Napster Finally Gets a Break 240
jark writes "Wired News is reporting that 9th District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled that the five major record labels must prove they own thousands of music copyrights as well as prove those copyrights were not used to monopolize and stifle the distribution of digital music. " Definitely a twist
in this ongoing saga.
Who cares? (Score:1, Interesting)
What kind of logic is this? (Score:2)
Netscape is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
Be is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
OS/2 is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
Who cares about the Microsoft trial?
Re:What kind of logic is this? (Score:1, Insightful)
it is important for 2 reasons (Score:2, Informative)
1, it gives napster ground to sue for damages, much like Be. This is a nearly identical misuse of a monopoly like in the micrsoft antitrust case.
RIAA has been far more heinous then microsoft 'tho, they have been raping both consumers and the artists they claim to represent.
2, this could actually move to give the rights to music back to the artists, opening market doors and oppurtunities to all the little guys.
maybe we'll find some real services opening up that offer real music instead of the backstreet boy wannabes we have shoved down our throats on every public channel. maybe this will unhinge RIAA and halt their attempts to squash streaming audio sites (shoutcast radio stations), etc.
but then what's the chance that could happen in the land of the dollar.
my $0.02
Re:What kind of logic is this? (Score:1)
Be and OS/2 are both dead. Netscape is dwindling to the point that I don't see anybody using it in five years.
Nope, don't give a shit about the trial. We can't win.... Miguel is right with his Mono project - if you can't beat them, join them.
Re:What kind of logic is this? (Score:3)
Re:Who cares? (Score:1)
This could break their copyright.
If they can't prove they own the music or prove they didn't create an illegal monopoly with it, how can they sue ANYBODY for the use of "thier" music?
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Please tell me that the future of digital music on the Internet is not being decided by someone who is arbitrating the decision based on which side is more morally repugnant.
What about applying old standards? Interpreting existing law to a new medium?
Patel has not impressed me with her keen wit and insight. Sorry.
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:1)
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's true, what happens to those artists? Did they just totally screwed due to their labels? And if so, is that justice or justified?
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:2)
But what happens when the industry loses the copyrights? Unfortunately, and I hope this is not the case, artists could lose their corporate backing. All of a sudden, there is nobody around to pay for album production, tours, and promotion. Only the big-time artists could survive in the light of the general public, and we'd still be stuck with two choices: N'Sync and Brittany Spears. It's an interesting situation, and like I said, I *really* hope that doesn't happen
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:2)
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:4, Interesting)
That would be kind of silly, seeing as how copyright is a monopoly (as granted by the government). The "bigger" part would be whether or not they abused that monopoly.
The issues here seems to hinge on two questions:
1) Do the labels really hold the copyrights for the works, as they claim?
If the works were NOT for hire, then the monopoly priviledges remain with the authors, and the labels' case suddenly has no ground.
2) Have the labels engaged in anti-competitive practices by refusing to fairly license the works?
This is an important issue and may help decide the outcome of the case. Unfortunately, I'm not clear as to whether this case can do anything about the labels' anti-competitive behavior. (Kinda like if a woman proves her husband is a child molester during a divorce suit, that only gets her the divorce and custody of the kids. Getting him arrested for pedophilia becomes a different legal matter.) I'm a little worried that if the details of the case head too far in this anti-competitive direction, that the labels will offer Napster a fat (and confidential) settlement to avoid setting any precedents or creating useful fodder for future cases.
There are monopolies, then there are Monopolies (Score:2)
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:2, Informative)
Patel has been a cluefuck all along, but lets not forget that she should've been ruling based on the LAW all along.
But what we got is a judge who is very open about her *personal* feelings about Napster and found rules to support her gut feeling.
She's exactly who shouldn't be a judge.
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:2)
Re:Oh, I changed my mind!? (Score:5, Insightful)
While Patel's logic, as quoted by Wired, might not impress you, you might want to check the full text of this decision.
This is especially true of Supreme Court decisions, which usually have hundreds of pages of decisions from the majority and individual justices. The press makes them look like a single issue decides the case, but that's almost never true.
