Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Music Industry Calls For Truce With Technology

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

Music 209

Stoobalou writes "The British music industry has called for a truce with the technology firms with whom it has till now fought a bitter battle over rights, royalties and file sharing. Feargal Sharkey, CEO of lobby group UK Music, told a conference in London this week that it was time for the music and technology industries to set aside their differences and strive instead toward a common goal: nothing less than the total global domination of British music."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Your capitulation is insufficient (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33485938)

What is the best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. [imdb.com]

Nothing less than to abolish copyright will do. Copyrights and patents prevent progress in the sciences and the useful arts. They were an experiment that utterly failed.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486048)

Ramen!

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (5, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486250)

Hilarious article

[referring to their 3-strikes law] 'This had helped restore the equilibrium between creativity and technology that had, said Sharkey, been out of kilter. It was but a single "stepping stone" toward the music industry's goal of having people "remunerated for their talent time, effort and ability".'

I'm pretty sure 'people' have been remunerated for their talent time, effort and ability before the internet existed, and continued to be up to the present day. I note they make no mention of how the music labels have in the past and continue to systematically rape their 'talent' in every possible way.

'Our future is now totally dependent, totally entwined, totally symbiotic'

Hmm, I'm not sure how exactly ISP's and/or the internet is in any respect dependent on any part of the music industry. If the music industry completely died tomorrow, the internet and ISP's would continue to function just as well if not be slightly faster. Now, the music industry executives coke and whore habits may live or die depending on how many people they can threaten with having their internet connection being disconnected.

Ramen Noodles Up the Ass! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486326)

Ramen!

Eh fuck your one-word comment. Up the ass. With a big rubber dick. That vibrates. Without lube. Nigger.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (0, Troll)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486088)

So... which works worthy of copyright have you made that you are hereby all moving into the public domain?

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (0, Troll)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486148)

I'm just going to start a blog posting all his journal entries as my own original works, with advertising, and see how long it takes for him .. err, I mean.. "an anoymous person".. to complain to Google about it.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (3, Insightful)

LikwidCirkel (1542097) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486176)

That kind of strikes a nerve with me actually, because, in the world of stealing other people's shit, the only real golden rule is not to pretend you made someone else's shit, and at least give credit where it's due.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (4, Insightful)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486210)

Precisely. Which is what GP is advocating - The right of attribution is one of 7 rights which make up "copyrights". My post was tongue-in-cheek. GP opposes copyright, thus, attribution.

Unless he's suggesting he likes all the parts of copyright which don't happen to coincidentally conflict with his morals, but the other aspects can go to hell - in which case that's just all maneuvering fluff.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (5, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486244)

There's a difference between copying and plagiarizing.

Passing off someone's work as yours involves lying or misrepresentation. And "thou shalt not bear false witness" has been around for thousands of years.

Copying someone's stuff doesn't necessarily involve lying.

Anticopying laws in contrast haven't been around that long, and their net benefits to society aren't proven.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (3, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486288)

Anticopying laws in contrast haven't been around that long,

Since the 18th century.

and their net benefits to society aren't proven.

What would you consider proof? How would you go about proving or disproving it?

Personally I think the principle of copyright is a good one, but one that has gotten way out of control. About a decade (depending on the object) of protection should be enough.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486772)

> Since the 18th century.

Only for a very short period have creators in general really been making money their copyrighted work. Copyrights have mostly just benefited the distributors and the monopolists, not the actual creators.

Just look at how much most musicians get from their labels after those infamous accounting methods (similar to Hollywood accounting). In the past distribution and marketing was expensive, so perhaps some of it was justified, but nowadays with technology distribution of music is cheap (and marketing just needs someone clever to make it "viral"). The distributors now provide very little value add to the creators and are more parasites than symbiotes.

If the markets have grown and the cost of marketing and distribution has gone down why has copyright protection kept getting longer and longer and more and more extensive?

Same for the movie, book and software industries. Avatar made 1 billion in about a month. Does it need 120 years? Similar for all the other blockbusters. I cannot believe the costs Hollywood and the Music Industry cite for producing stuff. There's plenty of evidence they are lying.

So nowadays the main benefit copyright provides to a creator is you don't have to compete against your old stuff as much. Once you stop supplying your old stuff, your fans/users will have to do with your new slightly crappier stuff. How does that encourage people do to better?

Supposedly copyright is so that people would be creating more works. But you can see for yourself, great musicians, artists, programmers, etc will create stuff whether or not they are paid for it. They will create stuff for fun, or even because they feel internally driven to do it.

> > and their net benefits to society aren't proven.
> What would you consider proof? How would you go about proving or disproving it?

