Don't Stop File-Sharing, Says Former Pink Floyd Manager 243
Barence writes "The former manager of Pink Floyd has labelled attempts to clamp down on music file-sharing as a 'waste of time.' 'Not only are they a waste of time, they make the law offensive. They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s,' said Peter Jenner, who's now the emeritus president of the International Music Managers' Forum. 'It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.' The comments come as Britain's biggest ISP, BT, said it was confident that Britain's Digital Economy Act — which could result in file-sharers losing their internet connection — would be overturned in the courts, because it doesn't comply with European laws on privacy."
Prohibition? (Score:5, Funny)
They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s
I wish a bittorrent network was anything like a speakeasy.
Filesharing may be free as in beer, but it does not deliver you free beer.
Re:Speaking of Prohibition (Score:3, Insightful)
In Canada we have on the extremely rare occasion had Referendums dealing with important legislation. I believe the last national one we held was in 1992? And there are provincial ones every decade or so. We had one upon the subject of Prohibition in the 20's, which I think actually ended up passing, but was repealed shortly thereafter because of its unenforceable nature. Exactly what Mr Pink up there is saying.
But I disagree when he says
It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not
No, I don't think it's absurd at all - in Canada we may have still ende
Re: (Score:2)
By that last sentence, I was referring to still voting for prohibition.
Re:Speaking of Prohibition (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly what Mr Pink up there is saying.
By the way, which one's Pink?
Re: (Score:2)
He's the one who's not Mr Clock.
Re:Speaking of Prohibition (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent +1 Cigar
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, it's Time to put a stop to all this Us and Them. These repeated lawsuits just sound like Echoes to me. It's A Great Day for Freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
It's A Great Day for Freedom...
for several species of small furry animals gathered together in a cave and grooving with a pict, perhaps.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, which one's Pink?
This one is pink. [imdb.com]
Re:Prohibition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Filesharing may be free as in beer, but it does not deliver you free beer.
Neither did speakeasies [virginia.edu]; you had to pay for the beer, and Al Capone and his ilk got the money for your beer. And comparing file sharing to alcohol prohibition is a dubious analogy at best (is slashdot's "badanalogyguy" really Peter Jenner?). It only holds in that both were laws that the public vehemently disagreed with and disregarded. Alcohol prohibition is more like drug prohibition -- it spawned violent gangs that were funded by the illicit substances, and the laws themselves caused more problems than they could possibly have solved, and many of the problems attributed to alcohol then and illegal drugs now are caused by the laws themselves, rather than the substances.
But I have to agree with Jenner, and add that piracy and the phantom "lost sales" aren't the real reason the RIAA is against file sharing. It's because the RIAA labels have radio, and the indies have P2P. P2P does in fact cost the RIAA labels sales; when you hear an indie song you like and buy the CD, that's money you don't have to buy RIAA music. The RIAA's war against "piracy" is a war against their competetion.
If there was no such thing as radio, the RIAA would certainly welcome P2P and "pirates".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It only holds in that both were laws that the public vehemently disagreed with and disregarded.
Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing? It doesn't seem to hold much sway (in either direction) outside of the geek/teenager/record-label-executive world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing?"
They don't, which makes the label's attempts to equate file sharing with more egregious crimes all that more laughable. This three strikes nonsense they're trying to pass in France is one example; French law makers passed it with flying colors last year because label lobbyists showering them with contributions and everything was great. Then a little earlier this year those same politicians realized they had to get re-elected; now they're balking, and some are even backing out of the pockets of those label l
Re:Prohibition? (Score:4, Funny)
Of course file sharing is as criminally dangerous as murder. Share files and the terrorists win! Haven't you been paying the slightest attention?
Re:Prohibition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing? It doesn't seem to hold much sway (in either direction) outside of the geek/teenager/record-label-executive world.
