|  |
|
| |
By: Da Sissop
Date: 5/2/00 8:09:41 PM
# Replies: 50
Found in Yahoo News....
Metallica has fired another salvo in its war against MP3-sharing-software maker Napster by compiling a list of users who, it says, are illegally trading Metallica songs.
Tomorrow drummer Lars Ulrich, accompanied by the band's attorney, Howard King, will drop by Napster's San Mateo, Calif., offices and drop off documents proving, the band claims, massive copyright infringement on behalf of Napster users.
According to a press release, the documents, which include more than 60,000 pages, show more than 1.4 million copyright violations of 95 different Metallica songs, all of which took place between Friday and Sunday. The list also includes 335,435 Napster screen names, all of which house an average of five Metallica MP3s on their hard drives.
To put the information together, the band hired an outside firm, NetPD, which details each copyright infringement, along with the user involved.
Response #1
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/2/00 10:15:25 PM
This is why GNUTella is a much better idea than Napster.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #2
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/3/00 12:43:29 AM
How completely freaking pink of Metallica! I feel like sampling them RIGHT NOW!
BTW, Sorc', the web site you linked to is one of those web sites where there's supposed to be something interesting, but the site authors forgot to put what the site is about. Pretend you don't know what gnutella is, and try to find out from that site.
Response #3
By: Ralf
Date: 5/3/00 6:08:08 AM
Ah, they're pissing against the wind. People have been illegally copying music since Edison snuck his wax-recording device into a metal concert.
Record labels pissed and moaned about cassette tapes.
Movie studios pissed and moanded about VHS and Beta.
Now it's MP3's. Equilibrium will be found; artists will continue to make music; people will continue to pay for it. It's the *change* that frightens people.
Me, I gotta go take a piss.
Response #4
By: Da Sissop
Date: 5/3/00 6:28:41 AM
Me, I think BEEG changes are on the horizon, thanks to mp3 and other digital music formats.
Music distributors have been GOUGING the public for years. Maybe when the CD was first introduced there was a legitimate reason for a CD to be priced at 16.99. Manufacturing costs were higher, it was a startup technology, yadda yadaa...
But today? Is there a *good* reason CDs still cost 6 bucks more than cassettes?
Now with technology and bandwidth improvements, it's only going to get easier for people to trade near-perfect quality copies of the original music. Personally, I *prefer* the convenience of mp3. I *prefer* being able to store the equivalent of ~11 regular CDs on a single CD-R disc. I would gladly, and HAVE, paid for the privilege of downloading mp3-format albums from legitimate internet music distributors. In fact, if I recall correctly, I think both of the "Frank Black & the Catholics" albums were priced at either 9.99 or 10.99, which, in my perception of fairness, is right in the ballpark.
But the BIG distributors are doomed to fail. Oh, they're scrambling to come up with some sort of copy-protected means to let you buy and download music, but they still want to charge you exactly what you're currently paying for the CD. And when they learn that their copy-protected files can be easily converted into non-copy-protected mp3s, they'll scrap the whole idea.
Shareware. The future of music is shareware. If you like this band and want to support it, send 5 bucks to this address and we'll send you the cover art and liner notes and a sticker. Or something.
Response #5
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/3/00 6:48:22 AM
I guess it's a good thing I haven't been on Napster in about a week.
Or, for that matter, that I don't listen to Metallica.
Or Dr. Dre.
Response #6
By: sooz
Date: 5/3/00 11:29:14 AM
Fang is da man. Cassettes are cheaper to make than CDs, whether you're making big batches or one-offs.
Response #7
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/3/00 12:56:56 PM
Yep, it's all about change. If Metallica was really concerned about making all the money they're worth (whatever that might be), they'd ditch the bigtime record label! Metallica has enough of a market to demand their own terms, and they could lose whoever it is they're with, self-publish, use the internet instead of hate it, and make tons more money.
..sob.. I'm going to miss record stores...
Response #8
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/3/00 6:56:48 PM
Actually, cassettes aren't really cheaper than CDs these days.
