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!

EU May Block Music Labels' Download Sites

timothy posted about 13 years ago | from the fettered-and-trammeled dept.

Music 148

csmiller writes: "The BBC is reporting that the EU is (according to The Sunday Times) considering blocking music-labels setting up their own download sites, as 'Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, would be anti-competitive and unfairly dominate the market.'" I wonder when the idea of a Neighborhood Cache will catch on -- it looks like large-scale digital trading will always be subject to this kind of interference.

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

happy Troll Tuesday!!!1 (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | about 13 years ago | (#2435416)

gay post, suckaz

Re:happy Troll Tuesday!!!1 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435520)

I like monkeys.

The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought
this was odd since they were normally a couple
thousand. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth so I
bought 200 of them. I like monkeys.

I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one of drive.
His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In
fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching
themselves in the genitals. I laughed. They punched me
in the genitals. I stopped laughing.

I herded them into my room. They didn't adapt very well to their
new environment. They would screech and hurl
themselves off the couch at high speeds and slam into the wall.
Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its
novelty halfway into it's third hour.

Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so
inexpensive; they all died. No apparent reason. They all
just sort of dropped dead. Kinda like when you buy a goldfish and
it dies five hours later. God damn cheap
monkeys.

I didn't know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all
over my room; on the bed, in the dresser,
hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs. I
tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn't
work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and one hundred
ninety-nine dead, dry monkeys.

I tried to pretend that they were just stuffed animals. That worked
for awhile, that is until they began to
decompose. It started to smell real bad.

I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in my toilet and I didn't
want to call a plumber. I was embarrassed.

I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them.
Unfortuantely there was only enough room for two at a
time, so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat
all the food in the freezer so it didn't go bad.

I tried to burn them, but little did I know that my bed was
flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.

Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen
monkeys in my freezer, and one hundred
ninety-seven dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed, The odor
wasn't improving.

I became agitated at my inability to dispose of the dead monkeys
and I really had to use the bathroom.
So I went and severely beat one of the monkeys. I felt better.

I tried throwing them away but the garbage man said the city was
not allowed to dispose of charred primates. I
told him I had a wet one. He couldn't take it either. I didn't
bother asking about the frozen ones.

I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas
gifts. My friends didn't quite know what to say. They
pretended to like them, but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates.
So I punched them in the genitals.

I like monkeys.

there's no way i'm grabbing second post too (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | about 13 years ago | (#2435421)

that is just too homosexual for this early in the morning

turd boast (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | about 13 years ago | (#2435425)

this is getting silly

No way (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435426)

We're letting you get third post

Troll Tuesday lives on

Re:No way (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | about 13 years ago | (#2435431)

Troll Tuesday lives on

It's just getting started baby!

OK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435432)

I tried to stop him getting third post. At least he didn't get 4th (does this deserve a w00t!)
WHERE THE FUCK IS EVERYBODY?

of course it doesn't deserve a 'woot' (-1)

Proctal Relapse (467579) | about 13 years ago | (#2435443)

you anonymous faggot. is your shit larger in girth now that you're dating that black ex-con?

Re:of course it doesn't deserve a 'woot' (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435456)

I was being sarcastic you fuckhead.

hey (-1)

mackga (990) | about 13 years ago | (#2435434)

wanna fuck [wet-4-u.com] ?

BSD is gay (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | about 13 years ago | (#2435437)

IDC confirmed this week that *BSD accounts for more than 35 percent of
all sales of poppers. This news serves to reinforce what we've known
all along. *BSD is collapsing into complete homosexuality.

You don't need to be a Turing to predict *BSD's future. The hand-
wipings are on the wall; *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there
won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying of the
Virus. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose T-cells.
Red pus flows like a river of semen. FreeBSD is the most endangered of
them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBathhouse leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of
OpenBathhouse. How many users of NetBathhouse are there? Let's
see. The number of OpenBathhouse versus NetBathhouse posts on Usenet
is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 =
1400 NetBathhouse users. Bathhouse/OS posts on Usenet are about half
of the volume of NetBathhouse posts. Therefore there are about 700
users of Bathhouse/OS. A recent article put FreeBathhouse at about 80
percent of the *Bathhouse market. Therefore there are
(7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBathhouse users. This is consistent with
the number of FreeBathhouse Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBH
went out of business and was taken over by BHI who sell another
troubled fuck hole. Now BHI is also dead, its corpse turned over to
another fag house.

All major psychological tests show that *BSD has steadily declined
in pussy-lust. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects
are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among bi-curious
high-school. *BSD continues to be gay. Nothing short of twenty-year-old
Sophia Loren's gleaming, fragrant vulva could save it at this point
in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is gay.

Good (3, Insightful)

Coolmoe (416032) | about 13 years ago | (#2435442)

I think the RIAA should be banned from online distribution anyway. This should be handled like long distance and the phone company. Banned from online distrubution as long as thier "CD based monopoly" still exists. They need to be forced to give the littlde guy a break. Besides they have way more market share then whould be allowable in almost any other market. I say good for the EU for having balls!

RIAA = Record Industry Assoc. of ***America*** (-1)

Proctal Relapse (467579) | about 13 years ago | (#2435449)

and therefore has no bearing on what the godless Eurotrash homos are doing. maybe if the Brits would take a little break from downloading music to brush their teeth and kill all their ugly men and women, the world would be a happy enough place that we wouldn't have to worry about the RIAA anymore.

reactionary knob-slobber. get fucking fucked.

Re:RIAA = Record Industry Assoc. of ***America*** (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435590)

"godless Eurotrash homos"???

I personaly find that extremely offending. You should control what you write on the net an not just spew out shit from your fingers.

There are laws (in the US to I beleve) against insulting people due to their etnicity.

--
Mattias

Re:RIAA = Record Industry Assoc. of ***America*** (1)

Ionized (170001) | about 13 years ago | (#2435709)

um... no.

i can insult people based on anything i want, including religion, gender, ethnicity, and physical or mental handicaps. first amendment, baby.

what i can't do is discriminate against them based on the same factors (eg fire them, not serve them food)

Re:RIAA = Record Industry Assoc. of ***America*** (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435743)

I dont know why you would be offended. Unless, of course, you are a godless Eurotrash homo!

:)

Re:Good (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435521)

I say good for the EU for having balls!

Half of the EU parliament are female. Try to avoid being sexist by modifying your statement to say "I say good for the EU for having balls and vaginas!"

Re:Good (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435834)

How could this possibly be off-topic? The poster pointed out a grammatical error of the original poster. The EU parliament clearly do not all have testicles - some of them must have vaginas. Fucking moderators.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

muffen (321442) | about 13 years ago | (#2435543)

I totally Agree.

