Apple sez: Don't Steal Music!

[Anderton]

So there I was, looking at an ad for the new iBook, and reading the fine print ("CD-RW or DVD costs you extra, battery life varies depending on what you're doing," that sort of thing). Tacked on to the end is the sentence:

 

"Don't steal music."

 

Thanks, Apple! Would the person who was responsible for getting that phrase in there care to identify him or herself in this forum? I don't think I'm the only person who would like to express thanks.

[fantasticsound]

You mean I can't just take music? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif

 

Thanks mystery Apple guy/gal.

 

Neil

[Anoplura]

I don't think record exec's are likely to buy iBooks. They probably should have put this at the bottom of a Campari ad, or maybe Jaguar.

 

Ben

[GY]

You can't believe how many times I've heard popular songs used in local radio and television ads. Not sound a likes. The original recordings! One was for a local florist who used the Beatles' "Your Birthday" to announce their 20th anniversary in business. Many of these spots are being produced at the stations they're being broadcast on. One station used Sting's "Brand New Day" for a bank. I called the station and confronted them. They said their ASCAP/BMI licenses cover such things. I did send them some literature on the copyright laws and music licensing. Why do we have laws that are not enforced? Too many criminals...

[soapbox]

Apple is a class act!

[Curve Dominant]

GY posts:

>>One station used Sting's "Brand New Day" for a bank. I called the station and confronted them. They said their ASCAP/BMI licenses cover such things.<<

 

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the station is correct. If the station produces the commercial spot, they play the song and read the ad copy over the song. Then, ASCAP/BMI collects the performance fees for the copyright holder each time the spot is played. I dunno, that sounds reasonable, unless you don't want your song associated with a particular product or service, in which case you could sue or something.

 

GY could always contact Micheal Jackson's management (he owns the Beatles catalogue apparently) and tip them off.

 

Craig, could you or someone on the staff weigh in on this one? I'm suddenly a little confused.

[Anderton]

>>I don't think record exec's are likely to buy iBooks. <<

 

ROTFLMAO!!

[GY]

Curve:

 

Without going into a bunch of leagalese, you can think of the station's commercial as a "work" that they were paid for. The creator or publisher of the orginal music did not give the station a "license" to place that music in that commercial. If what you're suggesting was true, then Pepsi could use a jingle I sent them 10 years ago in their commercials and I'd have nothing to say about it. Not true. It's copyright infringement. Although, I wish Pepsi would go ahead and use that jingle. Especially without my permission!

[fantasticsound]

I am not a lawyer, but if I understand copyright law correctly, the station CAN use music covered by their licensing agreement IF the spot is for the station's self promotion. Not for music in commercials for paid advertising. Doesn't matter if they produce the spot or it comes in from another studio.

 

The bank commercial is the BANK'S responsibility and therefore a separate licence must be paid. (If this weren't the case, Beatles songs would have been used for paid radio ads LONG before MJ bought the catalog.)

 

Neil

[Guest]

Fantastic is right..

 

Stations can use any/all tracks for their promos, sweeps, stings and zips. Hell, if they built their on-air image around muzac jingle music they'd be screwed for an identity..

 

"Z-700 FM..Now playing the best jingles from the 80's, 90's and today..."

 

BUT...the production guy/gal has to report it during a sample period, just as they would for the jingle crap. Thankfully (here in Oz) there are groups such as Media Monitors that screen stations for their adherance.

 

A client *can* use a track if they've been granted express rights, but then only for a specific period. It's usually precluded by a pay-by-your-ass type fee that will deter the local f-heads.

 

Anyhow, that's been my experience, and thankfully I'm out'a commercial radio (directly) now http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Cheers

 

Rick

 

http://www.mp3.com/RickWade

[alphajerk]

isnt apple running ads for customized jukeboxes? some guy picking out songs with the real life artists standing on stage in the commercial... i always thought that seems pro-ripping.

 

how does one steal music exactly? some guy wrote in to the editor in the new EQ claiming his way of getting through to students about "stealing" music was asking them for their car keys. that makes no sense if he were to just take the car, its not the way napster [or whatever] works. it would be like him driving off in the car but the car is still parked in the lot available for anyone else to drive off in, unlimited. stealing the car is not the same as stealing music. stealing a kiss is like stealing music. the person might not of wanted to give it to them but they got it and its gone but you still have it so move on. like i know what im talking about either... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/tongue.gif

[fantasticsound]

alphaj, the specific problem with Napster involves the fair use of copyrighted works.

