Ummmmm....fair use?
― The Reverend, Monday, 31 December 2007 20:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
they've already backtracked on this.
― s1ocki, Monday, 31 December 2007 20:31 (5 years ago) Permalink
They have? The WP article ran yesterday.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 31 December 2007 20:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
The Post got it wrong.
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/
― Martin Van Burne, Monday, 31 December 2007 21:14 (5 years ago) Permalink
I haven't read the RIAA Br., but from that blog post, it appears you're right. What an egregious -- and easily avoidable -- error for the Post to make.
― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 31 December 2007 21:27 (5 years ago) Permalink
2008: RIAA storms homes of people who copied Ripper '77 from vinyl to tape
― Autumn Almanac, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 14:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
What an egregious -- and easily avoidable -- error for the Post to make.
LOL what DOES the washington post NOT fuck up?!?
― Eisbaer, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 01:23 (5 years ago) Permalink
It'll be interesting to see if the disappearance of the music industry (if that event occurs) will be the advance wave of a fate to soon befall all media.
― moley, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 11:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
It'll be interesting to see if how the disappearance of the music industry (if that event occurs) will be the advance wave of a fate to soon befall all media.
― J0hn D., Wednesday, 2 January 2008 15:06 (5 years ago) Permalink
The weirdest thing - when I posted that sentence, I thought, 'That sentence is so terrible, I wonder if J0hn will correct it'. I recall the last time he corrected one of my sentences, back in about 2003. At the time, I thought he was an English teacher. Anyway, J0hn, thanks for trying, but it's still a terrible sentence so let me try to again.
Music industry pundits have gamely tried to imagine models which could, in some way, monetise the digital distribution of music. Nothing seems to have worked so far. For example, until recently, some commentators were suggesting we look to the porn industry as an example of how to do business on the net. However, now that even the porn industry is having its own problems due to the propagation of free content on various high traffic amateur porn sites, that argument is harder to make. Also down the tubes, apparently is the notion that most bands can monetise touring on the back of internet promotion. Touring income for all but the very big acts appears to be down in 2007, with no signs of bouncing back. My impression (I read hundreds of tour budgets a year as part of my day job) is that most bands lose money on touring, or earn less than they would had they worked a low-paid job for the duration of the tour.
Stetching further back, before Myspace, discussions revolved around direct artist sales from their own websites, and how to construct a site to maximise custom. Also, there was the 'music like water' idea, also before Myspace, where people would subscribe to a service providing unlimited downloads at, say, $20 per month. That idea is fraught with obstacles, relying as it does on cooperation and agreement on the part of the RIAA and other orgnaisations and record companies. Attempts to monetise Myspace through Snocap have also gone down the tubes. Looking at the Prince and Radiohead stunts, even if we grant that either were successful as a commercial venture, it is not apparent that less well known artists could follow the same path. And so on.
To take these lessons and get really pessimistic, we could say that it is impossible to monetise digital distribution of content. If this is the case, it is a potential threat to all content providers whose product can be digitised. That would include music, porn, the press and all publishing, film, video and photography, and TV. The consequences of all those businesses disappearing, along with the music industry, would be interesting. Here it all gets very speculative. It would seem that search engines and social netowrking sites become very powerful insofar as they harvest a great deal of information,w hich they could then sell. That may be where the real internet money lies in the future. Where does that leave the artist? Who knows at this stage.
― moley, Thursday, 3 January 2008 00:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
Feel free to correct any grammar or spelling mistakes you may find in that post. I believe there's at least one.
― moley, Thursday, 3 January 2008 00:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
There was an interesting thread recently -- on ILM, I think -- about creative options for the music industry in the digital age (the thread was eMusic -- C/D, perhaps; I'm out now, so it's harder to search for it). Anyway, there were some innovative ideas, e.g., a Stock Market Model, a Patronage Model. I have no idea, obv., if these would work, but they're certainly worth further consideration, and they're better, PR-wise, than the RIAA suing its potential customer base.
I know that discussion is one step prior to where you begin your analysis, Moley, but it's in the same vein and was v. interesting.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 3 January 2008 01:45 (5 years ago) Permalink
Thanks Daniel - I think this is it:
EMusic - C/D
― moley, Thursday, 3 January 2008 01:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
As for the majors, I doubt that they view patronage (or anything else involving good faith) as even a plan z but their relentless moustache-twirling is not only burning that bridge but irradiating and vacuuming the remains of the bridge; they're wearing out their stick before they've even planted the carrots. I wonder if a quasi-patronage model could work on a smaller scale, or if it is is already working on a smaller scale with say, 'indie' labels which have always had self-selecting fans and built-in good faith rhetoric working for it to some extent.
