Napster gets a stay of execution
Adam Littman
operating for the time being.
Thoughts?
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
Bonnie
Like all those Amendments to the Constitution - may not use them
everyday, but they come in handy.
~Bonnie
--
***
"Outside of a dog, a book is probably man's best friend, and inside of
a dog, it's too dark to read."
---Groucho Marx
***
Email= wessler(dot)3(at)osu(dot)edu. AIM=McCoy314. ICQ=17720837
***
"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8ltfua$3vg$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
: The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it
Joyce Melton
>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
>operating for the time being.
>
>Thoughts?
Speaking as an owner of numerous copyrights and a buyer of copyrights,
and founder of the Net Authors and Creators Union, Napster's operation
seems clearly illegal on the face of it. Speaking as an internet
programmer, I can see methods of doing what Napster did that would be
less enforceably illegal.
Speaking as someone who often creates and gives away access to
creations freely, if new works are going to continue to be created,
creator's rights will have to be protected in some way. Giving it away
is fun, but it doesn't pay the rent. It doesn't even pay the internet
access costs.
Speaking as someone who has lived a while and seen a bit and learned
more by reading and studying, the law will have to change. The concept
of copyright didn't exist at all before mass reproduction became
possible. New technology may require a new definition of copyright.
Maybe what is going to happen is more ownership by creators of the
means and methods of distribution and access to creations. Witness the
proliferation of web cartoon sites.
Joyce
Christopher Jahn
>
> The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
> operating for the time being.
>
> Thoughts?
No surprise. ANd I doubt they will be closed down later.
WHile I side with the artists in protecting intellectual properties,
going after Napster is akin to going after Memorex, or any other
producer of recording medium.
Should they be held accountable for copyright infringement? Yes.
Should they be closed down? No.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
|
Oh no, no no no no! Not a woman! Not high heels! Not again!
(Sam, "M.I.A.")
To respond: xjahn AT bellsouth DOT net
Adam Littman
<jo...@qnez.com> wrote:
>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>
>>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
>
>>operating for the time being.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>
>and founder of the Net Authors and Creators Union, Napster's operation
>seems clearly illegal on the face of it. Speaking as an internet
>programmer, I can see methods of doing what Napster did that would be
>less enforceably illegal.
>
>Speaking as someone who often creates and gives away access to
>creations freely, if new works are going to continue to be created,
>creator's rights will have to be protected in some way. Giving it away
>is fun, but it doesn't pay the rent. It doesn't even pay the internet
>access costs.
>
>Speaking as someone who has lived a while and seen a bit and learned
>more by reading and studying, the law will have to change. The concept
>of copyright didn't exist at all before mass reproduction became
>possible. New technology may require a new definition of copyright.
>
>Maybe what is going to happen is more ownership by creators of the
>means and methods of distribution and access to creations. Witness the
>proliferation of web cartoon sites.
Must agree there. I think the major problem will be that the record companies
will get too greedy. When they get around to web sales at all, they will try
to sell a downloaded copy of a song for the same price as a CD version (about
$1-$2) and most likely place restrictions on the format that will make it
unattractive to consumers. I am sure they would love to set something up so
that a song could only be played on the computer it is downloaded on. The
equivalent of making you get one copy for your home stereo and one for your
car. This will lead to consumers looking elsewhere for on-line music.
Many people, when they get charged a buck for a download that "costs" the
record companies 3 cents in royalties, bandwidth and server upkeep (any bets
on their willingness to share their security schemes with independent
artists?) will rightly feel that they are being gouged. This tends to make
people say "if they are going to cheat me I will cheat them right back". At
which point they turn to Gnuttella (according to the WSJ they are a
distributed network system with no central servers to shut down, and web sites
with the program have gotten more than 2 million hits in the day after the
judge's Napster ruling) or some equivalent system.
And all passive content is inherently non-protectable (by encryption schemes I
mean). Movies, pictures, songs, e-books, all of it. Because no matter how
sophisticated your encryption, no matter how unbreakable your codes, sooner or
later you have to show the movie, or picture, or play the song, or display the
text of the e-book. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to sell a copy.
And if the display system is a computer, that means an unencrypted digital
signal sent to the video card, or the sound card, or both.
And at that point a program can intercept the flow of data and copy it in an
unprotected form. E-books would be slightly trickier, but not impossible. An
OCR system with the added advantage of being able to subtract its best guess
from the picture of the text and seeing if it all goes away, then retrying
could make a passable if not perfect text version of a book.
I couldn't program any of these things, neither could most people, but all it
takes is one person who can and wants to distribute them.
Then too, even if the record companies did decide to sell songs for a dime
each with a nickel in royalties going to the artists they would still have to
come up with something equivalent to the one stop shopping Napster and similar
systems provide. According to some of my students there are many songs that
can't be bought anywhere available from clients of Napster.
No record company could match the diversity Napster offers.
A very similar thing happened with the internet lyrics database. Before the
industry took it over it was worth going to, because you could get lyrics to
just about any song anyone had ever decided to post. After they took over you
can only get the songs that they have permission to provide. And they don't
have permission for most songs. As it is not worth the effort to track down
every lyrics copyright holder.
Where they would have an advantage is in reliability. From what I hear
Napster's selection varies wildly over time, and includes many mp3s that are
only partial songs.
For that reliability, people might be willing to pay a dime a song, if they
hop to it _quick_ between the time the courts kill Napster and the time
someone comes up with a viable alternative that can't be killed.
They are up against the laws of supply and demand here. Laws stronger than any
mere court. There is a strong demand for cheap music and attacking the supply
is at best a stopgap.
The reality is that people are now technologically able to copy, almost free
of charge, anything they want to. If copyright as a concept is to survive at
all it has to adapt to that reality. The Disney tactic of taking a movie out
of availability for a pre-set number of years to spur current sales will
become a thing of the past. As a practical matter the options are no longer
"provide it for whatever you want to charge" or "don't provide it". They are
"provide it for what people are willing to pay instead of using a less
convenient means of getting it free" or "people will download it without
paying you".
I think the best bet for the record companies would be to get legislation
passed to let them (or even the library of Congress) set up a central,
Napster-like system allowing sharing of songs, with a very small fee (perhaps
a dime) per file downloaded (perhaps up to some maximum size file and a
slightly higher fee for larger files). The legislation to say that any song
can be posted in this manner, with the copyright holder entitled to half the
download fee, but they would have to lay claim to that fee, having found their
content in the public records of what files got downloaded by how many people.
Make a central server keep one copy of each file available on the system,
perhaps by having the first download of each file with a given name and size
pass through the central system instead of the usual peer-to-peer system
Napster uses (and which the new system would use for subsequent downloads of
the same files.
For two reasons, first as a copy of last resort, and second as an archive.
If the system still exists in 70 years any file older than that becomes public
domain.
The central system could also test a few kbytes of all files found by a search
with the exact same name but different size, if found to be identical as far
as they went an automatic note would be sent to the person with the shorter
file that they may have a partial and if so should remove it.
Make royalties for files with false names go to the people whose content the
names indicate to prevent jokers from recording a few minutes of monologue and
sending it out under Madonna's name to try to claim "royalties".
Put a "this is a fake" button that can be used on up to 25% of downloads to
delete them and undo the royalty charge. With people who get more than a
certain percentage of complaints against them to be downgraded in reliability
rating that the system would use to screen the searches.
They won't do that, of course, because they would have to put up with uppity
independent artists getting equal treatment with the record companies. And
because it would only work with _very_ low fees.
Joyce Melton
>They won't do that, of course, because they would have to put up with uppity
>independent artists getting equal treatment with the record companies. And
>because it would only work with _very_ low fees.
This is actually rather similar to a system I was trying to work up
for stories. :) I have some of the software written but am still not
completely convinced that enough people would do it and not just hack
the system.
Joyce
Adam Littman
>for stories. :) I have some of the software written but am still not
>completely convinced that enough people would do it and not just hack
>the system.
There would always be some piracy, that is unavoidable. People will send from
files as e-mail if nothing else. Ever get a "cool political cartoon" as an
attachment?
The idea is to get a system set up that is so convenient, widespread and cheap
as to be an attractive alternative to piracy. I think that if a Napster-like
system that contained absolutely every song anyone wanted to share was
available legally and cheaply most people would use it as an alternative to
Gnutella.
Likewise a search engine containing any written work. The main thing being to
set up the system in such a way that it is more convenient to use it to
recommend than to copy and send the file to a friend. For text, encrypt it or
something (but allow printouts). Sure people could hack the system, make a
clear text copy and send it out, or use an OCR program. But without a central
piracy clearinghouse this would have about the same limitations as person to
person sharing, most people wouldn't bother, just to save a quarter a book.
Of course it would still have to be illegal to make and sell hard copies of
someone else's work. But that would be on the same level it is now. Go after
people who do it commercially and leave the small fry alone.
The record company execs would do well to remember the fable in which a boy
reaches into a jar of nuts and gets stuck because he tries to pull too many
out in one fistfull. If they try to set up a leakproof system they will fail.
Simple as that, because someone will set up a competing free system. Their
only viable solution is to set up a system that leaks _slowly_.
Unfortunately, you or I as individuals can't get such a system set up. It
would take a change in the copyright laws that many copyright holders would
find anathema. Manditory, arbitrary, and low (on a per download basis anyway)
compensation for their work in a particular medium. Along with a loss of legal
control over the right to not let people have their work. Not a loss of actual
control generally mind you, because that has already happened.
Matthew T. Russotto
}>operating for the time being.
}>
}>Thoughts?
}
}Speaking as an owner of numerous copyrights and a buyer of copyrights,
}and founder of the Net Authors and Creators Union, Napster's operation
}seems clearly illegal on the face of it.
Of course it is. The plaintiffs in this case wrote the law.
}Speaking as someone who has lived a while and seen a bit and learned
}more by reading and studying, the law will have to change. The concept
}of copyright didn't exist at all before mass reproduction became
}possible. New technology may require a new definition of copyright.
They've done it already. Increased copyrights so that you're unlikely
to see any work created during your lifetime have its copyright
expire. Made it illegal to bypass copy-protection measures, or to
distribute anything which does so (such programs were once a staple of the
personal computer industry). Required royalties to be paid for blank
recordable audio CDs (!). Made copyright violation above a certain
small amount a felony, to put the fear of "Bubba" into people.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew T. Russotto
Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
}
}No surprise. ANd I doubt they will be closed down later.
}WHile I side with the artists in protecting intellectual properties,
}going after Napster is akin to going after Memorex, or any other
}producer of recording medium.
They have -- got a law written taxing producers of blank digital audio
recording media and digital audio recording devices. If this sounds
good for you, consider that it also results in increased payments by
the artists for such media! It's not the artists going after Napster,
mostly -- it's the middlemen. Unfortunately, if they lose in court
somehow they'll just get another law written.
Kris Overstreet
Littman) wrote:
>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
>operating for the time being.
>
>Thoughts?
I'm worried.
The Internet makes it absolutely impossible to control one's creations
without legal interference.
If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
Redneck
Christopher Jahn
>
> In article <3982643C...@bellsouth.net>,
> Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
> }
> }No surprise. ANd I doubt they will be closed down later.
> }WHile I side with the artists in protecting intellectual properties,
> }going after Napster is akin to going after Memorex, or any other
> }producer of recording medium.
>
> They have -- got a law written taxing producers of blank digital audio
> recording media and digital audio recording devices.
True, but they didn't close the businesses.
> If this sounds
> good for you, consider that it also results in increased payments by
> the artists for such media!
As someone who works in the entertainment industry, I am painfully
aware of this.
> It's not the artists going after Napster,
> mostly -- it's the middlemen. Unfortunately, if they lose in court
> somehow they'll just get another law written.
Artiasts rarely have the time or inclination to get bogged down in
this sort of thing.
As for the law - time will tell. The "tape taxes" were instituted
before the information age had really got going. With the parties
most affected by such laws all ready hooked into the web, such
leglislation will be a long, uphill fight, even for the
well-financed recording industry.
Xjahn
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
|
If Jesus was Jewish, then why did he have a Puerto-Rican name?
Matthew T. Russotto
Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
}"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
}>
}> In article <3982643C...@bellsouth.net>,
}> Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
}> }
}> }No surprise. ANd I doubt they will be closed down later.
}> }WHile I side with the artists in protecting intellectual properties,
}> }going after Napster is akin to going after Memorex, or any other
}> }producer of recording medium.
}>
}> They have -- got a law written taxing producers of blank digital audio
}> recording media and digital audio recording devices.
}
}True, but they didn't close the businesses.
Seen many audio CD recorders? There's very few; they strangled them
in infancy.
}> If this sounds
}> good for you, consider that it also results in increased payments by
}> the artists for such media!
}
}As someone who works in the entertainment industry, I am painfully
}aware of this.
Some promotion of the arts, eh? Of course, there's the data CD
loophole, should work as well for small-time artists as for small-time pirates.
If you use a computer to record the work, no CD tax.
}As for the law - time will tell. The "tape taxes" were instituted
}before the information age had really got going. With the parties
}most affected by such laws all ready hooked into the web, such
}leglislation will be a long, uphill fight, even for the
}well-financed recording industry.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which the entertainment industry
is now using to try and shut down distrubutors of the DeCSS program,
was passed quite recently.
Christopher Jahn
Which case do you refer to?
You must understand that there are TWO issues here, not one:
1. Napster's violation of copyright law.
2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
Napster does need to address this issue with their users. Perphaps
a filter that will not allow the uploading of copyrighted material,
or a fee for downloading such material, to be paid to the copyright
holder.
Someone has suggested a monthly or yearly fee to download from such
sites. It certainly worked for porn! Perhaps it will work for
music downloads, too.
As for the second; I can only point out that recordable media for
home use is an established technology of over thirty years
standing. I see no indication of copyright fading; on the contrary,
we see more material needing the protections of copyright than ever
before. And we see those protections being upheld.
Napster is merely an improvement on existing technology. It has
been noted in several places that CD sales have in fact RISEN since
Napster started, just as more people go to the movie theatres than
ever before, in spite of the fact that they have opportunities to
see movies at home for less.
Heck, photocopier sales never impacted booksales, as far as I can
determine.
I'm not saying that some legislation is not required; but it is far
from a deathknell for copyright law.
Matthew T. Russotto
Kris Overstreet <red...@detnet.com> wrote:
}On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:34:48 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam
}Littman) wrote:
}
}>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
}>operating for the time being.
}>
}>Thoughts?
}
}I'm worried.
}
}The Internet makes it absolutely impossible to control one's creations
}without legal interference.
}
}If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
Should make those Digital Millenium Copyright Act and Sony* Bono
Copyright Extension Act victories ring quite hollow. I know it's not
right to judge the merits of an action by its effects on distasteful
actors, but I'm not going to cry for them either.
*An unintentional typo, intentionally left uncorrected.
<grumble>Ban another one of my hobbies, will you, bastards?</grumble>
The Trinker
You know why CD sales have risen in the time Napster's
been in effect?
Because people like the SO and I, who don't have access
to decent music stores or good radio reception (and a
lousy cable music provider...they used to have cool stuff
like world music, and the bastiches replaced it with yet
another adult contemporary channel.) are using Napster
as a way of trying before buying and finding new artists
or finding albums we'd overlooked.
Strolling through someone's music library gives me a
chance to find things I never would have found before.
AND THEN WE GO BUY THE CD. We've spent more on retail
CD's (as opposed to used) in the time we've been using
Napster than any time before.
Copyright matters to us, we're in the intellectual
property business ourselves, and maintaining proper
usage is one of the jobs I take on as a consultant.
But traditional music outlets aren't working for us,
and I'm damned if I'm gonna try out a new artist for
$20 a CD, unheard.