I used to think that the US was very much ahead when it came to free markets. When the Microsoft trial started, I was really happy that the US government was doing something about the monopoly.

However, lately, it seems like the US government are those who, indirectly, are creating monopoly situations for companies.

My biggest dream right now is that everyone in the world will refuse to buy a single CD for one week. That should put the RIAA back on the ground.

Re:Good (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 13 years ago | (#2435626)

Welcome to the Good Ol' Boy club (tm). Bush may not have vested intrest in Big Companies, but he still has plenty of friends there.

Jaysyn

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | about 13 years ago | (#2435772)

The first great monopoly, Standard Oil Company, came about largely because they got the railroad companies to raise the transportation rates for their competitors.

Fast forward to today, and it's worse. Now the producers OWN the distribution channels, not just pay them off.

MOCA and "maybe the EU will save our butts!" (2, Informative)

jswitte (216975) | about 13 years ago | (#2436499)

I agree with this, although I wouldn't say the record companies should be completely excluded from distribution online, they just shouldn't have a monopoly either, or have laws designed to promote monopoly (compyright extension, some of the anti-piracy bills, etc). Compulsory licensing, as the MOCA proposes, would be nice. (What's happening with MOCA anyway?) Copyright reform, to disallow corporations from holding indefinately copyrights to music that really should be held by their artists, federal limits on contract law (indentured servitude?), and maybe anti-trust action would be nice too. IMO, the Big Five have not only almost completely sown up the market from the consumers end of the market with 90-95% dominance, they've also sown up the market from the "labor" (artists) end too, by standardizing their Draconian contract terms and maybe other practices they'd rather us not know about.

I'm always suprised that while both copyrights and patents are on about equal footing as far as their (U.S.) Constitutional basis goes, the courts (AFAIK) regularly extend copyrights, but more rarely extend patents. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I also don't how the less-than-recent case-law is different concerning copyrights vs. patents.

Gosh, two stories in one day about Europe: Germany considering switching to Linux, and the EU proposing blocking music sites. What was that little voice I heard saying that the 21st century wouldn't be an "American century"?

Sporks,Cyborg, egg and 5000 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435445)

OK, we've been represented by only a few of the major trolls. Where are the sporks? where are all of our friends.

Posting as AC this Troll Tuesday as I'm karma whoring to get +2 for a serious troll caper in the future.

you think that makes being AC ok, but it doesn't (-1, Troll)

krog (25663) | about 13 years ago | (#2435457)

make another account if you have a troll caper in mind! real men aren't afraid of mods [yahoo.com] .

Re:you think that makes being AC ok, but it doesn' (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435466)

Fuck that. I'd rather post at 0 forever and make the mods waste their points on me than be posting at -1 after the first 10 minutes.

Re:you think that makes being AC ok, but it doesn' (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | about 13 years ago | (#2435475)

I hope you're on dial-up. The down-mod ban is effective both on accounts and on IP.

Re:you think that makes being AC ok, but it doesn' (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435485)

Now this I didn't know. Still, it could be fun to have my masqueraded IP banned and block posts from everybody in my office. I can't wait to see the look on their faces.

Re:you think that makes being AC ok, but it doesn' (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | about 13 years ago | (#2435576)

Been there, done that. That was last-week's adventure.

The Napster monopoly (5, Insightful)

standards (461431) | about 13 years ago | (#2435446)

If the labels' current effort is blocked by the EU, the labels will simply shift their plan so it becomes acceptable to the EU. This will likely include the creation of two or three other "independent" on-line distribution companies.

Three or four sights will be found to be acceptable to the EU.

Of course, these other companies won't really be all that independent - they'll either be so weak that they'll be out of business in a short period of time, or they will have such strong ties to the major companies that they'll be non-competetive.

Either way, the labels successfully killed Napster, and now they want to take over with a similarly illegal scheme. The EU might not like it, but it'll be hard to stop.

Interference ? I think not. (5, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | about 13 years ago | (#2435447)

Hardly interference. The point here is that while now there are large numbers of record stores which make a good living selling CDs, Records et al from a large number of labels this would produce a few sites totally tied to a specific label. Most record shops have a few albums from indie or small labels and it is that range of selection that is in danger. The aim here is quite clear... dominate the digital market place, don't allow others to sell your albums digitally and so the equivalent of the high street store that has the breadth of records is never allowed to exist as they can't exist selling _only_ indie records.

Fairplay to the EU for this one I say. It isn't interfering its making sure that the big boys don't create a digital monopoly that squeezes the minor players out.

Hopefully this will be the start of a number of such actions including Hailstorm, Passport et al from the boys in Redmond. This is pro-consumer and anti-big-business.

Fairplay I say.

Re:Interference ? I think not. (5, Interesting)

MartinG (52587) | about 13 years ago | (#2435480)

How can you say this is not interference when clearly it obviously is?

That doesn't make it good or bad, but it is interference.

In this case, IMO it is interference thats only ended up being needed because of earlier interference by government in the first place that allowed such powerful organisations to form. ie, the ridiculous rights granted to copyright holders (or from another perspective, removed from everyone else) by the state.

If that hadn't happened and copyright terms are were shorter there would be a more competitive market and this counter-interference would be unneccessary.

The length that copyright should apply for is debatable, but right now it is much too long. I would say that if power tends to become concentrated among a small minority of powerful companies then the time is too long. On the other hand, if it becomed anarchic with no artists able to make a living then it is too short. Is should be adjusted and played about with until the correct balance is found. Jobs and companies will be lost (as well as new ones created) in doing that which is why no government will dare, but that is the cost of drastically improving the situation for absolutely everyone else in society.

Re:Interference ? I think not. (1)

eMago (267564) | about 13 years ago | (#2435505)

The EU has always been very "careful" with monopolies. It's not just about the digital market but about the whole market.
There exist strong laws in the EU in this area
(anti-cartel, anti-monopoly). Several
takeovers and merges in the last years have either been forbidden or have only been allowed
under some strict "sanctions". So this case is nothing special in the EU because the laws are more strict there than in the US.

Re:Interference ? I think not. (1)

ronmon (95471) | about 13 years ago | (#2435824)

You're right on the money here. While the US DoJ is pussyfooting around with M$, the EU is putting some pressure on them in regards to bundling. The Register [theregister.co.uk] has had some good articles on this lately, though their site is down at the moment. The analogy is clear in that the major label owned conduits using proprietary content formats restrict not just what you can get, but from whom you get it. It's a blatant attempt to cut the small business owner out of the picture.

It's been the case for a long time now that US laws set the standards and other countries tend to follow suit (drug laws are a good example), but maybe this trend will change. Leadership with some thought toward the consumer, specifically in regard to the right of choice, instead of the deep pocked corporations is good to see.

Re:Interference ? I think not. (1)

JonnyCalcutta (524825) | about 13 years ago | (#2436535)

It's been the case for a long time now that US laws set the standards and other countries tend to follow suit (drug laws are a good example)

Is this an example you're proud of?

Re:Interference ? I think not. (3, Informative)

warpeightbot (19472) | about 13 years ago | (#2435935)

Most record shops have a few albums from indie or small labels and it is that range of selection that is in danger. The aim here is quite clear... dominate the digital market place, don't allow others to sell your albums digitally and so the equivalent of the high street store that has the breadth of records is never allowed to exist as they can't exist selling _only_ indie records.
Not true.

Most music stores have a jobber that comes in and fills the racks with RIAA-produced schlock. Then there are the little mom-and-pop establishments that carry indie media... and usually trade in used RIAA produce as well. These will survive quite handily...

Furthermore, the indie bands usually have their own websites, where a selection of their stuff is available for download and where they often list the stores that carry their physical media... which, amazingly enough, indie fans generally run out and buy when they find something they like. And as has been said elsewhere in the thread, if you can't find something in your favorite indie store, google it, and find out where it is. That is, if your band's website isn't selling them on their website alreddie...

Indie music is not in any danger; matter of fact, more and more bands are figuring out that it does NOT help to get into the racket, and staying out of it. The trufans know where to go to get their fix, and are providing more than enough financial support for the bands to make ends meet...

While I think it's good that RIAA is getting its comeuppance, and think all such monopolies should, the indies are doing just fine, thank you very much.

-1 Halfwitted (4, Insightful)

Mike Connell (81274) | about 13 years ago | (#2435448)

> it looks like large-scale digital trading will always be subject to this kind of interference.

Oh yeah - if "large-scale digital trading" is synonymous with "having a bloody cartel"

There is a whole new world on the horizon - music over the net - where we have the possibility of a lot of new players, new ideas, exciting new possibilities - space for real innovation. Or we can have the same old traditional monoliths controlling it. Yippee.

"Interference"? Spare me...

-2 Gay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435473)

I reckon

Re:-2 Gay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435527)

I'm kind of curious why slashdot trolls think "Gay" is some sort of ultimate insult. It is a very 1980s point of view. Can't you do any better than that?

Re:-2 Gay (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | about 13 years ago | (#2435549)

-2 Faggoty Ass Tutu Wearing MISY Major

+2 Gay (0, Offtopic)

TomV (138637) | about 13 years ago | (#2435555)

It is a very 1980s point of view

1890's, surely?

TomV

Re:-2 Gay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435779)

I cant speak for /. trolls, but gay seems to be reappearing as an insult, but not in the same way as before. it's now instead more of a piss take of the politically correct bunch of ppl who tell you not to use the word disrespectfully rather than being aimed just at the person you are calling it.

Guess they mean local servers and services? (2, Interesting)

owlet (144510) | about 13 years ago | (#2435454)

They (MusicNet) could just run the servers in the US and accept credit cards. Granted the service might be slower, but I'm pretty happy with the services that aren't in Europe. (I live in Finland.)

Of course setting up a full local service using local currency with local banks with a help desk speaking my native language might have a better chance of being successful.

Hot water ? (2)

CaptainZapp (182233) | about 13 years ago | (#2435534)

They (the major labels) might be in rather hot water, if they circumvent such a decision, by distributing the content from, say, Sealand.

All majors either have major subsidiaries in Europe, or are European in the fisrst place.

The EU is quite powerfull in terms of monopolies (I think rightfully so). Ask companies like Volkswagen, Mercedes or Tetra Pack. They where all fined dozens of millions for abusing monopoly powers.

I don't think, that Mario Monti would consider this to be a funny prank if major companies just stick out their tongue on EU laws.

Re:Guess they mean local servers and services? (1)

shepd (155729) | about 13 years ago | (#2435568)

>They (MusicNet) could just run the servers in the US and accept credit cards.

While this is certainly possible, violating EU law would mean that the moment an RIAA representative stepped on any bit of EU soil they'd be arrested/tried/convicted for their offense. The EU could even attempt to have RIAA officials extradited from the US for trials for their crimes. Considering countries from the EU have willingly helped the US try people in America for DMCA violations, I think an exchange like that is only par for the course.

That is unless their site denied sales to you if your CC# was from an EU country.

But they wouldnt wan to do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435687)

If they just sold online from the states to people in the uk and europe they wouldnt be able to over charge us like they currently do. I can mail order cd from the states (including p&p) for upto 50% less than wha i'd pay in a store over here.

Re:Guess they mean local servers and services? (2)

rlowe69 (74867) | about 13 years ago | (#2436180)

They (MusicNet) could just run the servers in the US and accept credit cards. Granted the service might be slower, but I'm pretty happy with the services that aren't in Europe.

I think given the current connectivity and reliability of the Internet, this is a moot point. Like you said, you're happy with non-local (national) services. In fact, when I was in France this past summer, many sites in North America were faster than French sites presumably because they use better technology and thus have greater capacity, even across the Atlantic.

I think what the EU is proposing is a ban on sites outside and inside of the EU. Sites outside of the EU will be filtered out at ISPs by new legislation created by the EU and sites inside the EU will be forbidden to exist. Also, hardware technology needed to play the new 'digitally secure' music will be forbidden from the EU. Done. Some people may circumvent this, but not enough for the EU to worry.

Personally, I think the whole digital music thing is laughable. I'd like to go back to the early 1980's and listen in on meetings with tech guys saying "There's no way people will be able to store whole albums on their hard drives! We don't need to protect the data." ... talk about letting the cat out of the bag.

... and now the RIAA is running around trying to bag the cat, dye it's hair and let it free again - all by themselves. Good luck!

