|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 37 of 151:
|
Jul 12 04:12 UTC 2001 |
From Friday's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/technology/ebusiness/12NAPS.html
Trial court judge Marilyn Patel (remember her? We haven't heard
much from her lately) has ordered Napster to remain shut
down until their filtering system is 100% effective at
preventing the exchange of copyrighted material. Napster
claims its filtering system is 99.4% effective and Patel says
that is not good enough.
Napster will appeal.
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 151:
|
Jul 12 12:32 UTC 2001 |
The filtering system they have at the moment is 100% effective -- nothing
gets through. ;>
|
krj
|
|
response 39 of 151:
|
Jul 12 14:17 UTC 2001 |
What I don't understand is how Patel's order can be congruent with the
appeals court ruling on the preliminary injunction. This seems to be
the order Patel wanted to issue originally, which was substantially
modified under the direction of the appeals court, and now she's gone
back to it.
|
krj
|
|
response 40 of 151:
|
Jul 12 16:37 UTC 2001 |
Longer AP story on the Patel ruling at:
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,45184,00.html
Napster CEO Hank Barry agrees with me that the Patel ruling
goes directly against the appeals court order, and furthermore its
logic makes the operating of any file sharing system impossible.
|
brighn
|
|
response 41 of 151:
|
Jul 12 17:41 UTC 2001 |
I would agree that a 90%+ effective system definitely represents a good faith
effort on the part of the system operators, and should be "good enough."
|
krj
|
|
response 42 of 151:
|
Jul 13 08:06 UTC 2001 |
More detailed stories on the Patel order are popping up everywhere; it was
a closed-door hearing so I guess the leaks are taking a while.
-------
Cnet ran an article Thursday on the growing tussle between libraries
and librarians on the one hand, and the copyright industry on the other.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-6545588-0.html
In a future world where every access to copyrighted material is
controlled by the copyright owner, and charged for, and where material
is routinely destroyed if the user doesn't continue to pay for
it, it's not clear how libraries continue to exist.
Quote:
> What's more, as a rising number of copyright owners and software
> developers turn to licensing models, librarians worry that they'll
> be forced to pay perpetual rent on a product or lose the work--a
> possibility that could endanger the important archival role
> of their institutions.
> "If I buy a book, take care of it, and nobody rips it off, I'll
> still have it 500 years from now," said Jim Neal, dean of
> libraries at Johns Hopkins University. "But if I buy an
> electronic book and don't keep paying for it, it's gone."
Cnet found an inflammatory quote from the Association of American Publishers
comparing some librarians to "Ruby Ridge or Waco types" for wanting to
preserve free access to material for their users.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 43 of 151:
|
Jul 15 14:55 UTC 2001 |
Interesting how those publishers who propably consider Ben
Franklin as part of their heritage, would also brand Ben Franklin
as one of those "Waco types".
|
krj
|
|
response 44 of 151:
|
Jul 18 03:24 UTC 2001 |
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,45279,00.html
Paraphrasing the teaser: MP3 files are easy to use and interoperable
with lots of software and hardware. But -- other than consumers --
no one wants to use the format. :)
The copyright industry has decided that consumer choice and convenience
takes a back seat to making files copy-proof. Software firms have now
decided that they have to make products to appeal to the copyright
industry rather than to consumers. The Napster tale is horrific...:
> Napster, the file-trading service that was the bastion of free,
> downloadable music, has recently become the poster child for
> secure music. On Monday, Napster unveiled more of its plans for
> security, announcing plans for a proprietary digital music player
> that will be used with its new subscription service set to launch
> before the end of summer.
>
> The new service won't allow consumers to move their music
> away from the Napster file-trading network to other media
> players like RealJukebox or Windows Media Player. Instead, the
> service will only play proprietary ".Nap" files on the new player.
> The Napster system will take MP3 files that run through its main
> server and create the new, proprietary format, said Dube.
>
> "Napster is doing this because their chance for survival is to
> leverage the huge volume of MP3s out there," said Dube. "They
> saw this as a business strategy, to leverage all those MP3s out
> there."
I can just see the customers lining up to pay money for restricted-use
files...
|
krj
|
|
response 45 of 151:
|
Jul 18 03:37 UTC 2001 |
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999998
is a story on the previously-mentioned Macrovision system to
prevent CDs from being copied by computer systems. The New Scientist
article has some information on how the system works.
It's still very sketchy.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 151:
|
Jul 18 13:04 UTC 2001 |
Re #44: That's no good. How'm I supposed to use 'em in my portable MP3
player? ;>
Re #45: Wonder if anyone's tried cdparanoia on one of these discs.
