response 26 of 54:

May 19 01:38 UTC 1999

Re #24:  I'm not sure I'd trust Wired's reporting on this...their journalism
has a strong yellow tint to it.

Still, the theme lately seems to be big industry associations trying
desperately to protect archaic ways of doing business.  The National
Association of Broadcasters, at one point, was pushing for a law that would
prevent anyone from streaming more than 10 seconds of continuous video on
the Internet.

response 28 of 54:

May 22 13:30 UTC 1999

Yes, and the MP3 format is popular all over the world, not just in America.

BTW, I just downloaded and paid for a really nice MP3 software the other
day... it came recommended at MP3.com as "the only MP3 software you'll ever
need".. it rips MP3's and Real Audio direct from CD-ROM, it'll convert WAV's
to MP3's and back again, has a nice library function, good interface, etc..
well worth the $29.95 I paid for it 1 hour after downloading the "trial
version" (which is limited to recording only 5 songs).

Fat Amy will soon be making one of their old albums available through
MP3.com's "DAM" program.  What we do is upload MP3's to their system, making
(at least) one "freely available".  Then we set a price between $4.99 and
$9.99 (Fat Amy has decided on $6.99).  And when someone orders it, MP3.com
will burn a fresh copy of it, include a jewel case and some rudimentary
artwork, and send Fat Amy a check for 50% of the sales price.

Of course, we're not expecting that anyone who isn't already a Fat Amy fan
will buy it, but the album has been unavailable for 2 years now and there are
a lot of Fat Amy fans who have been asking for the CD.  Not enough to warrant
going out and printing 1000 more CD's or anything, but this should definately
appease those who really want the album.

response 30 of 54:

May 30 15:07 UTC 1999

"They" have contracted with a software company to make the digital file
playable two times for free then, somehow, it becomes unplayable junk.

The Fat Amy example is a perfect example of how new technology allows easier
entry into the market.  A tiny group like Fat Amy can satisfy their tiny
following by going the MP3.com route of 1-offs, singly produced CD's.

Remember, just because someone else's work is easy to copy and therefore
steal, does not mean that it is easy to justify.  You are allowed to make
copies of stuff for personal use, but to make copies for re-sale is wicked
and evil.  Stealing for commercial purposes, for commercial re-sale is
considered 1st degree theft, the most treacherous type of theft.  The theif
may not get caught right away, but will not go unpunished.

Think how intellectual property production (music, writing, artwork) would
flounder if only one copy of the original were purchased from the artist,
writer or musician, and all subsequent copies were made with authorization
by the artist and with recompense to the artist.  Who would want to make a
career of being an artist if there were no protections for their work?

The impact of the Internet on the music industry, the telephone industry, the
broadcast industry, the advertising industry is to eliminate tyrannical
control of these industries.  The Internet has reduced barriers to entry, and
as a result, I think we will see less arrogance from those who erected those
barriers.

response 32 of 54:

May 30 15:31 UTC 1999

I have decided to weigh in *against* having the concept of "intellectual
property" in the law.

Yes, this would tend to slow down the processes of creation of art,
entertainment, and technology. However:

* The music and movies and such aren't exactly blue chip stock;

* It's my observation that technology tends to undermine freedom - both
  through responses to people misusing the tech (cars, guns, etc.) and
  by giving the powers that be more effective tools in imposing their
  mandates.

Technology is a useful thing to have around. But I am not willing to support
the feedback loop of undermining freedom to promote something that tends to
undermine freedom.

New stuff would still be written and invented. It would just go a bit slower,
and have a slightly different set of motivations behind it.

response 34 of 54:

May 30 18:50 UTC 1999

Contract performance would provide some pay - if you want live music, a
program that fills your specific need, etc., you have to pay for it.  The
free recordings, especially, might tend to be pretty poor if the band,
studio, etc. got paid the $ame (zilch) whatever the quality of the product 
(especially if the band thought too much good recorded stuff would undercut
their live shows).  

On the flip side, where would all the benefits flow if the stuff was free?

response 36 of 54:

May 31 03:16 UTC 1999

Fat Amy's "tiny market" sold nearly 3,000 copies of that CD over the 
course of time.  But the demand died down a while ago and they didn't 
want to spend the $$$ to print any more, so this was a perfect outlet 
for the relatively tiny "remaining" market of people who still want the 
album.

The good news of exposure for little Fat Amy on MP3.com is that in the 5 
days since I posted "Purple" to the site, it has risen through the ranks 
and yesterday was the #1 most popular song in "Power Pop" with 70 
previews and 25 downloads (which also qualified it for #10 in 
alternative).

http://www.mp3.com/fatamy/

response 38 of 54:

Jun 2 17:32 UTC 1999

So what you're saying is that the publishers have a very skewed idea of the
real economics of their product?
 At the $16 list price of CD's , I buy few.  I wait until I can get them
for $6 thru the mail.  I haven't practiced any 'price spreading' myself,
although in the old days of LPs and reel-to-reel tape recorders, my music
collection was augmented by wholesale swaps of LP stacks during vacations,
so I guess this could be construed as 'price spreading' thru barter.

  I've heard it said that the old LP's cost about $3 to produce, and sold
for $6, while CD's cost $.60 to produce, and sell for $16.  If the
publishers weren't so greedy, and accepted the same 100% markup, there's be
little incentive for end-user copying, and the publishers would see much
closer to their entire market.

response 40 of 54:

Jun 2 19:53 UTC 1999

I think the unpopularity of books relates more to the fact that people 
want less involved forms of entertainment than to the difficulty of 
being copied.

response 42 of 54:

Jun 4 04:01 UTC 1999

I have a freind who is selling CD of the Pahntom Menace for the cost of 2 CD.
It axctually plays rether well on his computer.

response 44 of 54:

Jun 4 21:22 UTC 1999

        And they have stiff fines.  It's like being fined $20,000 for stealing
a slice of bread.

response 46 of 54:

Jun 18 20:20 UTC 1999

Various MP3 stories continue to pour out: www.mp3.com's news pages 
are, as always, a good place to start looking, as is Wired's continuing
Mp3 coverage at:  
  http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/mpthree/
 
The RIAA's lawsuit against the Diamond Rio portable MP3 player was 
thrown out by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.    The appeals 
court judge ruling upheld the trial court's ruling that the Rio 
is not a "digital audio recording device" as defined by the 
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, and thus is not covered by that act.

The first round of the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) 
specifications are nearly done, but not released.  
Phase I SDMI equipment will play MP3 files; a future Phase II 
will not.  The SDMI people are racing a June 30 deadline to get 
their specifications to the hardware industry.

   (In other words, SDMI plans to be a parasite on the distributed 
    base of MP3 recordings, and then plans to turn around and try 
    to destroy the utility of those recordings at a later time.)

John Perry Barlow, a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
and a Grateful Dead lyricist, was the keynote speaker at a recent MP3
meeting and he had some harsh words for the RIAA, comparing their 
tactics against the MP3 file format to the War on Drugs.  
"((Music publishers)) insist that they still own 
most of the music in the world.  I think music is the common 
property of humanity."

"To fight SDMI, the EFF has founded the Consortium for Audiovisual 
Free Expression, aimed at preserving freedom of expression from 
copyright protection, he said."

  http://www.eff.org/cafe/

response 48 of 54:

Jul 15 04:27 UTC 1999

  <sigh>

  I agree completely.  The PTO people just aren't up to the task of
  making reasonable decisions in the computer age.  Complicating matters
  further, patent law has been applied to computer algorithms as the best
  fit among the various types of intellectual property protections that
  existed in law at the time it became an issue but "best fit" doesn't 
  mean "good fit"