Slashdot Log In
Metallica's "Justice" And Napster
from the the-free-music-wars-get-bloody-and-ugly dept.
Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music on the Net than for its hits of yore. Even before the week was out, the rap group Dr Dre had followed suit. And Dr Dre took the music wars a step farther by threatening to sue music downloaders as well as the Web sites they use.
Metallica's lawsuit, filed two weeks ago in California, charged that Napster encourages music piracy by enabling users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers. The suit named a number of major colleges -- the University of Southern California, Harvard, Yale University (which immediately denied access to Napster through its network connections), and Indiana University. That action caps weeks of intensifying struggles over digitally-distributed music. It's significant, since if powerful schools like Yale cave, which they instantly did, more vulnerable institutions will quickly follow. Individual artists and bands have enough money to launch a wide arrange of expensive lawsuits, and a number of institutions, from colleges to cable service providers, are running for the hills. Early in April, the high-speed cable service provider Cox@HomeSanDiego told several hundred of its customers to stop running Napster or lose their cable modem accounts.
Metallica's lawsuit comes at a significant time legally. Napster and the music industry are already wrangling in federal court over whether the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed nearly two years ago, and the Audio Home Recording Act of l992 (AHRA) are constitutional and applicable to the distribution of music on the Net. Metallica's lawsuit is odd, and almost pointedly gratutious: the recording industry already filed suit filed against Napster in November, and Judge Marily Patel of the Northern California Federal Court is expected to resume testimony on that case next month. It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material. That has an enormous -- potentially devastating, in fact -- impact on the Net as a barrier-free environment where information can move freely.
But rather than wait for the outcomes of these court rulings, Metallica and Dr Dre dramatically clouded the issues surrounding digital music even farther.
"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives," said Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich in a press release. "We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy --- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever -- is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."
It's a disengenuous statement -- the key words being "business standpoint." On the Net, Metallica's music is actually being traded as the "art" it allegedly is, not as a commodity sold by record companies. Ulrich greatly oversimplified what has become one of the most complex and interesting cultural problems arising from the Net: whether conventional notions of copyright can still work in an environment increasingly influenced by the open-source ethic. Metallica apparently couldn't wait for the courts to try to resolve this thorny matter, lest it lose another nickel. This is a strange position for a band who sold most of its CDs in the pre-MP3 era, and which isn't starving.
Metallica may invoke the protection of their art, but lawsuits like this have a chilling effect on free speech and, in this case, on the use of software to transmit information freely. The cautious ISP, college, or business (and almost all of them are lawsuit-wary) will simply ban Napster or anything like it to stay out of potential legal trouble. This is the Net equivalent of what constitutional lawyers call "prior restraint," self-censorship by institutions who block out kinds of information to stay out of potential legal trouble. Traditional media have been radically influenced by the chilling effect of lawsuits. Fact-checkers and lawyers pore over anything even remotely controversial before it appears in papers, books or magazines. To date, the Net has been dramatically freer than the off-line information environment, a major reason it's so much more exciting, diverse and interesting.
"This action raises the same copyright issues as the lawsuit filed against Napster by the recording industry in federal court in San Francisco," Laurence Pulgram, Napster's lawyer, said Friday. "The complaint reads like it was written to inflame the press and intimidate universities rather than to present legal issues to the court. It is hard to understand why plaintiffs -- a group located in the San Francisco Bay Area -- saw it necessary to file a separate action in Los Angeles."
Pulgram got it precisely right, and the reason is pretty obvious. Metallica's suit made news all over the country and scared the wits out of even powerful educational institutions like Yale, whose legal counsel sent this e-mail to the entire university within hours:
"To the members of the Yale community,"As you may have read, a lawsuit has been filed by the rock band, Metallica, against the music file-trading software site, Napster, Inc., and several universities, including Yale. In its lawsuit, Metallica makes claims of copyright infringement.
"The University is strongly committed to protecting intellectual property. In February we specifically alerted our residential college community to the requirements of Federal copyright law as they apply to individual use of Napster. See .
