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!

Orson Scott Card on mp3 File Sharing

michael posted about 11 years ago | from the speaker-for-the-dumb dept.

Music 544
cancel ×

544 comments

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

First_Post.mp3 (-1, Offtopic)

christopherfinke (608750) | about 11 years ago | (#6979990)

I, for one, welcome our new MP3-trading overlords...

Re:First_Post.mp3 (1, Funny)

ice-monk (646562) | about 11 years ago | (#6980012)

What? I'm still waiting for the ogg-vorbis overlords.

Re:First_Post.mp3 (0, Offtopic)

christopherfinke (608750) | about 11 years ago | (#6980072)

Besides stopping all of the stupid overlord jokes before they could start, this post was moderated down to (-1 off-topic) 47 seconds from the time of post. The moderation system works!

Research (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6979993)

According to research at an English university, people are trading music online to avoid paying for it.

Re:Research (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980128)

Mod parent up +10, Informative!

Re:Research (3, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 11 years ago | (#6980142)

A) You didn't cite the study.

B) That doen't mean if they didn't trade music that they would buy it.

Of course, they are avoiding paying for it. They either don't think it is worth the retail price, or they can't afford it.

People who have lots of money spend it on crap all the time, hell, I even hear rich people buy Porche's to crash them, for safety test purposes.

Hmmm, I wonder if Bill Gates has illegal MP3 files?

Try before you buy? (1)

pythian (259677) | about 11 years ago | (#6980205)

silly slashdot can't do no-text comments? bah, shows how much I post here.

Try before you buy is one part of trading music to avoid paying for it. Of course, if the music sucks, it should get deleted (some people collect, but that's a different matter, if ya ask me). If the music is enjoyed, there's a chance the album would get downloaded, as well as others by that artist and similar music, and so on.

There has been little mention of this in the whole RIAA vs P2P/Traders issue. *shrug* It happens with games (well, they tend to also offer demos) and it happens with music (where demos tend to be 15-30 second clips of horrid quality streaming music through Amazon and the like).

Ah well, I can type until I'm blue in the fingers on such matters, but it's irrelevant. (;

Re:Research (Yo Momma style) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980240)

According to your mom, she sucks my dick because I enjoy it.

And I pay her money...

About time (5, Insightful)

XeresRazor (142207) | about 11 years ago | (#6979995)

We need more legitimate copyright dependent artists (let's not argue artistic ability on this one) to hop onboard the bandwagon if anything's ever going to be changed about the copyright system. Good for Card.

Well, that settles it then (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980006)

Now that we've got the opinion of a semi-famous author of the written word on the sharing of music files, that should pretty much close the discussion right there.

Now if we could only get Gary Coleman's take on this whole SCO thing...

Re:Well, that settles it then (5, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 11 years ago | (#6980089)

While I can see your point, it's a lot more helpful than you'd think. ANY famous person is helpful to the cause, whether they're in the music industry or not.

Imagine if the cast of Friends spoke out against the RIAA - how many previously-uninformed people do you think would look into it more and take a stand?

-- Dr. Eldarion --

Re:Well, that settles it then (4, Insightful)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 11 years ago | (#6980143)

Moot. It's already getting wide coverage, hell my Grandfather knows about it and thinks it's ridiculous. Them suing a 12-year old girl really, really didn't help matters for them.

The RIAA is informing people quite well with their lawsuits, they're forcing it into the public eye. Mr. Card is pushing a few people towards the Anti-RIAA camp, but that's all... he's not going to generate enough noise to trump what the RIAA is doing.

Re:Well, that settles it then (1)

drayzel (626716) | about 11 years ago | (#6980196)

I downloaded the Enders Game audio book last year. The reader sounded like a robot and it was abridged to the point where it was 1/4 the quality of the book. Glad I didn't pay for it.

I would have rented from the library, but all his stuff is on hold for months and months (I live in his boyhood hometown).
~Z

best quote from the article (-1, Offtopic)

gfody (514448) | about 11 years ago | (#6980009)

It's like revoking someone's Social Security at age 72, just because they had the temerity not to die when demographics predicted they would.

its great. I'm no grammar nazi but aren't you not suppose to start sentences with "And"?

Re:best quote from the article (4, Funny)

kfg (145172) | about 11 years ago | (#6980036)

"I'm no grammar nazi but aren't you not suppose to start sentences with "And"?"

