What is Digg?56 Comments
- hankmt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37I think most people will agree that the greatfuld dead died with Jerry Garcia. Whoever that band was that banned recording at their shows, it was definitely not the Greatful Dead.
- rickytan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20yeah "The Grateful Dead" when referring to anything post Garcia is something completely different.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27I remember a year ago the Grateful Dead banned recording at their shows and threatened to take legal action against etree and other bootleg sites. They called boot-legging stealing and wanted to try a business model of selling live recordings online instead. Which is fair, it is their concert and buying a ticket you agree to their terms... But the public uproar caused them to quickly back down. The only difference is the RIAA and MPAA have deeper pockets and can afford to fight piracy.
- oceandead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15otherland wrote: "I remember a year ago the Grateful Dead banned recording at their shows and threatened to take legal action against etree and other bootleg sites."
Not quite accurate. GDM (Grateful Dead Merchandising) forced the internet archive (archive.org) to remove the soundboard recordings (but not the audience recordings) from their live music archive.
It did not include etree.org.
Soundboard recordings are still allowed to be traded between fans. The problem was with the nature of archive.org (a repository), rather than a trade between fans. It was stupid for them to make archive take them down but I can see how they would want to differentiate between fans trading the shows and having a repository of all of those shows (aside from their own).
Audience as well as soundboard recordings of live Grateful Dead shows are still legally traded via bit torrent (bt.etree.org), furthurnet p2p (furthurnet.org), usenet, snail-mail et al.
The Grateful Dead was successful in spite of the music industry. Their albums never sold ***** (had deals with Atlantic and Warner). Yet, they made quite a good living off of their ticket sales, recordings of the live shows (a la Dick's Picks), as well as their merchandise.
This is the coming wave the RIAA wants to put off for as long as they can. With technology where it is these days, musicians, should they be so inclined, could potentially control everything about their music production and distribution, their merchandising, etc. -
You know the big labels don't want (hate) that idea and right now they're fighting to keep their stranglehold on distribution - it's just a matter of time before they lose it. - SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I know you and I are going to both get modded down but I think it's only fair that we not put words into the MPAA's or the RIAA's mouths. He never said it was an abomination, what he said was that making money while giving away content was impossible, which the Dead obviously proved was incorrect. Making up sensationalist headlines that claim a thing is true when it isn't is an MPAA tactic that we shouldn't be using ourselves. That's what they did when the PirateBay was "sunk" and then returned within days. It discredits our side to make up ***** as much it discredits theirs and we shouldn't sink to their level.
- cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Mr. Glickman you sound like a caveman. "Give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature."
The MPAA/RIAA hate self promotion like the Dead did for itself. If the success is not done by them it's just not a success... - phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yes Mark Shuttleworth has certainly learned his lesson there. In a recent press release he stated : "Giving away Ubuntu nearly ruined me, no one wants something for nothing.". Mark is now selling a DVD of his Operating System on Amazon hoping to recoup his lost fortune.
Tim Berners-Lee has also been recently heard saying "I could've made a whole pile of bannanas if I hadn't just given it all away." and Richard Stallman has retired to rear herd animals.
It must be said though there is a difference between "giving it away", and creating a tidal wave of universal hatred by abusing human rights to protect some clapped out celluloid. Or is there ?
Open Source culture is in its infancy, its early emacs days. When Free Culture creates a debian of the arts then well be in for:
1) A whole load of crappy fan art ?
2) Great Works that will endure as long as Homer's Odessy ?
3) More wacked out Hippie LSD rock ?
4) Just Another Grey Album ?
5) Er....profit ?
Dan Glickman sporting a Pirate Bay t-shirt is the man who has done more for the gift economy than anyone else. "Sharing is a right, steal this movie." his latest movie sold out worldwide despite being available for free. Analysts have suggested this may be due not to the quality of the movie but the new comfy seats in cinemas.
--Dislaimer : Truth is Lies. Freedom is :-) - threepio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It seems as if Glickman's comments are the media relations equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEEEEEEEAR YOU!!"
