|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 219 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 31 of 219:
| 
Jan 18 23:58 UTC 2002 |
Thanks Ken.
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 219:
|
Jan 21 14:01 UTC 2002 |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23736.html
Summary: Philips is continuing to insist that CDs using the current
copy protection schemes can't bear the official Compact Disc logo.
(Though since the logo is usually inside, on the disc, this still might
not provide a good way to identify them before buying.) Philips'
general manager has also said that the company will be building CD
burners that can read and burn copies of the copy-protected CDs. He
argues this won't be illegal under the DMCA because the "copy-
protection" scheme isn't a protection system, it's a method of
preventing the playback of music.
It should be a very interesting legal battle if they actually go
through with this.
|
krj
|
|
response 33 of 219:
|
Jan 21 18:07 UTC 2002 |
More on the classical music crash from andante.com:
http://www.andante.com/magazine/article.cfm?id=15643
From 1999 to 2001, the classical music CD business lost 20%
of its sales in the USA. USA sales lag far below Europe;
classical is down to about 1.8% of the market in the US, but
8% (and on an upward trend) in Britain, 7% in France (but trending
downwards from 10% earlier in the decade), 11% and rising in the
Netherlands.
Harmonia Mundi, one of the classical independent label/distributors
hit hard by financial troubles at Tower Records, has responded
by slashing the number of CD titles they distribute in half.
To take the optimistic view, they should now be a stronger
company.
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 219:
|
Jan 21 18:30 UTC 2002 |
The CD logo often appears on the back of liner notes inserts or on the
back of the CD package, but not consistently enough to be able to tell
anything by it.
What does the logo signify? Compliance with the red book encoding
standard?
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 219:
|
Jan 21 19:07 UTC 2002 |
Specifically, it indicates the CD is licensed by Philips, which holds
the CD-DA patents (at least for another year or two.) I think
complying with the red book standard is part of the rules for making a
licensed CD.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 36 of 219:
|
Jan 21 23:29 UTC 2002 |
re 33: Must be all those classical fans downloading on the internet!
|
krj
|
|
response 37 of 219:
|
Jan 22 14:43 UTC 2002 |
resp:29 :: Slashdot collects/points to a bunch of stuff about Kazaa.
It appears the operation has been sold to a company in Australia which
intends to charge for its use; however, there are also rumors that
the company buying Kazaa can't be found in directories of Australian
firms. The Kazaa file trading client is once again available for
download, the articles say.
Weird.
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/01/21/1621223.shtml
|
krj
|
|
response 38 of 219:
|
Jan 23 04:38 UTC 2002 |
mp3newswire.net assembles a coherent story about the Kazaa purchase,
though I'm still not sure I grasp what is going on. Australia is
developing a reputation as one of the least Internet-friendly
nations so it seems a poor choice to host a file-trading operation.
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/kazaasold.html
-----
mp3.com/news points to a Houston Chronicle essay from early
this month:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/tech/weekly/1208692
On the disconnect between consumers and the music business,
heavily redacted:
> Here's the point that the music industry just can't seem to
> comprehend: Consumers will not flock to any pay service that
> constrains what they do with the music they download...
>
> The industry talks about "educating" consumers about intellectual
> property rights and the fact that artists and license holders need to
> be compensated for their work....
>
> But consumers are also resistant to the notion that art is something
> they've "licensed," like software, even though legally that's the
> case. Instead, their mindset is this: "Hey, I paid for this music. It's
> mine now. If I want to save some songs to my hard drive, burn a
> compilation CD, listen to them in an MP3 player, I should be able
> to."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 39 of 219:
|
Jan 23 05:10 UTC 2002 |
If only there was some sort of Pulitzer Prize for stating the obvious..
