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!

European Court of Justice To Outlaw Net Filtering

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the soon-only-outlaws-will-have-filters dept.

The Internet 171

jrepin writes "Today, the European Court of Justice gave a preliminary opinion that will have far-reaching implications in the fight against overaggressive copyright monopoly abusers. It is not a final verdict, but the advocate general's position; the Court generally follows this. The Advocate Generals says that no ISP can be required to filter the Internet, and particularly not to enforce the copyright monopoly."

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

I can only say one thing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35819734)

Niggers!

Re:I can only say one thing (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819770)

No no no, the answer we were looking for was "Naggers"

This will never fly. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35819740)

Too much money riding on it. Corporations will win. Always.

Re:This will never fly. (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819832)

Corporations will win. Always.

FTFS:

no ISP can be required to filter the Internet

Well it does say can be required to, that doesn't mean they can't be convinced, paid, or otherwise motivated to filter the Internet.

Re:This will never fly. (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820032)

Corporations will win. Always.

FTFS:

no ISP can be required to filter the Internet

Well it does say can be required to, that doesn't mean they can't be convinced, paid, or otherwise motivated to filter the Internet.

Europe can always take a page from the US's playbook: the next time there's something to be remotely afraid of, it can be declared their "patriotic duty" to filter, monitor, etc. That can be done without passing a single law.

Re:This will never fly. (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820142)

Europe doesn't have that particular flavor of patriotism.

Re:This will never fly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820208)

Who needs patriotism if kiddy porn will do?

Re:This will never fly. (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820218)

For that matter, neither does most of the US.

Re:This will never fly. (2)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821154)

For that matter, neither does most of the US.

You nailed it. The US doesn't but the media can be absolutely convincing that it does. They only need to beat the drums of patriotism and focus on press releases made by the government since they are "official sources". They are unlikely to delve too deeply into whether that's really representative of the rest of the population. They're too busy defining a convenient norm that sells advertising.

Re:This will never fly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820792)

"Patriotic Duty" to what?

Europe as a government isn't based on a ideology - it's based on practicality (no matter what the citizens of the member states may think :S). It just happens that many of the member states share similar ideologies.

We owe no duty to it (though we do pay some :P) - in fact if anything many countries will view it as their patriotic duty not to obey Europe, when it's not in their countries interest.

   

Re:This will never fly. (2)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821202)

"Patriotic Duty" to what?

Europe as a government isn't based on a ideology - it's based on practicality (no matter what the citizens of the member states may think :S). It just happens that many of the member states share similar ideologies.

We owe no duty to it (though we do pay some :P) - in fact if anything many countries will view it as their patriotic duty not to obey Europe, when it's not in their countries interest.

 

"Patriotism" has a true meaning and it has a false meaning. The true meaning is like that saying about loving your country so much that you politically oppose its government when its government gets out of control (just to be clear - I am talking about political, civil, non-violent opposition).

The false meaning is more like mindlessly supporting its government so you can feel like you're part of something greater than yourself with no regard for whether the government deserves your support. It's usually driven by "us against them" which is why it becomes so popular after the country is attacked by a foreign enemy.

Re:This will never fly. (3, Informative)

fearlezz (594718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820224)

Well it does say can be required to, that doesn't mean they can't be convinced, paid, or otherwise motivated to filter the Internet.

Indeed.

Falkvinge.net says the exact opposite of what I read dozens of times today. All articles I read today say that that very same advocate general, mister Cruz Villalón, said that if individual countries make laws requiring ISPs to filter the web, there's nothing the EU can/will do. Only without those local laws, it would be illegal.

Some of my sources:
Translation of tweakers.net [google.nl]
Translation of nu.nl [google.nl]

Re:This will never fly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820634)

Well, based on past history I'm dubious about anything coming from the EU, but remember any EU citizen with sufficient funds can appeal all the way up to the ECJ. There have been several historical instances of the ECJ effectively overturning some retarded national law.

Though the americans (apparently without irony) want to get copyright infringements classed as terrorism, which rather undermines Falkvinge's "subject to the standards of terrorism laws" argument - if copyright infringement is considered terrorism, then they'll be able to avail of similar liberty-restricting idiocies as terrorism hysteria allows.

Who will win? (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819868)

Too much money riding on it. Corporations will win. Always

Aren't ISPs corporations too?

MOD PARENT -1 REDUNDANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820006)

Too much money riding on it. Corporations will win. Always

Aren't ISPs corporations too?

I think that was part of his point. Duh.

Re:MOD PARENT -1 REDUNDANT (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821170)

Too much money riding on it. Corporations will win. Always

Aren't ISPs corporations too?

I think that was part of his point. Duh.

I don't think you're thinking things through. How would implementing costly filtering and being held accountable for doing it well and not pissing your customers off and losing them by doing so, ever be a win for an ISP? A win for them is to NOT be forced to do content filtering which is in direct opposition to the goals of companies that have money riding on content filtering being required.

Different Corporations on each side (3, Interesting)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820456)

Those who charge for bandwidth love piracy - since if the cost of the content goes to zero, all the profit in home-viewing of movies will go to the telcom companies & ISPs.

