and I can go back to that if that 'broadcasting', mp3 and do-it-yourself and embattled websites- gets turned OFF. And it won't be because I didn't kick up a fuss- it will be from people trying to protect what they see as the music aristocracy, Prince Lars and his creative sensitiveness. *gag* funny, I could have sworn I didn't get any sleep and so this couldn't be a nightmare, could it?
Re:Intellectual property (Score:2)
If I can do that, then other people can do it, to the extent of their general musical wonderfulness. Currently I'm at the 100-150 songs a day level when things are going well, and I'll sell a CD from time to time. If I make even better music, this will improve. Will it escalate madly and make me filthy rich? I would ask where is the justification for _anybody_ to become that kind of rich just for making cool-sounding noises. I think the natural level for this is more in line with, say, a really good tailor, or a weaver of beautiful scarves. Once you've done music for the love of it for 15 years or more, you end up pretty capable of pleasing _somebody_ whatever your style is- and that is the natural outcome of loving and practicing music.
I _so_ agree with roamer. Let the musicians starve! I am, and you know, it doesn't hurt _that_ badly :) and I'm apparently freer to pursue _my_ idea of what Music should be, than the major label whores. Somehow I think I am better off...
Re:My God, are you all sheep? (Score:2)
There's an argument for intellectual property, but the music industry is Not It. I, as a musician who's done some homework, would have to basically support anything that acts to cut down the music industry and lessen their power. They _are_ as bad as Microsoft in their own sphere, and you need to talk to some insiders and get an idea how bad things are before you let them off the hook. An outsider might find "MS and Apple's sole ability to play DVDs on a home computer" as justifiable as you find the music industry's status quo- does that make them an authority on it? I would suggest that with the DVDs, you've done the homework and know better than they do what's at stake. I'm suggesting that Napster is an indirect and ass-backwards attack on something that desperately needs to be cut down to size.
Re:That Issue is Dead (Score:2)
Actually what you are seeing is: McCartney, Metallica, Dre all own VANITY IMPRINTS on existing major labels which are really calling the shots. There are virtually no real indie labels left anymore- they are greatly outnumbered by vanity imprints and faux indies. I agree that they are businessmen, but they certainly do not own labels- they own decorations and a special name to put on major label releases for the purpose of giving the releases a cachet of small private-label flavor. It's down to about 5 huge conglomerates (4?) by now, with all the formerly major labels (Virgin, EMI/Harvest, Rough Trade, you name it) subsidiaries of one of the conglomerates. There is no 'industry' in the normal sense of the word. It's essentially one very large machine with many different colored stickers to stick on the product. That, not Metallica or Dre, is what's suing. Lars and Dre are simply showing unusual willingness to be their master's lackeys.
Re:In the very long term... (Score:2)
Re:Attack the right issues (Score:2)
Re:How else will artists get paid? (Score:2)
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.
Stealing is stealing (Score:2)
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.
Re:Copyrighted Material (Score:2)
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.
Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:2)
>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.
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
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?)
When you don't have the right ... (Score:2)
... 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.
Re:The real question we ought to ask ... (Score:2)
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 [m-w.com], 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.
Re:Attack the right issues (Score:2)
Actually, if you copy music and don't buy a legal copy, you are in fact stealing. From whom, now, this is the issue.
What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst.
Not necessarily. It's just the most convenient weapon we have. What's easier, writing letters and going on marches, or by letting technology dictate behavior continue to go the easy way which is to continue downloading illegal music and allowing the technology and the behavior to apply pressure for you. It makes civil disobedience easy and rewarding. The problem is at this point prosecuting MP3 pirates is as effective as prosecuting jaywalkers in NYC. And, as long as this happens, the strength of anti-piracy law will be reduced to the point that it will be as strong as NYC anti-jaywalking law.
The real question that will be asked when the recording industry is hurt enough long enough is, how do we make money under the new market rules? The artistic side of the music world has broken down into 2 camps, the indies who love net-distributed music, and the corporate wh0res that see it as a threat to their 10-Ks. But ultimately, as long as it is easy and cheap to pirate music, their views are irrelevant.