I've seen it rip clean audio off discs so scratched up they wouldn't
finish playing in a regular CD player. There's a similarly good
Windows ripper, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
|
polygon
|
|
response 47 of 151:
|
Jul 18 13:19 UTC 2001 |
I'm not interested in proprietary or pay-per-use music files, but that's
probably OK with the recording industry, because I didn't use Napster and
I don't buy CDs in stores, either.
|
krj
|
|
response 48 of 151:
|
Jul 19 02:42 UTC 2001 |
resp:37 and subsequent: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned
Judge Patel's order closing Napster until it could show that it was
perfect at preventing the trading of copyrighted files. (No surprise
to this layman; Patel's order seemed to go right against the heart
of the Court of Appeals' previous ruling.) Napster expects to reopen
a form of its service shortly. (You know, we've been discussing this
preliminary injunction for a year now...) The story is covered
in most online news sources so I won't punch in a URL.
|
krj
|
|
response 49 of 151:
|
Jul 19 05:05 UTC 2001 |
Historical essay on copyright as seen by the Founding Fathers: by
Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of a book "Copyrights and Copywrongs:
The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity."
Too long and detailed to summarize.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp?0si=-
|
polygon
|
|
response 50 of 151:
|
Jul 19 05:14 UTC 2001 |
(Subtitle: "Why Thomas Jefferson would love Napster.")
|
scott
|
|
response 51 of 151:
|
Jul 20 02:18 UTC 2001 |
A typically insightful article about the ongoing collapse of the music
industry:
http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2001/07/19/industry_downturn/index.h
tml
"Napster's out the picture, but for the first time in a decade, album sales
are down -- and ticket sales are sagging too".
I hope this means the DIY/punk revolution I've been predicting will finally
happen.
|
krj
|
|
response 52 of 151:
|
Jul 20 03:51 UTC 2001 |
Heh, beat me to it. The Salon article is a fairly bleak catalog of
failure. It points out that Napster and file trading can't account
for the crash in concert ticket sales; it appears that consumers,
in general, are tuning out music as a way to spend entertainment
money.
Salon also has a summary article on the current situation with
file trading systems, which doesn't have much we haven't already
covered here: it describes what's happening now as "the Napster diaspora."
|
mdw
|
|
response 53 of 151:
|
Jul 20 06:14 UTC 2001 |
Could it be the recording industry has finally pissed off Too Many
People?
|
danr
|
|
response 54 of 151:
|
Jul 20 12:32 UTC 2001 |
Sounds to me like people are waking up to the fact that they're getting
gouged. Should we really care that Britney Spears, Eminem and 'N Sync
are selling fewer records this year?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 55 of 151:
|
Jul 20 13:43 UTC 2001 |
Well, that suggests an interesting question. Does anyone know if there are
figures on the "average artist's" sales trends? Is Joe Guitarist getting hurt
by this, or just Dave Matthews and Lars Ulrich?
(Or whoever that guy from Metallica is. Just pretend I got the name right,
'k?)
|
scott
|
|
response 56 of 151:
|
Jul 20 14:58 UTC 2001 |
(serious drift) Did anybody see the new Pepsi commercial with Britney Spears?
Did she get that outfit from Cher's garage sale or *what*??? No wonder her
popularity is collapsing.
|
aaron
|
|
response 57 of 151:
|
Jul 20 16:13 UTC 2001 |
Britney Spears is a typical bubblegum pop artist. After a while, even
her most ardent fans will find that she has lost her flavor, and spit
her out.
|
gull
|
|
response 58 of 151:
|
Jul 20 16:32 UTC 2001 |
Re #55: The "average artist" doesn't get a record contract, so his/her sales
are essentially zero. ;>
|
orinoco
|
|
response 59 of 151:
|
Jul 20 22:43 UTC 2001 |
Touche. Should have phrased that better. How about "are obscure bands with
contracts hurting as much as the top names?"
|
senna
|
|
response 60 of 151:
|
Jul 21 03:39 UTC 2001 |
There just isn't much to be excited about in music right now. NSync and
Spears are probably two of the only major names around right now--nobody else
with huge name appeal is doing anything. Metallica hasn't released original
music since Reload, and with Hetfield entering rehab, they probably won't be
for a while. It's a typical example of a band that is theoretically a big
seller that isn't doing anything.
Music has no major trend that's moving albums right now. Boy bands are on
the way down, grunge is gone (there are survivors of these trends, but no
trends themselves to pad sales), and nothing has moved in. The music industry
is partly to blame for this, for pushing trends so heavily-with such limited
portfolios, they would go broke in two weeks on wall street. To follow
cliche, they should have diversified long ago. They still should work on
that. Produce music that a lot of people will find interesting a buy
consistently, if not outrageously. In a better market, people like ken whose
interests are not at the top of the charts would have a niche that actually
got attention. People without ken's verve for music don't get served at all,
and they stop buying anything.
|
krj
|
|
response 61 of 151:
|
Jul 21 03:55 UTC 2001 |
The New York Times runs its own version of Salon's "Napster Diaspora"
story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/20/technology/20MUSI.html
Quote: "Six of the alternative ((file trading)) services had 320,000
to 1.1 million users each in May... Five of those services had little
traffic or did not even exist in February."
And, file trading programs are the most commonly downloaded items
at download.com.
So, now instead of fighting one file trading monster, Napster, the
RIAA is now looking at fighting six of them.
This story ran on page 1 of the dead tree edition.
|