Also, telcom companies are known to be at least as skilled and powerful at lobbying than the copyright groups.

And the last thing ISPs want is to start having to filter content and therefore potentially become legally responsible for every wikileak and drug deal done through their network.

It'll be an interesting fight.

First Post! (-1, Redundant)

maczealot (864883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819764)

Nor would they be able to do so even if they tried. Thanks judgy judge!

Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (3, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819800)

You can bet the Copywrite lobby will fight this tooth and nail. After all, their yacht payme^H^H^H^H^^H^H^H^H^H^H^H artists livelihoods are at stake!

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (2, Interesting)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819888)

I hate the RIAA and their methods as much as anyone, but I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.

It will have a continuing negative effect on revenue - not that I care how much EMI makes, but I do care when by extension there is less money available to sign artists, promote music that is not currently mainstream, when lower quality music receives all the promotion dollars available from the now smaller pool, etc.

I'm an amateur musician, but among the semi-professionals I know no one has any delusions about breaking into the music industry anymore. It's really changed the landscape because the industry itself has shrunk dramatically.

Maybe people will see it as good in the future that most music will be local and self-released by the artist and the only acts with real national exposure will be the Britneys and Taylors who sell football stadiums. I just don't think some of the greatest records would have ever been recorded in the current and future system. We've lost something.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (4, Informative)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819920)

Nah, people just have to get it through their heads that they will have to do it themselves instead of expecting someone else to do it for them. A full 24-bit digital recording studio that beats anything that was available to Pink Floyd, The Beatles, or Zeppelin will cost you only a few hundred dollars these days. Less than a good drum set. Stop whining and get to work on it.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819980)

Anyone can walk into a music shop and buy a Les Paul too, but that doesn't mean they can produce material anywhere near the quality of Jimmy Page. A tool means nothing without knowledge.

The quality of recording facilities does matter. The quality of those engineering, mixing, and producing does matter. The quality of session players available does matter.

"So, use a computer - dummy" has very little to do with it.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (4, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820192)

You're conflating a lot things here. Talent is the first and last key to art, and can overcome inferior tools and distribution. However talent is singular, and cannot be bought or taught. At a certain point the quality of tools reaches a sort of "Monster Cables" level of diminishing returns. Truly good music will sound amazing whether it is recorded and produced in a high budget studio with a stupidly huge team or if it is recorded with a few hundred bucks worth of mid-grade hobbyist equipment and the artists themselves. Really expensive tools and teams can make talentless douchebags sound good, that's the whole pop music industry in a nutshell, but people with talent remain so even with inferior equipment.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820316)

You're conflating a lot things here. Talent is the first and last key to art, and can overcome inferior tools and distribution. However talent is singular, and cannot be bought or taught. At a certain point the quality of tools reaches a sort of "Monster Cables" level of diminishing returns. Truly good music will sound amazing whether it is recorded and produced in a high budget studio with a stupidly huge team or if it is recorded with a few hundred bucks worth of mid-grade hobbyist equipment and the artists themselves. Really expensive tools and teams can make talentless douchebags sound good, that's the whole pop music industry in a nutshell, but people with talent remain so even with inferior equipment.

That is very true. Let's assume for the sake of argument that that high budget studio is an absolute requirement for the production of good music (it's not.) Let's further assume that artists still need expensive advertising campaigns (they don't) or radio airplay (not anymore) to promote and sell their music. That still would not justify the incredible overhead of the big music studios, their profiteering, and the societal and legal damage they and their corrupt "trade organizations" are causing the world over.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820318)

Pop music is an animal unto itself and really isn't music in the same sense. I don't think it's useful to say that "computerization can make anyone sound good" - while that might be true for a pop singer who only ever sings to backing tracks, it's not really what I mean by "music". (and they finance real music, so it's ok with me)

I know you say that amazing music will sound amazing even if it's recorded in a toolshed, but this really isn't the case. You can go find quotes from the band, but you mentioned Pink Floyd earlier. What do they think about this? What have they said about Dark Side of the Moon, and how it would have turned out without Alan Parsons?

I've said all I need to say, I think. There is a difference between fast-food pop, produced for undiscerning audiences, and "real music". The real is what will suffer here. Pop music won't go, it may just be the only thing left in the end.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (3, Interesting)

Kongming (448396) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820568)

I must strongly disagree with the idea that "real music" will suffer without highly profitable major record labels to promote it. The major record labels have long been more interested in spending promotional dollars on pop acts than on anyone doing anything innovative. With the self-promotion opportunities that the Internet provides, I have been able to find (and purchase music from) dozens of truly excellent artists that I would never have been able to find under the old model. Even aside from the concentration of advertising dollars on artists that pump out popular singles, most traditional radio stations are now owned by a few megacorps who are closely tied in with the major labels. When you call most stations these days and ask them to play anything that isn't already on their rotation list, even if in-genre and not too obscure, they aren't even allowed to do it. (Although the DJs are often frustrated and wish that they could.)

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (5, Insightful)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820912)

You know what's making the real music suffer? Not the internet, but large retail chains that only stock the popular shit and out compete the smaller record stores that actually have lesser known works. The whole industry was set to fail sooner or later, the internet did nothing to change that. If you are a budding artist, embrace things like last.fm, those are the future.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821256)

No.

