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.
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
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.
krj ! you should re-post my item about p2p in canada, since nobody responded to it !
re #2: <g>
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."
Sell your stock in CD-RW, DVD+-RW, and VCR makers and in computer software companies like Roxio now!
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?
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.
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.
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*.
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
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.
unlucky
You have several choices: