×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Don't Stop File-Sharing, Says Former Pink Floyd Manager

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the leave-those-kids-alone dept.

Music 243

Barence writes "The former manager of Pink Floyd has labelled attempts to clamp down on music file-sharing as a 'waste of time.' 'Not only are they a waste of time, they make the law offensive. They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s,' said Peter Jenner, who's now the emeritus president of the International Music Managers' Forum. 'It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.' The comments come as Britain's biggest ISP, BT, said it was confident that Britain's Digital Economy Act — which could result in file-sharers losing their internet connection — would be overturned in the courts, because it doesn't comply with European laws on privacy."

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

Prohibition? (5, Funny)

KarrdeSW (996917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905744)

They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s

I wish a bittorrent network was anything like a speakeasy.

Filesharing may be free as in beer, but it does not deliver you free beer.

Re:Speaking of Prohibition (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905918)

In Canada we have on the extremely rare occasion had Referendums dealing with important legislation. I believe the last national one we held was in 1992? And there are provincial ones every decade or so. We had one upon the subject of Prohibition in the 20's, which I think actually ended up passing, but was repealed shortly thereafter because of its unenforceable nature. Exactly what Mr Pink up there is saying.

But I disagree when he says

It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not

No, I don't think it's absurd at all - in Canada we may have still ended up voting in favour of it (51.2 for and 48.8 against) - but at least its not a crazy idea to, you know, ASK the general public.

Re:Speaking of Prohibition (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906092)

By that last sentence, I was referring to still voting for prohibition.

Re:Speaking of Prohibition (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906096)

Exactly what Mr Pink up there is saying.

By the way, which one's Pink?

Re:Speaking of Prohibition (0, Redundant)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906156)

I wish I had mod points to give you for that sir.

Re:Speaking of Prohibition (1)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906724)

He's the one who's not Mr Clock.

Re:Speaking of Prohibition (5, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906822)

Mod parent +1 Cigar

Re:Speaking of Prohibition (2, Funny)

inKubus (199753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907064)

Yeah, it's Time to put a stop to all this Us and Them. These repeated lawsuits just sound like Echoes to me. It's A Great Day for Freedom.

Re:Speaking of Prohibition (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906964)

By the way, which one's Pink?

This one is pink. [imdb.com]

Re:Prohibition? (5, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905934)

Filesharing may be free as in beer, but it does not deliver you free beer.

Neither did speakeasies [virginia.edu] ; you had to pay for the beer, and Al Capone and his ilk got the money for your beer. And comparing file sharing to alcohol prohibition is a dubious analogy at best (is slashdot's "badanalogyguy" really Peter Jenner?). It only holds in that both were laws that the public vehemently disagreed with and disregarded. Alcohol prohibition is more like drug prohibition -- it spawned violent gangs that were funded by the illicit substances, and the laws themselves caused more problems than they could possibly have solved, and many of the problems attributed to alcohol then and illegal drugs now are caused by the laws themselves, rather than the substances.

But I have to agree with Jenner, and add that piracy and the phantom "lost sales" aren't the real reason the RIAA is against file sharing. It's because the RIAA labels have radio, and the indies have P2P. P2P does in fact cost the RIAA labels sales; when you hear an indie song you like and buy the CD, that's money you don't have to buy RIAA music. The RIAA's war against "piracy" is a war against their competetion.

If there was no such thing as radio, the RIAA would certainly welcome P2P and "pirates".

Re:Prohibition? (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906076)

It only holds in that both were laws that the public vehemently disagreed with and disregarded.

Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing? It doesn't seem to hold much sway (in either direction) outside of the geek/teenager/record-label-executive world.

Re:Prohibition? (2, Informative)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906770)

"Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing?"

They don't, which makes the label's attempts to equate file sharing with more egregious crimes all that more laughable. This three strikes nonsense they're trying to pass in France is one example; French law makers passed it with flying colors last year because label lobbyists showering them with contributions and everything was great. Then a little earlier this year those same politicians realized they had to get re-elected; now they're balking, and some are even backing out of the pockets of those label lobbyists. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89860/french-ump-members-having-second-thoughts-on-three-strikes/ [zeropaid.com] Bend with the breeze indeed. I'm sorry, but file sharing is not as criminally dangerous as murder. Not even a little.

Re:Prohibition? (3, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906962)

Of course file sharing is as criminally dangerous as murder. Share files and the terrorists win! Haven't you been paying the slightest attention?

Re:Prohibition? (5, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907400)

Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing? It doesn't seem to hold much sway (in either direction) outside of the geek/teenager/record-label-executive world.

I don't know what kind of people you hang around with, but I don't know anyone under the age of 35 who doesn't know about BitTorrent, or at the very least some other means of downloading non-free music for free. Years ago I had a 35-year-old single mom from Detroit tell me she hasn't bought any music in a long time, because she just downloads it. My musician friends are some of the most avid consumers of music I've ever met, and since they can't afford to buy every CD they want to hear, they generally get everything they want to hear from torrents before buying some of it. (And yes, they would also like people to buy their own CDs, but they all accept the way the modern music world is.) Other friends spend whole weekends at home watching entire seasons of HBO TV shows, because they download them one torrent at a time. If you don't hear much about the "file sharing controversy," I'd say it's because that ship has long since sailed.

Re:Prohibition? (1, Offtopic)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906112)

it spawned violent gangs that were funded by the illicit substances

Remember allofmp3? Weren't they run by the Russian mob?

the laws themselves caused more problems than they could possibly have solved

Chilling effects from restrictive laws on copying cause more creative work to go unpublished than free copying would.

many of the problems attributed to alcohol then and illegal drugs now are caused by the laws themselves

Many of the problems attributed to piracy (artists getting screwed over) are caused by the organizations who actually hold the copyrights (see the RIAA accounting article we had a few days ago.)

It is very much like both alcohol and drug prohibition. It took just over 10 years to get the first repealed. It's been 60 years of the second, and only the first cracks are beginning to show. I hate to think what the next few decades of the War on Piracy will bring.

Nope, they weren't run by the russian mob (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906852)

Nope, they weren't run by the russian mob. Or at least in no more way than the USA Mob ran entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sinatra).

Odd you bring up RIAA accounting because AllOfMP3 had the monies owed to the artists available, but RIAA refused to take it.

Compare the rates paid to the 3c/song compulsory licensing that radio (which you can tape from for everyone in the US). The money was the same.

Re:Prohibition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906176)

But I have to agree with Jenner, and add that piracy and the phantom "lost sales" aren't the real reason the RIAA is against file sharing. It's because the RIAA labels have radio, and the indies have P2P. P2P does in fact cost the RIAA labels sales; when you hear an indie song you like and buy the CD, that's money you don't have to buy RIAA music.

(emphasis mine)

Okay, seriously. I may be against the RIAA's campaign against their customers and all that, but for the sake of having a consistent, coherent argument against them, please reread the two boldfaced sections I put above. Then, explain to me how you can possibly keep a straight face as you use both of those on the same side of your argument. Is it a "phantom" lost sale when someone downloads the CD and won't ever pay for it, but a "real" lost sale when someone buys something else and doesn't pay for RIAA music? What?

Re:Prohibition? (3, Interesting)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906366)

It's very simple.

Someone who has $30 to spend on music will spend $30 on music no matter how many albums they do or don't download, those downloads do not represent lost sales.

On the other hand, if our hypothetical person decides to support an indy band (that they found through file-sharing), then that $15 that is spent on a non RIAA artist represents a definite lost sale.

Re:Prohibition? (1)

KarrdeSW (996917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906180)

Neither did speakeasies [virginia.edu]; you had to pay for the beer...

Correct. I wasn't actually under the impression that speakeasies offered free booze. I was just bored and made a failed attempt at punning :P

Interesting point on radio, though.

Re:Prohibition? (5, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906236)

...the phantom "lost sales" aren't the real reason the RIAA is against file sharing. It's because the RIAA labels have radio, and the indies have P2P.

I think it's important to understand that the whole thing is largely about controlling distribution channels. Once upon a time, record companies made money by manufacturing and selling actual records. The big companies secured their business by controlling the distribution channels for music. They made deals with record stores about which albums would be shelved and which albums would be prominently featured in their stores. They made deals with radio stations about which songs would be played. That's how they made their money, and that's how they kept competition at bay.

Now, they aren't in the business of manufacturing records anymore. CDs are pretty much done. All they have left is the distribution. If they had been smart and technologically savvy, they would have taken control of online distribution quickly and maintained control of the distribution channels. But they weren't smart and technologically savvy. They still aren't.

The people working for these companies flatter themselves that their business is about being cool and making music. The reality is that they've been soulless marketing companies for years, and now they're turning into providers of technical services. Large portions of these companies should be run by IT people, and they should be providing high-quality Internet distribution services.

Re:Prohibition? (0)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906274)

It's because the RIAA labels have radio, and the indies have P2P. P2P does in fact cost the RIAA labels sales; when you hear an indie song you like and buy the CD, that's money you don't have to buy RIAA music. The RIAA's war against "piracy" is a war against their competition.

I would have to disagree here, the lost sales don't come from Indie music, it comes from when you hear a song and instead of buying the CD, you go and torrent it. This isn't a RIAA vs. Indie argument, as an Indie musician only gave away their music they'd make less money than if people bought their music.

