You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   142-166   167-183   
 
Author Message
17 new of 183 responses total.
krj
response 167 of 183: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 23:42 UTC 2000

Speaking of AOL's about-face:  http://www.inside.com has a piece today
on how the author of Gnutella has disappeared and seems not too happy
to have sold Winamp to AOL.

-----

News item:
 http://www.inside.com/story/Story_Cached/0,2770,8823_9_12_1,00.html

MP3.com, in the copyright case over My.MP3.Com, was able to reach  
settlements with all but one of the major labels.  Universal held out 
and so the trial now moves into a stage to determine damages. 
Universal does not budge: they want billions.  They want MP3.com  
destroyed (KRJ interpretation)   From the inside.com story: 
 
   "According to its filings, Universal is not only trying to get  
    even with MP3.com, but it is also seeking 'deterrence' -- 
    that is, to send a shrill message to Napster, Scour and the like. 
    In one brief, Universal asks Judge Jed Rakoff to 'give notice 
    to other prospective Internet billionaires that violation of the 
    law is not an acceptable business strategy.'" 
 
The article goes on to outline possible MP3.com legal defense  
strategies.
krj
response 168 of 183: Mark Unseen   Aug 31 15:12 UTC 2000

News item:
  http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,38525,00.html

"17 out of 50 US colleges and universities polled  have banned 
 students from using Napster's song-swap service on their 
 campuses, said a report released on Wednesday by research firm
 Gartner Group Inc.
 
 ...

"'I would not want to be the university president who neglected
 to update the school policy regarding music downloads this year,'
 said Robert Labatt, principal analyst for Gartner's e-Business 
 Services group.  'Long legal battles can be costly, and one 
 school could easily be singled out to set legal precedent
 this year.'"
 
Napster's next court date in the Court of Appeals is 
the week of October 2.
krj
response 169 of 183: Mark Unseen   Sep 7 04:26 UTC 2000

Continuing from resp:167 ::  Wired, and most other media, report that the
court has found that mp3.com's infringements of the Universal
Music copyrights was "willful," and it set damages at $25,000
per CD copied into the MyMp3.Com service.  Wired guesstimates
the total bill at around $118 million, which is not enough to 
put mp3.com out of business.
 
mp3.com plans to continue challenges to some of the Universal
copyrights.
krj
response 170 of 183: Mark Unseen   Sep 7 04:53 UTC 2000

www.inside.com says that the number of CDs which were infringed
is not determined.  mp3.com says 4700 which yields the $118 million
figure; Universal claims 10,000 which puts the damages closer to 
$250,000,000.
 
In general the www.inside.com piece is much more pessimistic about
mp3.com's survival.
richard
response 171 of 183: Mark Unseen   Sep 7 04:58 UTC 2000

mp3.com's stock will tank bigtime tomorrow
they wont survive on their own, will need to get bought out
krj
response 172 of 183: Mark Unseen   Sep 15 03:28 UTC 2000

   (( FW note:  I've linked in the two lengthy Napster items from 
      the Agora conference, now that Summer's Agora is winding down.
      I intend to keep most of the news updates on the legal war
      in this item. ))
krj
response 173 of 183: Mark Unseen   Oct 9 20:54 UTC 2000

Lengthy interview with Napster's lead attorney David Boies, in which 
he lays out Napster's four main legal arguments:
 
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.10/boies.html
krj
response 174 of 183: Mark Unseen   Oct 11 02:28 UTC 2000

http://www.upside.com runs an interesting rumor that two unnamed 
ISPs are interested in buying Napster.  The idea is that the Napster
server would only be available to customers of the purchasing ISP.
With Napster incorporated as "bait" into a profitable company, 
there would be some money to try to cut a deal with the record 
industry.  
 