I don't know what kind of people you hang around with, but I don't know anyone under the age of 35 who doesn't know about BitTorrent, or at the very least some other means of downloading non-free music for free. Years ago I had a 35-year-old single mom from Detroit tell me she hasn't bought any music in a long time, because she just downloads it. My musician friends are some of the most avid consumers of music I've ever met, and since they can't afford to buy every CD they want to hear, they generally get everything they want to hear from torrents before buying some of it. (And yes, they would also like people to buy their own CDs, but they all accept the way the modern music world is.) Other friends spend whole weekends at home watching entire seasons of HBO TV shows, because they download them one torrent at a time. If you don't hear much about the "file sharing controversy," I'd say it's because that ship has long since sailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they do. YMMV and all that but even my grandma uses Ares from time to time.
In fact, I'd say the geek and the yuppie crowd are the only ones that care about *paying* for your music online, or if not pay per se at least download it legitimately through sites such as Jamendo [jamendo.com]. Myself included, before all the idiot "stfu u pirate n stop pirateing" trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's exactly the point he was trying to make when he said "It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.". Because downloading music became so easy and so anonymous so quickly, it entered into the ordinary workflow of people's lives and users that download are so numerous that the chances of any one of them getting caught are infinitesimal at best. Geeks get rea
Re: (Score:2)
There are about 30 million teenagers (using the strict definition of 13-19 here) in the US. They also have a disproportionately loud voice because they're more likely to have internet access and lots of spare time. Teenagers are a very powerful social force indeed, and they should not be underestimated.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if the geek will inherit the earth - but the teenagers certainly will. Today's teens are tomorrow's voters. Piss 'em off now with irrational laws, and they will remember. I wish that RIAA would piss off a whole LOT of teens. Not to mention their parents, who happen to be eligibile to vote today, AND tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
it spawned violent gangs that were funded by the illicit substances
Remember allofmp3? Weren't they run by the Russian mob?
the laws themselves caused more problems than they could possibly have solved
Chilling effects from restrictive laws on copying cause more creative work to go unpublished than free copying would.
many of the problems attributed to alcohol then and illegal drugs now are caused by the laws themselves
Many of the problems attributed to piracy (artists getting screwed over) are caused by the o
Nope, they weren't run by the russian mob (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, they weren't run by the russian mob. Or at least in no more way than the USA Mob ran entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sinatra).
Odd you bring up RIAA accounting because AllOfMP3 had the monies owed to the artists available, but RIAA refused to take it.
Compare the rates paid to the 3c/song compulsory licensing that radio (which you can tape from for everyone in the US). The money was the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Chilling effects from restrictive laws on copying cause more creative work to go unpublished than free copying would.
Can you elaborate on this? The only "creative work" that I can see being unpublished due to copyright laws is work based on samples. While some sample use is indeed quite creative (Radiohead's Idioteque comes to mind), the vast majority just capitalizes on people's familiarity with the original work, and it seems to me that the creator of the original work should be compensated for its use.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider ASCAP's recent attack on the EFF and Creative Commons. If they get some heavily restrictive law passed, you'll find people who wanted to publish using CC not bothering because CC is illegal and they don't want the protected shite that ASCAP pushes.
Re:Prohibition? (Score:5, Interesting)
...the phantom "lost sales" aren't the real reason the RIAA is against file sharing. It's because the RIAA labels have radio, and the indies have P2P.
I think it's important to understand that the whole thing is largely about controlling distribution channels. Once upon a time, record companies made money by manufacturing and selling actual records. The big companies secured their business by controlling the distribution channels for music. They made deals with record stores about which albums would be shelved and which albums would be prominently featured in their stores. They made deals with radio stations about which songs would be played. That's how they made their money, and that's how they kept competition at bay.
Now, they aren't in the business of manufacturing records anymore. CDs are pretty much done. All they have left is the distribution. If they had been smart and technologically savvy, they would have taken control of online distribution quickly and maintained control of the distribution channels. But they weren't smart and technologically savvy. They still aren't.
The people working for these companies flatter themselves that their business is about being cool and making music. The reality is that they've been soulless marketing companies for years, and now they're turning into providers of technical services. Large portions of these companies should be run by IT people, and they should be providing high-quality Internet distribution services.
Re:Prohibition? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's very simple.
Someone who has $30 to spend on music will spend $30 on music no matter how many albums they do or don't download, those downloads do not represent lost sales.
On the other hand, if our hypothetical person decides to support an indy band (that they found through file-sharing), then that $15 that is spent on a non RIAA artist represents a definite lost sale.