Look past the flashy quotes, dude.
Her job is not to set precident. (Score:2)
Re:Her job is not to set precident. (Score:2)
Furthermore, there's this issue of the digital distribution service they turned on just right after Napster was effectively shut down. The only way you can license right at the moment, is through them. While nobody can be sure of misuse of monopoly position right at the moment and they may not be guilty thereof, it can very likely get proven in a court of law sufficient to meet the criteria of misuse and thereby opening up the opportunity to hold proceedings to strip all their member organizations of their copyrights.
Napster May Be Dead, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Napster May Be Dead, but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA has also horribly hurt their case by ripping off all the artists, who are the very ones that some people argue Napster and Morpheus and crew hurt. The artists get tiny fractions of pennies for their music on the music industry- sponsored services, who views musicians as pawns and servants.
Re:Napster May Be Dead, but.. (Score:2)
All music is owned by the RIAA. You may not sing without prior written consent, nor distribute a recording of your singing in any form. Please desist singing this instant in order to avoid a costly lawsuit.
suprised. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:suprised. (Score:3, Informative)
If so, as much as I dislike this tax, then this isn't much of an argument. Very few mp3s end up on Audio CDRs, and even fewer on Audio DATs (unfortunately, as good as DATs are, they never really took off.) Why? Because, IF it's burned onto a CD at all, it's burned to Data CDs, which have no such tax. Audio CDRs cost several times as much as Data CDRs exactly because of this tax, therefore the only people who use them are typically those who must -- those who have audio burners (NOT computers!) that require them.
I imagine that there's a few people who downloaded music with Napster and then played it via their sound card and then recorded that with an Audio CDR device, but this number is almost certainly dwarfed by those who burned it directly on their computer -- it's cheaper, uses more common hardware, and delivers better quality.
Re:suprised. (Score:3, Funny)
So they're really more of an "I didn't do my research and bought a product that is intentionally crippled" tax.
Re:suprised. (Score:2)
Re:suprised. (Score:2)
However, I am unaware of any tax like the `DAT tax' that applies to Data CDRs. If you wish to convince me that such a tax also exists, you'll need to provide some references. I'm talking about the USA -- if you're talking about another country, then say so.
I am aware that analog media (cassette tapes, vcr tapes, etc.) has no such taxes but that there are agreements between the media producers and the RIAA, MPAA, BMI or some similar organization so they get paid a certain amount per blank tape, so the net effect is the same as the `DAT tax'.
And this statement is totally false, as explained by another poster. There is no fundamental difference between Audio CDRs and Data CDRs -- except for a bit twiddled somewhere that says `This is an Audio CDR'. And many (most? all?) consumer grade audio CD recorders look for this bit, and won't work if it's not set. Sometimes you can disable this, or get around it (by switching disks in some models) but the difference IS there.Because it dosn't apply to computer CDRs, dumbass. (Score:2)
It's all about the Benjamins (Score:5, Interesting)
I had problems understanding this phrase until I got to the second to last paragraph in the article:
"Napster lawyers have alleged the record industry withheld their copyrights from digital music services until three of the major labels could launch MusicNet. Once that service was launched, just days after Napster was shut down, company could only obtain wildly restrictive licenses to sell music. "
So THAT's what this is all about... The record industry isn't against digital music, they're against anyone besides themselves making use of it. If they had their way, I know of at least a few radio stations that would be shut down. Where does it end? Am I going to have to change to the Sony-owned radio channel to hear the latest music???
Re:It's all about the Benjamins (Score:1, Flamebait)
These people are consumers, not citizens.
eMusic, Myplay, Mjuice are victims of this too (Score:2)
Shame - they were the best group of peopel I ever worked with.
Re:It's all about the Benjamins (Score:2, Informative)
Well they are [slashdot.org], and the entire digital music radio business is seriously compromised.
DZM
Re:It's all about the Benjamins (Score:2)
Someone with moderator points mod that posting up. Use the No Shit Sherlock tag.
--Balir
Re:It's all about the Benjamins (Score:2)
See, that's the problem. If the major labels and "content providers" (scroo you, a song is art, not "content". Even Britney is _bad_ art, the musical equivalent of "Dogs Playing Poker" painted on velvet, but not "content") run the whole show, then you won't be able to hear anything that they're not trying to pump at the moment. You really will be stuck listening to the Latest Music, whatever's hot for the next 10 minutes. In the night of your tortured soul, you'll go looking for Nick Cave, but all you'll find will be Creed...
Probably not good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would the judge do this? Quite simply, the judge wanted the plaintiff to win, and wanted to keep the defendant from being able to appeal the decision. And if the judge sustained every single one of the defendant's objections, the defendant had no grounds for an appeal.
That is what appears to be happening here. Judge Patel, a jurist who has most decidedly taken the side of the plaintiffs in the Napster case, wants to make her decision airtight. There's no way that Napster will be able to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court if she allows the defendants to explore every possible line of defense before they lose the case. It's about giving them a fair trial and letting them prove they are not liable - and when they are unable to prove they aren't liable (they really are liable under the DMCA, like it or not), she will return the verdict that puts them out of business forever.
Not that Napster is an issue anymore, anyway. They have been supplanted by several services that are more resistant to legal and network attacks and do not attempt to extort a monthly fee out of their users for access to materials that they have a basic right to download anyway.
/fug
Re:Probably not good news (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably not good news (Score:5, Funny)
I will join the long line of scholars, lawyers, and laymen who rightfully criticized the Napster opinions, not for their politics, but for their inartful application of an incompetently-drafted law. Judge Patel's previous opinions have been nothing for her (or, more likely, her law clerks) to be proud of.
That being said, hearing such conspiracy-theories that a life-appointed judge is somehow "in the pocket" as opposed to just plain incompetent advanced by some, including those who claim to be law students, is nothing short of irresponsible.
Not to mention incorrect. As some, including Mr. Fair Use Guy, have wrongly suggested, Patel seeks to insulate her opinions from Supreme Court appeal.
One who claims to be a law student should know that Patel's decisions are appealed first to the Ninth Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. And while the three-ring-circus-like Ninth Circuit is wholly unpredictable, capable of disputing ruling such as whether the sky is blue, the Supreme Court would not touch the over-litigated quagmire that is Napster with a ten-foot whatever - it not federalism, there's no circuit split, and there's not a damn interesting issue to be found in ten billion pages of pleadings.
It will be a cold day in hell before the Supreme Court agrees to hear any of the Napster decisions. Jerry Falwell will smoke crack before the Court hears Napster. John Katz will write a useful article before the Court hears Napster. Microsoft will release WinXP on a GPL, disco will return, and someone will actually mod up one of my postings before the Supreme Court hears Napster.
The Ninth Circuit is the end of line - and Patel can't do a damn thing to stop the Ninth Circuit from reviewing her - as they've proven themselves willing to review damn near everything. So ditch the conspiracy-theory crap, and recognize bad law when you see it.
I commend unto you Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Don't obscure the facts of the matter (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not sure where you get your "facts" or your arrogant attitude, but the Napster case is most decidedly destined for the Supreme Court, not the Ninth Circuit as you have claimed. It is already in an appelate court; what would be gained by sending it to a court at the same level?
I wholehartedly agree with you that the DMCA is bad law, but the fact remains that there is little the courts can do about Napster's end of the case. In MPAA v. 2600, we had the First Amendment working for us; in this case there is no establishment clause issue and constitutional arguments will get us nowhere.
Idiot (Score:2, Offtopic)
Tell ya what, why don't you just go out and run through CompUSA, grabbing stuff off the shelves, and throwing it into the street shouting "It's FREE! It's FREE!"
YOU do not have the right to do what you are attempting to do. Only the person who owns that software has the right to decide what they're going to charge for it. If you disagree, don't buy it. Don't be a stupid asshole instead.
Oh, and by the way, I hope you and your family are condemned to work at an IHOP on the 2am shift for the rest of your lives.