― tremendoid, Thursday, 3 January 2008 02:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
they will become content feeders for corporate advertising. the madonna sponsorship thing is just the first, it'll be like stock car drivers soon. or else ditch the role of the artist entirely and go to music created by genetic generative algorithms. there is no way to monetize digital distribution of content without DRM in hardware (and even then)
― the galena free practitioner, Thursday, 3 January 2008 21:21 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Alba, Sunday, 27 January 2008 15:36 (5 years ago) Permalink
A-
― The Reverend, Sunday, 27 January 2008 15:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
For anyone who's really interested in these cases, Recording Industry vs. The People covers them pretty comprehensively.
― felicity, Sunday, 27 January 2008 16:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
ARRR
― Alba, Thursday, 31 January 2008 15:06 (5 years ago) Permalink
it's particularly ironic that they'd mention 'let it be' in there; if they're talking about the film, that's one of the only places to fucking get it! it's hardly eating into the beatles' sales since they won't put it on dvd legally.
― akm, Thursday, 31 January 2008 15:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
shocked, I tells ya
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/02/riaa-training-v.html
http://gizmodo.com/358648/leaked-riaa-training-video-find-pirates--find-crack+dealing-terrorist-murderers-too
― StanM, Thursday, 21 February 2008 10:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'll have my CD with. Whatever you've got - drugs, a couple of guns... say, can you hook me up into your criminal network? What's that? I'm now a high ranking executive in the music industry? That's great! Let's party with what's left of our coke budget! Actually, you know what, just keep the CD, it's worthless anyway.
― moley, Thursday, 21 February 2008 11:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
large-scale piracy of DVDs is just another black market commodity. it's not surprising that you'd get drugs and other stuff going through the same channels, and it's not surprising that hezbollah or whoever would be involved in those channels, that's how they make their money
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 21 February 2008 12:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
now i'm imagining hezbollah recording an album full of international smash hits, netting them millions -- it would be like that movie about the internet murderer where every website hit injects more poison into his victim or whatever -- "please, america!! stop listening to this infectious music! every CD you buy endangers the lives of us all!" -- until the govt. realize they can stop this insane money mill by encouraging rampant piracy
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 21 February 2008 12:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
You're saying Nickelback should be deported, right? OTM.
― StanM, Thursday, 21 February 2008 12:53 (5 years ago) Permalink
Any chance of the Israelis following a policy of targetted assassination of members of Nickelback?
― Tom D., Thursday, 21 February 2008 12:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
the ironing
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-keeps-settlement-money-080228/
― StanM, Friday, 29 February 2008 07:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
ironing_4_u.jpeg
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 29 February 2008 07:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
Potential turnabout.
― Rock Hardy, Sunday, 16 March 2008 16:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
Their probable future strategy:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/03/15/2243235.shtml
― StanM, Sunday, 16 March 2008 16:49 (5 years ago) Permalink
Glad people are paying attention to this.
― felicity, Monday, 17 March 2008 19:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
Shocked, I tells ya! (again)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080326-riaa-andersen-attorney-should-only-get-10-of-requested-fee.html
― StanM, Thursday, 27 March 2008 08:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
WOW
Holy Shit!
From Gizmodo:
The RIAA and MPAA have submitted a plan to the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement. It's basically a plan that they want the government to enact, and it's terrifying.
Here are some of the lovely things that they're calling for:
* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials; * mandatory censorware on all Internet connections to interdict transfers of infringing material; * border searches of personal media players, laptops and thumb-drives; * international bullying to force other countries to implement the same policies; * and free copyright enforcement provided by Fed cops and agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security!).
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
Is this possible?
― Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
probably not
― fuckin' lame, bros (latebloomer), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
File sharers=Terrorist
― Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, its not going to ever happen, but imagine the balls to even ask.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
exactly
― bug holocaust (sleeve), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
"* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;"
I can't even imagine how this would work. . . .
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
love these fucking guys
― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
Imagine the lines at the Canadian border when the enforcers have to go through every iPod song-by-song to check for infringement.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
if you start your bargaining high enough you might get something passed that's not quite as bad but would have seen to be too extreme if you had asked for that in the first place. That's the reasoning behind it.
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials
How would such spyware determine what mp3's/mpeg's a user has downloaded and what ones he's ripped himself for personal use? These organizations have really shit the bed this time.
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
Probably pretty simple, they have programs in commercial use even now that can detect a track and detect whether it is a commercial recording or not, and then take automated steps to get rid of it. If you have ever uploaded a video with a commercial song to youtube in the past few years, it gets taken down within minutes.
I'm sure all they would need to do is search for the itunes purchase tag or whatever kind of DRM is supported by the companies paying into the program, and it could work!
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
But what about stuff that you burned yourself from CDs/LPs? Or would it just indescriminantly delete that?