Copyrights won't scale well and would put a greater cost on us when we have artificial memories and virtual telepathy. This is not far off given that neural interfaces are improving. We are already in the prelim stage with smartphones and other tech. Monopolists will try to charge us more than a penny for "their" thoughts, whenever we try to recall or share something. They will try to DRM our brain and body augmenters, but for what benefit and whose benefit? You would be paying more for less functionality and freedom. Compare email vs SMS.

Is it worth taxing or even crippling more and more people for the benefit of a few? I say no.

In theory copyright can benefit society, in practice does it? And in the future I claim it will cost society more than it benefits it. Hosts can certainly survive with parasites sucking their blood. But just because they can doesn't mean the parasite is providing a benefit to the host, and doesn't meant things can't be better.

If you are a creator and want to make money from your stuff:
1) make it easy for people to find out about you - obscurity is your enemy
2) make stuff many people will like
3) make it easy for people to pay you

The Monopolists don't really help with 1) - often their interests are not aligned with yours, and they want too much for their "help". They want you to be their slave.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486774)

With software even a decade is perhaps too long.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (4, Insightful)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486314)

While there's a difference between copying and plagiarizing - breaching copyright, which was the subject being discussed - and plagiarizing, can often be the same thing.

Interestingly (to some, I'm sure), the right of attribution is the only aspect of copyright which can't be breached on its own. It always must be in conjunction with another breach (most commonly, the rights concerning reproduction and less commonly, concerning derivative works).

So indeed, on it's own, the act of copying and the act of plagiarism are two quite different things (the latter, I agree with LikwidCirckel, is far worse), but fall under the same doctrines in the realm of copyright.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486408)

It is possible to plagiarize works that are out of copyright.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486540)

It is also possible to plagiarize works are copyrighted but where the author allows non-commercial copying.

Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy [wikipedia.org]

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (1)

Elky Elk (1179921) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486710)

But you can plagerise things that are released under the GPL.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486768)

And like the other guy said, you can plagiarise works out of copyright -both of which miss the point. We weren't discussing stuff "not under copyright". We were discussing stuff that IS under copyright. :) The point being, "copying" or "plagiarising" works under copyright are no different in that both are in breach of copyright where those rights aren't expressly permitted (or under fair use, etc - I don't really want to have to justify every exception for what is a simple original analysis that if GP doesn't care for any aspect of copyright - a "failed experiment" - he doesn't care if his works are copied - plagiarised or not). :)

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486766)

this is clearly idealistic, but:
if you do what you do for the sake of society, what do you care if anyone else says they made it?

if a billion people cried out "I came up with the Categorical imperative", would Kant be upset?

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486902)

Passing off someone's work as yours involves lying or misrepresentation. And "thou shalt not bear false witness" has been around for thousands of years.

Giving false witness is a subset of lying, but is not the same. That commandment has absolutely nothing to do with misrepresentation of work (and references a time when law court evidence was purely hearsay, so giving false testimony would directly convict someone).

Your logic is:

  1. A is a subset of B
  2. C is a subset of B
  3. Therefore C = A

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486354)

Precisely. Which is what GP is advocating - The right of attribution is one of 7 rights which make up "copyrights". My post was tongue-in-cheek. GP opposes copyright, thus, attribution.

That looks like a straw man argument. It doesn't help if you did it tongue-in-cheek or if "he started it first" by mentioning copyrights.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486290)

Wow, are you really that stupid or just pretending to be?

1) Passing off someone else's work as yours is dishonest. Dishonesty is bad. Didn't your mama tell you that?
2) You can copy someone else's work without making it look like it is yours. When someone P2Ps some music at no point of time is anyone pretending to be the original artist. No dishonesty needs to be involved.

Can you understand that? Read the above slowly a few times if necessary, move your lips if you have to.

If you post all his journal entries, and say they are his work, not yours, and still make money from the ads, that's fine in the absence of copyright laws.

However if you claim to be him, you are doing something wrong, and there are plenty of other laws that would still apply even in the absence of copyright laws.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486518)

When someone P2Ps some music at no point of time is anyone pretending to be the original artist. No dishonesty needs to be involved.

-pedant- what if the original artist chooses to distribute via P2P -/pedant-

anyway, when I upload torrents, I make a point of mentioning when I *didn't* source the files in question

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486166)

Nothing less than to abolish copyright will do. Copyrights and patents prevent progress in the sciences and the useful arts. They were an experiment that utterly failed.

I'd love to hear your evidence of this, because as far as I can tell, there are a lot of benefits of copyright and patents. Certainly the number of inventions and works of art has increased since they were introduced, and certainly they have induced authors and artists to produce more (Winston Churchill, for example), and they have certainly rewarded the creators for the works, and they have made things like the GPL possible. This guy [huffingtonpost.com] makes a strong argument that the patent system helped drive invention forward: for example, the steam engine was invented over a thousand years ago, but it wasn't until patents made it profitable to invent things that people began applying them to application they could think of. Maybe he's wrong, but it's an argument that needs to be addressed. I would love to hear your arguments.