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 219:
|
Jan 23 14:13 UTC 2002 |
I think a lot of people feel that way about software, too. I know to
me it seems distinctly unfair that if I buy a machine with a pre-
installed copy of Windows, I can't later sell it with that same copy of
Windows installed.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 41 of 219:
|
Jan 23 18:52 UTC 2002 |
an issue which is made only more confusing by the fact that if you
buy a boxed copy of Windows, you *can* transfer the license with the
machine.
|
krj
|
|
response 42 of 219:
|
Jan 24 15:58 UTC 2002 |
Napster news, widely reported: Trial court judge Marilyn Patel agreed
to a 30-day delay in issuing her ruling on the labels' request for a
summary judgement against Napster. It is believed the labels and Napster
are close to a settlement which would clear the way for the for-pay
Napster model to open for business.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 43 of 219:
|
Jan 24 17:44 UTC 2002 |
(But won't get them customers.)
|
krj
|
|
response 44 of 219:
|
Jan 24 18:14 UTC 2002 |
The NYTimes reports further: the Register had some of this but
frankly it sounded like wishful thinking in their article so I didn't
include it in the earlier response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/24/technology/ebusiness/24NAPS.html
> Several people close to the case said,
> however, that the record companies' real
> motivation in asking for a suspension was
> that Judge Patel had threatened to
> issue an order that would have hurt their
> own case. Specifically, these people
> said, Judge Patel may have been planning
> to look more closely at whether the
> labels had negotiated in good faith in
> their licensing discussions with Napster.
|
krj
|
|
response 45 of 219:
|
Feb 1 19:18 UTC 2002 |
resp:42 and subsequently :: lots of stories are breaking about the release
of the hearing transcripts from January 16 in the Napster case, and some
of the press coverage is getting more and more breathless.
I'll just cite this one, from the "Newsbytes" imprint of The Washington Post:
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174154.html
"Napster Case: Is Judge Turning Tables on Labels?"
Quotes:
> A judge's decision allowing Napster to pursue copyright misuse claims
> against major record labels seems to signal a sea change in the music
> industry's lawsuit against the peer-to-peer song-swapping service,
> according to a trio of legal experts.
...
> If she were to rule that labels have
> misused their rights, one expert told
> Newsbytes, at the extreme it could mean
> the labels could not enforce their
> copyrights. Such a decision, conceivably,
> could kill the labels' case against Napster ...
> The 10 pages of transcript following Patel's statement about copyright
> misuse remain under seal by order of the judge, so any discussion that
> followed Patel's statement remains secret. But what is present in the
> document was described by one lawyer as "a bombshell."
----------
IANAL, but I went Googling in search of the terms "copyright misuse."
This seems to be a fairly specific legal term specifying a defense
against copyright infringement, in a situation where the copyright holder
has used copyright licenses to enforce unfair or illegal trade practices.
The case law I found, from early 1990s, involved a software firm which forced
its customers to sign a 99-year non-compete agreement before it would license
the software to them. It's unclear to me if a finding of "copyright misuse"
merely ends the litigation in question in favor of the accused infringer, or
if it terminates the copyright.
The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/23906.html) laments
that Napster seems to have neither the resources nor the inclination to pursue
this lead much farther, possibly leading to the smashing of the major record
companies. I tend to agree; Napster is now controlled by Bertelsmann, one of
the major music companies, and so it would not want to endanger the record
company copyrights. My guess is that Napster is likely to just use its
leverage to wipe the slate clean on anything it might have owed on past
infringements, and to get the licenses it wants to launch the new for-pay
Napster.
However, an analyst in the Newsbytes piece points out that the copyright
misuse issue will be lying around waiting for use by the other P2P file sharing
operations which the music industry either is suing, or plans to sue.
|
twill
|
|
response 46 of 219:
|
Feb 6 00:03 UTC 2002 |
Hi, I'm Twill!
|
krj
|
|
response 47 of 219:
|
Feb 12 04:14 UTC 2002 |
Here's an odd story. CD sales went down globally in 2001, but in the
UK and France they are up. UK sales up 5%, French sales up 12%.
Go figure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/music/newsid_1814000/1814160
.stm
|
krj
|
|
response 48 of 219:
|
Feb 18 23:09 UTC 2002 |
Wired pointed to this think piece from MIT's Technology Review:
http://www.techreview.com/articles/shulman0302.asp
on "Intellectual Property Ecology."