The Trinker
The proper de-spammed address is
(kat at vincent dash tanaka dot com).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> Seen many audio CD recorders? There's very few; they strangled them
> in infancy.
Phillips makes one. It has dual drives and can copy direct, CD to CD.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) "There are no good plan Bs. If
http://www.babcom.com/polymath/ they were good, they'd be plan A."
http://www.babcom.com/gla-mensa/ -- The Magic School Bus
Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
djohnson
wrote:
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> Seen many audio CD recorders? There's very few; they strangled them
>> in infancy.
>
>Phillips makes one. It has dual drives and can copy direct, CD to CD.
...and only uses special, more expensive disks. Not as much more
expensive as they used to be, but still...
--
Idiocy is world-wide, and it has a plane ticket.
Harry Cameron Andruschak
>operating for the time being.
>Thoughts?
I cannot help being reminded of prohibition. Lots of people technically broke
the law, but felt it was OK as they didn't approve of the law. In the
situation with Napstar, it does invove copyright violation. Technically, it IS
theft. But most users justify it because the record companies gouge people
with high-priced CDs that may contain one or two good songs with the rest
fillers. This is not a problem for me, since I listen mostly to classical
music on the radio. (Los Angeles has two sepererate classical music radio
stations.)
This AOL account is used for sending messages ONLY. All e-mail to this address
is blocked to thwart spammers. Use nothingunderkilt@aol,com or write to PO Box
5309, Torrance, CA 90510-5309 or phone 310-835-9202. (But not often at home.)
Christopher Jahn
> }> Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
> }> }
> }> }No surprise. ANd I doubt they will be closed down later.
> }> }WHile I side with the artists in protecting intellectual properties,
> }> }going after Napster is akin to going after Memorex, or any other
> }> }producer of recording medium.
> }>
> }> They have -- got a law written taxing producers of blank digital audio
> }> recording media and digital audio recording devices.
> }
> }True, but they didn't close the businesses.
>
> in infancy.
Actually, I own a CD-RW drive, which is much more practical.
I know quite a few people who burn their own CD's. Several of them
are musicians, and some of them are sound designers for theatre.
(AFAIK, they follow all copyright laws)
>
> }> If this sounds
> }> good for you, consider that it also results in increased payments by
> }> the artists for such media!
> }
> }As someone who works in the entertainment industry, I am painfully
> }aware of this.
>
> Some promotion of the arts, eh? Of course, there's the data CD
> loophole, should work as well for small-time artists as for small-time pirates.
> If you use a computer to record the work, no CD tax.
See Above.
> }As for the law - time will tell. The "tape taxes" were instituted
> }before the information age had really got going. With the parties
> }most affected by such laws all ready hooked into the web, such
> }leglislation will be a long, uphill fight, even for the
> }well-financed recording industry.
>
> The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which the entertainment industry
> is now using to try and shut down distrubutors of the DeCSS program,
> was passed quite recently.
I'll have to look that one over. I'm not as familiar with it as I
should be.
Xjahn
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
|
'I was in jail somewhere else.'
No-Show Accused
John Palmer
Andruschak) wrote:
>>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
>>operating for the time being.
>>Thoughts?
>
>I cannot help being reminded of prohibition. Lots of people technically broke
>the law, but felt it was OK as they didn't approve of the law. In the
>situation with Napstar, it does invove copyright violation. Technically, it IS
>theft.
This is one of the biggest problems. If I'm chatting with someone
using a net-phone or video-conferencing setup, and they're playing music in
the background, they could say "hey, listen to this!" and play music for me
through that connection.
If this is illegal, the law is officially stupid.
If most people use Napster to get pieces of music to listen to
forever, then that's wrong. If they use it to sample music, and then erase
the MP3 (or get a legal copy of the music), it's not very different from
the example I mentioned above. It might be different in the law's eyes,
but it's not very different from hearing it transmitted over the phone, or
over a live connection.
What does bother me about this case is the record companies being the
ones fighting it. If it was an artists consortium, with a vote taken, and
the vote said "sue!", I'd have no problem with it. The artists are the
ones who hold the copyrights (or they should be), and the ones against whom
the crime was committed.
The record companies are being damaged, sure. . . but unless I'm
unaware of something in recording contracts, it's not unlike Heinlein's
first story. (In that story, a man discovers how to measure one's lifespan
by sending an energy pulse along their timeline and listening for an echo.
It damaged insurance companies no end, of course, and they sued him. The
inventor challenged that by saying if his invention was banned because it
hurt insurance companies, he'd start a gaslight company and sue the
electric company!) Yeah, they're hurt. . . new inventions make old
companies obselete all the time. Tough noogies, and all that.
The fact of the matter is, digital recording and good-speed data
transmission *DOES* make record companies obselete. The answer to that is
*NOT* to enact laws to continue their business years past their time.
Note that this doesn't say "So Napster is in the right!" It's just
saying "I'm not sure that the record companies are in the right, and not
sure the new scramble for additional copyright protections is the answer."
Copyright has to change in the digital world. . . but recently, people
are claiming that, if they give you a copyrighted work (a program), you're
only allowed to read that work the way they want you to (i.e.: you can't
"read" it with a decompiler - note that a decompiler is just reading and
taking extensive notes).
From first principles, that doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of
sense. Maybe it makes sense from second (or third, or fourth) principles,
but not from the basis of a standard written material's copyright.
--
Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten. Like:
Wrestling with a lion and a grizzly bear is not necessarily the best
way to prove that you're "Tuff Enuff"
djohnson
>Kris Overstreet wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:34:48 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam
>> Littman) wrote:
>>
>> >The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
>> >operating for the time being.
>> >
>> >Thoughts?
>>
>> I'm worried.
>>
>> The Internet makes it absolutely impossible to control one's creations
>> without legal interference.
>>
>> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
I don't think it's dead, but something has to change drastically. I
think eventually we're going to have to come up with something where
the artists have more control, and keep more of their money. Since
distributing becomes trivial, the media companies become far less
necessary.
>>
>
>Which case do you refer to?
>You must understand that there are TWO issues here, not one:
>1. Napster's violation of copyright law.
>2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
>new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
>
>For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
>violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
>the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
>
I don't see how Napster is in violation, and they are certainly in
less violation than nearly any ISP that carries binary newsgroups.
I've had 3 ISP's in the last year, and all of them had MP3's
available, and more importantly _on their servers_. Napster isn't
actually transporting or storing the files, they are just providing a
list of who has files claiming to be whatever.
>Napster does need to address this issue with their users. Perphaps
>a filter that will not allow the uploading of copyrighted material,
>or a fee for downloading such material, to be paid to the copyright
>holder.
>
I'd like a way to pay a reasonable fee for the songs I've got.
Unfortunately, "they" will most likely want to set the fee high enough
to avoid competition with traditional media, instead of low enough for
maximum benefit to the artists. If it's low enough, (and there is
some easy way to pay) people will take chances on songs that they
wouldn't otherwise. I'm listening to music I'd never thought I'd
like, and that I'd never have paid current prices for. At 10 cents
per song, I'd probably have willingly spent $150-200 in the last year.
Not a lot, but considering my average music purchases in the last 5
years or so, it's 5 times more than I would have spent, and if it were
done right, nearly all profit.
>Someone has suggested a monthly or yearly fee to download from such
>sites. It certainly worked for porn! Perhaps it will work for
>music downloads, too.
>
>As for the second; I can only point out that recordable media for
>home use is an established technology of over thirty years
>standing. I see no indication of copyright fading; on the contrary,
>we see more material needing the protections of copyright than ever
>before. And we see those protections being upheld.
>
It has only been a few years since it's become practical for normal
consumers to make multi-generational copies without significant loss
of quality. When a copy of a copy was significantly worse than the
original, amateur piracy was much more limited in it's impact.
Nowadays...
>Napster is merely an improvement on existing technology. It has
>been noted in several places that CD sales have in fact RISEN since
>Napster started, just as more people go to the movie theatres than
>ever before, in spite of the fact that they have opportunities to
>see movies at home for less.
>
>Heck, photocopier sales never impacted booksales, as far as I can
>determine.
>
...and if copying music was as difficult as copying a book, Napster
would never have become an issue.
>I'm not saying that some legislation is not required; but it is far
>from a deathknell for copyright law.
>
>Xjahn
--
The Trouble With the Gene Pool Is That There's No Lifeguard
Christopher Jahn
>
> >
> >Which case do you refer to?
> >You must understand that there are TWO issues here, not one:
> >1. Napster's violation of copyright law.
> >2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
> >new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
> >
> >For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
> >violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
> >the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
> >
> I don't see how Napster is in violation, and they are certainly in
> less violation than nearly any ISP that carries binary newsgroups.
> I've had 3 ISP's in the last year, and all of them had MP3's
> available, and more importantly _on their servers_. Napster isn't
> actually transporting or storing the files, they are just providing a
> list of who has files claiming to be whatever.
Ah. Then I have a misunderstanding of how Napster works. IF they
are just a directory, then no, they are not culpable. No more than
the yellow pages listing Escort Service that offer that extra
"personal touch" are guilty of prostitution.
> >Napster does need to address this issue with their users. Perphaps
> >a filter that will not allow the uploading of copyrighted material,
> >or a fee for downloading such material, to be paid to the copyright
> >holder.
> >
> I'd like a way to pay a reasonable fee for the songs I've got.
> Unfortunately, "they" will most likely want to set the fee high enough
> to avoid competition with traditional media, instead of low enough for
> maximum benefit to the artists.
Just remember "they" is "us". Write your representatives. I am.
> >Someone has suggested a monthly or yearly fee to download from such
> >sites. It certainly worked for porn! Perhaps it will work for
> >music downloads, too.
> >
> >As for the second; I can only point out that recordable media for
> >home use is an established technology of over thirty years
> >standing. I see no indication of copyright fading; on the contrary,
> >we see more material needing the protections of copyright than ever
> >before. And we see those protections being upheld.
> >
> It has only been a few years since it's become practical for normal
> consumers to make multi-generational copies without significant loss
> of quality. When a copy of a copy was significantly worse than the
> original, amateur piracy was much more limited in it's impact.
> Nowadays...
Nowadays, people can't even program their VCR's, let alone make
large numbers of copies of recordings to give to all their friends.
>
> >Napster is merely an improvement on existing technology. It has
> >been noted in several places that CD sales have in fact RISEN since
> >Napster started, just as more people go to the movie theatres than
> >ever before, in spite of the fact that they have opportunities to
> >see movies at home for less.
> >
> >Heck, photocopier sales never impacted booksales, as far as I can
> >determine.
> >
> ...and if copying music was as difficult as copying a book, Napster
> would never have become an issue.
It's all relative - it used to take a monk a lifetime to make a copy
of the Bible.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
|
A bachelor is a selfish, undeserving guy who has cheated some
woman out of a divorce.
Chris Jones
"The Trinker" <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:2169c8e8...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com...
> like world music, and the bastiches replaced it with yet
farging bastiches? cork-sucking iceholes? (yay! johnny
dangerously!)
Chris Jones
news:39832b53...@news.detnet.com...
> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
Napster is the symptom of a wave of change. Copyright will be a
casualty whether napster lives or dies. (Don't forget, Copyright
is an artificial construct of the 20th century.)
It is simply toooo easy to propagate copies (that are copyrighted
by current laws) of any work in today's world of open-source,
share the knowledge underbelly that is the internet. The
corporate world wanted in to it just after AOL came online and, I
think, they have been scrambling to figure out what to do with it
since then. (other than supply _some_ tech support and device
drivers :)
Recently I read a [largely anecdotal] comparison of how movie
theatre orchestras ranted, raved and protested when talky movies
first started. (they were no longer need to provide the aural
component that silent movies lacked) "They'll kill the industry!
No one will come! You can't do this!", they protested. Yet, 90
years later, everyone has still been to at least one movie.
Certain aspects of doing business CAN be replaced with
technology. This year (or this past decade) has led up to making
everyone realize that record labels are superfluous. These days,
a single band can be it's own label just fine. (shit, even the
Beatles did it. Bare naked ladies does it, to my knowledge)
They just aren't necessary. If you are cagey, advertising will
pay for itself. get your own cd's cut. plan your own gigs.
IMHO, the single most identifiable evil entity is very easily the
blood-sucking pork-barrel record labels. puh-tuuui on 'em.
Hecate
wrote:
>"Kris Overstreet" <red...@detnet.com> wrote in message
>news:39832b53...@news.detnet.com...
>> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
>
>Napster is the symptom of a wave of change. Copyright will be a
>casualty whether napster lives or dies. (Don't forget, Copyright
>is an artificial construct of the 20th century.)
>It is simply toooo easy to propagate copies (that are copyrighted
>by current laws) of any work in today's world of open-source,
>share the knowledge underbelly that is the internet. The
>corporate world wanted in to it just after AOL came online and, I
>think, they have been scrambling to figure out what to do with it
>since then. (other than supply _some_ tech support and device
>drivers :)
>
Funny, ben having this discussion elsewhere. I think you'll find
writers, for example, are not prepared to give up their copyright. The
general consensus is that we will either stop writing/publishing on
the Net, or take our writing entirely onto paysites, where the
thieving bastards can't get it without a fee :)
--
Hecate
SapphicWench
Hec...@bigfoot.com
icq 59088833
P&E
Fat Controller
>
...
> Someone has suggested a monthly or yearly fee to download from such
> sites. It certainly worked for porn! Perhaps it will work for
> music downloads, too.
Problem. What structure?
Pre-pay cellphone plans (for an example) sound great: purchase the
airtime you want (in fixed dollar amounts) and blather away at about
NZ$2/minute in peak time. But a certain monopoly holder here [in NZ]
sets things up so that your time expires after two months or so - or is
it your connection? - so you are forced to keep paying even if you don't
use it all up. Obviously there are competitors out there who claim not
to do this, but they're not as reliable.
Let's say the Big Record Companies (boo hiss) decide to charge, oh, by
megabytes. US5c/meg, pre-pay for what you'll download. ($US10 = 200MB of
music; sound cool?) OK, so what would stop them from adding a time limit
(eg. if you don't "use" all 200MB in a month, tough; you'll just have to
pay more. Neener neener consumer scum.)
Or worse still, producing larger song files? Currently, a 3-4 minute
song bulks about 3-4MB. Under the scheme above, that's US20c. But the
same song plumped up to 6-8MB (say, either by higher quality recording
or "extended mix") would net the companies US80c. (Not that I'd mind
higher quality, obviously.)
Monthly access fees (all you can download, I assume) could be made
"auto-repeating" by the companies too - and God help you if you want
them to stop it.
Obviously, I don't trust the companies. They, after all, are used to
dictating what is or is not in fashion, what the public (that
exploitable, malleable resource) will see, think, and buy. It's going to
take years before this paradigm of total consumer control is alleviated.
Bah! Baa! Baa! Moo!
--
Rob "Fat Controller" Cruickshank
Combined Avatars of Brian the Octopus and Crazy Max the Turtle,
Disciples of the Great White Guppy, Founder of the Church Of The Sacred
Exploding Fish, Last Seen Sliding Down the Gullet of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs
as the Eponymous Component of a Goldfish Layback some Years Previously
Certain Things are at http://come.to/fatcontroller/
Quake Map Shed: http://www.planetquake.com/fatty/
Real email is crescendo&at;xtra.co.nz - you should be able to work it
out.
John Palmer
wrote:
>>
>Funny, ben having this discussion elsewhere. I think you'll find
>writers, for example, are not prepared to give up their copyright. The
>general consensus is that we will either stop writing/publishing on
>the Net, or take our writing entirely onto paysites, where the
>thieving bastards can't get it without a fee :)
The trouble is, with electronic interconnection, copyright
'reality' has changed. If I read something on a paysite, I can copy
the text and email it to someone else. There are methods to try to
stop me, but all of those are going to fail, eventually. That you can
put it on my screen means that something else can see it, and copy it
(indirectly, if nothing else). Or hell, I can transcribe it, word for
word, if I'm willing to type it back in.
