|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 219 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 103 of 219:
| 
Mar 6 13:50 UTC 2002 |
I don't think it was actually ROT13, but it was apparently nearly as
simple. I haven't seen it actually explained (presumably that'd be
illegal) but from some of the comments I've seen I suspect it may have
been just a substitution cipher. Hey, if the law says no one can try
to break your code, why bother making it strong?
|
krj
|
|
response 104 of 219:
|
Mar 11 15:37 UTC 2002 |
Slashdot keys off a Los Angeles Times story: both webcasters and the record
industry are appealing the proposed royalty rates for Internet webcasts
set by the copyright office, which are mentioned somewhere above.
Quoting from Slashdot:
It should surprise no one that the Webcasters feel
that the proposed royalties are absurdly high, while the record
companies wants them to be higher -- at levels set in independent
deals negotiated between the RIAA and a couple of dozen
companies. The fact that many of the companies that made these
independent deals with the RIAA couldn't make enough money to
both pay the royalties and stay in business doesn't seem to worry
the record companies much.
(Companines which didn't want to wait for the copyright office ruling
on royalties were free to negotiate their own deals with the record
companies.)
Most Slashdot commentators agree with me that the record companies are
demonstrating that they intend to control webcasting. It doesn't
matter how high the fees are set, if the record companies are just
paying themselves for their own webcast operations.
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/10/0150210.shtml?tid=141
|
krj
|
|
response 105 of 219:
|
Mar 11 15:45 UTC 2002 |
Newsweek offers an entertaining rant on the overall state of the
music industry: "Looking Grim at the Grammys"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/718662.asp?cp1=1
The artistic state of popular music is described as "an esthetic
national emergency." :)
We haven't really touched on the Grammy speech by Michael Greene,
chairman of the NARAS, the group which gives out the Grammy awards.
|
remmers
|
|
response 106 of 219:
|
Mar 11 17:35 UTC 2002 |
WHat's pertinent about the speech?
|
krj
|
|
response 107 of 219:
|
Mar 12 07:00 UTC 2002 |
Michael Greene, the chairman of the National Association of
Recording Arts & Sciences, used his Grammy Awards
speech to launch an attack on the
downloading of music, referring to "this World Wide Web of
theft and indifference." He urged people to "support our artistic
community by only downloading your music from legal web sites.
That will ensure that our artists reach even higher and, deservedly,
get paid for their inspired work."
(Of course the legal music download systems have met with near-total
consumer rejection and unanimously hostile reviews, and they don't
pay the artists significantly more than KaZaa...)
The text of his speech is at: http://grammy.aol.com/features/speech.html
Most reaction to the speech was deeply negative. To paraphrase
one analyst, the industry is in a pretty bad position when it believes
it has to lecture its customers. One overview piece came from
The Washington Post "Newsbytes" imprint:
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174868.html
"Music Fans Hear Grammys Night Anti-Piracy Screed"
Or, as the title of Steven Levy's essay ran: "The Customer Is Always Wrong."
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 108 of 219:
|
Mar 12 10:34 UTC 2002 |
Well, and then there's the issue of spyware and adware on
the 'illegal' sites..
|
brighn
|
|
response 109 of 219:
|
Mar 12 14:52 UTC 2002 |
#107> The industry wasn't lecturing its customers. It was lecturing its
shoplifters.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 110 of 219:
|
Mar 12 17:38 UTC 2002 |
Actually, it was lecturing its customers and assuming they're all
"shoplifters" (a term you continue to use despite its inapplicability
to digital copying.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 111 of 219:
|
Mar 12 18:00 UTC 2002 |
#110> Not at all. If I were not a shoplifter (a term I continue to use because
of its applicability to illegally taking something which you do not have the
right to take), I would not assume the comments applied to me.
(Note on parenthetical: See, I too am capable of stating opinion as if it were
fact. But here IS a fact: You have an opinion and I have an opinion, and they
differ. No matter how strongly you state it, Mike, your stating your opinion
won't make it fact.)
|
gull
|
|
response 112 of 219:
|
Mar 12 21:32 UTC 2002 |
I refuse to use the legal downloading services because of the
ridiculously tiny royalties they give to artists. (Of course, I don't
use the illegal ones either.)
I do find it interesting that, with sales declining for months now, the
retail prices of CDs have not gone down. Smells like price fixing to
me...
|
brighn
|
|
response 113 of 219:
|
Mar 12 21:51 UTC 2002 |
Definitely price fixing. I make no claims, and never have, that the RIAA and
its associates are moral.
|
jazz
|
|
response 114 of 219:
|
Mar 12 23:35 UTC 2002 |
It'd be nice if there was a technology that allowed for independent
companies or inividuals to copy protect (and therefore sell) their music.
It'd be the death of the RIAA, though.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 115 of 219:
|
Mar 13 01:15 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 116 of 219:
|
Mar 13 19:31 UTC 2002 |
I've been trying pretty hard not to buy new CDs for a while. It's hard,
though; the used market just doesn't cut it for some of my tastes.
|
russ
|
|
response 117 of 219:
|
Mar 14 00:40 UTC 2002 |
Re #110: But huge numbers of people are NOT shoplifting. They
are using the Internet as a labor-saving device, a radio station,
or a sampling service. When Napster was a going concern, people
bought MORE music. Now that they cannot find new things or
sample ones they've heard about to see if they like them (or at
least not with the former ease), they are buying less. People
downloading music they already own are just substituting connect
time for their own time.