Re: (Score:2)
What incentive? You are right in that for music, only incentives can get people to pay in some fashion. Force doesn't work any more.
Distribution by Internet is incredibly more efficient than distribution by CD. People are not going to pay for all that overhead. We actually will pay for music. What we won't pay for are fat pay packages for useless record company executives who are trying to screw both us and our favorite artists, and the immense costs of pressing CDs, shipping them all over the world,
Re: (Score:2)
If I choose to buy independent music over music published by an RIAA label, then the RIAA just lost a sale.
You mistakenly assume that the indie musicians who gives out their music for free won't see any re
Re: (Score:2)
the lost sales don't come from Indie music, it comes from when you hear a song and instead of buying the CD, you go and torrent it.
I don't buy that. It's a lost sale only if the sharing of the song prevents a sale - and that could be argued both ways. A lot of so-called "lost sales" are people who wouldn't have bought it anyway, ergo, no sale was really lost, regardless of the right or wrong of downloading. Indie bands cost the major labels money by competing for consumer's ears as much as their wallets.
The way I've seen things, downloading music to try it for free is like hearing music on the radio to try it for free. It create
Re: (Score:2)
You still lose fidelity unless you download flac files, mp3 and similar lossy compression formats do reduce the quality, wether or not you can tell the difference is down to how good and well trained your ears are, how good your speakers are etc. Many people couldn't tell the difference between an original and a poor copy on audio cassette complete with loud background hissing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy that. It's a lost sale only if the sharing of the song prevents a sale - and that could be argued both ways.
> It used to more or less mean that. It used to be when you made a copy you lost
> fidelity. As such, even when you shared, chances are if you listened to the song,
> you still went and bought it. This was especially true for radio vs CD. Now, people
> just steal and don't give it a second thought.
Back in the day, they would broadcast entire albums uncut in their entirety on the r
Lost fidelity is acceptable (Score:2)
Straw man argument, easily debunked by mp3. When you record from FM radio the fidelity loss is comparable to that of ripping a CD to mp3. It would take several generations of tape-to-tape copy to degrade fidelity to the point it became unacceptable to the normal ear.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. When I was a kid, I had the worst setup possible: a mono AM/FM radio with no line out, and a tape recorder (the flat kind, with the buttons on the front, like 9" x 4" x 2"). I used to start Dr. Demento just before I went to bed, telling everyone "be quiet in this room!", and taping "over the air". I would listen to it until the tape wore out. I didn't care
Re:Prohibition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Filesharing today is a lot like Prohibition during the 1920s. I'm worried however that it will end up more like Prohibition of the 1990s-200s. That is, an endless war for which countless civil liberties are sacrificed.
Re: (Score:2)
Please bear in mind that the 1920s involved machine guns, really bad nicknames, dreadful musicals and even worse Hollywood blockbusters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
this is different how? your points in order
machine guns - we have uzis instead of tommy guns
really bad nicknames - have you seen some of the nicknames used on the internet?
dreadful musicals - high school musical, hamlet 2, etc.
even worse Hollywood blockbusters - do i need to say more than twilight?
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to what you might believe, speakeasies didn't provide free beer either.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they provided beer at all, free or not. AFAIK, what speakeasies sold was moonshine. Beer has too little alcohol per volume, why would you go to the trouble of carrying that much water around when the cops were after you?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Same reason we now have crack; it's more concentrated than cocaine, so one can carry higher dollar value for the same risk (or same dollar value, for lower risk). I fucking hate the war on some drugs. Go watch "Union", Canada rocks (BC bud!).
Don't Stop File-Sharing (Score:2)
And Don't Stop Believin', says Journey (and the cast of Glee)
Re: (Score:2)
> And Don't Stop Believin', says Journey (and the cast of Glee)
My first copy of that album was on Vinyl. I immediately "format shifted" it to tape.
I'm sure I recorded that song off of the radio before I ever had the album.
You forgot the link... (Score:2)
Brick In The Wall (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA, Leave Them Kids Alone!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We don't need no regulation!