Once I have that, I can transmit it anywhere, as many times as I
want to. Please note: I'm *NOT* saying "I'm allowed to do so"; I'm
saying "I can". I'm saying "you can't stop me if I'm determined to do
it."
That's the reality of any information (be it a program, an MP3
file, or a text file) in the Information Age. Now, the question is
"what can and should we do about this?" It's a tough question. Part
of it is that we have to hope that enough people are honest enough to
support the creators.
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Once you pull the pin on Mr. Hand Grenade, he is no longer your friend.
Matthew T. Russotto
Harry Cameron Andruschak <andysne...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
}>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
}>operating for the time being.
}>Thoughts?
}
}the law, but felt it was OK as they didn't approve of the law. In the
}situation with Napstar, it does invove copyright violation. Technically, it IS
}theft.
Technically, it is copyright violation. Not theft. Two different
things.
Matthew T. Russotto
John Palmer <jpal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}On 29 Jul 2000 23:49:16 GMT, andysne...@aol.comnospam (Harry Cameron
}
}>>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
}>>operating for the time being.
}>>Thoughts?
}>
}>I cannot help being reminded of prohibition. Lots of people technically broke
}>the law, but felt it was OK as they didn't approve of the law. In the
}>situation with Napstar, it does invove copyright violation. Technically, it IS
}>theft.
}
}using a net-phone or video-conferencing setup, and they're playing music in
}the background, they could say "hey, listen to this!" and play music for me
}through that connection.
}
} If this is illegal, the law is officially stupid.
The record industry has been known to go into offices where music from
a radio was played where everyone in the office could hear it, and
demand royalties under threat of lawsuit. If you can hear someone
playing music over the telephone, they are violating the copyright.
} The fact of the matter is, digital recording and good-speed data
}transmission *DOES* make record companies obselete. The answer to that is
}*NOT* to enact laws to continue their business years past their time.
A few billion here and there says it does.
} Copyright has to change in the digital world. . . but recently, people
}are claiming that, if they give you a copyrighted work (a program), you're
}only allowed to read that work the way they want you to (i.e.: you can't
}"read" it with a decompiler - note that a decompiler is just reading and
}taking extensive notes).
They've been claiming this for years, but until the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, their claim wasn't law. There's still a
reverse-engineering clause, but it's a lot weaker than it used to be.
Matthew T. Russotto
djohnson <djohnson+...@radparker.com> wrote:
}On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:36:18 -0400, Christopher Jahn wrote:
}
}>
}>Which case do you refer to?
}>You must understand that there are TWO issues here, not one:
}>1. Napster's violation of copyright law.
}>2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
}>new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
}>
}>For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
}>violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
}>the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
}>
}I don't see how Napster is in violation, and they are certainly in
}less violation than nearly any ISP that carries binary newsgroups.
Good old "contributory infringement". As when Universal Studios sued
Sony back in 1974, seeking an injunction against the sale of the VCR --
often used to record copyrighted television programs. Universal lost,
obviously -- but the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, with
the 9th ciruit ruling against Sony. And now Sony is on the other side.
Matthew T. Russotto
Chris Jones <cwj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
}"Kris Overstreet" <red...@detnet.com> wrote in message
}news:39832b53...@news.detnet.com...
}> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
}
}Napster is the symptom of a wave of change. Copyright will be a
}casualty whether napster lives or dies. (Don't forget, Copyright
}is an artificial construct of the 20th century.)
Odd that it appears in an 18th century document (the US Constitution).
I rather suspect it's far older than that.
Christopher Jahn
>
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
> >
> ...
> > Someone has suggested a monthly or yearly fee to download from such
> > sites. It certainly worked for porn! Perhaps it will work for
> > music downloads, too.
>
> Problem. What structure?
>
> Pre-pay cellphone plans (for an example) sound great: purchase the
> airtime you want (in fixed dollar amounts) and blather away at about
> NZ$2/minute in peak time. But a certain monopoly holder here [in NZ]
> sets things up so that your time expires after two months or so - or is
> it your connection? - so you are forced to keep paying even if you don't
> use it all up. Obviously there are competitors out there who claim not
> to do this, but they're not as reliable.
>
Excellent example. We have several cel phone providers in the US.
One that serves the southeast, Bellsouth, has recently started a
program to "carryover" unused minutes from one cycle to the other.
And there are also pre-paid plans - you buy up to xx minutes. Yes,
there are expirations for pre-paid plans, but that is not
unreasonable in and of itself.
> Let's say the Big Record Companies (boo hiss) decide to charge, oh, by
> megabytes. US5c/meg, pre-pay for what you'll download. ($US10 = 200MB of
> music; sound cool?) OK, so what would stop them from adding a time limit
> (eg. if you don't "use" all 200MB in a month, tough; you'll just have to
> pay more. Neener neener consumer scum.)
That's why we need to set laws and regulations for this. All of
your points are valid, but thelimits mentioned are not in and of
themselves unfair, it depends on how the figures are arrived at, and
how they are applied.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
|
And so it begins that some things last forever...
Christopher Jahn
>
> In article <_IMg5.231868$7o1.6...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> Chris Jones <cwj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> }"Kris Overstreet" <red...@detnet.com> wrote in message
> }news:39832b53...@news.detnet.com...
> }> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
> }
> }Napster is the symptom of a wave of change. Copyright will be a
> }casualty whether napster lives or dies. (Don't forget, Copyright
> }is an artificial construct of the 20th century.)
>
> Odd that it appears in an 18th century document (the US Constitution).
> I rather suspect it's far older than that.
ACtually, it follows the introdcution of the printing press and the
subsequent increase in literacy. Prior to that, copying any work
was laborious and time-consumptive, and most people couldn't read,
and even if they could, there weren't that many books available
outside of Church Libraries, and the Church wasn't letting the books
leave the building.
For another example, while there were written copies of Homer's
poems available in his lifetime, they were few in number. To assure
your copy was accurate, you'd want an expert to produce the copy -
one of Homer's proteges. This person would likely specialize in
producing copies of one single work, making them an expert, and
unlikely to vary too much from the original. It might take several
months to a year to make an accurate, clean copy of such a
manuscript.
Thus, to have access to the poetry it was economically viable to
simply have Homer or one of his proteges travel to you and recite it
from memory. And as it was a prestige thing, you really worked to
get Homer to do it.
But even after the printing press, Shakespeare certainly plagarized
almost all his plays from others. But his versions were often
better than the originals
Xjahn
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
|
And so it begins that some things last forever...
djohnson
> That's the reality of any information (be it a program, an MP3
>file, or a text file) in the Information Age. Now, the question is
>"what can and should we do about this?" It's a tough question. Part
>of it is that we have to hope that enough people are honest enough to
>support the creators.
Piracy won't ever be totally eliminated, but if the media companies
are smart, they can survive. The legitimate source of information
needs to be easy, and cheap enough that middling honest people (like
me) won't justify not paying for it. The publishing companies or
equivalent will have to get used to dealing in bulk--Getting a little
bit of money from lots of different bits of information, instead of
charging as much as possible for any one bit. If they keep trying to
charge $18 for an hour of recorded music, they will fail.
It's at least possible that this will benefit artists, and especially
non-corporate artists. As I understand it, it's difficult for most
artists to buck the system and survive. Since the distribution system
won't need a huge manufacturing and transportation infrastructure,
competition will be stronger, and "mid list" artists will be able to
get a better deal. I hope.
--
Take my advice--I'm not using it.
Adam Littman
>
>>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
>
>>operating for the time being.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>
>
>The Internet makes it absolutely impossible to control one's creations
>without legal interference.
>
Then copyright is already dead. And what we are seeing is the last twitchings
of a corpse. Even if Napster loses there are other systems much harder to
stop. I read in the WSJ that the main Gnuttella distribution site got 2
million hits the day after the TRO was given to Napster.
It apparently has no centralized server to shut down.
I have also read the Gnutella isn't even the toughest to track.
Copyright is a case of live by the sword die by the sword. What made it
valuable was technology to mass reproduce information cheaply, from the
printing press on up. Now that the technology makes it almost as cheap to
individually reproduce information, copyright will lose most of its value.
Soon a copy of _anything_ will be worth a slight conscience premium above
whatever the inconvenience of hunting down a person willing to let you copy it
is.
Irony is that CD sales were up in the last year. Some sales may have been made
as a result of Napster, which lets people listen on their computers but does
not make CDs, AFAIK.
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
Adam Littman
Adam Littman
>djohnson wrote:
>> I'd like a way to pay a reasonable fee for the songs I've got.
>> Unfortunately, "they" will most likely want to set the fee high enough
>> to avoid competition with traditional media, instead of low enough for
>> maximum benefit to the artists.
>
>Just remember "they" is "us". Write your representatives. I am.
I think "they" in this case was not the government but the record companies.
>> It has only been a few years since it's become practical for normal
>> consumers to make multi-generational copies without significant loss
>> of quality. When a copy of a copy was significantly worse than the
>> original, amateur piracy was much more limited in it's impact.
>> Nowadays...
>
>Nowadays, people can't even program their VCR's, let alone make
>large numbers of copies of recordings to give to all their friends.
Point here was not "Bob makes 10 copies and gives them to 10 friends". But
"Bob makes 2 copies and gives them to two friends, they each make two copies
and give them to 2 friends. and by the 20th generation there are a million
copies, each as good as the original". Try watching a 20th generation copy of
a video tape, you will have to make it yourself though.
>> ...and if copying music was as difficult as copying a book, Napster
>> would never have become an issue.
>
>It's all relative - it used to take a monk a lifetime to make a copy
>of the Bible.
More like 6 months. But still a lot longer than a printing press.
Adam Littman
>On 29 Jul 2000 23:49:16 GMT, andysne...@aol.comnospam (Harry Cameron
>Andruschak) wrote:
> If most people use Napster to get pieces of music to listen to
>forever, then that's wrong. If they use it to sample music, and then erase
>the MP3 (or get a legal copy of the music), it's not very different from
>the example I mentioned above. It might be different in the law's eyes,
>but it's not very different from hearing it transmitted over the phone, or
>over a live connection.
Actually, one of my students told me he uses it to get mp3 copies of songs he
has on tapes or CDs already. The record companies say that is also illegal of
course. One of the problem I have with their position is that it is
inconsistent. On the one hand they try to claim that they are selling you the
right to listen to the song, and on the other hand they say that you can't get
a copy from elsewhere of a song you already have the CD for.
Adam Littman
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 02:49:30 GMT, "Chris Jones" <cwj...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Kris Overstreet" <red...@detnet.com> wrote in message
>>news:39832b53...@news.detnet.com...
>>
>>casualty whether napster lives or dies. (Don't forget, Copyright
>>is an artificial construct of the 20th century.)
>>by current laws) of any work in today's world of open-source,
>>share the knowledge underbelly that is the internet. The
>>corporate world wanted in to it just after AOL came online and, I
>>think, they have been scrambling to figure out what to do with it
>>since then. (other than supply _some_ tech support and device
>>drivers :)
>>
>writers, for example, are not prepared to give up their copyright. The
>general consensus is that we will either stop writing/publishing on
>the Net, or take our writing entirely onto paysites, where the
>thieving bastards can't get it without a fee :)
Writing is not in such bad shape, yet. As long as most people prefer their
books on paper and with a cover instead of on a screen. Until someone comes up
with an electronic book that looks and feels like paper books.
Matthew T. Russotto
Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
}
}Actually, one of my students told me he uses it to get mp3 copies of songs he
}has on tapes or CDs already. The record companies say that is also illegal of
}course. One of the problem I have with their position is that it is
}inconsistent. On the one hand they try to claim that they are selling you the
}right to listen to the song, and on the other hand they say that you can't get
}a copy from elsewhere of a song you already have the CD for.
They're right; you bought the right to use, in a limited way, exactly
one copy. Nothing inconsistent about it, really. Remember it is also
their position that it is illegal to make tapes (or CDs) of your
favorite songs from other recordings you own (i.e. making your own mix
tape). And that it is illegal even to make a tape of a song you have
on CD so you can play it where you don't have a CD player. That last
I think they lost in court on under fair use, but fair use is a
slippery thing.
Adam Littman
>In article <_IMg5.231868$7o1.6...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>}"Kris Overstreet" <red...@detnet.com> wrote in message
>}news:39832b53...@news.detnet.com...
>}> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
>}
>}Napster is the symptom of a wave of change. Copyright will be a
>}casualty whether napster lives or dies. (Don't forget, Copyright
>}is an artificial construct of the 20th century.)
>
>I rather suspect it's far older than that.
Became important in the 15th and 16th centuries after the invention of the
printing press. Aparently it was started as an agreement among printers not to
compete with each other. An agreement that would, in modern America, be an
illegal restraint of trade.
Quite a good history of British copyright is given here:
http://www.jps.net/dcm/copyright/
Adam Littman
>In article <D2Yg5.12380$I76.6...@monger.newsread.com>,
> russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>In article <_IMg5.231868$7o1.6...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>>Chris Jones <cwj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>}"Kris Overstreet" <red...@detnet.com> wrote in message
>>}news:39832b53...@news.detnet.com...
>>}> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
>>}
>>}Napster is the symptom of a wave of change. Copyright will be a
>>}casualty whether napster lives or dies. (Don't forget, Copyright
>>}is an artificial construct of the 20th century.)
>>
>>Odd that it appears in an 18th century document (the US Constitution).
>>I rather suspect it's far older than that.
>
>Became important in the 15th and 16th centuries after the invention of the
>printing press. Aparently it was started as an agreement among printers not to
>compete with each other. An agreement that would, in modern America, be an
>illegal restraint of trade.
>
>Quite a good history of British copyright is given here:
>
>http://www.jps.net/dcm/copyright/
Sorry, I meant "British and US"
Adam Littman
>In article <8m1s78$6j2$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
>}
>}Actually, one of my students told me he uses it to get mp3 copies of songs he
>}has on tapes or CDs already. The record companies say that is also illegal of
>}course. One of the problem I have with their position is that it is
>}inconsistent. On the one hand they try to claim that they are selling you the
>}right to listen to the song, and on the other hand they say that you can't get
>
>}a copy from elsewhere of a song you already have the CD for.
>
>They're right; you bought the right to use, in a limited way, exactly
>one copy. Nothing inconsistent about it, really. Remember it is also
>their position that it is illegal to make tapes (or CDs) of your
>favorite songs from other recordings you own (i.e. making your own mix
>tape). And that it is illegal even to make a tape of a song you have
>on CD so you can play it where you don't have a CD player. That last
>I think they lost in court on under fair use, but fair use is a
>slippery thing.
The inconsistency is that if I own that copy then I sould be able to play it
wherever and however I want. Including in a restaurant I own (hypothetically,
I don't actually own one) as music for the patrons. But they are dead set
against that.
Their only consistency is greed.
djohnson
>
>>Funny, ben having this discussion elsewhere. I think you'll find
>>writers, for example, are not prepared to give up their copyright. The
>>general consensus is that we will either stop writing/publishing on
>>the Net, or take our writing entirely onto paysites, where the
>>thieving bastards can't get it without a fee :)
There's still the problem of preventing the people who paid from
passing copies around.
>
>Writing is not in such bad shape, yet. As long as most people prefer their
Writing is not in bad shape, because paper books are hard to copy.
