response 19 of 71:

Oct 3 19:49 UTC 2001

Good information in both #15 & #18. Check again on recorded music in 2067.

response 21 of 71:

Oct 3 23:50 UTC 2001

  (I thought it was "Good morning to you.")

response 23 of 71:

Oct 4 00:23 UTC 2001

  Are you certain that the anti-circumvention measures of the DMCA
  really apply to uncopyrighted material?  That sounds suspect to me..

response 25 of 71:

Oct 4 15:28 UTC 2001

Re #23:  If I remember correctly, the anti-circumvention measures
of the DMCA apply to the *potential* use of technology, not
the actual use.  Sort of like making it illegal to own matches
because they *could* be used to commit arson.

The free dissemination of information is a cornerstone of a
democratic society.  This includes the right to pass along
information which you receive to others, possibly by making
multiple copies.  The copyright laws were originally intended
as a limited exception to protect the rights of authors to
receive reasonable compensation for their creative efforts
by granting a *temporary* exclusive license to reproduce and
sell their work.  If I remember correctly, when I was younger,
copyrights on published material were valid for something like
27 years, renewable *once* for an equal period of time.  After
that, the work went into the public domain.

The modern trend to make copyrights longer and longer is
certainly not in the public interest, and hardly protects the
original authors, who will almost certainly have been long
dead by the time the copyright on their stuff expires (if
indeed it ever does).  Whose interests do perpetually-
extended copyrights serve, then?  It's pretty clear to me
that they serve the interests of extremely wealthy publishers
who have the power to buy Congressional votes.  Laws like
the DMCA and the proposed SSSCA are, in my opinion, are
horrible inventions intended only to provide tools for the
enforcement of these undemocratic perpetual franchises.

Can you say "We *really* need campaign finance reform"?  I
knew you could!

response 27 of 71:

Oct 4 18:13 UTC 2001

"Good Morning" sounds correct to me, too. I threw out "Merry Christmas"
because I thought it scanned the same as "Happy Birthday," but it didn't sound
right at the time.

response 29 of 71:

Oct 4 21:38 UTC 2001

"We *really* need" requirement of direct popular YES vote to impliment do's
and don'ts. I for one can't imagine something like the DMCA getting that kind
of approval.

response 31 of 71:

Oct 4 22:09 UTC 2001

Direct popular vote of laws is, as a general policy, a really bad 
idea.  What Congress can be convinced to fall for is as nothing 
compared to what the general public can be convinced to fall for.

response 33 of 71:

Oct 5 01:29 UTC 2001

So how is it easier to buy 200 million people than to buy only 435 people?
Even so, I would propose it as a third requirement *on top of* getting through
the House and Senate.

response 35 of 71:

Oct 5 02:56 UTC 2001

Repent!  The end is near!  polygon agree with me! ;-)

I don't think we need campaign finance reform to fix this matter.
A simple thing, like defining a Constitutional limit to the term
of copyright and defining fair use that cannot be limited by
either legally-backed technology or contract, would do the job.
I think a term of 28 years would be good.  I've never been able
to keep collecting paychecks on work 28 years after I did it;
that ought to be enough for anyone.

response 37 of 71:

Oct 5 04:16 UTC 2001

Re 35.  Oh, come on, you and I agree on lots of things.

Re 36.  So are you going to agree with me and russ on copyright? :-)

I thought not!

response 39 of 71:

Oct 5 21:23 UTC 2001

If Drew's idea were put into effect, the populace would be in a 
continuous state of bombardment of political ads, to an extent that 
would make the height of recent presidential campaigns look quiet.

It may not be true that referendum legislation is _always_ stupider 
than what's passed by legislatures - and the remote possibility of 
doing an end run around legislatures is useful to protect - but most of 
our really stupid ideas have come up that way, notably massive property 
tax cuts and "stop me before I vote again" term limits.

Turning this back to music, Congress chose the Star-Spangled Banner as 
our national anthem some 70 years ago.  I'd hate to think what the 
public would choose, and worse still the continuous re-votes on the 
question.

response 41 of 71:

Oct 6 06:35 UTC 2001

re#40: At first I thought what a dumb question.  And then as I believe
the only truely dumb question is the one that is never even though of
much less asked...  The US could change the national anthem every year,
and maybe someday it will (in my opinion twood be a bad sign).  But one
could dismiss the question, 'yeah, next thing you know we change the
flag every year'. 

Fact is, while we don't do it every year the last time we changed the US
flag was as recent as 1959 - not that long ago and it has gone through
many many changes over the course of our nation's history.  But on the
other hand it is the same flag - same design, same concept so I guess
its the same flag. (If you look at the 1813 US Flag you would recognize
it - the flag that inspired 'our national anthem' -sung to the tune of a
popular british drinking song...and written during the 'War of 1812') 
(We all know the proper lyrics to the brit's national anthem, "My
country tis of thee, Sweet land of Liberty...." written much earlier.)

I guess the answer is, "Because that would not be proper".  And yet,
what kind of an answer is that?  What is a 'national anthem'?  An
enduring musical symbol of the nation.  Well, then we can't change it
every year.  Yet, until 1916 when Woodrow Wilson ordered that it be the
'national anthem' played by the military and naval services we did
without an official one for 126 years - and since it wasn't written
until 1814 we'd done without it specifically for 24 years (or longer
depending on if you think the USA was founded in 1776 or 1790).  (One
could suggest that the 1931 Congressional Act of 3/3/1931 officially
designating by act of congress a fact that had previously been ordered
'by executive order' was simply 'the commies have a cool national song,
we should have one too' while at the same time making a point in the
struggle between the executive and legislative branches.)  It should be
noted that the third 'verse' of our now 'National Anthem' was not sung
by the time it became the 'official' - so we do change it, although not
every year.

My own opinion is that as the pace of cultural changes due to technology
increased there was a social need for 'constant enduring symbols' sort
of as an 'anchor' or 'security blanket' ((C)Shultz).  We socially need
cultural ikons.  One should note that the first thing the successor
nation to the USSR did was to revert to the old Czar's colors (without
the royal crest), and the second was the choose a new 'national anthem'.
And just recently they reverted to the old 'soviet' anthem, but with new
lyrics.  

response 43 of 71:

Oct 18 19:06 UTC 2001

This item didn't really go where I was hoping it would; we already 
had the Napster item.
 
One particular meltdown I've been watching is the sales of Mariah 
Carey.  Virgin/EMI lured her away from Columbia/Sony with a deal worth
between 80 and 100 million dollars for four albums.  However, 
the sales of her new album GLITTER have not been impressive at 
all.  The album debuted at #7 with first week sales of about 116,000
copies; this was roughly one-third of what her last album sold 
in its debut week.  The album has steadily marched down the charts.
As of today it's at #34, with total sales of about a million.
Admittedly this includes the month following the attacks, but 
even in comparison to other CD sales right now, this is an 
incredibly bad performance, given what EMI invested in her.
(A million CDs sold would be a fine figure if the label hadn't
invested around 100 times that in the artist...)
(For comparison, the soundtrack to "O Brother Where Art Thou,"
which cost next to nothing up front, is at #19 on the chart.)

EMI chief Ken Berry has been sacked, though the Mariah deal 
was probably only part of his problems; he failed twice to get the 
company merged with another label.  There's a published rumor 
today (http://www.newmediamusic.com) that EMI is looking to 
extract itself from its contract with Mariah.

I suspect -- haven't done the research -- that the multimillion dollar
advance deals given to superstars have almost always failed for the 
labels.  I shouldn't just pick on Mariah here: I very much doubt that 
REM's megadeal paid off for Warner.