Incomplete Floyd Albums (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Incomplete Floyd Albums (Score:5, Interesting)
In fairness, I don't think they're being inconsistent. The band has decided that, when they sell their music, they only want to sell whole albums. That doesn't tell you what they want to do about the people who aren't buying their albums.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"All middle men are bad." - Syd Barrett,
(Melody Maker interview with the Pink Floyd, December 9, 1967)
R.W & Co didn't agree, so that's probably an important reason why Syd left.
R.I.P. Syd.
Re: (Score:2)
All in all... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All in all... (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't have to be like this.
All we need to do is make sure we keep torrenting.
reference (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be like this
All we need to do is make sure we keep talking
Re:All in all... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need no copy 'striction
We don't need no tort control
No two tier chasm in the network
Lawyer! Leave them kids alone!
All in all, it's just another boss with some gall.
There's someone on my pipe and it's not me... (Score:3, Funny)
[this post intentionally left blank except for this text and the sig]
Sudden outbreak of common sense, or... (Score:5, Funny)
...a momentary lapse of unreason.
Not like they get payed much from recording sales. (Score:2, Insightful)
Deal with the real pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
The Somali pirates. These are the ones extorting millions out of companies and threatening to kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deal with the real pirates (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, they're helping to fight global warming [venganza.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's too dangerous.
It's easier and safer to attack weak people, and to ransom them.
Hmm, it sounds like the RIAA are acting like real pirates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble is, being locked in a french/danish/us prison would probably be an improvement in quality of life for the average somalian pirate... It's not really much of a deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and why is the US and other countries using their MIL
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> I fail to see any legal jurisdiction the USA might have. ...because you're a moron.
Any nation has a right to protect it's ships and sailors at sea. This includes the merchant marine too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, and the US is already *lot* more generous than other nations are, pirate-wise.
When a Russian ship catches pirates, they (on the theory that they can't hold them as prisoners since there's no declaration of war and they're non-uniformed*) simply set them adrift on whatever small bits of their boat remain floating after the shells exploded.
Frankly, good for the Russians.
*) This lapse in international law, BTW, is the same one that causes the US all kinds of headaches for terrorists we capture. There rea
Re:Deal with the real pirates (Score:4, Informative)
What jurisdiction do those countries you name have?
Pirates are deemed enemies of all humanity; as such, every country has jurisdiction over pirates, though some may be unwilling to exercise it. Check it out. [wikipedia.org]
Oh yeah, and why is the US and other countries using their MILITARY to protect civilian cargo ships?
One of the reasons for a country to have a navy is to maintain that country's free, lawful use of the sea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Isn't the whole reason for the military to protect civilians? The only other reason is to conquer other nations but we consider ourselves to be more civilised than that these days.
Unless they have something you want. Like oil.
>It's my understanding that piracy in international waters has always been punishable by any nation that felt threatened by such actions. It's been pretty well established for centuries.
Aye this is true.
>Mind you, punishing the pirates doesn't get to the route of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deal with the real pirates (Score:4, Interesting)
Going off-topic here, but seriously, "dealt with them"?
Yes, they did something, but they hardly solved the problem. Piracy in Somalia is still a booming business with massive return on investment, and the payments to individual pirates are ridiculously high compared to Somali average wages. This means there are a lot of interested investors [boingboing.net], and there's a near endless supply of expendable people to send on the actual missions.
Trying to solve this situation with military presence in the area (by means of military ships) simply isn't feasible, because of the size of the area. If you secure the Gulf of Aden, which, by the way, is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, pirates will simply travel further east into the Indian Ocean, as they have on previous occasions. For example, this story [reuters.com] is about a ship hijacked 700 nautical miles from the Somali coast. That's a two to three days' journey for a pirate mothership traveling around 12 knots.
The only way we can solve the situation in the seas around Somalia is by solving the situation in Somalia itself. Somalia needs a stable government with an active police force and/or army to do something about the criminals that are ruling the country today.
Re: (Score:2)
US flagged vessels
Those are practically as mythical as the unicorn. Everybody flies a flag of convenience [wikipedia.org], most commonly that of Panama.
It's the shipping equivalent of incorporating in the Cayman Islands or having a Swiss bank account.
Article summary misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Get it right next time, man.