What's making real music suffer is assumptions by people like you that it comes from storefront operations. Of any size or scale.

People make music. Full stop.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (2)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821354)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but allow me to elaborate my point.

There are/were quite a few specialist record stores that specialize in a genre, people who like that genre could go in there and find music (known and unknown) in that genre, it allowed people the chance to discover music released by artists themselves or small labels.

These days however, you have large chains that mostly only stockpile popular shit, the Biebers of the day, and they are out pricing the smaller record stores on those few popular records in the genres, driving customers away.

This is a reality, just this month the store where i used to get my Cd's announced they are closing doors because, well, there just isn't enough clientèle anymore to keep a specialist store open.

Luckily, we have things such as last.m now, whom mostly take the place of the specialist stores and allows people to discover new bands, but the loss of the specialist stores does mean it's less convenient to go out and buy a bunch of Cd's, being forced to use either iTunes or mail order. (I was going to mention amazon too, but they still don't sell mp3's in Europe i think)

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

Maclir (33773) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820624)

Talent is the first and last key to art, ... and cannot be bought or taught.

You clearly havn't been watching shows like "American Idol".

Missing the point. (1)

Toze (1668155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820616)

For every realized brilliant engineer/mixer/producer, there are more, possibly many more, unrealized ones. In the days when TV studios were building-sized, you needed to work for years to gain access to one to tell your story. Then camcorders, webcams, and youtube happened, and while 99% of what's on there is crap, 1% of it is brilliant work from people who could never have gained access to the big studios. That 1% represents a two or five or tenfold increase in the amount of smart/clever/funny/important video that's available. Now the same thing is happening with music production.

It's not that anyone should expect computers to transform total losers into brilliant musicians. It's that we should expect computers to transform into adequate sound studios for those musicians-in-potentia to use.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820230)

Plus he can sell his music DRM-free and at a low price (killing the incentive to pirate), and take all the profit for himself. 100% of $5-$10 is better than 3-20% of $20-$30*

*Yes I know there are certain values of that for which it isn't true, but you won't get anywhere near a 20% cut unless you're a chart-topping legendary megasuperstar.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820710)

100% of $5-$10 is better than 3-20% of $20-$30*

As a lot of people selling games, e-books, music, and movies have found out,
100% of $1-$2 is better than 100% of $5-$10.
It turns out you really can make it up on volume.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820846)

It turns out you really can make it up on volume.

Sure but you have to actually be making a profit for each sale. There's no guarantee that just because someone else can make a profit in some medium at $1-$2 means that it's applicable to everyone and everything. This is what is lost by the people who try to claim that selling music, e-books, etc has no costs.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820444)

The recording media (the computer) is cheap/software But are you seriously of the opinion that you can build a room like Abbey Road has, buy the microphones that the beatles used (or even comparable microphones), and the gear (amps, instruments) that they used? Heck, even buying an interface with as many mic-preamps as would be needed to duplicate the recording conditions of the beatles costs more than a few hundred dollars. Not to mention that the speakers you'll need to even know what the hell it is you're recording don't come cheap. Cheaper than they did before, yes, but not cheap.

To build a professional recording rig, and a room to use it in, doesn't cost what it used to. But it's still in the thousands, not the hundreds, if you want to do it "right" - or at least comparably to something like Pink Flloyd, THe Beatles, or Zeppelin - where actually people are behind pretty much everything you hear on the record, and everything on the record is relatively unique to that record. Yes, you can use loops and samples these days, it's not the same... and a midi controller that can actually trigger samples usefully is still going to be more than a couple hundred bucks, but don't act as if you could throw together a full recording experience for anything less than a couple thousand and actually be able to do what those guys did. And that's just on a gear, and not on an experience side.

I'm all for home recording, just don't BS about how inexpensive it is, when it isn't yet.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

schwinn8 (982110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821244)

It may not be completely inexpensive, but if this is your "career" then that's where you have to spend your money. My career was engineering, so I spent a bunch of money on a college education. If you want to be a recording artist, you have to spend your money there... so you can't complain about that.

Secondly, you don't need super high end equipment. Look at the Foo Fighters latest album - all recorded on old analog equipment, and in a garage. Sure, it's not convenient or easy, but it can be done and still sound great. If you WANT the new MIDI stuff and automation, then knock yourself out... just don't go crying to people that it's expensive (for both of these reasons). Bottom line, is that if you have the TALENT (as mentioned above) you don't need to fake it with electronics. If you're not talented, then don't complain about poor sales/quality/etc.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821246)

Sure, you will need to make an investment. However, if you make the right investment then $3,000 spent on the right home studio gear today, combined with someone with talent to handle it, will take you a lot further than $30,000 out of the money the label promised you. Remember, your buddy who's doing this as a favor/because it's good practice/because you're buying him pizza isn't billing you hundreds of dollars per hour for labor and hundreds of dollars per hour for "equipment rental" and similar shenanigans that the label will try to push on you (to minimize the amount of money you'll get from them in the end).

