|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 219 responses total. |
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.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 56 of 219:
|
Feb 20 04:12 UTC 2002 |
And it's a solid argument. Dunno whether it can beat the Mouse and his deep
pockets, but it should in an ideal world.
|
mdw
|
|
response 57 of 219:
|
Feb 20 12:26 UTC 2002 |
CNN headline news said the surpreme court case involved extending
copyright to 70 years past the death of the author. I suppose if the
current copyright were 50 years, that would fit with #55.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 58 of 219:
|
Feb 20 18:40 UTC 2002 |
It was 50 before the Bono Act, which became law several years ago. Oddly
enough, the Act was passed a few years before the earliest Mickey Mouse
cartoons were due to come out of copyright.
It is widely believed that a similar act will be proposed in another 15 years,
and that Mickey -- along with every other work that age or newer -- will never
be allowed to fall out of copyright. Hopefully, this court challenge will
short circuit that.
In addition to the fact that the Constitution calls for limited terms, it also
states pretty clearly that the purpose of copyright is for the public good,
not for the good of copyright owners. The clear intent was to give a short-
term monopoly in order to encourage people to create works, which would
benefit the public. It was warped almost beyond recognition even before the
Bono Act, and now it's ridiculous. (For one thing, extending the term on
existing copyrights didn't encourage the production of any works, because
those works already existed.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 59 of 219:
|
Feb 20 18:58 UTC 2002 |
The good of the copyright owners IS the public good, since they are members
of the public. It is not in the good of the copyright holders that they should
hold copyright for decades after they DIE.
|
jazz
|
|
response 60 of 219:
|
Feb 20 19:13 UTC 2002 |
It's not in the good of the largest number of people, either; it's
a method of consolodating and ensuring wealth, and that is against the public
interest when in excess.
|
brighn
|
|
response 61 of 219:
|
Feb 20 20:01 UTC 2002 |
The phrase "greatest good for the greatest number" also causes me to get Pig's
"Blades" stuck in my head. (Side comment)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 62 of 219:
|
Feb 20 21:41 UTC 2002 |
Re #59: It is to some extent, because that allows them to provide for their
children with the proceeds from their intellectual property.
|
