|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 14 of 154:
| 
Apr 7 21:47 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, but on the same hardware was 95? There's a reason 2000 requires much
bigger/faster hardware.
|
gull
|
|
response 15 of 154:
|
Apr 8 01:30 UTC 2003 |
I didn't say it was faster than 95. My experience is that it's faster
than NT 4 on the same hardware, though.
95 is pretty fast until it chews itself up, which it does with amazing
regularity.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 16 of 154:
|
Apr 8 07:08 UTC 2003 |
I just bought (yes, legally) a software program from MS. On the CD-ROM
is printed this pathetically hopeful notice: "Do Not Make Illegal
Copies of This Disc."
|
gull
|
|
response 17 of 154:
|
Apr 8 15:18 UTC 2003 |
"Do Not Make Illegal Copies Of This Product From An Illegal Monopoly."
|
gull
|
|
response 18 of 154:
|
Apr 8 20:26 UTC 2003 |
The Free Press printed a correction today that Heather Newman's column
should have said 'billion', not 'trillion'.
|
krj
|
|
response 19 of 154:
|
Apr 10 05:39 UTC 2003 |
Did you like the 80s band The Smithereens? Do you want to be a
patron of the arts? Then Smithereens bandleader Pat DiNizio has
an offer for you!
DiNizio is seeking 100 subscribers, at $1200 each, for a series of
limited edition CD releases. Subscribers will get quantities to
share with families and friends.
Each patron will also get a private house concert by DiNizio to
benefit a favorite charity.
In the article, DiNizio says this is an attempt to build a new
business model for the current file-sharing environment.
http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=185906
6
http://www.patdinizio.com/
DiNizio's own website goes on at length about his new business model.
(I'm not willing to go to $1200 for anybody, but I can see this
tempting me if the numbers shift -- say $100 from 1000 people.
But divided among members of a band, it's not that much, is it?)
|
slynne
|
|
response 20 of 154:
|
Apr 10 14:47 UTC 2003 |
someone should help Mr. Pat Dinizio with the formatting on his web
page.
It sounds like a cool idea though. I hope it works out for him.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 21 of 154:
|
Apr 10 19:42 UTC 2003 |
I seem to remember a similar story a few years back. Momus got sued for
making fun of Wendy Carlos and asked people to help subsidize his court costs.
Wasn't the reward having a track on his next album named after you?
I'm curious whether that $1200 would count as tax-deductible, since it's going
to fund a concert whose proceeds go to charity. If it does, then this seems
like a win/win situation for the donors: the same tax writeoff they'd get by
donating the $1200 straight to charity, plus entertainment and a whole
shitload of CDs. (The ideal scenario, I guess, would be if the $1200 was
tax-deductible _and_ the house concert netted more than a $1200 profit to give
away. Then the donor, the band _and_ the charity all come out better off.
I have no idea if that's realistic or not, but it's probably not. If you can
fit 50 people in your living room, you'd still need to make $240 off of each
of them to "break even.")
But I digress. It's a cool idea regardless, and I would definitely like to
see it work, if only out of curiousity. It would be interesting to see how
it would change the music business if this sort of scheme caught on.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 22 of 154:
|
Apr 10 20:14 UTC 2003 |
50 x 240 = 12,000
50 x 24 = 1,200
|
gull
|
|
response 23 of 154:
|
Apr 11 13:34 UTC 2003 |
A federal judge has dismissed Ben Edelman's application for permission
to reverse-engineer the list of blocked websites from N2H2's filtering
software. The software is often used to comply with government
requirements that libraries filter Internet content, and Ben (a Harvard
Law student and online activist) had wanted to investigate its accuracy.
N2H2 claimed this would violate their rights under the DMCA, and U.S.
District Judge Richard Sterns upheld their claim, saying "There is no
plausibly protected constitutional interest Edelman can assert that
outweighs N2H2's right to protect its copyrighted material from an
invasive and destructive trespass."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30196.html
|
jazz
|
|
response 24 of 154:
|
Apr 11 14:00 UTC 2003 |
That's scary on two levels.
One, clean-room reverse engineering should be legal, period.
Two, there's a clear constitutional interest. Freedom of speech
*might* be being infringed, but nobody knows.
|
krj
|
|
response 25 of 154:
|
Apr 11 17:30 UTC 2003 |
Right, the intersection of this ruling on the DMCA and the rules on
library/school internet filtering goes like this:
1) Schools and libraries are required to install this product to
restrict what may be read on the internet.
2) It is illegal to determine what you are not being allowed to read.
|
krj
|
|
response 26 of 154:
|
Apr 11 18:09 UTC 2003 |
Back to music: News items flying everywhere report that
Apple (the computer company, not the Beatles' corporation)
is negotiating to buy Universal Music Group, the world's largest
record company. The rumored price would be $6 billion.
Universal is currently owned by the giant conglomerate Vivendi,
which is choking on the debt it piled up in its 1990s acquisition
spree. Vivendi is trying to sell off its entertainment assets,
and reports have been that there has been little serious interest
in buying its music division because investors see little
future in the business of selling music CDs.
Apple may see its future in music: it already makes the iPod,
generally regarded as the best MP3 player on the market, and
it is bringing an online music delivery system to market sometime
soon; there has been much speculation that Apple might manage to do
it better than the MusicNet and Pressplay offerings from the
established recording industry. Owning a huge music division
could give Apple a good base of desirable music to feed this
growing music operation.