Certainly there are abuses, like the one-click patent, and artist abuses by record companies, and the term for copyrights is probably too long, but these are things that can be fixed, they don't require an entire revocation of the system.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486228)

Certainly there are abuses, like the one-click patent, and artist abuses by record companies, and the term for copyrights is probably too long, but these are things that can be fixed, they don't require an entire revocation of the system.

There seems to be damned little effort to fix the problems. Quite the opposite, legislators and the media industry are going out of their way to make the problems even worse. The system is broken because it no longer serves its purpose, to protect creators, but rather to protect large-scale media conglomerates who would just as happily, and do just as happily fuck over the artist.

The system needs to be replaced. I'll agree that some core principals should be ported over to the new system, but there should permanent and unalterable aspects that sharply limit copyright terms, that set up a regime of severe and economically devestating punishments for chronic abusers. There need to be guarantees that artists have absolute command of their products and sharply limit media companies ability to pretty much write legislation.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486262)

There seems to be damned little effort to fix the problems.

This is true, but it is because most people don't care about copyright. The people who care about it primarily are content creators, and people who deal with that industry. Many more people are worried about whether Obama is a muslim than the subtleties of copyright.

Even people here on Slashdot, who rage about copyright, often only are aware of a small subset of the copyright law. You may be one of those people. There is a centuries long history of fighting over royalties between song-writers, performers, and publishers. They approach copyright from a point of view that benefits them, just as you approach it from a point of view that benefits yourself. But you aren't willing to put your money on the line in campaign contributions, or by starting a PAC. Those people are, which is why the legislation ends up being slanted towards them.

Meanwhile most people don't care as long as they are able to listen to music or watch movies or whatever. And that's why the system is how it is.

OT: your sig (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486758)

cool comment; where's it from?

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (4, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486432)

Disagree with you on the steam engine.

First, I don't think patents were the issue with getting the steam engine started, as much as the lack of need for it, and the lack of infrastructure. The first engines pumped water out of mines, you don't need such a thing if you don't have a deep mine. Manufacturing a good steam engine was probably beyond Greece's capabilities at the time as well.

The bigger problem in your argument is that patents ensured for a time that improvements to the steam engine (condender and use of high pressure) would not be combined until the patents expired, thus actually retarding progress.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486494)

I don't know enough about steam engines and manufacturing to comment on your first point, but the guy who wrote the book I referenced seemed to think patents helped drive innovation. As to your second point,

The bigger problem in your argument is that patents ensured for a time that improvements to the steam engine (condender and use of high pressure) would not be combined until the patents expired, thus actually retarding progress.

assuming you are serious about learning about this issue, and your post wasn't merely written to make yourself feel good, you should check out this paper [gmu.edu] . It is clear that improvements can be made even though an item is under patent, it happens all the time today. In any case there is a lot of discussion (among those who care about such things) about what happens when an area of invention becomes too encumbered by patents. That paper examines some related historical evidence.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (3, Interesting)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486746)

I don't know enough about steam engines and manufacturing to comment on your first point, but the guy who wrote the book I referenced seemed to think patents helped drive innovation. As to your second point,

I am not sure if the situation back then, and the situation we have now work in the same way.

For one there were a lot fewer patents, so it was a lot easier to do something without running into one. These days there are enough that it's near impossible to figure out if you're infringing or not on something. That on its own creates a chilling effect, because you need a patent lawyer if you want to get into that business.

And even that is not new, as your paper mentions:

Foreshadowing the Sewing Machine War that was right around the corner, Wilson also
had the unfortunate distinction of being the first sewing machine patentee threatened with
litigation for infringing another sewing machine patent. After Wilson invented a double-pointed
shuttle in 1848, A.P. Kline and Edward Lee, the owners of the Bradshaw patent,82 threatened
Wilson with a lawsuit for infringing their patent. Lacking the funds to defend himself, Wilson
sold his patent rights to this particular invention to Kline and Lee to settle the dispute.

So there you go, even back then moving into an area where there were any patents was dangerous business, and having a patent yourself did you no good if you didn't have money for the lawyers.

assuming you are serious about learning about this issue, and your post wasn't merely written to make yourself feel good, you should check out this paper. It is clear that improvements can be made even though an item is under patent, it happens all the time today. In any case there is a lot of discussion (among those who care about such things) about what happens when an area of invention becomes too encumbered by patents. That paper examines some related historical evidence.