"The University condemns violation of copyright laws, as our policies and procedures clearly state. We also want to assist students and others in understanding and complying with the requirements of those laws. For information on University policies and procedures related to this issue, see www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html and www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html.
"Until we can clarify the legal issues surrounding Napster, access to napster.com will not be available from the Yale network. We will keep you apprised of developments."
The lawsuit seems also clearly meant to call attention to some of the more noxious provisions of the DMCA, which holds colleges and other institutions liable for copyright infringement unless they take active steps to remove from their Web sites software that transmits copyrighted material.
For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous. Confronted with the spectre of wealthy rock groups filing lawsuits along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), many more schools are expected to deny access to Napster as the result of Friday's court action.
Metallica's self-righteous and curiously unknowing statement doesn't take into account the fact that millions of Americans have been accessing free music for years now, and have come to see their music archives as both a right and an integral part of their lives. Nor will the lawsuit encourage artists or the music industry to explore the many alternative -- yet still profitable -- models of distribution that reflect the new realities of the Internet. Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.
Free and downloadable music will always be available to college kids with enough bandwith -- there remain hundreds, if not thousands of music- sharing software programs all over the Web, including AIM and ICQ.
Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands. Many artists have welcomed the spread of digital music distribution, claiming it frees them from the monopolistic control (and high cost of dealing with) record companies, permits them to reach new audiences, and generates interest in new forms of music. Meanwhile, Variety reports, the record companies made record profits last year -- $15 billion -- despite the endless handwringing about online pirates and the epidemic of lawsuits.
Ownership of ideas and creative works is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue. Institutions like Yale seem to have little idea what mayhem they're encouraging when get panicked into shutting down Napster, even before those issues are discussed or adjudicated. In bringing this lawsuit, Metallica has pitted itself against the nature of the Net, and its own fans -- especially working-class kids without T-2 lines who listen to the band's music.
Metallica's efforts to shroud its greed and publicity-seeking in morality is as transparent as it is self-righteous. The band ought to get its wish. Fans might consider stopping trading, downloading -- or buying -- the band's music in any form until it permits educational, legal and artistic institutions to try to come to grips with the new realities of law on the digital frontier.
Re:Intellectual Property (Score:3)
But that's exactly the point - they are suing "the ease of doing it" instead of the people that do it.
While I admit that this would be practicly impossible that ought to be the only way to do it.
This suit doesnt go anywhere. If they'd be more consequent they should just sue Cisco and 3Com and whoever for building routers and network cards also.
The internet and its inherent possibilities are a fact now - we should either try to live with it or else shut the whole damn thing down. The fact that Napster is mainly used illegaly is mainly because there is no legal alternative that offers the same functionality/features. I actually liked the idea of paylars.com - give musicians money for the songs you like/listen to. I dont know why none of the big recording companies hasnt yet come up with an intelligent idea for marketing mp3s (well, probably because musicians would soon realize that they dont need them) but that isnt my problem. And it certainly shouldnt be the problem of Universities...
Argh... I'll just stop now...
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
I think they got it almost right - it's more along the lines of a commercial-government complex - the government in this country does not listen to it's citizens - it listens to the dollar sign and money'd interests. Which is dissapointing, considering that we were supposed to be a democracy.
I have yet to find an (informed) individual out there who agrees that the DMCA is necessary, or that Metallica should be suing it's fans (great way to encourage sales, eh?). I DO however see on a daily basis the rising frustration with our government - it is largely ineffective at solving the day to day problems people want solved.
Here's what people want solved - they want their big screen TVs, SUVs and low gas prices. They want job security and freedom from advertising/marketing. They want access to the internet so they can easily satisfy their need for entertainment - whether it be listening to music, reading/watching the evening news, grabbing the latest Southpark episode. They want to watch the Matrix on anything with a DVD player, or for that matter the Titanic or the next "chick-flick".
The flip-side of this is that they want to feel safe doing this - they want to explore the internet without fear that some government or corporation is watching their every move. They want to be able to hop online and gossip about the above-mentioned things. They want to be able to do it as easily and efficiently as possible.