So yeah, you'll need to spend a little on hardware but nothing like what used to be required and nothing like what the studio will want to "bill" you for. Sure, if you want to replicate the sound that someone else managed to come up with after a year in a very expensive custom studio that's going to be nearly impossible (or take you a long time) but with the right setup you won't be far off.

As for the "couple of hundred dollars", yeah that won't get you much unless you or your band already have a bunch of gear (not that unusual though to see bands where the members are all in their twenties and have gathered a big pile of various audio hardware for both live and studio performance).

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821218)

A full 24-bit digital recording studio that beats anything that was available to Pink Floyd, The Beatles, or Zeppelin will cost you only a few hundred dollars these days.

That is an incredibly deluded techie way of looking at it. You are talking about the software and the bit of A/D conversion hardware needed, correct?

Good microphones still cost many thousands. And a well designed sound proof facility to use all of the above in costs much, much more.

You sound like my friend with his midi gear. He used to carry on about 'dispensing with all the musicians' because they were obsolete.

Uh, wrong.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819986)

I just don't think some of the greatest records would have ever been recorded in the current and future system.

I listen to a lot of jazz and classical music. So much of the great recordings in these genres were produced by state arts subsidies, private patronage, or recording labels subsidizing their many less popular acts by their handful of big successes. Even if very few people were expected to go out and pay for these recordings, they still got made for decades and decades. There's no reason that can't continue to happen. Yes, some acts might not be able to make it, but there's no reason to claim that it's the end of music.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (0)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820066)

I don't feel this is the end of music. My point was that this represents a massive, massive change in it. The engines that brought us basically all music from the 1950s until today are going away, and there isn't really any replacement.

Your comments about publicly supported music ring true in the jazz and classical genres. I doubt if we're going to see subsidies to support music in other areas because there are no education bodies with an interest in that.

Another thing is, even if (according to another poster) I own a computer so I should be able to produce music at just as high quality as anyone has ever produced, if I'm burning CD-Rs and handing them out at shows for $5, what does that really do for music in our cultural consciousness? Is an album great if no one ever hears it? Perhaps, but what has it done for us? What has it done for us versus what could have been done?

Music doesn't change the world by osmosis, it has to enter many millions of ears. Kind Of Blue may still have been great as performed even if the performers were nobodies, but if no one had ever heard the record, what would it have meant?

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820152)

Your comments about publicly supported music ring true in the jazz and classical genres. I doubt if we're going to see subsidies to support music in other areas because there are no education bodies with an interest in that.

Local pop acts are already subsidized to some degree in many European countries.

Another thing is, even if (according to another poster) I own a computer so I should be able to produce music at just as high quality as anyone has ever produced, if I'm burning CD-Rs and handing them out at shows for $5, what does that really do for music in our cultural consciousness? Is an album great if no one ever hears it?

The musical scene has already been fragmented into numerous disparate cultures after the advent of recording in the first half of the 20th century. There's no longer a single canon that a society can relate to. As John Cage said about just classical music, the river of the Western tradition has already passed into a delta.

Kind Of Blue may still have been great as performed even if the performers were nobodies, but if no one had ever heard the record, what would it have meant?

Bad example. I've gained a great deal of anecdotal evidence that while Kind of Blue is frequently bought since it is touted as being so great, it doesn't impress the average listener much and the record remains truly loved only by a fairly small group of jazz afficionados.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820404)

I rarely pull out the corporate shill card, but I'm pretty sure you neatly fit the category: someone who supports a corporate benefit that directly conflicts with the benefit of society in general - bonus if the UID is near 2M. Let me explain to you why I think that, and it is primarily because you ask a lot of leading questions where your hoped for answer is in conflict with reality.

The engines that brought us basically all music from the 1950s until today are going away, and there isn't really any replacement.

Wrong. Those engines were radio and pressed media. They didn't go away, they were replaced by a better distribution medium: the Internet.

Your comments about publicly supported music ring true in the jazz and classical genres. I doubt if we're going to see subsidies to support music in other areas because there are no education bodies with an interest in that.

Wrong. The most common education bodies teach guitar (local music shops), and the big music departments cover everything from medieval string music to jazz to grunge rock to avant-guarde atonal music. The educational support is broad and deep, as is the demand for music. The only place where demand is narrow and shallow is in the big record labels. If it doesn't fit the Justin Bieber/Britney Spears template, it gets buried.

Another thing is, even if (according to another poster) I own a computer so I should be able to produce music at just as high quality as anyone has ever produced, if I'm burning CD-Rs and handing them out at shows for $5, what does that really do for music in our cultural consciousness?

And this is why they teach you to always answer your rhetorical questions, just in case someone doesn't follow your lead. I'll tell you what it does for our cultural consciousness: it enriches it. If the record is good, I'll pass it to my friends. Hey, listen to this! This guy/girl rocks. They'll pass it around. They'll buy the next record, evangelize it as well, go to shows - the whole nine yards. If they don't like it, it quietly dies. Will that person make billions from that one record? Probably not - and there is no reason that anyone should make billions from a one time activity.

Is an album great if no one ever hears it?

Let me turn the question around: in the age of instant world-wide distribution, is an album bad if no one wants to hear it or distribute it? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Otherwise, it would get distributed.