To make a cassette, you need a CD player, a cassette recorder, a receiver, the CD you wanna copy and the cassette you wanna copy it to.
To make a CD, you need a CD burner which can also be used as a CD player, a computer, the CD you wanna copy and the CD you wanna copy to.
Anyway, I can understand the Napster thing, but the MyMp3.Com lawsuit perplexes me. How are they breaking copyright law? *I* have to own the CD and *THEY* have to own the CD. So, we've both paid for the CD. So, I wanna store my CD online. Where's the profit? Where's the infringement?
Response #9
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/3/00 7:41:46 PM
Homer Sez:
===================
BTW, Sorc', the web site you linked to is one of those web sites where there's supposed to be something interesting, but the site authors forgot to put what the site is about. Pretend you don't know what gnutella is, and try to find out from that site.
===================
Homer, on the left side of the page there is a link that says "I Need Help", right above the two links that say "Tutorial" and "FAQ". When you click on "I Need Help" it takes you to a page that says "What Is Gnutella?"
Where exactly are you getting lost? Am I missing something here?
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #10
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/3/00 9:41:38 PM
[web design rant mode: ON]
Ya know, it never occurred to me to click on 'I need help' because a) it has 'Tutorial' and 'FAQ' indented underneath it, and b) I don't really need help, I need information, and c) since whoever designed this site decided to turn off underlining for links. And it seemed obvious that either the tutorial OR the FAQ (or maybe even both) would tell me what Gnutella is, which they don't.
Ah well.
[web design rant mode: OFF]
Response #11
By: Ralf
Date: 5/4/00 6:13:21 AM
Y'know, I had the exact same reaction.
I actually downloaded Gnutella and read the readme file to tell what the thing did. I had a similar problem with Napster -- their website is pretty coy: "Share music!". Uh, how? Isn't that what ftp sites and nttp servers are for? I had to wade thru a LOT of verbiage to discover why Napster is different.
I guess the authors assume you know what Gnutella and Napster do if you're at their pages.
And I suspect MOST newbies are trained by looking over an existing user's shoulder and saying "Whuzzat?".
Response #12
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/4/00 10:42:56 AM
The benefit of Gnutella is that it isn't centrally controlled or monitored like Napster.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #13
By: sooz
Date: 5/4/00 11:49:23 AM
Dang dang dang... I MEANT what Gowan SAID.
CDs are cheaper to make than cassettes, not the other way around. 100 raw CDs is cheaper than 100 raw cassettes, no matter what in-between machinery you used.
Response #14
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/5/00 7:24:44 PM
The bottom line on the 'security' side of things is that there will _always_ be someone to crack the code, copy the DVD, pirate the pensance...whatever. But if the industry makes the purchase fair and easy to obtain, people (most people) would pay rather than take the time, effort, and detour to do otherwise. I mean, I could probably totally avoid paying that $1 access fee to get my money out of an atm by driving to my bank, or buy getting cash back everytime I pay with my debit at Kroger...but it ain't that much, it ain't that painful, and it ain't that big a fuckin' deal.
Having said that...I have to agree with Homey...I'm gonna REALLY miss music stores!!!!
Response #15
By: Ralf
Date: 5/6/00 6:44:44 AM
Can you imagine trying to describe video stores to our grandkids?
"...then you'd take your movie up to the counter--"
"On magnetic TAPE, right?"
"Yeah, on tape. Come to think of it, what you actually took up to the counter was often an empty box."
[wide eyed astonishment] "Huh?"
"It was a box that LOOKED like the tape, with a picture on the outside of what the movie was going to be like."
"You mean, you couldn't see the TRAILERS THERE??"
"No no, you usually looked at a wall of boxes and picked out which one you wanted by reading the back. Usually we went with a specific movie or two in mind."
"Back at the counter... they'd sell you the box?"
"No, you'd give the guy the box, and he'd match it up with the actual tape--"
"--MAGNETIC tape!" [giggle]
"Yes, magnetic tape. He'd match it up, swap the empty box for the REAL movie, then you'd pay him and take your movie home. Then after watching it you brought it back."
[quit-yanking-my-chain look] "You're kidding."
"Nope, it was just a rental. We'd bring it back and sometimes pick up another while we were there."
"Kind of like recycling?"
"MMmmm.. yeah, kind of. But there were no Recycling Enforcers to be afraid of. If you were late you just paid a fine."
"Tell us again about GAS STATIONS!"
Response #16
By: Roxanne
Date: 5/9/00 2:20:15 PM
You just wait, Ralf, those days are coming sooner than you think. My 5 and 7 year old step-kiddies have already been stunned to learn that when I was a kid there was no videos at all! *gasp* They thought I was making it up!
Response #17
By: Ralf
Date: 5/10/00 5:33:36 AM
At the tender age of seven, I once accused my father of fibbing about how when HE was a boy there was no television.
"No way, dad. Just tell me what your favorite show was."
We went round and round. It Just Would Not Compute.
So when I *started* to realize he wasn't kidding, I asked what they DID do for fun.
"We listened to the radio."
The WHAT?
Response #18
By: sooz
Date: 5/10/00 11:28:24 AM
For several yaers, Jimmy and I didn't own a TV. People often asked us "What do you DO?" We'd just laugh and say "Whatever it was people did before TV." We always felt pretty busy, even with no TV.
Still, we don't watch much.
Response #19
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/10/00 8:49:29 PM
You're probably better people because of it, sooz.
Response #20
By: Ralf
Date: 5/11/00 5:34:11 AM
Turn off the TV and miss out on the rich tapestry that is Batman Beyond? Never!
Response #21
By: sooz
Date: 5/11/00 6:28:31 AM
That said, I'll be planted firmly in front of the TV tonight at 9 to watch Julianna Marguile's departure from ER.
Response #22
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/11/00 3:10:35 PM
Whenever I watch TV, I find that I'm not engaging in any activity other than pressing the mute button every five minutes.
Response #23
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/11/00 7:54:37 PM
In the vein of the entire Napster controversy..
[insert organ music here]
..I'd like to share a link with you. It's a flash movie called:
"Napster Bad!"
...I'm warning you ahead of time..do not be drinking anything when you watch this (particularly you Rox, the Tab will burn the most!}, you have been warned! Also, for those of you who like the Discovery channel (particularly the Croc Hunter!), check out 'Safari Kingdom'!
Response #24
By: Ralf
Date: 7/27/00 6:55:32 AM
Napster's been ordered to shutdown its MP3-trading website this Friday, July 28 2000. They can continue to operate their messaging boards, but that's about it.
Should Napster prevail in court, they will be compensated up to $5M for any business lost during the outage. The money's in an escrow account set up by the court and funded by the recording industry. (They probably had the money in their wallets.)
My understanding of how it all works is that Napster only COORDINATES the zillions of users who have the client sofware installed.
So why don't they move Napster out of the country? Put the main servers in Cuba or something?
Response #25
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/27/00 1:09:05 PM
Napster's been going about its defense all wrong. They need to emphasize that their software simply facilitates the sharing of mp3 files, and there's absolutely NOTHING inherently illegal about the mp3 file format. Sure, maybe a few bad apples are using the mp3 format to trade illegal copies of copyrighted recordings, but that's not Napster's fault.
On principle, I think Napster should now modify it's software so that only .zip files, or UUEncoded text files can be traded.
Response #26
By: Ralf
Date: 7/27/00 4:14:55 PM
Nap on, d99ds.
Response #27
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 7/27/00 6:19:53 PM
As Ralf has provided the link, there are lots of non-Napster servers
out there that run on the Napster software. Also, there are about 6 other utilities that let you do exactly the same thing now. The most talked about of these is Gnutella. Gnutella changes the rules somewhat in that it does not centralize the whole mess. It really DOES just act as a way to connect the two people who want and have the file.
