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.

response 3 of 87:

Sep 27 04:45 UTC 2001

  .. and apparently plans to use it on *all* Universal releases by 
     1Q 2002..

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?  :)

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.

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. 

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.

response 13 of 87:

Oct 1 18:25 UTC 2001

Sure, Mary, the record company and the artist have the right to sell their
wares under whatever rules they want.  And if I don't like it, I won't buy
it.  Absolutely.  What I'm trying to do is convince the record companies that
they should sell things under a set of rules more palatable to me.  I'm doing
this by trying to convince other people that 1) the set of rules they want
to use is heavy-handed and unfair, and 2) a better alternative exists. 
Maybe if enough people think like I do, the record companies will maybe 
actually do something about it.  (Actually, I think this is unlikely.  I 
think that either artists will stop associating themselves with record
companies and go directly to their fan base, or new record companies with
better policies will replace the old ones.  Either way I think the 
dominant record companies of today are doomed, and I'm not unhappy about
this.)
  In particular, I want two things.  First, I want it to be absolutely 
clear when I buy a CD (or movie, or e-book, or any other piece of 
content) that what I'm buying is the content, not the physical media 
on which the content currently resides.  My use of the content is 
constrained by existing copyright laws, so I can't legally claim  I 
created it, or sell (or give) copies to my friends.  I would, however, be
able to use samples under fair use, and resell the content without 
keeping a copy myself, just as I can sell a used CD now. 
  Second, I'd like a library.  A place where I could go and try out 
the content before I buy it, or where I could do research using content
I didn't personally own a copy of.  Yes, I realize that in the digital 
world there's no such thing as "lending" content.  Good faith is called for. 

response 15 of 87:

Oct 1 18:49 UTC 2001

Mary in resp:12 ::
"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. "

Sure, that's the thrust of the SSSCA (Security Systems Standards and 
Certification Act).  The "collateral damage" is that for any such 
scheme to work, Linux and all the other open-source Unix programs --
anything that lets users tinker with the insides of their computers -- 
must be removed from the market, either by outright banning, or by 
making it illegal to make hardware which will work with the open-source
operating systems.   Essentially, the argument of the SSSCA is that 
consumers must not be allowed to own machines which make copies.
Kind of like the old Soviet Union and their restriction on Xerox machines.
 
Much of the capitalist thrust of the last 20 years has been about 
"empowering consumers."  Now, in a massive way, some industries are 
talking about stripping consumers of power.

response 17 of 87:

Oct 1 19:16 UTC 2001

Ok, I'm an artist. I've written sroties, drawn pictures, made a few primitive
recordings. My understanding is, by the new rules, if *I* sell copies of my
music with a desire that the people who buy that music make as many copies
as they please, and distribute them to whomever they please, then the
technology will restrict me from doing so. Is that a correct understanding?
And if it IS a correct understanding, is not the RIAA infringing on MY rights
as the creator?

<sroties>stories>

response 19 of 87:

Oct 1 22:02 UTC 2001

http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-000077255sep27.story

Another overview piece from the LA Times but with a few interesting details.
 
The hook:

>  The phenomenal grown of online song-sharing services has led many 
>  music industry executives to an ugly conclusion:  Within every 
>  consumer lurks a shoplifter who would, if given the opportunity,
>  accumulate an entire collection of songs by theft.
>
>  Over the next few months that grim hypothesis finally will be put to 
>  the test.  Consumers are beginning to see some legitimate alternatives
>  online to Napster et al, service that will let them listen to or 
>  download a wide array of songs for a flat monthly fee....
>
>  But each of the new services is limited in significant ways that may 
>  turn off consumers.  Those limits trace back to the industry's suspicion
>  that customers can't be trusted to do the right thing, combined with the 
>  record companies' resistance to radical changes in music economics...

As none of the startups can legally offer the breadth of material that
Napster did, some are trying to win a specialized audience.

For me, most of the interesting details are about the Womad Digital Channel,
from Peter Gabriel's Womad/Real World "world music" operations.  
Quote: 
>  For about $7.50 per month, subscribers can download about three CDs worth
>  of songs from various world-music genres, either in a prepackaged playlist
>  or a combination they assemble themselves.
>  The songs remain playable for one month only, unless the subscriber pays
>  an additional sum -- between $1.50 and $3.00 per track -- for a permanent
>  copy.

So, for $90 per year, I could buy the privilege of previewing a limited
amount of material from just one small label.  Album-sized collections of 
songs I could purchase for between, say, $15 and $30.
 
I'm sorry, I'm a world music fan and I buy lots of Real World/Womad items,
but this license arrangement is a non-starter.