Simon
I've been wondering about this issue.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I've been wondering about this issue.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I've been wondering about this issue.... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is because Metallica (through Creeping Death Music and E/M Ventures) actually own their own recordings, unlike most artists. I imagine Dre also owns his recent work (Death Row still owns his old material, IIRC).
Interestingly enough, Metallica never sued to get Napster shut down and have, afaik, refused to provide any sort of brief for the RIAA against Napster. I get the impression that they merely wanted to see their studio material kept off. They never even asked to have live bootlegs banned.
Re:I've been wondering about this issue.... (Score:2)
interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
the article brings up some interesting points. although napster is currently pretty much dead in the water, it seems that the company may get some sort of compensation do to the anti-competative practices of the record lables.
"MusicNet did not suddenly appear full blown from the head of a fictitious entity. The evidence suggests that plaintiffs formed a joint venture to distribute digital music and simultaneously refused to enter into individual licenses with competitors, effectively requiring competitors to use MusicNet as their source for digital licensing."
granted, i am not a lawyer, but it would seem that napster would have some recourse if monopolistic/anit-competative practices could be proved, and napster may have a solid future (or others) in the pay-per-play area of online music...
-ryan
Re:interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm worried that those two things may be mutually exclusive. I don't think this case will provide anything more that the proof to support potential future recourse against anti-competitive practices. I don't think this case can give the labels the smackdown over their actions. I see it as either dead-in-the-water Napster achieves their proof of anti-competitive practices, but can't pursue if because of bankruptcy, or they get a fat cash settlement and a sweet (and undisclosed) licensing deal on the label's content in exchange for kiboshing the anti-competitive approach just before any real juicy details come to light.
Getting a break? (Score:1, Funny)
too late for napster (Score:3, Insightful)
Once information is out there, there is no going back, and no removing that information. The public is thirsty for these file sharing programs and knowledge of them will prevent the companies from stopping them forever, and when they do stop them new ones will come out. Eventually, even their corporate lobbying will be in vain, and buying politicians won't do anything to stop the flow of information.
Re:too late for napster (Score:1)
They don't seem to understand that the cat is out of the bag and there's nothing they can do about it. Everybody and their mother has an MP3 decoder on their computer. It'll take a complete revamp of the entire industry to try to undo this. That would include getting rid of the CD format completely. Of course, as it has been proven numerous times, whatever they come up with will be cracked by somebody within the first few months.
Re:too late for napster (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, now that Napster's dead . . . (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course, now that Napster's dead . . . (Score:2)
I hope Hilary Rosen cries herself to sleep at night saying "God, if only I'd left those poor college kids alone back in 1996!" (OK, not really. I'd really rather see her visit the Sonny Bono memorial tree at about 100 miles/hr.)
Re:Of course, now that Napster's dead . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
That's bullshit. Napster can add all the features of the decentralized networks (save for their distributed nature). Download from multiple sources would be a trivial hack. What advantage would Napster hold over, say KaZaA? One thing: speed and reliability. I'm on a reasonably fast connection here at UMass, and I rarely see/saw a rate with Gnutella or (before giFT was blocked) FastTrack that was even half of what my average Napster download was.
People will go back to Napster if it comes back like it did before (especially with features like bandwidth aggregation). With less hassle and faster speeds, I'd say it's a given.
Re:Of course, now that Napster's dead . . . (Score:2)
Her rulings are sufficient for me. And guess the news, sparky dickhead boy. I do have a right to say things like that, because she's a public figure, you know, like a politician?
But I guess you wouldn't give a rat's ass, since you're just a whiny little troll without even so much as a little karma to burn behind your misinformed opinion.
I guess you have that to keep you happy.
Re:Of course, now that Napster's dead . . . (Score:2, Funny)
I didn't actually say she was a willing pawn for the RIAA. Heck, Jack Valenti could have pictures of her going down on a small-dicked, living in parent's basement, toothpaste-fetish scat masturbating little wannabe weblog lawyer like yourself. Maybe.
