|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 115 of 154:
| 
Jun 6 02:02 UTC 2003 |
Not to break the flow of of Ken's newsy posts, but I'd like to note
something annoying I've seen in p2p file sharing: inaccurate,
sometimes GROSSLY inaccurate naming of files, songs, and genres.
Genres sometimes are debatable, but you see some really weird labels
on some of the files, really. I've been on some Net radio stations
and the DJ will name a song and just list the wrong artist because
they were quoting the idiot they got it from on Kazaa.
Copyright law can't possibly cover this, but it's got to be really
frustrating to some well-known artists when file sharers can't even
match them to their songs.
Why get this information correct? Well, I think if you do, at least
with RealOne player, you can pull up discographies and biographies on
the artist. It would seem to me like a good case that file sharing
could promote future sales.
On to the usual programming-- this may be a blip on the radar screen...
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 154:
|
Jun 6 02:15 UTC 2003 |
With CDDB, there's little excuse for not naming your MP3 files properly when
you rip them from CD.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 117 of 154:
|
Jun 6 02:38 UTC 2003 |
I've heard that one reason for misnaming them is to hide them from the
copyright owner.
|
jor
|
|
response 118 of 154:
|
Jun 6 08:07 UTC 2003 |
I read or heard that also
|
goose
|
|
response 119 of 154:
|
Jun 6 13:55 UTC 2003 |
Yep. One of my kids downloaded a bunch of essentally classic rock songs and
all the titles were correct, but the artists name was not correct. I'm sure
the reverse happens too.
|
jep
|
|
response 120 of 154:
|
Jun 6 15:25 UTC 2003 |
When I downloaded "Harper Valley PTA" from Kazaa, I saw versions
labeled as being by Dolly Parton and other prominent female country
singers. It was really sung by Jeannie C. Riley, and I don't think it
was ever done by anyone else.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 121 of 154:
|
Jun 6 20:56 UTC 2003 |
Well, maybe not the original lyrics.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 122 of 154:
|
Jun 10 23:59 UTC 2003 |
Re mislabeling artists, some years ago there was a fly-by-night
classical label called Aries, which issued bootlegs of BBC house
orchestra broadcast tapes, attributing the performances to fictitious
conductors and ensembles, of which my favorite was the "Wales Symphony
Orchestra" conducted by Colin Wilson. As most of the label's
repertoire was contemporary works which had never been performed in
public more than once, nobody was really fooled by this.
|
gull
|
|
response 123 of 154:
|
Jun 11 19:24 UTC 2003 |
ReplayTV to forbid ad skipping
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Posted: 11/06/2003 at 08:48 GMT
The single most distinguishing feature of ReplayTV, namely its ability
to skip commercial propaganda automatically, will be dropped from the
next line of DVR boxes, Reuters reports.
"Due in August, the new ReplayTV 5500 series will remove the 'Commercial
Advance' and 'Send Show' options present in models that are currently
for sale," the wire service says.
An impoverished US television broadcast industry had sued ReplayTV's
former owner, SonicBlue, with piteous claims that allowing viewers to
skip adverts would siphon off the media colossus' lifeblood and so
destroy the artistic creativity for which it is so justly famous.
The suit also decried the 'send show' feature, which broadcasters
likened to a mechanism of mass piracy, though it is configured to allow
ReplayTV users to send shows only to other ReplayTV users, and only one
at a time.
ReplayTV's new owner, Japanese outfit D&M Holdings, will not be altering
the 'pause and resume' feature or preventing users from manually
fast-forwarding through commercials. For now, the broadcast industry
seems content to allow consumers to skip ads manually or, if they
prefer, to leave the room while they're playing, though for how long is
anyone's guess.
(from http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/31126.html)
|
slynne
|
|
response 124 of 154:
|
Jun 11 20:03 UTC 2003 |
Yeah but isnt that one of the main reasons to buy a replay TV or a Tivo
or whatever?
|
jazz
|
|
response 125 of 154:
|
Jun 11 20:11 UTC 2003 |
There'll be a ROM upgrade out soon, I'm sure, that allows you to once
again skip commercials. If you buy black-market chips, that is.
|
krj
|
|
response 126 of 154:
|
Jun 11 20:17 UTC 2003 |
I mentioned in an earlier piece that the previous owners of Replay TV,
the Sonicblue company, had been much more willing to fight legal
battles to defend innovative products. In the short term, expect to
see the copyright industry with much more veto control on new products.
|
tsty
|
|
response 127 of 154:
|
Jun 11 20:32 UTC 2003 |
hacking tivo made one of the weekly news-mags recently.
|
senna
|
|
response 128 of 154:
|
Jun 16 03:09 UTC 2003 |
If TiVo doesn't fall for this, they're going to run ReplayTV into the ground.
