|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 160 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 39 of 160:
| 
Oct 3 19:39 UTC 2002 |
Hmmm. Most of the ones I have cost between $15 and $18 (the filk cds). Most
of them in recent years have cost $17 or $18, but since it's such a small
print-run (the last time I checked, a small print run CD for an independent
band was around $10/cd (friend's band made just enough CDs to pass out demos
and to sell to friends, that was the absolute rock bottom price for such a
small run) so I don't mind covering that cost AND giving some cash to the
artist) I figured that those costs were kosher.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 40 of 160:
|
Oct 4 00:14 UTC 2002 |
I was in the filk recording manufacture & distribution business, once
upon a very long time ago. We had no business model or planning
budget. We set our prices by seeing what equivalent material in record
stores cost, and figuring, "Well, that must be about right."
Clearly, we were complete wankers. I doubt the wankiness quotient in
filking has dropped much since then.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 160:
|
Oct 4 13:39 UTC 2002 |
Rep. Boucher has introduced a bill called the "Digital Media Consumers'
Rights Act of 2002". The full text of the bill is here:
http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/BOUCHE_025.pdf
Most of it deals with requiring labelling of copy-protected CDs, but section
5 is the part that interests me:
---
SEC. 5 FAIR USE AMENDMENTS
(a) Scientific Research -- Subsections (a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(A) of
section 1201 of title 17, United States Code, are each amended by inserting
after "title" in subsection (a)(2)(A) and after "thereof" in subsection
(b)(1)(A) the following: "unless the person is acting solely in furtherance
of scientific research into technological protection measures".
(b) Fair Use Restoration -- Section 1201(c) of title 17, United
States Code, is amended --
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: "and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent
a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work
if such circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in
the work"; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
"(5) It shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute,
or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of
enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work.".
---
So in other words, this would prevent the DMCA from being used to prosecute
people for fair use of copy-protected material. This bill is bound to get
heavy opposition from the RIAA and other powerful industry groups. It needs
your support. Write your representative.
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 160:
|
Oct 4 15:03 UTC 2002 |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/tech/main524304.shtml
Excerpt:
The music industry goes to court Friday to try to force an Internet service
provider to identify a subscriber accused of illegally trading copyrighted
songs, setting up a legal showdown that could indelibly alter the
free-swapping culture that has been a signature of the Web's early years.
If successful, the suit against Verizon would pave the way for ailing record
companies to send out reams of cease-and-desist letters to alleged music
pirates, scaring them into submission rather than going through the long
process of suing each one in court.
Verizon general counsel Sarah Deutsch said a record industry victory would
harm the privacy rights of Verizon subscribers and force Internet providers
to give up the names of its customers without judicial review.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 43 of 160:
|
Oct 4 23:44 UTC 2002 |
We are lucky to see a filk CD for $15 on a dealers table. Most
are sold at full "list" of $17 or $18. Ask Juanita Coulson if she
offers a discount for buying a large amount (like 4 for $60 instead
of $66 or $70). Roper does not talk discount no matter how many you
buy at one time, so might as well only buy one or two and wait on
the reaction the ones you just don't know about.
However, Roper's stock of 'Divine Intervention' CD by Julia
Ecklar (now digitally remastered, restored, etc) should sell out
on Friday night of ConFusion at $18. Prometheous music reports that
only packaging work remains (new artwork for the CD). They woudl be
luck to have stock for OVFF November 1st.
Some filk artists will sell their CDs direct at a concert
for $15, but have learned not to uncut the dealers at a con.
Meanwhile, the funnymusicians including Power Salad, Throwing
Toasters, Luke Ski, Tony Goldmark have put out full length CDs at
$10 or $12. They want product in people's hands more than they want
to make money. They also don't seem to be paying themselves
royalties. They should be priced more like $12 and $15. Shows
me that a filk CD need not be more than $15 on a dealers table. The
same would apply, for me, to other artists who have 1000-3000 unit
runs of their CD made. And I have a lot of those 'small run' CDs
in my collection.
|
krj
|
|
response 44 of 160:
|
Oct 6 15:48 UTC 2002 |
Wired refers to the Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27440.html
"Music biz strikes back with free, DRM 'padlocked' downloads"
Peter Gabriel's distribution company OD2 arranged for several
days of free downloading of tracks encoded with Microsoft's
Digital Rights stuff, presumably to get consumers used to the idea.
The event seems to have been successful, since the OD2 servers were
swamped. This was intended to be a UK-only offering.
|
krj
|
|
response 45 of 160:
|
Oct 9 23:47 UTC 2002 |
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Eldred case today.
