|
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
The Seventh Napster Item
| 
Sep 25 17:19 UTC 2001 |
Continuing the weblog, with occasional discussion, about news relating to
the deconstruction of the music business: with side forays, to
steal polygon's description, into "intellectual property, freedom
of expression, electronic media, corporate control, and
evolving technology."
This item is linked between the Fall Agora conference and the
Music conference.
If you want to read lots and lots and lots of historical overview,
previous items in this series can be found in the archive
conference music2:
item:music2,240
item:music2,279
item:music2,280
item:music2,294
item:music2,304
item:music2,315
|
| 87 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 87:
|
Sep 25 17:27 UTC 2001 |
We start off the Fall version with Authentic Napster News:
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,47075,00.html
Napster has settled with the music publishers -- $26 million for
past infringements and $10 million for future licensed use.
> "Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
> oversaw negotiations that paved the way for a settlement between
> Napster and the music publishers.
> The landmark deal -- which is expected to be certified
> within the next 60 days by District Court Judge Marilyn
> Hall Patel -- settles a major part of litigation brought by
> the music industry that forced the company to shutter
> its file-trading service in July.
> The new agreement would give Napster access to
> 700,000 songs from major label artists like Madonna,
> Santana and Britney Spears, although the company
> must still reach a settlement with the five major music
> labels.
> Still, the agreement does lay the groundwork for future
> business deals.
The article expresses concern that this is a lot of money for
Napster to pay, given that it has no income.
Remember that there are two copyrights involved in every sound
recording, one for the songwriting and one for the performance,
and those two are generally held by different businesses.
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 87:
|
Sep 26 22:35 UTC 2001 |
Widely reported: Vivendi Universal will start using an unspecified
copy-prevention system on its CDs beginning in about a month.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 3 of 87:
|
Sep 27 04:45 UTC 2001 |
.. and apparently plans to use it on *all* Universal releases by
1Q 2002..
|
krj
|
|
response 4 of 87:
|
Sep 27 17:14 UTC 2001 |
Music publishers were suing Vivendi Universal for its farmclub.com
operation. Universal claimed that the licenses it held for selling
copyrighted music on CDs were sufficiently elastic to cover downloads
through farmclub.com, but a federal court in New York has sided
with the music publishers, ruling that downloading is a new business
activity not included in the existing licenses.
"It was unclear what damages Universal could face as a result of
Wednesday's ruling."
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7312624.html?tag=lh
----
Another Cnet story reports that MusicNet, the online music selling venture
of RealNetworks, AOL Time Warner, EMI, BMG and Zomba, has delivered its
software platform to its partners and so its launch should be imminent.
The story goes on to discuss how unappealing MusicNet is going to be,
and even the firms involved don't expect many users.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7314600.html?tag=lh
|
krj
|
|
response 5 of 87:
|
Oct 1 02:05 UTC 2001 |
Yet another Cnet story on a plan to throttle the ripping of CDs:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-7320279-0.html?tag=tp_pr
quote:
> The record industry is experimenting with a new strategy
> for protecting CDs from being
> copied in CD burners or on computers. Unlike
> previous anti-copying measures, this plan
> will place two versions of an album on a single disc: one
> in standard CD form, modified so that it can't be
> transferred to a computer hard drive, and another in
> Microsoft's Windows Media Audio digital format, rigged so
> that files can be copied to a PC, but with some
> restrictions on how they can be used.
Anybody heard of any consumers eager to collect Windows Media files? :)
|
apswartz
|
|
response 6 of 87:
|
Oct 1 04:09 UTC 2001 |
I don't know. I suppose as long as you can plug a cd player into your sound
card you will be able to create mp3's -- it will just take a little more work.
Eventually the software will be there to make it easier.
I believe it was Esther Dyson (among others) who said that corporations will
have to rethink the who notion of property in such a technological age where
information is reduced to bytes.
|
russ
|
|
response 7 of 87:
|
Oct 1 11:30 UTC 2001 |
Hey, I wouldn't touch Windoze *anything* unless I had to.
Any CD that will play in a conventional player is rippable with a
sufficiently clever ripper. There is no way around this that works
with legacy hardware. Anyone arguing otherwise is a liar or an idiot.
|
mary
|
|
response 8 of 87:
|
Oct 1 12:30 UTC 2001 |
You know, if someone was entering responses here on how to copy
software or schemes to rip-off books from the library, you'd all
be thinking that's pretty, er, wrong. Especially the sharing of
software, probably.
So I really don't get why this is any the more right or clever.
|
flem
|
|
response 9 of 87:
|
Oct 1 15:01 UTC 2001 |
You know, there *are* legitimate uses for mp3 technology. It *is* possible
to want to do completely legal things, things that are specifically protected
by copyright law even, that would be prevented were these schemes to succeed.
Your library example, Mary, is the right example, but the wrong direction.
Napster was the library, and now RIAA has shut it down so that they can sell
more books.
|
scott
|
|
response 10 of 87:
|
Oct 1 15:38 UTC 2001 |
Well, I'd say that RIAA now wants books to be limited in various ways as to
prevent people loaning each other books, or even being able to own books at
all.
Imagine if you suddenly couldn't trade recipes because a powerful cookbook
lobby pushed some new laws through. After all, recipe pirating has gotten
much more widespread thanks to perfect digital copies (as opposed to
hand-written copies with possible mistakes or illegible writing), so that's
why cookbook sales have been dropping.
|
brighn
|
|
response 11 of 87:
|
Oct 1 16:13 UTC 2001 |
I still don't agree with the analogy of Napster to a library, but that
ground's been trampled enough.
I do think it's bizarre and far overstepping bounds to create technology taht
would prevent even the legal exchange of sound files. The purpose of copyright
law is to give the creator full control over their work, and that includes
the right to release such work fully into the public domain.
|
mary
|
|
response 12 of 87:
|
Oct 1 17:32 UTC 2001 |
If CDs you purchase are done so under a license that they will
not be copied then they shouldn't be copied. That's the deal. If
you don't like it then don't buy it.
I hope the recording industry eventually comes up with a technology
whereby blank disks used for personal use (original content) could be
copied but those sold and licensed not for duplication couldn't be.
But I absolutely see it as the right of the artist and record company
to sell their ware under whatever rules they wish. I feel the
same about programmers and cookbook authors.
|
