Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Look at it from the RIAA's Perspective?

By pb in News
Tue May 09, 2000 at 08:10:39 AM EST
Tags: Music (all tags)
Music

Salon has an interview with Hilary Rosen, the CEO of the RIAA. It hasn't gotten a whole lot of press, even though it attempts to get their perspective on the issues.

Also, Wah has A Retort to this interview, which is basically a line-by-line critique of what she says, along with some very juicy links.

[editor's note, by rusty] To spice things up a bit, Salon also has an interview with Napster CEO Eileen Richardson today, which is rather fluffy, but gets the NapsterCo perspective across. Ok, face it, there's no other news today. We might as well give in to the Dark Side and get all the MP3-related stuff out there in one bundle. :-)


Salon asks Hilary a lot of questions that I've been wondering about, and vaguely points towards a new direction for music. They just don't know what that direction is, yet. (or how they can profit from it, or monopolize it...)

Wah's Retort has some great links showing how bleak the situation is for artists and consumers under the current model, and how the RIAA panders to the gov't to get things done... and more.

If you didn't get what all the fuss was about before, read what she has to say, read Wah's response, and especially read the links he provides, and then maybe you'll get it.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Salon has an interview
o A Retort
o Napster
o Eileen Richardson
o how bleak the situation is
o panders to the gov't
o Also by pb


Display: Sort:
Look at it from the RIAA's Perspective? | 45 comments (45 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
mp3 news is getting old, but this i... (none / 0) (#8)
by Inferno on Mon May 08, 2000 at 04:20:37 PM EST

Inferno voted 1 on this story.

mp3 news is getting old, but this is worth reading since it shows both sides. make all the excuses you want, but we are stealing from the companies and artists. (well, mostly the companies, but whatever..)

Both are good interviews, and unfor... (3.00 / 1) (#13)
by Anonymous Zero on Mon May 08, 2000 at 04:28:08 PM EST

Anonymous Zero voted 1 on this story.

Both are good interviews, and unfortunately the RIAA CEO had more intelligent answers than the Napster CEO, IMHO. Of course knowing how interviews are published I realise much of what was actually probably ended up on the cutting room floor.

The Retort page I didn't care for. Mostly angry ranting with no substance. -1 for that.

I also find it amusing that RIAA is fighting apps that can do thing like file sharing and CD ripping when Microsoft is slowly but surely embracing-and-extending these features directly into Windows. The new Media Player can "record CDs" and Windows 2000 has added features to share files over the Internet. So is RIAA going to sue Microsoft eventually?

Just one question... who the hell i... (none / 0) (#4)
by evro on Mon May 08, 2000 at 04:39:04 PM EST

evro voted 1 on this story.

Just one question... who the hell is Wah, and why do I care what he says?
---
"Asking me who to follow -- don't ask me, I don't know!"

Re: Just one question... who the hell i... (none / 0) (#31)
by Wah on Tue May 09, 2000 at 11:54:06 PM EST

I am the almighty, bow before me. j/k. I'm just some dude who got pissed. You care what I say because you love me, silly. :)


--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
The issue isn't going away just yet... (none / 0) (#11)
by adric on Mon May 08, 2000 at 04:55:33 PM EST

adric voted 1 on this story.

The issue isn't going away just yet, and this wah fellow has some rather snappy comacks to comat the RIAA's rhetoric.

This should get wider publication



Re: The issue isn't going away just yet... (none / 0) (#30)
by Wah on Tue May 09, 2000 at 11:51:25 PM EST

Thanks, wait for the next version. It explains in detail most of my reasoning. That's the one I want published, this first one was just a warning shot...


--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Hooray.... (none / 0) (#5)
by fluffy grue on Mon May 08, 2000 at 05:16:31 PM EST

fluffy grue voted 0 on this story.

Hooray.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

Oh look, more diarRIAA.... (none / 0) (#2)
by Pelorat on Mon May 08, 2000 at 05:38:05 PM EST

Pelorat voted -1 on this story.