- acraft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature."
Google should listen to this guy. They should start charging for their search service. Giving it away for free makes no sense at all. They will never be successful. - larrabee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Dave Matthews band lets fans record and trade their shows too, and they are always in the top 5 grossing music groups every year thanks to touring.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Naturally. Anything that takes power AWAY from these bloodsucking bastards is seen as a threat that must be terminated AT ALL COSTS.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11A. He never said the word abomination.
B. If he had said a word, it would have been ABERRATION, as in it doesn't seem to fit what he thinks of the business.
The guy's wrong anyway, but let his words speak for themselves and don't blow it out of proportion, I don't think he ever said or implied or intended for anyone to infer that the Grateful Dead's success was an abomination. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man, perhaps ?"
{pedant}
The line is "nod": A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man. He cannot see either of them -- get it?
A nudge would be very different.
{/pedant} - gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You're right, they're about the same topic.. I'll report mine as a dupe, but it was understandable given the radically different titles.
- phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In the face of Mr.Glickman's views and actions I would argue that Piracy is the moral obligation of all those who believe in Society, Sharing & Freedom.
I may not be into many of the Hollywood movies but I oppose with all my heart and soul the crypto-fascistic racketeering by government supported monopolies and anything I can do to destroy them is justified for the greater good of humanity.
Copyright is no longer an equitable agreement.
Copyright Extension is a breach of the contract made with the public domain.
Due to creativity squatting organisations like those Mr.Glickman represents any utility Copyright had to enhance culture and the arts is entirely outweighed by it its impediment to culture and the arts.
The nation of the free, creative human soul flies the Jolly Roger.
Avast ye swabs, prepare for borders.
And for Mr.Glickman, Sonny Bono, Cliff Richard and their greedy ilk the plank. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ otherland
It's not a duplicate link. The original link is to the actual mediated exchange between Barlow and Glickman -- mediated as in, the two were never in the presence of each other, unlike the above-linked article suggests. In fact, it appears from the original that Barlow was interviewed first, and Glickman was later approached for a response.
Another error in this article -- Glickman never said it was an "abomination" he said it "defies the laws of nature", by which he clearly meant it defies the laws of economics (more accurately, business.) Whether that's true or not depends on your approach to business -- some believe customer incentives work toward gaining a larger market share while others believe they lower not only a fair profit for a fair product, but also the product's brand value. But with the film industry as it exists today, they have no need to offer incentives because they have no shortage of customers -- just a shortage of *paying* customers. If their customer base dropped off, paying or otherwise, they would scramble to get you back. That's when lower prices and better distribution methods are found.
Either way, reporter Mike clearly has an agenda in this this editorial. And I stress editorial -- the source article was the news. Relying on his commentary for wholey factual information would be like looking for the unbiased truth on Fox News.
Read the real original article. No digg for this one. - SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And behold the MPAA did speak and It said, "Thou shalt not give away content, for it is an abomination unto the MPAA. Thou shalt not suffer free content to live for it offendeth Us and it does not profiteth a man to be generous. Thou shalt be greedy and strike down those who would oppose the MPAA with the wrath of Lawyers and the gnashing of Copyright Laws. Thou shalt not Pirate lest ye be sued."
-First book of Greed 4:20 - DEEMTEE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Aside from the typical pre vs post Jerry Dead argument, there are some good discussions on this topic.
I think the important item here is that the Dead in fact backed down to their audience after the uproar. They know where their bread and butter is. The dead always believed that the music is everyones and they do still in fact believe this. The fact is they backed down and allowed all non soundboard recordings to be traded, while sbd recordings must be streamed from these sites.
Show me *ONE* other 'non taper friendly' SUCCESSFUL band or organization that has come close to doing the same. - phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@actorboy Yes.
A good place to start is http://kembrew.com/books/
but for a quick read by someone who has witnessed it first hand try this Salon Article by Courtney Love:
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
with actual facts and figures.
