|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
tpryan
|
|
response 100 of 151:
| 
Nov 15 21:43 UTC 2003 |
Amazing how many artists signed onto mp3.com for 'take my
music--please'.
|
gull
|
|
response 101 of 151:
|
Nov 17 15:52 UTC 2003 |
For a lot of artists it was probably the only realistic chance they had
at reaching an audience.
|
tsty
|
|
response 102 of 151:
|
Nov 18 06:51 UTC 2003 |
democracy finally reigns!!
|
krj
|
|
response 103 of 151:
|
Nov 18 19:44 UTC 2003 |
I have unconfirmed reports that SunnComm's Media Max product is on
the new Sarah McLachlan and Pink CDs. This product will definitely
infect your Windows computer with drivers intended to mess up CD burning
and MP3 ripping if you click on the EULA which comes up, and
there are unconfirmed rumors that it will infect the PC even if you
don't accept the EULA. Behavior on Macs unknown.
<krj makes a note to figure out how to shut off "autorun" on Win2K.>
|
gull
|
|
response 104 of 151:
|
Nov 18 21:29 UTC 2003 |
Part of the DMCA case brought against Skylink Technologies, a maker of
universal garage door remotes, has been dismissed. A federal judge ruled
that the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA were not violated.
However, the dismissal hinged on the fact that Chamberlain, the garage door
manufacturer, did not explicitly forbid using non-Chamberlain remotes on
their packaging. Watch out for companies to start adding license
agreement-like text to their packaging, in the future.
There's an article at Security Focus that gives some interesting details
about how Skylink cracked Chamberlain's garage door opener codes:
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7461
|
goose
|
|
response 105 of 151:
|
Nov 19 03:39 UTC 2003 |
The DCMA must die.
|
other
|
|
response 106 of 151:
|
Nov 19 04:24 UTC 2003 |
The DMCA, too. ;)
|
goose
|
|
response 107 of 151:
|
Nov 20 11:19 UTC 2003 |
taht too...;)
|
gull
|
|
response 108 of 151:
|
Nov 26 15:09 UTC 2003 |
The RIAA and MPAA are seeking a permanent antitrust exemption, to avoid
lawsuits like the one filed against them in August by a group of
webcasters. A bill sponsored by Orrin Hatch, the EnFORCE Act, would
give them just that.
"...the EnFORCE Act will expand an existing antitrust exemption to
conform the law to market realities. Today, an antitrust exemption in
the Copyright Act gives record companies and music publishers the
flexibility they need to negotiate mechanical royalty rates in the
rapidly evolving market for legal music downloading. These parties now
need the same flexibility to ensure that they can negotiate royalties
associated with innovative forms of physical phonorecords, like enhanced
compact disks and DVD audio disks." -- Orrin Hatch
Register article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34191.html
Orrin Hatch's speech: http://tinyurl.com/wn7r
|
mcnally
|
|
response 109 of 151:
|
Nov 26 17:20 UTC 2003 |
"physical phonorecords"? how nice to know our laws are being written
by legislators who are up to date on all the latest technology.
23 skidoo!
|
twenex
|
|
response 110 of 151:
|
Nov 26 17:40 UTC 2003 |
Blame it on the motor-car
|
other
|
|
response 111 of 151:
|
Nov 26 18:09 UTC 2003 |
The phrase "physical phonorecord" is simply a term of precision. It
is not an archaic or outdated term, but one that clearly
distinguishes tangible audio recording media from both intangible
media and other types of recordings. That said, Hatch is a dolt and
a content-industry hack.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 112 of 151:
|
Dec 3 03:59 UTC 2003 |
What Hatch isn't up on is the jargon of the field, by which CDs and
anything beyond them are not "records". I get rather tired of this
conceit, myself. I like to be able to say I'm going to the record
store, and know that it'll be understood I'm referring to a place that
sells mostly CDs.
|
twenex
|
|
response 113 of 151:
|
Dec 3 14:30 UTC 2003 |
Strike a blow for common sense.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 114 of 151:
|
Dec 11 19:47 UTC 2003 |
Albums are still albums, despite the media.