Oh look, more diarRIAA.

Blah blah blah blah.. even if the R... (none / 0) (#12)
by Marcin on Mon May 08, 2000 at 06:29:57 PM EST

Marcin voted -1 on this story.

Blah blah blah blah.. even if the RIAA stops things like Napster or whatever they'll never be able to get rid of the existing software that exists to make MP3s of your own music for convienience and portability, and isn't that what this is all ready about? :)

If you said 'No' and think music should be free then basically you're a pirate. [shrug] It's the same argument as for downloading pirated software "because you'd buy it if you could afford it but can't". Just because you feel left out doesn't make it any more right.

Even if Napster / Gnutella / etc get killed off MP3 pirates (Ahr!) will just go back to the old fashioned MP3 pirating methods of private FTP, IRC, and maybe even ICQ.
M.

not another mp3 story :)... (none / 0) (#7)
by soulhuntre on Mon May 08, 2000 at 07:22:44 PM EST

soulhuntre voted -1 on this story.

not another mp3 story :)

Please. Not another MP3 article.... (none / 0) (#6)
by inspire on Mon May 08, 2000 at 10:04:47 PM EST

inspire voted -1 on this story.

Please. Not another MP3 article.
--
What is the helix?

Bah. Fuck mp3's. RIAA, Microsoft, a... (none / 0) (#10)
by tidepool on Mon May 08, 2000 at 10:09:21 PM EST

tidepool voted -1 on this story.

Bah. Fuck mp3's. RIAA, Microsoft, and 'the love bug' stories should be instantly sent to the shitter.

I'd vote no, but the two links on t... (none / 0) (#1)
by Nyarlathotep on Tue May 09, 2000 at 12:43:30 AM EST

Nyarlathotep voted 1 on this story.

I'd vote no, but the two links on the RIAA fucking up bankrupsy legislation and labels screwing artists over are pretty good.
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!

No subject box! Bad UI! Bad! ... (3.00 / 1) (#9)
by RobotSlave on Tue May 09, 2000 at 02:06:38 AM EST

RobotSlave voted -1 on this story.

No subject box! Bad UI! Bad!

Yes, it's a slow day, and on a slow day, we might as well thrash through a holy war or two. KDE vs. Gnome, anyone?

That "retort" from Wah was aptly titled-- it was certainly an emotional, reactionary piece of writing. And it was embarassing, poorly argued, incoherent sludge. It makes Hilary Rosen and RIAA look good by comparison.

The Steve Albini piece is at least funny, though hardly impartial. Don't get me wrong. I loved Big Black and I love Shellac of North America, but I also know that Herr Albini spins out the most anti-industry line of any producer in the industry. It doesn't stop him from taking his cut, either, the cynical bastard. I don't like cynics. I love skeptics, though. Do you know the difference?

Hey rusty-- this interface is killing discussion. I know you want us to vote before we see the votes of others, but this is bad. We're duplicating a lot of ideas because we don't see what others have written before we post. We don't get any real discussion going, because none of us bother to read comments and respond to them after a story hits the front page.

It's broken. My suggested fix: Limit "vote comments" to 128 characters. Don't display "vote comments" with a "published" article. I think the delay between voting on a story and writing a longer comment on the topic would be a Good Thing.

You want code? You let me know, I give you code.

Re: No subject box! Bad UI! Bad!... (none / 0) (#21)
by rusty on Tue May 09, 2000 at 12:22:44 PM EST

The main project site is at http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/. From there you can get the code, join the mailing lists, and get to the sourceforge project. Frankly, I'd love for you to make the fixes you suggest, with two small changes-- don't limit the comment size, but do add a select that determines whether or not the comment is posted with the story when and if it goes up. So I could mark a comment "don't post" if it's a meta-comment about the submission, or "post" if it's a discussion comment about the story. If you want this fixed, and you can contribute, please do! I will fix it eventually if no one else does, but my time is limited, and I don't get to work on Scoop stuff as much as I'd like to. Thanks for the suggestions.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
[OT] Re: No subject box! Bad UI! Bad!... (none / 0) (#22)
by inspire on Tue May 09, 2000 at 03:41:59 PM EST

Question: Why have meta-voting comments at all then, if they are just dropped when the article is posted. Currently I use the meta voting comments as a check to see whether I fall in line with the other kuro5hin-denizens :), but the only time you get to see meta-voting comments is after you've voted, by which time it's too late to change your mind...