That's also likely why e-books aren't being encouraged--Once
electronic copies exist, they will be posted somewhere. I can find
audio books, but not text copies of the same books. As it is now,
someone who already has a book has to take a lot of time and effort
into doing something that won't benefit him. If a mainstream
page-fed scanner, (where you can put a bound book in, and have it
OCR'd) is ever released, piracy of paper books will take off. The
only thing that will keep it from being as prevalent as MP3's is that
so many people don't read.
>books on paper and with a cover instead of on a screen. Until someone comes up
>with an electronic book that looks and feels like paper books.
Reading a Palm Pilot isn't too bad, and has the advantage of being
able to carry many books in a very small space, backlighting, and the
pages don't try to fold shut if you set the book down. I've started
keeping a Project Gutenberg book in mine, so I've _always_ got a book.
I wish someone would manage to invent a way to get my paperbacks in
electronic format, so I could carry something from before 1923...
--
Idiocy is world-wide, and it has a plane ticket.
djohnson
>The inconsistency is that if I own that copy then I sould be able to play it
>wherever and however I want. Including in a restaurant I own (hypothetically,
>I don't actually own one) as music for the patrons. But they are dead set
>against that.
That's considered a public performance. Businesses profiting, even
indirectly from music should pay royalties. Business use should be
more strictly enforced than private use.
--
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in
human history -- with the possible exceptions of handguns and
tequila." -- Mitch Ratcliffe, _Technology Review_ April 1992
dennywS...@zipcon.net
<jpal...@ix.netcom.com> held forth, saying:
> This is one of the biggest problems. If I'm chatting with someone
>using a net-phone or video-conferencing setup, and they're playing music in
>the background, they could say "hey, listen to this!" and play music for me
>through that connection.
>
> If this is illegal, the law is officially stupid.
>
> If most people use Napster to get pieces of music to listen to
>forever, then that's wrong. If they use it to sample music, and then erase
>the MP3 (or get a legal copy of the music), it's not very different from
>the example I mentioned above. It might be different in the law's eyes,
>but it's not very different from hearing it transmitted over the phone, or
>over a live connection.
>
Or listening to a radio station. Whether over-the-air or
over-the-net. In either case, you're hearing the music. In either
case, you *can* if you choose, record it.
-denny-
curmudgeonly editor
--
The more people I meet, the more I love my cat.
-unknown
dennywS...@zipcon.net
<djohnson+...@radparker.com> held forth, saying:
>Writing is not in bad shape, because paper books are hard to copy.
>That's also likely why e-books aren't being encouraged--Once
>electronic copies exist, they will be posted somewhere. I can find
>audio books, but not text copies of the same books. As it is now,
>someone who already has a book has to take a lot of time and effort
>into doing something that won't benefit him. If a mainstream
>page-fed scanner, (where you can put a bound book in, and have it
>OCR'd) is ever released, piracy of paper books will take off. The
>only thing that will keep it from being as prevalent as MP3's is that
>so many people don't read.
And I think those who *do* read, generally are less likely to abuse
copyright. Reading, unlike listening to a lot of music, and most TV
watching, is not at all passive. I tend to think that we who read a
lot may be a bit more aware/concerned about issues like copyright.
Hecate
wrote:
> Once I have that, I can transmit it anywhere, as many times as I
>want to. Please note: I'm *NOT* saying "I'm allowed to do so"; I'm
>saying "I can". I'm saying "you can't stop me if I'm determined to do
>it."
No I can't stop you. But, of course, with a pay site I'd have details
of every purchaser. And unless you're good enough to obliterate all
your net fingerprints, I'll find you and sue your ass off! <g> And
yes, I do pursue any versions of my work I find being used by others.
Hecate
wrote:
Sorry :) a PS."
>
> That's the reality of any information (be it a program, an MP3
>file, or a text file) in the Information Age. Now, the question is
>"what can and should we do about this?" It's a tough question. Part
>of it is that we have to hope that enough people are honest enough to
>support the creators.
While the people in callahans and one or two groups I frequent may be
good about it, I think the vast majority are not, sadly.
Joyce Melton
>Unfortunately, you or I as individuals can't get such a system set up. It
>would take a change in the copyright laws that many copyright holders would
>find anathema. Manditory, arbitrary, and low (on a per download basis anyway)
>compensation for their work in a particular medium. Along with a loss of legal
>control over the right to not let people have their work. Not a loss of actual
>control generally mind you, because that has already happened.
Music kind of already has such systems. It may be workable.
Joyce
Adam Littman
Do you mean the stuff that goes for covers and for songs played in
restaurants? I thought that those has big record companies collecting fees but
not the little guys. Can you describe the system in better detail?
Leonard Erickson
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Said
red...@detnet.com (Kris Overstreet) writes:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:34:48 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam
> Littman) wrote:
>
>>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will
> keep
>>operating for the time being.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>
> I'm worried.
>
> The Internet makes it absolutely impossible to control one's creations
> without legal interference.
>
> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
Keep in mind that there are perfectly *legal* ways people use Napster.
And the recording industry is going after those *too*.
Specificly, you can use napster to access music you've legally
purchased, and copied onto your home system. An example that I saw on
several *national* news broadcasts was someone using it to play music
from his home system on the computer he was using at school.
This is *just* as legal as making copies of rare tapes to save wear and
tear, or to play in your walkman. And note that the record industry has
been trying to claim that both that and making "custom mix" tapes of CD
of stuff you've bought are illegal. And have been doing so for years.
They got a hidden tax added to the price of many types of tape on the
grounds that *some* would be used to "pirate" stuff.
Yes, with modern technology it's a lot harder to track down the folks
making illegal copies. But that *doesn't* mean they get to charge the
rest of us for our perfectly *legal* copying for personal use.
And yes, I know that "personal use" only applies to copies of something
you have *purchased* a copy of, and that you don't get to keep the
copies if you sell or give away the original.
Anyway, first with DAT, and now with MP3s, the *real* agenda is to
prevent low cost distribution of *good* copies that *don't* have to go
thru the major record companies.
For those not aware of what went on, *home* DAT recorders are (due to
intensive lobbying) required to *not* copy tapes that have a specific
tone buried in them as a form of copy protection. And they (as I
recall) *do* put that tone in any recordings you make.
Only thing is, this means that you can't copy your *own* recordings on
such gear. So new groups can't use them to make "distribution copies"
of their music. They'd need the $10k *studio* gear.
Now you may think that CDs are different. Not quite. You see, the
writable CDs use a different technology than the read-only ones. And
are thus a *lot* more fragile. For example, sunlight won't do anything
to a normal CD until it gets hot even to warp it.
But CD-R and CD-RW can be ruined that way...
Even so, I hear the recording industry isn't reall happy about them,
and is actively fighting the attempts to come up with a writable DVD
standard.
MP3 got established before the recording industry caught on. And now
they are faced with a technology that can let artists ignore them and
sell directly. OF COURSE they'll fight it. And, as usual, the piracy
that does go on provides a good excuse.
An interesting news item from the other night applies here. Seems that
the folks downloading stuff tend to *buy* more music than the folks who
don't.
I can understand. Lord knows I've got a few CDs I was strongly tempted
to return after listening to them. Sure, they had the songs I was
looking for. But the *performance* wasn't what I wanted.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
"No, I will _not_ move your planet... What do you want to move it _for_?
It's fine right where it is!"
-- Dairine Callahan, Wizard (no relation)
Leonard Erickson
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Said
Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> writes:
> Which case do you refer to?
> You must understand that there are TWO issues here, not one:
> 1. Napster's violation of copyright law.
> 2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
> new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
>
> For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
> violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
> the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
>
> Napster does need to address this issue with their users. Perphaps
> a filter that will not allow the uploading of copyrighted material,
> or a fee for downloading such material, to be paid to the copyright
> holder.
Nope. Because it's *not* illegal to make copies of music you've bought.
Nor is it illegal to play it for others *for free* as long as it's not
a public performance or for commercial gain (musak substitute). *NO*
fee needs to be paid in such a case.
So all that Napster *really* needs to do to comply with copyright law
(as opposed to comply with what the record companies would like) is set
things up so that your uploads have a password for access, and can only
be accessed by one user at a time, using that password.
At that point it'd comply with copyright law just fine.
The user has *already* paid for that music. And he should no more be
required to pay another fee to the copyright owner to play it via the
internet than he should for copying it to a tape to play in his car.
(which the record industry would like to get paid for too!)
For that matter, loaning a book or CD to a friend is perfectly legal
too. So is *renting* them commercially.
So all we need is a "one user at a time" restriction.
> Someone has suggested a monthly or yearly fee to download from such
> sites. It certainly worked for porn! Perhaps it will work for
> music downloads, too.
A service fee, yes. And making the user "agree" to a statement that he
*owns* copies of the music he's uploading. With the record companies
free to check if they want to spend the time and money.
> As for the second; I can only point out that recordable media for
> home use is an established technology of over thirty years
> standing. I see no indication of copyright fading; on the contrary,
> we see more material needing the protections of copyright than ever
> before. And we see those protections being upheld.
Alas, as home recording becomes capable of producing a "professional"
quality copy, we see the record induustry trying their best to smother
it. Because they've treated artists so shabbily that a viable direct
artist to consumer technology will put them out of business.
That's why there are artists who filed *against* the record companies
on this. Let MP3 players become common and the record industry will
have to beg the artists for CD rights, because the artists will no
longer *need* the industry to get their work to the public.
> Napster is merely an improvement on existing technology. It has
> been noted in several places that CD sales have in fact RISEN since
> Napster started, just as more people go to the movie theatres than
> ever before, in spite of the fact that they have opportunities to
> see movies at home for less.
Yep, and just the other day it was annmounced that a study had found
that Napster users buy more music than non-users.
> Heck, photocopier sales never impacted booksales, as far as I can
> determine.
True, but a photocopied book is *expensive* and awkward.
> I'm not saying that some legislation is not required; but it is far
> from a deathknell for copyright law.
Yep. It's more of a deathknell to the record industry monpoly on music
distribution.
Leonard Erickson
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Said
russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> In article <_IMg5.231868$7o1.6...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> Chris Jones <cwj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> }"Kris Overstreet" <red...@detnet.com> wrote in message
> }news:39832b53...@news.detnet.com...
> }> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
> }
> }Napster is the symptom of a wave of change. Copyright will be a
> }casualty whether napster lives or dies. (Don't forget, Copyright
> }is an artificial construct of the 20th century.)
>
> Odd that it appears in an 18th century document (the US Constitution).
> I rather suspect it's far older than that.
Not as much as you might think. It wasn't necessary until after the
printing press made copying books *easy*. I think the idea dates to the
late 1600s.
Leonard Erickson
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Said
Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> writes:
> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> In article <3982643C...@bellsouth.net>,
>> Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> }
>> }No surprise. ANd I doubt they will be closed down later.
>> }WHile I side with the artists in protecting intellectual properties,
>> }going after Napster is akin to going after Memorex, or any other
>> }producer of recording medium.
>>
>> They have -- got a law written taxing producers of blank digital audio
>> recording media and digital audio recording devices.
>
> True, but they didn't close the businesses.
No, but that means that I'm paying money to them for something I
*might* do. I dislike that on principle.
Leonard Erickson
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Said
russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> In article <gas6osg04ivj086ou...@4ax.com>,
> John Palmer <jpal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> }On 29 Jul 2000 23:49:16 GMT, andysne...@aol.comnospam (Harry Cameron
> }Andruschak) wrote:
> }
> }>>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will
> keep
> }>>operating for the time being.
> }>>Thoughts?
> }>
> }>I cannot help being reminded of prohibition. Lots of people technically
> broke
> }>the law, but felt it was OK as they didn't approve of the law. In the
> }>situation with Napstar, it does invove copyright violation. Technically,
> it IS
> }>theft.
> }
> } This is one of the biggest problems. If I'm chatting with someone
> }using a net-phone or video-conferencing setup, and they're playing music in
> }the background, they could say "hey, listen to this!" and play music for me
> }through that connection.
> }
> } If this is illegal, the law is officially stupid.
>
> The record industry has been known to go into offices where music from
> a radio was played where everyone in the office could hear it, and
> demand royalties under threat of lawsuit. If you can hear someone
> playing music over the telephone, they are violating the copyright.
Nope. You only have to pay fees for playing music if it's a "public
performance", or if it's used for "commercial purposes" (ie the
background music you mention above, and music on hold setups)
Playing it to a friend is perfectly legal, regardless if there's a
phone involved. Also, as I recall, in the situation you described, it'd
make a *big* difference if the music was playing where *customers*
could hear it. If they couldn't, the odds are good that the company
could win. *Especially* if it was a radio station they were playing.
It'd just be an expensive fight. Which is what those vultures count on.
> } Copyright has to change in the digital world. . . but recently, people
> }are claiming that, if they give you a copyrighted work (a program), you're
> }only allowed to read that work the way they want you to (i.e.: you can't
> }"read" it with a decompiler - note that a decompiler is just reading and
> }taking extensive notes).
>
> They've been claiming this for years, but until the Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act, their claim wasn't law. There's still a
> reverse-engineering clause, but it's a lot weaker than it used to be.
I thought that "reverse engineering" or even possesion of software
*capable* of doing so was illegal under that law.
That's one of the reasons it needs to be challenged *now* and gotten
rid off. Because it makes debugging software illegal!
Don Paul
Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3983758A...@bellsouth.net...
> Actually, I own a CD-RW drive, which is much more practical.
> I know quite a few people who burn their own CD's. Several of them
> are musicians, and some of them are sound designers for theatre.
> (AFAIK, they follow all copyright laws)
Crikey, we couldn't stay in Biz without our CD burner.
E mail's too slow, the ISDN costs a bloody fortune, we heard zip was on the
out and most visuals are too big for an old stiffy.
Our blank CD's cost R10 a pop ($1.40 or 1UK sterling) and we have a couple
of rewritable back-ups.
Dammit, it's the only way to move visual data and layouts these days since
Mac took the stiffie drive out.
And yes, we do carve ourselves copies of ummmm music.
Don
Matthew T. Russotto
Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
}In article <2N_g5.12601$I76.6...@monger.newsread.com>, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
}>In article <8m1s78$6j2$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
}>Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
}>}
}>}Actually, one of my students told me he uses it to get mp3 copies of songs he
}>}has on tapes or CDs already. The record companies say that is also illegal of
}>}course. One of the problem I have with their position is that it is
}>}inconsistent. On the one hand they try to claim that they are selling you the
}>}right to listen to the song, and on the other hand they say that you can't get
}>
}>}a copy from elsewhere of a song you already have the CD for.
}>
}>They're right; you bought the right to use, in a limited way, exactly
}>one copy. Nothing inconsistent about it, really. Remember it is also
}>their position that it is illegal to make tapes (or CDs) of your
}>favorite songs from other recordings you own (i.e. making your own mix
}>tape). And that it is illegal even to make a tape of a song you have
}>on CD so you can play it where you don't have a CD player. That last
}>I think they lost in court on under fair use, but fair use is a
}>slippery thing.
}
}wherever and however I want. Including in a restaurant I own (hypothetically,
}I don't actually own one) as music for the patrons. But they are dead set
}against that.
That's not inconsistent. As I said -- the right to use, in a limited
way, exactly one copy. It's not inconsistent, just a poor deal.
Matthew T. Russotto
Leonard Erickson <kal...@krypton.rain.com> wrote:
}
}Now you may think that CDs are different. Not quite. You see, the
}writable CDs use a different technology than the read-only ones. And
}are thus a *lot* more fragile. For example, sunlight won't do anything
}to a normal CD until it gets hot even to warp it.
}
}But CD-R and CD-RW can be ruined that way...
CD-RW can. CD-R, very unlikely. And if you want a few hundred normal
CDs, you can get them burned without going through record companies.