No such sale can happen unless a deal can be cut with the record industry,
and the RIAA seems awfully determined not to make any deals.
orinoco
response 175 of 183: Mark Unseen   Oct 11 21:36 UTC 2000

Interesting.  And it would be doubly interesting to see how much damage a
"cover charge" like that would do to the size of Napster's user base.
raven
response 176 of 183: Mark Unseen   Oct 14 22:54 UTC 2000

Also in the same Wired mentioned in #173 a pretty good article by John
Perry Barlow on I.P. and Napster.  It makes the same points basicaly he
made in a ground breaking article on IP in Wired in 1994 that have been
addressed here, but still makes for a good read.  The URL of the earlier
article is http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas.html



mcnally
response 177 of 183: Mark Unseen   Oct 15 23:54 UTC 2000

  Interesting "is not / is too" accusations are flying between Salon 
  Magazine (www.salon.com) and Leonardo Chiariglione, head of the 
  industry-sponsored Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI)

  Salon, citing anonymous SDMI insiders, claims that *all* of the 
  watermarking, encryption, and other security technologies proposed
  as possible standards by the SDMI have already been cracked in record
  time since the SDMI began their "Hack SDMI" challenge (which invites
  would-be hackers to try for $10,000 by breaking SDMI's security schemes.)

  Chiariglione, quoted in [Inside] magazine (www.inside.com) claims that
  nobody knows the results of the contest yet and that none of the 450
  submissions have been properly examined to see whether they're successful
  cracks or not.
krj
response 178 of 183: Mark Unseen   Dec 8 00:07 UTC 2000

We haven't opened this can of worms for a while.  I don't know what to 
think about the deal between BMG and Napster, but one element of it, 
which proposes that Napster charge its users $5 a month, seems like 
it would badly damage Napster by driving away lots of its users, 
and thus thinning the available song selection.
 
mp3.com's streaming service "my.mp3.com" may be in even worse shape.
mp3.com got reamed in the courts for thinking they could save users
the trouble of uploading their mp3 files to the "storage locker"
service.  The revamped service will only allow free access to 
25 CDs; if you want to "store" more than that, it'll be $50 per year,
thank you.   Oh, and major-label products only, please, because those
are the only companies mp3.com has hundreds of millions of dollars
in licensing deals with.

I dunno, I think paying $50 per year to stream CDs that you are supposed
to already own is a non-starter, but then I'm used to dragging a 
box of CDs and a portable player around with me.
mcnally
response 179 of 183: Mark Unseen   Dec 8 00:26 UTC 2000

  It gets worse than that..  I order to prevent people from borrowing
  a copy of a CD to prove that they own it, the my.mp3.com service will
  apparently now require listeners to insert the CDs at random intervals
  to prove they still have them.  If you have to keep the CD media handy
  so you can prove you're not a thief whenever you want to listen to
  something, what exactly is the benefit of the storage locker concept?
  Lower fidelity?  High bandwidth usage?  Limited selection?

  I probably never would have gone for the original service in a big way
  but I think MP3.com got reamed while trying to do the right thing --
  all they were trying to do was provide a digital repository for content
  to which people already had access, even making good-faith efforts to
  ensure they weren't delivering music to people who didn't already have
  a copy..
krj
response 180 of 183: Mark Unseen   Dec 27 05:50 UTC 2000

Not purely an mp3 item, but an mp3.com news pointer leads to it.
   http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
discusses a "stealth plan" to put a copyright protection system
into all new hard disks starting summer 2001.  Yes, this makes 
backups and large disk farms difficult to impossible to operate.

"But for home users, the party's over.  CRPM paves the way for 
CPRM-compliant audio CDs, and the free exchange of digital 
recordings will be limited to non-CPRM media...."
mcnally
response 181 of 183: Mark Unseen   Dec 27 06:00 UTC 2000

  I'm extremely skeptical about the overblown claims being made in the CPRM
  stories (CPRM = Copy Protection for Removable Media..)

  It seems unlikely to me that the system can do all that its critics claim
  it will do and if indeed it does those things it seems pretty unlikely
  that it will be a widely adopted and successful technological format.
krj
response 182 of 183: Mark Unseen   Jan 16 07:33 UTC 2001

Pete Townshend on Napster:
http://www.petetownshend.com/press_release_diary_display.cfm?id=3961
  and if I typoed that, see www.mp3.com/news and dig down.

He seems tired of the old business model -- note his carping about BMI --
and willing to see what's coming.
micklpkl
response 183 of 183: Mark Unseen   Jan 16 16:04 UTC 2001

I'm not sure if I like this proposal, but there is an interesting article on
a way to make free distribution of content profitable here:

http://interocity.com/jukebox/jukebox2.html
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   142-166   167-183   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss