ah.fm Countdown, Independent music, Ramblings on Creative Commons

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:48 am

This is what Dan of ah.fm has to say about their huge year end event:

Dan wrote:

What: AH.FM End of Year Countdown
When: Dec 24 - New Years
DJ's: 168
Contests: Daily contests to win AH shirts.

Promo video of the event on Myspace

Check it out and remember to tune in to ah.fm from Dec. 24!

For still more independent music, a fan of the indie band Dissident Saint has posted a release and torrent of their latest album on isoHunt Releases (with the band's permissions). Download away!

As a side note, with more and more artists embracing the internet as a new medium for marketing and distribution, I've been reading Lessig's Free Culture. The introduction so eloquently describes a major issue of our time: that of creativity and culture. The established industries has always resisted technological change - like the 17th century button makers crying wolf at tailors making buttons out of cloth, like RCA resisting FM radio, like now, big media declares their war on piracy, against us, against me. But is it really just piracy they are fighting? With increasingly draconian DRM, copyright term extensions and copyright laws, we are heading towards more and more of what Lessig describes as a culture of permission, rather than the free culture we've always enjoyed before the internet.

Thou shalt not copy.
Thou shalt not share.

Why allow a culture of sharing, when one Britney Spears is so much more profitable than a thousand Wil Deynes or Radiohead or 168 DJ's on ah.fm or Nine Inch Nails or hell, 183 Canadian musicians who are already fairly famous (and Sarah McLachlan I'm a personal fan, great original music), all of which seem to have a predisposition against most of the major record labels and thus, pretty hard to control and profit from? The radio and tape swapping and Fair Use rights of the past be damned.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I am not against copyright or laws. This is where some of you and ThePirateBay don't seem to agree with me on (this link includes some pretty out of context quotes of mine by the way, and perhaps some unobvious sarcasm), but oh well. Yes, even after being tortured by lawyers in 4 days of dispositions (I haven't told you that part haven't I, and I'm not going to), I still say that you should not steal. No, I'm not being hypocritical, and the MPAA didn't tell me so. Whether you take a Christian perspective on it like I do or not, artists deserve compensation for their arts, plain and simple. That's what the whole point of copyright laws was about, and I stress the "was". The problem is not with copyright, but it being lobbied and twisted and extended such that it no longer serves the interests of the public good, that of encouraging a free culture and creativity and production of arts and related "goods" thereof. A permission culture is what serves corporate interests at the expense of everyone else. Corporate interests to profit is all good, until the expense part. The balance has been broken at your expense.

This is why support and adoption of licensing like Creative Commons (also started by Lessig) is of greatest importance. You want to save P2P? BitTorrent? File sharing? isoHunt? Then take your anarchist sentiments and eat it, because all you will get is being labelled pirates and thieves and that's not cool. (the accuracy of the name calling is irrelevant) Instead, get as much adoption of Creative Commons licensing as possible, then we can all share our hearts out on more CC licensed materials on isoHunt and BitTorrent and P2P networks without legal repercussions or risk of starving your favorite artist or actor or film maker. Because the internet and P2P is so much more than just free for all. It is the greatest radio and TV on earth. Use it in a constructive way, for good of both producers and consumers. And with the internet, the line between the two is now none too clear. Because you are often both.

That was way longer than a sidenote. I'll write more as I read Lessig's book. And Creative Commons is isoHunt's future, you can interpret that however you like. More on that too as things develop. Next year you will see interesting things, I assure you.

And I should clarify on my Britney Spears reference. Just as the good Ferguson says, I'm not humiliating or making fun of her. It was just an example.

PS. if you read up to here, congratulations, you've made the first step in proving them wrong. Internet users like you are not attention deficit. Wink

I've put this post under the Debates forum as Creative Commons makes interesting debate material, so debate away!

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:22 am

A great example of Creative Common would be wikipedia, in addition to the examples you have shown IH. A great little video also released under the CC license is this one from Freespeech.org LINK it's story is also important (to me anyway).

Basics of Creative Common licensing,

Quote:

You are free to:
to Share — to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
to Remix — to make derivative works

Providing that you:
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:21 pm

You are absolutely right about everything you said. Many of us have supported you for a long time. I'll be honest, I have been frequenting this site since spring of 2004, and everything that you have put on the front page has been honest and correct. That is one reason why I have been coming here for so long.

Maybe, if you read this, you can answer this question. Everything that I have downloaded from this site has been something that I have. Whether it be something that I had and someone has stole from me, or a movie that I have on VHS and I just wanted to view it on my computer (since my monitor is larger than my TV). What is your view on this? Downloading to replace a broken cd or a corrupted file, or getting an .iso of Starcraft, which I do own, but I wanted to free up a drive so I could listen to my cd in my computer. I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has done this, but please give me your view on this.