Re:Prohibition? (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906446)

I would have to disagree here, the lost sales don't come from Indie music, it comes from when you hear a song and instead of buying the CD, you go and torrent it.

If I choose to buy independent music over music published by an RIAA label, then the RIAA just lost a sale.

This isn't a RIAA vs. Indie argument, as an Indie musician only gave away their music they'd make less money than if people bought their music.

You mistakenly assume that the indie musicians who gives out their music for free won't see any revenue from their fans.

Re:Prohibition? (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906594)

the lost sales don't come from Indie music, it comes from when you hear a song and instead of buying the CD, you go and torrent it.

I don't buy that. It's a lost sale only if the sharing of the song prevents a sale - and that could be argued both ways. A lot of so-called "lost sales" are people who wouldn't have bought it anyway, ergo, no sale was really lost, regardless of the right or wrong of downloading. Indie bands cost the major labels money by competing for consumer's ears as much as their wallets.

The way I've seen things, downloading music to try it for free is like hearing music on the radio to try it for free. It creates exposure for the artist, and generates interest (hopefully) in the music, which then drives sales for albums and concert tickets. That's why record companies focused so much time and energy (oh, and *cough* MONEY *cough*) on getting as much radio play for their artists as possible.

Re:Prohibition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906764)

I don't buy that. It's a lost sale only if the sharing of the song prevents a sale - and that could be argued both ways.

It used to more or less mean that. It used to be when you made a copy you lost fidelity. As such, even when you shared, chances are if you listened to the song, you still went and bought it. This was especially true for radio vs CD. Now, people just steal and don't give it a second thought.

In other words, for the vast majority of people, a p2p'ed song is a lost sale and lost revenue. But hey, even if you take the word of a thief, that still works out to be 10%-25% lost sales. But frankly, that's bullshit economics. That assumes people will do without - which they absolutely don't; whereas they used to budget accordingly. Now, if they can't afford it, they don't do without, they simply steal it. And if they tire of the stolen song before the get around to purchasing, it simply doesn't get purchased. In other words, a lost sale which is otherwise ignored by thieves.

Re:Prohibition? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906886)

You still lose fidelity unless you download flac files, mp3 and similar lossy compression formats do reduce the quality, wether or not you can tell the difference is down to how good and well trained your ears are, how good your speakers are etc. Many people couldn't tell the difference between an original and a poor copy on audio cassette complete with loud background hissing.

Heard of the "Loudness War"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32907280)

Heard of the "Loudness War"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

If the fidelity loss was why ripping tapes or LPs or radio was OK, then ripping off CDs should be OK too: they come pre-defidelitied!

Re:Prohibition? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907298)

I don't buy that. It's a lost sale only if the sharing of the song prevents a sale - and that could be argued both ways.

> It used to more or less mean that. It used to be when you made a copy you lost
> fidelity. As such, even when you shared, chances are if you listened to the song,
> you still went and bought it. This was especially true for radio vs CD. Now, people
> just steal and don't give it a second thought.

Back in the day, they would broadcast entire albums uncut in their entirety on the radio. You could record all of the good hits off the radio too. So if you didn't want to pay for your music, you never had too. You might want to buy singles but you never really had to. You might want to buy an album but never really had to either.

Nothing has changed.

Things are just a little more transparent now.

It's just more obvious that people can copy stuff. It's not even obvious that more people actually are.

If you are willing to compromise on quality, nothing here has changed in the last 30 years.

Lost fidelity is acceptable (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907434)

It used to be when you made a copy you lost fidelity

Straw man argument, easily debunked by mp3. When you record from FM radio the fidelity loss is comparable to that of ripping a CD to mp3. It would take several generations of tape-to-tape copy to degrade fidelity to the point it became unacceptable to the normal ear.

Re:Prohibition? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905992)

Filesharing today is a lot like Prohibition during the 1920s. I'm worried however that it will end up more like Prohibition of the 1990s-200s. That is, an endless war for which countless civil liberties are sacrificed.

Re:Prohibition? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906128)

Contrary to what you might believe, speakeasies didn't provide free beer either.

Re:Prohibition? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907316)

speakeasies didn't provide free beer

I don't think they provided beer at all, free or not. AFAIK, what speakeasies sold was moonshine. Beer has too little alcohol per volume, why would you go to the trouble of carrying that much water around when the cops were after you?

Re:Prohibition? (1)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906328)

I wish a bittorrent network was anything like a speakeasy.

Filesharing may be free as in beer, but it does not deliver you free beer.

I've never been to one, but didn't you have to pay for the beer in a speakeasy?

Re:Prohibition? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907428)

Ahhh the days of Audiognome consolodating so many networks and chats. Finding even the obscure in seconds and hangin out chattin with your buds .(about buds) Yeah bitorrent just kinda sucks the fun out of it, doesn't it?

Don't Stop File-Sharing (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905746)

And Don't Stop Believin', says Journey (and the cast of Glee)

Re:Don't Stop File-Sharing (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907320)

> And Don't Stop Believin', says Journey (and the cast of Glee)

My first copy of that album was on Vinyl. I immediately "format shifted" it to tape.

I'm sure I recorded that song off of the radio before I ever had the album.

You forgot the link... (1)

Xebikr (591462) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907444)

Here you go. [thepiratebay.org]

Brick In The Wall (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32905770)

RIAA, Leave Them Kids Alone!

Re:Brick In The Wall (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32905862)

Leave them alooooooooone!

Re:Brick In The Wall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906250)

The real question is, will the RIAA still give out pudding, assuming them kids do eat their meat.

Incomplete Floyd Albums (5, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905792)

He is just upset that when the RIAA cracks down, some users will not have gotten a complete Floyd album. [arstechnica.com]

Re:Incomplete Floyd Albums (4, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906286)

In fairness, I don't think they're being inconsistent. The band has decided that, when they sell their music, they only want to sell whole albums. That doesn't tell you what they want to do about the people who aren't buying their albums.

All in all... (5, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905800)

... another brick in the firewall.

Re:All in all... (5, Funny)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905922)

It doesn't have to be like this.

All we need to do is make sure we keep torrenting.

reference (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906670)

For those who missed the reference from the PF album Division Bell

It doesn't have to be like this
All we need to do is make sure we keep talking

Re:All in all... (4, Funny)

Julie188 (991243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906016)

We don't need no copyright education.

There's someone on my pipe and it's not me... (2, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906130)

[this post intentionally left blank except for this text and the sig]

Sudden outbreak of common sense, or... (4, Funny)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906320)

...a momentary lapse of unreason.

Not like they get payed much from recording sales. (2, Insightful)

Irick (1842362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905804)

The recording industry can go burn for all i really care, though i'd rather artists just release their stuff in the public domain rather then the public making it their domain. I can completely support hurting the recording industry, but I'd rather do it in a way that respects artist's wishes, even if those wishes be that i should not have their material without paying an overpriced fee to a record company I as a consumer do not support. Though that is just my view on the matter, truly i believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to putting the recording industry out. Beyond that, consumer rights should be protected, and that does include the right to fair use of a purchased product.

Re:Not like they get payed much from recording sal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32907056)

"paid"

lol.... BT is worthless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32905816)

are there any /happy/ BT customer? several yt videos and related comments make me believe that's NOT the case.. seem to be the same case of hidden monopoly like with the german telecom...

maybe the big ones have to suck to make the small ones more appealing... without the country-firewall on youtube i wouldn't even know about other sites like dai....

Re:lol.... BT is worthless... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905878)

I thought BlueTooth was quite popular with cellphone users, but I guess I was wrong.

Re:lol.... BT is worthless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32905902)

I didn't realize BitTorrent had customers.

Deal with the real pirates (4, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905842)

The Somali pirates. These are the ones extorting millions out of companies and threatening to kill people.

Re:Deal with the real pirates (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905936)

But they have boats & swords (guns)! Not DSL lines, so they're useless to *IAA!

Re:Deal with the real pirates (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906168)

The US already dealt with them by placing armed men on US flagged vessels and showing a willingness to prosecute any captured pirates in US courts.

Many of the states participating in the naval mission off Somalia claimed that they didn't have jurisdiction to prosecute the pirates they captured and wound up releasing them. AFAIK only a handful of countries (France, the US, Denmark, who else?) have shown a willingness to bring the pirates back to their respective countries and prosecute them for the crimes they have committed.

Re:Deal with the real pirates (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906922)

The trouble is, being locked in a french/danish/us prison would probably be an improvement in quality of life for the average somalian pirate... It's not really much of a deterrent.

Re:Deal with the real pirates (1)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907086)

What jurisdiction do those countries you name have? Did these acts of piracy take place in US coastal waters? Because if the didn't, I fail to see any legal jurisdiction the USA might have. Further, placing arms on a non-military ship in international waters violates a couple of international accords. While I support the idea of shutting down the murderous thugs, doing so illegally is rather hypocritical, and undermines any righteous goals.

Oh yeah, and why is the US and other countries using their MILITARY to protect civilian cargo ships? Who is paying for that I wonder?

Re:Deal with the real pirates (0)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907244)

Isn't the whole reason for the military to protect civilians? The only other reason is to conquer other nations but we consider ourselves to be more civilised than that these days.

It's my understanding that piracy in international waters has always been punishable by any nation that felt threatened by such actions. It's been pretty well established for centuries.