Monopolies suck (2, Insightful)

serps (517783) | about 13 years ago | (#2435471)

Good on the EU for this action. As history attests (Standard Oil, Bell, de Beers et c.) cartels and monopolies screw over their customers in the interest of continued profits. Not always tremendous profits, but a steady, large supply of money. What I can't work out is why any cartel whose monopoly depends on controlling the distribution channel can hope to retain control in the zero-cost-of-entry distribution network that is the Internet. Maybe it's like the de Beers diamond consortium: it's branding over substance (in de Beers' case: the whole 'diamonds are forever' spiel; in the RIAA's case: get your legal MP3s here, or we'll wipe your hard drive :)

Why have multiple, exclusive services? (2, Insightful)

pyramid termite (458232) | about 13 years ago | (#2435486)

It's just like having to buy my Sony CDs from Camelot only and my Universal CDs from Sam Goody only. It doesn't make any sense. It's not what the customers want - they want to be able to subscribe to one service, among several choices, and pay to access mp3s from all companies, preferrably paying a flat fee, and certainly not paying CD prices, because after all, an mp3 isn't as good as a CD. They'd also like to be able to choose individual songs to buy, not have to buy 1 song they want and 10 dogs they don't. What gives the music industry the idea they can continue to ignore their market and their customers without hurting the bottom line? Maybe that's why CD sales are dropping.

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services? (1)

rocjoe (528479) | about 13 years ago | (#2435625)

This is it, most of the new stuff I've heard is either Bubblegum Pop or Poser Trash, there is nothing out there that really makes me want to go out and buy a CD anyway. MP3s are just a scapegoat. Culture has been in the dumps since we invented disco. Only the changing music formats has masked this for so long!

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services? (2, Insightful)

Brolly (151540) | about 13 years ago | (#2435725)

You wanna know what people want? FREE MP3s. I'm at college and I guarantee none of my friends here will spend one dime to buy an mp3 online. The efforts to find new sources of mp3s when napster went down and when Audiogalaxy finally started blocking songs in a way where you couldn't still get them are enough to convince me that we would go back to searching ftps if we had to. I hate to sound trollish, but people are cheap, and once you've sampled getting whatever music you want for free, the idea of going back to actually *gasp* paying for it does not sit too well.

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services? (1)

robzster1977 (518768) | about 13 years ago | (#2435809)

I agree totally. If you can't think of it this way, try to think of it as having to pay for your net access, then getting it free, then having to pay again. This happened to me.. it's not good.

Metashops... (5, Insightful)

Kragg (300602) | about 13 years ago | (#2435493)

This kind of phenomenon is not uncommon already - if you want to buy a rare book, then chances are amazon has it. If not, you google it and find that small site that stocks it.

All that will happen is that some enterprising guy will set up a meta-shop where you go and enter whatever criteria you like (name, genre etc), and it'll go off and search all the record stores out there. If it isn't on X label, it's on Y instead.

The net result is that if people WANT the broader range that isn't provided by the label-specific sites, then someone will come along and fill the void.

Don't panic, people, the internet is more powerful than that; it'll take more than a record label trying to be restrictive to halt the information flood.

Maybe i got it maybe not ... (2)

Aceticon (140883) | about 13 years ago | (#2435761)

Do you mean something like:

You can always find any music you want available online, even if in practice you have to get it as a (physical, delivered to you) CD instead of a binary download?

or

Specialized engines will appear that allow you to find the music you want in electronic format, be it in one of those Big Record Company web stores or in some independent record company/band web site/store?

If we take this last idea further, such sites could actually end up as The Music Portals for most people. After all, they could aggregate information about content (you can find anything from one site), reorganize that information (create all sorts of searches) and add value to it (such as independent reviews instead of the "independent" ones, pointers to (real deal, not company promoted) fan clubs, information about the artist).

Hey, to have a viable business model they could even act as a sales point for Independent Artists (instead of relying on advertising).

This is basically what MP3.com could've turned itself into if it hadn't sold itself out (correct me if i'm wrong)

On the other hand, i bet the Big Record Companies will buy laws (at least in the US) to forbid the embebing in web pages of pointers to their web stores ...

You got it (1)

Kragg (300602) | about 13 years ago | (#2436120)

I meant the latter.

Having such a portal also act as a download point for small independant artists is a great idea - taking the business model of things like WorldPay (who manage online transactions/orders for countless small companies who want an ecommerce front) makes this almost certainly viable, and by linking to mainstream record labels' downloads directly, there's no reason it shouldn't be the first stop.

Thanks for taking the idea one step further ;)

Now lets go get some VC...

Re:You got it (1)

Teun (17872) | about 13 years ago | (#2436269)

Nice idea, but it still requires the culling of the large monopolies.

If the presently proposed Publisher-owned shops would be allowed there's hardly any chance independends would get a hold of needed merchandise.

Re: This idea and monopolies (1)

jswitte (216975) | about 13 years ago | (#2436551)

Yes, it does require monopolies. But monopolies don't always have to be bad things. 99% of the time they are, but I think that's just becuase there's a often-greedy capitalist at the other end of them. I am a capitalist, but it's a system that can be abused far too easily. However, if the government too control of licensing copyrighted materials for a reasonable fee, I think it could work.



Give the recording studios a limited time to have exclusive rights (to recoup expenses and make a reasonable amount of profit if they can (otherwise they just need to run a tighter artistic ship and not hide behind the "only 5 out of 100 artists make it" crap - well, choose better artists!). These regs should be rigidly enforced, not subject to change by less than a 95% vote of Congress, and a time-period based on the size of the advance given to the artist, and have the accounting independently audited by different firms regularly to avoid "creative accounting" ("Hmm, what's this - a $10 million advance to pay for popcorn?")

Re:Metashops... (2)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 13 years ago | (#2436493)

This kind of phenomenon is not uncommon already - if you want to buy a rare book, then chances are amazon has it. If not, you google it and find that small site that stocks it.

According to a friend of mine (who sometimes need some really obscure books), Barnes & Noble is an even better "metashop". He doesn't even bother finding the smaller shops that resells the the books to B&N, since he wants the convinience, and "securety" of a brand name shop he knows.

In my country (Denmark) antique bookshops has setup a common metashop and search engine, and are making a "killing" of it, each book store often getting 1500 - 4000$ extra sales per month.
The point is, that these mostly are extra sales, since people like me, are presented with editions we didn't even knew existed. (eg. Juvenalis satires in translation)

All that will happen is that some enterprising guy will set up a meta-shop where you go and enter whatever criteria you like (name, genre etc), and it'll go off and search all the record stores out there. If it isn't on X label, it's on Y instead.

But those kinds of metashops, depends wholly on the subcontractors willingness to cooperate (send in /make available up to date prices and inventory, in some kind of common data format etc.)
If a site _don't_ want to be part of a some meta-price-compare scheme, or product search, they can easely sabotage any attempt. So don't expect a working, common search portal for "cartel-multi-corp-music" and "Small-music-labels".

And apropos metashops; normal online cd-shops are metashops in a way, since they mostly have lots of different music labels, even indie labels.
But this new Behemoth would probably not "resell" its online music to other shops (why would they), making even more difficult for the consumer to get a varied selection.