And your point is. . . ?

KFG

Re:best quote from the article (0)

Garrett Combs (699749) | about 11 years ago | (#6980135)

Irony? Yes, I think so.

Re:best quote from the article (1)

rylin (688457) | about 11 years ago | (#6980045)

You "shouldn't", just like you shouldn't use double-negatives, unless you have to.

Re:best quote from the article (-1)

WellAren'tYouJustThe (705433) | about 11 years ago | (#6980057)

Well aren't you just not the grammar nazi.

Re:best quote from the article (-1, Flamebait)

gfody (514448) | about 11 years ago | (#6980118)

it was suppose to be funny that my grammar nazi post would contain such horrible grammar

..yea, thats it

Re:best quote from the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980063)

You are never supposed to use double negatives, that's for sure.

Re:best quote from the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980158)

Actually, it's a stylistic issue. While it is not technically proper to start a sentence with a co-ordinating conjunction, neither is it true error. Beginning a sentence with "And" or "But" provides mild transition between thoughts to give a more coherent development. It is actually a very nice technique, avoiding wordiness while creating flow. So, yes, it's fine!

In Soviet Russia.. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980015)

...MP3 file swaps YOU!

In Soviet Russia.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980097)

That joke still thinks PEOPLE are funny!

HA HA HA! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980154)

GOOD ONE !! lol! roflmao! HOO HAA HAA HAA *sniff* the joke laughed at me

That byline 'speaker-for-the-dumb'... (2, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | about 11 years ago | (#6980018)

is just a bit insulting, isn't it? I thought the essay was very articulate and well-written, if short on details about how you can be friendly to filetraders and turn a profit with intellectual property (maybe part 2?)

Re:That byline 'speaker-for-the-dumb'... (1, Informative)

imsabbel (611519) | about 11 years ago | (#6980080)

well, i guess better dumb than dead....

(if you dont know, go to amazon an view cards books)

First, it is not property.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980085)

" turn a profit with intellectual property (maybe part 2?)"

The first thing to realize is that it is not "property". Abuse of the word "property" to describe it lends to such other language abuses as calling duplication and creation of new material "theft".

Call it "copyrighted material" if anything.

Re:First, it is not property.... (1)

alex_ant (535895) | about 11 years ago | (#6980187)

You're right, it's NOT property. It's INTELLECTUAL property, which is a type of property, and it's a type of property because the law says it is, the same way it says your possessions are your property.

Re:That byline 'speaker-for-the-dumb'... (3, Informative)

Nasarius (593729) | about 11 years ago | (#6980112)

*cough* http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dumb

Re:That byline 'speaker-for-the-dumb'... (4, Informative)

vondo (303621) | about 11 years ago | (#6980123)

or "dumb" as in those who don't speak. But maybe that is giving the editors too much credit.

Re:That byline 'speaker-for-the-dumb'... (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 11 years ago | (#6980231)

Also a reference to one of his books.

Tech-saavy? (1, Funny)

Brendan Byrd (105387) | about 11 years ago | (#6980021)

Is this the same guy writing for a sci-fi action game for the XBox? (Sorry, forgot the name, but it was a big article in Game Informer a few issues back.)

Re:Tech-saavy? (1)

Sethus (609631) | about 11 years ago | (#6980207)

I don't know about that but probably. He wrote my favorite book that I've ever read (and I'm sure over 70% of the people here have read it) Ender's Game. Go read it sometime :D PS - The reason I say probably to your comment is Ender's Game is a Sci-Fi book, and I daresay he's good at writing Sci-Fi.

Re:Tech-saavy? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 11 years ago | (#6980238)

Orson Scott Card wrote the modern sci-fi classic _Ender's Game_ and its sequels/parallell novels. It's *really* good stuff. There are supposedly plans for a movie, I think... there was never anything concrete, and it might have changed, however. Never heard anything about an action game for the Xbox... if it's based on Ender's Game, however, a real-time strategy game would be more appropriate. (The interface might get ugly, though, since the stuff would have to take place in a full 3-D space...)
Anyway, the main post links to his site (http://www.hatrack.com, the name comes from his other big series, a fantasy series). He also has some quasi-"historical fiction" books based on women of the Old Testament, and a number of other random books.

I'm fortunate enough to live about an hour away from his hometown, so I can attend the occasional speaking engagement/book signing...