Mind you, punishing the pirates doesn't get to the route of the problem. Deal with overfishing and illegal dumping as well. These people are pirates because they don't have any other choice. There's no way for them to earn an honest living. They become pirates or starve. The risk of being captured and sentenced to life in prison is small compared with the certainty of death. Punish them by all means, but for practical purposes we should provide an opportunity for another way of life.

Re:Deal with the real pirates (2, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907348)

> I fail to see any legal jurisdiction the USA might have. ...because you're a moron.

Any nation has a right to protect it's ships and sailors at sea. This includes the merchant marine too.

Re:Deal with the real pirates (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907310)

Which is why the Russians "let the pirates go", presumably on a shitty dinghy with a hole in it and no guidance equipment.

Re:Deal with the real pirates (3, Interesting)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907340)

Going off-topic here, but seriously, "dealt with them"?

Yes, they did something, but they hardly solved the problem. Piracy in Somalia is still a booming business with massive return on investment, and the payments to individual pirates are ridiculously high compared to Somali average wages. This means there are a lot of interested investors [boingboing.net] , and there's a near endless supply of expendable people to send on the actual missions.

Trying to solve this situation with military presence in the area (by means of military ships) simply isn't feasible, because of the size of the area. If you secure the Gulf of Aden, which, by the way, is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, pirates will simply travel further east into the Indian Ocean, as they have on previous occasions. For example, this story [reuters.com] is about a ship hijacked 700 nautical miles from the Somali coast. That's a two to three days' journey for a pirate mothership traveling around 12 knots.

The only way we can solve the situation in the seas around Somalia is by solving the situation in Somalia itself. Somalia needs a stable government with an active police force and/or army to do something about the criminals that are ruling the country today.

Re:Deal with the real pirates (3, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906188)

Hey, they're helping to fight global warming [venganza.org] !

chap (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32905870)

turuuu dap!

Article summary misleading (3, Informative)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905904)

If you read TFA while watching an old Judy Garland flick on groovy couches with a bunch of your friends from college, you'll see that the naive interpretation of Jenner's sentiment given in the summary is way off.

Get it right next time, man.

Peter Jenner - not just PF (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32905910)

If - like me - you asked yourself who exactly he is: Jenner has managed Pink Floyd, T Rex, Ian Dury, Roy Harper, The Clash, The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, Robyn Hitchcock, Baaba Maal and Eddi Reader (Fairground Attraction). And Billy Bragg! Jenner and his wife Sumi set up Sincere Management which managed a range of artists. (from wikipedia [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Peter Jenner - not just PF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906472)

If memory serves, Peter Jenner was only the manager of PF during their very early (Syd Barret era) days.

It's absurd - cut and past oddity (0, Offtopic)

acomj (20611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905924)

""It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think "

Really?

"They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s."
How? A ban on liquor is equated to a making music copying illegal?

hey! look what you get when you cut and paste from TFA. A little rider on the bottom...

Read more: Music chief: preventing file-sharing is a "waste of time" | News | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/359458/music-chief-preventing-file-sharing-is-a-waste-of- [pcpro.co.uk]

Re:It's absurd - cut and past oddity (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906056)

""It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think "

Really?

Nice out-of-context quote. -1 troll.

How? A ban on liquor is equated to a making music copying illegal?

Yes. Antipiracy laws make illegal a behavior that pretty much everyone is doing anyway, and that is just about impossible to stop. Fighting the War on Piracy is a waste of time just like the War on Booze was- and here's a hint: the feds gave up on the War on Booze.

Re:It's absurd - cut and past oddity (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907370)

> ""It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think "

Things that occur strictly in my home with my own property that's been legally purchased is the business of no one else.

The government has no business butting their noses in. Some corporation certainly has no standing in this regard.

The other side of this is the gross disrespect for the liberties and property rights of individual citizens.

Re:It's absurd - cut and past oddity (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906220)

How? A ban on liquor is equated to a making music copying illegal

In that both of them were pretty much unenforcable.

"It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think "

Really?

Well yeah I disagree there, in Canada we had a referendum regarding prohibition, which is asking the ordinary members of the public to vote on the issue. So the idea isn't absurd, though since Canada is many many many multitudes smaller than the states, it might be impractical there. I mean, our elections are over in 1 day.

Re:It's absurd - cut and past oddity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906758)

""It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think "

Really?

More naive than absurd.

Re:It's absurd - cut and past oddity (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32907112)

"They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s."
How? A ban on liquor is equated to a making music copying illegal?

Both are utterly futile, and unenforceable. People will always seek to get pissed (or stoned, etc.), and people will always copy music, if the technology allows. And the tech most definitely does nowadays.

hey! look what you get when you cut and paste from TFA. A little rider on the bottom...

NoScript deals with a lot of annoyances on the web like that. And stops 3rd party marketing companies snooping on what you are doing, just so they can make their ads (for crap you probably don't need) more persuasive.