The record industry all but killed DAT, but even they can't stop
everything.
Matthew T. Russotto
Leonard Erickson <kal...@krypton.rain.com> wrote:
}On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 04:40:08 PST, In alt.callahans
}kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Said
}
}> }are claiming that, if they give you a copyrighted work (a program), you're
}> }only allowed to read that work the way they want you to (i.e.: you can't
}> }"read" it with a decompiler - note that a decompiler is just reading and
}> }taking extensive notes).
}>
}> They've been claiming this for years, but until the Digital Millennium
}> Copyright Act, their claim wasn't law. There's still a
}> reverse-engineering clause, but it's a lot weaker than it used to be.
}
}I thought that "reverse engineering" or even possesion of software
}*capable* of doing so was illegal under that law.
No. The law is ugly, but not that ugly. No possession of software is
illegal now. Creating software which is designed for breaking copy
protection schemes is, as is creating software which has "only limited
commercially significant purpose or use" other than breaking copy
protection schemes. The "reverse engineering" exception to this is
"a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a
computer program may circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controlls access to a particular portion of that program
for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of
the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs, and that
have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in
the circumvention, to the extent that any such acts of identification
and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
The law goes on to say
"The information acquired through the acts permitted under pargraph
(1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), my be made available
to others if the person[...] provides such information or means solely
for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently
created computer program, with other programs, and to the extent that
doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate
applicable law other than this section.
Personally, I find this quite confusing -- this paragraph states no
prohibition on distributing the information acquired otherwise. Nor,
thatks to that last bit, does it actually carve out any exceptions to
prohibitions which might otherwise exist. Looks like a long-winded
nullity to me. But this is the sort of thing being used to prosecute
those who distributed DeCSS and other DVD-decryption information.
}That's one of the reasons it needs to be challenged *now* and gotten
}rid off. Because it makes debugging software illegal!
Challenged by what? This is more than Federal law, it's an
international treaty. Unless you're a nuclear power or richer than
Gates and Ellison put together, you can forget about it. As to
whether my favorite technological measure bypassing tools (debuggers
and disassemblers) are made illegal, that depends on whether some
judge decides they've got more than "limited commercially significant
purpose or use".
Adam Littman
Yeah, unfair. And if the laws aren't seen to be basically fair then the
question for many people is not "is this illegal" but "can I get away with
it". See Prohibition.
Matthew T. Russotto
Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
}In article <V1gh5.12796$I76.7...@monger.newsread.com>, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
}>In article <8m1uqe$75n$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
}>Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
}
}>}The inconsistency is that if I own that copy then I sould be able to play it
}>}wherever and however I want. Including in a restaurant I own (hypothetically,
}>}I don't actually own one) as music for the patrons. But they are dead set
}>}against that.
}>
}>That's not inconsistent. As I said -- the right to use, in a limited
}>way, exactly one copy. It's not inconsistent, just a poor deal.
}
}Yeah, unfair. And if the laws aren't seen to be basically fair then the
}question for many people is not "is this illegal" but "can I get away with
}it". See Prohibition.
That's the way the laws are. In this case, an application of "He who
has the gold makes the rules."
Dave Hitt
>Then too, even if the record companies did decide to sell songs for a dime
>each with a nickel in royalties going to the artists they would still have to
>come up with something equivalent to the one stop shopping Napster and similar
>systems provide. According to some of my students there are many songs that
>can't be bought anywhere available from clients of Napster.
Some of the problem is that people hate record companies as much as
they love their favorite artists. The recording industry has been
ripping off artists since the invention of the medium. ("Mr. Edison?
You're version of Mary Had a Little Lamb is *killer*! Got a minute?")
>A very similar thing happened with the internet lyrics database. Before the
>industry took it over it was worth going to, because you could get lyrics to
>just about any song anyone had ever decided to post. After they took over you
>can only get the songs that they have permission to provide. And they don't
>have permission for most songs. As it is not worth the effort to track down
>every lyrics copyright holder.
The same with OLGA, although the solution has been to locate the
archives overseas, beyond the reach of the RIAAs bottom feeders.
>Where they would have an advantage is in reliability. From what I hear
>Napster's selection varies wildly over time, and includes many mp3s that are
>only partial songs.
About 10% of the stuff I've downloaded cuts off before the end of the
song. In one case it was a muddy recording off a radio, with the DJ
talking over the intro.
>For that reliability, people might be willing to pay a dime a song, if they
>hop to it _quick_ between the time the courts kill Napster and the time
>someone comes up with a viable alternative that can't be killed.
Not just for reliably, but to pay the artists.
I *want* to pay the artist for their work. I know that if I buy their
CD, they *might,* once in a while, end up with fraction of the money
in their pocket. If I could buy directly from the artist, knowing
that the money was going into their pocket, I'd be happy to do it.
Make the price reasonable (a dime, or at most a quarter a song) and
I'll trot over to their site and download their official version just
to help them buy their next pizza.
>They are up against the laws of supply and demand here. Laws stronger than any
>mere court. There is a strong demand for cheap music and attacking the supply
>is at best a stopgap.
But an inconsequential one. Overseas servers, Guntilla, Freenet,
something-someone-is-dreaming-up-at-the-moment will all create new was
to pass the stuff around.
>The reality is that people are now technologically able to copy, almost free
>of charge, anything they want to. If copyright as a concept is to survive at
>all it has to adapt to that reality. The Disney tactic of taking a movie out
>of availability for a pre-set number of years to spur current sales will
>become a thing of the past. As a practical matter the options are no longer
>"provide it for whatever you want to charge" or "don't provide it". They are
>"provide it for what people are willing to pay instead of using a less
>convenient means of getting it free" or "people will download it without
>paying you".
>
>I think the best bet for the record companies would be to get legislation
>passed to let them (or even the library of Congress) set up a central,
>Napster-like system allowing sharing of songs, with a very small fee (perhaps
>a dime) per file downloaded (perhaps up to some maximum size file and a
>slightly higher fee for larger files). The legislation to say that any song
>can be posted in this manner, with the copyright holder entitled to half the
>download fee, but they would have to lay claim to that fee, having found their
>content in the public records of what files got downloaded by how many people.
You don't need legislation. That could be done right now simply by
agreeing to it. But do you really think that record company weasels
would ever agree to give half the profits to the artists that created
the work in the first place?
----
A fat guy looks at the fat acceptance movement - read "Porky's" at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/hittman/july00/porkys.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Kris Overstreet
> The record companies are being damaged, sure. . . but unless I'm
>unaware of something in recording contracts, it's not unlike Heinlein's
>first story. (In that story, a man discovers how to measure one's lifespan
>by sending an energy pulse along their timeline and listening for an echo.
>It damaged insurance companies no end, of course, and they sued him. The
>inventor challenged that by saying if his invention was banned because it
>hurt insurance companies, he'd start a gaslight company and sue the
>electric company!) Yeah, they're hurt. . . new inventions make old
>companies obselete all the time. Tough noogies, and all that.
The problem is, the end of copyright makes songwriting, writing, and
commercial art obsolete as well. Why should you pay for a copy of
something when it's free?
The sense I've gained from this discussion is that a majority of
Callahanians believe copyright is wrong, or at the least that making
money is a greater evil than copying another person's work. This
saddens and frightens me no end, as it is a literal death sentence for
both the avocations I practice.
I'm sorry, but I'm foursquare against Napster and all its friends.
Redneck, writer and publisher
Dave Hitt
>Kris Overstreet wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:34:48 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam
>> Littman) wrote:
>>
>> >The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
>> >operating for the time being.
>> >
>> >Thoughts?
>>
>> I'm worried.
>>
>> The Internet makes it absolutely impossible to control one's creations
>> without legal interference.
>>
>> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
>>
>
>Which case do you refer to?
>You must understand that there are TWO issues here, not one:
>1. Napster's violation of copyright law.
Napster is not violating any copyright law. They are a party to it,
in that they allow people to contact each other and violate the law,
but they do not directly violate it themselves.
>2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
>new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
Copyright infringement is not, and never has been, a freedom of speech
issue.
>For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
>violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
>the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
Aiding and abetting, perhaps, but not infringement.
>Napster does need to address this issue with their users. Perphaps
>a filter that will not allow the uploading of copyrighted material,
>or a fee for downloading such material, to be paid to the copyright
>holder.
Which would, of course, be the end of them. No one wants to download
unknown bands and sort through fifteen hours of crap to find one song
worth listening to. They want to download the stuff they know and
like.
>Someone has suggested a monthly or yearly fee to download from such
>sites. It certainly worked for porn! Perhaps it will work for
>music downloads, too.
But porn stars are paid to show up, get filmed, and leave. Musicians
are entitled to continued payment every time their product is
purchased.
>As for the second; I can only point out that recordable media for
>home use is an established technology of over thirty years
>standing. I see no indication of copyright fading; on the contrary,
>we see more material needing the protections of copyright than ever
>before. And we see those protections being upheld.
>
>Napster is merely an improvement on existing technology. It has
>been noted in several places that CD sales have in fact RISEN since
>Napster started, just as more people go to the movie theatres than
>ever before, in spite of the fact that they have opportunities to
>see movies at home for less.
>
>Heck, photocopier sales never impacted booksales, as far as I can
>determine.
>
>I'm not saying that some legislation is not required; but it is far
>from a deathknell for copyright law.
Nor is it a death knell for musicians and song writers. Except for
people like Metallica - it will be interesting to see how the fans
they've blocked out of napster will react to their upcoming tour. My
guess is their career is over.
http://home.nycap.rr.com/hittman/may00/napster.html
Dave Hitt
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:19:36 GMT, jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer)
>wrote:
>
>
>> Once I have that, I can transmit it anywhere, as many times as I
>>want to. Please note: I'm *NOT* saying "I'm allowed to do so"; I'm
>>saying "I can". I'm saying "you can't stop me if I'm determined to do
>>it."
>
>No I can't stop you. But, of course, with a pay site I'd have details
>of every purchaser. And unless you're good enough to obliterate all
>your net fingerprints, I'll find you and sue your ass off! <g> And
>yes, I do pursue any versions of my work I find being used by others.
So Joe Blow goes to your web site, pays X dollars, and downloads your
book (or music or whatever). You have a record he was there, and that
he paid you, and you've encrypted some sort of key into the stuff he
downloaded to make it easy to track.
But Joe likes to tinker. And the very fact that your artwork can be
displayed or played means there are ways around even the most clever
schemes. The quickest way to get something cracked is to tell a geek
it can't be done. He will prove you wrong, every time.
And now your stuff is out there, sans watermark or whatever else you
used, and traded between friends and strangers all over the net. You
can't tell who downloaded the version that's being passed around. And
the effort and entirety you spend trying to track down the
perpetuators would be better spent creating a new art work.
Dave Hitt
>The record industry has been known to go into offices where music from
>a radio was played where everyone in the office could hear it, and
>demand royalties under threat of lawsuit. If you can hear someone
>playing music over the telephone, they are violating the copyright.
Minor correction: It's ASCAP that does that. Talk to any club owner
about ASCAP and you'll get an ear full.
Kris Overstreet
Erickson) wrote:
>Specificly, you can use napster to access music you've legally
>purchased, and copied onto your home system. An example that I saw on
>several *national* news broadcasts was someone using it to play music
>from his home system on the computer he was using at school.
This is like saying, 'I own the CD, so it's okay to steal a cassette
of the same record.'
It's a copy made without the copyright holders' permission.
>This is *just* as legal as making copies of rare tapes to save wear and
>tear, or to play in your walkman. And note that the record industry has
>been trying to claim that both that and making "custom mix" tapes of CD
>of stuff you've bought are illegal. And have been doing so for years.
Do you make spare copies of books to save wear and tear? Of comics? Of
posters?
>Yes, with modern technology it's a lot harder to track down the folks
>making illegal copies. But that *doesn't* mean they get to charge the
>rest of us for our perfectly *legal* copying for personal use.
None of the examples you've given are, in my opinion, legal- only less
damaging than Napster.
>Anyway, first with DAT, and now with MP3s, the *real* agenda is to
>prevent low cost distribution of *good* copies that *don't* have to go
>thru the major record companies.
But the other side of the dispute isn't ending the distribution
bottleneck, it's government protection of bootlegging. It's an end to
the very basis of copyright- that a creator has the right to control
the distribution of their work. It severely hampers, and may even
destroy, the ability of artists to make a living.
Of course, publishers can continue as before- they don't even have to
trouble with the expense of paying creators for their work anymore.
>MP3 got established before the recording industry caught on. And now
>they are faced with a technology that can let artists ignore them and
>sell directly. OF COURSE they'll fight it. And, as usual, the piracy
>that does go on provides a good excuse.
Except that, in general, it's NOT ARTISTS who are using Napster- it's
computer users who want to swap songs and get new songs without paying
anything for them.
>An interesting news item from the other night applies here. Seems that
>the folks downloading stuff tend to *buy* more music than the folks who
>don't.
How many of the people who don't use Napster don't buy any music at
all? It's not a good comparison; the people using Napster like music
and seek it out, whereas there are many people who don't give a damn
about most music and so almost never buy any recordings of anything.
Redneck
Adam Littman
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:34:11 -0400, John Palmer
><jpal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The record companies are being damaged, sure. . . but unless I'm
>>unaware of something in recording contracts, it's not unlike Heinlein's
>>first story. (In that story, a man discovers how to measure one's lifespan
>>by sending an energy pulse along their timeline and listening for an echo.
>>It damaged insurance companies no end, of course, and they sued him. The
>>inventor challenged that by saying if his invention was banned because it
>>hurt insurance companies, he'd start a gaslight company and sue the
>>electric company!) Yeah, they're hurt. . . new inventions make old
>>companies obselete all the time. Tough noogies, and all that.
>
>The problem is, the end of copyright makes songwriting, writing, and
>commercial art obsolete as well. Why should you pay for a copy of
>something when it's free?
No it doesn't. It just means that a new system has to be developed to deal
with intellectual property. Keep the commercial exploitation private, but make
a system for cheap online copying that pays the authors. In case you hadn't
realized, CD sales are up since Napster.
The copyright system was designed to encourage the production of creative
works in an environment where a substantial speculative outlay was necessary
without knowing whether there would be any reward. Type setting and mass
printing before knowing whether the item would sell. And where you could be
seriously undercut by others offering the same item in the same form, who
didn't have to guess at whether there would be a demand.
These days, with the internet, distribution is cheaper than dirt. The tech
make a system possible where the principle expense is just making one
recording. If such a system gets set up it could be a great boon for artists
and authors as it cuts down on the necessity for a middleman. No more stories
like Billy Joel getting $7k for "the Piano Man".
Most of the price of a CD these days goes to the record stores, and the
record companies. I think most people would willingly pay an amount equal to
the artists' cut.
>I'm sorry, but I'm foursquare against Napster and all its friends.
And King Kanute was foursquare against the tide. Deal with what is. It's like
Capitalism versus Communism. Many people are greedy, lazy, selfish bastards,
Communism tries to work by denying and fighting that. Capitalism works by
harnessing those powerful drives.
Artists and authors can either try to stop the tide coming in, shut down
Napster type systems and try to deal with Gnutella like systems as best they
can. And lose.
Or they can adapt to the new technology, and probably do far better in the
process.
Adam Littman
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:47:55 GMT, kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard
>Erickson) wrote:
>
>>Specificly, you can use napster to access music you've legally
>>purchased, and copied onto your home system. An example that I saw on
>>several *national* news broadcasts was someone using it to play music
>>from his home system on the computer he was using at school.
>
>This is like saying, 'I own the CD, so it's okay to steal a cassette
>of the same record.'
Bullshit. If I steal a cassette of the same record then the owner can't use it
any more, or if a store, can't sell it. If I listen to an MP3 at school of a
CD sitting on a shelf at home no one is harmed by that action.