 

Now when a reader of Photography magazine noticed an ad in the mag using a picture featured in the reader submission pages, he contacted the photographer directly. Turns out the photographer had no knowledge of this use. In no time, he (the photographer) was $300,000 richer. There are steep penalties against commercial abuse of copyright law.

 

That's why they're trying desperately to find middle ground between artists, record companies, and Napster/napster users. Can you imagine the huge award if they counted each abuse? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

Neil

[dave-G]

To add to Fantastic's point, when music is used in this way, the artist and specfically the singers are legally seen to be "endorsing" the product in question. This is why SAG & AFTRA include singers.. as "actors" in commercials, and why residuals to singers are higher than to the guitar player (for example) in a commercial. Although he's apprently an eager whore for Jaguar, I somehow doubt that Sting would donate an endorsement to the Second National Bank of Pocatello.

 

a mess.

 

-dave G

[Anderton]

FYI - I contacted a pal at Apple to find out who was responsible for that phrase so we could heap praise and recognition on him/her/they/it. But he said it's basically an Apple policy thing, so I'll just say "thanks, Apple" and leave it at that.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

alphaj, the specific problem with Napster involves the fair use of copyrighted works.

 

Now when a reader of Photography magazine noticed an ad in the mag using a picture featured in the reader submission pages, he contacted the photographer directly. Turns out the photographer had no knowledge of this use. In no time, he (the photographer) was $300,000 richer. There are steep penalties against commercial abuse of copyright law.

 

That's why they're trying desperately to find middle ground between artists, record companies, and Napster/napster users. Can you imagine the huge award if they counted each abuse? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

Neil

 

yes, in an advertisement situation this applies but if a reader of a photography magazine scanned the image because they liked it and even printed in out and hung it on their wall, no violation exists. and if they in turn send it out to their friends to check out the picture and so on...

 

taking a song for use in a commercial where a financial gain is intended for another product by way of the song is copyright infringement, it is very difficult to believe that personal use is.

 

 

traditionally, in order to steal, one must take possesion while leaving the owner void of said product. this doesnt hold true anymore.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

yes, in an advertisement situation this applies but if a reader of a photography magazine scanned the image because they liked it and even printed in out and hung it on their wall, no violation exists. and if they in turn send it out to their friends to check out the picture and so on...

 

taking a song for use in a commercial where a financial gain is intended for another product by way of the song is copyright infringement, it is very difficult to believe that personal use is.

 

 

I must not have been clear. I agree with you that the original example was not fair use. In light of the wholesale sharing of files, made possible by the internet and Napster, I think fair use needs to be more accurately defined. Or rather, it needs to be explained to those who would steal a whole album of music off Napster, and wonder why the artist is upset he didn't get paid for his creation.

 

 

traditionally, in order to steal, one must take possesion while leaving the owner void of said product. this doesnt hold true anymore.

 

I understand your point, but this has never been true of intellectual property. Pirating music has always left the record company with their product intact. Pirating is not the same as hijacking a shipment of records from the company, but both are theft.

 

Intellectual property has always been subject to this type of theft. The only difference now is the size of the theft. Napster allows the whole world to break in to X record company and take without paying. I can't wait to see how the industry changes as a result. Remember, this directly affects our ability to work in the business. How many studios will survive when everyone figures out that music is available without cost online? It looks like Napster is headed into pay for play territory anyway..

 

Neil

[alphajerk]

then people will use something else like AIMster.

 

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of

exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,

which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to

himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the

possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because

every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me,

receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his

taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should

freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual

instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been

peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like

fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any

point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical

being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then

cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

 

--Thomas Jefferson

 

 

 

This message has been edited by alphajerk on 05-25-2001 at 11:54 PM

[Guest]

traditionally, in order to steal, one must take possesion while leaving the owner void of said product. this doesnt hold true anymore.

 

This argument is the most irritating I hear, and a lot of folks use it. I propose a hypothetical situation:

 

Let's say there is a product out there, with a potential market of X dollars. If someone- against the will of the product's creator -finds a way to duplicate that product (perfectly or not) and then distributes it to everyone who wants it, there is no more potential market for that product. Whether the original owner still has the tangible or intangible product anymore is completely beside the point. The market for the product of their labor is gone. The person who found a way to duplicate and distribute that product has effectively stolen X dollars.