If you have facts and figures please post them too. - usefulidiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not to mention making music that doesnt suck. Sure stand up was weaker in comparison to their other albums, but overall dave matthews band consists of some talented musicians, REAL musicians.
- phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes mod me down if you wish to hide the fact that whether or not you agree with Piracy as Political Protest it is undenyable that more and more are feeling this way. And as the horizons become more and more polarised a compromise is less and less likely.
C'mon the **AA were trying to destroy iTunes with greed too. Only Fairplay DRM and the iPods near monopoly forced them to seek a solution. The truth is they don't want a solution, they don't care about art. They want power and money and don't care if freedom and culture lose out.
Most Pirates do it for the cause and the whuffie, they run terrible risks because they believe that people should not be denied unfettered access to information.
Support Piracy, a peaceful non violent protest before it gets more out of hand and people are burning mainstream record stores and signed artists are swinging from lampposts.
Prohibition always leads to backlash and funds for crime and anti-social elements. Decent Honest Not-For-Profit SInce our politicians are pwned Piracy is the only way to stop the impending societal collapse. Art is that important - without free art there is no shared culture, no social cohesion and the extremists win with divide and conquor and moralistic non-secular governments.
Dan Glickman should be shot for crimes against humanity, the amount of misery he has wrought on thousands of hard working families with their extortionist lawsuits is beyond the pale. - jflint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am a fan of the Grateful Dead, as well as many other bands of that genre. While I agree with the tape and share model, there is a difference between recording and distributing concerts back in the 60's and 70's and now.
When bands first started allowing taping, it was not as easy as it is now to pull a quality recording of a concert. In addition to that, the trading was usually done on a one-to-one basis, so in addition to spreading the music and art of the performer, it also fostered a community that was dedicated to the band. It also took more to get the show spread.
Many of those same bands (the Allman Brothers come to mind) have decided to alter their taping policy to only allow shows to be traded on CD, and on a one-to-one or one-to-few basis, and not allowing any form of electronic trading (bit torrents, file sharing, etc). When the Dead did this, they were still allowing taping and trading, they just wanted to remove the access to their shows provided by these repositories of music (etree, archive.org, etc).
What many bands have started doing, now that the have the technology to encode their live content at a higher quality, like FLAC or SHN, is offering the option of buying copies of the concert afterward. Phish started this with their Live Phish offerings, and other bands have followed suit, like Gov't Mule, The Allman Brothers, Dave Matthews Band, etc. - Shaggy6ster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2An abomination? The musicians got what they wanted. The listeners got what they wanted. Every one (that mattered) was happy. Looks to me like the RIAA was pissed off because no on invited them to the party.
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ oceandead
Interesting points and perspective. Any ideas as to how the MPAA could adjust as well? - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So erm... I'm not doubting you or anything.... but when did Mark Shuttleworth say that? I always thought it was a bit of a joke really, especially when you had so many idiots ordering 100's (and sometimes even thousands) of free Ubuntu CDs that they had no intention of ever using. They couldn't cope with the idea that they were getting something for free, so they just grabbbed as much of it for themselves as they could.
Having said this though, Ubuntu probably wouldn't have gained the prominence it has now if he hadn't given it away. (Although maybe limiting it to 10 CDs max per person would have worked out better). - phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And the main obstacle to evolving such a reasonable accord ? The MPAA & RIAA IFPI, et al.
Shawn Fanning as Original Napster and others have continually begged them to sign up to some sort of agreement and not let things get out of hand. Their greed is destroying everything. The contract of copyright has been broken by continual extensions. Everything is now in the Public Domain no matter what the easily bought legislatures say.
If you sign a contract with those these devils represent the the word artist no longer applies - collaborator should be used instead.
Notwithstanding the fact that they steal more money from artists than anyone else. The RIAA or Big4 Record Labels compensating artists - a pack of lies. - mobtek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thankfully those ***** at the MPAA didn't have their way. I still listen to taped live shows of the Dead which you can get here
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=grateful%20dead
:) - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You mean the RIAA?
- DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think there is a problem with Digg's search. I have done several searches on key words in a title and come up zero only to have the story show up as a dupp at the final stage of posting. I presume that at that point a search on the referenced URL is done and the dupp is found. If that is being done it should be right up front. Of course if one is informed that a story is a dupp and inspection of the provided links confirms that it is assumed that the poster will abort the post at that point... ya... right.
- misfit410, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would agree it is an abomination...
I am "Grateful" he is "Dead" - phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1about the same time Richard Stallman quit programming to herd Gnus.
A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man, perhaps ? - kacymartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Metallica has encouraged bootleg recording at their shows, they even used to have a tapers section. Now they offer the soundboard recordings for MP3 and FLAC download online a couple of days after the show.
I know free bootlegs are nice, but I dont mind paying for the soundboard recordings, its only 10 bucks. - solarpowered, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Glickman said "Grateful Dead's Success Was An Abomination"?
Inaccurate, as far as I can tell. Glickman said "...defies the laws of nature".
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5064170.stm
Someone please point out another source where he says "abomination".
Until I see that, I'd call the originl article rabble-rousing. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too many Dead concerts?
- PumpkinEscobar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone interested in this subject should read Peter F. Hamilton's _Misspent Youth._ It deals with this loss of content control over an open Net and should scare the pants off Hollywood and their low-tech minions.
- phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@actorboy - nice research : interesting resources more idealised than real world perhaps. The HowStuffWorks article does mention artist dissatisfaction with labels but the link has is dead - so I waybacked it:
Here is a link to the expired link from HowstuffWorks of Courtney's Protest Letter :
http://web.archive.org/web/20041030084500/http://www.mindspring.com/~gerryhem/piracy2.html
it makes interesting reading too.
She does mention that actors have a much better deal as they have strong unions fighting for their rights:
"
I'm writing to ask you to join the chorus of recording artists who want us all to get a fair deal from the record companies. R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, U2, Alanis Morrissette, Bush, Prince and Q-Tip have called me with their support and we need your participation as well.
There are 3 basic facts to all recording artists should know:
1. No one has ever represented the rights and interests of recording artists AS A GROUP in negotiations with record companies.
2. Recording artists don't have access to quality health care and pension plans like the ones made available to actors and athletes through their unions.
3. Recording artists are paid royalties that represent a tiny fraction of the money their work earns.
"...
She also has a many more examples of the problems many musicians face:
"
Multiplatinum artists like TLC ("Ain't 2 Proud 2 Beg," "Waterfalls" and "No Scrubs") and Toni Braxton ("Unbreak My Heart" and "Breathe Again") have been forced to declare bankruptcy because their recording contracts didn't pay them enough to survive.
Corrupt recording agreements forced the heirs of Jimi Hendrix ("Purple Haze," "All Along the Watchtower" and "Stone Free") to work menial jobs while his catalog generated millions of dollars each year for Universal Music.
Florence Ballard from the Supremes ("Where Did Our Love Go," "Stop in the Name of Love" and "You Keep Me Hangin' On" are just 3 of the 10 #1 hits she sang on) was on welfare when she died.
"
As you can see the current situation is far from satisfactory.
I think that the Big Labels are quite plainly a monopolistic cartel that are abusing both artists and consumers rights - in a free market well we could just make other distribution channels available and see if they can compete. This is far from a free market situation, the big label cartels are a monopoly on current distribution channels and catalogies of past works. They are shored up with more and more legislation and now they are messing with technological progress. As an actor and thus represented in part by the MPAA (or other local version) have you written to them to voice your concern over their abuses of power? Have you asked you union to ? Or do you accept their actions on your behalf ?
Good to have some real debate though instead the usual Doublespeak. - razicop, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Very nice article, thanks for share this!
- speel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Really want to know how the artists can make money? ... eliminate the riaa and let each label handle the artists or let each artist fend for them selves.
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Looks to me like you didn't read the original source material.
- mobtek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@actorboy - correct heh
- gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I did a search on grateful before posting it .. and just scrolled through a couple of pages of the front; I don't see it.. Do me a favour and post the link you're referring to. Thanks in advance.
