|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 183 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 38 of 183:
| 
Apr 28 16:35 UTC 2000 |
what if you make a tape of a CD you own, and use it for yourself?
Once you have purchased a piece of recorded music, you are generally permitted
to copy that music, in whatever formats you deem appropriate, to your heart's
content, for "archiving" purposes... that is, so long as you don't
sell/give/exchange it with anyone else. Ditto software, for that matter.
|
raven
|
|
response 39 of 183:
|
Apr 28 19:49 UTC 2000 |
Paul if you are so convinced this is a crime why don't you turn yourself
in for your tapes and "stolen shareware." Your position is sort of like
saying shoplifting is wrong except for those strawberries I lifted last
week at the store. If you turn yourself in maybe Metllica or Dr, Dre will
give you a good citizen award. :-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 40 of 183:
|
Apr 28 23:08 UTC 2000 |
I'm not going to turn myself in. That's the job of the police.
But if I'm arrested or fined, I'll abide by the sentencing.
If I shoplifted strawberries last week, then that would be a crime, too.
Honestly, raven, we're all criminals. Claiming that we're not, because we
don't happen to agree with the law, is bullshit (there, I just committed a
felony in Michigan, because their are women and children present *rolls
eyes*). I'm not saying that anyone who has an HD of napster-macked MP3s from
artists they haven't given money to should be hauled away to the hoosegow in
a mass arrest. I'm saying they're THIEVES. Please indicate any post where I've
claimed that I'm legally justified in copying software that my company
purchased onto my home computer. Please indicate any post where I've claimed
that it's perfectly legal for me to have been given "mix tapes" by my friends.
What I'm saying is: If you take what doesn't belong to you, you're a thief.
If somebody says, HEY! Quit stealing from me!, it's childish and petty to
respond with, "Well, you're charging too much, so it's ok for me to steal."
We've become a nation of whiners. Boohoohoo, we can't get the MEtallica CDs.
Boohoohoo. Honestly.
So stow your implications of hypocricy. I'm a thief. Back when lyrics.ch was
healthy and hadn't been hamstrung by the Law, I went there as much as anyone
else. And when the Powers that Be tracked lyrics.ch down and initially
dismantled it, then restructured it, I was disappointed. but I didn't sit
around whining about my unalienable RIGHT to lyrics, and how if the record
companies didn't charge so much, we wouldn't be forced to do it... blame blame
pass the buck. Something neat was gone, and the people who took it had the
Law on their side. That's the way it goes.
|
krj
|
|
response 41 of 183:
|
Apr 29 02:30 UTC 2000 |
News item: Today the RIAA won a summary judgement against mp3.com.
The RIAA suit alleged that the My.Mp3.Com service infringed its
copyrights. Penalties against mp3.com will be assessed later.
KRJ's analysis: I have to wonder, what were they thinking?
The RIAA had been trying to paint mp3 files as an inherently criminal
format; mp3.com, up until now, ran a legally unassailable operation.
And then, someone at mp3.com had a great idea...
The idea behind my.mp3.com was to create a central online database of
mp3 files. You would prove that you were entitled to listen to
a particular mp3 file by loading a CD containing that song into
your computer's CD rom drive; this proved that you owned, or at least
possessed temporarily, a copy of the album, and mp3.com argued that
this showed that you were entitled to listen to a mp3 of the album, and
that they were entitled to stream it to you.
my.mp3.com could be thought of as a virtual box of cassettes which
mp3 would "carry around" for you. Anywhere you were, you could
stream down those Mp3 files which you had registered as "owning."
In the original model, I think that the consumer was supposed to upload
the MP3 files: I have read there are "storage locker" systems which
work like this. But my.mp3.com decided to skip that slow and pesky
upload process: they went out and bought thousands of CDs, and copied
them into the my.mp3.com database.
My take on this is that www.mp3.com decided that the consumer's right to
make a copy of a CD which he or she owned could be transferred to
mp3.com. The judge's reasoning is not yet available to us, but it
looks like he decided that mp3.com's assembly of an online database
of copyrighted songs was a slam-dunk copyright violation. Summary
judgement means there was no dispute which the judge found worthy of
trial.
Best coverage on today's decision is on www.cnet.com: the actual URL
is too long to type in, go there and grub around a bit.
www.mp3.com contains their press release, which argues that mp3.com
is actually much more responsible than those lawless Napster people.
