|
Grex > Music > #49: The Thirtieth "Napsterization" Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
The Thirtieth "Napsterization" Item
| 
Oct 3 16:11 UTC 2007 |
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, music3
and music4 conferences, covering discussions all the way back to
the initial popularity of the MP3 format. These items are linked
between the current Agora conference and the Music conference.
|
| 55 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 55:
|
Oct 3 16:12 UTC 2007 |
Haven't got time to say much about it, but I wanted to link in a
news report that the first USA jury trial in a filesharing case
has started in Minnesota. Here's a link to Wired's coverage today:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-rips-defen.html
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 55:
|
Oct 7 04:39 UTC 2007 |
Trial over, defendent found liable. $220,000 in damages. News
coverage is everywhere so I won't bother with a link.
My view is that the trial turned on two things:
1) The Kazaa user name reported by the record industry plaintiffs,
"tereastarr," matched numerous other online IDs used by the
defendant.
2) The judge, after preparing an initial set of jury instructions
that "making available" did not constitute infringement --
the record companies needed to show that a copy had been made
by a third party. However, for reasons unknown, the judge
reversed himself the next day and instructed that "making
available" would be sufficient to decide the case. There is
fervent legal speculation that the RIAA got the judge to
make this switch by citing, as precedent, a case which was
overturned two weeks ago, which dealt with this same
"making available" issue.
I had found a good blog posting summarizing the legal arguments over
"making available" but I lost it. :(
|
nharmon
|
|
response 3 of 55:
|
Oct 7 14:22 UTC 2007 |
So, maybe the story isn't over yet. This certainly seems like grounds
for appeal.
|
gull
|
|
response 4 of 55:
|
Oct 8 23:09 UTC 2007 |
In the mean time, DRM seems to be on its way out in the music industry.
Amazon.com has announced an online music service that sells tracks
packaged as ordinary 256kbps MP3 files. And of course iTunes has been
selling some tracks in DRM-free versions for a while now.
Will the movie industry catch on that DRM doesn't prevent piracy and
annoys consumers, or are we in for a decade or so of fun and games
there, as well? It's already creating difficulty for people who want to
time-shift HDTV programs.
|