Re:Tech-saavy? (1)

Neolithic (70450) | about 11 years ago | (#6980276)

Is this the same guy writing for a sci-fi action game for the XBox?

I don't know about any current and future games but I do know that he was one of the principle writers for LucasArts The Dig.

e-books (4, Funny)

kirkb (158552) | about 11 years ago | (#6980022)

So would he mind if I pirated his e-books, then?

Re:e-books (1)

L1Trauma (531944) | about 11 years ago | (#6980033)

By his argument, sure, since you were not likely to by them anyway, you cheap *******. :)

Re:e-books (5, Insightful)

vondo (303621) | about 11 years ago | (#6980099)

See his final arguments.

Maybe you pirate one of his e-books and you like it enough to buy the print version for the "feel."

Maybe you don't buy that one in print, but buy others either in paper or electronically because you like his writing.

Or maybe you decide he sucks as an author and never read anything of his again.

In any of these cases, what has he lost? Nothing. You weren't going to plop down $7 for his paperback anyhow.

The only way he loses is if you decide he is a great author, so you pirate all his books.

Re:e-books (4, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | about 11 years ago | (#6980209)

The only way he loses is if you decide he is a great author, so you pirate all his books.

Even then he doesnt, technically, lose, he just doesnt gain, it's as if you never read his first book to find out how good he was.

Re:e-books (4, Interesting)

Sheetrock (152993) | about 11 years ago | (#6980110)

I think his point is that we wouldn't need to put you in concrete storage for several years and fine you six figures if you downloaded Ender's Game. He'd still like you to pay for the book, but doesn't necessarily feel his great-grandchildren need to receive tiny royalty payments from his effort (well, in addition to the publishing houses continuing to reap profits for nearly a century.)

Refreshing attitude. If copyright was reformed to be meaningful in today's environment, where a reasonable profit can be realized in a much shorter time than when copyrights were first introduced due to the capability and speed of worldwide marketing/distribution, eliminating P2P of copywritten works may be a worthwhile trade for the people currently using it for piracy.

Re:e-books (1)

Drantin (569921) | about 11 years ago | (#6980136)

I'm pretty sure you were joking but, if you really didn't want to pay full price for his books, then try finding a local used-bookstore, most of the time they sell books for half price or thereabouts.. 2.50 for Ender's Game? Yeah!

Why is he joking? (1)

AzrealAO (520019) | about 11 years ago | (#6980166)

It's a legitmate question. Would he mind of people just went and pirated all of his e-books.

Your response, btw works equally well in response to people who pirate mp3 files. They could get off their asses and go and buy the album in a used cd store instead of downloading it. Why don't they?

E-Books-- See Baen.com (4, Informative)

Soulfader (527299) | about 11 years ago | (#6980218)

I don't know about OSC, but a lot of other sci-fi authors have clued in to the fact that exposure sells books.

The Baen Free Library [baen.com] offers a ton of books from sci-fi/fantasy publisher Baen Books for free in a variety of electronic formats. Baen has also been offering CD-ROMs in some of their hardcovers which contain more books not available on their website. The most recent of David Weber's Honor Harrington series, for example, contains the entire series in electronic format. Best of all, you can copy them and distribute them however you like--you just can't sell them.

Try searching for "honorverse disk" at Google and see what you get. Many people (myself included) put the CDs up on their web server for convenience.

It's hideously effective, incidentally. I've bought about 25 Baen paperbacks in the last two years, and several hardbacks--one of them just for the CD, though I rather enjoyed the book, too, as it turned out.

Yup. (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | about 11 years ago | (#6980038)

What never gets covered is how RIAA members violate copyright themselves. See my journal.

I'd be very curious to see how many others are being screwed in this manner. Where's my 150,000 x 6?

Not actually all that helpful (4, Interesting)

nenya (557317) | about 11 years ago | (#6980049)

Card's essay might be useful for someone who hasn't been paying attention to the discussion for the past five years, but other than that it's really nothing new. Others [shirky.com] have said more and said it better. Still, it's nice to see a content creator saying these things.

I can't wait... (2, Funny)

Dr Reducto (665121) | about 11 years ago | (#6980060)

He said:
Tune in next week for part 2
I bet next week is going to be an even more scathing commentary.

Ender Wiggin off Kazaa (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980064)

I got all my Ender Wiggin novels off Kazaa.....

At the bottom of the page: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980066)

An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

PAY UP RUSS!