In a LA Times interview with the RIAA's Hilary Rosen -- reachable through
www.mp3.com's news section -- Rosen was asked about what would happen
if the RIAA lost the Napster case, and the mp3.com case.
Reading between the lines, it sounded to me like Rosen thought the mp3.com
case was a slam dunk, but she was deeply worried about the Napster case.
The RIAA is asking for six billion-with-a-B dollars in damages:
$750 to $150,000 for each CD copied into the my.mp3.com database.
The Cnet article quotes copyright lawyers who think that the damages
will be nowhere near that high.
I'll write more about the Napster case later.
|
brighn
|
|
response 42 of 183:
|
May 2 15:14 UTC 2000 |
News from Yahoo:
Metallica has been taking names.
The heavy metal band, which is suing music-swapping company Napster for what
the musicians say are massive copyright violations, says it has identified
more than 335,000 individuals who were allegedly sharing the band's songs
online in violation of copyright laws.
The band's attorneys will deliver close to 60,000 pages of documents to the
small software company Wednesday afternoon, asking that Napster block all of
those individuals from the service. It's the first time Napster or other
file-swapping software users have been identified in bulk as potential
copyright pirates.
|
scott
|
|
response 43 of 183:
|
May 2 17:16 UTC 2000 |
For a viewpoint somewhat opposed to that of Metallica, check out Chuck D's
latest Terrordome column:
http://publicenemy.com/terrordome/
(You might have to look in the archives for it. It's the May 1, 2000 column).
Basically, Chuck D is very much in favor of online trading. Here's a little
snippet:
"I'm in support of the sharing of music files. I believe that truly another
parallel music industry will be created alongside the one
that presently exists, and that's the bottom line
stake that traditionalists fear. Having been
connected to the genre of hiphop and rap music for
22 years, I've witnessed the lack of proper
service areas to fully support the majority of artists,
songwriters, producers and labels in getting the music to it's
fanbase. Although there's this talk about rap/hiphop growth and power, we
are still only talking about a sliver of selected
artists that participate on a major level."
(sorry about the formatting)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 44 of 183:
|
May 2 22:06 UTC 2000 |
Careful, though.... Chuck D sounds like he's in favor of having his own music
traded online, and I'm sure he wishes other musicians felt the same way, but
I have yet to see him support piracy.
|
scott
|
|
response 45 of 183:
|
May 2 23:07 UTC 2000 |
I don't think he's that worried about piracy, but you'd have to read the rest
to really get that gist. He's saying that a whole new model of moneymaking
would have to develop.
|
krj
|
|
response 46 of 183:
|
May 3 00:44 UTC 2000 |
Way back in resp:26, carla asked about what legal defenses Napster
had in the three lawsuits against it.
I found a great article today, dating from April 18, which explains
a lot, very clearly:
http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/news/news?id=38fb9b1f0
Napster pins its defense on the "Safe Harbor" provisions of the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). This provision was
designed to protect service providers who do not have control
over their users -- think your generic ISP, or AOL -- if
their users put copyrighted material on the net.
To qualify for this "safe harbor," the service provider has
an obligation: when a copyright owner complains that infringing
material is hosted by the provider, the provider is to remove
the material promptly.
Napster has a copyright policy which states that they conform to
this principle, and news stories report that Napster has actually
responded to copyright complaints before.
So, what's happened today is that Metallica has called Napster's
bluff. "Here's 355,000 copyright infringers, remove their stuff
from your system." If Napster doesn't comply, then I suspect
their safe harbor immunity goes away.
How will the court rule? I can't predict. The ISP safe harbor
provision was created to allow legitimate businesses to grow without
having to worry about what would happen every time one of their users
infringed on a copyright. Napster has taken that exemption and
used it to build a pirate bazaar for its own benefit. I suspect
the court will be looking for any way possible to nail Napster.
----------
Here's where things could get really unpleasant.
Quoting from the upside.com essay:
"Before 1997, criminal copyright infringement was limited to cases
motivated by financial gain. Then came the No Electronic Theft Act.
The NET Act was designed to criminalize online copying or distribution
of copyrighted works worth more than $1000, even if they were
distributed for free.
