|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 162 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 25 of 162:
| 
Jul 1 13:32 UTC 2003 |
I think partly, too, they got hooked on the big spike in revenue that
happened when people switched from CD to LP and bought new copies of all
the music they already owned. Now that's gone, and in spite of casting
about a bit they haven't found a format that will let them do that again.
|
gull
|
|
response 26 of 162:
|
Jul 1 13:32 UTC 2003 |
Err, I meant switched from LP to CD up there, of course.
|
flem
|
|
response 27 of 162:
|
Jul 1 14:35 UTC 2003 |
No evidence that RIAA is damaged by file swappers? What do you mean? They
commissioned studies themselves proving huge damages!
</sarcasm>
|
jazz
|
|
response 28 of 162:
|
Jul 1 14:43 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, their record sales should've skyrocketed, despite declining
quality.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 29 of 162:
|
Jul 6 01:20 UTC 2003 |
I don't know whether they archive their programs for any length of time,
but on July 4th the Minnesota Public Radio program "Marketplace", which
is syndicated on many public stations, had a quite good piece about
several musicians who have successfully opted out of the major-label
system. As I recall it was at the end of the program. Also, they
mentioned that their web site would have additional links to the
musicians interviewed and their music.
|
coolnet
|
|
response 30 of 162:
|
Jul 8 21:36 UTC 2003 |
what IS the best and secure P2P program.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 162:
|
Jul 9 14:02 UTC 2003 |
I don't know which is the most secure. I've been using WinMX, which at
least doesn't come with any spyware.
|
krj
|
|
response 32 of 162:
|
Jul 9 18:36 UTC 2003 |
There's much discussion of how one would run a "private" or "anonymous"
P2P program in the wake of the RIAA's threats to start handing out
lawsuits next month. Blubster issued a press release, and so on,
forgive me for not having any links handy. From my reading of the
P2P news pages, it seems that most systems are focusing on eliminating
the ability to gather a list of all files being offered at a
particular IP address.
This was originally a feature of Napster, IIRC; the idea was that
if you discovered that user Jane Doe at a certain address offered a
Metallica song file you liked, you might be interested in seeing
what else Jane Doe liked.
However, this feature also allows the RIAA and others to look for
who is offering the biggest file collections online, and so now
it's being removed.
I don't see how complete P2P anonymity is possible, outside of a
system like Ian Clarke's "Freenet." Even there, one can probably
determine the IP address serving up a particular piece of a file.
But removing the ability to search for large collections online
makes the RIAA's lawsuit plans much more of a crapshoot, in public
relations terms.
|
krj
|
|
response 33 of 162:
|
Jul 9 18:45 UTC 2003 |
Ah, and here's today's article on this very subject, from Cnet
and Declan McCullagh:
"P2P's Little Secret"
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-1023735.html?tag=cd_mh
|
krj
|
|
response 34 of 162:
|
Jul 14 17:18 UTC 2003 |
From today's New York Times:
"Harry Potter and the Internet Pirates"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/technology/14BOOK.html
The most recent Harry Potter book is being put online by fans.
As the book is not originally available in digital form, those
posting it to the net are scanning it (tedious) or participating
in group typing projects (even more tedious).
Non-english-speakers who are too impatient to wait for authorized
translations are getting their own versions in their home languages
prepared and posted to the Internet.
The NYT article does not attempt to explore the motivations behind
this gift economy, but it is one of the better explorations of the
concept I've seen.
|
janc
|
|
response 35 of 162:
|
Jul 15 00:39 UTC 2003 |
If I borrow a copy of the book from my next door neighbor, would that be a
crime too? So many of the things have been printed, that I suspect that
anyone who wants to read it could pretty easily borrow it someplace. Where
is the line?
|
slynne
|
|
response 36 of 162:
|
Jul 15 16:17 UTC 2003 |
I have a feeling that if publishers thought they could prevent the
borrowing of books (or the resale of books), they would certainly try
to do that.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 37 of 162:
|
Jul 15 18:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 38 of 162:
|
Jul 15 19:08 UTC 2003 |
OH man, I sold my text books back after writing "fuck you" in them.
While I thought that significantly added to the text, I suppose the
authors might disagree. HAW!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 39 of 162:
|
Jul 15 20:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 40 of 162:
|
Jul 15 20:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 162:
|
Jul 16 14:07 UTC 2003 |
If books were a more recent invention, borrowing them probably would be
restricted. Video rental stores pay a *lot* more to buy movies than you
pay for your own copy.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 42 of 162:
|
Jul 16 22:45 UTC 2003 |
Reading about Columba, patron saint of Scotland, was it? people had
some stiff feelings about books in ancient times-- they didn't like
folks copying them.
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 162:
|
Jul 17 13:38 UTC 2003 |
DirecTV is taking an anti-piracy stand that borders on extortion.
There's a good article about it here:
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6402
Basically, if you've bought a smart card reader in the past from one of
the businesses they've busted, they assume you're pirating their signal
without any other evidence. They send you a letter demanding that you
send them the reader along with $3500, or they'll file criminal charges
against you. If you ignore the letter, they file the charges and then
offer to settle again for $10,000 -- a lot of money, but still less than
defending yourself in court against a behemoth like DirecTV.
So far pretty much everyone has paid up. A class action suit in Los
Angeles accusing them of extortion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs
were ordered to pay $100,000 in legal fees to DirecTV in addition to the
money DirecTV had already asked for. Only a handful of cases have gone
against them; one case in Michigan ended in a summary judgement against
DirecTV when it was discovered that the defendent didn't own a satellite
dish, for example. But of course the trick here is that the money
they're asking for isn't quite enough to make defending yourself worth
it -- it's cheaper to just pay up.
|
gull
|
|
response 44 of 162:
|
Jul 17 14:09 UTC 2003 |
A brief news item. Apparently Rep. Howard Berman is sponsoring
legislation that could result in jail time for trading as little as one
MP3 on the Internet. Details are pretty sketchy and it's unlikely that
this will go anywhere.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31800.html
|
slynne
|
|
response 45 of 162:
|
Jul 17 15:26 UTC 2003 |
So the moral of the story is to pay cash!
|
goose
|
|
response 46 of 162:
|
Jul 18 03:57 UTC 2003 |
RE#43 -- That's a Smartcard *Programmer*, not a reader that DirecTV is going
mad over.
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 162:
|
Jul 18 13:39 UTC 2003 |
Yes, you're right. That was my mistake when typing my summary.
|
krj
|
|
response 48 of 162:
|
Jul 19 15:49 UTC 2003 |
"The music industry has won at least 871 federal subpoenas against
computer users suspected of illegally sharing music files on the
Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day,
U.S. court officials said Friday."
...
"The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court
in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced
to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to
help process paperwork..."
From the associated press via Slashdot:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92351,00.html
|
krj
|
|
response 49 of 162:
|
Jul 21 18:30 UTC 2003 |
This afternoon I stumbled across some late June - early July reports
of European copy-protected CDs causing physical damage to consumer
equipment. Everything is very rumorish. Mike Oldfield's
"Tubular Bells 2003" album has been singled out for particular
concern. I dunno, see what you think:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/10/181528/569
http://ukcdr.org/issues/cd/docs/damage.shtml
http://www.rcarter.34sp.com/oldfield/tubularbells2003.html
|