I'm just disappointed that Metallica and Dr. Dre are simply enriching lawyers at the expense of their targets and the goodwill of their fanbase. That money would be better spent tryign to find a fair solution that allows music consumers to stay legal at a reasonable price, whcih could possibly include buying themselves out of their record company and providing legal downloads.
Your Working Boy,
lowpass.net to sue napster. (Score:2)
Keeping in line with their commitment to staying on the cutting edge of even the shadiest of trends and technologies; burgeoning e-Meat company Low Pass Industries today issued a chilling condemnation of Napster, the online service that allows users to download and trade music recorded in MP3 format.
In the fifty-eight page spirographed letter, Low Pass Industries demands that an MP3 stolen from their website Sunday morning by "evil yet strikingly handsome black leather trenchcoat clad hackers with uzis and possibly the Force as their allies," be immediately removed from Napster's "computer" or else "serious legal repercussions would ensue," and added that if they failed to comply, Low Pass Industries would, "kill them."
Low Pass Industries flatly denies all allegations that this is simply a hoax to gain a foothold in the rapidly expanding MP3 litigation industry. They also asserted that the claims Low Pass Industries planted the MP3s on Napster themselves as an underhanded advertising technique were both baseless and, "so crazy."
The MP3, entitled "The Marshall Mathers LP -- Gold Digger" began appearing on Napster on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, and was promptly downloaded by thousands of Napster's shifty-eyed criminal user base.
"Any resemblance between our advertisement and a song off of the highly anticipated new Eminem album are totally coincidental," said a Low Pass representative through a mouthful of Chow Mein at an adjoining press conference with an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet. "Being a thriving, dynamic company unafraid of challenges however, we are excited to have been given this opportunity to become world leaders in the exciting field of copyright litigation."
The threat also goes on to accuse Napster of stealing Low Pass Industries' idea to "completely screw Metallica," and suggests often and in capital letters that suing for damages may not be that far off into the future. It alleges with colourful illustrations that in the Fall of '99, several high-ranking employees of Napster had access to confidential Low Pass Industries memos with flamboyant titles such as: "SCREW LARS" and "METALLICA SUCKS" and that all subsequent attempts by Napster and their affiliates to rob Metallica and keep them homeless and poor and begging for change on the street forever were born out of these memos.
The letter also claimed that there were well over ten other artists which Low Pass Industries had first suggested screwing and as such are entitled to a cut of anything they are subsequently screwed out of.
"We hope to have this matter resolved soon and with the best results for both parties involved," said another Low Pass Industries representative, while drunk.
Re:Napster promotes CD Sales. (Score:2)
This analogy doesn't work when comparing traditional media to napster and mp3-broadcasting stations.
Music on the radio isn't "free". The radio station has to keep very careful records of what they play, and based on the ratings, they pay royalties to the RIAA (which distributes them proportionaly to the labels who own the recordings played), and to the publishing companies (BMI/ASCAP/SOCAN).
The radio stations advertise in order to collect the money that goes to the royalty payments. The music isn't free. Like "Yahoo", its paid for by advertising.
This is the reason the RIAA is going after 'net broadcasters. Net broadcasting (shoutcast, real-producer, etc...) is likely going to have to go to an advertising model 'cause the royalties for playing the music still need to be paid.
The problem with the RIAA approach is that they charge far too much relative to the size of the listening audience. Why should someone pay $5000 + royalties that reflect an audience of 10,000, when they have records (its all digitially logged anyways, automatically) showing that they've never had an audience more than 100 listeners at a time? Economically, the RIAA is actually pricing most 'net broadcasters out of business. And I'm inclined to believe its intentional.
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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.
Money and Mouth (Score:2)
Been out of town, sadly, so didn't get to join in this discussion from the start. Bunch of you have e-mailed me asking if I would mind if my columns were stolen and distributed for free. Fact is, they are.
My columns and others here are reprinted all over the place. I don't get paid and when asked, don't charge. My belief is that I...like music authors..need to change the way money comes in. Despite suggestions to the contrary, I have very little money. But my belief is that the more people read my work, the more valuable I will become as a writer.
I don't believe I can charge for my work in a traditional copyrighted way. So my columns are often reprinted, linked to or excerpted and I don't get money or expect any. People are free to use my work in whatever way they want. This many make me stupid or crazy..many people here have suggested both. But I believe that the Net presents new challenges for writers and artists. So my choice is simple: I can get a lawyer to write threatening letters to people who quote my columns, or I can find new ways to earn a living. Those would be become widely read enough so that I can charge flat fees for my work. I have a contract with Slashdot, for example. I get paid as a freelance writer a flat fee per year. I don't expect or receive five bucks every time somebody reprints or quotes from my column. I want them to.
I am not writing about this issue from a position of remote detachment..I feel it's time people came up a with a better way to deal with the movement of ideas than antiquated copyright laws, which just don't work in an Internet Age. Some have asked if I mind that people digitalize and distribute my books. It's a good question. I'd love to make money and pay my bills, but I can't say tht I do mind a lot. I'm happy when people see my work, pro or con, and believe that will ultimately take care of me.
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
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.
Re:It is piracy (Score:2)
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.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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 [fear.org]
Remember... (Score:2)
I challenge anyone to name one instance where a "Copyright" has helped a consumer, rather than an information-hoarder.
And this justifies it how? (Score:2)
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:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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:I think I buy it though (Score:2)
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:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2)
Defenfing Napster.. Futility? (Score:2)
However I use it for lissening to on-line talk shows like Geeks in space [thesync.com] and Leet Radio [booze.org].
Napster is a great tool for distributing sound. Be it talk radio, Internet artists or CDs you bought from the store.
I'd like to defend Napster but everyone else seems to defend Napster as a tool for piracy.
That dosn't help the case...
The DCMA puts Napster in a bad position. Napster distributes high quality audio. It dosn't have to be made as a tool for piracy..
Under the old copyright laws Napster would have to be designed to devalue intelectual property.
Usenet can devalue IP.. Type a whole book into a computer or better yet scan it it and use an OCR program. Post it to usenet.. or on a website. You just pirated a book. Is Usenet or the web designed for this? No. It dosn't stop anyone from trying.
One usenet newsgroup was named "Gigabites of copyright violations"....
But that dosn't change Usenet into a website for copyright violations.
On the other hand how can I defend Napster and Napster users?
When every argument I see on Slashdot is a defence of IP theft and not of Napster for lagit uses.
Napster users are the fans (Score:2)
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.
Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2)
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
Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2)
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
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
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.ht
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
OK, for and against in one post (Score:2)
It's clearly used for unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material, and that would seem to be the primary purpose for most users. We can argue until we're blue in the face whether it's right for them to restrict distribution or about the ethics of the record industry, but the simple fact is that distributing something without the permission of the copyright holder isn't right.
For Napster: While it's used for illegal distribution, it may well actually help them.
Inevitably, some of their users are going to be people who can afford and would buy the recordings legally, but have chosen to obtain illegal copies instead. But I wouldn't say they're in the majority.
Experience with friends suggests that most people like having a smart, original copy with the nice cover art and are glad to have rewarded their favourite artists - well, glad to have felt like they had, even if the current system means they haven't really some of the time... Experience also says that most illegal copies are either people transferring media so they can listen elsewhere - my copying a CD to tape to listen to in my car, for example - or people who simply can't afford the original.
I don't pretend for one moment that I don't have a single track illegally. But those I have are where I like an album but don't have the money to buy it yet. So, I copy it and then buy it when I find a copy at a price I can afford at a later date. Which may mean a secondhand copy, or may mean a full price, brand new copy when I'm richer. I've done both.
The point is that the illegal recordings don't represent a lost sale but help ensure a future sale by maintaining my interest in the artist concerned. So by blocking this they're removing one potential channel for people to learn about their art and feed their interest until such a time as they can afford to buy a legitimate copy.
Napster is definitely facilitating an illegal distribution, and are a _dreadful_ rallying point for the free software community. Openly supporting them allows the media to suggest that all Linux users (a group which doesn't include me, I'd better say) are nasty theives who are undermining the economy and depriving artists of what they are due.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing for the record industry and various bands to attack Napster. They may well be shooting themselves in the foot.
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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
Re:Content (Score:2)
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 [nugs.net]this [geisswerks.com]. Them someone mentioned these guys [taj-mo-roots.com]. So I used this. [napster.com] And everyone heard what we were talking about. Which opened the door to summarize this discussion for them.
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 [wahcentral.net]) 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?
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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 [dcs.com.hk]. Putting in on the Net costs less (and takes about half an hour). Building a radio station around it, costs less [live365.com]. 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?
--
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
I'm sure you've seen it, but here's a good stream [12inch.com] 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...
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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
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* [michaelbolton.com]
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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 [ebizca.net]
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
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. [riaa.com]
They've been stolen.
Now THAT, I'll agree with.
And before you argue this one, I suggest you read this [riaa.com].
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............
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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 [napster.com]. And you wonder why the RIAA is suing them for 100k a DL....the best way to capitalize a market is to destroy competition.
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
Regardless, I'll be in Denver to watch the riots of people trying to get in. And to buy some CD.
--
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
Yup, sure looks likes it.
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 [wahcentral.net] 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 [wahcentral.net] this response, click below. God Bless
Big Hollow Band Page!! [wahcentral.net]
hehe.
*be nice and I'll tell you how, although that would be a bit recursive, no?
--
Unless... (Score:2)
-Dave Turner.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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:2)
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.
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.
Re:Enough BS already (Score:2)
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Comrade Katz is wrong (Score:2)
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).
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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.)
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.
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Comrade Katz is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Enough BS already (Score:2)
If I copy a piece of music, the artist is at a miniumum in the same position he was in pre-copy. If I like the music, he's gained in reputation, which will likely get him paid in some manner.
Unless there's some prior agreement, you have no natural right to be compensated for your work. For example, you can't come over, cut my lawn, and then charge me for it, unless we had a deal first.Even under copyright, a creator has no guarantee of being compensated for the work they put in. Unless they have a commission, writers and musicians create first and hope that people will like their music and compensate them for it - that's true with or without copyright. The difference, post-copyright, is in how they will be compensated.
I wish! But, we live in a capitalist economy. If our economy were based on labor, people who actually did productive work would be the ones who got rich, not owners and speculators. See, that's where you go wrong - assuming that a state granted monopoly on copies is the only way for artists to get paid. Look around, dammit! People who copy songs still buy CDs when they want to support the artist.Audiences aren't stupid. People know that if they don't support an artist, the artist can't produce the works that they like.
They will find ways to support artists. But a pay-per-copy scheme isn't the way to do that - it's always had ethical and practical problems, and now it simply cannot be enforced anymore. (Unless, perhaps, you're willing to go for police-state tactics, in which case we can have a violent "War on MP3s" to join our failed and counterproductive "War on Drugs".)
We need to stop propping up a dying copyright system and create new ways of encouraging "the progress of science and useful arts".
Metallica's finances are sound (no pun intended) (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re:We're pretty much doomed. (Score:2)
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,
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:2)
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)
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:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
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
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
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.
Who is jacking who? (Score:2)
On the other hand, you have a bunch of programmers who would scream bloody murder if someone jacked their bread-winning code or stole their cool domain name.
It's like two toddlers bickering in a sandbox. And it's endlessly entertaining.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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
Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2)
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
Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2)
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
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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 [limp-bizkit.com]
numb
Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2)
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 [limp-bizkit.com]. Their press release even mentions Metallica's suit.
numb
Re:My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:2)
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
Suprising, or not? (Score:2)
Re:Attack the right issues (Score:2)
I agree with you, and I also agree with posters such as Wah and Tom Swiss. I've been thinking about what the impending obsolecsence of copyright will mean for a while now, and I can't reach any conclusions that don't include a *radical* shift in attitudes towards entertainment, play, art, and leisure.
No artist should be paid because they produce art. Artists should be paid when they enter into a binding contract with someone, to perform labor that one doesn't need to be an artist to do. That is, when they "get a real job."
Music production and appreciation is something that musicians do, just as birds do (and I really mean just as naturally as birds). Do we charge people for listening to birds? Do the birds expect to get seeds from us, for being sung at?