Nice try, but that is just a false analogy.
>It's a copy made without the copyright holders' permission.
Boo -#!@#- hoo. Fair use. Your position is a bit like someone who sells me a
table and then says "but you can only use it to put the things I want to let
you put on it".
I benefit from the labor of the construction workers who built the apartment I
rent, they don't get paid over and over for 130 years after they finish the
job, why should musicians and authors?
>Do you make spare copies of books to save wear and tear? Of comics? Of
>posters?
My father has books over 500 years old. Think an audio tape is going to last
even half that long?
You are like those extremist nuts at PETA. Your position is so extreme that
you end up alienating entirely the people who might support a more reasonable
position closer to what you want.
Grab for all and you end up with none.
>>Anyway, first with DAT, and now with MP3s, the *real* agenda is to
>>prevent low cost distribution of *good* copies that *don't* have to go
>>thru the major record companies.
>
>But the other side of the dispute isn't ending the distribution
>bottleneck, it's government protection of bootlegging. It's an end to
>the very basis of copyright- that a creator has the right to control
>the distribution of their work. It severely hampers, and may even
>destroy, the ability of artists to make a living.
Not that many whale oil lamp factories these days. I guess Edison destroyed
the ability of whale oil lamp makers to make a living.
Artists made a living before mass production made copyright possible and they
will still make a living after individual production makes copyright obsolete.
>Of course, publishers can continue as before- they don't even have to
>trouble with the expense of paying creators for their work anymore.
Not hardly. Publishers are screwed and they know it. People who would happily
pay authors and artists for their work will balk at paying greedy middlemen.
When any skilled programmer can set up a system of sharing like Gnuttella the
on-line distribution costs approach zero. Publishers will still lose out to
on-line freebies.
The battle must be won in the hearts and minds of the people, because short of
shutting down the internet the technology makes the laws futile.
Things will go on as they have. With commercial publication protected and
individual copying unchecked.
>>MP3 got established before the recording industry caught on. And now
>>they are faced with a technology that can let artists ignore them and
>>sell directly. OF COURSE they'll fight it. And, as usual, the piracy
>>that does go on provides a good excuse.
>
>Except that, in general, it's NOT ARTISTS who are using Napster- it's
>computer users who want to swap songs and get new songs without paying
>anything for them.
Yeah, almost like listening to the radio.
Buddha Buck
al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
> Boo -#!@#- hoo. Fair use. Your position is a bit like someone who
> sells me a table and then says "but you can only use it to put the
> things I want to let you put on it".
It's not fair use...
Converting an import VHS recording in PAL format to NTSC so you can watch
it at home is not fair use. IMHO, it should be legal anyway -- as long
as you destroy your NTSC copy when you transfer ownership of the PAL
recording (or include your NTSC recording in the deal).
Including 15 seconds of "Ice Ice Baby" and "Under Pressure" in a recorded
presentation about plaigerism is fair use.
Recording all of your CDs into MP3 format so you can play random tunes
all day long on your computer at work is not fair use. IMHO, it should
be legal.
Printing a screen-shot of a video game in a magazine review is fair use.
Installing the single copy of "Terminus" which I bought onto both the
Win98 and Linux partitions on my computer is not fair use. IMHO, it
should be legal -- as long as only one copy can be played at a time.
Writing the song "Achy Breaky Song" (as did Weird Al Yankovic) as a clear
parody of "Achy Breaky Heart" is fair use.
Fair use is an exception, and covers uses where there is distribution of
the copyrighted material to others. It's a judgement call on the part of
the judge or jury, based on several criteria written into the law (amount
of material used, damage of the use of the material on the value of the
copyright, purpose of use of material, etc).
None of the cases where you are making copies (or derivative works) for
your own -personal- use are "fair use". I personally thought that they
were legal anyway, just not under the guise of "fair use". I think that
they -should- be legal, at least.
Peter Gregg
Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote in message
news:bKph5.12953$I76.7...@monger.newsread.com...
> In article <3999ed98...@news4.newscene.com>,
> }The same with OLGA, although the solution has been to locate the
> }archives overseas, beyond the reach of the RIAAs bottom feeders.
>
> They found a country outside the Berne convention? What's OLGA, anyway?
OLGA is the OnLine Guitar Archive. It was shut down viciously for having
some record labels tablature up on their site without permission. Glad to
hear its back up.
OLGA only has tablature which is an aid to learning only you have to hear
the song to know what to do with the TAB.
Peter
Christopher Jahn
> >>
> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:34:48 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam
> >> Littman) wrote:
> >>
> >> >The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
> >> >operating for the time being.
> >> >
> >> >Thoughts?
> >>
> >> I'm worried.
> >>
> >> The Internet makes it absolutely impossible to control one's creations
> >> without legal interference.
> >>
> >> If Napster wins, copyright is dead.
> >>
> >
> >Which case do you refer to?
> >You must understand that there are TWO issues here, not one:
> >1. Napster's violation of copyright law.
>
> Napster is not violating any copyright law. They are a party to it,
> in that they allow people to contact each other and violate the law,
> but they do not directly violate it themselves.
Yes, as I've learned since this original post.
> >2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
> >new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
>
> Copyright infringement is not, and never has been, a freedom of speech
> issue.
I agree. BUT the copyright issue is currently being mixed up with
Napster's facilitation of free speech and expression. THat's why I
seperated the two. So quit tying them back together..grrr...;-)
>
> >For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
> >violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
> >the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
>
> Aiding and abetting, perhaps, but not infringement.
>
> >Napster does need to address this issue with their users. Perphaps
> >a filter that will not allow the uploading of copyrighted material,
> >or a fee for downloading such material, to be paid to the copyright
> >holder.
>
> Which would, of course, be the end of them. No one wants to download
> unknown bands and sort through fifteen hours of crap to find one song
> worth listening to. They want to download the stuff they know and
> like.
Not according to recent news coverage - a lot of folks download a
sample of something new to them then go out and buy the CD if they
like it.
>
> >Someone has suggested a monthly or yearly fee to download from such
> >sites. It certainly worked for porn! Perhaps it will work for
> >music downloads, too.
>
> But porn stars are paid to show up, get filmed, and leave. Musicians
> are entitled to continued payment every time their product is
> purchased.
>
Untrue.
1. Not ALL musicians get royalties for *recordings*
2. The major porn stars DO get paid royalties.
Xjahn
Who believes that all recorded artists deserve royalties, and
wonders what the going return on an orgasm is...
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
|
If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower.
To respond: xjahn AT bellsouth DOT net
Barb Johannessen-Bailey
Joyce
>>Music kind of already has such systems. It may be workable.
Adam
>Do you mean the stuff that goes for covers and for songs played in
>restaurants? I thought that those has big record companies collecting fees but
>not the little guys. Can you describe the system in better detail?
I may be stepping on Joyce's toes, here (apologies in advance, but
I've not seen a response)
I believe that she's talking about the BMI/ASCAP fee system to pay for
public performance. This system works as follows (at least for radio
stations--I don't have details of how it differs for restaurants, but
I suspect not by much--let me go into that a bit later...)
To the best of my knowledge (given that I haven't been on the air in
15 years)
First, All radio stations are categorized (top 40, Adult contemporary,
classic rock, alternative, easy listening, oldies (by decade), and so
on.)
Then, stations are notified on a rotating basis that they will be
required to keep performnce logs for one calendar week (Sunday Sign-on
to Saturday sign-off.) For that week, they must log *ALL* music
played--every song they play, and all songs which have more than a set
number of seconds used in production (i.e. as background for a
commercial or PSA, or behind news, weather or traffic reports, or as
the opening or closing theme of a program.)
The log must include the song-title, the author(s) names and the
artist performing it.
These logs are sent to BMI/ASCAP, who use them as a statistical sample
to determine the licensing fee that each station is billed for, and
the performance royalties that are paid to the writers and the
performers.
The station fee is determined by what category the station falls into,
and market size, coverage area, power, and hours of operation. So, a
dawn-to-dusk, 25-watt station in a town of 800 people with a coverage
area of 15 square miles won't be billed as much as a 24-hour, 25,000
watt station in Chicago that you can hear in Gary and Milwaukee and
Rockford (all roughly sixty miles away, in different directions.)
For any given radio station, log week used to come around about every
five years or so. It may be more frequent now, or less so, I honestly
don't know. Before most stations were computerized, log week was a
*major* pain in the behind--the DJ was not only running songs and
spots and weather and what-have-you and keep up with the traffic logs
and trying to meet the network clean at the top of the hour, but also
having to write down all the information on every song that got
played.
Oh, and substantial fines were levied for fraudulent logs or for not
returning them. We were given to understand that BMI/ASCAP had
roving employees who were making their own logs off the air.
I went through it twice in six and a half years at the same
station--once not long after I started and once just before I quit.
Hope this helps.
Rabrab
Subscription music services (the folks like Muzak), who provide
"canned" music for resturants (and businesses that don't put a radio
station on) also provide logs of the music contained on their service
tapes, and how many subscribers got each tape. In this case, the
licensing fee is charged directly *only* to the service, but a portion
is built into each subscriber's fee to recover it for the service.
BMI and ASCAP aren't record companies, they're artist's representative
organizations (unions kinda, sorta.) I don't remember what BMI stands
for but ISTR that ASCAP is the American Society of Composers and
Performers, or something very similar. But they represent *all*
composers and performers on this, not just their members.
Matthew T. Russotto
Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
}al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
}
}
}>each with a nickel in royalties going to the artists they would still have to
}>come up with something equivalent to the one stop shopping Napster and similar
}>systems provide. According to some of my students there are many songs that
}>can't be bought anywhere available from clients of Napster.
}
}Some of the problem is that people hate record companies as much as
}they love their favorite artists. The recording industry has been
}ripping off artists since the invention of the medium. ("Mr. Edison?
}You're version of Mary Had a Little Lamb is *killer*! Got a minute?")
ROTFL. Now why is the record exec that image conjures up wearing an
old-fashioned tuxedo with an odd bulge in BACK, and carrying a strange
combination fountain pen/syringe?
}
}The same with OLGA, although the solution has been to locate the
}archives overseas, beyond the reach of the RIAAs bottom feeders.
They found a country outside the Berne convention? What's OLGA, anyway?
}But an inconsequential one. Overseas servers, Guntilla, Freenet,
}something-someone-is-dreaming-up-at-the-moment will all create new was
}to pass the stuff around.
Some law-n-order type was boasting how smart routers can stop Gnutella
because its protocol is known. Fool... it would be very easy to make
a protocol that couldn't be blocked without either
1) Blocking everything that wasn't known (the approach that causes
users to descend on the administrator's office with torches and
pitchforks)
or
2) Spending so much computational power analyzing traffic that the
routers can't handle the load.
Matthew T. Russotto
Kris Overstreet <red...@detnet.com> wrote:
}
}The problem is, the end of copyright makes songwriting, writing, and
}commercial art obsolete as well. Why should you pay for a copy of
}something when it's free?
No worry, they'll still be commercial art, if only for advertising.
}The sense I've gained from this discussion is that a majority of
}Callahanians believe copyright is wrong, or at the least that making
}money is a greater evil than copying another person's work. This
}saddens and frightens me no end, as it is a literal death sentence for
}both the avocations I practice.
Copyright isn't wrong. Many relatively recent extensions and
additions to it are -- and they've poisoned the whole concept.
Copyright was only a right to copy. Not a right to force VCR and DAT
manufacturers to prevent copying. Not a right to toss people in jail
if they remove your irritating protection scheme. Not a right to go
into businesses and blackmail them for playing the radio where too
many people can hear it. Not a right to demand payment for sale of
blank media. Now, copyright is all those things and more.
Personally, I think some of those things -- along with the high cost
of legitimate copies, of course -- are the reason there's little
public outcry against Napster. As a certain princess once
remarked, the record companies tightened their grip, and now things
are slipping through their fingers.
}I'm sorry, but I'm foursquare against Napster and all its friends.
The government and the record industry together don't have enough
thugs to stop them all. They'll be reduced to making gruesome
examples of the few people they can go after (making themselves even
more unpopular), while the rest proceed unhindered.
Matthew T. Russotto
Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
}Christopher Jahn <thea...@SPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
}
}>
}>Which case do you refer to?
}>You must understand that there are TWO issues here, not one:
}>1. Napster's violation of copyright law.
}
}Napster is not violating any copyright law. They are a party to it,
}in that they allow people to contact each other and violate the law,
}but they do not directly violate it themselves.
Contributory infringement is recognized by the law.
}>2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
}>new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
}
}Copyright infringement is not, and never has been, a freedom of speech
}issue.
Certainly it is. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes it so, if
it were not before. The movie industry is going after people who posted
information about decrypting DVDs.
Matthew T. Russotto
Kris Overstreet <red...@detnet.com> wrote:
}On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:47:55 GMT, kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard
}Erickson) wrote:
}
}>Specificly, you can use napster to access music you've legally
}>purchased, and copied onto your home system. An example that I saw on
}>several *national* news broadcasts was someone using it to play music
}>from his home system on the computer he was using at school.
}
}This is like saying, 'I own the CD, so it's okay to steal a cassette
}of the same record.'
Theft always involves damage to someone, though not necessarily the
copyright holder. Copyright violation doesn't.
}It's a copy made without the copyright holders' permission.
}
}>This is *just* as legal as making copies of rare tapes to save wear and
}>tear, or to play in your walkman. And note that the record industry has
}>been trying to claim that both that and making "custom mix" tapes of CD
}>of stuff you've bought are illegal. And have been doing so for years.
}
}Do you make spare copies of books to save wear and tear? Of comics? Of
}posters?
I would if it made sense to. Of course, I do make spare copies of
computer programs, though that's specifically authorized by law.
}>Yes, with modern technology it's a lot harder to track down the folks
}>making illegal copies. But that *doesn't* mean they get to charge the
}>rest of us for our perfectly *legal* copying for personal use.
}
}None of the examples you've given are, in my opinion, legal- only less
}damaging than Napster.
Then copyright law is an ass, and deserves to be ignored, violated,
and stamped out. If a law bans normal, common, reasonable,
nondamaging activities, why should anyone take any of its prohibitions
to heart? Aside, of course, from the thugs who will enforce it -- who
are overwhelmed here.
Matthew T. Russotto
Buddha Buck <bmb...@14850.com> wrote:
}In article <8m537g$9s3$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
}al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
}
}> Boo -#!@#- hoo. Fair use. Your position is a bit like someone who
}> sells me a table and then says "but you can only use it to put the
}> things I want to let you put on it".
}
}It's not fair use...
}
}
}Converting an import VHS recording in PAL format to NTSC so you can watch
}it at home is not fair use.
Who says? Fair use is one of those "I know it when I see it" kinds of
things. Has there been a case on this?
}Installing the single copy of "Terminus" which I bought onto both the
}Win98 and Linux partitions on my computer is not fair use.
This one may be legal under Section 117 of the copyright act, though.
}Fair use is an exception, and covers uses where there is distribution of
}the copyrighted material to others.
It's not limited to those, not by statute anyway.
Christine Krebs-Bonder
Littman) wrote:
<politely snipped>
>>
>>It's all relative - it used to take a monk a lifetime to make a copy
>>of the Bible.
>
>More like 6 months. But still a lot longer than a printing press.
As an amatuer calligrapher and illuminator, I did some research on how
the folks who produced books in the Middle Ages did it before the
advent of the moveable type printing press. A book was the product of
several people, some did the layout and line mrking, others did the
lettering ( and if they were doing black lettering and lettering of
another color such as red, the seconf color was done by someone else),
the limners who did the painting of the images decorating the pages
and the illuminators who applied the gold andsilver leaf. All this was
after you had other people prepare the vellum/parchment for working.