As for Napster's defense, they've actually taken that tactic somewhat and the Court's actual ruling is that Napster is responsible for allowing the illegal trading to be going on. The Court has apparently been convinced that Napster can filter the files that go through it. I haven't read the ruling (I'm sure Sorc can did it up and I could if I tried, I suppose), but I don't know WHY the Court thinks that. Napster would need to know the filename of every illegal file available and that's pretty much impossible.
(sigh) Looks like it's back to Usenet for me...
Response #28
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 7/27/00 6:28:13 PM
Durn. It all ends before I get DSL. Sigh.
Response #29
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/27/00 6:49:25 PM
Well I don't even use Napster because as soon as I go online, a bazillion leeches start downloading from me and eating up all my bandwidth, so there's no real advantage.
The alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.* heirarchy in Usenet is where I go when I'm jonesin' for mp3s. Granted, I can't search for specific songs that way, but that's not how I operate anyway. I prefer to skim and sample.
Response #30
By: Ralf
Date: 7/30/00 10:03:38 PM
What newsreader software do you use? I'm mad at OE and Forte Agent only handles one NNTP server at a time.
Response #31
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/31/00 7:08:45 AM
I use Forte Agent. But I only use one NNTP server.
Response #32
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 7/31/00 3:43:06 PM
I use Irish Spring...
Response #33
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 7/31/00 5:52:15 PM
Pan is a most excellent newsreader, especially for sucking down mp3s. It supports multiple NNTP servers and has lots of nice filters you can toggle on and off. One to show only the first message header for multi-part messages or all headers. If all of the parts of a multi-part message are on the server then has a little green indicator next to it, if it's incomplete it's red. You can, of course, toggle a filter to only see the complete or incomplete ones or read, or unread, etc.... Click on the header of the first message of a multi-part message and it downloads, combines and decodes..bingo. It's multi-tasking so you can keep scanning the messages and clicking to download and decode.
Way cool...but it's only available under Linux.
Although it *IS* OpenSource if you feel ambitious.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #34
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/31/00 9:04:23 PM
Umm, sorry for the brief topic reallignment, but I stumbled across this old link which I think is somewhat relevant to the whole Napster fiasco.
Response #35
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 8/1/00 6:28:48 PM
I saw a story yesterday that one or several of the record companies were thinking about buying Napster.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #36
By: Da Sissop
Date: 8/1/00 9:41:42 PM
Whatever. So far, the initiatives by the distributors seem silly, and doomed to fail. EMI supposedly has made 100 titles from its catalog available for download, and if you're intelligent enough to find wherever it is they're available on the internet, you'll find that they're still charging the full retail CD price for the downloads.
THESE PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS!
Music distribution is GOING to change, largely because of the ridiculous prices. As a music fan I would LOVE to support my favorite bands with monetary compensation for the privilege of downloading their music.
Shareware is the future of music. Mark my words. MARK MYIIEE WURDDZZ!
Response #37
By: Ralf
Date: 8/2/00 5:38:41 AM
Agreed, especially about it all changing.
For the past few years, there's been a LOT of work done behind the scenes to make secure, pay-for-play downloadable music work. One such B2B kinda place is Amplified.com. They're an Atlanta-based business that specializes in enabling brick-and-mortar music stores to sell their wares on the 'net, via secure transactions.
Until VERY recently, Amplified had a hellova time getting the big labels to pay attention. Many dismissed them as competitors instead of the future... but that's all changing now. Amplified, among others, is suddenly a very hot prospect. (How do I know all this? I know the VP of development there. :-)
I expect the major labels to open their catalogs to the general public for download using this kind of technology. There will be stupid mistakes, like charging too much money or digitally encoding the download so it only works on one computer... but they'll learn and adapt.
There is no motivation so great as fear.
Response #38
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 8/2/00 6:35:42 AM
Weird, Ralf's message just kinda trailed off...
Response #39
By: Da Sissop
Date: 8/2/00 7:20:45 AM
He used munged-up HTML. I feexed it.
And I'm going to make the bold assertion that there is NO copy protection that cannot be circumvented. Me, I use a program called Total Recorder to convert Liquid Audio files into wavs, which can then be converted to mp3s.