Greene's speech at the Grammys specifically addressed Apple's "Rip,
Mix, Burn" ads as "promoting piracy". That's WRONG. Burning your
own mix CDs is FAIR USE. You have EVERY RIGHT to make mix CDs,
backups of CDs, and other copies of music you own for your own use,
just like cassette tapes. The language used by the RIAA is over
the top, contemptible, and deserves nothing but scorn.
And I'm astonished to see you buying their party line, Paul.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 118 of 219:
|
Mar 14 03:59 UTC 2002 |
well, this is a gray area. I plan to use Grokster to get stuff I
don't have ready access to, like older, used, music, and maybe to
check out a little bit of the new. Do you know how frustrating it
gets when stuff is out of print, or you have to wait to order it? My
credit situation is bad, and so I'm not going to do online shopping.
My behavior when I copied friend's music on cassette tape was I
*eventually* bought the actual release. I figured I needed to be
honest and fair, so I try to replace my copies with actual product,
and I've done good.. so far.
The P2P thing is new to me.. and I have hardly downloaded anything. I
think it would be easier to spend my hard earned dough buying the CDs
I like, rather than going to a cable modem connection so I can
download all the time.
resp:116 that's interesting. I haven't bought much new music in
*years*. Most of it is old stuff. While I admire people like Ken,
and other folk who just try to follow quality stuff that is outside
the mainstream, I prefer to be electic in used stuff.. forgetting
trends and fashions, but sticking with material I have heard
somewhere. I buy music conservatively as I do not have much money to
spend. I am *not* a person who has hundreds of CDs I hardly listen
to. My collection is small.
|
brighn
|
|
response 119 of 219:
|
Mar 14 05:27 UTC 2002 |
#117> I see. Anyone who feels that illegally downloading music is, well,
illegal is "buying the party line." Your arguments in paragraph one sound like
someone, say, trying one candy out of every bin at the candy shop before
buying any, and then acting surprised when the candy store owner accuses them
of shoplifting.
I won't repeat my entire stance, because I have in the past in such detail
that if you're still not clear on what it is, it's because you're being obtuse
and attributing to me a perspective which I do not hold.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 120 of 219:
|
Mar 14 06:07 UTC 2002 |
*sigh*
|
anderyn
|
|
response 121 of 219:
|
Mar 14 13:01 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 122 of 219:
|
Mar 14 13:45 UTC 2002 |
I agree. It should totally be legal to make mix cds of ones own music.
Speaking of mix cd's. Does anyone know of an online service that can
make those? I have an idea for one but I dont own all of the music so
it would be really nice if there was a service that would allow one to
download the songs or even one that would burn the cd. I would pay good
money for this. :)
|
brighn
|
|
response 123 of 219:
|
Mar 14 14:30 UTC 2002 |
#121, 122> Twila's mashing a bunch of concepts together:
1. Making copies of music recorded from the radio
2. Making copies of music illegally available on the Internet
3. Making copies of music you have purchased, for your own use
4. Making copies of music obtained through 1-3 for distribution to friends
(No, Jack didn't mention all of those cases, but they're all part of the
dialog.)
4 is illegal. I have a copy of The Fixx's "Shuttered Room" which has a
cassette-and-cross-bones in the corner of the back, and the words "Home taping
is killing music" (or something to that effect). It's not the only album I
have with that logo, but it's the first time I saw it. 1982. WAY before CDs.
So much for Twila's claim that nobody made an issue of (4).
As for nobody condoning (4), Twila, read through all the archives of the
Napster items. You'll find there are PLENTY of people condoning illegally
copying music.
(1) is ok for your own use, IMHO. It's publicly transmitted. Indeed, HBO used
to promote the concept of taping movies off of HBO for your own library. The
Internet equivalent is copying any file that's legally available on the
Internet, for your own usage.
(2) is not ok.
(3) is obviously ok.
|
slynne
|
|
response 124 of 219:
|
Mar 14 14:56 UTC 2002 |
But there *should* be a way to legally make mix cd's for one's friends.
Right now, as far as I know there isnt. If there were a way to do that,
I would choose that route as would many others. When the record
industry refused to provide legal options for people, they shouldnt be
surprised when people start engaging in those activities. If the
illegal activity is the MOST convenient, that should tell the record
companies *something*
|
jazz
|
|
response 125 of 219:
|
Mar 14 15:05 UTC 2002 |
And the RIAA, and it's constituents, have been taking action over the
last few years to prevent you from doing (3), which they don't like at all,
even though it's perfectly legal. In fact they seem to be quite happy with
the solution even if it means you can't play it on a computer at all, or
certain CD and DVD players.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 126 of 219:
|
Mar 14 15:51 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 127 of 219:
|
Mar 14 16:03 UTC 2002 |
While it does work out that way (napster has not had a negative effect
on the RIAA's profits, nor have any of the napster clones), it's like asking
why you can't steal records from a record store to see if they're an artist
you might like to buy copies of.
|