One of these days the industry is going to take one of these concepts too far,
and it's going to backfire, and the public is going to revolt with their
wallets. This would have had such potential if hard-disk television was more
popular.
|
gull
|
|
response 129 of 154:
|
Jun 16 16:06 UTC 2003 |
Another article I've seen has suggested that stand-alone TiVo style
boxes are dying anyway. They were never terribly popular because retail
salespeople weren't good at articulating what the product was about, and
now the same technology is being integrated into other products, like
digital cable and satellite set-top boxes
|
krj
|
|
response 130 of 154:
|
Jun 16 16:55 UTC 2003 |
Today we know what a chain of CD stores -- the largest in the country,
I think -- is worth: zero. Nothing. Nada.
"Electronics retailer Best Buy Co. said Monday it has shed its
troubled Musicland Group, turning it over to Sun Capital
Partners, a Florida-based private investment company...
"Sun Capital Partners PAID NO CASH but assumed all of Musicland's
liabilities including its lease obligations.
"Richfield-based Best Buy paid nearly $700 million for Minnetonka-
based Musicland two years ago, but the group failed to meet
Best Buy's expectations..."
((emphasis KRJ))
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?oldflok=FF-APO-1700&idq=/ff/
story/0001%2F20030616%2F110427528.htm&sc=1700&floc=NW_5-L7
(Sorry about the ugly URL, I'll look for a tidier one.)
Jeez. A $700 million investment wiped out in two years.
After this deal, I'll be surprised if the Tower Records chain, which
is also for sale, doesn't proceed to bankruptcy liquidation.
|
krj
|
|
response 131 of 154:
|
Jun 16 16:56 UTC 2003 |
(I forgot this: "Musicland operates around 1,100 Media Play,
Sam Goody and Suncoast stores around the country.")
|
gelinas
|
|
response 132 of 154:
|
Jun 16 17:41 UTC 2003 |
Hadn't realised Media Play was owned by Best Buy.
I wonder how this affects Best Buy's in-house CD operation.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 133 of 154:
|
Jun 16 18:14 UTC 2003 |
Wow. That really does screw up even more possible in-store music buying for
the public.
|
senna
|
|
response 134 of 154:
|
Jun 16 20:59 UTC 2003 |
I wonder the same thing. Best Buy is miles ahead of places like WalMart for
music selection, and strong on prices. It sounds like they might just feel
that they can do fine in music on their own without extra market penetration.
When you think about it, they owned a lot of their competition--they just
weren't doing well enough to justify them to continue to own it, because Best
Buy probably does fairly well on its own.
|
russ
|
|
response 135 of 154:
|
Jun 17 02:06 UTC 2003 |
It occurs to me that TiVo might be the salvation of broadcast TV. If
cable etc. gets "piracy protection" so that viewers cannot stream
shows from one PVR to another, it will increase the audience for
less-restricted fare. PVRs are already cutting into the potential
market for video-on-demand, which is good; the fewer opportunities
there are for distributors to get monopolies on ancillary services,
the more they'll have to concentrate on content that people want.
|
gull
|
|
response 136 of 154:
|
Jun 17 14:08 UTC 2003 |
I almost never shop at chain music stores these days because they rarely
have the music I'm looking for. If I'm going to have to ask them to
special-order something anyway, I might as well just buy it online and
get it delivered to my doorstep.
|
polygon
|
|
response 137 of 154:
|
Jun 17 15:00 UTC 2003 |
As I have noted here before -- I occasionally buy CDs directly from
musicians at concerts. Other than that, I don't think I've bought a new
CD for myself in years. Prices like $18 just don't make any sense to me.
|
gull
|
|
response 138 of 154:
|
Jun 18 13:10 UTC 2003 |
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5865
Senator endorses destroying computers of illegal downloaders
By Ted Bridis, The Associated Press Jun 17 2003 3:04PM
The chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday he
favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of
people who illegally download music from the Internet.
The surprise remarks by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch during a hearing on
copyright abuses represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating
battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against
illegal music downloads.
During a discussion on methods to frustrate computer users who illegally
exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology
executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading.
Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal
anti-hacking laws.
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy
Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds
technology to disrupt music downloads. One technique deliberately
downloads pirated material very slowly so other users can't.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer
"may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
The senator, a composer who earned $18,000 last year in song writing
royalties, acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for
copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed
technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online
behavior, "then destroy their computer."
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines,
we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the
only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few
hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness
of their actions, he said.
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," said Hatch, who
has earned royalties for composing music.
A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, Jonathan
Lamy, said Hatch was "apparently making a metaphorical point that if
peer-to-peer networks don't take reasonable steps to prevent massive
copyright infringement on the systems they create, Congress may be
forced to consider stronger measures."
The RIAA represents major music labels.
|
tod
|
|
response 139 of 154:
|
Jun 18 16:19 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