Sometimes, we throw crumbs to birds, to get them to stick around the house and do bird stuff, like singing. Sometimes, when we're really moved by a subway musician, we tip him.
Whether an artist labors for years to write a novel, or goofs around on a timbale in the subway for an afternoon, he doesn't deserve anything but attention, and sometimes awe. Philanthropists, such as the emperor, or that dude sitting on the bench next to you, might donate money to ensure that the artist can produce works instead of stopping to work. Artists shouldn't expect that donation to occur. This is because a donation isn't the fulfillment of a debt incurred by one party to another, it's a donation...
This is of course how human society used to treat performance, until the mechanical processes of *recording* a performance (whether through black dots on paper, or bumpy grooves in a vinyl disc) were devised, and with them, the copyright. Now that the mechanical act of saving a work for posterity is trivial, let's remove the middlemen that sprang up when copying was hard. Why support the record companies, the publishing companies, the film industry? We can do it ourselves. And let's not kid ourselves -- those of us that produce the work were "doing it ourselves" even when somebody else was constructing an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine to convince others to pay them (the middlemen) for it. The artists shouldn't feel "ripped off" when the middlemen do this -- they should look up from their performance, blink their eyes in confusion, and ask the people dumping money into these middlemen machines, "Why?"
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:2)
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?
Re:My Defense of Napster (Score:2)
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.
It is piracy (Score:2)
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.
Re:Intellectual Property (Score:3)
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...
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
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.
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
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
Metallica's Roots.. (Score:3)
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
What I'm doing about the Metallica lawsuit (Score:3)
Now, I think I'll ask Jason's mom (who I know) for his address so I can return the picture, and also every tape of theirs that I own. I think it's really sick for a band who's perhaps the most famous in its genre to start whining about revenue lost to Napster. I mean, who can even find "kill em all" anymore? Why not trade it around?
But, even if they want to whine about that, it's their legal right. It disgusts me, but they're entitled, I guess. But to attack universities, which are non-profit organizations, even when they're ivy league, is just wrong. And moreover, this is an oblique attack on a freakin' tool, which is just as easily used for good as harm.
Yes, I know about the ratio of legal-to-illegal stuff traded on Napster. But it is a significant, if misguided, statement by thousands of people that they're sick of the markup the RIAA would have them pay. And instead of reaching out to their fans, Metallica -- who are all millionaires, BTW -- has decided to pitch a fit about a few thousand dollars in lost revenue.
So, maybe I can get one of their home addresses, and while I think it'd be irresponsible to spread that around the internet, I don't feel bad about sending a letter or two there. Anyone else want to send back your tapes/CDs to tell 'em how you feel? Give me a buzz! [mailto]
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
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?
It's too late. (Score:3)
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.
UH, there are no 'pirates' anymore. (Score:3)
Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:4)
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?
Pirated Music != Free Music (Score:4)
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
This is why (Score:4)
We're pretty much doomed. (Score:4)
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:Metallica Chat... (Score:4)
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.
--
Napster promotes CD Sales. (Score:5)
Sure. I contend that Napster, and free distribution of MP3 tracks actually promotes CD sales, as opposed to detracting from them.
I base this assertion on the idea that Napster and MP3 is just another way to listen to music. Plain and simple. You can hear music for free on the radio. You can hear music for free on television. You can also hear music for
free on the Internet. Granted, the net now gives you the ability to be VERY specific about what you hear - but common sense tells us that only a tiny fraction of Napster traders actually hoard every MP3 they download and store it in a giant collection, to be pulled from as their only means of listening to music. To think otherwise is
absurd, like saying that most people tape all their music from the radio and only use their cassettes to listen to their favourite tunes.
People buy CDs for many reasons that radio OR MP3 will never be able to undermine. They buy the CD to support the band. They buy the CD because it's a status symbol to have the CD if you call yourself a "fan". You buy the CD to impress your friends with your exceptional musical tastes, the CD sitting on your music shelf. You buy the CD for the material such as the lyric sheets, the cover art, the funny liner notes. You buy the CD so you
can listen to the music in your car, or on your walkman, since you're part of the 99% of people who don't yet have MP3 players in their cars or own a portable MP3 player.
For these reasons, you have to conclude that MP3 / Napster is a medium, NOT a replacement for the media. And as a very, VERY effective medium, just like radio, the promotional benefit far outsrips the revenue loss tied to that tiny fraction of people who will abuse the medium strictly to avoid ponying up for the CD. Yes, I could fire
up Napster and find each and every track off the latest Linda Perry record. But how many people do you know, and be honest, that have the hard drive space/CD Burner that allows them to archive all the albums they want in MP3 format, and that actually abuse this medium to expressly have all digital music collections?
To assert that MP3 / Napster should be eliminated is absurd, and ignorant of the inevitable new medium that WILL supplant radio as we know it today. If we ban or outlaw MP3 or Napster, we really should ban radio as well - because there ar e people that tape songs of the radio, make mix tapes, heck make recordings of complete albums, and not only NOT buy the CD, but (gasp) make copies of their tapes for friends! Heck, since
we're at the beat-piracy game, we should outlaw all current CD, cassette, and stereo equipment, which could easily be used to make copies of CDs and cassettes for friends, as is commonly done.
It just doesn't add up. MP3 is not the problem. Napster is not the problem. The fear that the music industry has over the new medium that is digital music is the problem. With the old medium of radio, the industry had ALL the control over who got "pushed", when artists got "pushed", and how popular that "push" would be. With the
new medium, the record companies have virtually no control - it's like what would happen if every radio station in the country decided tomorrow to just play whatever the hell they wanted to. That control over promotion, THAT is the key motivation that the record industry has to do everything in their power to obscure, cloud, and reposition this issue into one of "piracy" and "copyright infringement".
Now, if only Dr. Dre could see this. Maybe he'd understand.
Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:5)
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.
Attack the right issues (Score:5)
First of all, to all the whining over getting mp3's off the 'Net for free, I should inform you that with the current legal system that most of the world uses, copying music and distributing it (even if you're not making money) is a violation of copyright. Get over it. You're crooks. Not violent criminals, just IP crooks. To the argument regarding copying music as not being theft because it deprives no one of any good, you are correct. It is not theft. This is a bad term. That is why they made the term "copyright infringement" and that is what you are violating when you copy/distribute music.
On the flip side of this argument is the issue of democracy and coporatism. The whole idea of being able to download stuff off the 'Net and listen to it is the most appealing aspect of the entire experience. It is very easy, and people like that. I don't think people are realizing that they are saying something with this, because they never back it up with anything but bitching when confronted by issues such as lawsuits to Napster from big bands. It's not whether or not the band should or shouldn't do that. I'm sorry to inform you that this is entirely the wrong issue to attack.
What you should be noticing is that with all this downloading, you, as the people living in a democratic society (theoretically, anyway) don't like the current laws. What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst. However, you still acting like teenagers (and if most of you are, grow up - fast!). You gave go to tell the representatives in government that you do not like it.
Ok - I can hear the nay-sayers already. However, think about this: the corporations that are pissing you off so much understand this basic principle. Use (for abuse) the system. They already went to the government and got stuff like the DMCA passed and now, they are attacking you with it. They use money and ideas like "Our customers support us on this" to do so. You shouldn't stand for this. Right now, we live in a coporate democracy because people don't say or do anything about what irks them. They seem to think that just because they think it is right, it is right and thus, it will prevail. Sorry, man, but you have got to do something about it. Is the system broke? Damn right it is. Can we fix it? Yes, but it's gonna be a helluva a fight.
Bitching at Metallica is as useless as Metallica is right now (sorry - had to get in a cheap shot =)). They are simply doing what is within their rights. They are exercising it like any citizen should be able to. As much as I think they aren't helping the situtation at all (Hey Lars, James! You used to be good. Step back and fsck'ing think what you are doing!), they are doing what our society allows them to do by what we have defined as a society.
(This may be a bit North american-centric, but lots still holds for European countries as well. Corporations are going global, you know.)
Katz got one thing right in the article - 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.
Just think about it - carefully.
Woz
Metallica Chat... (Score:5)
Jairus Pryor
My Defense of Napster (Score:5)
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)
My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:5)
- 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 [slashdot.org] 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.