|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
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.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 50 of 154:
|
Apr 21 07:30 UTC 2003 |
Good review currently on Salon, of Menn's book on Napster, arguing that
internal executive incompetence, more than anything else, brought
Napster low.
|
gull
|
|
response 51 of 154:
|
Apr 21 15:36 UTC 2003 |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30337.html
The U.S. Department of Justice has come in on the RIAA's side in their
case against Verizon.
"RIAA lawyers are arguing that a simple subpoena obtained from a court
clerk, which any fool can file against anyone suspected of copyright
violation, should afford adequate protection of due process, as the
dreaded Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides.
"A district court ruled in favor of the RIAA in January; Verizon
appealed the decision, and asks that the suspect's name not be revealed
until the matter is decided. The RIAA, on the other hand, would like to
get on with the business of persecuting the alleged malefactor as soon
as possible.
"Raising the Constitutional issues gave the civil-rights fanatics in
Ashcroft's DoJ an opportunity to weigh in. They argue that due process
is indeed safe, for they can find nothing in the Constitution expressly
forbidding searches and seizures on the basis of quick-and-dirty,
self-service subpoenas."
|
krj
|
|
response 52 of 154:
|
Apr 28 04:55 UTC 2003 |
Widely reported: The Federal trial court judge has thrown out "most"
of the RIAA and MPAA lawsuit against Streamcast, the parent of Morpheus,
and Grokster. In gross oversimplification, the judge compared these
file swapping programs to VCRs and applied the Betamax precedent, which
held that a technology could not be banned if it had substantial
non-infringing uses. This is probably the biggest loss the copyright
industry has had, in the USA, in the file-swapping wars.
The judge did leave the way clear for the copyright industry to pursue
infringement claims against individual users of these systems.
Here's one story from Cnet, and most news sources on the net have
similar stories.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-998363.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed
|
krj
|
|
response 53 of 154:
|
May 1 18:56 UTC 2003 |
The RIAA's latest Napster lawsuit is against the venture capitalistss
who funded Napster.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-04-30-lawsuit-venture-capitalists_x.
htm
"The music industry's latest legal assault would push the boundaries of
blame by holding investors liable for the actions of a company and its
management.... If the music labels prevail, 'it could destroy the
whole venture capital industry,' said J. William Gurley, a general
partner at Benchmark Capital in Menlo Park."
The idea that an investor's losses are limited to the amount of the
investment is pretty fundamental to the working of western-style
capitalism. The record industry's attack on this bedrock principle
should produce some interesting reactions. In this case, the
record industry is asking for the statutory $150,000 per song, so
the damages would likely exceed the $95 billion sought in the
Michigan Tech case -- possibly by orders of magnitude.
|
mdw
|
|
response 54 of 154:
|
May 1 23:32 UTC 2003 |
Well, they might be able to do this if they can show the investors
"knowingly" invested in a criminal enterprise. But I think RIAA is
going to work itself down to the NRA level of credibility if they pursue
such a case. I suppose they still have a ways to go; the "Moral
Majority" is definitely an even lower tier.
|
jazz
|
|
response 55 of 154:
|
May 2 02:42 UTC 2003 |
Wait. Even if they do, that means Bush can be sued for his Enron
investments ... awesome. Okay, well, I know that wouldn't really work out,
but it's a great thought.
|
gull
|
|
response 56 of 154:
|
May 2 13:54 UTC 2003 |
According to this story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30522.html
the RIAA has offered a settlement in the college student cases. The tab
comes to $12,000 for one of the students, $15,000 for two of them, and
$17,500 for the last. The money would be paid in installments over the
next three years. It wasn't entirely clear to me from the story whether
the settlement had been accepted or not, but given the fines that
*could* be imposed on the students if they lose their cases I imagine
they'll probably take it.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 57 of 154:
|
May 2 16:57 UTC 2003 |
This morning's NY Times made it sound like the students had accepted the
settlement.
|
