|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 160 responses total. |
polytarp
|
|
response 103 of 160:
| 
Nov 18 20:20 UTC 2002 |
gulag
|
keesan
|
|
response 104 of 160:
|
Nov 18 20:43 UTC 2002 |
Keesan buys her LPs by the bagful from the library booksale at about 10 cents
each at the winter and spring clearout sales, but I think they are normally
50 cents each and they have a large selection.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 105 of 160:
|
Nov 18 21:13 UTC 2002 |
I don't buy lps, although I do own quite a few. I also don't buy cassettes
any more, although I do have several machines that can and do play them. I
have probably several hundred of each in the house, and then there are the
CDs. I don't think I actually *need* to get any more music, but I certainly
want to get more!
|
gull
|
|
response 106 of 160:
|
Nov 19 14:37 UTC 2002 |
I've occasionally bought LPs, mostly of albums that are out of print and
hence aren't available on CD. I burn my own CDs of the music, after
recording it to my computer and doing normalization and noise reduction.
The results aren't as "clean" as a modern CD, but they generally sound
as good or better than the LP and I don't have to worry about wearing it
out.
|
krj
|
|
response 107 of 160:
|
Nov 22 19:44 UTC 2002 |
Cnet reports that RIAA is seeking contempt sanctions against the file
trading service Madster, the former Aimster, for failing to shut down
the trading of copyrighted files in compliance with a preliminary
injunction. The owner of Madster was claiming,
IIRC (it's not in this story) that the system was so decentralized
that it could not be shut off. I don't know the details of its architecture;
somehow it is piggybacked on AOL Instant Messenger.
More file trading court dates coming up in the next two weeks.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-966800.html?tag=lh
|
hera
|
|
response 108 of 160:
|
Nov 24 07:49 UTC 2002 |
Napster? Does anyone even talk about napster anymore? It's November 2002,
people: get with the times!!
|
janc
|
|
response 109 of 160:
|
Nov 24 13:04 UTC 2002 |
Having a hard time reading past the title?
|
gull
|
|
response 110 of 160:
|
Dec 5 14:51 UTC 2002 |
The bargain-hunter site FatWallet.com was given DMCA notices by WalMart,
Target, Best Buy, Staples, OfficeMax, Jo-Ann Stores, and KMart for
posting their sale prices on its site:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28223.html
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.cfm?start=0&catid=18&threadid=1
26042
FatWallet complied, but has since filed a lawsuit claiming "frivolous
copyright assertion" and demanding damages, based on their belief that
sale prices are facts and cannot by copyrighted:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28429.html
Apparently the final straw was when WalMart obtained a subpoena to try
to get FatWallet to name the person who gave them the pricing information.
|
slynne
|
|
response 111 of 160:
|
Dec 5 15:18 UTC 2002 |
Couldnt someone just walk into any old WalMart store for information on
their sale prices? It isnt like they go out of their way to keep their
prices a secret.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 112 of 160:
|
Dec 5 15:52 UTC 2002 |
I imagine that's part of what FatWallet's claiming in their lawsuit. Seems
like a no-brainer to me, but maybe there are, uh, subtleties that I'm missing.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 113 of 160:
|
Dec 5 16:42 UTC 2002 |
If this is the same case I heard an NPR piece on the other day, I got the
impression that the merchants were angry because their upcoming promotions
were being leaked and posted on the site in advance of their official
announcements. If that's the case, then no, the same information wouldn't
be available to someone walking into any old WalMart store..
It's still unclear to me that the merchants have any course of action
against FatWallet. Against their own employees who are leaking competitive
information, sure, but not necessarily against the third party reporting
that information.
|
other
|
|
response 114 of 160:
|
Dec 5 17:04 UTC 2002 |
Especially since I don't think you can copyright information per se. You
can copyright the specific way in which it is presented, but not the
content itself. (Assuming the content is not in and of itself a unique
creative product.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 115 of 160:
|
Dec 5 17:31 UTC 2002 |
It might come under the category of "trade secret" (in fact, probably does)
but the DMCA does not, as far as I know, protect trade secrets.
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 160:
|
Dec 5 21:53 UTC 2002 |
I know someone who was once asked to leave a store because he was
writing down prices. I don't remember if it was WalMart or KMart.
The same guy was threatened with legal action for a web site he made
that documented Houghton gas prices for several months. (He was
demonstrating that not only were all the gas prices in the area the
same, they remained at the same (high) level as prices fluctuated in
other nearby towns.)
|
dang
|
|
response 117 of 160:
|
Dec 5 22:05 UTC 2002 |
FatWallet is now countersuing under the DMCA. (It inlcudes a clause
saying it can't be used for spurious/harassing claims)
|
other
|
|
response 118 of 160:
|
Dec 5 22:42 UTC 2002 |
re #116: Did he take down the site or tell the fuckers that they could
go ahead but they'd have their butts kicked all over the courtroom?
|
krj
|
|
response 119 of 160:
|
Dec 5 22:47 UTC 2002 |
Another Tower Records near-death story. They have $200 million in
debt and $18.99 is too much to charge for stuff that Amazon sells for
$3-4 cheaper (and Wal-Mart, and Best Buy). Their selection is not
saving them. Tower is praying for big holiday season to bail them
out, so we might watch for another story after Christmas.
http://www.p2pnet.net/issue05/page6.html
http://www.detnews.com/2002/business/0211/30/business-23788.htm
As mentioned in the last round of Tower-Near-Death stories, a
failure at Tower Records would be a massive blow towards what remains
of classical CD retailing in the USA.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 120 of 160:
|
Dec 6 00:00 UTC 2002 |
Well, at the prices currently being charged for CDs, I'm not surprised.
|
dang
|
|
response 121 of 160:
|
Dec 6 00:26 UTC 2002 |
resp:117 and WalMart caved in.
|
senna
|
|
response 122 of 160:
|
Dec 6 00:29 UTC 2002 |
I haven't seen an operating Tower Records in a long time--are there any left
in Michigan? Twoers that I've shopped at in Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Toronto,
and other places have all closed already.
|
krj
|
|
response 123 of 160:
|
Dec 6 01:41 UTC 2002 |
Tower opened a new store in downtown Birmingham maybe a year? ago.
Leslie and I were there briefly last month; we were pressed
for time and I could not check it out in detail, but my casual
impression was that it was not as well stocked as the old Ann Arbor store.
|
senna
|
|
response 124 of 160:
|
Dec 6 12:44 UTC 2002 |
Sounds like it's not going to last.
|
gull
|
|
response 125 of 160:
|
Dec 6 14:20 UTC 2002 |
Re #118: He took it down. College students can't afford lawyers.
|
polygon
|
|
response 126 of 160:
|
Dec 8 14:21 UTC 2002 |
The definitive case on "facts are not subject to copyright" is FEIST v.
RURAL TELEPHONE, a U.S. Supreme Court case around 1990.
Of course, the content people have been busy bribing Congress ever since to
rewrite copyright law in such a way as to invalidate Feist. But one of the
key goals of the "database copyright" law would be to allow the pro sports
leagues to copyright scores, so that no one could report on games or publish
statistics without paying a royalty to the NFL or Major League Baseball or
whatever. I think that prospect was shocking enough to people that the bill
has been stalled for a while.
|
krj
|
|
response 127 of 160:
|
Dec 9 03:16 UTC 2002 |
Arizona 23, Detroit 20.
My bad. :)
|