The argument is that the current shifts towards giving all rights to the
IP owners and none to the public is likely to have bad effects on
future creativity. Those clashing against the current trends are
starting to apply an ecological metaphor in their organizing attempts.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 49 of 219:
|
Feb 18 23:41 UTC 2002 |
And we all know how successful ecologists have been at influencing
public policy..
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 50 of 219:
|
Feb 19 00:11 UTC 2002 |
From context, that's obviously intended as sarcasm, but ecologists actually
*have* influenced public policy in the US and Europe a hell of a lot in the
last 30-some years.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 51 of 219:
|
Feb 19 01:03 UTC 2002 |
I know.. But I'm not particuarly hopeful for the effort Ken alludes to.
I'd argue that ecologists have largely been successful because they've
managed to convince a large enough segment of the populace, not because
they've influenced legislators directly. However, it's a complicated
issue and I have no desire to hijack the Napster item..
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 52 of 219:
|
Feb 19 02:57 UTC 2002 |
Agreed on both counts.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 53 of 219:
|
Feb 19 07:59 UTC 2002 |
Returning to Napsterish news.. An article in today's New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/18/technology/18SONG.html blasts the
music labels' official subscription download plans for not fairly
compensating artists. According to the article, subscription plans such
as PressPlay and MusicNet, which have been pushed by the music industry
as a way to make sure that artists are fairly compensated for their work,
apparently improve upon Napster's $0.0000/download by offering artists
a whopping $0.0023/download.. So if you're paying PressPlay $19.99/month
for their "Gold Plan" service, which allows up to 75 downloaded songs,
as much as $0.1725 of that $20 *may* be going directly to the artists.
Care to guess where the rest goes?
Anyway, artists are predictably up in arms about the compensation and
several have demanded that their work be withdrawn from the subscription
services.
Favorite bits from the article:
(1) "Representatives of the five major record labels would not talk on
the record about the payment system or their rights to use the
music. But in comments not for attribution, several executives
at labels and their subscription services did not dispute the
accusations regarding the payment plan. They said their first
priority was to make the services attractive to consumers and
that the details of compensation could be worked out afterward."
Oh yeah.. I'm sure the record labels can be trusted to work out
equitable compensation arrangements "afterward."
(2) Quote regarding a statement from Rand Hoffman, head of business
operations for several labels on Universal:
"[Hoffman] added that it was 'beyond logic' that artists would
choose to leave their music off Pressplay and 'effectively
encourage the use of illegal services.'"
Gosh yeah. Everyone hates getting screwed over *illegally*.
Having it happen legally is no doubt much better..
|
krj
|
|
response 54 of 219:
|
Feb 19 21:37 UTC 2002 |
Thanks, Mike, I'd missed this story. It's putting a big smile on my
face, it is... Some of my favorite bits:
There's a long-ish discussion of the differences between licensing
arrangement and royalty arrangements; artists get less money in a
royalty arrangement, and of course that's what the labels have
chosen to use here, and it's defensible. But then: "But, out of that,
35 to 45 percent is deducted for standard CD expenses like packaging
and promotional copies -- expenses that obviously don't exist in
the online world." Yup, the labels are billing the artists for
CD packaging costs for songs delivered online.
And... "For many acts, suddenly there appears to be little difference
between the illicit file-sharing system and record-label services.
The arguments the labels are using, said Jill Berliner, a leading music
lawyer, are exactly the ones Napster made. 'And, from our perspective,
if the technology is going to be out there and the artist isn't
really going to make money, we'd prefer that our fans just get it for
free,' she said."
|
krj
|
|
response 55 of 219:
|
Feb 20 00:04 UTC 2002 |
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the Sonny Bono
Copyright Extension Act, which extended all copyrights for another 20
years, and which put quite a few public domain works back under
copyright. The NY Times story is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/19/national/19CND-RIGHTS.html
Slashdot points to a legal-oriented site backing the challenge to
the law:
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno/
At the risk of oversimplifying, the argument is that Congress is going
against the clear language of the Constitution's copyright clause, which
calls for copyrights to have limited terms, when it continually lengthens
the terms of copyright.
|