 

With Napster the situation is a little different, because no single person is doing all the duplicating and distributing. However, the example still holds.

 

As for Thomas Jefferson's words, I will say that I believe he had some darn fine ideas, but that isn't one of them.

 

-Danny

 

------------------

Of all the things that I have lost, I miss my mind the most.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by Danny At Tiara Music:

Let's say there is a product out there, with a potential market of X dollars. If someone- against the will of the product's creator -finds a way to duplicate that product (perfectly or not) and then distributes it to everyone who wants it, there is no more potential market for that product. Whether the original owner still has the tangible or intangible product anymore is completely beside the point. The market for the product of their labor is gone. The person who found a way to duplicate and distribute that product has effectively stolen X dollars.

 

hmmm. so whats radio been doing all these years? seems like giving people something free OVER AND OVER AND OVER encouraged them to buy the cd and go see the shows and buy the tshirts, sitckers, dolls, magazines, whatever...

 

people distrust the ability to capitalize on their ideas because its been let loose into the world? i see this all as the exact opposite than all these pessimists around me seem to think.

 

the fact is the cat is out of the bag so what are you gonna do, cry about it or figure out a way to make something of it. its up to you.

 

 

and yes, what Jefferson said is SO TRUE.

 

hey, i dig your sig.

[Master Zap]

Thats such a COMMON MISCONCEPTION.

 

Radio has NEVER "given anything for free". Do you have any idea how much Radio must PAY to use the music? And you, as a listener, "pays" the radio by enduring their ads.

 

And more importantly, radio plays you the music when THEY FEEL LIKE IT, which creates (hopefully) an urge to hear it again, and hence a purchase-inducing signal. When you download a song, you can play it any time you want (an action you rightfully should pay for the right of having)

 

Jeffersons words is one of those things that "sounds so nice in theory".

 

With the "car theft" analogy, the person you are STEALING from when you "copy" the car isn't the owner of that car you steal, it is the CAR MAKER WHO'S BUSINESS YOU ARE RUINING.

 

/Z

[Guest]

hmmm. so whats radio been doing all these years? seems like giving people something free OVER AND OVER AND OVER encouraged them to buy the cd and go see the shows and buy the tshirts, sitckers, dolls, magazines, whatever...

 

AND doing it legally, with a license, I would like to add. They also don't broadcast with the intent of everyone having a copy of what they broadcast. Some people do tape songs off the radio, but that is a far cry from being able to get online, search for a song you want when you want it, and then get a copy of it.

 

people distrust the ability to capitalize on their ideas because its been let loose into the world? i see this all as the exact opposite than all these pessimists around me seem to think.

 

It's not that simple. (Although it looks that way.) The big issue is what the person who created the idea wants. Way back when, Metallica encouraged tape trading, because they wanted to build their audience for their live shows and their recorded works. That's fine. They wanted people to take their music for free and spread it around. Now that they have the audience, they would prefer it if the fans would buy the music. This is not unreasonable to me. Everybody is screaming, "How dare they! Tape trading was their lifeblood!" The operative word is "was." They don't want people doing it anymore. It's their choice, because it's their music. It seems like the entire US is caught up in a massive "everybody has to have free choice in everything" swirl, but they seem to forget all of that when they can't have freebies anymore.

 

the fact is the cat is out of the bag so what are you gonna do, cry about it or figure out a way to make something of it. its up to you.

 

The record company I work for (as a recording engineer) has songs available via the Napster network, and also on Musicmatch. That's fine. We want them to be there, as it gets the word out about the artists in a very efficient way. However, when the full albums are released, we would prefer that people buy them, so that we can make money and stay in business. When we give something away, taking it is fine. That's what we want. However, when we want to no longer give something away, taking it is not fine anymore.

 

and yes, what Jefferson said is SO TRUE.

 

It IS a beautiful sentiment. However, it isn't practical to those who make a living from their ideas. Jefferson didn't have to worry about that. He had money to start with, and a plantation to keep things running along smoothly. He didn't have to make money from his ideas to stay afloat. Some of us depend on people's ability to do so.

 

hey, i dig your sig.