But I wouldn't want to libel you, so I won't come out and say that the best part of you rolled down the crack of your momma's ass and ended up as a stain on the mattress*, becuase then I'd be quaking in my penny loafers waiting for the subpoena to come from Mister High Powered Slashdot Anonymous Coward, JD (Slashdot), MBA (Cryptonomicon). So I'll be careful. Ha.
* with apologies to Stanley Kubrick
At least someone sees what's going on here... (Score:4, Interesting)
At least Judge Patel sees that the RIAA is not actually acting in the interests of their artists, but in the interest of their wallets.
An Interesting Perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
"[The] plaintiffs are attempting the near monopolization of the digital distribution market. The resulting injury affects both Napster and the public interest."
I hadn't thought about it in terms of monopolizing means of digital distribution.
Finally (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:2)
It sucks that this "old boy's club" is still seen as a real power in the industry. I say: bring on the new copyright era, if there is one. That or just do away with it. Find another way to make money for your art.
Appearing out of Nowhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Possible criminal acts of the music industry are relevant as they are important to the continuation of the culture.
I noted a comment above that this is unimportant, because napster is dead, etc. Sort of like saying that murder is unimportant because the victim is dead and you can't bring the victim back.
Wrong. Unless you _like_ a world run by crooks, or are something of a crook or a criminal yourself.
Work for Hire is the key issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Although not 100% legally accurate, the point is that the ownership of copyright for something you don't create is basically a function of contract law - i.e., the recording contract. Most companies who pay for the creation of IP (record companies, software companies, etc.) attempt to argue and contract themselves into a "work for hire" status - which means, essentially that they (the company) are the author in the eyes of the law.
However, work for hire, as the article states, is a doctrine that is controlled by statutory tests - simply saying something is a work for hire (even if the artist agrees to that in a contract) doesn't make it so.
So what if it isn't a work for hire? Traditionally contracts have a back up assignment of rights. The problem is when such an assignment does not cover rights that, for example, don't exist at the time the contract was written. Imagine a contract written in the 70's - it obviously isn't going to assign rights to digital distribution to the record company.
This comes into play in other industries - the publishing industry has recently had this problem with old author contracts where the author assigned all rights to publish a work "in book form" (standard language in older publishing agreements). Courts have found that electronic book rights still belong to the authors (or their estates).
Of course, the lawyers now use a simple addition to the assignment along the lines of "in all media whether now know or hereafter developed" to show that the assignment is everything now and in the future.
Re:Work for Hire is the key issue (Score:2, Informative)
These are the types of things that you look at to see if someone really is an employee - if they are not, then it is unlikely that the work will be a work for hire. So yes, there is a good chance that in the situation you describe the artist will not be considered an employee and, unless some other work for hire doctrine might apply, the record company will not be able to claim author status via a work for hire theory.
But, remember, work for hire is only to establish who the "author" is - the copyright rights (right to copy, distribute, perform, etc.) can still be sold. Thus, the recording contract will specify that the artist's work is (1) a work for hire - good chance this is void and ineffective, and (2) assigned fully to the record company. An assignment can be thought of as a sale of rights - so I pay you, the artist, $x advance and y royalty, and in exchange you assign all ownership rights in the copyright to me, the record company.
At the end of the day, the record company is going to own the music (if they can convince an artist to sign a properly-drafting recording contract).
It doesn't matter (Score:1)
What I'm worried about is the decision earlier this week about the fees webcasters will pay for streaming online music (See earlier article [slashdot.org]). The fees ended up being much higher than the webcasters wanted (and much lower than the RIAA wanted). What this means for us is that all the decent online radio services, like Live365 [live365.com], will go out of business because they won't be able to afford the licensing fees, which will be on top of the already high bandwidth fees. So, we'll get stuck with the large music companies owning the digital music space, just like they do the current retail CD business.
When it reached this stage in the MP3.com case.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Napster actually WON this war (Score:2)
God I hope not.
Re:Non-monopolistic copyright is an oxymoron. (Score:2)
...then the RIAA might have a problem. Weren't some Congresscritters talking about compulsory licensing during the hearings?
Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:3, Insightful)
#1.) Most moderately talented and experienced 'hobby musicians' (like the guys who play at small local bars/clubs/restaurants), with some practice, can play any popular (cover) song live just as well as the original musician(s), occasionally better.
#2.) It is not hard to write good original music.
#3.) Professional quality home recording is a reality and is not cost prohibitive for the vast majority of the US population.
#4.) There is no shortage whatsoever of good to excellent musicians and singers.
#5.) The vast majority of musicians perform for little or no pay simply because they enjoy doing it.
Let me summarize in one statement: Music should be a pasttime, not a career!.
So.. why do we need record labels and celebrity performers, again?
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:3, Interesting)
So.. why do we need software companies and paid programmers, again?
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
Want a hobbyist-produced word processor? Fine. When teleoperated surgical tools become commonplace, I don't want the operating software for the machine that's tinkering around with my ticker designed by some guy living in his mom's basement who wears the same "Got DeCSS?" t-shirt for weeks on end.
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
Let me summarize in one statement: Programming should be a pasttime, not a career!.
So.. why do we need software companies and paid programmers, again?
We don't need 'software companies' as defined as companies who pay programmers to write software and then sell it under restrictive licenses. In some cases, small software companies that do contract based work are appropriate because it allows programmers to pool their knowledge more easily than is currently possible with open development over the Internet. But the software is still free.
Maybe I should rephrase the summary as two words: service industry.
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
I agree completely. The whole dotCom thing, even VA perhaps, was a scam at best. That doesn't mean software itself has to be sold. You said it right there: documentation, product testing, and customer support. The one you forgot was consulting, as referring to providing customers with complete solutions. Part of that consulting may require the extension of existing free software, which is then re-released to the community. But there's a big difference between consulting and just giving away hard work for no good reason. Software is being transformed into a service industry. As such, there is less (if any) room for big companies like MS, Adobe, and even RedHat perhaps. But who knows? Large Open Source consulting firms may be effective. The market will decide.
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
If all I do is write a song, why should I be paid for 95 years in royalties and in the process limit the free distribution of my song? Music itself is not that valuable. It's an artistic expression of oneself. Should a person and/or their heirs be set for life just because they wrote one catchy tune over the course of a month or two? Copyright was intended to encourage the distribution of popular works in an era when distribution required significant effort and resources. It's been turned into this distortion now referred to as "intellectual property," as if you can own a manifest thought. Artists should be paid: if they perform.
But the point is: some people who write music, for some of them that's all they can do to make a living.
Depends on how much they've trashed their brains with illicit drugs..
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
Folks like Spears and what they produce may be of little value to either you or me, but there are enough people who decide to plunk down, what, $15-$20 (?) for CDs, and Pepsi sees enough advertising potential, so that her income is rather non-trivial.
Vote with your dollars. Some folks value CDs, some value porcelain mice, some value obscure books, and so forth. It's not unreasonable to claim that if large numbers people are willing to buy something for the next 85 years, then in fact it is quite valuable indeed, as the mass appeal of mediocrities probably will not last quite that long.
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
#2 - Whatever. Sadly the only 2 ways he have to really judge "good original music" are sales and critical acclaim (and often the two are not in agreement). If you're so scary good, point me to either your sales figures or your critical acclaim. Lacking one of those two, give me some pointers to other methods to prove how you're Joe Talent.
#3 - yeah, gotta agree 100% on that.
#4 - mmmmmaybe. There's a million good people, but who the fuck cares. You need lots of people to work on a programming project, not sing bloody "la la la".
#5 - You obviously have never played in a band. Please read "get in the van" by Henry Rollins.
If you were in a band, you'd know what kind of BS you're spouting. I played in bands, played, etc. for more than a decade. I had friend who did the same.
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
My point is the concept of folk music: playing popular tunes spread through 'grassroots' culture, but with your own touch. Sure, people will pay to see their favorite artists perform their original works in concert. But that doesn't need to involve copyright or record labels. Crazy idea, but how about a 'amphitheater co-op' that supports independent artists, perhaps drawing in non-local bands by vote of co-op patrons. There are numerous viable business models for copyright-free music, just as with Open Source.