I say leave them. They serve a purpose here.
--
What is the helix?
[ Parent ]

Re: [OT] Re: No subject box! Bad UI! Bad!... (none / 0) (#23)
by rusty on Tue May 09, 2000 at 04:22:42 PM EST

Ultimately I want to mail meta-comments to authors, whether the story gets dropped or posted. Often there are suggestions for a rewrite, or whatnot. This doesn't happen yet, but the ability to provide meta-comments is the first step in making it possible. By the time a story hits the front page, those comments are offtopic for the discussion thread, though, usually.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: No subject box! Bad UI! Bad!... (none / 0) (#29)
by Wah on Tue May 09, 2000 at 11:49:06 PM EST

"And it was embarassing, poorly argued, incoherent sludge. "

Thanks, I hope you like the next version. I love flames without examples, so easy to ignore. I called it a "retort" because that's what it was. I was offended by the answers Rosen gave, so I wished to offend back, probably not the best approach, but it's a start.

--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Re: No subject box! Bad UI! Bad!... (none / 0) (#35)
by techt on Wed May 10, 2000 at 05:41:43 AM EST

No one is going to change the minds of those who have already made theirs up -- for either side. You should target your essay to those who haven't decided yet. As such, flames are counterproductive, they'll just turn those people off from reading further. Remember, no one will fault you for taking the high road. Be polite and honest.
--
Proud member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation!
Are You? http://www.eff.org/support/joineff.html
[ Parent ]
Re: No subject box! Bad UI! Bad!... (none / 0) (#36)
by Wah on Wed May 10, 2000 at 09:59:44 AM EST

"Remember, no one will fault you for taking the high road. Be polite and honest."

Thanks, that's what I'm going for in the next one. There's still a bit of flaming in there, but that's mostly to delineate my position.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
I guess we have to post it, since t... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Dacta on Tue May 09, 2000 at 02:31:54 AM EST

Dacta voted 1 on this story.

I guess we have to post it, since there is no other news.

She makes some good points. It sho... (none / 0) (#14)
by mebreathing on Tue May 09, 2000 at 05:58:15 AM EST

mebreathing voted 1 on this story.

She makes some good points. It should be a company doing this.

I'll agree (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Hero on Tue May 09, 2000 at 08:51:33 AM EST

I'll go ahead and go with the mob on this one, who the fuck cares about napster and the RIAA anymore?

Who needs napster when you have #mp3z and #warez on efnet?

This is ridiculous (3.30 / 3) (#16)
by Skyshadow on Tue May 09, 2000 at 08:57:55 AM EST

Look, I like Napster and have as many MP3's stockpiled as the next guy, but this is just getting ridiculous.

Not liking that the music industry can't see the writing on the wall in terms of digital music distribution is one thing, but more and more I see people arguing like they somehow have a god-given right to download their tunes.

Let's face it, folks: The RIAA has every right to try and stop Napster, MP3.com and other companies from selling that which, by law, belongs to them. Metallica and Dre have the right to try and stop distribution of the stuff they recorded back when they were big, because the friggin' songs belong to them. They wrote, worked on and recorded those songs with the understanding that they'd see X amount of money when someone wanted rights to it and bought a CD.