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
they want you to buy from itunes etc not rip your own cds. They want you to buy it twice.
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
How would such spyware determine what mp3's/mpeg's a user has downloaded and what ones he's ripped himself for personal use?
This is the biggest problem, and perhaps the scariest. What if they took this method:
"Any authorized content needs to have this encrypted code embedded in the file. The RIAA and MPAA both mandated this code in all of their products, therefore, if your binary file does not have the code, it could potentially be an illegal file."
It would be one more step towards eliminating the freedom of production that the internet has democratically given to the entire world. The solution, of course, would be to dump the internet before it becomes something like cable TV, and go underground yet again. I bet there are plenty of hackers ready and willing to work on such a system.
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
pfunkboy OTM. You bought the LP, you bought the cassette, you bought the CD, why the hell aren't you buying the MP3?
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm sure hackers would figure out a way to delete the spyware in the first place.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I rip a lot of vinyl to my computer. Are they saying that any file not encoded with these RIAA codes are considered illegal?
― Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
I wouldn't be surprised if Bob's never seen YouTube.
― Pope Frank is the messenger of your doom (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:41 (2 months ago) Permalink
Not to go all A.J. Weberman, but that's something I'd like to see: Bob Dylan's desk. I'd like to think something like this, but he probably just picked it up from Walmart.
― clemenza, Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:43 (2 months ago) Permalink
Bob Dylan's 115th Desk.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:01 (2 months ago) Permalink
Bet he stole his desk from Dave Van Ronk.
― Pope Frank is the messenger of your doom (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:06 (2 months ago) Permalink
I know he had a very folky looking desk in 1964, then he bought one of those fancy Carnaby St. desks in 1965. Got booed and heckled by his housekeeper.
― clemenza, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:13 (2 months ago) Permalink
fwiw yeah I doubt Dylan even knows what Youtube is BUT I bet he gave some angry "no one gets my music for free maaan" rant to a lawyer a few times and the resultant policy was promptly put in place
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:13 (2 months ago) Permalink
It's a little known fact that Bob Dylan doesn't even have working electricity.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:16 (2 months ago) Permalink
on the bonus cuts from some recent album - together through life? - which are taken from an episode of his radio show, dylan's talking up, i forget, whatsername the singer, and he instructs the listener, 'go on to YOU tube…'
― j., Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:57 (2 months ago) Permalink
Yeah, I was thinking about that on the way home. Sometimes Dylan seems to want to present himself as an ascetic monk, oblivious to whatever the rest of the world's interested in, and I'm sure in some regards he is. But when I read his memoirs, I was often surprised/amused when he'd make reference to some pop-culture name you wouldn't think in a million years he'd have been aware of (the first one that comes to mind is Gorgeous George, the wrestler, but there were others).
― clemenza, Thursday, 11 April 2013 21:04 (2 months ago) Permalink
well shit the man's been on tour for forty years, reading saint augustine can't be the only thing he does in his downtime
― j., Thursday, 11 April 2013 21:07 (2 months ago) Permalink
lol @ the idea that dylan wouldn't know what youtube was
― wk, Thursday, 11 April 2013 21:08 (2 months ago) Permalink
I feel like there's probably a more apt thread for this, but someone tell me what it is:http://johndarnielle.tumblr.com/post/47019871450/so-people-ask-me-this-sometimes-and-i-appreciate
― --808 542137 (Hurting 2), Thursday, 11 April 2013 21:27 (2 months ago) Permalink
Dude didn't know what overdubbing was (or that it was possible) until 1970 or 1971. Not knowing about YouTube would be totally in character for him.
xp
― Pope Frank is the messenger of your doom (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 11 April 2013 21:55 (2 months ago) Permalink
Dylan dropped booty call &Alicia Keys refs so I'm sure he knows youtube
― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:25 (2 months ago) Permalink
i'm sure after he dies there'll be some big reveal about dylan avidly posting on yahoo groups about the civil war.
― tylerw, Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:37 (2 months ago) Permalink
Dude didn't know what overdubbing was (or that it was possible) until 1970 or 1971.
really? where'd you hear that?
I think it's impossible that somebody who recorded and released an album on a major label as recently as last year wouldn't know what YT is. I mean, maybe if he really was a retired recluse that might be conceivable but not for a working professional! unless he just really never talks to anyone else and everyone around him is afraid to ever speak to him?
― wk, Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:53 (2 months ago) Permalink
plus j. quoted him up there referencing youtube so...
― wk, Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:54 (2 months ago) Permalink
this is in his bio iirc
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:56 (2 months ago) Permalink
he didn't *do* any overdubbing until 1970 or thereabouts, he probably knew it was possible....
