response 25 of 126:

Sep 8 21:20 UTC 2000

There will be a lot less "intellectual property" created if the creators
cannot make a living from their work. This is why the patent process
was invented - to promote invention. If you want to have lots of new
music created, you have to protect the investment and living of the 
musicians.

response 27 of 126:

Sep 8 21:33 UTC 2000

Re #25:
    Yes, there will be a lot less "intellectual property" created. I would
rather have this than a system of laws which a large part of the population
runs afoul of.

response 29 of 126:

Sep 8 21:53 UTC 2000

Heh.  The political situation for the music industry is quite grim:
they are going into this battle with many of their suppliers (the 
artists) and many of their customers cheering for their destruction.

response 31 of 126:

Sep 8 22:14 UTC 2000

I just went and skimmed the Atlantic Monthly article online.
http://www.theatlantic.com     Wow.  It's even more brutal than the 
celebrated Courtney Love piece.  

response 33 of 126:

Sep 9 02:05 UTC 2000

Do you have any of the Sluggy Freelance books?  I don't, because I'm not all
that into the strip.  A friend of mine does have one, and says it's
interesting because the book makes something noticable that the online
strips don't -- that Pete Abrams often cuts and pastes frames, then changes
a few details, instead of hand-drawing each one.  To me that seems a bit
cheap, but obviously the appeal of the strip isn't the artwork.  It's the
fact that it pushes geek-culture buttons.

response 35 of 126:

Sep 9 14:40 UTC 2000

I'm hoping Rane will get back to the second part of my resp:23 ::
if downloading music from the Internet is theft, what do you propose
to do about it?

response 37 of 126:

Sep 9 16:12 UTC 2000

Re #35: I don't propose to do anything about it. I'm not the one violating
the law, or responsible for its enforcement. However I don't buy the
*selfish* arguments in #23 that the buyers are the ones that should have
the sole say on what they will "donate" after they take what they want.
Most people will take what they want and give nothing, when it is so
convenient to do so. I much prefer the bargaining mode, where the owner of
the property can set a price and the buy can say what they will pay, and
then they negotiate in the market - the usual process by which prices are
established. Just stealing the goods isn't a very ethical end-run around
this process. 

response 39 of 126:

Sep 9 21:20 UTC 2000

My arguments in #23 and elsewhere aren't "selfish," they are observations
of what is happening.  The number of Napster users is guesstimated
at 20 million and growing explosively.  Aimster, a similar program 
designed to piggyback on AOL Instant Message, has been out for one 
month and the news reports estimate that it has already got 
one million users.
 
Here's my predictions for the near term: remember, Rane, these are 
observations, not endorsements.  I expect Napster, Inc., to get 
whacked.  I expect that it won't make any difference.  About a year 
from now, the business model for music on the Internet is going to be
something like the marijuana business in the 1970s, and 30-50 million
Internet users will be downloading music for free from a variety of 
guerrilla sources.  The next battle for the copyright holders will 
be to overturn the DMCA immunity which the ISPs have for the 
copyright violations of their users, which will be a direct attack
on the economic viability of the Internet.

response 41 of 126:

Sep 10 05:30 UTC 2000

Actually, I think ISPs only have immunity until they know a violation is
taking place.  Once they know it's happening, either through their own
logging or through being notified by someone, they're required to stop it. 
The obvious next step would be to make logging mandatory, so that ignorance
is no longer an excuse.  Let's face it; the only way to fully enforce
copyright law on the internet is to spy on each and every connection.  The
question is whether the entertainment industry has the clout to make it
happen.  I forsee a lot of campaign contributions in their future.

response 43 of 126:

Sep 10 13:08 UTC 2000

Or, to put it better, I think, "to destroy businesses which add no value as an
intermediary."

The Courtney Love essay is a good one to read. It's on salon.com.

response 45 of 126:

Sep 10 19:30 UTC 2000

This has been a thoughtful, intelligent discussion of this subject, and I
appreciate that. I read several music-related mailing lists and forums, and
I have seen the direction these sorts of discussions usually follow.
Not having read the article in The Atlantic, I cannot comment on it, yet. I'd
ask some kind soul to copy it into an e-mail for me, but somehow I feel that
might not be wise. ;)

Speaking of ISPs, and immunity, I received this e-mail from TimeWarner
Austin/RoadRunner today:

<pasted>
NETWORK UPDATE: NAPSTER AND BANDWIDTH ABUSE

In the interest of providing the best reliable service to all of our
customers, we would like to share some information that will help all of our
Road Runner customers enjoy their service.

One of the conveniences of Road Runner High Speed Online is that it is an
"always on" service and there are no hourly charges for bandwidth usage.
However, the service is asymmetrical in nature thereby providing far more
bandwidth downstream, for downloads than upstream. Because of this, our
terms and conditions of use prohibit the use of bandwidth intensive
"servers" in the customers' home. Excessive use of upstream bandwidth, which
is common with these types of server applications, can cause slow downs for
other users on our network.

In addition to servers, file sharing software programs like Napster, which
is being sued for copyright infringement by the recording industry, can also
utilize excessive amounts of upstream bandwidth. We have found this is often
the case when customers leave these types of applications running while away
from their computer. When we identify customers who, through excessive use
of upstream bandwidth, are causing slowdowns for other users, it is our
practice to contact the person responsible for that account, make them aware
of the situation and ask that such usage be curtailed. In the event such
abuse continues, an account may be suspended or terminated in the interest
of other users on the network...
<end paste>

Now, I'm not sure that they are extending the TOS to include a ban on
file-sharing systems, as well as servers, or merely pointing out that high
upstream bandwidth usage is subject to closer inspection, no matter what the
culprit. In any case, I no longer have Napster installed on my computer, due
mostly to this very fact. Napster has no way to limit upstream connections
(like Gnutella, frex) and therefore does not live on my machine anymore. 

I also find it very interesting that mp3 trading and/or illegal copying is
occuring on Usenet with little or no media attention. That's where I found
Sinead O'Connor's newest CD posted at CD quality 2 weeks before the official
release, as an example. 

response 47 of 126:

Sep 10 20:25 UTC 2000

One must distinguish between the copyright rights of the originator of
an intellectual property - the author, composer, or artist - and the
subsequent ownership of those rights resulting from their sale or
contractual obligation. I have been discussing the rights of the
authors and inventors to their property, with their right to be reimbursed
for any copying that they allow. 

Now others have brought in the actions of the *industry*. So, how did the
industries obtain those rights? They obtained them by sale or contract.
Now, if you are going to agree that the artist or inventor did indeed own
those rights, and had the authority to sell them, you would have to agree
that the new owners also have those rights. They way in which they use (or
abuse) them, however, is not up to the consumer, who legally has an
obligation to buy or not buy in accord with the terms set by the industry.

I can understand people caring more for the artist than for the faceless
industry *to whom the artist sold their work*. But the rights are not
different. If both artists and consumers have problems with how the
industry runs their business, I would suggest that they take legal steps
to correct those problems, rather than themselves violate the laws for
their own pleasures. 

response 49 of 126:

Sep 10 23:22 UTC 2000

        I believe Napster can use a nonstandard port;  I'm sure GNUtella can.
In either case it makes it difficult to stop without examining the payload
of the packet, and network equipment (short of a stateful inspection
firewall) isn't really meant to do that.

        It's not surprising, though.  Napster uses up a *lot* of bandwidth,
for very few people.  The entire industry is built on oversubscription to one
degree or another, much like the telephone industry.  So anything that
benefits few people and consumes a limited resource may be discriminated
against.