Response #40
By: Ralf
Date: 8/2/00 7:37:29 AM
Eek! I'm sorry. I should proofread my HTML before posting it...
Jim: I'm certain you'll always be able to circumvent the protection, but will the juice be worth the squeeze?
Cable companies "solved" their piracy problems long ago, and nowadays most viewers actually pay for content. There exists a small group of pirates who hack the system and get free service, but it's a fair amount of work to keep up with the ever-shifting k0dez and technology.
Your average user doesn't want to fiddle with codecs and patches... they just want to hear music. For this they will gladly pay, as they always have.
Response #41
By: Da Sissop
Date: 8/2/00 9:53:16 AM
Unfortunately, while the major distributors fumble about trying desperately to cling to their old business model, your average user is going to get fed up with having to use Windows Media Player for this download, Liquid Audio for that download, whateverthehell Sony Music is doing... and restrictions like only being able to burn the track to an audio CD once or twice... and paying the same full retail price for this privilege.
People are already used to the convenience and universal compatibility of the mp3 format, and that's what we want. And we'll PAY for it if the price is right. I have cheerfully downloaded three Frank Black & the Catholics albums from www.emusic.com at $10.99 a pop, because (1) I'm a fan of this artist, (2) the price isn't completely ridiculous, and (3) it's in good 'ol everyday mp3 format, just like I like.
But even though this is a step in the right direction, this isn't the future business model I envision. Because when I email YOU the link to my mp3 holding pen to share with you this great new recording, you have no incentive to give the artist any money, even if you love it.
Shareware. You like the music, you "register" with the artist. The big distribution middlemen go away, and whatever money gets sent in goes directly to the artists themselves.
Response #42
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 8/2/00 12:06:20 PM
I'm one of those people who miss LP covers. And now it looks like I'll miss CD covers.
Response #43
By: Da Sissop
Date: 8/2/00 12:12:54 PM
But! BUT! Maybe you could receive good old-fashioned LP-cover-sized art and liner notes when you "register" the music.
Response #44
By: Ralf
Date: 8/2/00 3:16:19 PM
But Jim, you've got above-average computer skills.
I was just asked by somebody this weekend if they needed a sound card to hear Napster. They assumed it was some kind of internet radio station and wanted to tune in before the plug got pulled.
Somebody else asked me if MP3 files could be put on a CD ROM and used in a DiscMan.
Me: "Welll, yes, but you need to buy a SPECIAL player. Sony's discman doesn't support--"
Them: But it's just a CD, right? Right?
Me: Not exactly. See, computer discs are different--
Them: But I listen to CDs on my computer!
Me: Yes, but... [arm waving] ...that's Redbook format, and Mp3's are... files that... oh, they're just *DIFFERENT*.
And this was an incredibly intelligent person (you know her -- Kathy, from Norway) who had mastered Word Perfect and who has a badder laptop than I'll ever own. This MP3 stuff was just greek to her.
We're so immersed in technology on a constant basis that we take it for granted... while most of america -- even those with computers and AOL accounts -- struggle with the basic concepts. Hell, there's still a blinking 12:00 on most people's VCRs, and we've had *those* for decades.
Any music delivery system has to be SIMPLE to be accepted, and we're not there yet with digital media. It *will* happen, and in weird/wonderful ways we haven't guessed yet. This is only the beginning of the revolution.
Response #45
By: Fung Swazy
Date: 8/5/00 3:00:39 PM
Hello nail! I'm the hammer! Ralf is way too correct for words. It's the old KISS rule. Keep it simple stupid. I consider myself to be somewhat computer skilled and would gladly pay to download music that I want, when I want and avoid the Best Buy/Blockbuster (or whatever the name is this month) trip. But I don't have the blinding speed of Cable or DSL. Just a plain old 56K. And I get sick of every artist I buy giving me those bonus tracks that need a different player each time I visit the site. Pisses me off!
Response #46
By: Da Sissop
Date: 8/15/00 11:01:57 AM
And speaking of the shareware concept for mp3s...