If one person would do all of it, I could see one Bible's worth of
text and illustraitons taking an entire lifetime. But 6 months isn't
an unreasonable time period when the work is being shared and some
tasks are being done the same time as others.
christine and Micah =^..^=
Christine Krebs-Bonder
wrote:
snip
>
>Napster is not violating any copyright law. They are a party to it,
>in that they allow people to contact each other and violate the law,
>but they do not directly violate it themselves.
>
>>2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
>>new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
>
>Copyright infringement is not, and never has been, a freedom of speech
>issue.
>
>>For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
>>violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
>>the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
>
>Aiding and abetting, perhaps, but not infringement.
>
snip
Ummm, I don't know about elsewhere, but aiding and abetting in Ohio
means you are guilty of the same crime as the person who actually
stole or whatever.
Christine and Micah =^..^=
Hecate
wrote:
>>No I can't stop you. But, of course, with a pay site I'd have details
>>of every purchaser. And unless you're good enough to obliterate all
>>your net fingerprints, I'll find you and sue your ass off! <g> And
>>yes, I do pursue any versions of my work I find being used by others.
>
>So Joe Blow goes to your web site, pays X dollars, and downloads your
>book (or music or whatever). You have a record he was there, and that
>he paid you, and you've encrypted some sort of key into the stuff he
>downloaded to make it easy to track.
>
>But Joe likes to tinker. And the very fact that your artwork can be
>displayed or played means there are ways around even the most clever
>schemes. The quickest way to get something cracked is to tell a geek
>it can't be done. He will prove you wrong, every time.
>
>And now your stuff is out there, sans watermark or whatever else you
>used, and traded between friends and strangers all over the net. You
>can't tell who downloaded the version that's being passed around. And
>the effort and entirety you spend trying to track down the
>perpetuators would be better spent creating a new art work.
>
MAybe, maybe not. But most of the people who are on the Net now, don't
have that expertise. I'll get them. And if I find too many people are
doing it, I won't distribute on the nNet. And if that means people
don't get to see my work - tough. I'll earn my living a different way.
--
Hecate
SapphicWench
Hec...@bigfoot.com
icq 59088833
P&E
Christine Krebs-Bonder
Littman) wrote:
>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
>operating for the time being.
>
>Thoughts?
After consideration and reading all the responses posted here I think
the copyright vs. Napster, et al. situation can be covered by the
following:
Nickola Tesla. George Melies [sic] (the creator of the silent film "A
Voyage to the Moon")
Telsa got ripped off by Edison and Marconi and God knows how many
other people when they stole his inventions. He died a pauper after
inventing most of the things that made the technology we are using to
communicate with possible. (I know, Spider says the same thing. Well,
dammit he right!) PATENT VIOLATION!
Thomas Edison sent people over to Europe to steal a copy of the film
"A Voyage to the Moon" and made hundreds of copies of it. Edison and
his backers made tons of money from the film while melies went
bankrupt. COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!
This is why there are patents, trademarks and copyrights.
Copyright is supposed to protect the artists/writers/creators by
giving them a legal way to gain redress when someone else uses their
work to make money or for personal gain (which could include making it
possible for the copier to not have to spend money).
I agree the record and book distributors end up with most of the money
but the only money the artist/author gets for his work is through
these entities. If the distributors don't get money, neither does the
artist. A system that reimburses the artist/author more equitably
would be better but we don't have it. I don't like hte idea of
removing the source of income to the artist just because you don't
like the distributor. You aren't hurting the distributor but you are
certainly hurting the artist/author.
The system needs ot be changed. OK, lets come up with not just an idea
of what a new system should be but ways that it could be implemented.
We grioe that we are sick of politicians saying they will do XYZ and
not saying how it is going to be accomplished, well it's time to put
up or shut up IMO. If we can present not just an idea but a method to
legislators and keep pushing it maybe it will be posible to protectthe
rights of artists and authors and not stuff the pockets of the
middlemen.
Christine and Micah =^..^=
dji...@boingydatasync.com
[]This is like saying, 'I own the CD, so it's okay to steal a cassette
[]of the same record.'
[]It's a copy made without the copyright holders' permission.
There are instances of no audio cassette beng made,
or being made in limited quantities.
As an example, I know that the Dr. Demento Society makes a limited
number of music tapes each for of the basement Tapes. The
other recordings of that music is on CD. This is the music
you get with a 1 year membership in the Dr. Demento Society.
A number of the music he plays is not available except
on vinyl, like 33s, 45s, and 78rmp records.
If I bought a 78 rpm record costing me large sums
of money, I certainly wouldn't destroy it
by playing the thing more than once. To make a copy
of it so I could listen to it and not wear it out.
From a money breakdown I saw some years ago, the artist
doesn't get much of the per record/tape/cd cost the customer pays.
I would have no problem with Napster being redone so that
artists got a significant percentage of subscription
monies for downloading. It would just mean fewer
record company execs would get to live the Good Life.
A Rock Group, sorry I forget the name, recorded a song
a number of years ago. I think it was Pink Floyd.
'Riding The Gravy Train' was the name of the song.
About such 'deals' the artist has to put up with.
D.J.
--
Spammers and junk emailers in jail !
djim55 at the datasync dotty com Disclaimer: Standard.
http://thinkmars.net/petition.html Leave out the boingy to email me !
my web pages: http://www.datasync.com/~djim55/newlnks.html
John Palmer
(ref: Redneck's posting)
What I always liked was the first license I ever saw for Turbo
Pascal (the copy I owned). (I'm *PRETTY* sure it was Turbo Pascal...)
It was, essentially, so long as it was used "like a book" (hidden
assumption: only one person can read the same physical book at the
same time), it was okay. You could make a thousand copies of it on a
thousand computers, so long as you ensured that at *NO* time,
whatsoever, did more than one person use it at once (or, equivalently,
did someone try to use it in two separate locations).
Under that idea (I don't know if that's the law, BTW), I could
make a tape of a CD, and use it so long as I was relatively sure that
the CD wasn't played at the same time. There is still only "one
copy", for all intents and purposes.
Record companies would like it to be (and may already have made
it to be) "Buying a record/tape/CD is buying a single media copy of
that music; if you tape the record, you're breaking the law!"
I don't think that's a good way to do things; I don't even really
think it's sensible. The one good thing about this and MP3 is MP3's
portability. Soon, it might not be a matter of "well, I don't have a
CD player in my car"; it *MIGHT* be a matter of "I have an MP3 copy, I
can play it (almost)anywhere there's music playing ability!"
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Once you pull the pin on Mr. Hand Grenade, he is no longer your friend.
dji...@boingydatasync.com
A business, like a supermarket, can subscribe to a certain number
of channels or to all of the channels. The local cable
tv company does this.
Craig Motbey
dji...@boingydatasync.com says...
<snip>
>A Rock Group, sorry I forget the name, recorded a song
>a number of years ago. I think it was Pink Floyd.
>'Riding The Gravy Train' was the name of the song.
>About such 'deals' the artist has to put up with.
It was Pink Floyd, from "Wish you were here". The actual song title
is "Have a cigar", though.
There's a fair few anti-record company songs around: Spiderbait's
"Buy me a pony" & the Dead Kennedy's "Pull my strings" spring to
mind. Any others?
--
Craig Motbey
al...@nospam.cornell.edu
In article <8m59p...@news2.newsguy.com>, "Buddha Buck" <bmb...@14850.com> wrote:
>In article <8m537g$9s3$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>
>> Boo -#!@#- hoo. Fair use. Your position is a bit like someone who
>> sells me a table and then says "but you can only use it to put the
>> things I want to let you put on it".
>
>It's not fair use...
>
>
>Converting an import VHS recording in PAL format to NTSC so you can watch
>it at home is not fair use. IMHO, it should be legal anyway -- as long
Bull. It might be an illegal use, but it is damned sure a fair one.
>None of the cases where you are making copies (or derivative works) for
>your own -personal- use are "fair use". I personally thought that they
>were legal anyway, just not under the guise of "fair use". I think that
>they -should- be legal, at least.
You are specifically permitted to make copies for your own use IIRC. Unless
the greedy bastards in charge of the record companies got that changed.
_Big_ part of the problem with trying to enforce copyright laws is that the
companies have gotten too greedy and have made them absurd. Once a law is
absurd many if not most people feel no compunction about dodging it.
al...@nospam.cornell.edu
In article <o0lcos87ggiru3v4b...@4ax.com>, Christine Krebs-Bonder <2ma...@dnaco.net> wrote:
Ah, that explains it. I was refering to a simple copy, not an illuminated
manuscript.
al...@nospam.cornell.edu
In article <6dlcosoesg5rrbjfj...@4ax.com>, Christine Krebs-Bonder <2ma...@dnaco.net> wrote:
>On 31 Jul 2000 17:14:10 -0500, Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt)
>wrote:
>
>snip
>>
>>Napster is not violating any copyright law. They are a party to it,
>>in that they allow people to contact each other and violate the law,
>>but they do not directly violate it themselves.
>>
>>>2. Whether or not we should infringe on Freedom of Speech because a
>>>new medium for data starage and exchange exists.
>>
>>Copyright infringement is not, and never has been, a freedom of speech
>>issue.
>>
>>>For the first part; Napster is certainly guilty of copyright
>>>violation, the real issue is how much responsibility they share with
>>>the users who were actually providing the stolen content.
>>
>>Aiding and abetting, perhaps, but not infringement.
>>
>snip
>
>
>Ummm, I don't know about elsewhere, but aiding and abetting in Ohio
>means you are guilty of the same crime as the person who actually
>stole or whatever.
Excellent. Let's bust the phone company execs for what Guido and Nuzio planned
over their phone lines. And the Postmaster General for the actions of the
Unabomber.
al...@nospam.cornell.edu
In article <3986791d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) wrote:
>
>(ref: Redneck's posting)
>
> What I always liked was the first license I ever saw for Turbo
>Pascal (the copy I owned). (I'm *PRETTY* sure it was Turbo Pascal...)
>
> It was, essentially, so long as it was used "like a book" (hidden
>assumption: only one person can read the same physical book at the
>same time), it was okay. You could make a thousand copies of it on a
>thousand computers, so long as you ensured that at *NO* time,
>whatsoever, did more than one person use it at once (or, equivalently,
>did someone try to use it in two separate locations).
Now that's fair. I can go along with that as being a reasonable restriction.
The jackasses writing the licences for software nowadays want you to have a
separate copy on the home and business computer, even if you never have them
on at the same time.
> Under that idea (I don't know if that's the law, BTW), I could
>make a tape of a CD, and use it so long as I was relatively sure that
>the CD wasn't played at the same time. There is still only "one
>copy", for all intents and purposes.
>
> Record companies would like it to be (and may already have made
>it to be) "Buying a record/tape/CD is buying a single media copy of
>that music; if you tape the record, you're breaking the law!"
Hell, they'd make you buy one copy for each CD player you plan to play it on
if they could get away with it.
Matthew T. Russotto
Christine Krebs-Bonder <2ma...@dnaco.net> wrote:
}On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:34:48 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam
}Littman) wrote:
}
}>The 9th circuit set aside the Judge's shutdown order for Napster, it will keep
}>operating for the time being.
}>
}>Thoughts?
}
}After consideration and reading all the responses posted here I think
}the copyright vs. Napster, et al. situation can be covered by the
}following:
}
}
}Nickola Tesla. George Melies [sic] (the creator of the silent film "A
}Voyage to the Moon")
}
}
}Telsa got ripped off by Edison and Marconi and God knows how many
}other people when they stole his inventions. He died a pauper after
}inventing most of the things that made the technology we are using to
}communicate with possible. (I know, Spider says the same thing. Well,
}dammit he right!) PATENT VIOLATION!
And was he protected? Clearly, not.
}Thomas Edison sent people over to Europe to steal a copy of the film
}"A Voyage to the Moon" and made hundreds of copies of it. Edison and
}his backers made tons of money from the film while melies went
}bankrupt. COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!
And was HE protected? Clearly, not.
Intellectual property law only protects the big guy. Since copyright
infringement in nearly all cases is a civil matter and not a criminal
one, you've got to hire a lawyer to go after a violator. Lots of
effort, lots of money up front, and the big guy probably has a team of
better lawyers.
In the biggest case where copyright violation IS a criminal matter,
again, it only helps the big guy. Because you have to make
illegitimate copies of something with a _retail_ value over $1000. So
give one illegitimate copy of AutoCad to a friend, and you can go to
prison and suffer the various indignities inflicted on you there.
Microsoft copies some of your code and sticks it in their OS, and Bill
Gates need not worry about his freedom or bodily integrity, only his wallet.
}would be better but we don't have it. I don't like hte idea of
}removing the source of income to the artist just because you don't
}like the distributor. You aren't hurting the distributor but you are
}certainly hurting the artist/author.
The distributors think they are being hurt -- they're screaming loudly
enough.
Matthew T. Russotto
<al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
}
}
}In article <8m59p...@news2.newsguy.com>, "Buddha Buck" <bmb...@14850.com> wrote:
}>In article <8m537g$9s3$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
}>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
}>
}>Converting an import VHS recording in PAL format to NTSC so you can watch
}>it at home is not fair use. IMHO, it should be legal anyway -- as long
}
}Bull. It might be an illegal use, but it is damned sure a fair one.
}
}>None of the cases where you are making copies (or derivative works) for
}>your own -personal- use are "fair use". I personally thought that they
}>were legal anyway, just not under the guise of "fair use". I think that
}>they -should- be legal, at least.
}
}You are specifically permitted to make copies for your own use IIRC. Unless
}the greedy bastards in charge of the record companies got that changed.
The specific exception is only for computer programs. For anything
else, you've got to muck around with fair use. Unless you're a
nonprofit or government organization, in which case there's another
whole raft of exceptions you can hide behind.
Leonard Erickson
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Said
red...@detnet.com (Kris Overstreet) writes:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:34:11 -0400, John Palmer
> <jpal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The record companies are being damaged, sure. . . but unless I'm
>>unaware of something in recording contracts, it's not unlike Heinlein's
>>first story. (In that story, a man discovers how to measure one's lifespan
>>by sending an energy pulse along their timeline and listening for an echo.
>>It damaged insurance companies no end, of course, and they sued him. The
>>inventor challenged that by saying if his invention was banned because it
>>hurt insurance companies, he'd start a gaslight company and sue the
>>electric company!) Yeah, they're hurt. . . new inventions make old
>>companies obselete all the time. Tough noogies, and all that.
>
> The problem is, the end of copyright makes songwriting, writing, and
> commercial art obsolete as well. Why should you pay for a copy of
> something when it's free?
>
> The sense I've gained from this discussion is that a majority of
> Callahanians believe copyright is wrong, or at the least that making
> money is a greater evil than copying another person's work. This
> saddens and frightens me no end, as it is a literal death sentence for
> both the avocations I practice.
That's not what I've seen. And *certainly* not what I advocate. I've
released a couple of shareware utilities, and gotten exactly *one*
payment ($5). I also released a "begware" ("this is free, if it's
useful, please send what you think it's worth") utility to fix a y2k
bug in some software. That one netted a $25 payment from one person.
<sigh>. BTW, the $5 utility took weeks to write. The bugfix util took
about 30 minutes... there ain't no justice... :-)
Anyway, you have to keep in mind that it's perfectly legal to have a
library that loans out copies of books you've written, as long as they
bought those copies. Likewise, it's legal for me to loan a book to a
friend.
So the copyright violations via napster are of only two types. First,
the person making a song available can use it at the same time as
someone accessing it via the net. Second, multiple people can access it
via the net at the same time.