 

Thanks Alpha!

 

-Danny

 

 

------------------

Of all the things that I have lost, I miss my mind the most.

 

This message has been edited by Danny At Tiara Music on 05-26-2001 at 02:31 PM

[-]

Originally posted by Danny At Tiara Music:

The record company I work for (as a recording engineer) has songs available via the Napster network, and also on Musicmatch. That's fine. We want them to be there, as it gets the word out about the artists in a very efficient way. However, when the full albums are released, we would prefer that people buy them, so that we can make money and stay in business. When we give something away, taking it is fine. That's what we want. However, when we want to no longer give something away, taking it is not fine anymore.

 

 

It's never going to be a perfect world from the point of view of the record companies, with the mp3-sharing cat out of the bag.

 

However, record companies and the RIAA could go a long way by promoting the attitude of, "If you really like an artist -- even if you've downloaded a lot of the songs via Napster -- then buy the CD. Because if you don't vote with your dollars, then that artist may not release more music."

 

It sounds like an idealistic kind of approach, but I think consumers who love music can grasp it -- and even rally behind it -- if it's marketed the right way. (Kinda like a grassroots "shareware for the masses"...) The perception needs to be promoted that it's *cool* to support an artist you like... That they need your "vote".

 

It wouldn't hurt if the price of CDs dropped by a few bucks too, as it's hard to defend charging $19 for a single album, no matter how you break down the costs to the public.

 

I know someone who told me, "Now that I figured out how to use Napster, I'll never need to buy a CD again!" What's needed is to educate the public that mp3s and CDs are *not* the same thing.

 

It's like how bottled water is marketed: Sure, you can get ordinary water at home, but the bottled stuff is marketed to be *soooo* much better... Some people can't truly taste the difference, but they buy the bottled stuff anyway.

 

Educating the MTV audience about supporting the artist (as well as how crappy mp3s can sound) might make a better survival strategy for them rather than trying to sue every mp3-oriented company out of business. (It reminds me of the U.S. steel industry in the early '80s... And we know how well *that* worked! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif )

 

 

 

This message has been edited by popmusic on 05-26-2001 at 04:03 PM

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

then people will use something else like AIMster.

 

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of

exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,

which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to

himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the

possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because

every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me,

receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his

taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should

freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual

instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been

peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like

fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any

point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical

being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then

cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

 

--Thomas Jefferson

 

By the logic of Jefferson's arguement, you could easily extend this to real property.

 

As soon as my family goes on vacation, my home and it's contents should be up for grabs. They're no longer in my possession. For that matter, this should be true everyday when we leave the house unattended. God didn't mean for me to possess a finite portion of his creation. But forget I said anything about God. I'm not trying to rile you up again! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

In the real world, the only thing protecting my possesions is the rule of law or the force of my ability to ward off attackers. Not one iota of difference from intellectual property. They only exist as property based on the rule of law, nothing else.

 

So to agree with other responses to this passage, Jefferson was a very intelligent man who helped shape this country from scratch.

 

He was not, however, omniscient, nor uniquely righteous. I believe most ammendments to the constitution are just and warranted. Should they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater? Of course not. That's why they call them ammendments.

 

He should have extended this theory to his personal possesions, if he truly believed it, and lived in poverty. That's how Ghandi lived his beliefs, why not Jefferson?

 

Jefferson simply refused to recognize the right of creators to own and profit from their creations, unless they were physical in nature. In this respect, he was at odds with every inventor, artist, and theorist who ever dared to make a living on their intelligence, rather than their ability to manufacture a product.

 

He could have become a communist, but that wasn't his style, now was it? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

I don't know who you think is going to pay you to record if there is no market to sell the recordings. You see it as impossible to control. I don't care if it is or isn't. I want to see how the industry, and society as a whole handle this aspect of business. Something is going to have to break. Eventually the entire world will have complete access to any creative work, online.

 

Interesting aside: Over the past 8 months, MSN messenger has been available to me, with Net2phone access. First I could make unlimited calls of unlimited length. Next they cut us down to 5 min. calls, then almost immediately, 3 min. calls. Now you have to setup a Net2phone account and pay in advance. I'm pissed off! But I don't expect them to go back to free calls! Would it be okay for me to make a false ID and find a way to fool them into thinking I had paid for calls? Of course not. So explain to me again, why it's okay for me to download any music without purchasing it?