Perhaps, but what has it done for us? What has it done for us versus what could have been done?

This means that your next questions have been answered already as well: it's completely irrelevant what could have happened, because a lot of people decided not to move the record into our general cultural consciousness. That's the definition of an item not being culturally relevant.

Music doesn't change the world by osmosis, it has to enter many millions of ears.

Correct. And the Internet makes sure that everyone can put music into many millions of ears. What has changed from the past 50 years - and where the past 50 years were a complete historical aberration - is that there aren't any more a few dozen people who control what music reaches the ears of millions of people. And it scares the living daylights out of these people, because their jobs have permanently disappeared. Instead, music is back where it should be: in the public consciousness, where it floats to the top based on how many people distribute it.

In short: your entire premise actually goes against the text that you're promoting. The last 50 years were a complete destruction of music as a cultural phenomenon, and were instead the age of music as an industry. The Internet is changing that, and I hope to God that you find a job that doesn't have "destroy culture to monetize it" in its job description.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820988)

The best advertisement is still word of mouth, if you make a cd that is brilliant, you will get it out there. It might not happen over day, but it will happen. Besides, there are a lot more channels these days through which to promote your work.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820040)

I hate the RIAA and their methods as much as anyone, but I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.

I suspect it's had far less of a negative effect than replacing musicians with manufactured bands designed by marketers.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820092)

When the music labels came in, and the unions came in, the big bands vanished. That big band sound, like the Brian Setzer Orchestra and all, just went away. Losing all this shit will give us back our god damn culture.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820250)

Labels manufacture boy bands and it-girls because they sell. While nobody is under any delusions that Justin Bieber will be around in 20 years, at least his vapid music/coasters end up funding the enterprise that sets actual musicians up with studio time, airplay, engineers, producers, etc.

All I am saying to /. is that this problem is more complicated than "label it and kill it" / "record industry = evil". The record industry has done both good and evil. If it disappears, some evil disappears but some good does too.

I didn't even mention that Apple is basically a label unto itself, taking cuts of record sales without adding anything... if you want to talk about middlemen, they are a middle man.

Anyway, good discussion. Think about it, everyone.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820392)

Labels manufacture boy bands and it-girls because they sell.

Then why does the music industry keep complaining that it's not making money anymore?

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821036)

IT-girls? Why hasn't anyone told me this earlier!?

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (4, Interesting)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821082)

As for labels, if the big ancient ones fall and die, they will be replaced by newer companies that are actually aware of the times we're living in. It would actually be a boon for the artists, the best bands these days are independent or with smaller companies whom specialize in a genre or style, and who will actively seek out new talent.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (4, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820046)

I'm an amateur musician, but among the semi-professionals I know no one has any delusions about breaking into the music industry anymore. It's really changed the landscape because the industry itself has shrunk dramatically.

Got any numbers to back up your claims that the music industry has "shrunk dramatically"?

From what I've seen with people I know it definitely seems that if anything for amateur/semi-pro musicians the possibilities have grown. At least this is true for those who have ambitions beyond "playing covers in local bars".

Fifteen years ago if you produced and pressed your own album in a small run you were considered a nobody (didn't matter if it was 5,000 copies, you still weren't as "pro" as the guy with a minor record deal who's first album fizzled and who's second album release only involved 500 copies so the label would fulfill it's contractual obligations). These days there's no shame in it, if anything "I don't want to be screwed over by the labels" is a perfectly valid reason rather than a lame excuse (as it used to be).

Fifteen years ago if you gave your music away for free (be it online or as actual CDs) that meant nothing, it probably would've gotten people talking about how you were trying to game the charts by claiming the albums as sales. These days it's ok to put up a website to share your music (perhaps with a link to iTunes for those who want to pay for it).

Fifteen years ago the only real chance you had of making a video that ended up getting seen by 100,000 viewers was a record deal and letting the studio bring in their pros to create your video (taking the cost of this out of the money they were going to pay you). These days you can get that many viewers if you have a good band, a friend with a HD cam or a DSLR and another friend who's kind of good with FCP or Premiere (just film a few shows, get a little more material to match the mood of the song, edit and upload to youtube).

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820182)

"These days you can get that many viewers if you have a good band, a friend with a HD cam or a DSLR and another friend who's kind of good with FCP or Premiere (just film a few shows, get a little more material to match the mood of the song, edit and upload to youtube)."

If only producing things at the production quality people expect in music they pay money for were just as "you + computer, viola" as Slashdot believes...

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820348)

"These days you can get that many viewers if you have a good band, a friend with a HD cam or a DSLR and another friend who's kind of good with FCP or Premiere (just film a few shows, get a little more material to match the mood of the song, edit and upload to youtube)."

If only producing things at the production quality people expect in music they pay money for were just as "you + computer, viola" as Slashdot believes...

It's not. But neither is the expense of hiring a couple of pros to do some of the work so high that it justifies the existence of the record labels. The big labels are criminal organizations that should have been disbanded decades ago.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (4, Interesting)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820432)

It basically is - just listen to Friday by Rebecca Black:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0 [youtube.com]

The cost of making music that the masses listen too are not very expensiv.