Whatever. Sadly the only 2 ways he have to really judge "good original music" are sales and critical acclaim
I am suggesting that critical acclaim is enough. Scrap sales and marketing altogether.
yeah, gotta agree 100% on that.
For the musicians that play just for fun, they should not expect to be paid much if anything. For musicians are popular enough that people want to pay to hear them perform in concert, they should expect to be paid for the act of performing alone. Stop performing = stop being paid.. Just like the 'rest of us' hobby musicians who work a day job. Royalties are downright bullcrap.
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
Let's compare an hour listening to the radio to see what's new and then spending $20-$30 on CDs to the alternative:
Going out to see 10 different artists, spending 3 hours on Friday for 10 weekends, spending money for the cover, transportation, drinks, food, and the opportunity cost of the time you spend. Then after all that, you realize that all except 2 or 3 of the artists were not to your liking.
Even if you didn't go to shows and relied on free MP3s traded through the 'net you'd still have to do a lot more filtering.
Here is a shocking reality that many Slashdot folks just can't seem to get through their heads: The industry exists as it does because it provides the best solution for most people. That doesn't mean it provides the best solution for your tight little demographic, but that's to be expected--few systems ever manage to achieve that.
If you think you can provide a better alternative, you are free to do so. If a better idea exists, it will spring from the freedom of people to persue such ideas. If you don't believe me, remember what a shocker MTV was to radio, what a shocker Punk was to Disco. And guess what, the "Disco Mafia" was powerless to stop punk, just like there is nothing (except common sense) to stop you from voting Libertarian. So don't feed me that crap about the music industry being controlled by the Mafia. The Mafia couldn't do much about the Columbian drug cartels, and they won't be able to do much if a truly better business model comes along.
So kwitcherbitchin and roll up your sleaves.
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:3, Insightful)
I never said anything about topping charts. I was talking about writing good, entertaining music. A group of my friends have a local band which plays mostly 60's/70's covers but they've more recently started writing a lot of their own stuff. And no, I'm not talking about tasteless 3-chord screaming punk-rock, wannabe non-conformist bullcrap. I'm talking quality jazz, funk, reggae, and classic rock. These are engineers and music is their creative outlet. They practice a couple times a week in their basement, occasionally spending a Saturday writing a new song, which is gradually tweaked with each performance. Music just for fun.. as a social and cultural expression. That is what it has been for the vast majority of human history and that is what it *should* be.
So what happens if all these un-heard of 'garage bands' start recording/writing down and distributing their work for free? For them? Not much. It's just a hobby anyways. But other people may take their work and improve on it and perform it elsewhere in the tradition of folk music. Songs that become popular will naturally spread quickly and become recognized the world over. (For protection, artists should use a "GPL" style license to keep record labels or others from claiming ownership / producing commercially)
What about high-quality recordings? When a song becomes popular enough, many people will record it and some will be better than others. Those with a passion for music will go out of their way to create top-notch recordings.
Re:Who needs copyright and record labels? (Score:2)
So unfortunately true. Most work by those you've listed would be part of the public domain by now if it wasn't for the RIAA and others massively corrupting the original idea of copyright that existed long before efficient distribution channels were even possible. With todays distibution technology, copyright length today should be quite short: perhaps 3-5 years at most. Not that even that is truly necessary.
What I think the real reason for this is... (Score:5, Interesting)
This RIAA mess seems to be this: Not all artists have assigned their copyrights to the record labels. Some of these assignments may rather be in the form of licenses which do not extend to internet rebroadcasting rights. This, even if RIAA members may have the right to publish music, they may not necessarily have the right to rebroadcast that music on the internet. If they do not have that right, then Napster is not interfering with that right.
Of course this does not get rid of the whole case. There is certainly much music out there of which the copyrights are owned entirely by RIAA members, and the RIAA lawsuit would still be valid with respect to this music.