 

I'm just fed up, as was mentioned in another post, with the whining babies who feel that free everything is their right. I get all the free stuff I can grab, but when the supplier says no more, I'm either in possesion of it or SOL. No complaints.

 

(Jefferson is still a personal hero, faults and all. We share the same birthday, but I'm just a l-i-t-t-l-e younger. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif )

 

Neil

 

Only change is inevitable.

[tld]

Love that apple quote. They truely do have class. With all the mp3s and cd burners out there, that's the first time I've seen any company remind people that music theft is wrong, and illegal. All of these 'the cat is out of the bag' and 'pandoras box' arguments people like to make simply attempt to justify actions that are dishonest and illegal. Technology has put the music business into the unenviable position of running a store with no locks on the door. The fact that it has become easy to steal in the comfort of your home doesn't make it right.

 

Some time ago, a DJ on a local rock station went on a tirade about Metallica...how much money they had, and how they were greedy sob's for suing Napster etc, etc. Here's a snippet of an email I sent him:

 

"Metallica should be commended for using their financial position to take a stand for lesser known musicians who could be forced into day jobs by music theft. Would you allow your sponsors to tap into your frequency and advertise for free? Face it...it costs money to make rock and roll. If it becomes financially unviable to do so, it, and stations like yours, will cease to exist."

 

He emailed me a reply that said "Sorry, I was uninformed" or some crap like that, but of course made no such statement on air.

 

Tom

 

 

------------------

http://www.digitalaudiorock.com

The Protools Plugin Preset Co-op

[-]

I don't think there was any altruistic motivation behind the "Don't Steal Music" quote from Apple. They've advertised their computers to be great with music and mp3s...

 

IMO, they're only covering their butts so the RIAA doesn't sue them. ("See? We're not *telling* them to trade mp3s...")

[alphajerk]

my point in the jefferson quote [and BTW no ones mentioned the john perry barlow article it links to] was that once you let any idea from your mind to another, it is just no longer your property... it cant be. sure you still know what that idea is but so do other people and there is nothing you can do to stop it. the idea of napster and free mp3 music has been let out of the bag and now it will ALWAYS exist.

 

"However, record companies and the RIAA could go a long way by promoting the attitude of, "If you really like an artist -- even if you've downloaded a lot of the songs via Napster -- then buy the CD. Because if you don't vote with your dollars, then that artist may not release more music.""

 

this i can agree with.

 

obviously there is nothing anyone can do at this point to stop what has now become reality so you must find out how to benefit from it.

 

 

case in point, the grateful dead [doesnt matter if you like their music or not] they capitalized heavily while ALWAYS allowing taping of their shows. ther eare more bootleg tapes of that band than any other band in existance. you dont even have to go to a concert to hear them play live, you can choose thousands of concerts. but they were a multimillion dollar organization. how did that happen according to your logic? if they were giving all their music away, then how did they make so much money?

 

 

i also dont believe that payment for music is mandatory. i think of it like tithing. you do your music and hope people "get it" and want to give to keep getting, thats why i agree with the above quote.

[Guest]

case in point, the grateful dead [doesnt matter if you like their music or not] they capitalized heavily while ALWAYS allowing taping of their shows. ther eare more bootleg tapes of that band than any other band in existance. you dont even have to go to a concert to hear them play live, you can choose thousands of concerts. but they were a multimillion dollar organization. how did that happen according to your logic? if they were giving all their music away, then how did they make so much money?

 

There are a number of reasons:

 

A) Different band, different demographic, different marketing choices.

 

B) It seems (from what I can gather) that actually being at the show was an experience beyond just hearing it. People had an incentive to buy tickets and go see them live. (It could also have been just plain old loyalty that made them do it, but they did anyway.)

 

C) They did sell some records as well.

 

D) They wanted people to tape the shows. Relating back to point B, it seems to me (this may be erroneous) that the Dead put a lot more emphasis on playing live than on their studio albums. In that case, anything that drums up support for a live show is good.

 

E) Again, it is a matter of choice. If the Dead wanted their music bootlegged, then great. If someone doesn't want their music bootlegged, then don't. It comes down to one of the most overused, abused, and bastardized words in the English language: Respect. In my mind, there is no excuse for taking something that someone doesn't want you to take. I may not like it, but it's the decent thing to do.