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:26 am

IH i agree with you 100% you have been consistently level and clear headed this past 4 years i have been using this site

other interesting reading: Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine ... this puts the system and the cartels running the system in moral perspective

and the basis to it all described by a master: The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes

free market capital efficiency theory will state that anything that can be copied for zero cost (negligible marginal cost) has an almost zero economic value. we have entered that technological situation. it strikes me as indicative of the bad economic and bad legal structure of the global media cartel monopoly that they continue to insist the morality of $15 for a piece of plastic burnt with a laser

de facto they are raping the value from our economy without returning a proportional economic input to the system. just as OPEC has suppressed economic development, the media cartels are suppressing economic development. next time the MPAA throws an accusation of "theft" at a filesharer, throw back at them the accusation of "theft" of our bigger communal wealth

the development of technologies and everything else related to people around the world networking together and creating new systems as we do here, has served to highlight the good and the bad in global matters. we are a phenomena of the free market but only because of the diversity of the world can we exist. if we were all in the USA ...

i do not believe they can win this one, there are 3 boxes ensuring our freedom, the soap box, the electoral box, and the cartridge box. keep up the good work dude

h33t.com where filesharing is an education

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:22 am

IH, thanks for the link to Lessig's Free Culture. I've read the first couple chapters and it's fascinating stuff. All your work maintaining this site is much appreciated. Cheers!

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:17 pm

That depends greatly. I am not an Anarchist nor do I claim such. I sown load because I am a dirt poor collage student who is going to have to shut off her internet because its a luxury. If I could get a job (not that I am not trying, finishing up High School and trying not to fail my collage classes and taking care of my grandparents I just don't have time) I would buy 98% of this junk I download. well most of what I download is impossible to buy anyway. (CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW I CAN GET DARKWATER? its an independent film that I can't find ANYWHERE here nor at any movie store. I am all for supporting my favourite artist or actor. I used to donate to organizations like Iso Hunt and even political parties. now I have like 10$ in my account. so before you call us pirates or anarchists discover motives. should I be denied music and Stargate Atlantis just because I can't afford it?... wait don't answer that! Sad

I don't want to attract the callous jackals. Sad

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:57 pm

Theft? In the classical definition of theft, the original owner is deprived of said property. So, if I steal my neighbor's car, the neighbor no longer has use of said car.

Theft applied to "intellectual property" (another loaded term) is something of a different sort. If illegal copying (which does not prevent the original owner use of said "property") is theft, what am I stealing? Potential profits?

As the argument goes, however, many users would not have bought the media (whether it be video, music, ebooks, etc) if they could not download it for free, so the MPAA and RIAA's claims of lost profits are grossly inflated. Also, if they were not attempting to maintain a price above that of open competition (i.e., a monopolistic price), there would not be such a high demand for "illegal" copies of said media.

The fact is that many people cannot afford to by their expensive wares, so they have a choice...download it illegally, or do without.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but many publishers are afraid of entering the ebook market, because they either have to choose a proprietary format (such as something DRM compatible), or risk having the ebook copied from one valid purchase an indefinite number of times. However, when sales were compared of standard paperbacks that had an associated open format ebook released against those with no ebook version available, supposedly the increased awareness of the author and his/her work actually lead to higher sales. I'm not sure if this was a double-blind study which isn't subject to the many statistical errors out there (to mention one, the possibility that increased popularity of the paperback edition and the author led to an ebook release, thus mixing cause and effect), but I think that there is a place for open formats.

Look at Linux, for example. Most distros (Red Hat notwithstanding) are completely free, yet the developers are not starving to death. Every piece of software on my two computers was acquired (legally) at a cost of $0 (only bandwith and time), so the common misconception that one 'needs' MS Windows, faster hardware (my machines are two and three years old, respectively, yet still run faster with Ubuntu than XP, fast enough they seemed new again when I switched), a virus scanner subscription, a $$$ MS Office license, are all false. Yet the developers of all the 'free' replacements for these programs obviously survive somehow.

Now, as for the original purpose of copyright (and patents), it was to protect the artist/author/inventor/etc. The original protection, though (in the case of copyright), was against unscrupulous printers who would sell copies of an author's work without giving all the share of the profits (or any) to the author. The printer would basically make a bunch of money off of someone else's work.