I lack the time right now to read that paper fully, but scanning it a bit I see mentions of: lots and lots of litigation, people being forced to let go their patent due to not having money for lawyers (quoted above), patent trolling, the troll (Howe) making lots of money from the litigation though it wasn't he who solved the final problems (it was Singer), and he wasn't manufacturing anything, a patent pool and a resulting cartel, and I'm probably missing something because I've not read the entire thing.

Overall I don't see absolutely anything good in any of that. It's full of everything that's wrong with the entire patent system, and shows it's been wrong since pretty much from the start. An enormous amount of money goes into litigation, then a patent pool is created resulting in a cartel able to keep competitors out, none of which serves the original goal of encouraging innovation. Instead of being busy competing all those people spent enormous amounts of time and money on arguments, politics and lawyers, and created a system that could effectively stop further competition.

The patent pool isn't a positive outcome of the whole ordeal, it's a perversion and sign that things reached a breaking point. It's more or less a sign of people agreeing "this isn't going anywhere, so let's stop caring about each other's patents", except lots of money had to be spent there, and now they form a large entity that can exclude further competition.

I'll read it in more detail later, but so far I fail to see anything there that convinces me that patents are a good thing.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486988)

Since someone will no doubt reply asking for a citation, here is an article which describes in some detail how patents on early steam engines delayed the industrial revolution in Britain until after they had expired [mises.org] . It also describes how the James Watt attempted to get patent terms extended several times. He did get the original patent term extended to over 30 years, and tried to get them extended even longer. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

sudo mod him up (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33487152)

That's a very interesting article, thanks. I tried to find a citation for my statement, but was in a bit of a hurry.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (4, Interesting)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486704)

there are a lot of benefits of copyright and patents.

Patents and copyrights are essentially taxation systems, and as with all such transfer systems there's some party benefiting and other parties paying the bill. Compared to other taxation systems, the efficiency grade of 5-20% is horrifically low; imagine if that percentage of funding for any other government scheme was all that actually went to the purpose (ie, the payoff/investment in the creators).

Outright having the state pay for the R&D or pay for music/writing/etc on a per-use base or similar would divert 5-20 times as much money towards the purpose at the same cost to the economy today. Or we could have the same level of production as we have today at a fifth to a twentieth of the cost.

That is fairly concisely summarized as an abject failure. And that doesn't even start to go into the really damaging parts of the system that create problems for derivative or combined works, which are the foundation of creativity. Imagine the number of works we wouldn't have today if Shakespeare or HC Andersen had had permanent copyright...

but it wasn't until patents made it profitable to invent things that people began applying them...

It's always profitable to invent improvements to your production. Saving money means more profit. Whether or not it's profitable to spin off a separate business around that improvement and/or publish it may vary.

But it's more likely that the spread of information is the main driver behind the accelerating pace of invention and creation; more inspiration, more access to necessary knowledge, more improvements by example, etc. Patents used to have a mitigating factor there, as they worked to disseminate knowledge in the previous century. Today, the chance that any invention for which there is an actual application would stay unknown and not get invented half a dozen more times for the duration of a patent is unlikely. Far below the chance that your average invention will be torpedoed by a half-dozen other patents that will prevent it from actually being monetized.

Personally I tend to advocate a system which removes the damaging aspects of copyrights and patents, ie, the exclusivity, and moving over the monetary incentives to something akin to a per-use automatic payout system/mandatory licensing scheme. Instead of getting the right to sue someone who uses your invention you'd get a check from the patent office if someone used your invention, and instead of getting screwed by the media corps you'd automatically get a set percentage of the revenue from anyone selling/profiting from the work. Such funds should further be managed within the government budget (so they can be audited and analysed for cost efficiency and tuned to maximize benefit (do people write more after they're getting $500k per year? or would a payout ceiling pushing the incentive further down the chain create more value for the economy?)) like any other tax/benefit scheme and not hidden away like the current ones are.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (2, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486882)

Maybe he's wrong, but it's an argument that needs to be addressed. I would love to hear your arguments.

He's wrong. The "Steam engine" of 1000 years ago was a curiosity, unable to perform useful work. It wasn't for lack of patents, it was for lack of materials and knowledge.

The 17th century (when patents existed) saw some very limited use of steam power but hardly an industrial revolution. Steam power in the late 17th century was quite dangerous since the boilers weren't up to containing the pressure. It wasn't until the 18th century that steam power was finally usefully harnessed. Note that Newcomen (the inventor of the first really useful steam engine) had to contend with the issue of patent infringement as well, even though the holder of those patents had made only incremental improvements to a decades older unpatented design.

It still took until the late 18th century to advance to engines capable of significant power output and even approaching anything we might call efficiency. It wasn't until then that they did anything but pump water.

It looks like even there patents didn't really help much and also did some harm.