With 101 miljon viewers on youtube its a huge viral success that many 'commercial' artist can only dream about.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (3, Funny)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820530)

Having 101 million viewers doesn't mean that the viewers actually liked it.

Somebody posted it on facebook with a comment about how "I can't believe kids actually listen to this crap", which showed up in my news feed. I watched it. My overall reaction was something along the lines of "well... if you try to ignore the lyrics, her voice, and the video, it's actually almost bearable."

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820992)

Having 101 million viewers doesn't mean that the viewers actually liked it.

Precisely. Last I heard the reaction was about 90% negative.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (2)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821296)

Having 101 million viewers doesn't mean that the viewers actually liked it. Somebody posted it on facebook with a comment about how "I can't believe kids actually listen to this crap", which showed up in my news feed. I watched it. My overall reaction was something along the lines of "well... if you try to ignore the lyrics, her voice, and the video, it's actually almost bearable."

Indeed. Here's what YouTube says: 267,472 likes, 2,041,843 dislikes. That's the most skewed ratio of likes to dislikes I've ever seen - 9 "dislikes" for every "like".

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821136)

And it's actually crap, go figure :P

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (3, Interesting)

Rary (566291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820460)

If only producing things at the production quality people expect in music they pay money for were just as "you + computer, viola" as Slashdot believes...

Who said anything about needing a viola? ;)

But seriously, you obviously need talent, and it definitely helps to surround yourself with other people who have talent (other musicians, audio engineers, etc). The thing is, there are lots of amateurs with talent in those areas. The Internet provides a means to connect with them, modern technology provides the ability for those without too much money to create content, and the WWW provides the ability to distribute. It's not a perfect system, but honestly, a decently talented amateur musician nowadays has a much better chance of becoming known online, at least enough to subsidize their efforts, maybe even make an honest living out of it, than they ever had before when their only hope was to get "discovered" by some elusive record company exec who'll promise them zillions of dollars and all the girls they can screw, only to turn around and screw them from the get-go.

I'm an amateur musician as well, and I used to be a professional musician (independent, mind you), and I'm quite enjoying watching the music industry crumble. I do think that society has shifted to a mindset that really doesn't value content highly (monetarily speaking), but I'm not convinced that's entirely a bad thing. On the other hand, I'm also not convinced that that in any way prevents artists from being able to make a living. It might spell the end of the mega-rich superstar, but that's not something I'll mourn the loss of.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820486)

If only word salad were just as "you + comment, viola" as Slashdot believes....

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821126)

It is, I know bands who've done it, I've even helped some doing it. You just don't need the big labels anymore, they are OBSOLETE

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820082)

How can the current and future system have been prohibitive of past achievements if anybody can record and release themselves? I think you're in denial. Yes, the "record album" paradigm is dead, and rightfully. Now there is no magical middleman prerequisite to distribution. In that there can be no loss.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (0)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820164)

Anyone has always been able to record something and "release" it in a local record shop. That hasn't changed.

Record labels are plenty evil, but they are not just middlemen who add no value. Financing the production of a record at a high standard, physically producing it, promoting it, those are not zero-value enterprises.

And labels won't be going away. They will just be promoting a smaller, safer list of artists than ever before.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (3, Informative)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820384)

If the thing that moves you about music is production value, I can't help you, but you need help.

Anecdotal though it may be, I will point to my favorite guzheng player as an example. Bei Bei He [youtube.com] started out just posting amateur videos of performances to YouTube (which is when I started following her). Recording quality? Mediocre at best, but excellent performances. She self-published her first album, which caught the eye of an indie producer who collaborated with her on her second. Her music has been several times used as interstitials on NPR and is gaining popularity (though I doubt it will or even could be mainstream... guzhengs are unknown to most Americans/Westerners), but it started with self-published mediocre quality videos on YouTube. Talent shines regardless of tools.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820716)

You're trolling, aren't you?

On one hand you complain how the Internet is negatively affecting the music industry, but when it comes to independent distribution you go back to selling CDs like the Internet didn't exist.

Today anyone's not only able to record something (and with quality far above what amateur musicians had available 20 years ago), but release it to hundreds of millions of people on the Internet. If your music is good, putting it on youtube, even with an AMV, is surely to get you hundreds of thousands of views yearly, and a small percentage of those people will buy your records online. Social networking is all the promotion you need. If your music is bad, you can't really expect much either way.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821190)

Buddy, i know quite a few local bands, i even know people who do everything themselves, the best promotion you can do is to tour.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820118)

It has never been proven that the internet has had ANY negative effects on the music industry other than in RIAA funded reports.
The internet has changed the way we live our lives. The way people buy music & listen to music has changed drastically.
People tend to buy singles not whole albums. The quality of music has declined in the past 15 years too.
Its also much easier & cheaper for someone to be a professional musician because of the internet.
Society in general has changed. People have a lot more choice regarding where to spend disposable income these days.
You could just as easily say that console gaming has hurt the music industry as much as the internet has.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35821468)

