|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 125 of 151:
| 
Aug 24 13:20 UTC 2001 |
I thought "published" meant there were at least three copies, or something
like that. Didn't Edison also develop a method for copying his cylinders, one
at a time?
I'll agree that polygon's interpretation of copyright law creates a highly
impractical situation, but it also doesn't match my recollection of copyright
law. Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention. =}
|
dbratman
|
|
response 126 of 151:
|
Aug 24 17:05 UTC 2001 |
I have seen, and held in my hand, commercially published vinyl (or at
least it looked and felt like vinyl) cylinders from circa 1905. Flat
disks had been patented by Emil Berliner in 1896, and in the form of 78
rpms had taken over well before 1922. Commercial phonographs were
plenty common by that time. What hadn't been developed yet (late 20s)
was electrical recording, so the sound on those earlier records really
sucks.
|
brighn
|
|
response 127 of 151:
|
Aug 24 17:10 UTC 2001 |
when did the first talkies appear? that would also qualify as "published
sound."
|
remmers
|
|
response 128 of 151:
|
Aug 24 18:23 UTC 2001 |
"The Jazz Singer", usually credited as the first "talking movie"
(although it was mostly a silent movie with a few sound scenes)
was released in 1927. By 1929, Hollywood had totally converted
to sound.
|
brighn
|
|
response 129 of 151:
|
Aug 24 21:23 UTC 2001 |
Well, ok, that's after 1922.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 130 of 151:
|
Aug 24 22:18 UTC 2001 |
Cylinders where recorded in a "batch mode", with a sound
horn picking up the sound and a distribution system (all acoustic)
tapping into multiple recorders. A big batch would have been in
the dozens. The next set of x many cylinders would get a new
performance. This method ended once a master disk could be cut,
and used to make mothers, that then in turn produced shellac
and vinyl.
|
krj
|
|
response 131 of 151:
|
Aug 29 03:53 UTC 2001 |
http://www.newmediamusic.com/articles/NM01080292.html
Fairly neutral, mostly non-technical article summarizing the different
approaches to copy-proofing CDs. IFPI (the International Federation
of Phonographic Industries) got a patent last week on another
such system. Quote:
> The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
> (IFPI) patented a method to fool CD-Rom players when
> consumers try to copy CDs or rip MP3s from CDs onto their computers.
> It involves encrypting the time codes on CDs, which are
> usually ignored by CD players but not by CD-Rom players, so as to
> make the CD perform just fine on your stereo system--so
> hopes the IFPI--but be incompatible when you try to copy it onto
> your computer.
|
krj
|
|
response 132 of 151:
|
Aug 31 17:25 UTC 2001 |
Michael Robertson, the entertaining and outspoken CEO of MP3.com, has
left the job as the acquisition of MP3.com by Vivendi Universal
is completed.
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/robertson.html
The US Copyright Office has issued a report asking Congress to clarify
some of the legal issues surrounding the Internet music business.
MSNBC says the report generally tilts towards the Web music
companies and away from the copyright industry. In particular,
one area of focus is the copyright industry claim that it should
get both performance royalties and recording royalties on the
delivery of music over the net. In today's market, the copyright holders
get either performance or recording royalties, but never both.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/621682.asp?cp1=1
|
krj
|
|
response 133 of 151:
|
Sep 7 07:14 UTC 2001 |
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,46596,00.html
The Webnoize traffic measuring people say that four of the new
file trading systems -- FastTrack, Audiogalaxy, iMesh and Gnutella
-- are, in their aggregate, enabling users to trade about as many
files -- 3 billion per month -- as Napster did as its peak.
File trading activity is expected to rocket upwards as college
students return to their campuses.
FastTrack usage has been growing by 60% every month, for the entire year.