The powers that be... (2)

drnomad (99183) | about 13 years ago | (#2435496)

Although I can support the spirit of the act "stopping cartel/monopolisitic powers", I don't think you'd be able to win that fight by giving "the opposition" the tools to form a monopoly themselves... They -do- have that opportunity when we're restricted in used RIAA content. Doesn't look good as this could mean a trade war over music between two economic powers - USA and Europe, as I don't think that the RIAA will take it... Perhaps I should start listening to local bands then.

Three words (2)

Aceticon (140883) | about 13 years ago | (#2435769)

GE-Honeywell merger

who is the congressman? (1)

Gnaythan1 (214245) | about 13 years ago | (#2435511)

"And an American congressman is trying to introduce a law that would give all download services the same access to music regardless of whether they are affiliated with the record company that releases the songs. "

THIS I want to know more about.

Re:who is the congressman? (1)

sker (467551) | about 13 years ago | (#2436158)

Boucher from VA I believe. Look for MOCA - Music Online Competition Act

Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435514)

[anticipating this stories comments turning to the usual Slashdot "I Want my MP3" drivel]

When will Slashdot's contributors stop viewing copyright theft as OK. Just because it's not software does not mean that it's OK to champion every attempt to rip off those musicians who don't want their works pirated on the web.

Napster and its progeny are not an expression of free choice - they're simply satisfying the craving amongst the blinkered Slashdot generation in the same way that copying tapes of Spectrum games satisfied saddoes in my distant youth.

By all means complain about dubious anti-copying schemes used on CD's, as these limit fair use of the product. But stop harping on about losing the ability to download hours of pirate music off the web.

Chris

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (1)

liquidsin (398151) | about 13 years ago | (#2435613)

If you'd actually read the article before commenting, you'd have noticed that it's not about piracy - it's about *pay* services for mp3s and making the RIAA play fair. The only thing worse that people who whine about how the man is taking their "right" to theive music is ignorant people who whine just for the sake of it.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435621)

>When will Slashdot's contributors stop viewing copyright theft as OK

When will you realize it isn't theft unless you deprive someone of the use of the goods?

Its copyright violation, and, to everyone I know (including many people who don't know how to click a mouse) copyright violation ranks right up there with jaywalking and not signalling your turns. Society at large really doesn't regard it as a big deal. Only the government does.

>Just because it's not software does not mean that it's OK to champion every attempt to rip off those musicians who don't want their works pirated on the web.

Seen any people with hordes of MP3s rape and pillage any villages/ships lately? No? Then why call them pirates?

If you don't mean pirate and infact mean copyright violation then it IS ok to use your muscle as a consumer to lower prices, since it has been proven time and time again it works, and again, ask your next door neighbour how he would feel about getting all his favourite games for free. Feel free not to join in our struggle to ensure the rights of the consumer stay as such. You will note how much attitudes about being anti-consumer thru hardware wrenching copyright protection -- many people who owned 1541s can tell you about this and anti-competetive software prices were lowered in the 80's and 90's due to widespread piracy, however.

Being as the artists make close to no profit from CDs I hardly see it as an attempt to rip them off. As far as Audio CDs go put it in perspective: 95% of the "rip-off" is directed at the RIAA, the other 5% is split between many splinter groups, which unfortunately include the musician. The brunt of the attack is still felt by the RIAA, however, no matter how anti-choice you are.

>But stop harping on about losing the ability to download hours of pirate music off the web.

This I agree with. If you mean copyright violating music. I'll just learn to cope with it. Newsgroups are currently 100% primo for anyone still doing this, BTW. Not that I'd be stupid enough to admit to doing anything past downloading headers.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435622)

How, in the name of Allah, did this bursting-at-the-seams-troll get modded up?

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (2, Troll)

night_flyer (453866) | about 13 years ago | (#2435656)

when will you realize that promoting one or two so-called good songs on a CD while the rest is crap is false advertising?

Then not being able to return the goods after the deception if discovered is panamount to fraud AND theft?

Re:Yawn - another Slashdot pro-piracy story (2, Insightful)

jeffehobbs (419930) | about 13 years ago | (#2435959)

when will you realize that promoting one or two so-called good songs on a CD while the rest is crap is false advertising?

I think your problem is that you're listening to shitty artists. Miles Davis, for example, was prolific for decades without putting out a single crappy album*. Do your research, expand your horizons (listen to college radio!), find a higher caliber of artist, and don't be so shocked when you only like the 3.5 minute single commercial radio shoves down your throat.

~jeff

* 60's and 70's. The 80's and 90's were not kind to Miles, or music in general.

Re:Yawn - another Slashdot pro-piracy story (2)

Svartalf (2997) | about 13 years ago | (#2436522)

Has less to do with radio itself and more to do with the big labels trying to strip-mine the populace for money. They're not fostering development of artists anymore and they're picking stuff that they know will sell a bunch of stuff real quick and make a profit now, not in a couple of year's time. More often than not, an artist that DOES develop into something ends up being in a position of power over the labels (i.e. They own a lot of the "properties" or they can get away with renting the rights to the music for a time.) so they try to avoid that.

All that matters to the labels (many of which are responsible for the me-tooism of the games industry as they're the ones doing the publishing now...) is making profits. The only way that they know how to do this nowadays (because it turns the biggest profit, short-term) is to go for that "sure thing" every time.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (5, Insightful)

jilles (20976) | about 13 years ago | (#2435693)

The whole point is that copyright law no longer is working. The law was built with the idea of physical copies in mind. Currently there is a whole industry around distributing physical copies of music to clients. With fat internet pipes readily available, zero cost duplication of content is possible (exluding the price of using the connection of course).

The music industry is still charging as if there were a physical copy but that is no longer true.
Instead of argueing about what is theft and what is not I suggest a more pragmatic course of action. Pragmatism starts with realizing that:
- if it can be played it can be recorded and vice versa so recording enables other people recording again.
- if it is available digitally it can be distributed at no cost. With a peer to peer setup this basically means you don't even need an expensive server setup.
- if it can be done, it will be done whether you stamp your feet on the ground loudly or not.

This applies to movies and music. These are not things that are open to debate, these are facts of life. Once you realize that, you also realize that the cd producing industry as we know it today is doomed to die eventually. The factories that create the machines to create the cds are no longer necessary, the factories that create the cases for the cds are no longer necessary, the shops that sell the cds are no longer necessary, etc.

The things that are necessary are artists to create content and supporting staff and equipment to help them record the content and optionally marketing people to market the content. Most artists consider albums to be marketing material for their live shows. Generally they don't make a lot of money from these cds since most of the profits go to the record industry. Of the 20$ you pay for a cd, only a fraction of that actually ends up in the artist's wallet Really only the very big artists can make a living out of cd sales.