Wait just a sec.... (0, Offtopic)

twoslice (457793) | about 11 years ago | (#6980070)

Here's a clue: Movie studios have, for decades, used "creative accounting" to make it so that even hit movies never manage to break even, thus depriving the creative people of their "percentage of profits." A few have dared to sue, but most figure that it isn't worth the ill will. (The sentence "You'll never work in this town again" runs through their minds.)

Wow! you have to be pretty creative to have Gigli make a profit. I bet I could count the house on one hand for Gigli! and those people walked into the wrong theater!

Re:Wait just a sec.... (3, Informative)

nelsonal (549144) | about 11 years ago | (#6980121)

No the trick comes from shifting the cost of J-Lo and Ben's limo's wardrobe assistant and such on to a very successful movie, so the first time actor who signed for a percentage of the profits in exchange for a smaller up front payment. The trick is to know that no movie ever makes a profit, and that you want a small cut of gross not net.

Grateful Dead (4, Interesting)

nucal (561664) | about 11 years ago | (#6980073)

"They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models."

The Dead always got it - they made far more money touring than by selling records. Letting fans record concerts and swap tapes created a lot of good will and good publicity.

Re:Grateful Dead (4, Insightful)

jonbrewer (11894) | about 11 years ago | (#6980149)

"The Dead always got it - they made far more money touring than by selling records."

Maybe what they "got" was that jamming in front of a great crowd was far better than making a lot of money...

Re:Grateful Dead (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 11 years ago | (#6980249)

Yeah, but that would be actual work! Have you heard some of these musicians complain about touring? It's like they've never had 40 hour/week jobs!

New Buzzword (2, Interesting)

contrasutra (640313) | about 11 years ago | (#6980076)

Well, I think we're getting another "Google".

People use "google" as a term for "search online" now, and I fear "MP3" will become the term for "digital music". As we all know, there are other formats, and I don't want to be looked down upon just because I choose OGG.

Hell, there are OGGs on Kazaa, so its not just a piracy thing.

Then again, wouldn't it be great if "MP3" was the term for "pirated music", and OGG was "legal" digitial music (ah, OSS dreams).

Re:New Buzzword (1)

pythian (259677) | about 11 years ago | (#6980244)

erm, I'm afraid you're too late -- when is the last (first?) time you've heard a non-geek talk about digital music and not mean MP3s? I haven't heard a non-geek even refer to it as digital music -- just MP3s.

Re:New Buzzword (1)

imsabbel (611519) | about 11 years ago | (#6980257)

actually, mp3 was first. Since the original napster music on computer -> mp3.

Searching the web became google only 2 years or so ago. A long time searching the internet was ascociated with yahoo or altavista.

Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (3, Interesting)

xhabbo (613487) | about 11 years ago | (#6980077)

This was a well written and timely article by one of my favorite authors. But I winced at one particular sentance:

"If you got together with a few of your neighbors and each of you bought different CDs and then lent them to each other, that wouldn't even violate copyright."

Is this true? Certainly it can't be if the only distinction of violating the copyright is geographical distance. Can give anyone give any answers?

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (5, Informative)

javelinco (652113) | about 11 years ago | (#6980130)

This is true. Read the rest - it is the fact that you keep a copy of the music while others also have a copy that violates the copyright. That's why it is "copy" right. Anyway, handing the CD over means you don't have it, right?

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (1)

xhabbo (613487) | about 11 years ago | (#6980171)

So its perfectly legal to store the song in our memory (brain) and broadcast it (hum or sing tour ourselves) yet it's illegal to store it on our computer memory (hard drive... I only used "memory" for the sake of the analogy). So... When are brain drives shipping?

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (1)

javelinco (652113) | about 11 years ago | (#6980204)

Nope, this isn't true - it's not legal to store the song in our brain's memory either...*sigh*

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980150)


"If you got together with a few of your neighbors and each of you bought different CDs and then lent them to each other, that wouldn't even violate copyright."


What if he said, "If you got together with a few of your neighbors and each of you bought one of my books, and then lent them to each other, that wouldn't even violate copyright", would that make it clearer for you?

Even the public library lends CDs.

sigh. You've been brainwashed already.

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (1)

nelsonal (549144) | about 11 years ago | (#6980151)

Lending is probably legit under fair use, so long as no copies are made. It's copyright, not lendingright or useright no matter how much some may wish it to be.

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (1)

TexVex (669445) | about 11 years ago | (#6980156)

It would be a violation of COPYright if you ripped or copied each other's CD. But merely lending the CD is not illegal. No COPYing is going on.

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (1)

sirmob (701496) | about 11 years ago | (#6980159)

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the deal here is that, as card says, you are keeping your *own copy* when you fileshare. They would probably still try to nail you for it, but if you actually sent someone an MP3 rip of your CD and then destroyed your CD, it wouldn't break copyright (the reason that doesn't apply to software is because the liscence you "sign" tries to take away exactly that right)

You are lending your only copy... (2, Insightful)

Jack_Frost (28997) | about 11 years ago | (#6980162)

Which is perfectly within your First Sale and Fair Use rights. No new copy has been created, thus there is no question of a copyright violation.

The situation is quite a bit different if you burn a copy for each of your friends in the neighborhood.

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (1)

Vaevictis666 (680137) | about 11 years ago | (#6980178)

The distinction is that with file sharing, you don't lose the ability to use the file.

If I buy a CD, and loan it to a friend, that is legal. If I buy a CD, burn a copy of it, and give that to a friend, that violates copyright (because I don't have the right of reproduction)

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (2, Informative)

Wordplay (54438) | about 11 years ago | (#6980226)

The distinction comes down to whether you're keeping a copy of it when you lend it out. Right of first sale has pretty much established that you can resell the media (with the content on it). What you can't do is copy the content for yourself then resell the media or conversely, keep the media but give away the content.

If you want the book analogy, you can't photocopy the book then lend it to your friend (lending is just a temporary case of selling for free), allowing you both to read it simultaneously.

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (3, Insightful)

andcal (196136) | about 11 years ago | (#6980227)

Certainly it can't be if the only distinction of violating the copyright is geographical distance

The only distinction between what he described and internet file sharing isn't only geographical distance. Two main differences immediately spring to mind:

1) Digital file sharing can't even begin until the song or book or whatever is copied. What Card described (lending a CD to someone you know) doesn't necessarily include anyone copying the song. Just because you assume that each borrower would copy the CD doesn't mean everyone would, or that it's what Card meant.

2) The number of songs (movies, books, or whatever) I can obtain by borrowing a CD from an acquanitance is considerably less than the number of songs (books, movies, etc) that I can obtain a copy of via the internet. I guess that is why makes borrowing from acquaintances fair (as in fair use).

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (1)

Dr Caleb (121505) | about 11 years ago | (#6980245)

If you got together with a few of your neighbors and each of you bought different CDs and then lent them to each other,

It doesn't say anything about copying. You must have assumed that your friends were going to copy the CDs right after. That would be a violation in the US.

Just lending the CDs is fair use. . . like letting other people read your copy of the paper after you're done.

I suppose if you e-mailed the ripped tracks, with a promise to delete them after your friend heard them, it might be a greyer area of the law, but sharing them with the world is indeed a violation in the US.

Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true: (1)

TwistedGreen (80055) | about 11 years ago | (#6980275)

If you lend someone a CD, you're not actually making a copy.

If send someone an MP3 of a CD, you are making a copy.

It has nothing to do with geographical distance.

Orson Scott Card (2, Interesting)

javelinco (652113) | about 11 years ago | (#6980091)

Anyone else constantly impressed with this guy? As someone who owns 90% of the fiction he's created, and who has read more like 95% (and I've bought Ender's Game somewhere near 50 times), I obviously appreciate his abilities as a storyteller. And now he writes a coherent, fair statement regarding the state of "piracy", etc. in the movie/music business, and it just gets better. Hoorah for Mr. Card! Keep them coming...

Re:Orson Scott Card (1)

tktk (540564) | about 11 years ago | (#6980225)

(and I've bought Ender's Game somewhere near 50 times)

You can read the exact same book more than once. You don't need to buy a copy every time you want to read it.

That is, until the RIAA starts publishing books.

Re:Orson Scott Card (2, Insightful)

javelinco (652113) | about 11 years ago | (#6980270)

True, but if you keep giving the book away, it's nice to have a copy around...

Article is +5 Insightful (5, Insightful)

herko_cl (533936) | about 11 years ago | (#6980093)

Having actually RTFA, I think his take on the problem is quite good. It's not like we haven't read this on Slashdot a thousand times before, but the real deal is that it's a known, mainstream author that's publishing this kind of thing.

"In other words, the people complaining about all the internet "thieves" are, by any reasonable measure, rapacious profiteers who have been parasitically sucking the blood out of copyrights on other people's work. And I say this with the best will in the world. In fact, these companies have expenses. There are salaries to pay. Some of the salaries are earned. ".

I like the way he puts it <grin>

Re:Article is +5 Insightful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980186)

Ummm... this guy is not a "known, mainstream author". :\

Re:Article is +5 Insightful (1)

Buzz_Litebeer (539463) | about 11 years ago | (#6980232)

Actually Orson Scott Card is a known mainstream author, in some high schools his book "Enders Game" is taught to students, as well as in some college classes.

In fact, Enders Game is an extremely popular book, even outside of regular sci fi reading, you can even find large print "childrens" versions (same story differnet package) at bookstores.

If you mean by "mainstream" that he isnt on television, then you might be right, but if you mean "mainstream" as being "well read by a LOT of people, more than say 2 million" then yes he is mainstream.

RIAA (0, Informative)

gfody (514448) | about 11 years ago | (#6980094)

One thing this guy doesn't understand is that the RIAA isn't a mere publisher. They actually involve themselve's quite a bit in how an album sounds and is marketed. In most cases they even provide the producers that are responsible for the "sound" (the bassline, rythm etc) that the artist then sings their song over. Also, most of the time it isn't the artist/group/whatever that is actually editing the cuts and making "tracks".

Re:RIAA (5, Insightful)

javelinco (652113) | about 11 years ago | (#6980147)

The RIAA isn't a publisher, nor are they an editor, etc. They are a consortium of individual companies that have formed to protect their industry's "interests". If you want to restate this as something the companies themselves do, fine - I don't have enough information to argue. But please, this does NOT describe the RIAA.

Re:RIAA (1)

gfody (514448) | about 11 years ago | (#6980234)

ok. So replace RIAA in my post with "companies the RIAA is representing"?

Re:RIAA (3, Insightful)

Xcott Craver (615642) | about 11 years ago | (#6980200)

One thing this guy doesn't understand is that the RIAA isn't a mere publisher. They actually involve themselve's quite a bit in how an album sounds and is marketed.

But then, on the flip side of the coin, the downloaders are involved quite a bit in manufacturing and distribution, which are supposedly a large portion of the cost of a CD.

I mean, if you download an MP3 and put it on a disc, you are paying for the shipping, the CD blank material, the equipment to do the burning, the electricity, etc and so forth. You're covering all the costs except for royalties to the copyright holders, and NRE costs for the album's production, and I suppose marketing.

Oddly, the RIAA does not subtract these costs when computing these amounts of money they claim is stolen from them.

X

Re:RIAA (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | about 11 years ago | (#6980217)

One thing this guy doesn't understand is that the RIAA isn't a mere publisher. They actually involve themselve's quite a bit in how an album sounds and is marketed.
Riiight - and boy do they do a good job on those boy bands...

interesting about this whole issue (5, Insightful)

yajacuk (303678) | about 11 years ago | (#6980103)

What I find interesting about this whole issue with mp3's and the RIAA is that for years now, the RIAA and it's affiliates have contributed to the destruction of the morals in the US. By selling music that teach nothing more then violence, indiscriminate sex, and foul language. Now they come after their very consumers and ask them about their morals, amazing.
When they were talking about child porn being found on Kazza, I wondered if they ever bothered to look at the Britney Spears video clips they were putting out.

Wow... (4, Funny)

JoeLinux (20366) | about 11 years ago | (#6980113)

Suddenly I'm filled with all sorts of chocolately goodness...recording artists coming out and saying that maybe suing your customers might not be the best idea to get customer loyalty.

Blow me, Card (-1, Flamebait)

kindbud (90044) | about 11 years ago | (#6980116)

And the most obnoxious feature of the law was that some authors outlived their copyright. Their most popular works would go into public domain while they were still alive and counting on the income. It's like revoking someone's Social Security at age 72, just because they had the temerity not to die when demographics predicted they would.

I sell a third of each of my living days, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. I don't get to take those 8 hours to another workplace and sell them there, again. Once sold, my hours are gone, forever. I get paid for them once, and once only.

Why should I sympathize with Card? Sounds to me like getting paid over and over again for a period of 52 years, just for one job done one time, seems like a sweet deal to me.