From a quick look at things, it looks like the tracking and rider thing is done by intellitext. I think they are the web spammers that make basically what are fake links in articles. Anyway, blocking everything from tynt.com in your adblocker will probably also nail that crap.

You do use an adblocker, don't you?

Main problem is revenue (2, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32905968)

If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.

This will certainly leave the field open to whomever wants to distribute their stuff because they know thiers has value. Most of this will be like Darwin Reedy [youtube.com] that can't imagine the world being without her talent.

Fine, if that is where we really want to go.

Probably the biggest single problem is that we have nearly 100 years of highly-compensated, highly-valued works that without copyright protection and enforcement will be grabbed up by the mega-distribution companies. Sure, you want a complete collection of Henry Fonda's movies - $5. The problem is that it cost the distribution company $0 to do this and the only ones making any money from it are the likes of Walmart and Sony. They can afford to out-distribute anyone else on the planet - no matter how many hits your warez/torrent site gets.

Another side effect here is that without copyright protection and enforcement anything that is passed around for free will also get grabbed up by the mega-distributors if is any good. So they get to make money off the artists anyway. Still. Without any hope of compensation. Quite possibly without any attribution unless it helps sales.

No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to get rid of the distribution companies. They will "make" (as in manufacture) pop stars out of whole cloth as needed just to drive sales. They will have the tools (promotion and distribution) to do this. Sure, you can get rid of the RIAA, Warner Brothers, and EMI. But they will simply be replaced by Walmart, Sony and Amazon. With less favorable terms for the artists and less favorable terms for the purchasors.

Re:Main problem is revenue (3, Insightful)

rpervinking (1090995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906334)

Every Henry Fonda movie is over 25 years old. Copyright doesn't need to last that long in order for the artists to receive some reasonable compensation. The fact that a crazy long copyright period made a bunch of people richer than they would otherwise be is not interesting to me.

From everything I've ever observed about performers, good ones, they'd do it for free if they couldn't get paid to do it. Losing a shot at retiring on the proceeds of one big hit wouldn't stop a single artist. It might slow down the creation of media personalities and blockbuster special-effects extravaganzas, but not artists. Color me unconcerned with the future of civilization.

Re:Main problem is revenue (1)

Afecks (899057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906368)

If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.

I find it hilarious that some people think that without copyright laws nobody would want to support artists when the very fact that copyright laws exist is a demonstration that people want to support artists! If you think it's not then that means you think that the majority of people don't really want to support artists but they do want the government to hold a gun to their heads and force them to do it. Huh? What?

Re:Main problem is revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906372)

Of course whole industries will implode when copyright protection goes away. However, that will not be the end of music, just like it never threatened the sciences (which never enjoyed the protection of copyright), and even software is written that doesn't depend on the copyright protection. Music will always be written and performed by amateurs, cities will commission works, foundations will issue grants and rich capitalists will want to be remembered for their cultural contributions. That is how most of new cultural works (as opposed to industrial entertainment) have been produced and financed before the digital revolution.

If a company wants to "rip off" a software developer, scientist or artist, as a software developer I say more power to them!

Re:Main problem is revenue (1)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906386)

But Walmart, Sony and Amazon already have competition: torrent files and magnet links already provide you with the same content and quality for free.

Re:Main problem is revenue (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906408)

There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.

I know plenty of people making movies, software and music that will never make them any money. I know about three million people writing novels that will never make them any money.

I also know one person who does make money from making movies who's publically stated that he thinks P2P helps his sales because people see one of ihs movies and then buy others. Of course he doesn't pay his actors $200,000,000 for six weeks' work.

No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to get rid of the distribution companies.

In a digital world the only benefit that distributors provide is advertising; people see your music/song/novel on that distributor's site and buy it. Otherwise you can just sell from your own web site.

Failed prophesies (1, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906410)

"If people copy this, nobody will make it anymore!"

We keep hearing this, yet new music, movies, books, and software continue to be produced. Why do people continue spouting this crap? It is as if you are praying for it to happen just so you can say, "told you so!"

Re:Main problem is revenue (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906412)

well I tend to disagree. The typical Artist only receives $23 out of $1000 in sales from the RIAA. I bet (and history agrees) that people will freely donate more than $23 for what would have previously cost them $1000. Also Artists make most of they're money from live shows and concerts. As far as they are concerned RIAA is just publicity to get people to the concert.

With distribution cost down to practically nothing, releasing a song/album on your website with a donate button (paypal, ect). and a link to the torrent is the way to go.

Re:Main problem is revenue (4, Interesting)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906480)

Peter Jenner has one thing right: the general public doesn't understand why they can have a song on their ipod and why they can't just copy the file to their friends ipod. What is wrong about that? The only thing wrong is that someone said it was illegal.