Copyright terms used to be something like up to an author's death (or whomever the copyright holder was) plus 20 years. Something similar was in place for patents, I think (but I might be wrong about that). Sometime in the 19th or 20th century, the laws were changed to where corporations could own copyrights and patents, the terms would be 75 and 90 years respectively, and they could be renewed...indefinitely.

For new work, this is irrelevant, but (especially for books), this is extremely unfair, IMHO. Copyright and patent laws were originally intended to provide a benefit for society, but now they provide a legal framework for mega-corporations to maintain a monopoly on information, and not have to innovate. With patents, for example, a generic version of a brand name drug cannot be made if it's still under the original patent, forcing people to buy the brand name only, at whatever price the patent holding company is willing to set.

In many cases, the artists and authors don't hold the copyrights to their own works...their publishers do. They get such a small percentage of the profits (especially music artists, who I understand make most of their money at live concerts) because of the gouging of producers and publishers, that they are the ones crying theft.

Why is it the MPAA and RIAA are so mad about it? Is it because of their interests in authors, writers, and artists? Are they afraid of the lost profits of such clients? Or are they afraid of losing there own profits?

Personally, I don't think that DRM is the answer to copying and sharing. I believe that a new system should be set up to allow artists, writers, etc to still make money, but still to allow free sharing and copying. It sounds unrealistic, but I don't believe it is. As long at the Internet is open (and, hopefully it always will be), there has to be a better solution than trying to restrict content and punishing violators. Just my 2 cents... Confused

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:30 pm

Point taken. but there are a few struggling musicians that need to sell their intellectual property to live. i.e. Omnia and others. Now I do pirate mercilessly when it comes to really ridiculously wealthy bands like Green Day, HIM and other famous bands who will not starve if a few fans download there stuff for free. I bought my Green Day and HIM CDs before I knew about this site and the program Azureus. (and thats when I had money)

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:09 am

I whole heartedly agree with this. The Internet is not some evil means to rip off or corrupt culture. it has only been portrayed that way. Heh, with all the pr working for everything else, I would figure that there would be internet PR reps running around at some point.....

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:58 am

Quote:

...take your anarchist sentiments and eat it, because all you will get is being labelled pirates and thieves and that's not cool. (the accuracy of the name calling is irrelevant)

First, I agree with most of what you said. Second, I respect that which I didn't agree with and understand your POV.

However, it's obvious you don't know much about anarchists or anarchy. We care very little, if at all, about what we're labeled. We damn sure don't care about being cool.

As far as the relevancy of the name calling, well replace "anarchist" with n*gger, spic, wet back, cracker, bible beater, bitch, or almost anything else then rethink its relevancy.

Also, please don't think you've offended or upset me. If anything your ignorance is understandable, and I'm only upset at the widespread misconception of anarchy.

I'm not attacking you, and I hope you will try to understand my position as I have tried to understand yours.

Oh, and Bravo! on your post drewster1829.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:24 am

Everything on this site is technically legal because think about it say you go to download a piece of software with a serial number attached someone has bought that software once there for the creator has been compansated at least once hasn't he?? Rolling Eyes

Every film that i have ever downloaded have eventualy been bought because as much as i want to see the film i still prefer the original. BUT its the price of films are getting to much but if you know the right places you can get dvd & cd's at very good prices coz nothing beats quality.

Well thats my opinion anyway.

CoolBoy

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:40 am

At the risk of being flame bait. I will play devils advocate:

The complaint about pricing wears thin. In Australia we were paying $30 a CD for song album. Now personally I think that cost is inflated, when I saw it being sold in the USA for $15. So I guess others got the shits and downloaded it instead of buying it for the $30.

So now we have artists that sell their song for 99cents or whatever on itunes, do people who complained about the $30 price now say, wow thats cheaper, I think I will buy it? Nope they still download it. Yes people are pissed at the RIAA for suing grandparents and kids and the disabled.

But what about the independents who offer their music free, asking for a donation. Yeah right, most down loaders don't want to pay 1 cent even.

I dislike the RIAA as much as anyone here does, and the MPAA. But in the end, artists who produce movies and songs, do it for a reason. That being to make a decent living. Take away that reason, and sooner or later they will find other ways to earn money.

So if you really like that game you want to play online, buy it, hell they may even make a better game next time. Watching a movie at the theater is so much better than viewing it on your monitor (ticket costs need to come down). And i like my music, so I support the groups I like. Now some of the bands I like openly allow you to download, asking for you to donate, which I do. Not a lot seening as I don't have a lot of money, but $5 seems very cheap for a full album of music I like.