(Omit section about the U.Oregon student who was the first victim
of this act, for a website with 1000 MP3 files on it, among
other things.) "The student was facing up to three years in
prison and a $250,000 fine. He got off with probation.
"COnsidering that much stiffer criminal penalties for NET Act
violations take effect on May 1, that student should consider himself
lucky.
"The new NET Act sentencing guidelines will substantially increase
criminal penalties for online copyright infringement...
Under the NET Act, anybody using Napster, Gnutella or any number of
file swapping programs could be criminally liable for willfully
making copyrighted files available for download."
Unfortunately I don't have the new sentencing guidelines available.
The government passed the NET Act -- metaphorically they loaded a gun
and pointed it squarely at kids. The low threshholds established in
the NET Act mean that it is targeted squarely at Napster users --
even if Napster hadn't been invented when the act was passed.
So the only question is, are they going to pull the trigger?
From other articles I've read, it is reported that the RIAA has
so far bent over backwards to avoid targeting individual consumers,
because they're well aware of the backlash that will hit them.
But I'm getting the sense that the RIAA feels its back is getting
pushed against the wall. If the RIAA loses the suit against
Napster, then they won't have any cards left to play except
to target individual users.
|
other
|
|
response 47 of 183:
|
May 3 22:58 UTC 2000 |
I'm intrigued by the issues here, but i do not have a fully thought out
approach to them.
I'd like to see some modification to the copyright laws [for that matter all
intellectual property laws] so that creative ideas such as songs, plays,
stories, compositions and other things which are pure information without
tangible structure and which are not formed exclusively as plans for a
tangible object are treated very differently than such things as objets d'art,
architectural plans, inventions and their design specs and plans, etc.
The point would be that those things which are part of the *creative* lexicon
would be always associated with the names of their creators, but would not
be owned, sold or bought, while those things which can be manufactured en
masse, or distributed tangibly, and which are considered products (especially
products of technology) would benefit from the innovative drive of the
marketplace.
This would result in the focusing of economic efforts on the development of
real products, the value of which is dependent on their success in the
marketplace, while creative efforts could be fostered and developed for the
pure benefit of the stimulation of the creative impulse.
Naturally this would cause a decline in educational focus on the arts, but
I freely admit to its being a utopian ideal, under which circumstances the
educational system would not be so strongly driven by short-term economic
concerns.
Final point: I repeat, this is *not* a fully thought out approach, so treat
it as such, and if you disagree (which you should feel free to do), I would
appreciate it if you remember that.
|
raven
|
|
response 48 of 183:
|
May 4 00:30 UTC 2000 |
Hmm and you lambast my ideas about the military being flaky... I actually
agree with you on this one but this idea is probably as "out there" as
anything I have posted in Agora.
|
other
|
|
response 49 of 183:
|
May 4 02:05 UTC 2000 |
You presented hyperbolic numbers to give your argument the facade of
legitimacy, whereas my points above are presented purely wishful thinking.
I think I mostly agree with your viewpoints, and that is why I nitpick your
arguments. ;)
|
brighn
|
|
response 50 of 183:
|
May 4 06:06 UTC 2000 |
#47 is presented as if intellectual property and tangible realities could be
separated, even in an ideal society. they can't.
|
other
|
|
response 51 of 183:
|
May 4 06:11 UTC 2000 |
you lost me at "even in an ideal society." care to give reasons for your
assertion?
|
brighn
|
|
response 52 of 183:
|
May 4 14:33 UTC 2000 |
It's not that difficult, other. Architectural drawings which result in
buildings are still *drawings*. When you look at a house and remark on the
creative shaping of the roof, are you remarking on the use of materials, or
on the creative process behind it? When you say you detest the shape of a Coke
bottle, is it because the curvature doesn't quite fit your hand, or is it
because the aesthetic of the curvature is askew? And if the former, isn't
that, again, an aesthetic as well as a functional issue?
Where is the line between creative and tangible drawn? On the blueprint table?