I don't give a rat's ass if you have a 10GB MP3 collection, just spare me the self-justifying, psudo-ethical excuses that seem to be flying these days in an attempt to justify it. Let's face it, when you download music that the owner doesn't want you to, you're in the wrong both legally and morally, and yet so many otherwise intelligent people complain about it as if they were spoiler three year olds, trying to make an excuse for something they did that they secretly know was wrong.

Downloading music you don't own is stealing. If you can't deal with that, you shouldn't be doing it.

Re: This is ridiculous (none / 0) (#28)
by Wah on Tue May 09, 2000 at 11:44:29 PM EST

"Downloading music you don't own is stealing. If you can't deal with that, you shouldn't be doing it."

I can't deal with that, so I'm going to try and change the law, so the people who take your stance can feel better about sharing.

oh, BTW, the "rat's ass" makes an appearance in my next version. I'll see if I can get it posted here...:-)

here's a preview...

from EJC
"The law is clearly on the side of the copyright holder, and doesn't give a rats ass how much you like it."

from RMT aka Wah
"The Law does give a rat's ass how much I like it, one rat's ass to be exact, or a monkey's to be REAL exact. VOTE, DAMMIT!"



--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
It's illegal though... but! (3.00 / 1) (#17)
by hattig on Tue May 09, 2000 at 09:36:55 AM EST

Pirating music is pirating music. It has happened for years, this just makes it cheaper and more convenient, but it is illegal.

It is all very well to download these songs to get an idea for an album or band, and then decide if you want to buy their albums. Music is a rip-off though, especially in England where it is easy to spend £17 on a CD Album (around $28) if you don't look around. I don't have much sympathy for the recording companies, and it is hard to find radio stations that are prepared to play new rock/metal music in the UK, so Napster and the like are invaluable. As I can't buy the music from a store anyway is it really pirating - I am being prevented from obtaining the goods anyway :-)

As the internet progresses, hopefully a lot of bands will see fit to sell direct to consumers - bring in their own advertisers, and sell albums in .mp3 format for direct download from their site (or buy a life-time license to listen to the bands music) for around $5 to $10. This gives more money to the band, and cuts out the middlemen (music publishers, music distributors, music stores). Hopefully more and more bands will start to use this model, with high quality .mp3s (256k+) so there is no audible quality loss.

The RIAA just have got the wrong end of the stick, they are trying to fight against the inevitable, instead of embracing it as a new marketing and distribution tool. If music was not such a rip-off (no fault of the bands, only the publishers) then this wouldn't happen. It costs around £0.50 to produce a CD, another £0.25 to distribute said CD, anothr £1 - £2 to market the CD, about £0.50 to the musicians, £4 to the shop that sells the CD, and £5 - £10 for the publisher. Per CD

. I would buy more CDs if they were £8 - £10 each, but as it is I don't buy them at £14 - £20 each, they aren't worth it.

Re: It's illegal though... but! (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Hero on Tue May 09, 2000 at 07:33:27 PM EST

As the internet progresses, hopefully a lot of bands will see fit to sell direct to consumers - bring in their own advertisers, and sell albums in .mp3 format for direct download from their site (or buy a life-time license to listen to the bands music) for around $5 to $10.

Yeah, but if they did that they would just find that people were pirating their mp3s. You can't blame the industry for not embracing new technology when it just means songs can be pirated faster and easier.

They need some kind of technology to let people download music without being able to copy it... oh wait, that would be the <a href="[http://www.sdmi.org]">Secure Digital Music Initiative.

[ Parent ]

I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (4.00 / 1) (#18)
by Camelot on Tue May 09, 2000 at 09:43:59 AM EST

I've been against Napster ever since these law suits started coming in, and I applauded Metallica for suing them. After that, I started to wonder why I was so vehemently opposed to them.

It all became clear to me when I read the recent article by Bruce Perens at Technocrat (I agreed with him 100%). It was the fear of losing our ideals of freedom if Napster were allowed to continue that provoked my reaction. Also, I didn't want people to compare Napster to the DeCSS case - while Napster was about piracy, DeCSS was not.