I'm *not* counting the ability to keep a copy after accessing it,
because that's no different from making a copy of a borrowed CD. It's
illegal, but it's nothing new, nor is it "unique" to Napster.
So in essence the illegalities are in the mutiple usage of a single
copy of a work. Which is "fixable" by restricting the net access to one
person at a time.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
"No, I will _not_ move your planet... What do you want to move it _for_?
It's fine right where it is!"
-- Dairine Callahan, Wizard (no relation)
djohnson
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:47:55 GMT, kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard
>Erickson) wrote:
>
>>Specificly, you can use napster to access music you've legally
>>purchased, and copied onto your home system. An example that I saw on
>>several *national* news broadcasts was someone using it to play music
>>from his home system on the computer he was using at school.
>
>This is like saying, 'I own the CD, so it's okay to steal a cassette
>of the same record.'
>
>It's a copy made without the copyright holders' permission.
It's ok to MAKE a copy, for your own use. The record and/or software
companies tried to make this illegal, and failed. It may be illegal
to use both copies at once. Without Napster, I'd still have a large
MP3 collection, made from my old vinyl albums.
>
>>This is *just* as legal as making copies of rare tapes to save wear and
>>tear, or to play in your walkman. And note that the record industry has
>>been trying to claim that both that and making "custom mix" tapes of CD
>>of stuff you've bought are illegal. And have been doing so for years.
>
>Do you make spare copies of books to save wear and tear? Of comics? Of
>posters?
>
No, but that's because it's easier to buy another. I probably would
if I had an irreplaceable copy, and still wanted to read it
occasionally.
>>Yes, with modern technology it's a lot harder to track down the folks
>>making illegal copies. But that *doesn't* mean they get to charge the
>>rest of us for our perfectly *legal* copying for personal use.
>
>None of the examples you've given are, in my opinion, legal- only less
>damaging than Napster.
I'll agree that most uses of Napster are illegal. It does, however
have legitimate uses, and I don't think it's possible to separate
them. If potential illegal use makes software illegal, prepare to
give up any newsreader that can deal with attachments or uucode--The
vast majority of Usenet (at least bytewise, and probably in downloads)
is devoted to redistribution of copyrighted pictures and music. All
you do is legitimate discussion? Sorry...
>
>>Anyway, first with DAT, and now with MP3s, the *real* agenda is to
>>prevent low cost distribution of *good* copies that *don't* have to go
>>thru the major record companies.
>
>But the other side of the dispute isn't ending the distribution
>bottleneck, it's government protection of bootlegging. It's an end to
>the very basis of copyright- that a creator has the right to control
>the distribution of their work. It severely hampers, and may even
>destroy, the ability of artists to make a living.
It will reduce the ability of major recording artists (and record
companies) to make huge amounts of money. It won't take away from
live performances, so it will make it easier for up and coming bands
to quit their day jobs and survive performing.
Unfortunately, I don't see a parallel for authors--A Napster-like
system is likely to cause serious problems there. That's most likely
what's preventing publishers from embracing e-books.
>
>Of course, publishers can continue as before- they don't even have to
>trouble with the expense of paying creators for their work anymore.
>
They do now? Look up Courtney Love's article in Salon. Record
companies have a nearly inexhaustible supply of eager talent.
Talented artists are unlikely to be able to do well negotiating
against experienced industry lawyers and executives. The industry
uses the possibility of becoming famous to abuse the new artists into
accepting ridiculous contract terms, even though the odds are similar
to the lottery. (The lottery is probably better, if you factor in the
difference in effort between buying a lottery ticket, and the effort
involved in starting a band)
>
>>MP3 got established before the recording industry caught on. And now
>>they are faced with a technology that can let artists ignore them and
>>sell directly. OF COURSE they'll fight it. And, as usual, the piracy
>>that does go on provides a good excuse.
>
>Except that, in general, it's NOT ARTISTS who are using Napster- it's
>computer users who want to swap songs and get new songs without paying
>anything for them.
>
I'd love to have the opportunity to be able to pay something
reasonable for songs, if the artists were benefiting. If whoever it
is wants to charge $1 per song, (likely, considering the price of a
CD), I'll listen to the radio. If they charge a dime and make it easy
to pay, I'll probably get a couple of songs a day.
>>An interesting news item from the other night applies here. Seems that
>>the folks downloading stuff tend to *buy* more music than the folks who
>>don't.
>
>How many of the people who don't use Napster don't buy any music at
>all? It's not a good comparison; the people using Napster like music
>and seek it out, whereas there are many people who don't give a damn
>about most music and so almost never buy any recordings of anything.
>
I've seen reports that overall record sales have gone up since
Napster. Too early to tell, and the people with money enough to do
detailed surveys all have a bias in one direction or the other.
I want artists to be able to make a living. I suspect that there is a
relatively fixed amount of money people will spend on art (music,
books, etc), and there's at least the possibility that new forms of
distribution will get more of that money to artists and less to
corporations. It may be possible to stop Napster, but right or wrong,
it's not possible to stop napster-like distribution. Music will
survive, even if the recording industry doesn't. Publishing will be
more difficult, and I don't know what the solution is for the
inevitable Napster-like distribution for written material.
--
Take my advice--I'm not using it.
Matthew T. Russotto
Leonard Erickson <kal...@krypton.rain.com> wrote:
}
}So the copyright violations via napster are of only two types. First,
}the person making a song available can use it at the same time as
}someone accessing it via the net. Second, multiple people can access it
}via the net at the same time.
There's tons of violations involved in Napster. Every copy made along
the way from the provider to the user, including the original MP3, is
a copyright violation.
Kris Overstreet
Littman) wrote:
>>The problem is, the end of copyright makes songwriting, writing, and
>>commercial art obsolete as well. Why should you pay for a copy of
>>something when it's free?
>
>No it doesn't. It just means that a new system has to be developed to deal
>with intellectual property. Keep the commercial exploitation private, but make
>a system for cheap online copying that pays the authors. In case you hadn't
>realized, CD sales are up since Napster.
Commercial exploitation is -impossible- without copyright, which is
the very heart of the Napster issue.
>These days, with the internet, distribution is cheaper than dirt. The tech
>make a system possible where the principle expense is just making one
>recording. If such a system gets set up it could be a great boon for artists
>and authors as it cuts down on the necessity for a middleman. No more stories
>like Billy Joel getting $7k for "the Piano Man".
No, more like Billy Joel getting paid -nothing- for 'the Piano Man.'
If copies may be made freely (a la Napster), then why should anyone
pay for any song?
>Most of the price of a CD these days goes to the record stores, and the
>record companies. I think most people would willingly pay an amount equal to
>the artists' cut.
Depends- compared to paying -nothing?-
This case is NOT the People v. the RIAA. It's the RIAA against a group
of people who set up a clearing-house for bootleg MP3s.
The issue is not about hurting the record companies, it's about what
is best for owners of copyright. In my view, if Napster wins, RIAA
will be hurt, but not nearly as much as the songwriters and performers
of the music industry, whose creative control and financial security
will be gone forever.
>>I'm sorry, but I'm foursquare against Napster and all its friends.
>
>And King Kanute was foursquare against the tide. Deal with what is. It's like
>Capitalism versus Communism. Many people are greedy, lazy, selfish bastards,
>Communism tries to work by denying and fighting that. Capitalism works by
>harnessing those powerful drives.
Funny. Since you're advocating the elimination of ownership rights to
intellectual media, here I thought you were the Communist.
>Artists and authors can either try to stop the tide coming in, shut down
>Napster type systems and try to deal with Gnutella like systems as best they
>can. And lose.
>
>Or they can adapt to the new technology, and probably do far better in the
>process.
Or they can quit so they can pay the bills, which seems most likely.
Napster can only win if the Court finds that what they're doing-
assisting the copying and distribution of copyrighted material- is not
illegal. If this is the ruling, then copyright is dead. Publishers
don't need copyright to exist, although it helps a lot, but creators
CANNOT make a living without copyright protection. Without copyright
protection, there is no incentive to pay a creator for his work save
perhaps honesty- and honesty is, in human nature, a very frail thing
to rely on.
Redneck
Kris Overstreet
T. Russotto) wrote:
>In article <3985f5e6...@news.detnet.com>,
>Kris Overstreet <red...@detnet.com> wrote:
>}
>}The problem is, the end of copyright makes songwriting, writing, and
>}commercial art obsolete as well. Why should you pay for a copy of
>}something when it's free?
>
>No worry, they'll still be commercial art, if only for advertising.
Take it from someone who's had several friends' art used for
advertising without permission- 'tain't necessarily so.
>}The sense I've gained from this discussion is that a majority of
>}Callahanians believe copyright is wrong, or at the least that making
>}money is a greater evil than copying another person's work. This
>}saddens and frightens me no end, as it is a literal death sentence for
>}both the avocations I practice.
>
>Copyright isn't wrong. Many relatively recent extensions and
>additions to it are -- and they've poisoned the whole concept.
>Copyright was only a right to copy. Not a right to force VCR and DAT
>manufacturers to prevent copying. Not a right to toss people in jail
>if they remove your irritating protection scheme. Not a right to go
>into businesses and blackmail them for playing the radio where too
>many people can hear it. Not a right to demand payment for sale of
>blank media. Now, copyright is all those things and more.
What good is a right to copy if other people don't have it?
Copyright isn't a right to copy, it's a right to CONTROL when and how
something is copied.
The recording industry has gone too far in the pursuit of their own
interests, but on this issue I believe they stand in the moral right-
Napster and other related services pose a direct and immediate threat
to the copyrights of thousands, if not millions, of creators.
>Personally, I think some of those things -- along with the high cost
>of legitimate copies, of course -- are the reason there's little
>public outcry against Napster. As a certain princess once
>remarked, the record companies tightened their grip, and now things
>are slipping through their fingers.
The reason there's little public outcry against Napster is people like
getting things for free.
>}I'm sorry, but I'm foursquare against Napster and all its friends.
>
>The government and the record industry together don't have enough
>thugs to stop them all. They'll be reduced to making gruesome
>examples of the few people they can go after (making themselves even
>more unpopular), while the rest proceed unhindered.
If this is true, then I'm out of business.
Redneck
Leonard Erickson
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Said
jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) writes:
>
> (ref: Redneck's posting)
>
> What I always liked was the first license I ever saw for Turbo
> Pascal (the copy I owned). (I'm *PRETTY* sure it was Turbo Pascal...)
>
> It was, essentially, so long as it was used "like a book" (hidden
> assumption: only one person can read the same physical book at the
> same time), it was okay. You could make a thousand copies of it on a
> thousand computers, so long as you ensured that at *NO* time,
> whatsoever, did more than one person use it at once (or, equivalently,
> did someone try to use it in two separate locations).
Yeah, we installed it on the LAN where I was working and had some
software that did rudimentary usage tracking. As I recall, we never
hity the point where we had more users than licenses, mostly because we
had people wanting a copy of the *manual*. :-)
We did restrict which users had access.
> Under that idea (I don't know if that's the law, BTW), I could
> make a tape of a CD, and use it so long as I was relatively sure that
> the CD wasn't played at the same time. There is still only "one
> copy", for all intents and purposes.
It's legal to do that, the courts allow you to make extra copies for
your own use.
> Record companies would like it to be (and may already have made
> it to be) "Buying a record/tape/CD is buying a single media copy of
> that music; if you tape the record, you're breaking the law!"
Yep. Software companies are much the same way. Most of the verbiage in
those "license agreements" is an attempt to get around the parts of
copyright law that govern the *users* rights.
> I don't think that's a good way to do things; I don't even really
> think it's sensible.
It's not. It's aimed at maximing the record company's profits. If we
manage to avoid getting stupid laws passed, we may see the days when
most music is marketed over the web, with an eye to maximizing the
royalties to the artists.
And like Turbo Pascal, the results are apt to be *much* cheaper music.
Kris Overstreet
Littman) wrote:
>>>Specificly, you can use napster to access music you've legally
>>>purchased, and copied onto your home system. An example that I saw on
>>>several *national* news broadcasts was someone using it to play music
>>>from his home system on the computer he was using at school.
>>
>>This is like saying, 'I own the CD, so it's okay to steal a cassette
>>of the same record.'
>
>Bullshit. If I steal a cassette of the same record then the owner can't use it
>any more, or if a store, can't sell it. If I listen to an MP3 at school of a
>CD sitting on a shelf at home no one is harmed by that action.
>
>Nice try, but that is just a false analogy.
No, it's not: that copy you made is one less copy sold by the store
owners, record companies, artists, etc.
>>It's a copy made without the copyright holders' permission.
>
>Boo -#!@#- hoo. Fair use. Your position is a bit like someone who sells me a
>table and then says "but you can only use it to put the things I want to let
>you put on it".
That's one of the more absurd cases of apples-and-oranges reasoning
I've ever heard.
>I benefit from the labor of the construction workers who built the apartment I
>rent, they don't get paid over and over for 130 years after they finish the
>job, why should musicians and authors?
Because, unlike the construction workers, they were not paid piecework
to compose and record songs. Unlike those construction workers, they
brought a new -idea- into the world, an abstract concept with no
practical use or value except the enjoyment others derive from it. As
abstract concepts, unlike tangible goods, can be copied and
distributed merely by word of mouth, the only way that musicians and
authors can realize any income from their work is some guarantee that
they own that which they have produced.
>>Do you make spare copies of books to save wear and tear? Of comics? Of
>>posters?
>
>My father has books over 500 years old. Think an audio tape is going to last
>even half that long?
No, but then most books don't last nearly that long either.
>You are like those extremist nuts at PETA. Your position is so extreme that
>you end up alienating entirely the people who might support a more reasonable
>position closer to what you want.
What am I supposed to say? Petty theft is okay, but let's stop at
grand larceny?
Theft is theft, and violation of copyright -is- theft.
>>But the other side of the dispute isn't ending the distribution
>>bottleneck, it's government protection of bootlegging. It's an end to
>>the very basis of copyright- that a creator has the right to control
>>the distribution of their work. It severely hampers, and may even
>>destroy, the ability of artists to make a living.
>
>Not that many whale oil lamp factories these days. I guess Edison destroyed
>the ability of whale oil lamp makers to make a living.
So writing for profit, singing for profit, etc. is dead in your view.
>Artists made a living before mass production made copyright possible and they
>will still make a living after individual production makes copyright obsolete.
No, not much of one; most authors, writers and artists lived in
poverty, realizing very little money from their creations, up to the
late ninteenth century. Even today, it takes great effort, skill and
luck to make a living from writing, drawing, or singing, but it can be
done, thanks in great part to the legal guarantee that the artists
will actually get PAID for their work.
>>Of course, publishers can continue as before- they don't even have to
>>trouble with the expense of paying creators for their work anymore.
>
>Not hardly. Publishers are screwed and they know it. People who would happily
>pay authors and artists for their work will balk at paying greedy middlemen.
>When any skilled programmer can set up a system of sharing like Gnuttella the
>on-line distribution costs approach zero. Publishers will still lose out to
>on-line freebies.
There will always be a market for non-online editions of creative
works. The problem is, without copyright in effect, publishers no
longer have to respect the rights of the artist- they can grab a copy
of their work, turn out mass quantities, and sell as they like without
paying anything to the creator.
>Things will go on as they have. With commercial publication protected and
>individual copying unchecked.
Except for Napster to win, commercial publication has to have its
protection revoked.
>>Except that, in general, it's NOT ARTISTS who are using Napster- it's
>>computer users who want to swap songs and get new songs without paying
>>anything for them.
>
>Yeah, almost like listening to the radio.
Listening to a radio that pays nothing to the creators and gives you
not a single performance, but a copy of the song for your very own.
It isn't even close to the same thing.
Redneck