Response #47
By: Ralf
Date: 8/15/00 12:21:16 PM
Cool.
Now all they need to do is put some MP3's up there to download.
Response #48
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 9/12/00 6:03:19 PM
From Another Foggy Moment (a seattle.general newsletter, archived at www.eskimo.com/~foggy):
SASSY NAPPY NEWS
While the nation's First eHole, President Bubba, was in full Corporate Suck Up Mode issuing a slimey, two-faced amicus in support of the Music Industry in their suit against Napster, Smashing Pumpkins delivered a whalloping Sucker Punch to Bubba's slippery buddies. They released 25 songs, for free, on the Internet. First time a group with that kind of clout made that kind of a move. Their label seemed wishy-washy about doing a new album, so, they decided to hell with 'em. The Suits are pissed, but the kiddies are thrilled. Everyone says its the best Stuff they've ever done.
And, the coders haven't exactly been idle either. Since it's now illegal to post any cracker code to break Industry encryption or even to have any links to such code, it's time for a slightly different approach. How about if the code is the lyrics to a song? One of them sang his descrambler's C code, to guitar accompaniment, and released it as an mp3. It's been described as kind of Code-Folk with a Grungy Nirvana edge. Anybody got a cross-compiler that can handle mp3?
http://www.joeysmith.com/~jwecker/descramble.mp3
Response #49
By: Ralf
Date: 9/13/00 9:09:23 AM
This is just TOO COOL!
A musical infocalypse!
Response #50
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 9/14/00 11:04:02 AM
MP3.com yanks song with illegal DVD-hacking code
By COREY GRICE, CNET NEWS.COM
Joseph Wecker's song about a binary computer code wasn't exactly a chart-topper, but he doesn't think MP3.com should have banned it.
The popular music Web site today removed the song, in which Wecker, sounding more than a little like a 1960s sit-in protester, sings a version of the banned computer code known as DeCSS.
In an email to Wecker, MP3.com cited the nature of the music lyrics for the song's eradication. Your song has either a song title or lyrics that are offensive or otherwise inappropriate, the company wrote.
Since there is a precedent holding (2600.com) culpable for posting the code, we felt it was in our best interest to remove it, an MP3.com spokesman said in an interview.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has filed lawsuits seeking to outlaw the code, calling it a hack of its DVD encryption scheme aimed at making and distributing illegal copies of digital films. A federal judge in New York last month agreed, banning hacker publication 2600.com from publishing or linking to the code online.
The song, called DeCSS.MP3, offers an English language rendition of computer code that, depending on whom you ask, is either a harmless exercise in experimental software engineering or a missile aimed at the heart of Hollywood. Either way, DeCSS has become a flash point in the head-on collision between digital technologies and copyright owners, much as Napster has for the music industry.
The programmers who wrote the code, meanwhile, insist DeCSS was designed to play legally purchased movie DVDs on computers running the Linux operating system--a format not supported by the movie industry. They say the code is a form of speech and is protected by the First Amendment--a claim many DeCSS supporters have rushed to validate by churning out artistic and other nonfunctioning works based on the DeCSS source code.
Wecker said he sang the DeCSS code as a way to attract attention to the issue.
It's gone one step too far, Wecker said. It's illegal to photocopy a copyrighted poem. But now it's like it has become illegal to tell someone how the Xerox works.
Other protesters have published portions of DeCSS on T-shirts and have recorded dramatic readings of the code. Others have used the code to create images in graphics files. Pro-DeCSS supporters say these demonstrations don't contain the full source code necessary to decode a DVD, a popular digital home movie format.
I find it very disturbing that I live in a country where singing source code may be technically illegal--kind of chilling, Wecker said. My song is just like the T-shirts. The T-shirts don't even have enough code to decode a DVD.
MP3.com, meanwhile, is wrestling with its own copyright troubles. A federal judge last week found that the company willfully infringed the copyrights of Universal Music Group in creating an online database of some 80,000 CDs for use with its My.MP3.com music locker service. The company could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.