Re:Blow me, Card (3, Insightful)

Soulfader (527299) | about 11 years ago | (#6980259)

Are you producing something that can be enjoyed by the clients of your work over and over again?

Perhaps you are selling your work too cheap. If he produces something that people are willing to pay for, more power to him. It is a sweet deal. What's preventing you from doing the same?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. (3, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | about 11 years ago | (#6980117)

Maybe I should write it into a song...

But the fact remains that as the old hat of the record industry is, it subsidizes the failures with profits from teh successes where the internet in file swapping can be used to help a new band establish their worth to machinery of the record industry that is still actually useful to the promotion of a band or artist.

This is no good for the artists.

time to remove the fat and greed of the middle man non-artist...

I am the ONE! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980129)

WROSiHP meE 4 I AM NOE

Not just a good author... (5, Insightful)

Xenius (626318) | about 11 years ago | (#6980146)

...also a reasonably intelligent guy, unlike the Record execs.

"The record companies swear that it's making a serious inroad on sales, and they can prove it. How? By showing that their sales are way down in the past few years."

First off, anyone whose taken any intro psych class knows that the RIAA's data is bull. Hell, even those who haven't know it. All they are showing is correlational data. Whoopdie doo, cd sales are down while "piracy" is up. Watch me publish correlational data that shows quality of music is down and sales of cds are down. They haven't proven jack.

"It couldn't possibly be because (a) most of us have already replaced all our old vinyl and cassettes, so all that windfall money is no longer flowing in, or (b) because the record companies have made some really lousy decisions as they tried to guess what we consumers would want to buy."

Because Mr Card is publishing an article that will probably be viewed by many, he had to censor himself. What b) really means is that big record companies are trying to force-feed crap to the masses. How many boy-bands do we really need? How many no-talent implant laden morons do we really need singing "I'm not that innocent"?

Dumb argument, really. (1, Interesting)

Trolling for Profit (686234) | about 11 years ago | (#6980152)

And hypocritical, too. I don't see anything wrong with artists not owning the rights to their works. I mean, how many of you programmers out there create "works for hire" in which you assign the copyrights to the company you work for? Musicians shouldn't be any different. If they are self-employed, they own their music. If they are employed by a company, the company owns the music. You can't argue with that, reallly, unless now you programmers are demanding that you own the rights to software you wrote or designed. Somehow I don't think that is happening.

The vast majority of recording artists ... (3, Informative)

burgburgburg (574866) | about 11 years ago | (#6980157)

make no money off of their recordings with labels (and never did, even pre-P2P). The record companies pay an "advance", then charge the artist for studio time, promotion, pressing, advertising, creation of videos, transportation, lawyers fees, etc. And of course, the artist has to pay back the advance. Recording is usually a debt trap.

The majority of those that make a profit at all do so from performances and direct sales to fans of merchandise. The more people they can get to the concerts, the better off they are. This is why artists make videos and lobby to get them in rotation. This is why they try to influence radio stations to add them to rotations. This is why they give away promotional copies to influential people (DJs, trendsetters, etc.) and to large crowds at events (at record stores, etc.) This is why they lobby (and pay) to have songs included in the soundtracks of video games. They believe that more people hearing their music will mean more people willing to pay to see them perform.

One thing bothers me... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6980173)

--He says that 'only' 52 years of copyright was unfair.

And the most obnoxious feature of the law was that some authors outlived their copyright. Their most popular works would go into public domain while they were still alive and counting on the income. It's like revoking someone's Social Security at age 72, just because they had the temerity not to die when demographics predicted they would.

Its like he expects to do some work once and then profit from it for the rest of his life. Guess what... the rest of us don't get that! Patents don't last NEARLY that long... so why should a writer get rights to his work for the rest of his life, while an inventor enjoys the rights for a limited time?

The way society and economics work, you have to keep producing and contributing to reap the benefits. lifetime profits should not be guaranteed in my opinion.

Hollywood vs. Enron (4, Insightful)

The Lynxpro (657990) | about 11 years ago | (#6980181)

What I found funny about Mr. Card's article was the following truism:

Here's a clue: Movie studios have, for decades, used "creative accounting" to make it so that even hit movies never manage to break even, thus depriving the creative people of their "percentage of profits."