The original record album was 5 or 6 78s in sleeves, bound
into an album binding.
|
krj
|
|
response 115 of 151:
|
Dec 11 20:45 UTC 2003 |
USA Today ran a group of stories about "The Death of the Album," as
an increasing number of music fans prefer to take single tracks
from either authorized or unauthorized download systems. The
financial implications for the industry are huge, but the USA Today
pieces also had lots of stuff from artists who were unhappy that
their songs were going to be consumed a la carte.
I'm seriously flirting with joining the a la carte party myself.
In a fit of rock guitar nostalgia I started listening to BBC Radio 6
last week, and about ten songs got stuck in my head.
I'm thinking of signing up with iTunes and spending maybe $10 to get the
best single songs I heard, rather than spending $70 to get used album
CDs or $180 to get the new album CDs.
Spending, say, $10/month to get a mix CD of rock songs every month seems
rather appealing. I'm gonna have to find out what percentage of the
stuff I like is available through iTunes; it might not be too high.
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 151:
|
Dec 12 15:39 UTC 2003 |
For me it depends on the group. Some I prefer to experience as
individual tracks, but some bands are better listened to in full album
form. Pink Floyd is in the latter category for me.
|
twenex
|
|
response 117 of 151:
|
Dec 12 16:22 UTC 2003 |
Yes.
(The affirmative word, not the band! I just realized I shut put that
in. ;-).
NP: Radiohead, High and Dry
|
gull
|
|
response 118 of 151:
|
Dec 12 16:54 UTC 2003 |
The Register reports that the RIAA has hired Bradley Buckles, former
head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, as their new head
of anti-piracy enforcement.
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34445.html)
I wonder if this means the NRA will add the RIAA to their 17-page
enemies list? ;) (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15)
|
krj
|
|
response 119 of 151:
|
Dec 12 22:03 UTC 2003 |
Much of the stuff I saw about the RIAA hiring the head of the ATF
revolved around Waco metaphors, or else Prohibition, with the RIAA
having hired their own G-Man.
-----
A copyright body in Canada handed down three interesting rulings:
1) Unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music from the Internet
is not prohibited in Canadian law, though unauthorized uploading
is illegal.
2) MP3-ish digital music players are to have a levy placed on them
based on memory/hard disk size, said levy to reimburse the copyright
industry. The levy tops out at Can$25 for a player with 20GB or more
capacity. 1 to 10 GB players are $15. Small machines are $2.
3) It was proposed that the Canadians would levy a 49-cent (Can) charge
per CD-R blank, essentially doubling the cost of blank media.
However, this proposal was rejected for now and will not be revisited
until the end of 2004. This charge, IIRC, was deemed unfair to
blank-media users who are not duplicating copyrighted music.
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031212.gtlevydec12/BNS
tory/Technology/
|
krj
|
|
response 120 of 151:
|
Dec 18 06:52 UTC 2003 |
Despite those rulings, however, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry
Association?) promises to start bringing file sharing lawsuits to
Canada as soon as possible, and the IFPI (international trade group)
wants lawsuits against P2P users in Europe.
-----
Here's a highly entertaining piece of anti-RIAA propaganda:
http://www.whatacrappypresent.com
|
mcnally
|
|
response 121 of 151:
|
Dec 18 08:24 UTC 2003 |
interesting..
|
gull
|
|
response 122 of 151:
|
Dec 18 15:01 UTC 2003 |
Sounds like Canada is getting the worst of both worlds. Users have to
pay a mandatory royalty fee, then they get sued for copying files anyway.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 123 of 151:
|
Dec 18 18:49 UTC 2003 |
As long as the RIAA and their international analogs are the only ones
lobbying heavily on these issues, we're all headed for the worst of
both worlds..
|
goose
|
|
response 124 of 151:
|
Dec 19 21:03 UTC 2003 |
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/19/1611238
from the above link:
"My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA
can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case
against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA
used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is
great news."
|
