|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 163 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 25 of 163:
| 
Jan 13 19:28 UTC 2003 |
John's numbers are a little out of date. Many popular recent movies are
released on DVD in the $15-$20 price range and last year's biggest
blockbuster DVD releases (the first "Lord of the Rings" movie and the first
"Harry Potter" film both sold for around $15-$17 the week of their release.
It's fairly rare for a new single-disc movie to cost $30.
|
keesan
|
|
response 26 of 163:
|
Jan 13 19:46 UTC 2003 |
Is this 'less' than the cost of a CD?
|
jazz
|
|
response 27 of 163:
|
Jan 13 20:48 UTC 2003 |
Moreover, it's not uncommon to see a movie, months after release and
the initial buying sprees have died down, to be released for $10 or $20 less
than it was originally. Not so with CDs. A few are released for less, and
usually it's not significantly less, by the publishers.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 163:
|
Jan 13 21:37 UTC 2003 |
CDs and movies bottom out at about the same prices. Bargain-bin CDs,
ones that are on the verge of going out of print for lack of demand,
tend to cost around $10.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 29 of 163:
|
Jan 13 22:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 30 of 163:
|
Jan 13 22:25 UTC 2003 |
Heck you can get the *real* bargain bin cds for .99-3.99 at Big Lots.
|
krj
|
|
response 31 of 163:
|
Jan 14 18:36 UTC 2003 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51958-2003Jan13.html
"Entertainment, Tech Firms Reach Truce on Digital Piracy"
*Some* tech firms -- most notably Dell, Intel and Microsoft -- and
*some* parts of the copyright industry -- most notably the RIAA --
claim to have reached agreement on Something on copyright issues.
There are as yet absolutely no details on what that Something is.
Notably absent from the agreement are the Consumer Electronics Association
from the hardware side, and the MPAA (movie trade group) from the
copyright side.
|
krj
|
|
response 32 of 163:
|
Jan 16 08:03 UTC 2003 |
The agreement is widely reported in Wednesday media. Essentially
the parties agree to play nice together. The RIAA agrees not to
push for government technology mandates; the tech industry agrees
to stop promoting copying, which I guess means an end to those
Intel Inside! ads showing young people with homemade CDs.
A number of observers report that this shows a split between
the RIAA and the MPAA, with the movie industry sticking to its
demand for the Hollings bill or something like it to mandate copy
controls in all digital devices which could conceivably access
copyrighted content.
-------
The forces of Truth and Justice lost as the Supreme Court rejected
the arguments of the plaintiffs in the Eldred case. By a 7-2
margin, the Court ruled that while the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
Act was probably bad policy, it was within Congress's power to pass
such a law.
-------
Finally, here is a Canadian story on the music industry situation
in our northern neighbor. Two interesting differences in the
Canadian story, compared to the American version:
1) The CD sales decline in Canada has been much sharper, with a
17% decline in 2002, and a 25% decline over three years.
That's about twice as bad as the drop in USA sales.
2) Lots of space is devoted to the "copyright tax" which Canada
levies on blank media and some digital equipment.
From Toronto's Globe and Mail:
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/gtnews/TGAM/20030115/RVM
USI
|
gull
|
|
response 33 of 163:
|
Jan 17 02:56 UTC 2003 |
So copyright isn't for a 'limited time' after all.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 34 of 163:
|
Jan 17 03:22 UTC 2003 |
Sure it is. It's "limited" to however long brodcast media conglomerates
can keep buying votes from legislators. Heck, I expect the Mouse to be
liberated any day now..
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 163:
|
Jan 17 08:10 UTC 2003 |
You mean "any 20 years now."
|
dbratman
|
|
response 36 of 163:
|
Jan 18 00:21 UTC 2003 |
Somewhere I read a pro-Mouse person saying that their idea of an ideal
copyright term would be "infinity minus one day." That's still
a "limited term," you see.
I am tickled by Lawrence Lessig's observation that the first Mickey
Mouse cartoon was an unauthorized takeoff on a Buster Keaton film that
was released _earlier the same year_. Try doing that to a Disney film
these days and see how fast your empire grows, says Lessig.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 37 of 163:
|
Jan 18 00:42 UTC 2003 |
"infinity - 1" isn't finite, but I have no doubt that it would nearly
satisfy the copyright lobby.