So how can you make money of content creation? We have already established that the distribution has no meaningful cost associated with it so realistically it is the content creation that should generate the revenue and not the distribution.

Suggestions:
- Live performances. People love live performances and are generally willing to pay for it.
- Commercial activities. If you're famous, you can help promote stuff for money. You could for instance get a sponsor. Many sports people for instance wear clothes from their sponsor and get paid for it.
- Video clips are broadcasted on tv channels who make money by receiving revenue from advertisements.

These are only a few examples. All of these activities actually benefit from free distribution of content. And more importantly, for many artists these are already the primary source of income.

Reality is that I have a /mp3 directory which is huge and it will be a long time before I rm -rf it.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2436199)

if it can be played it can be recorded and vice versa so recording enables other people recording again ... if it can be done, it will be done whether you stamp your feet on the ground loudly or not.

Bogus argument. Just because I have a high quality colour printing press and can therefore forge money, does that make it right just because I decide *de facto* that it is? Of course it doesn't, and there are tough laws to prevent me doing so. The same with pinching music - personally I was slightly amused when I found Napster listing half a dozen people offering MP3's of stuff I recorded - but I wouldn't be so amused if music generated my sole form of income.

Most artists consider albums to be marketing material for their live shows

Bull. Most smaller artists make most of their income from advances for recordings. Only bigger artists can bring in big bucks from touring - just think of the cost of travel, crew and equipment. When you're playing moderate sized venues, it's a struggle to claw back some profit from merchandise.

... it is the content creation that should generate the revenue and not the distribution

And if you've no money coming in from record sales, then how are you going to buy equipment and studio time? Or even afford to eat? Naw, you just want to justify your greedy hording of MP3's.

Your laughable "suggestions" - live dates, promotional appearances and video clips - are only viable for the Michael Jackson and Madonnas of this world. Do you seriously think people are going to chuck money at smaller artists for promotional stuff and showing cli[ps on MTV? Most bands (or more accurately their labels) have to expend big money and effort to get airtime.

Chris

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (1)

javilon (99157) | about 13 years ago | (#2436264)

"This applies to movies and music."

And what about software?

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story (2)

jilles (20976) | about 13 years ago | (#2436393)

Software requires an exact digital copy and duplication is somewhat more complex due to that. An encoded mp3 you can record by playing it and holding a microphone next to the speaker. Similarly you can record a movie. Admittedly the quality will suck but there are ways of improving on quality by using e.g. better equipment.

You can't do this with software. That doesn't mean pirating software is impossible. It is just a bit harder.

Copyright theft is not ok at all in my book. (2, Insightful)

Kalabajoui (232671) | about 13 years ago | (#2435980)

Then again, I define copyright theft as the current state of laws that unconstitutionaly rob the public domain. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is a prime example of copyright theft. The DMCA is a theft of my rights to fair use and scientist's rights to do encryption research and reverse engineering. So I'm all for an end to all this thievery and swindling that's been going on lately.

The Politicians May Have A Point Here (5, Insightful)

Self Bias Resistor (136938) | about 13 years ago | (#2435517)

The big reason why the politicians are trying to block the major record labels from setting up their music download services is that the major players may be anti-competitive (that would never happen in the software industry!) and unfairly dominate the market. Before we decide to post reactionary "EU sucks" posts en masse, we have to consider that they may actually have a point.

One of the fundamental aspects of the major players' (ie. AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, Bertelsmann, Sony etc) control over the music industry is that of control of distribution. The big labels have managed to buy up/price out everyone else in the market over time until they become the majority providers in the market. They have so much money behind them that it's hard for the indie players to compete if they don't have multi million-dollar advertising budgets and large amounts of capital to professionally record and produce hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of CDs, although prices for both are dropping. You want your CD to reach a large enough audience for it to go gold or platinum? Do it through us. Sure you can refuse to, but it's not like you can compete with us. One of the reasons the RIAA decided to shut Napster down was not for mass copyright infringement (the Audio Home Recording Act allowed people to copy CDs to tape for years), it was for the loss of control over the distribution of their product.

The Internet may, if we're not careful, merely provide the big labels with another avenue of control over their product. We may see a repeat of past history where a couple of key players (both of which seem to be merely extensions of the major recording labels) grow and grow until they become so big they can have the kind of control over the digital market that they have over the physical market right now. This means high prices, low quality of service and even less money going towards the artist. They can control access that small players have to the product (ie. the music) by charging high prices for access to their copyrighted product. This is similar to Telstra being able to price out competitors by charging high prices for access to its telecommunications network (although the Australian Competition and Consumers Commission (ACCC) is trying to put a stop to that, just like they did with DVDs [slashdot.org] ). Although an American congressman is trying to introduce a law that gives all download services the same access to music regardless of whether they are affiliated with the record company that sells the songs, which (for once) actually makes a lot of sense since it removes at least one measure through which the major players can unfairly control the market. This complaint by the politicians of the EU may actually be a good thing for all of us who download digital music.

Re:The Politicians May Have A Point Here (2, Interesting)

szquirrel (140575) | about 13 years ago | (#2435903)

The Internet may, if we're not careful, merely provide the big labels with another avenue of control over their product. We may see a repeat of past history where a couple of key players (both of which seem to be merely extensions of the major recording labels) grow and grow until they become so big they can have the kind of control over the digital market that they have over the physical market right now.

You know, I just don't see this happening. Of course bigger labels will always have a monetary edge, but one of the beauties of the Internet is the advantage of lower cost than brick-and-mortar operations. One key point of the major labels' current monopoly is cutting deals with record stores for shelf space. On the Internet this issue goes away when anyone can set up a few servers and jump right into competition with the big boys. Costs aren't nil, but I imagine they pale in comparison to the cost of worldwide physical media distribution.

So I think the EU is probably overreacting to Pressplay and MusicNet. Let the record companies try their outdated muscle tactics in cyberspace. The net has a way of spawning smaller, more nimble services [google.com] to compete with ones that have gotten too big [altavista.com] and bloated [yahoo.com] .

Segregation (2)

Vegan Pagan (251984) | about 13 years ago | (#2435551)

It's good that the EU is fighting an oligopoly, but might this lead to music regions (segregation), as we already have with movies and video games? I hope that the internet can eliminate borders and let content flow everywhere, as it did with Napster.

