|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
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
|
other
|
|
response 39 of 154:
|
Apr 14 16:46 UTC 2003 |
I hope all his colleagues follow suit, until there is not a domestic producer
of quality products left, if that's what it takes to drive home the utter
idiocy of this kind of legislation.
|
jep
|
|
response 40 of 154:
|
Apr 14 17:21 UTC 2003 |
resp:38: It looks like posturing to me.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 41 of 154:
|
Apr 15 17:56 UTC 2003 |
It may be in part -- he's one of Peter Honeyman's grad students, and they're
all very aware of the political issues -- but he's got a genuine point behind
it. The Michigan "Super DMCA" is way, way too broad. It needs to be
drastically limited, or knocked down.
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 154:
|
Apr 15 17:59 UTC 2003 |
And given the big money at stake in some of these cases, I wouldn't risk it
either.
|
jep
|
|
response 43 of 154:
|
Apr 18 04:08 UTC 2003 |
I agree the law is horrid. I wouldn't think there's much chance it'll
survive a court challenge. Pass on the chance to make political
comments... is there really any chance this law is going to be used in
any way at all?
|
jep
|
|
response 44 of 154:
|
Apr 18 04:09 UTC 2003 |
(I have blithely re-connected my home network, and am not worried at
all that I'll be prosecuted for doing so.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 45 of 154:
|
Apr 18 05:37 UTC 2003 |
I agree that the law is a bad one, but I'm not particularly convinced
that it will be struck down.
But then I'm generally dismayed by the "sure it sucks, but it'll never
make it past the courts" attitude that many have when deciding what to
do about these laws. Putting the responsibility on the courts, rather
than the legislature, give grandstanding legislators a free pass even
when the pass profoundly consumer-unfriendly laws. Do I hope the courts
will overturn stuff like this? Of course I do, but it should *never*
have been passed in the first place and it's important to remember that
when you vote..
|
polygon
|
|
response 46 of 154:
|
Apr 18 06:58 UTC 2003 |
Repeat after me: "Just because it's a bad idea doesn't mean it's
unconstitutional."
Strongly, strongly agreed with #45.
|
other
|
|
response 47 of 154:
|
Apr 18 11:00 UTC 2003 |
You're preaching to the choir.
|
gull
|
|
response 48 of 154:
|
Apr 18 13:31 UTC 2003 |
I don't think it's likely to be used on its own. I could easily imagine
it being used as a threat to make people cooperate with investigations,
or to extract deals, though.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 49 of 154:
|
Apr 20 02:57 UTC 2003 |
Re#40: It doesn't seem like posturing to me, quite; it just seems like a very
easy and mostly meaningless gesture. Judging from the article, he's just
moved some files from one server to another.
|