There may be some value to IP, but not without a great deal of reform. That reform in the U.S. would almost certainly have to include complete dissolution of the patent office and creation of a new one.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (2, Funny)

FoboldFKY (785255) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486186)

"Hot water, good dentistry and soft lavatory paper."

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (2, Funny)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486234)

Yeah, totally agree. This makes me wonder if the Music industry has finally realised we are the ones holding all of the cards, not vice versa. I also love the other Conan movies, and to a lesser extent the cartoon series. "Woman: A pittance to protect you from evil?" "Subotai: I am evil..." "Conan: You're all whores."

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (2, Informative)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486282)

Won't be as far as totally abolishing copyrights and patents. Is ok that you have some rights over your creation. But have claims that have a meaning in actual reality, specially the technological one, they can be positive for you and for the rest of the humanity. If digital media of any is freely transfered over the net, then let it be that way and take advantage that it is happening, not just declare that the eath must be flat because you say so.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (2, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486296)

Sharkey says, "In short," he said, "We want to be number one." Well, a single digit salute to you, Mr. Sharkey, you predatory bastard from the deep.

Re:Your capitulation is insufficient (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486718)

``Nothing less than to abolish copyright will do.''

I wish you good luck in your quest, but I won't be marching with you all the way. I am quite fond of my copyleft [wikipedia.org] licenses, myself.

I wonder... (2, Funny)

tacarat (696339) | more than 4 years ago | (#33485946)

Will the British porn industry be so daring?

Re:I wonder... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33485956)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the British porn industry is the most daring in the industry.

Re:I wonder... (2, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486142)

Well, anyone who expects people to pay to see Brits fuck IS pretty daring...

All kinds of depraved people out there... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486476)

Though I could probably masturbate to someone speaking Oxford English. No video necessary, just the audio track. :/

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486144)

I thought it was the British toothbrush industry.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486786)

...British porn...

I'm going to go out on a limb...

I'll get the video camera.

Could work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33485948)

By encouraging piracy, I am sure they can get that global domination.

With any luck they'll get more sales too.

It seems... (2, Funny)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#33485978)

... that a good heart, these days, is hard to find... Simon.

Re:It seems... (2, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486152)

Who needs a good heart when you can pick up another girl in the neighbourhood and get your teenage kicks right through the night?

Re:It seems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486930)

Seeing as they tried to sue someone for singing at a supermarket checkout in the UK, you'll likely get sued for that :p

Re:It seems... (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33487164)

Ooh, you little thief!

Failure is the right of every musician :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33485980)

British music industry can in 10 years time become not only number one, but in doing so take British technology companies with us

Damn but I hope that the music industry doesn't take the technology companies with it.

Re:Failure is the right of every musician :) (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33487140)

A Brit pop starlet on every tabloid cover and a Psion Series 5 on every palm!

Damn, the British probably need a technology company that sells their own tech if they plan to do something about making it number one. I don't think it'll help in quite the way they plan if their "tech companies" are just reselling stuff from the US, Canada, Norway, Finland, Germany, Japan, China, and Taiwan.

Maybe it's time (2, Funny)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 4 years ago | (#33485986)

for Clive Sinclair to come out of retirement and make a new iPod thing or something?

OT (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486292)

for Clive Sinclair to come out of retirement and make a new iPod thing or something?

Just saw the Futurama episode where they viewed something on an "iFad". LMAO.

About a decade late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486000)

You should be thanking Apple for having the vision* of bringing download sales to the general public.

* face it, all the other services before the iTunes Store were only really usable by nerds. Doing drag'n drop and moving files around may be simple for nerdsbut it is the most complex thing to regular people who can barely use a computer in the first place. A lot of people still can't grasp the difference between RAM and hard drives, not to mention how to navigate drives and folders.

whew! (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486006)

Oh, I thought they meant the total global domination by the British food industry!

Re:whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486076)

That'd be curries and kebabs, not the worst thing imaginable.

Re:whew! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486716)

Slather the cuisine du monde in marmite, yummy!

Provide better samples (5, Insightful)

Sirusjr (1006183) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486010)

I really wish the music industry would realize how important it is to users to have an idea what they are getting before they buy it. I buy tons of music from small film music labels who put out limited edition soundtracks and they are by far the best when it comes to providing samples of their new releases. Film Score Monthly posts 1 minute clips for each track on their new release, in low bitrate but at least it usually gives me a good idea what I am getting into. Labels should provide moderate bitrate (192kbps) streams of the music online (or at least half of a new album) and offer lossless downloads for a reasonable price and users wouldn't need to download as much. As it is, most of the time I find the only way to discover a new group is to download an unknown album and give it a listen. I've purchased a number of debut albums and albums from independent artists after downloading their music if I find that it is impressive. There is way too much music out there to do otherwise and still have the finances to support quality music. If labels provided better samples, I would be able to discover the same groups without resorting to downloads.