I love this line (5, Interesting)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | about 13 years ago | (#2435559)

These record companies do not throw money into black holes and the commission fears that if they come together, it could make them into a cartel and make it virtually impossible for a rival model to compete" --emphasis mine

Excuse me? What do you mean *could*?
How bloody stupid can one be...a rival model (Napster, et al) did try to compete... they got E3'd (embraced, extended and extinguished).

And, correct me if I am wrong, did a music company just try this? One of the same that was fighting napster?

As one poster so eloquently put it, Napsters popularity was spurred on not by the "desire to steal" but by the ham fisted approach to music and individual freedoms by the "music cartel".

I could not have said it better myself.

Heck, just look at the "uncopyable" cds that are coming out? Individual freedoms (tossing motion) going out the windows. HDTV...whoosh...bye-bye.

Oh, never mind the law says you have the right to do this, but the moment you excercise that right you are running afowl of the law? Excuse me?

Did I mis-read the first line of a famous document as "We the corporations, in order to form a more perfect monopoly..."

Moose.

Oh, and next election, if you want sweeping changes...put a single selection first on the ballot that reads "Vote *against* all incumbants".
If it is not there, just look, all incumbants are listed...heh.

Re:I love this line (2, Insightful)

hyphz (179185) | about 13 years ago | (#2436498)

You have to watch out with the "individual freedoms" claim.

First of all, the "uncopyable" CDs are a laugh. Unless they're going to start banning the sale of short gold-plated analogue audio cables and digital audio cables. They've tried to stop people playing the CDs on computers, but have ignored the fact that the computer doesn't need to play the CD - it just needs to get at the audio stream somehow.

But second, the simple reason you have to be careful is that if you DO triumph over all these rights protection businesses, then the owners of the content can just Take Their Ball And Go Home. If the DeCSS case had crushed the DMCA early in DVD's life, they just wouldn't have made any more DVDs. Of course, what their big fear is that sooner or later somebody will say We've Got Our Own Ball Now.

Unfortunately in the case of music this is pretty unlikely, as long as they can tie up all methods for making money by distributing music that way. Piracy is a (relatively) minor issue because it'll always happen anyway (and it can help - see below); distribution of free music is a relatively minor issue because you can't do free work forever.

But, try writing a piece of music and finding out how much it'll cost (or even if it'll be possible) for you to distribute it with DRM. Try making a film and find out what it'll involve to get it CSSed. Most of these don't bother with money - they just won't sell to you unless you can prove you can be trusted - by already being a music/film firm. And if you aren't one now, you can never meet that, because you can't become a firm if you can't make money because you have no protection.

And that's another side: as long as people are not pirating because it's technologically impossible for them to do so, rather than because it's wrong, no attitudes will change. The moment something gets released without protection, many will say "What a goof!" and copy it to the skies. This neatly prevents people who can't get the protection from making money, as discussed above, and thus is actually beneficial to the existing companies who can afford protection. Using piracy to wipe competitors off the map is well-established by now, although it's unusual in music (although pretty frequent in IT)

And yet another: people are used to judging the quality of a musician by the fact they got commercially released. Many famous musicians are famous *before* their first song gets released. Moving to a non-publisher model, in which all qualities of music are distributed and you just choose the ones you like, would probably be rejected, because it would require people to actually think about what they were buying.

A few thoughts here.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435567)

Anybody else sick of RIAA and MPAA?

This is an understandable response to the horror and its effect on slashdot. It is an attempt to create a common culture among geeks.

Well I think everyone should look at the debates on the Slashdot site about the WTC bombing, and look at all the different perspectives, and you will see that we all come from very differenet cultures and these cultures determine our views on important questions. We cannot really create a common culture with Nerf, Athlon, Linux, Monty Python, or Star Wars.

I think that the slashdot editors are posting stories like this in order to bring back together a community which could easily fracture over the WTC retaliation arguments and arguments about safety, liberty and security.

It is far more important to work through these arguments than to distract readers from them. This site has a constituency with the most chance of any to shed light on all perspectives of security and freedom questions, at least w/r/t technology.

Although slashdot editors might not like >1K comments in a story, those threads will be more useful, and the conclusions from them more lasting, if we post these stories instead of Monty Python crap. Let the front page have space for these debates, and sideline Monty and Legos into the humor section.

Why not the Censorship graphic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435595)

Isn't this more important as a story from government censorship point of view?

Or is that ok if it means you can get your free and illegal MP3's?

Sure, they're big powerful companies, but...

Good for them! (1)

night_flyer (453866) | about 13 years ago | (#2435627)

Like Microsoft, the Music Industry cant innovate anything on their own and have to steal/litigate the competition out of business...

if it was up to the RIAA, ALL music would sound like N'Stink

Leave the big record companies alone! (5, Funny)

pubjames (468013) | about 13 years ago | (#2435632)


I am outraged by all these people attacking the recording industry. If it wasn't for them then how would any band succeed? I think the internet is going to do incredible damage to musicians and their ability to earn an honest living.

I have my own pop band and one day we're hoping to be really big. We've sent tapes to some of the big record companies, but so far we've been rejected. Apparently we're not commercial enough, but we'll keep trying.

But guess what - people have been copying and distributing our music on the internet! Some of our so called 'fans' came to one of our concerts and made a recording of some of the songs, then they emailed them to their friends and suddenly we found that thousands of people were distributing our music without our permission! Some 'fans' set up web sites without our permission, with photographs and with virtually all the songs we played at the concert downloadable. We have sent them emails to tell the to take them down, and if they don't then we'll be contacting our lawyers.

Some of these 'fans' had the cheek to email us and ask us when we were next going to play a concert. We've decided that from now on we are not going to publicise our concerts to prevent these types of parasites coming.

I think we're going to really big and popular one day, but of course that can only happen with the help of the big record companies, so lay off them!

Re:Leave the big record companies alone! (0, Redundant)

night_flyer (453866) | about 13 years ago | (#2435644)

Hey Dumbass, its your hard work AND the FANS that Make you Succeed, NOT the record companies...

why do I smell another N'Suck clone coming on....

Re:Leave the big record companies alone! (2)

dhogaza (64507) | about 13 years ago | (#2435682)

Someone has a little trouble comprehending sarcasm, eh?

Re:Leave the big record companies alone! (3, Informative)

statusbar (314703) | about 13 years ago | (#2435702)

Is this a joke? I hope so.

If it isn't, PLEASE research recording contracts. Very very few popular bands make money from record companies. Read how it really works at http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

--jeff

Re:Leave the big record companies alone! (1)

pkesel (246048) | about 13 years ago | (#2435747)

How did musicians make it before the explosion in recorded media? They worked locally or regionally. Before so much music was available and able to be carried around you had to pay a band for music in your club or at your party. Making it 'Big' meant playing regularly and making a living. Now it means being promoted and marketed, being a media whore.