Who Owns the Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is how it basically works: The artist is loaned money to cut an album. Artist's song goes to number 4 on the charts. Before artist sees a dime of the money, all the money "borrowed" for recording and marketing costs must be paid back. The label that picked up the artist now claims copyright to that recording (in most cases). And get this, the reason they say it is their recording and not the artists', is because they say they put up the money. When in reality, the artists have to pay back the money that the recording company LOANED them!
I work for someone that just wrote a somewhat popular country song. He said the record company owns the copyright for the recording of that song. The band that recorded it -- Perfect Stranger -- can perform the song live, record the concert and sell copies of that recording, go to another studio and re-record the song...but the copyright to the song that is being played on the radio does not belong to them.
Jay
Patel's change of heart (Score:2, Funny)
something said earlier... (Score:2, Informative)
i think everyone missed the point... (Score:4, Interesting)
The other serious side effect of this is that the judge realizes that, like the article said, the music industry is moving into a monopoly of online digital music. We all know that the Napster law suit was raised not because the music industry doesn't want online transmission of music, but because they were late to the game and Napster beat them to the punch (and to the money). Judge Patel is calling their bluff and is saying that you can't shut down Napster just to steal their business.
This is a HUGE turning point to this case, and don't be surprised if the issue of copyright holding in music as a whole is revisited because of this line of inquiry.
taco
Napster no friend to musicians. (Score:2, Insightful)
They're perfectly willing to settle with the recording industry, which means they're perfectly willing to fuck the artists.
Re:Napster=News? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what of Gnutella/BearShare/LimeWire? What of KaZaa (sp?) or mp3.com?
The pont is, if Patel finds that the 5 music companies have stifled legitimate competition, then other legitimate competition may return.
Sure, Napster is dead, but once a precedent is set, nothing's to stop someone else from setting up a clone service. Clearly, the demand is still out there.
Re:Napster=News? (Score:2)
But it's breaking the ice for the other sharing technologies. We still need to show our support without giving into their tracking and monitoring,
Re:Napster=News? (Score:1)
Re:Napster=News? (Score:1)
However
Re:Napster=News? (Score:2)
Depending on whether RIAA knew that they didn't have the right to pursue this, RIAA could be guilty of barritry (The pursuit of a non-existant case- they didn't have a case, the individual artists did. That won't go well for them...) or at the minimum, misuse of process since they used the courts to shut Napster down (without negotiation for some sort of deal) only to have the labels open their own service up at the same time they opened up a similar service that was solely under the control of the self-same labels. Both violations can incur the right for seeking damages on the party so affected- Napster may well be able to sue for damages.
Re:Napster=News? (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:2, Informative)
In particular, the Supreme Court said that a copyright holder does not have the right to ban a technology with a significant legitimate use, just because the technology may also have other, infringing uses. Timeshifting is legal Fair Use (that is, a copyright gives a studio no right to ban timeshifting); therefore, VCRs have at least one legitimate use and cannot be banned.
You're confusing several things:1. The notices written on the tape by the record company or studio. These notices tend to be quite restrictive, and often forbid things that the vendor does not have a right to forbid. (A good example of this would be a notice forbidding you to lend a tape to a friend, where no copying is involved.)
2. What is or is not allowed by actual copyright laws. Copying a prerecorded videotape for a friend would probably violate the law (although it is hard to say for certain). In the case of an audio tape copied on analog gear or on SCMS-crippled consumer digital audio gear, the AHRA would make any infringement non-actionable. That is to say, the record company theoretically could not sue you for it. The record companies, of course, argue that this anti-lawsuit protection does NOT extend to computer CD burners (which may legally record audio without the burden of SCMS).
3. What is or is not allowed by the DMCA. The DMCA prohibits "bypassing technological protection" even when you have a legal Fair-Use right to copy the "protected" material.
4. The chances that someone will catch you and prosecute you.
Re:About time (Score:2)
Get a clue, dude (and learn how to conjugate while you're at it). Patel's original ruling spells out in intricate detail why Napster is guilty of contributory copyright infringement, and why VCR manufacturers are not. It is a crystal-clear common-sense distinction.