As geeks, we built the infrastructure to allow this - most of it, anyway. Online people can satisfy their entertainment needs. With alittle help from software we produced, they can also provide a good measure of privacy for themselves. They can e-mail their friends to gossip, or hop into chatrooms. Key point: people are going to keep doing the same things online that they were doing in the real world before the 'net existed.
Now along comes the corporations and say "Hey, where's my share?" And then all hell breaks loose - the government "swings" into action at about 1 foot a fortnight and starts passing draconian legislation, trying to restrict these people's newfound freedom (freedom of choice, not freedom of speech) - and they are rightfully pissed.
This is the core of the matter, and why people are pounding their fists on the table - they have everything they want.. and now some greedy corporation is coming to make it harder to get ahold of, more expensive, and less appealing. Only one problem - it is backfiring badly for the corporations - they trained these people to blindly consume and consume and consume.. and now they can't make them stop.
It's going to be a long, bloody, legal war to get this one straightened out.
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
You mean ftp, right? We should all go and sue everybody whose code ever got into any ftp software. Or maybe you mean Usenet? That's even better -- let's sue all sites that carry news. Or maybe you mean the web -- you know, this newfangled way to "transfer material to anyone else in the world instantaneously"? Then we can sue AOL (current owners of Netscape) and Microsoft -- woo-hoo! We'll be coming into some serious money!
Kaa
Metallica's Roots.. (Score:3)
What about the 15-16 yr olds that aren't making much money, but want to hear the orignal "Garage Days" CD and cannot pay the large marked up price? "Sorry kid, you can't hear our 'art' if you don't have the cash" Does this seem like somthing an artist would say?
Will Picasso sue me next for having my wallpaper set to one of his paintings downloaded from the net?
I also enjoy hearing live stuff, and there aren't many metallica albums live. Would they rather not have thier music heard unless it means turning a dollar for every song?
I'm disenchanted... They owe allmost everything to there fans... Oh well... I still have Nine Inch Nails. They might have an internet-only album out in 4-5 months.
"Justice has been raped..."
Snoop
What I'm doing about the Metallica lawsuit (Score:3)
Now, I think I'll ask Jason's mom (who I know) for his address so I can return the picture, and also every tape of theirs that I own. I think it's really sick for a band who's perhaps the most famous in its genre to start whining about revenue lost to Napster. I mean, who can even find "kill em all" anymore? Why not trade it around?
But, even if they want to whine about that, it's their legal right. It disgusts me, but they're entitled, I guess. But to attack universities, which are non-profit organizations, even when they're ivy league, is just wrong. And moreover, this is an oblique attack on a freakin' tool, which is just as easily used for good as harm.
Yes, I know about the ratio of legal-to-illegal stuff traded on Napster. But it is a significant, if misguided, statement by thousands of people that they're sick of the markup the RIAA would have them pay. And instead of reaching out to their fans, Metallica -- who are all millionaires, BTW -- has decided to pitch a fit about a few thousand dollars in lost revenue.
So, maybe I can get one of their home addresses, and while I think it'd be irresponsible to spread that around the internet, I don't feel bad about sending a letter or two there. Anyone else want to send back your tapes/CDs to tell 'em how you feel? Give me a buzz! [mailto]
Re:Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:3)
Lets see:
get rid of all ftp servers / clients because I can download warez
get rid of all web servers / clients because I can download kiddie porn
get rid of all guns because their owners are able to commit murder
Do you have a better picture now? MP3's are not inherently illegal anyway!! They have to be copyrighted works to begin with. This fact alone should nullify any suit against them. Look, I know 99% of napster use is illegal, but this is NOT, I repeat NOT the way to go about solving this problem.
There is no solution that works for the average person as well as the corporations. You either end up with a very reactionary and contolling economy and government, or you move to a type of "infromation is free" type of economy. Isn't technology supposed to be for the benefit of all?