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the part about several species Of small furry animals gathered together in a cave and grooving with a pict.
Peter Jenner - not just PF (Score:3, Informative)
Main problem is revenue (Score:2, Interesting)
If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.
This will certainly leave the field open to whomever wants to distribute their stuff because they know thiers has value. Most of this will be like Darwin Reedy [youtube.com] th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every Henry Fonda movie is over 25 years old. Copyright doesn't need to last that long in order for the artists to receive some reasonable compensation. The fact that a crazy long copyright period made a bunch of people richer than they would otherwise be is not interesting to me.
From everything I've ever observed about performers, good ones, they'd do it for free if they couldn't get paid to do it. Losing a shot at retiring on the proceeds of one big hit wouldn't stop a single artist. It might slow
Re: (Score:2)
If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.
I find it hilarious that some people think that without copyright laws nobody would want to support artists when the very fact that copyright laws exist is a demonstration that people want to support artists! If you think it's not then that means you think that the majority of people don't really want to support artists but they do want the government to hold a gun to their heads and force them to do it. Huh? What?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.
I know plenty of people making movies, software and music that will never make them any money. I know about three million people writing novels that will never make them any money.
I also know one person who does make money from making movies who's publically stated that he thinks P2P helps his sales because people see one of ihs movies and then buy others. Of course he doesn't pay his actors $200,000,000 for six weeks' work.
No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to get rid of the distribution companies.
In a digital world the only benefit that distributors provide is advertising; people
Failed prophesies (Score:2, Insightful)
We keep hearing this, yet new music, movies, books, and software continue to be produced. Why do people continue spouting this crap? It is as if you are praying for it to happen just so you can say, "told you so!"
Re:Main problem is revenue (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if that same person has a band t-shirt they would then have to give up their band t-shirt to give it to their friend. That is where there is value that can be controlled by distributors. The artists will not starve, they will make their money on merchandising and live performances. They need to give up on making money on bits. They should be using bits to advertise their merchandise and live events - things that can be monetized.
Now lets say that Apple uses a song from a band without their permission to promote their products? That is a valid use of copyright law, the business is profiting off of the endorsement of the artist without the artists permission. A consumer spreading the works of the artists does nothing but improve the popularity of the artist, a business associating themselves with an artist has the potential to tarnish the artists reputation hence the need for them to be able to sue that company. Imagine if BP used Bono's music in their cleanup ads for the oil spill, then it puts Bono in a bad light.
The problem with stopping file sharing is how it limits communication. If you are speaking about a piece of music, a movie, a book, or news article is that we now have the ability to perfectly convey what part we are talking about. We just link to it. It is a great way to enhance communication and should be encouraged. If IP law is changed it needs to allow for this type of communication. Viral spreading of information should be encouraged, even if torrent sights like bit torrent are condemned (one is organic spreading of information, another is centralized distribution for monetary gain). Basically if you are making money off of someone else they are owed compensation, if however you are just spreading information all you are doing is advertising for them for free.
For something like an OS, or Office software, the software could be free and all income from the software could come from training and support. Yeah the company won't become a 250 billion dollar giant like microsoft or apple, but do we really need to be aggregating funds into a few companies. I don't think those companies would be in bad shape if they were just a 5-10 billion dollar company. That is 240 billion that could be going into making actual goods. It could be used to build housing, hiring employees, buying cars, etc. Hell everyone could donate all that extra money to the space program and we could build a public hotel on the moon. It is just a horrible waist of funds to drop $300 on a piece of software that 6 billion people use (I'm thinking windows on the majority of consumer desktops - they make enough funds off of businesses that it should be free to consumers). Yes I know I've been smoking the Utopian cool aid, but at no point in history has humanity been able to give something to every person on the planet. We can't do it with food, clothing, shelter, but we can do it with digital information. Yes there is money to be made on it, but it shouldn't be criminal to share information and it definitely isn't immoral.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If BP used Bono's music in their cleanup ads for the oil spill, then it would put BP in a bad light.
Re: (Score:2)
If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.