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 163:
|
Jan 18 01:31 UTC 2003 |
The next copyright bill will probably set the length of copyright at maxint
years.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 39 of 163:
|
Jan 18 02:08 UTC 2003 |
At least it will be "for a limited time".
Out of curiosity, does anyone understand the implications of the US
unilaterally extending copyright terms? The previous extensions probably
haven't been an issue with our Berne Treaty partners because I think they
just brought the U.S. into line with what most of the others were doing
but what happens if the U.S. decides to keep extending and Europe does not?
|
other
|
|
response 40 of 163:
|
Jan 18 07:14 UTC 2003 |
Economic santions against the EU until they comply. And guerilla market
tactics by the copyright holders to undermine the value and accessibility
of 'unauthorized copies' of the affected works, naturally.
|
other
|
|
response 41 of 163:
|
Jan 18 07:14 UTC 2003 |
sanction... /cnat
|
tsty
|
|
response 42 of 163:
|
Jan 18 11:35 UTC 2003 |
the european copyrights were not extended ... LOTS of greate stuff
hitting right now. i thnk it was a pavoratti story about the legit
distributor outright *buying* the bootleg company for total control
of pavoratti recordings.
|
remmers
|
|
response 43 of 163:
|
Jan 18 12:18 UTC 2003 |
The Disney organziation has benefitted greatly from the public domain
("Snow White", "Cinderella", "Hunchback of Notre Dame", etc. etc.) and
appears not to want to give anything back, ever. Disgusting.
|
russ
|
|
response 44 of 163:
|
Jan 18 15:21 UTC 2003 |
The New York Times just had a piece on disparities in copyright terms.
In much of Europe, the term is still 50 years. A whole bunch of Maria
Callas music is now in the public domain there, and the availability
of (bad) copies of old releases has prompted the owners to re-release
the good stuff.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 45 of 163:
|
Jan 18 15:31 UTC 2003 |
I support removing all copyright BULL SHIT!
SUPPORT NAPSTER & CRONIES ET AL.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 163:
|
Jan 18 20:03 UTC 2003 |
The trend seems to be towards encrypting content so that even once it
has fallen into public domain, actually copying it will be either
illegal or impossible.
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 163:
|
Jan 19 00:50 UTC 2003 |
Music Exec: ISPs Must Pay Up for Music-Swapping
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=582&e=3&cid=582&u=/nm/2003
0118/
wr_nm/tech_internet_music_dc
The RIAA is pushing for a fee to be imposed on ISPs to compensate record
companies for music piracy. They may actually get it -- after all, they
successfully got fees on blank cassettes and audio CD blanks.
I think this is stupid, but I didn't really think that ISPs would get
away forever with using music file swapping as a selling point for
broadband.
|
gull
|
|
response 48 of 163:
|
Jan 19 01:56 UTC 2003 |
Here's another weird DMCA suit, from the latest RISKS digest:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:48:21 -0800
Subject: DMCA v garage door openers
>From: Fred von Lohmann EFF <fred@eff.org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
In the latest bit of DMCA lunacy, copyright guru David Nimmer turned me
onto a case that his firm is defending, where a garage door opener
company (The Chamberlain Group) has leveled a DMCA claim (among other
claims) against the maker of universal garage door remotes (Skylink).
Yet another case where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are
being used to impede legitimate competition, similar to the Lexmark
case. Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA.
The Complaint:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030113_chamberlain_v_skylink_complaint.pdf
The Amended Complaint:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030114_chamberlain_v_skylink_amd_complaint.pdf
The Summary Judgment Motion:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030113_chamerlain_v_skylink_motion.pdf
Attorneys for Skylink are (both at the Orange County offices of Irell
& Manella, a large law firm):
"Nobles, Kimberley" <KNobles@irell.com>
"Greene, Andra" <AGreene@irell.com>
Fred von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney,
Electronic Frontier Foundation fred@eff.org +1 (415) 436-9333 x123
|
polytarp
|
|
response 49 of 163:
|
Jan 19 02:07 UTC 2003 |
fag.
|