Re:Provide better samples (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486106)

> There is way too much music out there

In fact, I'd say there's enough non-**AA-non-British music "out there" that attempting "domination" is either doomed to fail, or dooms our personal freedoms ("you will listen only to our music").

And another thing --- I'd guess that the majority of the Ordinary Joes would be perfectly happy with the free 192kbps track(s). Given the way I appreciate most music, I'd say that probably goes for me, also. So, no, minimally, they'd have to make it mono, I'd guess.

I do agree, though, that 30 seconds isn't enough, and 1 minute is a more reasonable length for a preview.

Re:Provide better samples (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486808)

Just to say that I do actually buy all my music on CD, simply because I don't think £10 for a piece of music that I might enjoy for 30+ years is not an unfair price for it.

But how many film trailers have you seen where the film looked really good - and then rented or bought the actual film whereupon it was crap.

If an album appeals to me that much, I will go out and buy it - but I want to hear most of it first. Likewise, if only half the tracks on it are good, then I want the option of making a note of it and possibly waiting until I can get is used or in a bargain sale for £5.

Re:Provide better samples (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486200)

I'm just curious, but what kind of music do you listen to that doesn't get uploaded to youtube? I am not so much on the cutting edge like you are, but everything I want is available there to listen to before buying. So I ask, what kind of stuff are you listening to (and where do you find it)?

Re:Provide better samples (1)

zarzu (1581721) | more than 4 years ago | (#33487144)

You have a very good point. From my experience as a predominantly indie folk (music genres are odd and everybody interprets them differently, but i don't want to be vague here) listener, you will find the music of new artists first on their own page (normally MySpace) then on YouTube and once they become more popular as a torrent. Let me give an example: Haruko is an indie folk artist from Germany (no association) who released her first record about a year ago. You can find 3 songs on her MySpace page [myspace.com] and multiple videos on YouTube [youtube.com] where you have to search for 'haruko folk' because of the ubiquity of the name. You will however have a hard time finding her album (wild geese) as a torrent or .rar (there might be places, but searching MySpace and YouTube will be far faster).

So for me the sequence for new artists normally is: (1.) Hear it on the radio [folkradio.co.uk] (example - no association). (2.) Google it and find a MySpace page. (3.) If they haven't released a record yet, capture the songs and check back regularly for a release. (4.) Order the record, i prefer physical ones but i take digital as well.

Re: Provide better samples (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486338)

I really wish the music industry would realize how important it is to users to have an idea what they are getting before they buy it.

Lots of on-line music sales sites have a button that will let you hear a snippet of a track.

Re:Provide better samples (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486816)

``I really wish the music industry would realize how important it is to users to have an idea what they are getting before they buy it.''

In every music store I've been to, I could listen to a CD before deciding whether or not to buy it.

Almost all music I've bought, I've bought after listening to it, and the rest because it came on the same album as music I bought after listening to it. I listen to music in many places: in pubs, at friends' places, on the radio in my car, on the Net, and in movies. Other people watch music videos on the likes of MTV.

And what about Youtube? It has music videos and advertisements much like the TV channels. The difference is that, on Youtube, the users decide what gets watched, rather than the TV station.

Many sites that sell music, including, last I checked, amazon.com, let you get 30 second samples of songs without requiring you to buy.

I think the music industry does realize how important it is to let people know what the music is before people buy it.

In other news... (2, Insightful)

gearloos (816828) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486104)

RIAA sues everyone...

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486134)

RIAA sues everyone...

It's news?..

Re:In other news... (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486418)

exactly

Isn't that an old country music song? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486146)

"An Industry Named Sue"?

(Sorry, Shel --- RIP).

Wow. How arrogant. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486132)

They should try to find a truce with their customers, right?

No. They prefer to collude with governments, hardware manufacturers, media (when do churches come into play?). We, the customers?

Bah. Just gullets.

It's our fucking responsibility to fight that.

Be afraid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486154)

In Call-Me-Dave's brand new Britain there is no longer any such thing as quality, integrity, creativity or honesty - just the naked and unashamed lust for cash coupled with a sneering contempt for pretty much everyone.
So, when the Tech Industry and the Music Industry say "why are we fighting thus?", it is not a sign of some fantastic new breakthrough in enlightened thinking, it's the realisation that they can fuck even more people over if they join together.

Re:Be afraid. (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486400)

"In Call-Me-Dave's brand new Britain there is no longer any such thing as quality, integrity, creativity or honesty - just the naked and unashamed lust for cash coupled with a sneering contempt for pretty much everyone."

Really? Cool, I might consider moving back some day then.

Re:Be afraid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486572)

The naked, unashamed lust for cash was here well before the current government.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Red-Book-Labour-Sleaze/dp/1904734162 for starters. A scandal a month, every month, for nine years.

As a rule of thumb, Tories get caught with their mistresses, lib dms get caught with rent boys, and labour get caught with their hands in the till.

Re:Be afraid. (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486588)

Tories get caught with much worse than that don't they?

I recall a story from the early 90s of a Tory, may have been a peer, being found dead wearing stockings and suspenders, with an orange in his mouth, a plastic bag ove rhis head and a kettle lead wrapped around his neck...

I may be exaggerating, but I think that was on "Have I Got News For You" a long long time ago...

It was Stephen Milligan MP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486834)

...who died from autoerotic asphyxiation [wikipedia.org] . There was much speculation about the exact details.

Re:Be afraid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486952)

I recall a story from the early 90s of a Tory, may have been a peer, being found dead wearing stockings and suspenders, with an orange in his mouth, a plastic bag ove rhis head and a kettle lead wrapped around his neck...

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Re: Be afraid. (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486708)

In Call-Me-Dave's brand new Britain there is no longer any such thing as quality, integrity, creativity or honesty - just the naked and unashamed lust for cash coupled with a sneering contempt for pretty much everyone.

Sound's like they've finally caught up to the Reagan era.

Re:Be afraid. (1)

Elky Elk (1179921) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486724)

Were you drunk the last 13 years?

Re:Be afraid. (2, Insightful)

funkatron (912521) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486924)

FFS, he just a fucking politician. He has no influence on anything.

Sharkey (3, Interesting)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486204)

I can never make up my mind about Sharkey. There are a few times when he comes off as someone genuinely interested in the wellbeing of British musicians, and there are other times when he comes off as an arrogant prick interested only in the global domination of the BPI. I know one thing for sure: he's not the type who can handle being wrong, and as long as he still stands he will fight for copyright, even if reason and evidence suggest that copyright is a bad thing for musicians and a bad thing for the British people.

In my opinion, his actions have been impulsive, shallow and unpredictable, and I hope he stays out of this debate -- even if he means well at heart. You know what they say about that road paved with good intentions...

Re:Sharkey (3, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486398)

In my opinion, his actions have been impulsive, shallow and unpredictable, and I hope he stays out of this debate -- even if he means well at heart. You know what they say about that road paved with good intentions...

Hmmm.... Good intentions, you say... Let's see TFA:

He appealed for "the ultimate solution", which was a music market place.

Market place... to me, it means: we sell it, you pay for it. Believe me, I don;t mind paying for it, I do mind however who are the sellers.

Market-place: is this the only reason music should be created? Is it the only way music should be distributed?

What about artists earning more from "live music" (touring - like it used to be before the copyright) and a bit less from selling "dead music"?

If the main source of profit comes from distributing the music instead of "living" it, concerts become (already became) only "a channel of promotion for records" (along many others)... perhaps this is why I still enjoy better going to "jam sessions" - at least music just happens then-and-there - I'd hate to see them disappearing because a corporate dick thinks them as "a less efficient way of promoting a record".

Re:Sharkey (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33487156)

Oh, make no mistake. Most of the actual artists still do make more money touring than selling albums. Their labels make the money on the albums, almost all of it, until the artists are very big names with clout to bargain.

Re:Sharkey (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486522)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this "truce" he has in mind might involve technology companies cracking down on pirates (again), and respecting their copyrights.

Further out on a limb, I'd say that nothing will be achieved off the back of this.

76th Rule of Acquisition (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486236)

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

Ah. (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486280)

told a conference in London this week that it was time for the music and technology industries to set aside their differences and strive instead toward a common goal: nothing less than the total global domination of British music.

The old "if you can't beat them, ask them to join you" strategy.

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486310)

76. Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

Re:Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486440)

offtopic - really, mods? nice nerdy way to speculate that it may be a feint.

Modded informative because he accurately quote the Rules according to the Memory Alpha listing.

Global domination? (2, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486312)

- Pinky, you are pondering what i'm pondering?
- I think so UK Music... but do i really need to buy?

If you can't beat 'em, join them? (5, Insightful)

cheros (223479) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486370)

I see that the call is not to end the war on consumers, then? I note with interest the semantic twist when they talk about "sustainable business models" - it's the music industry that got it wrong (yet again, and again) when it comes to new technology, so there is a mild lack of credibility if they want to tell ISPs and service providers how to make money.

If they would have spent the money that have waisted on unwarranted prosecution, no, pERsecution of their potential customers on researching collaboration from the start we would not have a whole generation of their customers who have seen their friend's lives wrecked by taking the money they needed for school away on frankly spurious arguments, methods evidence and calculations that have now been shown to be so far off the mark it ought to trigger automatic retrial. It sure is a novel way to engender people to your products, but there too I would forego their advice.