No matter how easy and simple sharing files with Napster and its open source equivalents is, no matter how difficult it is to stop this piracy - it doesn't make make it less illegal, and it certainly doesn't make it right. Likewise, the effect of MP3 on CD sales is also irrelevant. This is what the RIAA spokesman says, and this is what I have been saying all along.

And finally I agree that law suits aren't the answer. There must be a way to pay for music online. Letting piracy go on isn't beneficial to anyone except the pirates themselves.

Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (none / 0) (#27)
by Wah on Tue May 09, 2000 at 11:38:23 PM EST

"Letting piracy go on isn't beneficial to anyone except the pirates themselves. "

Not letting go is also beneficial to some pirates, but they go by a different name.

I'll let you in on a little secret...this is from the next version of the retort.

my words

"So we have a bunch of "pirates", which in that crazy twist of cyberspace (which is in fact quite significant), has changed in definition from "one who steals, kills, and rapes upon the high seas" to "one who shares music on the Internet". Now while the essense of both actions are similar. Their overall effect on society has shifted ENORMOUSLY. One, kills your mom and rapes your sisters..before he kills you. The Other, fights like a wolverine to GIVE AWAY MUSIC. Actually, it's not giving away, it's sharing."
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Camelot on Wed May 10, 2000 at 04:29:45 AM EST

Sorry - if this is what the rest of the new version of your retort looks like, then I would suggest you get back to the drawing board. It may appeal to people who are on your side of the "choir", but you will get little sympathy from the rest.

A snippet from Webster's dictionary shows what - in this case - their definition of a pirate is:

Main Entry: 
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pi·rat·ed; pi·rat·ing
Date: 1574
transitive senses
  1 : to commit piracy on
  2 : to take or appropriate by piracy: as a : to reproduce without
       authorization especially in infringement of copyright b : to lure away
       from another employer by offers of betterment intransitive senses : 
       to commit or practice piracy 

You may not agree with the laws, but under the current legislation, "sharing" your music files without authorization leads to copyright infringment. That is illegal, and, by the fullest sense of the word - as defined above by Webster - piracy.

To argue that the "overall effect of the definition has suddenly changed ENORMOUSLY" is unnecessary sensationalism. Jon Katz practices it, and I hate him for it (among other things).

[ Parent ]

Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (none / 0) (#37)
by Wah on Wed May 10, 2000 at 10:06:02 AM EST

While that may be the main definition, check out the image that the RIAA is pushing.

I did acknowledge that, still,...

"Now while the essense of both actions are similar."

It is not unecessary sensationalism. The change
from "One who kills" to "One who shares" is mighty
indeed. Leave Katz (especially comparisons) out of it.
He doesn't even have solutions.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (none / 0) (#38)
by Camelot on Wed May 10, 2000 at 10:28:51 AM EST

Well, I am sorry if you don't like being compared to Katz, but the sensationalist touch is very simliar. Besides, I haven't seen any solutions from you either.

"Fights like a wolverine to give away music" ? Oh, really.. The only thing these users are fighting for is their "right" to download songs they haven't paid for. The only ones who can "give away music" are the artists, unless they have explicitely granted others the right to share, which they haven't.

To argue that there has been a sudden change in the definition of the word "pirate" is simply untrue. FYI, it is possible for a word to have several meanings and definitions. One of these definitions means a person who is reproducing copyrighted material without proper authorization, thus committing copyright infringement - which is exactly what is happening here. This interpretation of the word "pirate" is in no way new, and it certainly wasn't created in a "crazy twist of cyberspace".

Unless, of course, you feel that is no copyright infringement going on in the Napster case and nothing illegal is being done.

[ Parent ]

Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (none / 0) (#39)
by Wah on Wed May 10, 2000 at 11:47:52 AM EST

"Unless, of course, you feel that is no copyright infringement going on in the Napster case and nothing illegal is being done."

If copyright were defined correctly, then nothing illegal would be being done. I guess my grammar is as bad a Katz's. The solutions are in the next version, be patient (a hard lesson I've been learning the last few weeks.)

And even by the RIAA's own definition a pirate is someone who SELLS copyrighted work. I don't want to sell, I want to share, I want to promote the stuff I like so more people can enjoy it. And support the stuff they like by buying directly from the artists. This is the solution I am moving towards. I think it can be acoomplished by two words in the right place. The words: For Profit. The place: Wait for V2.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (none / 0) (#40)
by Wah on Wed May 10, 2000 at 11:50:46 AM EST

'scuse me, the two words are "profit from" not "for profit"...sometimes I get a bit ahead of myself, 'doh!

--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (none / 0) (#41)
by Camelot on Wed May 10, 2000 at 12:15:01 PM EST

And even by the RIAA's own definition a pirate is someone who SELLS copyrighted work

Wrong again. It is one of the definitions. This one here is the one that applies to the Napster case:

Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site

Do not make misleading claims, for they are easier to refute. Now, more comments..

"one who steals, kills, and rapes upon the high seas" to "one who shares music on the Internet" [...] while the essense of both actions are similar

Uh.. I hope someone is checking your writing.

I have no problems with your grammar, I'm just against katzisms. I hope you don't use the phrase "sending shock waves through the music industry", that is probably ® Katz ;)

One other thing: Referring to pirates as killers and rapers puts people off (at least, that's what it did for me). Since it was you who brought that into the definition, not RIAA, listeners will be less likely to side with you.



[ Parent ]

Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (none / 0) (#43)
by Wah on Wed May 10, 2000 at 01:15:30 PM EST

"One other thing: Referring to pirates as killers and rapers puts people off (at least, that's
what it did for me). Since it was you who brought that into the definition, not RIAA,
listeners will be less likely to side with you."

Oh really? from here

"No black flags with skull and crossbones, no cutlasses, cannons, or daggers identify today’s
pirates. You can’t see them coming; there’s no warning shot across your bow. Yet rest
assured the pirates are out there because today there is plenty of gold (and platinum
and diamonds) to be had. Today’s pirates operate not on the high seas but on the Internet,
in illegal CD factories, distribution centers, and on the street."

You were saying?

And you are (one of) the one(s) checking my writing, thanks. :-)
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm more or less with RIAA on this one (none / 0) (#44)
by Camelot on Wed May 10, 2000 at 01:38:34 PM EST

Sorry, I see no references to killing and raping in that.

[ Parent ]
Wah's response. (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by inspire on Tue May 09, 2000 at 10:06:48 AM EST

Wah's response seems very reactionary and doesnt really help further any cause. Plus he's misquoted (or made a very ambiguous typo) in the fervent grip of flamage.

A painting on a <u>black</u> canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

The original:

As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that <u>blank</u> canvas.

Wah didnt write a retort, he wrote a flame that isnt very constructive in the whole scheme of things, and doesnt help.

Two line summary of the RIAA interview and the response:
RIAA: Napster screws over the artists!
Wah: Well, so does the RIAA, so fuck you.

Someone tell him that two wrongs dont make a right.
--
What is the helix?

Re: Wah's response. (none / 0) (#20)
by rusty on Tue May 09, 2000 at 12:17:04 PM EST

Wah posted that retort here too, as a story. You probably didn't see it because it got voted down so quickly. I agree with you about the lack of content in it, and so did everyone else who saw it. Well, ok, so it's finally been posted in one form or another-- hopefully we can stop having it submitted now. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Wah's response. (none / 0) (#26)
by Wah on Tue May 09, 2000 at 11:31:45 PM EST

"Well, ok, so it's finally been posted in one form or another-- hopefully we can stop having it submitted now. :-)"

I'm almost done with the new version, it's much better, and nicer all around. Even cleaned up a few typos.