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ phreakout
Thank you sir. I'll post some links for you after I get some sleep. Nodding off here. Check back later today - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What Glickman almost certainly meant was "giving away X for free and simultaneously making a lot of money on X and X alone defies the laws of nature," which is true (if you doubt this, set up a bunch of your valuables on a trable by the side of the road with the sign "FREE" in front, sit behind the table with a cash box and tell me how much money you have in it at the end of the day.) If you want further proof, just go ask Stephen King; he put it to the test, and it failed and failed miserably. If you want to know why, look up "free rider problem" in any economics textbook. Or you could simply notice that while the Grateful Dead let people record from the soundboard at their concerts, they didn't give away tickets to their shows for free. People generally don't pay for something when they can get that exact same something for free; who woulda thunk it?
What the person writing the article took it to mean was "giving away X for free means you cannot make money at all in any way", which is of course absurd; it would be the logical equivalent of walking through a Wal-Mart and concluding that they cannot possibly be profitable because an old lady was at a booth in the grocery section handing out samples of pizza bites.
Of course, Glickman didn't think about what he said to make himself clear and this "Mike" fellow didn't bother to think about how Glickman couldn't have meant exactly "the greatful dead completely defy the laws of nature" before launching into a tirade about how the RIAA is so out of it that they don't believe in free soda with a slice of pizza. Realizing that he meant "you cant give away X and expect to make money on X" takes about two seconds of thinking, yet it seems to be a threshold which this particular writer (and many diggers as well, apparently) are unwilling to cross.
Yes, if you put it to a vote most people would be in favor of receiving music and movies for free via file sharing, just as if we voted on whether your (yes, YOU) labor should be given away for free, most people would have no problem with it. Except for you, of course, but what do you want to do? Undermine DEMOCRACY?
You don't pay people for their album or film, they aren't going to have a whole hell of a lot of incentive to make a second album or film. It's not rocket science, and people really need to stop with the post-hoc rationalizations for "free movies and music! ROCK ON!" before we remove these incentives to such an extent that we create a complete cultural wasteland. - jcmead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Just a point for Mr. Glickman to ponder. Go to http://www.baen.com/ check out the Free Library Books section. Want to know if you like an author, read a book or two , want to know if the next book is a dog or not, read the first 10 to 12 chapters. All for FREE. I have bought more than a few books from Baen because of this.
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ phreakout
Good articles you posted. Here are some links with more in depth info:
http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html
And, strangely enough, from howstuffworks:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/recording-contract.htm
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/record-label.htm
I have yet to find any articles that explain actor residual scales as plainly.
And, according to the links I've posted, you are right -- musicians don't get paid much on CD sells. However, I still hold that "not much" is better than none, and more importantly, that as long as the Recording Industry can claim losses due to piracy and the fight against it, the musicians argument for higher royaty rates is crippled.
As for myself, a working Screen Actor's Guild performer, I can attest that my residuals (royalties), however small, have more than once saved my butt when it came to paying rent. Every little bit helps. - endyminion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Metallica is one of the reasons this is happening. Let's not use them as an example, shall we?
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ phreakout
Can you please state sources and figures relating to how much recording artists are or are not being compensated? - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4What a lame commentary, aside from the fact that the original article has already been posted.
Nowhere does DG comment on Grateful Deads success or otherwise, so it's automatically a hyped but unsubstantiated piece. But he also doesn't do the argument any good by using stupid analogies - I thought DG's were bad enough in the original article. Giving away a drink with a pizza is not the same as giving away music for free. It just isn't. The reasons are different, the methods are different.
Aside from that, I don't think many of us actually want music or movies for free anyway. We want reasonable charges, that properly compensate the creative talent, content that comes with lenient terms of use and an actual effort to embrace the modern technologies we're all so used to. Put like that, it really shouldn't be difficult to implement - but it requires will and intent. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2nillions of people download music, yet he's calling it an aberration?
haha, idiots they will never get it. by his logic itunes shouldn't have made anymoney, and it's a multi million $ success. -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is