In the final structure? There's no clear point in the creative process where
one can say, "A moment ago, we had nothing but ideas. Now we have a concrete
object." Rather, tangibles evolve.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 53 of 183:
|
May 6 17:59 UTC 2000 |
i wonder if their fanbase will shrink. <smirk>
|
gelinas
|
|
response 54 of 183:
|
May 9 02:49 UTC 2000 |
Add to this, "An eighteen-year-old boy has got to eat." Thinking is fun, but
you can't do it on an empty stomach.
|
aaron
|
|
response 55 of 183:
|
May 12 04:23 UTC 2000 |
re #52: When your creative process is placed in a fixed medium, do you not
have a concrete object?
|
brighn
|
|
response 56 of 183:
|
May 12 14:37 UTC 2000 |
Ok. I'm a designer. I have an architect working for me. We're hired by a land
developer, and given carte blanche to build an office building. I design the
building, and describe what I want to my architect, because I can't draw for
shit. He draws exactly what I describe. We give it to the contractor. He
builds exactly what we drew. SOOOOOOO... the developer owns the concrete
object (the building), the architect developed the concrete evidence of the
creative process (the architectural plans), and the person who generated the
bulk of the creative process owns no actual proof of it. So the person who
did the actual thinking gets no protections and no return, and the people who
just did exactly what they were told possess the creative process itself? I
don't think that's very fair.
|
aaron
|
|
response 57 of 183:
|
May 12 18:12 UTC 2000 |
Probably because you misunderstand the process, from the outset. Are you
arguing that your ideas are not reduced to a fixed medium, at any stage of
the process you describe?
|
brighn
|
|
response 58 of 183:
|
May 12 19:11 UTC 2000 |
No, I've already said what I'm saying.
And I also resent you saying that *I* misunderstand the process, when you
clearly misunderstand me.
|
other
|
|
response 59 of 183:
|
May 13 02:33 UTC 2000 |
Hmm. seems like i started a bonfire. pardon me while i walk away. ;)
(Note: I *did* specify that my input was not well thought out....)
|
aaron
|
|
response 60 of 183:
|
May 14 05:39 UTC 2000 |
re #58: Your attempting to pick a fight is not helpful. If you failed
to explain yourself clearly, do try again. Until such time as
you do, I will continue to believe that the misunderstanding is
yours. Thanks.
|
brighn
|
|
response 61 of 183:
|
May 15 13:26 UTC 2000 |
Um, Aaron, you're the one attempting to pick a fight.
But, all right, here's other's plan: IF you create something concrete, you
get money. If you create something non-concrete, you get kudos.
So I think of a cool building. In fact, that's what I do, I think of cool
buildings. My architect draws up the plans, a developed builds the building.
Everybody agrees that it's a really cool building. So the developper gets
money, the architect gets money, and I get to feed my children with praise.
Ok. So I learn to draw. I paint a picture of a really cool building. It sits
on my wall for ten years. Somewhere along the line, some developper thinks
it's a cool building, and hires an architect to design it in 3D. Now the
architect gets paid, the developper gets paid, but what about me? Do I get
paid, or not? On the one hand, I'd created something that was part of the
creation of a tangible product. On the other hand, I didn't mean for it to
be.
If I'm not paid for painting the painting, why should the architect get paid
for drawing a picture, though?
So we don't pay me for painting a picture, and we don't pay the architect for
drawing one. Why does the developper get paid, when in fact he didn't do
anything either? What he did was hire a foreman and give him the picture...
that's not concrete. Why pay the foreman? All he did was buy some materials
and tell some other guys to put them together. So the foreman doesn't get
money, the developper doesn't get money, and we're all living in the glow of
Creation.
That was my point... in the creation process for something as complex as a
building, there are many many people who do nothing but provide or modify
ideas, in one form or another. Yet without them there could be no tangible
product. If anybody involved in the creation of a tangible product gets money
for it, then that should include such absurdities as paying somebody YEARS
later because you liked something that was in their painting... if only people
involve didrectly in the creatiojn of the tangible object get paid, then who
would that be, and where do we draw the line?
..
|
aaron
|
|
response 62 of 183:
|
May 16 03:27 UTC 2000 |
Did that make you feel better?
In any event, litigation is not going well for Napster. They were too late
in posting their rules relating to removal of copyright violators, which
may have moved them outside of the "safe harbor" protections in the law
governing on-line content providers. However, new products on the horizon
promise to do what Napster does and more -- creating a self-repairing
network of copyrighted goods, which can be downloaded through encrypted
connections. The stated goal of one of the developers is to put an end to
intellectual property as we know it.
|