The "Rest of the world doing something" in terms of musicians usually equates to shows and merchandise at said shows, since they make about Minimum wage from a record going gold anyways. If a song had zero value - the only people it would hurt is the distributors, not the artists. We've had a few stories on here about how artists don't make much money, if any at all, on record sales.
There are many bands, even big ones, that can afford to give their music away for free online because they make much more in s
Re: (Score:2)
Plus I think Trent Reznor was pushing for this with Nine Inch Nails? Or something like that.
Nine Inch Nails have been releasing their music under a CC license for a few years now, as well as selling it from their web site in FLAC format (I think) or on CD. I'm guessing they probably make more money from that than they did from their 2.3% cut of RIAA CD sales.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.severedfifth.com/ [severedfifth.com]
Re:Main problem is revenue (Score:4, Insightful)
What on earth are you talking about? You're making up a random argument ("without copyright protection and enforcement") that has nothing to do with the summary or TFA. Those discuss the reprehensible and inefficient tactics of suing members of the general public for file-sharing, and warping of the law to suit the tastes of large rightsholders (e.g. the US' DMCA and similar). No mention is made of eliminating copyright or of not enforcing against corporations (who damn well should know better).
As far as revenue in the real world, many independent artists and small labels (often a single individual) have cropped up in recent years who are successfully selling non-DRM'ed downloadable music to the general public, either directly or via intermediaries (c.f. Amazon, Beatport, iTunes, etc., etc.). For the small artists, I expect they are likely doing vastly better than they ever would through a traditional recording company contract. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you would still get those who can't imagine the world without their questionable talent...
You would also get those who have a real passion for their work, some who are good some who are bad...
On the plus site, you wouldn't get the manufactured bands who couldn't care less about music and who are only in it for the money...
You would also still get people performing live, you know actually working to earn their money instead of sitting back and collecting royalties for years.
In years gone by sure the bi
More creative accounting (Score:2, Insightful)
It might just be more creative accounting on their part. They can apply the costs of looking for these "pirates" against the artists earnings, and apply any money collected to their own pockets. They get to screw both the artists and the pirates, while getting more wealth.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
I sympathize, and to some extent I agree, but it's not a legal defense and it doesn't legitimize breaking copyright law. Howabout just not making copies of things you paid for? How hard is that to remember.
Re:Ignorance of the law excuses no one (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not hard to remember, but it's also unjust. We have fair use for a reason, including format-shifting and creating backups.
Re:Ignorance of the law excuses no one (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone, including the so called "artists" has a right to make money on their works. Those that provide good works for reasonable prices with high levels of value, will. Those that rely on lying, cheating, stealing and trickery, and control of distribution... won't. The real world has shown this, time and again. Music and media is the latest in a long line of battlefields fought for rational economics. Of course, money and power tend to win out of rational thought, at least for a time. The fight is costing us far more than the shift in paradigms will, and it's not even delaying the shift. Itunes is the number 1 music market in the world. That didn't take long. How much longer before Apple realizes they can cut the middle men out and just open their own publishing studio?
There are a lot of really talented people in the music industry. Almost none of them work with or for the RIAA anymore. Once the plaque of lawyers is done picking the bones, the RIAA, and most of the rest of the "professional recording" industry will collapse and reform, hopefully into something a little more intelligent and rational. (I know, call me an idealist).
Yeah, he's my hero (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny to me that so many most of these artists and rebels like to bad-mouth the music industry after they hit it big. But, it's strange, I never once hear them complain when they're nobodies and a big studio shows up to give them a contract and a check. Oh yeah, it's easy to shoot your mouth off now that you're famous. But what about back when you were a club band? What about all those years when the studio was paying your bills before you had even hit it big, when there was a very good chance that you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sell services, not copies (Score:3, Insightful)
He said the industry could adopt the model of sites such as Rapidshare, which offers paying subscribers the opportunity to get faster downloads. "If we can get £1 a month from every person on this island [Great Britain] for music... this is getting very close to the current level of revenue for recorded music," Jenner claimed.
I've been saying for years that the music industry (and movie industry) should change their business model on the Internet to sell services rather than copies. Say, "For a low monthly fee, you can have free access to our super-fast servers that have all the newest releases and a huge back catalog (every piece of music ever recorded)." Divide up the profits from that service to pay royalties.