It's too late. (Score:3)
The internet is international, and not subject to the laws of one country... Sure Napster might suffer, but the same thing could spring up tomorrow in Canada, France, China, whervere...
Cliche as it is, knowledge is power, and the true force behind the internet is knowledge.
UH, there are no 'pirates' anymore. (Score:3)
Re:Stealing is stealing (Score:4)
However, you're wrong in thinking that this is about stealing. That's what the RIAA, the MPAA, Metallica, and the rest of those people filing lawsuits against Napster and college universities wants you to think.
I live in Bloomington, Indiana, which is the home of Indiana University, one of the colleges initially named in the Metallica lawsuit. Immediately after the lawsuit was filed, University officials were contacted for comment. IU's lawyers have stated that IU was acting legally and responsibly, and that it would have been shielded from any sort of lawsuit like the one Metallica filed, on the grounds that it's a content provider along the same lines as an ISP.
So, with their lawyers telling them that they're in the clear, what do the school officials do? They pull access to Napster. The university that helped Napster restructure its network protocol to minimize bandwidth usage is now _pulling_ from its network the same product it helped reengineer. Apparently, IU (and the other universities pulling Napster access based on an overblown threat of litigation) are more interested in their own pocketbooks than the rights and freedoms of their students.
This lawsuit, and the others like it, long ago went beyond "We wan't just compensation for our work". It's now about control of information, and about control of the Internet.
I don't want _anybody_, whether it's Metallica or the Russian government, telling how and where I can express myself, and that's the fundamental level these lawsuits are operating on.
So what if they win the lawsuits, you might ask?
Well, for starters, they can immediately make moves on the http, ftp, and irc protocols and their authors. Why? Because their encouraging piraacy by allowing for the free transmission of data. What do you think was the primary source for pirated mp3s prior to Napster? And do you honestly think that with a precedent like that that the RIAA and the MPAA would _not_ take advantage of it? This is a case with the capacity of setting a _very_ dangerous precedent, because it asks the question "Is the method of transmission responsible for what's transmitted?".
There are many wonderful real-life analogies that can be drawn here, but I'm sure you can figure them out. What kind of world would it be if you could be sued anytime you helped someone that later went on to do criminal acts?
Suing Napster is one thing. Suing the Universities that provide Napster access is another, and I find it absolutely disgusting that universities are bowing to legal pressure when _their own layers_ are telling them that they're legally safe.
>Making copies without the copyright holder's >permission is wrong, both morally and legally.
I'd like to quickly point out that morality in does not require you to follow written laws. Morals are something that each invidual decides for themselves. Legally, copyright infringement is against law. Morally, it depends entirely on the situation.
Would you infringe someone else's copyright to save a life? Would you be morally wrong for doing so?
Pirated Music != Free Music (Score:4)
Short version: Jon, you're full of crap.
Long version: Jon, arguing that Metallica's exercising of their right to protect their copyright is going to crush the open source movement is equivalent to arguing that a homeowner protecting the crap on his/her lawn from thief is going to destroy the yard sale movement.
Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music
Oh, so because they (were) "rebellious", they can't be concerned about copyrights and other "corporate matters". Give me a break! This is their living. If they didn't care about who was and wasn't buying their records, the Black album, "Load", "Re-Load", "Full'er Up Again", etc., wouldn't happened. (Wait... that might be a good thing...)
IMO, "Free" music is music that is given away for free by the artist. "Pirated" music is music given away for free by someone other than the artist. One has *nothing* to do with the other.
And a final point, if Napster folds and dies because "pirated" music doesn't flow though its service, I don't think it deserved to live in the first place. They even have a policy against piracy; if their survival *depends* on it, doesn't that make them hypocritical?
George Lee
This is why (Score:4)
We're pretty much doomed. (Score:4)
Getting on topic now, I think everyone's just greedy. We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others. Information will also not have limits on it, and limits would be barred.
I doubt this will happen though. People won't live without a way to gain power and control.