I am not arguing using copyright laws etc, I am arguing that we need to support those artists we want to see, hear or play. The legal side of torrents has hardly been touched yet. Theres a lot more that can be done with torrents, I hope that in the future we see the full potential of this technology still in the users hands, and not tied up to big corporations.

This post is not to tell anyone they are right or wrong, its just my opinion of what I feel is the right thing to do.

Ever since the scene started sharing games, they always put in their .nfo files, "If you like the game buy it.", I share that view.

With music, there are a lot of remixes legally obtainable via torrents, I get them if the musics good, I dont care if they have a label or not, I want to hear it. Like IH said, who wants to support Brittany Spears, when there are a lot more talented unsigned groups/singers offering their wares right now.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:44 am

I agree with the sentiment that some people simply will not buy anything no matter how cheap it is, it is after all these people who have made bittorrent what it is imo. Also, being as the majority of people using bittorrent are not idiots, if the choice is between spending 99c on a crap low quality mp3, or low quality drm infected wma or mp4 or whatever eyetoons is, or getting the same thing from a site like oink (RIP) in a high quality lossless format for free, well, we all know what the prefered option is. Places like itunes are a complete rip off when you consider that you are spending nearly as much for an album of say 15-20 tracks, but at far reduced quality than if you had just gone and bought the cd.

Personaly, for artists that I like, I buy their cd's, most of which I already own mind you, but for other stuff like compilation albums, I stopped buying those when I discovered bittorrent, and frankly will never buy another one. Why should I buy the same tracks I already own on one cd just to get the 2 or 3 I want on the other cd? I shouldnt, so rather than pay 2 or 3 times for a track, I'll just steal them all. I am of the opiniion that the way they do this is deliberate to maximise income from the least ammount of material, and I'd rather not support that way of selling.

As for the future of bittorrent, take a look at Vuze.com and the Vuze client by Azureus. This is how I think bittorrent was envisioned, yet hear the sheer amoint of idiots complaining about the fact that a bittorrent client should dare to offer legal content and you'll agree that the problem is a shared one. The users of bitorrent are just as ignorant as the fat cats, and will resist the change of legal bittorrent, perhaps to the point of finding a new way to share their warez rather than accept that this is the way it is. The blame isnt just with the big companies, its also with the user who has come to expect that they can get what ever they want without having to pay a penny. Spoiled if you will.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:14 pm

All I can say is Wow. There are some really good points here, and thngs I would love to read up on. Being a slow reader I hope this convo is still going on when I am done. Other than that, thank you for opening my eyes. I have been a seeder/leacher for a while now, and I agree, if you like it buy it.

I have said this in a few other post, where I am I get no radio reception, so I usualy get the top 100 every couple of weeks to check out the new music of the big name people. And I keep my ears to the streets to hear the Underground (have to love myspace just for the amount of artist trying). I have over a thousand Legaly purchaced CD's that I would have never bought If I could not have downloaded that one song.

Some people will say internet radio will give you all those songs, but why go though all that CRAP to find a song or two you like?? At least when I download it I can skip past the DUNG!

Now as for movies I go at least once a week, and save all my tickets. The reason for that is, as soon as I get home I look it up on some site. I don't know if that would get me out of trouble, but that is my story.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:47 pm

The strange thing is, don't the MPAA and RIAA realise each time they publish what "can be found" on different P2P technologies by their publicity of lawsuits they are undertaking, and also reporting what files could be found on such as the old Napster, emule and now torrents. They attract another million users to these technologies. Where once a few thousand people rode the P2P scene there are now millions.

The ineptitude of some companies to use the same technology to harness what could be the new television of the future by releasing their own product instead of selling it to the current television networks, by adding some advertising and getting huge returns from advertisers. After all look at the money made by Google from advertising sales.

For example, a television series such as Top Gear, could have product placement and a few advertisements from car companies or whatever and reap worldwide advertising returns, which would dwarf what they currently get for selling their shows to networks. Torrents working like they do would reduce the overheads in bandwidth making it a very economical way to make some dollars. But they should be warned, if they loaded up the programs so they were just infomercials, their product would soon be modified by the clever people that are out in the internet.

The current system in place by an MPAA associate has IMHO prices that are too high for watching a mere sitcom or other types of tv shows, in fact their movies are cheaper to rent from a DVD rental shop in some cases, which is more attractive for those in countries where ISP's charge for download allowances! For Gods sake, why cant they get with the flow, and work with the current users of torrents instead of suing kids and moms, their are opportunities for everyone it doesn't have to be a lose lose situation.

Hmm this thread has me ranting a lot. (Stopped before writing a book)

Laughing