|
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
The Eighth Napster Item
| 
Jan 5 22:04 UTC 2002 |
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 Winter Agora conference and the
Music conference. The previous version of this item (item:music3,37)
includes a list of all earlier items in this series.
|
| 219 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 219:
|
Jan 5 22:10 UTC 2002 |
Soundscan issues a report on 2001 CD sales:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020103/re/leisure_albums_dc_1.html
"Album Sales Not Sweet Music in 2001"
(Soundscan is the company which runs the point-of-sale counting
system used by Billboard magazine for the "official" US sales charts.)
Quotes:
> A lack of blockbuster hits, the weak economy, and the
> distraction of underground music Web sites like
> Napster (news - web sites) and other media combined to
> push U.S. album sales to 762.6 million in
> 2001 from 784.8 million in 2000, according to Soundscan, .
> It was the first decline since the company began monitoring
> album sales in 1991 and was almost
> entirely reflected in the drop in sales at the
> multi-platinum top of the charts.
> The top-10 selling albums sold 20 million less units in
> 2001 than the top 10 albums in 2000, a
> Soundscan spokeswoman said.
> The year's best selling album was Warner Bros.'
> ``Hybrid Theory'' by Los Angeles-based rock group
> Linkin Park, which sold just 4.8 million units.
> By contrast, seven albums sold more than 5 million copies each
> in 2000, with Eminem (news - web
> sites)'s smash release ``The Marshall Mathers LP''
> selling more than 9 million.
To repeat that key point: the top-selling CD in 2001 sold roughly half
as many copies as the top-selling CD in 2000.
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 219:
|
Jan 5 22:19 UTC 2002 |
Slashdot has coverage of the US imposing trade sanctions on the Ukraine
over bootleg CDs. As best as I can sort it out, the US is demanding
that Ukraine implement a serial number licensing system for all
CD blanks and all CD-manufacturing machines so that the sale of
every CD from that country can be traced.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/03/1621205&mode=thread
|
mcnally
|
|
response 3 of 219:
|
Jan 6 00:30 UTC 2002 |
We're demanding that they do something there that we don't do here?
Or *do* we do that here?
|
ric
|
|
response 4 of 219:
|
Jan 6 03:34 UTC 2002 |
I don't think it's necessary to do it here if CD piracy isn't a problem here.
And, to my knowledge, it's not. NOTE that I'm saying "CD Piracy" and not
"music piracy". We're talking about making illegal copies of compact discs
and selling them. That's not a real problem in the US.
|
krj
|
|
response 5 of 219:
|
Jan 6 05:19 UTC 2002 |
Genuine Napster News! :)
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/napsterlives.html
mp3newswire.net discusses Napster's preview of the new for-pay,
copy-controlled service.
Napster hopes to relaunch in "early 2002."
There are two other mp3newswire.net stories worth a mention: their
"winners/losers for 2001" stories discusses how the major labels
wiped out most potential business competition in 2001, either through
legal action or by buying them out, both in file-downloading and in
internet radio. However, the labels' offerings seem to have no
appeal to consumers; mp3newswire.net projects that anything successful
in the digital music field will have to be based
somewhere outside of the reach of the US legal system.
mp3newswire.net also reports that the file trading company KaZaa
is ignoring the Dutch court's order to shut down; that was as of
late December and I have not seen any updates.
|
senna
|
|
response 6 of 219:
|
Jan 6 08:40 UTC 2002 |
UBL should skip all this messy plane and anthrax business and just set up his
own pirate music-trading site.
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 219:
|
Jan 6 13:50 UTC 2002 |
Re 3: I think we *do* do that here. Or rather they *do* do it in the places
where they make the CD blanks and recorders that we use here.
|
ric
|
|
response 8 of 219:
|
Jan 7 03:19 UTC 2002 |
Media and equipment do not make piracy.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 9 of 219:
|
Jan 7 08:10 UTC 2002 |
What is the best site to download bootleg videos in VCD format?
|
other
|
|
response 10 of 219:
|
Jan 7 16:36 UTC 2002 |
re #8:
Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
USSC.
Everyone in the content industry, including Sony, is now trying to forget
this decision. Hmm, I wonder why.
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 219:
|
Jan 7 17:17 UTC 2002 |
Re #7: That's very likely true of stand-alone audio CD burners and the
corresponding "audio blanks". These are the only legal way to copy a
copyrighted audio CD for home use under the amended Digital Home
Recording Act. A copyrighted audio CD copied to a "data blank" is
automatically an act of piracy regardless of what you do with it.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 12 of 219:
|
Jan 7 17:56 UTC 2002 |
re #11: I've heard that claimed before but it's not at all clear to me
that it's true. Is there a court decision which clearly establishes this
position or is it just the wishful thinking of the music industry?
|
krj
|
|
response 13 of 219:
|
Jan 7 19:52 UTC 2002 |
My understanding of the AHRA is somewhat different than gull's in
resp:11. My recollection of the text is that consumers are
"immunized from suit" for any copyright action involving the non-commercial
use of digital recorders using SCMS (serial copy management system)
and royalty-paid blank digital media.
But that is far from saying that any copying involving non-royalty-media
is an illegal infringement. Orrin Hatch, who was a principal author
on most recent copyright legislation, and Hilary Rosen of the RIAA had
a vigorous dispute on the subject of what consumers could do with
copies they had made; this is far from a settled issue.
Speaking of the AHRA: here's a news story where Rep. Rick Boucher questions
whether the CD copy-prevention schemes being tested by the music labels
are legal, under the AHRA compromise:
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/173429.html
|
gull
|
|
response 14 of 219:
|
Jan 7 19:57 UTC 2002 |
I don't know if it's ever been tested in court. krj seems to be right
that it's just immunity from suit that's the issue. Here's what the
RIAA claims:
http://www.riaa.org/Copyright-Laws-4.cfm
--
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA)
This 1992 legislation exempts consumers from lawsuits for copyright
violations when they record music for private, noncommercial use; eases
access to advanced digital audio recording technologies; provides for
the payment of modest royalties to songwriters and recording artists
and companies; and mandates the inclusion of serial copying management
technology in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit multi-
generation audio copying (i.e., making copies of copies).
In general, the AHRA covers devices that are designed or marketed for
the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings. Digital audio
cassette players, minidisc players, and DAT players are devices covered
by the AHRA. This law will also apply to all future digital audio
recording technologies, so Congress will not be forced to revisit the
issue as each new product becomes available.
The AHRA provides that manufacturers (not consumers) of covered devices
must: (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory
royalty on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement
serial copyright management technology (such as SCMS) which prevents
the production of copies of copies. In exchange for this, the
manufacturers of the devices receive statutory immunity from
infringement based on the use of those devices by consumers. To learn
more about the administration of the royalties paid on recording
devices and media, see the section on AARC.
Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-ROM drive, are
not covered by the AHRA. This means that they are not required to pay
royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means, however, that
neither manufacturers of the devices, nor the consumers who use them,
receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement.
--
Here's the relevent section of the U.S. code, since the link on that
site seems to be broken:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
Realistically, given the number of lawyers and U.S. lawmakers the RIAA
owns, if their interpretation isn't the law, it might as well be.
|
gull
|
|
response 15 of 219:
|
Jan 7 20:01 UTC 2002 |
There's an article in today's Free Press about Pressplay and MusicNet.
http://www.freep.com/entertainment/music/mnet7_20020107.htm
The basic conclusion is that the clumsiness and limitations of the
services, and the fact that the record companies are withholding their
best-selling material so as not to cut into CD sales, make them not
really worth subscribing to.
|
krj
|
|
response 16 of 219:
|
Jan 8 22:26 UTC 2002 |
I was looking for some clue as to how many people had signed up for
the Pressplay and Musicnet services. All I can find so far is a
ZDnet story from late december, about a week after the new services
were launched.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2101670,00.html
quote:
> The figures from Download.com support his observation.
> Music fans are downloading rogue
> software that allows users to swap music files through
> online services Kazaa, Morpheus Music
> City and Audiogalaxy, to name a few, at a clip of more
> than three million per week.
> In contrast, Real Network's RealOne media player --
> the software associated with MusicNet --
> was downloaded 7,506 times during the past week,
> according to Download.com.
|
aruba
|
|
response 17 of 219:
|
Jan 9 03:17 UTC 2002 |
Could someone give me a rundown of the various sucessors to Napster in the
arena of free downloading?
|