Now if that same person has a band t-shirt they would then have to give up their band t-shirt to give it to their friend. That is where there is value that can be controlled by distributors. The artists will not starve, they will make their money on merchandising and live performances. They need to give up on making money on bits. They should be using bits to advertise their merchandise and live events - things that can be monetized.

Now lets say that Apple uses a song from a band without their permission to promote their products? That is a valid use of copyright law, the business is profiting off of the endorsement of the artist without the artists permission. A consumer spreading the works of the artists does nothing but improve the popularity of the artist, a business associating themselves with an artist has the potential to tarnish the artists reputation hence the need for them to be able to sue that company. Imagine if BP used Bono's music in their cleanup ads for the oil spill, then it puts Bono in a bad light.

The problem with stopping file sharing is how it limits communication. If you are speaking about a piece of music, a movie, a book, or news article is that we now have the ability to perfectly convey what part we are talking about. We just link to it. It is a great way to enhance communication and should be encouraged. If IP law is changed it needs to allow for this type of communication. Viral spreading of information should be encouraged, even if torrent sights like bit torrent are condemned (one is organic spreading of information, another is centralized distribution for monetary gain). Basically if you are making money off of someone else they are owed compensation, if however you are just spreading information all you are doing is advertising for them for free.

For something like an OS, or Office software, the software could be free and all income from the software could come from training and support. Yeah the company won't become a 250 billion dollar giant like microsoft or apple, but do we really need to be aggregating funds into a few companies. I don't think those companies would be in bad shape if they were just a 5-10 billion dollar company. That is 240 billion that could be going into making actual goods. It could be used to build housing, hiring employees, buying cars, etc. Hell everyone could donate all that extra money to the space program and we could build a public hotel on the moon. It is just a horrible waist of funds to drop $300 on a piece of software that 6 billion people use (I'm thinking windows on the majority of consumer desktops - they make enough funds off of businesses that it should be free to consumers). Yes I know I've been smoking the Utopian cool aid, but at no point in history has humanity been able to give something to every person on the planet. We can't do it with food, clothing, shelter, but we can do it with digital information. Yes there is money to be made on it, but it shouldn't be criminal to share information and it definitely isn't immoral.

Re:Main problem is revenue (2, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32907136)

If BP used Bono's music in their cleanup ads for the oil spill, then it would put BP in a bad light.

Re:Main problem is revenue (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906502)

If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.

The "Rest of the world doing something" in terms of musicians usually equates to shows and merchandise at said shows, since they make about Minimum wage from a record going gold anyways. If a song had zero value - the only people it would hurt is the distributors, not the artists. We've had a few stories on here about how artists don't make much money, if any at all, on record sales.

There are many bands, even big ones, that can afford to give their music away for free online because they make much more in shows. I believe Audioslave or Soundgarden did this once, someone mentioned it earlier. And a lot of Indie labels do this as well. Plus I think Trent Reznor was pushing for this with Nine Inch Nails? Or something like that.

Even software could work along a similar line, more like contract work. You get commissioned to a job, you do it, you get paid. End of story, don't worry about licensing, and distribution, your work is done and you got paid a sum.

Sure, the distribution companies might not GO AWAY, they'll still be around trying to push out artists - but its entirely possible that they won't be the ones in charge, and independant labels that give away music for free are the ones on top.

Re:Main problem is revenue (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906548)

Plus I think Trent Reznor was pushing for this with Nine Inch Nails? Or something like that.

Nine Inch Nails have been releasing their music under a CC license for a few years now, as well as selling it from their web site in FLAC format (I think) or on CD. I'm guessing they probably make more money from that than they did from their 2.3% cut of RIAA CD sales.

Re:Main problem is revenue (3, Insightful)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906532)

What on earth are you talking about? You're making up a random argument ("without copyright protection and enforcement") that has nothing to do with the summary or TFA. Those discuss the reprehensible and inefficient tactics of suing members of the general public for file-sharing, and warping of the law to suit the tastes of large rightsholders (e.g. the US' DMCA and similar). No mention is made of eliminating copyright or of not enforcing against corporations (who damn well should know better).

As far as revenue in the real world, many independent artists and small labels (often a single individual) have cropped up in recent years who are successfully selling non-DRM'ed downloadable music to the general public, either directly or via intermediaries (c.f. Amazon, Beatport, iTunes, etc., etc.). For the small artists, I expect they are likely doing vastly better than they ever would through a traditional recording company contract. [slashdot.org]

More creative accounting (2, Insightful)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906102)

It might just be more creative accounting on their part. They can apply the costs of looking for these "pirates" against the artists earnings, and apply any money collected to their own pockets. They get to screw both the artists and the pirates, while getting more wealth.

