|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 165 responses total. |
polygon
|
|
response 113 of 165:
| 
May 23 02:07 UTC 2002 |
Plaintiff's briefs have been filed in Eldred v. Ashcroft. The list
of supporting amici is just dazzling. See full details at the new
web site: http://eldred.cc
|
polygon
|
|
response 114 of 165:
|
May 23 02:10 UTC 2002 |
Re 110,112: The Librarian of Congress is the deus ex machina of this
whole story. I had no idea that the Librarian had this kind of power.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 115 of 165:
|
May 23 02:45 UTC 2002 |
Isn't the Librarian also the Registrar of Copyrights, or something like that?
|
jp2
|
|
response 116 of 165:
|
May 23 03:00 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 117 of 165:
|
May 23 10:50 UTC 2002 |
(Side note: The Librarian of Congress, James Billington, was a
history professor of mine back in my undergraduate days.)
|
gull
|
|
response 118 of 165:
|
May 24 14:05 UTC 2002 |
The Register has an article about the Librarian of Congress decision here:
http://www.theregus.com/content/6/25006.html
It doesn't really include much that hasn't already been reported here,
but they do have this interesting quote from Jamie Zawinski that sort of
points out why this system isn't a good deal for artists anyway:
"...regardless of what music you were playing, they take your money,
keep most of it for themselves, and then divide the rest statistically
based on the Billboard charts. That means that no matter what kind of
obscure, underground music you played, 3/4ths of the extortion money you
paid goes to whichever company owns N'Sync; and the rest goes to Michael
Jackson (since he owns The Beatles' catalog); and all other artists
(including the ones whose music you actually played) get nothing."
Jamie has an interesting article on the hoops you have to jump through
to webcast legally. Even without the RIAA royalties the rules are a lot
stricter than they are for radio stations:
http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/webcasting.html
For example, to qualify for a compulsory license, webcasters can't
announce songs ahead of time, play more than four songs by the same
artist in a three-hour period, or play more than two consecutive tracks
from the same album.
|
krj
|
|
response 119 of 165:
|
May 24 16:03 UTC 2002 |
Cory Doctorow of the EFF wrote a good summary of the proposal to put
tight controls on all analog->digital conversion equipment, such as
soundcards and digital camcorders, and Slashdot
used that to prompt a roundup of the Broadcast Protection Discussion
Group. The goal is to make it impossible for anyone, anywhere, to make
a digital copy of "watermarked" video or audio through analog inputs.
The BPDG's work will be about as restrictive as Sen. Holling's
CBDTPA/SSSCA proposal, but it's being sent in under the political
radar as a minor technical thing. Slashdot also provides a link
to a US Senate page on the subject.
http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/000113.html
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/05/23/2355237.shtml?tid=97
|
krj
|
|
response 120 of 165:
|
May 24 16:12 UTC 2002 |
And a couple via the fatchucks.com clipping service:
Vivendi Universal is offering an MP3 file for sale, for a buck:
a song by Meshell Ndegeocello (and I don't think ZDnet spelled her
name right). This is reported as possibly the first time that a major
label has offered a plain vanilla unrestricted MP3 file for sale.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2110831,00.html
The record companies call for a federal probe of radio payola
issues, and for "a sweeping government review of radio industry
consolidation." Clear Channel responds that there is no payola,
and their grab in the industry "often has led to a more diverse array
of formats in a single market."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/23/radio.payola.reut/index.html
|
jp2
|
|
response 121 of 165:
|
May 24 23:38 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 122 of 165:
|
May 31 19:28 UTC 2002 |
A Detroit Free Press writer reviews the two satellite radio services,
XM and Sirius. In contrast to what terrestrial radio has become,
both satellite services are angling for serious music fans looking
for both diversity and depth in their radio programming.
The reviewer is positive about both services and says the choice
between them will be largely a matter of personal taste.
http://freep.com/money/tech/newman30_20020530.htm
|
other
|
|
response 123 of 165:
|
May 31 20:30 UTC 2002 |
...until they edge out terrestrial service the way cable tv has then start
selling ads, and then start pushing crap...
|
mrmat
|
|
response 124 of 165:
|
Jun 1 16:42 UTC 2002 |
right on.
|
gull
|
|
response 125 of 165:
|
Jun 1 17:18 UTC 2002 |
Either that or they'll go out of business, and all the early-adopters will
be stuck with expensive paperweights.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 126 of 165:
|
Jun 1 17:46 UTC 2002 |
My money's on the latter..
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 127 of 165:
|
Jun 1 18:33 UTC 2002 |
Same here.
|
gull
|
|
response 128 of 165:
|
Jun 1 22:51 UTC 2002 |
Me too...even if they don't *both* go out of business, I really think
there's probably only room for *one* satellite radio company in the market.
It's sort of another VHS vs. Beta fight. I'd feel better about it if there
were some kind of standard, but these are both proprietary systems, so
you're locking yourself in to one service or the other when you buy a radio.
Personally, if I listened to the talk channels I'd miss hearing local news.
And if I want to listen to a specific type of music, I have an MP3-CD
player.
|
senna
|
|
response 129 of 165:
|
Jun 2 17:36 UTC 2002 |
I think they're good ideas, and I think at least one of them will succeed.
Back when they first came out, I read something about a receiver that would
take both services, and I told myself I'd wait until that came out before I
thought about buying into the service. I'm still pondering it.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 130 of 165:
|
Jun 2 19:20 UTC 2002 |
I think if they fail, it will be because everyone expects them to fail, and
we're all waiting for all our neighbors to buy them first.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 131 of 165:
|
Jun 3 07:08 UTC 2002 |
Both are doomed. The moment it becomes a significant market there
are a number of players ready to move into that segment that already
have significant infrastructure in place to deliver such as service
in addition to what they already deliver. For example, you already
have 'web enabled' cellphones, it wouldn't be too difficult to
offer 'music enabled' as well, indeed I'm surprised it hasn't
happened already.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 132 of 165:
|
Jun 3 20:32 UTC 2002 |
Listening to music on a cell-phone would be the utter triumph of low-fi.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 133 of 165:
|
Jun 3 21:23 UTC 2002 |
The low speaker volume would be a bigger problem. Bad sound quality's never
stopped people from listening to radio before.
|
scott
|
|
response 134 of 165:
|
Jun 3 23:27 UTC 2002 |
Two (or is it three?) words: "Headphone jack".
|
orinoco
|
|
response 135 of 165:
|
Jun 4 07:32 UTC 2002 |
D'oh. Of course.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 136 of 165:
|
Jun 4 08:00 UTC 2002 |
Exactly.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 137 of 165:
|
Jun 4 20:00 UTC 2002 |
Orinoco wrote: "Bad sound quality's never stopped people from listening
to radio before."
Yet more proof that I do not exist, I guess.
|