Re:Metallica Chat... (Score:4)
True, if it's going to be hard, why even try... As for the MTV dominated world (it's actually Viacom, who is currently lobbying the FCC to relax network ownership rules, since their recent merger with CBS(?) creates a bunch of illegal situations, luckily for them, they have the money to change the law...), we all shape the world we live in, identifying the bullshit is the first step, throwing it in the garbage is the second.
For one, most tours are conducted at a loss in order to stimulate record sales. The majority of those sales go back to pay back the people that put up the money to record the CD in the first place.
Well then stop losing money on tours. The big cost is promotion. If you let the music free on the Net, that takes care of itself. Tours are NOT money-losing as a rule, just as a side-effect of the current business model, which would have already crumbled into the dust of the past if they didn't have so many lawyers and ways to push music on children.
The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless".
No, the prevailing mentality is that the Internet completely devalues the business model that currently runs the music business. If you enjoy looking at a woman walking down the street, you should be paying for it. It's that simple. (the previous sentence contains sarcasm, parse it accordingly)
The internet may cover the world, but so should respect.
Yes, it should. Respect is a two-way street. The record business hasn't respected consumers since I've been alive, fuck 'em. The artists will come around...when they see what a good time we're having.
--
Napster promotes CD Sales. (Score:5)
Sure. I contend that Napster, and free distribution of MP3 tracks actually promotes CD sales, as opposed to detracting from them.
I base this assertion on the idea that Napster and MP3 is just another way to listen to music. Plain and simple. You can hear music for free on the radio. You can hear music for free on television. You can also hear music for
free on the Internet. Granted, the net now gives you the ability to be VERY specific about what you hear - but common sense tells us that only a tiny fraction of Napster traders actually hoard every MP3 they download and store it in a giant collection, to be pulled from as their only means of listening to music. To think otherwise is
absurd, like saying that most people tape all their music from the radio and only use their cassettes to listen to their favourite tunes.
People buy CDs for many reasons that radio OR MP3 will never be able to undermine. They buy the CD to support the band. They buy the CD because it's a status symbol to have the CD if you call yourself a "fan". You buy the CD to impress your friends with your exceptional musical tastes, the CD sitting on your music shelf. You buy the CD for the material such as the lyric sheets, the cover art, the funny liner notes. You buy the CD so you
can listen to the music in your car, or on your walkman, since you're part of the 99% of people who don't yet have MP3 players in their cars or own a portable MP3 player.
For these reasons, you have to conclude that MP3 / Napster is a medium, NOT a replacement for the media. And as a very, VERY effective medium, just like radio, the promotional benefit far outsrips the revenue loss tied to that tiny fraction of people who will abuse the medium strictly to avoid ponying up for the CD. Yes, I could fire
up Napster and find each and every track off the latest Linda Perry record. But how many people do you know, and be honest, that have the hard drive space/CD Burner that allows them to archive all the albums they want in MP3 format, and that actually abuse this medium to expressly have all digital music collections?
To assert that MP3 / Napster should be eliminated is absurd, and ignorant of the inevitable new medium that WILL supplant radio as we know it today. If we ban or outlaw MP3 or Napster, we really should ban radio as well - because there ar e people that tape songs of the radio, make mix tapes, heck make recordings of complete albums, and not only NOT buy the CD, but (gasp) make copies of their tapes for friends! Heck, since
we're at the beat-piracy game, we should outlaw all current CD, cassette, and stereo equipment, which could easily be used to make copies of CDs and cassettes for friends, as is commonly done.
It just doesn't add up. MP3 is not the problem. Napster is not the problem. The fear that the music industry has over the new medium that is digital music is the problem. With the old medium of radio, the industry had ALL the control over who got "pushed", when artists got "pushed", and how popular that "push" would be. With the
new medium, the record companies have virtually no control - it's like what would happen if every radio station in the country decided tomorrow to just play whatever the hell they wanted to. That control over promotion, THAT is the key motivation that the record industry has to do everything in their power to obscure, cloud, and reposition this issue into one of "piracy" and "copyright infringement".
Now, if only Dr. Dre could see this. Maybe he'd understand.