Lemme guess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906224)

This ex-manager got cheated out of royalties.

plu1s 1, Troll) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906296)

dicks produc3d

do7l (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32906340)

anythIng can example, if you BSD's filesystem

Ignorance of the law excuses no one (1, Insightful)

eples (239989) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906444)

'It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.'

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

I sympathize, and to some extent I agree, but it's not a legal defense and it doesn't legitimize breaking copyright law. Howabout just not making copies of things you paid for? How hard is that to remember.

Re:Ignorance of the law excuses no one (3, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906536)

Howabout just not making copies of things you paid for? How hard is that to remember.

It's not hard to remember, but it's also unjust. We have fair use for a reason, including format-shifting and creating backups.

Re:Ignorance of the law excuses no one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32907132)

How hard is that to remember.

About as hard as basic grammar, for example, question marks at the end of questions.

Yeah, he's my hero (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906516)

It's funny to me that so many most of these artists and rebels like to bad-mouth the music industry after they hit it big. But, it's strange, I never once hear them complain when they're nobodies and a big studio shows up to give them a contract and a check. Oh yeah, it's easy to shoot your mouth off now that you're famous. But what about back when you were a club band? What about all those years when the studio was paying your bills before you had even hit it big, when there was a very good chance that you wouldn't even MAKE it big? The studio took a chance on your then and helped promote you, helped MAKE you big. Now it's all-too-easy to forget the risk they took on you back then and the work they did to promote you.

So now when these bands can can take their fame for granted they want to go indie, release their new albums on their website, and start saying that they don't NEED those evil studios after all. But without those evil studios, no one would even give a shit about their albums or concerts. Most of them would still be just another indie club band, like thousands of others who never got signed.

Yeah, it's easy to be generous when you're already in a mansion.

Re:Yeah, he's my hero (2, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906632)

The Internet, and therefore the issue of file sharing, wasn't around back then. Try again, please.

"Former" Manager (0)

qzak (1115661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906574)

Yea right, like we're going to listen to what a former manager says. I mean, anyone stop to think why they got rid of him?

Re:"Former" Manager (1)

moronikos (595352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906836)

Uh, they broke up?

syd (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906892)

Jenner and his business partner King departed from Floyd when Syd was being edged out of the band. From what I've read it doesn't seem he was booted. He moved on to manage other quite successful English bands so it seems he shouldn't be written off too casually.

Sell services, not copies (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906824)

He said the industry could adopt the model of sites such as Rapidshare, which offers paying subscribers the opportunity to get faster downloads. "If we can get £1 a month from every person on this island [Great Britain] for music... this is getting very close to the current level of revenue for recorded music," Jenner claimed.

I've been saying for years that the music industry (and movie industry) should change their business model on the Internet to sell services rather than copies. Say, "For a low monthly fee, you can have free access to our super-fast servers that have all the newest releases and a huge back catalog (every piece of music ever recorded)." Divide up the profits from that service to pay royalties.

At least speaking for myself, I'm quite sure the music industry could make more money off of me during my lifetime by offering a $X/month service of providing all-you-can-eat drm-free music downloads than... well, any other business model I can think of. Give me a bundled deal including all movies and TV shows, and I'd pay a decent monthly fee.

You probably don't even need DRM. I know, you're thinking that people will just download the whole catalog in a month and then cancel their subscription, but that's really more trouble than it's worth. You have to go through all the trouble of downloading, storing, and backing up all that data. And then your computer crashes or a file gets corrupt, and you have to do it all over again. You quit again, but then a new song comes out that you want, so you'll have to resubscribe.

Most people will may for a service that makes their lives more convenient. Make a service that makes it easy to find and enjoy the media you want. Add a good recommendation engine on top of it. Price it competitively with cableTV+Rhapsody. Watch the money roll in.

Re:Sell services, not copies (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32906952)

Every industry fights like this when their gravy train is destroyed by new technology. The bigger the gravy train was, the more litigious it gets. It's a lot easier to pay a lawyer to scream than it is to redesign the business model that you thought 30 years ago was going to last for all times.

Using a name for name-sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32907214)

BTW, Peter Jenner has not been the manager for Pink Floyd since 1968! Peter Jenner stopped being the manager once Syd Barrett was ousted from the band in March of 1968. Since then, it was Steve O'Rourke, (until he died in 2003.) Not sure who to point the finger at, but it sounds like the title of "former Pink Floyd manager" was used solely to grab headlines and attention. He could have easily been referred to as the former manager of Eddi Reader, or Billy Bragg, or even Elvis Costello,... all of them would have been more recent than 40 years ago. Not to beat the horse, but it just seems like an attention grabber to say "former PF manager" when it's been more than 4 decades. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the man and his work, and have loved PF for nearly all my life, but to link Peter with PF in today's headline is merely an attention grabber. IMNSHO.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?