|
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
The Fifteenth Napster Item
| 
Jun 26 22:25 UTC 2003 |
I'm still obsessive; this item is back.
Napster the corporation has been destroyed, but the Napster paradigm
continues. This is another quarterly installment in a series of weblog
and discussion about the deconstruction of the music industry and
other copyright industries, with side forays into
"intellectual property, freedom of expression, electronic media,
corporate control, and evolving technology," as polygon once
phrased it.
Several years of back items are easily found in the music2 and music3
conferences, covering discussions all the way back to the initial
popularity of the MP3 format.
Linked between the Agora and Music conferences.
|
| 162 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 162:
|
Jun 26 22:37 UTC 2003 |
We start off with a bang this quarter. On Thursday, the Recording
Industry Association of America announced that it would start
collecting evidence against Internet users whose file sharing
software is offering copyrighted files online. The RIAA said
it would file "hundreds" of lawsuits in 6-8 weeks. This news
story is in most online media, so I won't bother with a link.
(The new game is called the Lawsuit Lottery. Perhaps every month,
several hundred of the estimated 50 million Americans using
file sharing software will be picked to lose most everything
they own.)
In other legal proceedings, 24-year-old Kerry Gonzalez pled guilty
to criminal copyright infringement for posting a working advance print
of THE HULK to the net. A good story on his case is at:
http://www.sunspot.net/business/bal-artslife-hulk0626,0,763448.story?coll=b
al-business-headlines
Mr. Gonzalez faces up to three years in prison and $250,000 in
fines. The cited article does not say this, but this is
likely one of the first convictions under the
No Electronic Theft (NET) act; prior to that act, it was essentially
impossible to get a criminal conviction for copyright infringement
not done for financial gain.
Vivaldi was especially steamed at Mr. Gonzalez for making the
early work print of THE HULK available, because viewer reactions
to that print generated a good deal of negative word-of-mouth on
various internet forums.
|
tod
|
|
response 2 of 162:
|
Jun 26 22:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 3 of 162:
|
Jun 27 01:52 UTC 2003 |
I don't. While this may be pertinent for currently active performers,
I'm not sure how strong the argument applies to older music,
especially stuff that's out of print. Most of my files are a handfull
of years old; quite a few are about 10 years or so. How often are you
going to be able to find Jazzy Redd's "I Am a Dope Fiend?" or B-sides
from 'singles' compilations that I *know* the market usually pulls
after a while?
P2P sharing can operate a useful niche, I think; they just haven't
regulated it right yet. Apple's iTunes and RealOne's Rhapsody are
being put out for a reason-- and the latter has got to mean something,
i.e. the concept is good enough for competition.
I think the RIAA is fine is suing folks that run filesharing websites--
that's a rather grand scale. But attempting to sue every little file
sharer, especially someone like me who usually picks songs that are
old and not likely selling a lot, is completely ludicrous. If the
music industry would grow up and start putting CD prices back where
they should be, I think it might help. The other thing is that they
seem to be milking their new talent too hard. It's been noted older
acts are still solid moneymakers and I'm not completely sure the
industry is taking time to let some of their newcomers continue to
build a name for themselves. (I could be talking out my ass--
comments, please.)
|
senna
|
|
response 4 of 162:
|
Jun 27 03:16 UTC 2003 |
Hadn't it been determined that the industry was colluding to inflate cd
prices?
|
other
|
|
response 5 of 162:
|
Jun 27 04:35 UTC 2003 |
Vivaldi?
|
krj
|
|
response 6 of 162:
|
Jun 27 04:43 UTC 2003 |
Ooops, my bad. Mr. Vivaldi hasn't sued anyone
in a while, has he?
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 162:
|
Jun 27 04:48 UTC 2003 |
:)
|
pvn
|
|
response 8 of 162:
|
Jun 27 05:55 UTC 2003 |
When the economy sucks like it does now, people tend to buy bread not
CDs. If the impact of file sharing over the Internet were in fact what
caused the drop in music sales then I would expect we wouldn't see
"blockbuster" movie releases either. It is just as easy to bootleg a
movie as it is music. Thus before the music industry cries foul and
blames its problems on Internet file sharing one would reasonably expect
some proof. Apple's iTunes woulda flopped if the problem really is P2P
networks would seem to me. It clearly is a marketing problem. The
price of the CD of music is so high that the consumer is willing to
spend time and trouble to find an alternative. One alternative a clever
marketing organization might try is to reduce the individual cost and
make the profit on volume. Another might be something like releasing a
CD where there are some number of CDs that have money inside - folk
still buy lotto tickets when the economy sucks.
Personally, I stopped buying anything other than indie stuff ever since
this strident militanism on the part of the Industry started. I mighjt
even agree with thier motives but I'm not going to give my money to them
as I disagree with thier tactics.
|
gull
|
|
response 9 of 162:
|
Jun 27 13:40 UTC 2003 |
I'm kind of in the same boat as jaklumen. The vast majority of the file
trading I've done has been to get stuff that the industry has decided
isn't economically feasible to publish -- out-of-print albums and TV
show episodes that haven't come out on DVD. I can understand them
wanting to go after people who are pirating the latest Metallica album,
but I think it's a bit unfair to hoard intellectual property, refuse to
make it available, and then declare it illegal to make other copies of it.
|