― tylerw, Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:56 (2 months ago) Permalink
found the quote ""When I started making records, you sat in a room and sang your songs and what it sounded like on your side of the glass is what it sounded like on the other side of the glass. Somewhere along the line that changed, and I'm not sure why. I honestly didn't know you could do an overdub until like 1975."
sounds like bs or exaggeration possibly
― wk, Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:58 (2 months ago) Permalink
well yeah. but he did say it.
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:59 (2 months ago) Permalink
Hearing a Paula Abdul song on a windswept day in New Orleans. I love the Oh Mercy chapter.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 April 2013 23:00 (2 months ago) Permalink
Looking at the book "Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions, 1960-1994" on google books, it says The Boxer is the first track where he doubled his vocals. so '69 or '70.
― wk, Thursday, 11 April 2013 23:02 (2 months ago) Permalink
xp haha, yeah he said it. but you'd have to have some serious blinders on to be a world famous recording artist and not know about that stuff. his vocals are doubletracked on "the boxer," recorded in 1970.
― tylerw, Thursday, 11 April 2013 23:02 (2 months ago) Permalink
oh there you go. of course, that might be the producer just taking two vocal takes, not like it's an amazing overdub job. i like the idea of dylan hearing it with the two vocals and thinking: "who is that other dude singing with me"
― tylerw, Thursday, 11 April 2013 23:03 (2 months ago) Permalink
this is interesting...
Dylan and producer Tom Wilson were soon experimenting with their own fusion of rock and folk music. The first unsuccessful test involved overdubbing a "Fats Domino early rock & roll thing" over Dylan's earlier, acoustic recording of "House of the Rising Sun," according to Wilson. This took place in the Columbia 30th Street Studio in December 1964.[1] It was quickly discarded, though Wilson would more famously use the same technique of overdubbing an electric backing track to an existing acoustic recording with Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence". I
never knew that but now I want to hear it.
― wk, Thursday, 11 April 2013 23:06 (2 months ago) Permalink
sometimes I think I really need to hear Self Portrait. Dylan doing Paul Simon lol
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 April 2013 23:06 (2 months ago) Permalink
I wonder if dylan was actually there though or ever heard it, or if wilson just did it on his own like he did with SoSxp
― wk, Thursday, 11 April 2013 23:07 (2 months ago) Permalink
he went on rec.music.dylan o/w a few times in the 90s
― Devendra Bumhat (sic), Friday, 12 April 2013 00:16 (2 months ago) Permalink
i am bob dylan
― severely depressed robots are "twee" (Pat Finn), Friday, 12 April 2013 01:59 (2 months ago) Permalink
How big is your penis
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Friday, 12 April 2013 02:35 (2 months ago) Permalink
Have you been to Manhattan, and if so, what was it like
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Friday, 12 April 2013 02:36 (2 months ago) Permalink
i mean, i usually don't like to talk about "being bob dylan"; it feels tacky, like i'm bragging.
― Pat Finn, Friday, 12 April 2013 13:49 (2 months ago) Permalink
It's ain't braggin' if it's true.
― Gerald McBoing-Boing, Friday, 12 April 2013 15:47 (2 months ago) Permalink
I think I know what's going on here. 1) Pat Finn started out on burgundy. 2) He soon hit the harder stuff. 3) Weird, off-the-wall posting on a message board.
― clemenza, Friday, 12 April 2013 15:57 (2 months ago) Permalink
yeah i thought i would be able to follow up the "i am bob dylan" comment with some funny posts. but i've got nothing.
― Pat Finn, Friday, 12 April 2013 16:29 (2 months ago) Permalink
Just confess that you--Bob Dylan--are addicted to youtube videos of celebrities falling off stages, and you'll be okay.
― Vol. 3: The Life & Times of E. "Boom" Carter (C. Grisso/McCain), Friday, 12 April 2013 17:24 (2 months ago) Permalink
that Juan Gabriel fall remains one of the funniest things ever
― Call me at **BITCOIN (DJP), Friday, 12 April 2013 17:26 (2 months ago) Permalink
i like this video, i think it was posted here at some point, where nickleback walk onstage at a music festival and the lead singer tries to pump up the crowd saying "are you ready to rock?" or something, and it is just dead silent, no response from the audience. after a few minutes the band storms offstage, giving the middle finger to the crowd. i, bob dylan, watch that video every morning in order to laugh and "jolt" myself out of my morning depression.
― Pat Finn, Friday, 12 April 2013 17:32 (2 months ago) Permalink
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/08/1533205/former-demonoid-members-receive-email-claiming-resurrection-get-malware-instead?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed
I got said email, luckily i didn't open it.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 8 May 2013 17:31 (1 month ago) Permalink
same here.
― Elvis Telecom, Thursday, 9 May 2013 03:08 (1 month ago) Permalink