--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Re: Wah's response. (none / 0) (#32)
by rusty on Wed May 10, 2000 at 12:00:05 AM EST

Well, better luck on draft 2 :-). We accept submissions at editors@kuro5hin.org as well, for pre-post editing, proofing and suggestions, if people want it.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Wah's response. (none / 0) (#33)
by Wah on Wed May 10, 2000 at 12:22:16 AM EST

thanks! That's exactly what I need. Hopefully you guys can get the world premier of the next version. It moves from flaming to explaining. I do actually back up my opinion with logic, emotion, and examples. The old forest must burn for the new one to grow anew, you must till the soil to assure a good crop,. Which isn't to say that this will become a shooting war, but it is a battle. Over Culture and Technology. A Battle in the Trenches, as it were. ;-) Anyway, thanks for posting the link. later.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Re: Wah's response. (none / 0) (#45)
by Wah on Sat May 20, 2000 at 12:55:23 AM EST

lol
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Re: Wah's response. (none / 0) (#25)
by Wah on Tue May 09, 2000 at 11:30:34 PM EST

A lot of this will be further explained in the next version. I'm about 15 pages in, but it just keeps growing. Someone else pointed out the blank, black thing, I messed up, it was 3:30 in the morning, my eyes were crusty.

"Wah didnt write a retort, he wrote a flame that isnt very constructive in the whole scheme of things, and doesnt help."

It just establishes my position and how far it is away from what she is saying. The next version contains many fewer flames.



--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
Wah's commentary defeats his purpost (4.00 / 1) (#42)
by maynard on Wed May 10, 2000 at 01:13:32 PM EST

Many of the posts here support the RIAA's position and at least one takes Wah to task for inflammatory material in his retort.

Unfortunately, I agree that the retort isn't terribly persuasive. However, we should not support the RIAA in it's legal battles against listeners and fans of pop music. Instead, we should support content producers, the artists and musicians, in their right to protect their work through copyright law. The RIAA is only a side show who serve the large distributors and record label companies -- musicians be damned.

From this perspective it's clear that Metallica is in their right to protect their music from illegal copying, just as Microsoft is in their right to protect their software from illegal software piracy. That they have chosen to challenge their fan base through legal intimidation is their right. That many fans will react through a boycott of Metallica is their right in return.

And here we have the crux of the difference between Wah, the RIAA, Metallica, and Bruce Peren's position. Unfortunately, the RIAA, Metallica, and Bruce are in the legal right while Wah is promoting a position of righteousness, which while in some ways reasonable, simply isn't feasible.

Richard Stallman is in Wah's court here. He has openly stated that he thinks it's appropriate to share music and other types of intellectual property. However, the difference between Wah and rms is that rms backs up his moral position with his own code base, rather than trading "warez" on prep.ai.mit.edu. What wah seems to be promoting is the right of trading above the rights of the content producers, when what we all should really be doing is figuring out the most expidicious method to both lower content prices (maybe even free) in exchange for cutting out the RIAA and record distributor middlemen so that the artists can directly profit from their creations.

What we have is a new mechanism for distribution which the record labels can't control. What we need now is a legal business model (which includes canned licenses and contracts) that artists can understand and use which increases the artists's profit at the expense of the record labels. The first band that makes it big along these lines break the major label's monopoly on distribution, get rich beyond their wildest dreams, and be able to do it all at a fraction of the cost of today's standard CD's (maybe even free).

The only way we're going to get free music is to persuade the artists and musicians that it's in their best interests to give away their work -- just as rms, Linus, Bruce, and all the other free coders give away free software yet don't go hungry. I believe the only successful argument is to show how musicians can earn a good living through example. To this effort it might make sense to fund a new organization of attorneys like the EFF devoted to creating legal instruments for musicians and artists to manage their own copyrights. Then the next hurdle will be defining standards for home brew internet marketing which doesn't rely on SPAM... heh, do you really want to encourage ten thousand clueless bands to "self-promote" via the wonders of email???



Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.

Look at it from the RIAA's Perspective? | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!