 

-Danny

 

------------------

Of all the things that I have lost, I miss my mind the most.

[alphajerk]

well i agree, fans should be respectful of the artists they love, or at least willingly listening to more than once [enought to warrant purchase]. but several of your points for the dead's success being their live shows and people WANTING to go see them [which is quite an understatement, they FOLLOWED THEM AROUND, they went to shows night after night... the dead were basically a travelling city] unfortunately the label and people in the studio, much less the band didnt have a clue as to what to do in the studio... i would of approached an album with them entirely differently than what actually happened.

 

BUT even with all those tapes available [and DAT, some even with SB feeds] they still manage to sell a slew of live CD's. Bears Picks are up to the double digits now i think. all these tapes now are freely available on the net as mp3's.

 

now i know youre gonna come again with the permission thing. unfortuantely it doesnt matter, see my cat out of the bag comment. there is NO changing that now. there are definate models that provide income for the artists even with product freely available. dave matthews band is another example, phish is yet another [the new dead]. they not only created a brand but a lifestyle.

 

so n'suck is freely available on the net im sure, not to mention constantly on mtv and whatever else... they still sold 10 million albums. i dont see album sales going down, even with really crappy music being put out. i have a hard time believing that people are really "stealing" music. seems they are buying it more than ever.

 

i dont think people even see mp3's as REAL. i dont. i download it onto my hard drive. i have a couple songs [all b-side stuff] on my drive right now that i "stole". however i dont think i actually own it, i could just as easily delete it... do you think i could just as easily toss a cd into the trash? i could toss an n'suck or tittany spears in the trash http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif but not something that i actually liked.

 

talk about freely stealing. ask the Meters about it sometime. the most stolen band in history... not just some college kids ripping mp3's of theirs [probably dont even know who they are but i know they have heard them] but new artists sampling their music and releasing it as their own without so much as a credit let alone any sort of payment.

 

so radio is free but the one drawback are having to listen to what they [the megaconglomerate corporations that also own the label and inevitably the artist] want you to hear. they arent scared of mp3's because no one will buy the CD's anymore. they are scared because they lose control of the listener. so they feed the artists this paranoia so their arguement will have some sort of merit when in reality it isnt even their real concern.

 

be careful of their brainwashing.

[Master Zap]

As said before, radio is not free.

 

Also, in the altruistic concept "an idea should be free", I think we should distinguish between an *idea* (something simple, trivial, like "I am going to sell ground boogers as a salt replacement") and a result of long and hard *research* or other intellectual-property *work*, (something complex, like the content of all the works of shakespear)

 

The problem is, that in the old days, the only thing that was "easily copyable" was the *simple* type of "idea". But now, with computer, almost endless amounts of intellectual effort is copied just as easily. *THERIN* lies the problem.

 

If I come up with a cool riff, and you "steal" it by playing it yourself and using in your song is (at least as I see it) very different from you simply stealing my recording of my song, something in which possibly thousands upon thousands of dollads and hundreds of hours of *work* went into producing, but that you now, w. computer technology, can "steal" just as easily as my C, Eb, Db riff.

 

/Z

[alphajerk]

radio is for all intents and purposes IS free. i dont have to pay to listen to it... and advertising doesnt count either. i dont pay for that... NO MONEY LEAVES MY HANDS LISTENIG TO RADIO.

 

shakespeare i believe is public domain. at least according to copyright law. so technically its free too. i could post it on the net freely available to anyone.

 

the question now isnt whether is can or cannot happen, it HAS happened. it will continue to do so. now i plea, instead of argueing against it, maybe some solutions are in order at this point in time. we have embarked now on true free radio customizable programming. i would be worried as a DJ than a musician right now. as it stands i rarely listen to the radio since i have a cd deck in my car with a changer so i have my own mini radio going.

 

is the industry banking on dvdA to save their ass? i think thats already DOA, especially if your arguement holds true and people are satisfied with mp3 quality. DVD-V might be the saviour. im not looking for arguements on the merits of a non-napster world, im looking for reasonable debate on what to do NOW.

 

there is a clause in the copyright law when an idea becomes part of society, then copyright no longer exists. if society adopts mp3 as a free item [which even its code to create mp3 is an open source idea], then law will mandate it as such. i believe that will happen, has happened.