|
Grex > Oldmusic > #197: The Twenty-First "Napsterization" Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
The Twenty-First "Napsterization" Item
| 
Jun 25 03:28 UTC 2005 |
The usual canned introduction:
The original Napster corporation has been destroyed, its trademarks
now owned by an authorized music retailer which does not use peer-to-peer
technology. But the Napster paradigm, in which computers and networks
give ordinary people unprecedented control over content, continues.
This is another quarterly installment in a series of weblog and
discussion about the deconstruction of the music industry and other
copyright industries, with side forays into "intellectual property,
freedom of expression, electronic media, corporate control, and evolving
technology," as polygon once phrased it.
Several years of back items are easily found in the music2 and music3
conferences, covering discussions all the way back to the initial
popularity of the MP3 format.
|
| 13 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 13:
|
Jun 25 03:34 UTC 2005 |
While we wait for the Supreme Court to deliver its decision in the
Grokster case, I'll just play link monkey and paste in a few clips.
-----
Slashdot reviews a new book: DARKNET: HOLLYWOOD'S WAR ON THE DIGITAL
GENERATION.
http://books.slashdot.org/books/05/06/22/1921203.shtml?tid=186&tid=95&tid=1
03&tid=192&tid=6
The author of the book has a blog at http://www.darknet.com
-----
The BBC reports on an academic study in support of my argument that
the concept of intellectual property lacks the moral strength of the
prohibition against the taking of physical property:
> "Campaigns to persuade people to stop downloading pirated games or
> software from the internet are not working, a report suggests.
> Two UK university researchers found that people did not see
> downloading copyrighted material as theft."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4122624.stm
|
mcnally
|
|
response 2 of 13:
|
Jun 25 04:38 UTC 2005 |
With an intro like that, I think you really need to format it as a
Star-Wars-type expanding crawl.. e.g.:
The original Napster corporation has been destroyed,
its trademarks now owned by an authorized music
retailer which does not use peer-to-peer
technology. But the Napster paradigm,
in which computers and networks
give ordinary people unpre-
cedented control over
content, continues.
|
naftee
|
|
response 3 of 13:
|
Jun 25 15:51 UTC 2005 |
krj ! you should re-post my item about p2p in canada, since nobody responded
to it !
|
aruba
|
|
response 4 of 13:
|
Jun 26 12:52 UTC 2005 |
re #2: <g>
|
gull
|
|
response 5 of 13:
|
Jun 27 19:41 UTC 2005 |
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against Grokster:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s02-usju.html?s=rss
"...the high court ruled 9 to 0 that technology companies that
distribute products with intent to cause copyright infringement can be
held responsible. "One who distributes a device with the object of
promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting
acts of infringement by third parties using the device," writes Justice
David Souter for the court."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 6 of 13:
|
Jun 27 20:42 UTC 2005 |
Sell your stock in CD-RW, DVD+-RW, and VCR makers and in computer
software companies like Roxio now!
|
mcnally
|
|
response 7 of 13:
|
Jun 27 20:43 UTC 2005 |
Seriously, though, that's a pretty sweeping test on its face.
The accepted wisdom on the ruling so far seems to be that "with
the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright" is the key
phrase, but what, exactly, will the courts hold that to mean?
|
gull
|
|
response 8 of 13:
|
Jun 28 15:20 UTC 2005 |
The main result, in the short term, of both this decision and the two
Ten Commandments decisions will be to ensure ample employment for
lawyers. They both involve tests that hinge on pretty subjective criteria.
It could have been worse, though. The Court didn't overturn the Betamax
decision, which is what the media interests were really pushing for.
|
mary
|
|
response 9 of 13:
|
Jun 28 16:17 UTC 2005 |
I thought the Ten Commandments decision was correct. It's all in the
context and the intention. I would hate to see every piece of artwork
declared unfit for public space if it included any reference to religion.
Yet something installed in place like a public courthouse, with the
intention of endorsing a specific god or religion, should not be
tolerated. There will be battles on specific instances, but that's okay.
|
twenex
|
|
response 10 of 13:
|
Jun 28 17:36 UTC 2005 |
Re: #8. I think there'd be plenty mileage for lawyers even without these two
decisions. Consider this: Groklaw has just posted evidence from dmr that SCO's
case is utterly groundless. The SCO case is still going on, but the evidence to
which I refer was presented *a year ago if not more*.
|
priapo
|
|
response 11 of 13:
|
Sep 14 10:04 UTC 2005 |
Don't give spammers ideas McNally or we'll begin to receive viagra mails in
ascii art....... er, hmm it seems they already do it ;)
http://www.petercooper.co.uk/archives/000664.html
I have already received some messages like these in my mail account.
Regards
~ Priapo
|
krj
|
|
response 12 of 13:
|
Sep 15 00:54 UTC 2005 |
Here's a report on Big Champagne's measurements of the number of
P2P users. I'd love to know how these are calculated.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/#091405p2p
According to Big Champagne, in August 2005, the number of "average
simultaneous users" of file sharing systems was just under 7 million
for the USA, or just under 10 million globally.
The US figure is up 41% over the August 2004 number.
|
naftee
|
|
response 13 of 13:
|
Sep 15 00:56 UTC 2005 |
unlucky
|