At least speaking for myself, I'm quite sure the music industry could make more money off of me during my lifetime by offering a $X/month service of providing all-you-can-eat drm-free music downloads than... well, any other business model I can think of. Give me a bundled deal including all movies and TV shows, and I'd pay a decent monthly fee.
You probably don't even need DRM. I know, you're thinking that people will just download the whole catalog in a month and then cancel their subscription, but that's really more trouble than it's worth. You have to go through all the trouble of downloading, storing, and backing up all that data. And then your computer crashes or a file gets corrupt, and you have to do it all over again. You quit again, but then a new song comes out that you want, so you'll have to resubscribe.
Most people will may for a service that makes their lives more convenient. Make a service that makes it easy to find and enjoy the media you want. Add a good recommendation engine on top of it. Price it competitively with cableTV+Rhapsody. Watch the money roll in.
Re: (Score:2)
Every industry fights like this when their gravy train is destroyed by new technology. The bigger the gravy train was, the more litigious it gets. It's a lot easier to pay a lawyer to scream than it is to redesign the business model that you thought 30 years ago was going to last for all times.
Re: (Score:2)
Make a service that makes it easy to find and enjoy the media you want. Add a good recommendation engine on top of it. Price it competitively with cableTV+Rhapsody. Watch the money roll in.
You pretty much just described Pandora's [pandora.com] business model. They have a free internet radio service that works something like this: You tell them what kind of music you want to hear, they let you listen to it (and things like it, thanks to their "music genome project"), they link everything to Amazon and iTunes so you can buy it if you like it, and POOF! They make money. Adding their "pay us and you can stop getting ads with your music" service just ices their cake.
Disclaimer: I don't have any affiliation with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fundamentally it's based on artificial scarcity of something that can be endlessly copied for virtually no cost. You do not see a problem with this?
So let's see. Joe Startup Artist is supposed to try to negotiate with Big Music Corporation, which has dozens o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So essentially you don't care about any issues that don't affect you directly, and you're willing to buy the recording industry's propaganda as long as you continue to get your fix of music. You don't think there's anything wrong with copyright law, you don't think there's anything wrong with funding abusive and greedy record labels, and you somehow believe that you're protected from an infringement lawsuit simply because you don't pirate. You either cannot or refuse to see the basic problem with restrictin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure you're actually responding to my post, but I'll respond anyway.
Personally, I don't see any problem with the existing music business model... Firstly, I don't consider musician royalties to be any of my business as a music fan... Secondly, as a music fan, I only care about the end product..
So you don't see a problem with the music business model because you (a) don't care; and (b) don't think it's any of your business. That makes sense. I wouldn't really see a problem with someone stealing your car because I don't care and it's none of my business.
If you make a decision to try to make a living from your music then as far as I'm concerned it's a case of getting a good lawyer & negotiating your record company contract. After that, if you still feel you're being screwed by the record companies, then maybe you're not good enough to be making money from your music - so go train to do something else.
Yes, because 18 year old musicians are all really savvy businessmen. And that's the point, right? I mean, if they're not, then why the hell would I listen to their music
Re: (Score:2)
I thought BlueTooth was quite popular with cellphone users, but I guess I was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice out-of-context quote. -1 troll.
Yes. Antipiracy laws make illegal a behavior that pretty much everyone is doing anyway, and that is just about impossible to stop. Fighting the War on Piracy is a waste of time just like the War on Booze was- and here's a hint: the feds gave up on the War on Booze.
Re: (Score:2)
> ""It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think "
Things that occur strictly in my home with my own property that's been legally purchased is the business of no one else.
The government has no business butting their noses in. Some corporation certainly has no standing in this regard.
The other side of this is the gross disrespect for the liberties and property rights of individual citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
How? A ban on liquor is equated to a making music copying illegal
In that both of them were pretty much unenforcable.
"It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think "
Really?
Well yeah I disagree there, in Canada we had a referendum regarding prohibition, which is asking the ordinary members of the public to vote on the issue. So the idea isn't absurd, though since Canada is many many many multitudes smaller than the states, it might be impractical there. I mean, our elections are over in 1 day.
syd (Score:2)