Hollywood uses "creative accounting" to diminish revenue sharing with their creative talent in order to actually maximize their profits. Warner Bros. took a lot of flack over how they claimed "Batman" never was profitable, yet for some reason, they made a sequel. Or for example, Paramount claiming "Coming to America" never made a profit either when sued. Yet on the other hand, you have companies such as Enron and Worldcom who use "creative accounting" to inflate their profits. Wow, isn't that ironic?

I guess the moral of the story is, when you overstate profits, investors lose confidence and your company goes bankrupt; run a Hollywood movie studio, claim you never make a profit, and you stay in business forever.

OMG - I agree with OSC (1)

Malfourmed (633699) | about 11 years ago | (#6980185)

As a huuuuuuge Orson Scott Card fan who's grown disturbed and depressed over his increasingly rabid right-wing views (clothed in the guise of "Oh but I'm actually a Democrat") I'm astonished to find an op-ed piece of his which I substantially agree with.

---

Wordforge writing contest - $100 in prizes - get your entry in before 28 September 2003

He makes a good point (3, Interesting)

theboy24 (687962) | about 11 years ago | (#6980189)

One thing that has troubled me with this whole fiasco is that in nearly all mainstream press and discusion there has been no question of the "lost sales" statistics. I do realise that many of the multi-nats in the RIAA own a lot of the press but you would think that after awhile someone, at least me, would want the RIAA to prove that, someone was actually going to spend money on the song/cd that was downloaded. It doesnt really make it right but if people are downloading becasue they're not going to pay, then the RIAA doesn't have a real claim to have lost anything.

I'd only point out that. . . (4, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | about 11 years ago | (#6980190)

If I fix someone's car I don't expect to derive continuing income from it. More to the point, I certainly don't expect that my descendents should derive an income from it. I rather expect that they should have to fix someone else's car to earn money.

If I do wish my descendents to have an easy life why don't I just invest my earnings to create a trust fund for them?

I have no problem with authors making a decent income for their work, but I also have no problem with them having to continue to produce works to maintain themselves and their heirs.

Just like everyone else.

50 years has always seemed both a fair and ample copyright duration to me, protecting both the rights of the author and the public.

KFG

Targeting the Wrong Demographic? (1)

Eberlin (570874) | about 11 years ago | (#6980198)

The justification that mp3 "sharing" is ok based on the notion that anyone trading mp3s would not have been in the demographic to buy a cd anyway strikes me as odd.

As a consumer, it bothers me greatly everytime I purchase something and someone mentions that they got the same product for a lesser price. I believe that makes me a bad shopper. So if I buy a cd and someone can get it at a cheaper price, I feel cheated. (on an off-topic note, American consumers who buy MS software at full price should feel this cheated after MS price cuts in other countries)

What some suggest (me included) is an increased value on those music CDs. I mean for 2 bucks more, you can get a DVD which has 2hrs of high quality audio/video, support for various languages, and often has lots of bonus features. Maybe if more musicians created DVDs or CDs with their music, some live performances or interviews, or at least a couple of music videos -- more people would want to buy instead of downloading songs for free.

Hehe.. (1)

CausticWindow (632215) | about 11 years ago | (#6980199)

"Genre busting DJ Moby"

That really made the article for me.

Hey, he's talking (3, Interesting)

TLouden (677335) | about 11 years ago | (#6980202)

about kids like me and my friends. And would you believe it, he's right. I never buy CDs. My friends buy some of them that they like. Many of my friends have the CD and an 'ilegal' mp3 version. Why? Because an mp3 player is still $50+ and doesn't, at that price, hold much music. So they have a CD version of everyting for school and travle and then an mp3 version for when they use the computer and want to listen to all their favorite songs. Well now, that doesn't hurt the recording companies now does it? What apperently hurts the company is when they download the music they didn't buy. But guess what happens when the do that. They either delete it if they don't like it or get the CD. So now how is this bad?

Highway Robbery (0, Flamebait)

Sloppy (14984) | about 11 years ago | (#6980247)

It was basically highway robbery -- the companies demanded that either the writers sign their names to a lie and give up all their rights, or the company wouldn't publish it.
I love how electing to not do business with somebody, is "robbery."

Maybe referring to copyright violation as "piracy" isn't all that weird after all. ;-)

I don't care about MP3s... (0, Offtopic)

jostern (592519) | about 11 years ago | (#6980274)

when will you make the Enders Game movie??????
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>