Ditto for the film industry. As a legitimate buyer I am getting exceptionally fed up by DVDs taking control of my player so I cannot skip the "you should not steal" bit every time I play a DVD (anything from Disney is worse as it goes straight into marketing afterwards). I bought the real thing with real money, so f*ck off. If I ever have to present to such organisations I swear I will lock the doors and spend 10 minutes droning in the worst possible way about why they should not copy and distribute my material. Every time. Oh, and that they won't be authorised to read it in any other country..

I do not copy music, but I am fed up with being treated and lectured to as a potential criminal regardless.

Oh, and Sharkey? I don't think he really needs to worry about anyone copying *his* music, I can see why he changed jobs..

All the world (0, Offtopic)

masini (1707522) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486464)

What dominations. It is no true. The artists are the same all of this world. I hope they will be always the same.piese auto import [auto-my.ro]

The "ultimate solution" lol wut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486520)

From TFA: "He appealed for 'the ultimate solution', which was a music market place."

Godwin's Law prevents me from describing what I think he wants that market place to be like.

global domination of British music (4, Funny)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486606)

Britannia Rules the .WAV!

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486698)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS4ALgm6Rsc

Translated (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486824)

We want a truce, if you do absolutely everything we want and obey us without thinking, then we won't be trying to make you do absolutely everything we want and make you obey without thinking. Ain't we nice.

The music industry suffers from the broken window fallacy. Roughly, the kid who broke a window benefited society since money flowed because the window had to be replaced. The fallacy is that the money would have flowed anyway, but NOT in the replacement of something but in investment or the improving of ones life.

If the music industry goes bankrupt, the economy doesn't suffer because it will simply have meant a shift of money.

The record shop has become the mobile phone shop. I don't have a newspaper subscription, I have an Internet subscription. My money flows into the economy. The smart parts of the economy have moved on, the rest is trying to legislate against the car, the electric light, chance itself. Good luck. They might put a man with a red flag on the internet for a few years, but progress moves on. I will simply pirate over a prepaid 3G connection. I will NOT buy CD's. Time has moved on. Move with it or die.

Truce? (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486830)

There's only one side been attacking here and it isn't technology. This isn't a truce, at best it's a cease-fire.

the real fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33486878)

So far, the real fight has been the music industry fighting to hold on to its ancient and long outdated business model instead of updating to take advantage of advanced technology. Consumers cannot allow any compromises with the music industry...consumers and technology must win, and the music industry must totally lose its current business model. No other outcome can be allowed.

Re:the real fight (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486974)

I don't actually have a problem with the current business model, except that I'd like a legal way of previewing a piece of music before I decide to buy it.

I buy lots of CDs, I don't think £10 is an unfair price to pay for an album I may have enjoyed over decades. I'm also quite happy for the music industry to use its huge marketing budgets to advertise at me (within reason) because appropriate adverts in the music magazines I read have lead to find even more great music.

Musicians selling their own music on their own web site will not have those marketing budgets, therefore there's nothing to lead me to them in preference to the thousands of other artists who are doing the same thing.

People who concerns themselves with the operation of the music industry are deluded. All that matters is whether or not the end product is value-for-money or not.

If it's not worth the money, then don't buy it & don't copy it. If enough people do that, the industry cannot blame music pirates for their lack of sales, therefore they have to themselves change their business model.

Simple.

I hate to break it to you, but... (4, Informative)

hoggy (10971) | more than 4 years ago | (#33486964)

...UK Music are not the UK music industry. Sharkey is a lobbyist with a bunch of artists on his side, but he doesn't speak for any of the publishers/labels.

I mean it's a refreshing opinion, but it doesn't represent any grand outbreak of common sense.

Oh well ... (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 4 years ago | (#33487112)

They are at teh point of bargaining.
You see ... they wanted all the pie to them selves, but no luck.
Now they hope they can share with a few ... but no chance.

They have to negotiate with the kid at school that carries 1GB usb drive ...

They are the ones with the technology ...

Too little too late (1)

mrogers (85392) | more than 4 years ago | (#33487136)

On behalf of the British technology industry, it's my privilege to issue this response: Mr Sharkey, fuck yourself in the eye. After thirty years of smear campaigns and righteous hysteria you've finally realised that you can't make money without us, and now you want to be friends? Sorry old man, but it's too little, too late. Everybody knows your house is on fire and we're not going to help you put it out. All we wanted was a share of the groupies and the coke, Feargal. Was that too much to ask? But supplies are drying up, standards are dropping and in the meantime we've invented Craigslist. What do you have left to offer us? Box sets? Get the fuck off my doorstep, Sharkey.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?