Free Speech?! Free software?! WTF?! (Score:5)
Let's pose a hypothetical for all the Slashdotters out there. Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. You contact them, you talk to them, you threaten them, and maybe you get the FSF to help you sue them, I dunno. But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right?
When Metallica releases their music, they're doing it under a sort of license, called a copyright. When some violates this copyright, that gives Metallica the right to sue. When some organization aids in this lawbreaking, they are guilty of basically being an accomplice. Napster's in a grey area because their systems are being used to break the law, but they can theoretically claim a sort of immunity as a service provider.
I like MP3s. I think they're a great way to preview music. I've even pirated MP3s to try out new music that I've heard was good. But I don't grab a program like Napster, grab all the MP3s I want, and when someone accuses me of theft, claim that the information wants to be free and that I'm being denied my right to download free music. You have no fscking right. You don't even have the privilege because you don't have the permission.
Jon, quit trolling Slashdot. This is a story aimed at getting a large percentage of Slashdot behind you. The fact is, it's illegal, and if someone were to copy your entire book which you make money off of and give it away for free online, you or your publisher would sue the bastards. The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.
Attack the right issues (Score:5)
First of all, to all the whining over getting mp3's off the 'Net for free, I should inform you that with the current legal system that most of the world uses, copying music and distributing it (even if you're not making money) is a violation of copyright. Get over it. You're crooks. Not violent criminals, just IP crooks. To the argument regarding copying music as not being theft because it deprives no one of any good, you are correct. It is not theft. This is a bad term. That is why they made the term "copyright infringement" and that is what you are violating when you copy/distribute music.
On the flip side of this argument is the issue of democracy and coporatism. The whole idea of being able to download stuff off the 'Net and listen to it is the most appealing aspect of the entire experience. It is very easy, and people like that. I don't think people are realizing that they are saying something with this, because they never back it up with anything but bitching when confronted by issues such as lawsuits to Napster from big bands. It's not whether or not the band should or shouldn't do that. I'm sorry to inform you that this is entirely the wrong issue to attack.
What you should be noticing is that with all this downloading, you, as the people living in a democratic society (theoretically, anyway) don't like the current laws. What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst. However, you still acting like teenagers (and if most of you are, grow up - fast!). You gave go to tell the representatives in government that you do not like it.
Ok - I can hear the nay-sayers already. However, think about this: the corporations that are pissing you off so much understand this basic principle. Use (for abuse) the system. They already went to the government and got stuff like the DMCA passed and now, they are attacking you with it. They use money and ideas like "Our customers support us on this" to do so. You shouldn't stand for this. Right now, we live in a coporate democracy because people don't say or do anything about what irks them. They seem to think that just because they think it is right, it is right and thus, it will prevail. Sorry, man, but you have got to do something about it. Is the system broke? Damn right it is. Can we fix it? Yes, but it's gonna be a helluva a fight.
Bitching at Metallica is as useless as Metallica is right now (sorry - had to get in a cheap shot =)). They are simply doing what is within their rights. They are exercising it like any citizen should be able to. As much as I think they aren't helping the situtation at all (Hey Lars, James! You used to be good. Step back and fsck'ing think what you are doing!), they are doing what our society allows them to do by what we have defined as a society.
(This may be a bit North american-centric, but lots still holds for European countries as well. Corporations are going global, you know.)
Katz got one thing right in the article - Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.
Just think about it - carefully.
Woz
Metallica Chat... (Score:5)
Jairus Pryor
My Defense of Napster (Score:5)
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc...
Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA...
Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise.
Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase.
The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews.
I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on.
(P.S. I've posted this before, but it never gets moderated up very high, if at all)
My Defense of the lawsuits (Score:5)
- In my original post I asked that instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates we should instead discuss how the music industry (artists included) can survive in a digital world. Please read my
- original post [slashdot.org] and respond below.
Damn, I have to go code....PS: I think it was stupid of Dre's lawyer's to mention something as ridiculous and difficult to enforce as suing Napster users.