|
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
The Eighteenth "Napster" Item
| 
Apr 11 07:00 UTC 2004 |
Napster the original corporation has been destroyed, its trademarks
now owned by an authorized music retailer. But the Napster
paradigm, in which computers and networks give ordinary people
unprecedented control over intellectual property, 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.
|
| 72 responses total. |
starship
|
|
response 1 of 72:
|
Apr 11 12:36 UTC 2004 |
Yes, its illigal. But, coping music off the internet isnt REALLY as bad as
the music industry makes it sound. They are all just power and money hogs that
wouldnt give a shit if a person at a lower position then them died, as long
as they didin't make any money. They've got plenty of cash, and i don't really
think it would affect the music writers or producers much if they lost just
a bit of it to those in a lesser position.
Pardon me if I'm wrong but thats just my opinion.
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 72:
|
Apr 11 15:18 UTC 2004 |
Yes, you're wrong. Copying music off the internet, per se, is not
illegal.
|
starship
|
|
response 3 of 72:
|
Apr 11 17:54 UTC 2004 |
uhh yah... all those people that have been sued cause the d/l'd music off the
internet kinda should tell u its illigal
|
starship
|
|
response 4 of 72:
|
Apr 11 17:56 UTC 2004 |
plus im sorry, i know people in the music industry arent evil people, i just
kinda exaggerated it. I just think that their making it seem ALOT bigger a
deal than d/ling music off the internet is.
|
krj
|
|
response 5 of 72:
|
Apr 11 19:29 UTC 2004 |
There's been a bunch of stuff for this topic, and I just don't feel
like digging up the links right now.
The third round of RIAA "John Doe" lawsuits targets universities for
the first time, including 9 IP addresses at the University of Michigan,
presumably students.
The IFPI (international version of the RIAA) is trumpeting new legal
action against file sharing users in Germany, Denmark, Italy, the UK,
if I remember the countries correctly.
In a Canadian case, a judge threw out the claims of the Canadian
record industry association, who were seeking to have ISPs turn over
the identities of users alleged to be sharing files, and the judge
seemed to come darn close to legalizing file sharing in Canada.
USA CD sales for first-quarter 2004 are up something like 9%.
International sales for 2003 were generally down, with Germany
reporting an eye-popping plunge of 19%.
Congress continues to cry, "Why won't they stop?" and there are
new proposals for harsher penalties and lowering the standard of
proof required to punish file-sharers.
And finally, the World Intellectual Property Organization is
proposing that consumer recording of broadcasts be stopped,
proposing to grant broadcasters a "right of fixation". This would
overrule the US Supreme Court "Betamax" decision which legalized
VCRs.
Press reports are starting to mount about the new regulations
for digital TV equipment; under the new regime, the broadcasters and
movie companies will tell your video recorder what can be recorded,
how many times it can be viewed, and when the recording will be
destroyed. It's not certain yet, but it seems probable that computers
will be prohibited from accessing video content, because they can't
be made secure enough.
|
krokus
|
|
response 6 of 72:
|
Apr 12 00:32 UTC 2004 |
I might easily be wrong in this, but I believe that any decision the
world court makes is non-binding. I think the whole digital media
aspect is something people aren't going to let get taken away from
them, without a fight. Granted, might not be a huge fight, but a
fight. People have gotten used to being able to make a working and/or
backup copy of items.
|
twenex
|
|
response 7 of 72:
|
Apr 12 03:54 UTC 2004 |
Depends on the country. Most countries are described as accepting the
jurisdiction of the world court "with reservations"; iirc the US is one of
those renegade countries (in company with places like Tajikistan?) that don't
accept World Court jurisdiction *at all*.
|
krj
|
|
response 8 of 72:
|
Apr 12 04:11 UTC 2004 |
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is not the World
Court. The WIPO proposes rules to "harmonize" copyright and patent
rules around the world, usually by toughening; their work results
in treaties which the member states are expected to implement through
the appropriate legislation.
|
krj
|
|
response 9 of 72:
|
Apr 12 14:29 UTC 2004 |
Here's a link for a Cnet story about the copyright industry pushing
for sweeping regulations of how electronic devices can handle video:
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5186881.html?tag=nefd.lede
|
mcnally
|
|
response 10 of 72:
|
Apr 12 16:46 UTC 2004 |
It seems likely to me that the content industry will be able to write
laws which prevent devices that don't critically inhibit consumer
ability to record and play back video from being made and legally
sold in the USA but in my opinion they'll only succeed in creating a
gray market for fully functional devices, such as already exists with
region-free DVD players and game-console mod chips. Ordinary consumers
might not go to the trouble to obtain such devices but then "ordinary
consumers" don't even know how to record a program using their
current VCRs.
Video enthusiasts won't settle for the solution the content providers
want to impose.
|