-------
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/06/technology/circuits/06IMAG.html
A non-musical article, for a change. The Times reports on a conflict
between the owners of copyrighted images and a new era of search
engines which collect and index images from the web. Fairly interesting
article, a bit too dense for me to summarize it well.
|
polygon
|
|
response 134 of 151:
|
Sep 7 07:22 UTC 2001 |
As to the NYT article -- it's odd that the sole focus is on images,
with no mention of search engines caching copyrighted text.
|
other
|
|
response 135 of 151:
|
Sep 7 18:30 UTC 2001 |
Well, a picture *is* worth a thousand words...
|
krj
|
|
response 136 of 151:
|
Sep 9 06:40 UTC 2001 |
The copyright industry is going for the whole enchilada:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46655,00.html
Quoting:
> WASHINGTON -- Music and record industry lobbyists are
> quietly readying an all-out assault
> on Congress this fall in hopes of dramatically rewriting copyright laws.
> With the help of Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), the powerful chairman
> of the Senate Commerce
> committee, they hope to embed copy-protection controls in
> nearly all consumer electronic
> devices and PCs. All types of digital content, including music,
> video and e-books, are
> covered.
> The Security Systems Standards and
> Certification Act (SSSCA), scheduled to
> be introduced by Hollings, backs up this
> requirement with teeth: It would be a
> civil offense to create or sell any kind of
> computer equipment that "does not
> include and utilize certified security
> technologies" approved by the federal government.
> It also creates new federal felonies, punishable by five years
> in prison and fines of up to
> $500,000. Anyone who distributes copyrighted material with
> "security measures" disabled or
> has a network-attached computer that disables copy protection is covered.
|
polygon
|
|
response 137 of 151:
|
Sep 9 08:45 UTC 2001 |
This is a very big story, and rather than post all the details here,
I'll start a new item.
|
polygon
|
|
response 138 of 151:
|
Sep 9 08:55 UTC 2001 |
The new item is #192.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 139 of 151:
|
Sep 10 00:42 UTC 2001 |
NB: That is Item 192 in Agora, Summer 2001.
|
polygon
|
|
response 140 of 151:
|
Sep 10 01:42 UTC 2001 |
Good point.
|
polygon
|
|
response 141 of 151:
|
Sep 10 01:43 UTC 2001 |
Oh, and also, there is Item 194, same Agora, with objections to and
discussion of Item 192.
|
krj
|
|
response 142 of 151:
|
Sep 10 02:49 UTC 2001 |
Well, if we are going to argue about the argument there, maybe the
actual discussion will stay here. :)
Repeating myself from M-net:
Congress already endorsed the proposal that consumers should not have
access to unrestricted digital copying when they passed the Audio
Home Recording Act, which mandated the Serial Copy Management System
in consumer digitial music recorders. I bet the argument will be that
Congress will just be closing the loophole the AHRA left for general-
purpose computers; when the AHRA was passed, I don't think the lawmakers
or the lobbyists forsaw the consumer Internet, or CD burners.
|
mary
|
|
response 143 of 151:
|
Sep 10 03:22 UTC 2001 |
If people think $16 is too much to pay for a legal copy of their
latest pop CD then why don't they not buy the thing? Simply
making illegal copies doesn't seem like the best response.
|
other
|
|
response 144 of 151:
|
Sep 10 03:38 UTC 2001 |
Conditioned response.
|
bru
|
|
response 145 of 151:
|
Sep 10 11:25 UTC 2001 |
But what else will it make illegal? And what future developments in the
industry will it stifle? And what is the point of it except to guarantee
certain persons (not necissarily the artist) the right to make money? What
damage will it do to that industry by restricting artists rights?
|
gull
|
|
response 146 of 151:
|
Sep 10 13:30 UTC 2001 |
This is pretty much the end of "fair use" rights, isn't it?
|
brighn
|
|
response 147 of 151:
|
Sep 10 13:46 UTC 2001 |
#146> Yep. Some spoiled kids ruined it for everyone.
When is the Government going to stop acting like a father in midlife crisis
who's too lazy to come up with serious solutions to his kids' misbehavior and
just lays down "now EVERYONE's lost their priveleges" judgments?
|
polygon
|
|
response 148 of 151:
|
Sep 10 15:26 UTC 2001 |
Re 143. Not buying the CD is *my* response. I don't need an illegal copy.
However, this law will have impacts on far more activities than downloading
music.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 149 of 151:
|
Sep 10 15:55 UTC 2001 |
The one that scared me was the "first sale" negation -- i.e., under this act,
it would be illegal to borrow books/cds, etc. from the public library. Taht
was scary!
|