Sales of recorded music in the year 1999: over $17 billion/year. Sales of recorded music in 2008: around $8 billion/year. It's been dropping fast, and by 2008, sales were less than half of what they were 9 years earlier. Sure, you might be able to argue that there "never been proven that the internet has had ANY negative effects" - as in "you can't prove that it was the internet, as opposed to 'everyone decided to stop buying music and spend money on other things", but I think the trends are a little more than suggestive. I'd be willing to bet that the last two or three years have also seen a decline - how do I know? My amazing crystal ball.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/the-death-of-the-music-industry/ [informatio...utiful.net]

Oh, hey, I found an updated chart, with numbers upto 2010 and adjustments for inflation and population. When adjusted for inflation and population growth, you can see that recorded music peaked around 1999 with $71/year per capita, and now it's down to $26/year per capita. Another interesting fact: Napster was released in June 1999. Coincidence?
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2 [businessinsider.com]

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820130)

What really galls me about any of these assumptions is that these mega stars deserve any bit of the money they make. Why does a Britney Spears, Taylor Swift or Stephen Tyler deserve more than I make? I work 40 hours a week, how much do they really work? Cry me a river.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820426)

I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.

Nor would it be unfair to look at what has happened to the film camera industry in the last 15 years or so, and say that digital cameras have a negative effect on that industry. Likewise with the typewriter manufacturing industry.

The moral of the story is this: adapt or die. Adapt to new business challenges and conditions. This is what the music industry has had trouble with for over a hundred years now. Player pianos, phonograph records, AM radio, FM radio, tape recorders, MP3 and digital music formats, and the Internet have all been labelled as technologies that are killing the music industry. In each case, the music industry eventually relented, adapted, and saw higher profits than they had earlier.

Nobody feels any sympathy for businesses that fail to adapt to changes in the market and in technology. Especially not when those businesses have a history of abusing the legal system and trying to bankrupt college students.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820484)

I hate the RIAA and their methods as much as anyone, but I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.

That's because the 'you can only purchase the album' business model was destroyed. Really it should never have been as lucrative as it was.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820736)

a market change isn't negative to the market, it's only negative to that industry.

People spend their money elsewhere. It doesn't mean music is dying.

Re:Copyright lobby won't let this stand. (3, Insightful)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820854)

I hate the RIAA and their methods as much as anyone, but I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.

I don't know, i used to buy plenty of Cd's, and i still do buy Cd's, but the last 15 years has seen extremely crappy 'artists', there's hardly anything coming out (from the major labels) i even want to listen to. It's not the internet that's killing the industry, it's lack of good material.

In other news (5, Informative)

mseeger (40923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819840)

In a shocking development, the famous tech web site "Slashdot" has been found to post misleading headlines *again*. While the european court is moving to ban internet blocking without a law, it clearly states that it would be legal if a specific law would allow and specify the conditions for it.

Re:In other news (3)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819924)

Basically, not letting the copyright lawyers set the "laws" themselves and move the goalposts every single time something happens that they don't like. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

Re:In other news (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819944)

If nothing its a precursor to Net Neutrality.

Of course there needs to be that clause, otherwise they couldn't filter child pornography.

Re:In other news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35821186)

They shouldn't filter child pornography. They should find the guys who produce it, lock them up and shut down their servers locally.
Filtering child pornography would be like preventing the sale of stolen cars on weekends (there are other ways of getting it and nothing is done to prevent the real crime).

Re:In other news (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819988)

That is just a concession that they have to put in to keep the national governments happy. They are going to want to block stuff like child pornography etc. It would still be extremely effective at preventing blocking on the grounds of copyright infringement and would give ISPs support when they tell the music and movie industries to fuck off. It would also prevent the ISPs from blocking rival video streaming sites because "they suck up too much bandwidth" etc.

This is very good news.

Re:In other news (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820694)

It would also prevent the ISPs from blocking rival video streaming sites because "they suck up too much bandwidth" etc.

Sorry? I thought this proposal was saying that nobody can *force* the ISPs through the courts to block arbitrary content without an actual law *requiring* all ISPs to block it (such as child-pron). I didn't see anything in there stating that ISP's can't voluntarily and arbitrarily choose to filter content on their own initiative...but IANAL, maybe I missed it...

Re:In other news (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820012)

We are being crapflooded with so many laws and proposals, we can't 'filter' them all out.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820372)

While the european court is moving to ban internet blocking without a law, it clearly states that it would be legal if a specific law would allow and specify the conditions for it.

In related news **AA lawyers announce a new law requiring ISPs to block any content on the condition that the media cartels felt like it.

Queue the Yanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35819892)

Get ready for a hoard of comments stating that this is a bad idea. Posted right after they read the word Europe.

Re:Queue the Yanks (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819908)

Queue the yanks? Where does the line form?

Re:Queue the Yanks (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819936)

I think he's hoarding that bit of information. I'm also puzzled over where he saw the word "Europe".

Please set an example (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819926)

Please set an example for the rest of the world in this regard. This definitely needs to be recognized and upheld if we wish to maintain the integrity and usefulness of the internet.

Misleading headline alert! Get me copy! (1)

techvet (918701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819934)

The headline does not say what the summary text says. The headline implies at no net filtering would ever be allowed, but the summary only says it cannot be required.