One article says that Universal accounts for about 25% of
CD sales. Major label imprints of Universal include:
MCA, Interscope, Geffen, A&M, Def Jam, Lost Highway,
and also possibly the largest remaining big-label classical
music operation, with Philips, Deutsche Grammophon, Decca.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 27 of 154:
|
Apr 11 18:32 UTC 2003 |
re #23: "invasive and destructive trespass"?
|
other
|
|
response 28 of 154:
|
Apr 11 20:06 UTC 2003 |
Hopefully, he'll appeal. The constitutional implications are one
important area, but reverse-engineering is vital to innovation, and when
combined with due diligence regarding patents, poses no risk of
infringement.
|
krj
|
|
response 29 of 154:
|
Apr 11 20:55 UTC 2003 |
OK, my understanding is that the DMCA pretty much bars most or all
reverse engineering -- maybe only in a case where a copyright is claimed.
But since most computer code is copyrighted, that would pretty much
cover most of what we're interested in.
My understanding is that what Eric/other is asking for would require
the court to overturn the clear language of the DMCA on reverse
engineering. In the recent case, the plaintiff sought to get the
judge to give him a first amendment harbor to do research on the
filter behavior which is clearly prohibited by the DMCA, and
the judge wouldn't even see the basis for a first amendment claim
in this limited case.
Enlighten me if I'm wrong on this.
|
other
|
|
response 30 of 154:
|
Apr 12 03:39 UTC 2003 |
My point is that understanding a mechanism is essential to improving on
it, and being forced by a law like this to reinvent the wheel for each
improvement is an example of the worst kind of market protectionism. And
that's not even considering the critical 1st amendment implications.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 31 of 154:
|
Apr 12 04:43 UTC 2003 |
Will this alcogol leak calcium from my blood?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 32 of 154:
|
Apr 12 06:22 UTC 2003 |
I hope so.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 33 of 154:
|
Apr 12 06:33 UTC 2003 |
This is more patent law than copyright law. Patent law is being
reinterpreted to mean that anything incorporating ideas from an
existing patent is part of that patent in its entirety. This did not
use to be so.
If the new regime had always been in operation, anything with a round
moving part would still be paying royalties to the heirs of Ukamagook,
who invented the wheel.
|
krj
|
|
response 34 of 154:
|
Apr 12 20:32 UTC 2003 |
Music again. Slashdot points to this article from the
Christian Science Monitor, which reports that independent labels
are continuing to see boom times, even while the major record
labels are in a deep, 3-year slide.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0411/p13s02-almp.html
"Independents' day"
Quote:
"Paul Foley, general manager of the biggest independent label
Rounder Records of Cambridge, Mass., happily brags,
'2002 was actually Rounder's best year in history. We were
up 50 percent over 2001.'"
The article says that independent labels generally control costs
better; in particular, they shun the pay-for-promotion game now needed
to get a song into pop radio.
((KRJ here. I'd seen the 1990s as the golden age of independent music,
and I had not heard how independents were doing with the huge slump
in the RIAA-reported sales, and with the crash in CD retailing.
Needless to say, the figure from Rounder -- a major folk/roots
label -- cheers me tremendously.))
|
mcnally
|
|
response 35 of 154:
|
Apr 12 20:46 UTC 2003 |
Although they weren't directly involved, I'd think Rounder in particular
received a big boost from the "O Brother" phenomenon, which may account
for their striking increase in the past few years..
|
krj
|
|
response 36 of 154:
|
Apr 13 15:58 UTC 2003 |
True, true. All three labels cited in the Christian Science Monitor
article -- the others are Bloodshot, and another one specializing in
roots/country-oriented singer songwriters -- could be benefitting
from this trend. Which is interesting in itself: The "O Brother"
soundtrack sold 7 million copies over two years, for a major label,
and yet the majors seem completely unable to see this as a market
opportunity. The only significant "Americana"/alt.country/whatever
project from the majors is Universal's "Lost Highway" imprint, home
of Lucinda Williams among others. Am I missing any others?
-----
News item: rapper Ice-T becomes "one of the first name-brand artists"
to offer legitimate downloads through Kazaa. One can download his new
album for $4.99. One can order a physical CD from Ice-T's web site
for the same price. Conventional retail distribution is to follow later
this year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11037-2003Apr11.html
The Post also includes an unfavorable review of a new authorized
download service, still encumbered with balky rights management
restrictions and limited selection. This operation is called MusicNow:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11042-2003Apr11.html
Quote:
"... any real-world store that, say, offered a total of one song by
The Rolling Stones would quickly find itself put down by the
competition."
|
krj
|
|
response 37 of 154:
|
Apr 13 16:59 UTC 2003 |
More news quickies from the portals:
There's a new book on the rise and fall of Napster:
"All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster" by
Joseph Menn. Two short reviews:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/899012.asp
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/103/business/How_to_take_on_the_recording
_industry_and_lose+.shtml
Also, the Boston Globe has an overview report on how Kazaa has been
structured to evade the legal destruction brought down on Napster:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/103/business/Unlike_Napster_Kazaa_can_run_and_it_CAN_hide+.shtml
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 154:
|
Apr 14 13:09 UTC 2003 |
Another "chilling effect" story. Michigan's "Super DMCA" legislation,
which doesn't include the "intent to defraud" clause that's in
legislation being considered in other states, has forced a U of M grad
student to move his research overseas:
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/3912
|