I still feel the best bands are those that grow to prominence in your community. In my area, the midwest, there are several who are busy night after night, and have been for years. They have a large, loyal following. They get my money at the door and from a shirt or locally-produced album.

And what is it going to do to your crowds if you don't publicise? Sounds like a bonehead move if you ask me.

Your whole post sounds as though you're saying, "Leave my pimp alone!"

How to spot satire, a guide for the irony impaired (5, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | about 13 years ago | (#2435759)

Irony is the use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. Satire is a literary work (such as a Slashdot posting;-) in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

Satire can sometimes be difficult to spot, especially for those of low intelligence. However, people who use irony often leave clues that they are not being serious.

If you read a posting on Slashdot that appears to contain extreme views, and statements that are obviously untrue, it could just be a troll. However, be careful! It might be satire! Then you'll look stupid if you respond to it seriously. If you're not sure or are confused, then it's better not to respond.

US launching anti-competitve investigation also (3, Informative)

call -151 (230520) | about 13 years ago | (#2435685)

According to this NY times article [nytimes.com] an investigation into the possible anti-competive practices of the big music companies on their internet distribution plans for Pressplay and Musicnet is being launched by the antitrust division of the US Dept. of Justice (this link [nytimes.com] is has same story, no NYT registration required, I think.) No surprise that an investigation is being launched; the news is that subpoenas have been sent out.

CNN Link (1)

kikta (200092) | about 13 years ago | (#2435705)

CNN is also reporting this as well here [cnn.com] . The interesting part is that it is the result of a civil investigative demand. I'd be interested to know who did it. *cough* Napster *cough* ;-)

Re:US launching anti-competitve investigation also (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2436154)

Above says it all.
Physical or online, it is a product, and there must be no restraint of trade, or refusal to licence other wanabe online music exchanges, insofar royalities get paid at the end of the day.
No doubt RIAA will support windows only, and try to quash other platforms, and try to prevent these wantabes from keeping copies on their servers, or try to scam an 'authorization charge' - just like the banks - presently also being investigated for collusion and price fixing on credit card transactions.
EU take note - make sure the royalities will be no more expensive -and that availability of titles are same.
But the brick wall of discrimination comes up too - royalities are lower in 3rd world / low gdp countries - does that mean that India and China will be prevented offerinfg online music downloads. - or that servers in Denmark made to charge +27% VAT tax. The issue of global pricing is not being addressed.

Please... (2, Interesting)

TheMMaster (527904) | about 13 years ago | (#2435688)

"Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, would be anti-competitive and unfairly dominate the market."
Please, I know the european (politician) way of thinking (I'm from holland) and the line should read:
"Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, will pay too little taxes"
That's why we are having trouble buying stuff from america or outside the EU for that matter. But MP3's that you download... how can they stop that???
Well... at least that's what I think

Ahem... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 13 years ago | (#2436443)

That's why we are having trouble buying stuff from america or outside the EU for that matter.

Now, now....I never had trouble buying stuff in the US! I can guarantee you that they know how to tax stuff that comes from the US. Recently I bought a whole batch of T-shirts from ThinkGeek for our development team (hey, we did a good job, we deserved it!) Since the whole batch cost quite a lot money the customs noticed it and I had to pay a humungous import tax...and I live in an EU country known as a tax paradise.

Of course taxing downloaded MP3's would be a very difficult thing, but in essence they'll just shift the way of taxing. For example, tax your internet connection more (just like "kijkgeld", you know what I talk about, I don't know the english word). There are tons of ways to tax some service that is untaxable in an direct way.

Oh, by the way, shoudn't you say "The Netherlands" instead of "Holland"? ;-)

RIAA hacking to put song files on your computer ? (1, Flamebait)

mat (25086) | about 13 years ago | (#2435731)

Will the RIIA propose an amendment in Europe allowing them to hack into computers in order to upload their copyrigthed files in your hard drive ?

Re:RIAA hacking to put song files on your computer (1)

radja (58949) | about 13 years ago | (#2435813)

nope, they'll have to use echelon, just like boeing...

//rdj

Getting Caught in the Cookie Jar (2, Interesting)

pagsz (450343) | about 13 years ago | (#2435734)

But that industry says it will not put a stranglehold on the download sector, and is planning to work together with a new, legitimate Napster that will launch before the end of the year.

Is it me, or does this quote sound like a little kid saying: "No, mommy. I won't eat all the cookies. I'll share some with my little brother."

I mean, come on. How naive do they think people are? Everybody knows that given the chance, they'll monopolize the download sector and crush (through illegal use of the legal process) legitimate services.

I say kudos (the congratulation, not the candy) to the EU for putting a halt to MusicNet and Pressplay until it can be assured that the download sector is a competative one.

This quote brought to you by MoronCo. Industries, the leading source of stupidity on the internet,

CD-R's vs. cd players (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2435755)

I'm confused about the hardware barrier here. Regular CD players seem awful simple compared to CDRWs. If the record companies started to mass produce protected CDs, wouldn't CDR manufactures overcome the protective standard?

Is there any technical or financial reason why the CDR manufactures wouldn't overcome the protections? After all, the CD needs to be playable on all regular CD players...

-plo

RIAA,DMCA and the World (4, Interesting)

Insipid Trunculance (526362) | about 13 years ago | (#2435918)

This is a point i make often and this instance is no other,the Fact is that People Forget
that outside US (include Canada in the tag pls)these anti Common Man things wouldnt simply work.

Stop worrying and in a few years time just like the cryptography thingy these restrictions will go away when they are found harming US interests.

You ask me how??Well here's How:

Imagine a major European/Asian Label which:
1.Gives the artists it contracts Better % of revenue.
2.Provides its customers with no fancy works,just workd CD's etc.
3.Reduce its margins to realistic levels and make CD's cheap enough so that ppl dont mind buying one just for a few songs(i am assuming that some people will continue to pirate--But most wont)

isnt it possible that you US guys will order more and more of your CD's over the net from these guys?

What's a Neighborhood Cache? (1)

jwinter1 (147688) | about 13 years ago | (#2435982)

Never heard that term before. I assume it's sharing over a local network. Can someone clue me in?

Intereference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2436468)

What kind of asshole labels as 'interferences' the EU effort to stop music labels monopoly from invading the online world?

If anything, the EU should make sure that big labels can not go online both directly and indirectly, via some front subsidiary.

You motherfucking asshole...

The EU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2436523)

always considers a lot of progressive things, but in the end, they always bend over.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?