Question on athority for EU Courts (1)

Rolaulten (1392077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819952)

I dont know how the EU courts work - is the ruling binding in the same way that the US courts work with respect to the idea of president cases (or cases of first impression) for civil law. At least in the US the judge(s) verdict is binding and fully law until such time as a different judge in a higher court modifies it, or the legislature changes the law - so I'm wondering if this verdict is handled in the same way?

Re:Question on athority for EU Courts (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820148)

The European Court of Justice is the highest court in all EU member states in cases that regard EU law. So yes, a verdict here is pretty much a precedent that other national courts should follow, since a repeal to the ECJ should give the same verdict in similar cases.

Filtering Haiku (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819968)

European court
Has preliminary rule
BI now gives finger

Re:Filtering Haiku (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820096)

R.I.A.A. sad
Need More Bribes in Politics
Ensure Large Paychecks

Re:Filtering Haiku (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820442)

You need a season in there. Substitute "court" for "spring"?

Re:Filtering Haiku (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820678)

European spring
We joyously watch the blooms
no ISP block

Very vague (1)

Lord Juan (1280214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820044)

The statement is very vague, had the word been "allowed" then the title of this post would be accurate.

No corporation is required to screw its customers, yet most seem to be doing it, many of them don't even bother to hide it anymore.

Re:Very vague (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820476)

RIAA/MPAA's response: Ah, but the ISPs aren't filtering the Internet, they're only filtering their individual pipes. And since there's more than one company, it's an ogliarchy, not a monopoly.

The 'Court of Justice' (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820174)

Is this between the Fortress of Solitude and Lex's Lair?

Is this how they fish for "contributions"? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820242)

This kind of reminds of of the half-hearted threats to move away from Windows. Microsoft invariably rides in on a grey horse and offers them a better deal not to migrate away from Windows.

Does anyone have any expectations that this ruling, which is diametrically opposed to everything else we've been seeing, is anything but a cry for attention from the money-givers?

Updated article (5, Informative)

CrystalFalcon (233559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820360)

Hello, Slashdot. I had intended to update this article tomorrow with a more detailed analysis, but given that it's now Slashdot Top Story, I posted the followup immediately. For your convenience:

What this does is say that:

One, no court may impose an ISP with an order to filter, in particular not because of enforcement of copyright monopolies;

Two, such filtering is a reduction of fundamental rights, so

Three, if laws are written requiring an ISP filter or block the internet, such laws must conform to very strict criteria that are applied to laws limiting fundamental rights. They must be effective, they must be proportionate, and they must be defensible in a democratic society. While this sounds like political wishywashing, it has some very specific meanings. It is useful to compare to what laws have been written to prevent terrorism: these laws are held to that standard, which the copyright industry wants badly to supersede. The Attorney General also goes into detail how such laws must be transparent and predictable.

What this does not say is that:

Four, no censorship must ever take place.

Five, no ISP may choose to limit what they present as "The Internet".

In conclusion:

Six, it has been the modus operandi of the copyright industry to threaten ISPs with "block to our wishes or we'll take you to court". This has been their standard operating procedure for the past couple of years, in order to establish enough precendents to get them written into law. Today's verdict, or potential verdict, gives those ISPs the power to say "go play on the highway, parasites, we have an order from the highest possible court saying no court can force us to do that. We care more about our customers than about obsolete irrelevants".

Seven, this is the highest court in Europe, referring to the (equivalent of) Constitution of Europe. Thus, there are no courts and no laws that can supersede this. No EU Directive can change this (potential) verdict. The way forward for the copyright industry appears permanently blocked; I hold it as absolutely improbable that they'll get paragraphs in the referred European Charter of Human Rights that put the copyright monopoly before the sanctity of correspondence, of personal data, and freedom of information.

There. Do I get karma for posting from my own blog when it is TFA?

Oh, and yay - my server is holding. *celebrate*

Re:Updated article (1)

CrystalFalcon (233559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820382)

Gah. Point five is wrong. Should read: Any ISP may voluntarily limit what they choose to call "The Internet".

Re:Updated article (1)

CrystalFalcon (233559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820396)

Ignore. I'm stressed out and missed that the headline reversed the meaning... gah. Slashdot stress.

Regulation that promotes freedom? (2)

dorre (1731288) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820428)

Hey, people in the land of freedom. How do you consider regulation such as this? It certainly is regulation, but it also certainly promotes freedom. I know there people who cannot fathom that freedom and regulation are not xor, infact I think you have minimum freedom in both the the minimum and the maximum end of the how-much-regulation-scale.
Maximum freedom is achieved some amount of regulation. How much regulation is dependent on the society, and I think it is an unstable maximum, which is why we need to update regulations continuously.
Or something.

Misleading! (2)

coretx (529515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820720)

Here you can read why: http://jay.lu/2011/04/%E2%80%98scarlet-extended%E2%80%99-%E2%80%93-ecj-to-prohibit-internet-filtering/ [jay.lu] Don't get too excited about this ECJ ruling on internetfiltering , firstly it isn't a ruling, secondly it doesn't outlaw web-blocking. In other words; it's all up to the individual EU memberstates now. What i think will happen, is that France & the UK will start the nasty .biz followed by a lobbying campaign in Brussels for EU ( legislative )"harmonization" since this is how most nasty laws are passed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?