Links to early reports can be found on Slashdot.org; the best
summary I have seen says that the plaintiffs' side, the
Forces of Truth and Justice :), did not appear to do well.
|
krj
|
|
response 46 of 160:
|
Oct 10 02:13 UTC 2002 |
The dead-tree edition of Billboard contains a story about the crash
in the business of selling recorded dance music. A variety of statistics
point to sales in the dance genre plunging between 50-80% in the
last few years, far worse than the 15-20% decline of the music business
as a whole. Dance music retailers are going out of business in
substantial numbers. Music business people complain about MP3s
being increasingly used by DJs; new electronics allow DJs to
do the scratching thing with MP3s instead of vinyl.
DJs and fans complain that the record companies charge too much
for vinyl singles ($12?) and take too long in getting hot product
to market.
Billboard doesn't usually put the discouraging business reports on
their web site, so you'll probably have to browse the paper version at a
newsstand or buy a copy.
|
mdw
|
|
response 47 of 160:
|
Oct 10 04:35 UTC 2002 |
Do people listen to dance music anywhere near as much as they used to?
It seems to me the market may be more a victim of changing taste than
anything else.
|
gull
|
|
response 48 of 160:
|
Oct 10 13:04 UTC 2002 |
Re #45: Yeah...one sticking point seems to be that under the plaintiffs'
arguments, the copyright act of 1976 should be unconstitutional, too.
As one of the justices put it, declaring that act unconstitutional now
would cause "chaos".
I can sort of see both sides of this. On the one hand, the Constitution
only says that copyright should be for a "limited" time. Under current
law, the term of a copyright *is* limited. The problem is every time
certain works get close to that limit, Congress extends it again, so it
ends up effectively being unlimited.
|
russ
|
|
response 49 of 160:
|
Oct 11 00:12 UTC 2002 |
Re #47: I doubt that the general public bought dance singles, if
they were running $12 each. That would make them a specialty item,
and if the specialists change their technology to something else
you would expect sales to collapse.
(Serves the record companies right for being late with a horribly
overpriced product, too. Hmmm, sounds almost like a list-price CD...)
|
gull
|
|
response 50 of 160:
|
Oct 11 15:20 UTC 2002 |
The Register has an article here about the Supreme Court challenge of the
"Mickey Mouse" copyright extension law of 1998.
http://www.theregus.com/content/6/26598.html
It goes into some detail about the arguments presented. I thought the
author of the article had an interesting point here, though:
"Actually, the Mickey Act provides a positive financial incentive for authors
and publishers to keep works in print longer by virtue of its retroactive
term extensions. It's hard to make money off a printed work that's in the
public domain unless it's required reading at uni (e.g., Shakespeare, Donne,
Fielding, etc.) or immensely popular (e.g., the Bible). If works pass sooner
into the public domain, less popular and lesser-known ones might end up
available only on the Internet, and that would be a slap in the face to the
billions of people who either prefer to curl up with a real book (like me)
or have no computers or Internet access."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 51 of 160:
|
Oct 11 15:43 UTC 2002 |
Actually, I think that's a totally bogus argument and I believe it's
got things almost exactly backwards..
To begin with, the issue isn't whether works will pass "sooner" into the
public domain but whether they will *ever* do so or whether existing
copyrights will essentially be extended forever, twenty years at a time.
Additionally, the extensions cover far more than just books -- they also
cover film, music, visual artwork, and much more. And finally, less
popular and lesser-known books written seventy-some years ago (which
is the time period we're talking about) simply aren't available to
"curl up" with -- they're long out of print and there's nowhere you
can count on getting a copy.
If a work is still popular after seventy years there'll be someone
fulfilling the market demand for it in any case and it will be cheaper
and other artists will be free to make derivative works if it has passed
into the public domain. If it's not popular enough to be money-making,
passing into the public domain, where it can be distributed almost without
cost, is the best hope a work has of reaching people who might appreciate
it.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 52 of 160:
|
Oct 11 19:14 UTC 2002 |
<nods> There's a lot of old books I'd never have read if it weren't for the
cheapass Dover editions.
|
gull
|
|
response 53 of 160:
|
Oct 11 19:18 UTC 2002 |
I agree that that's a problem. I have a lot of out of print material that's
no longer available from any commercial source but is still illegal for me
to duplicate.
I think the argument's relevent, though, because the MPAA has been giving a
version of it. They asked whether anyone would have gone to the trouble of
restoring and re-releasing _Citizen Kane_ if it had been in the public
domain. That's a good question; there are a fair number of early cartoons
and such that actually are public domain, and you don't often see copies of
them for sale. Commercially anything public domain seems to be considered a
dead end, fit only for the dumpster.
That aside, I'd like to see the Supreme Court declare the 1988 law
unconstitutional but I don't think they will. I think it'd be a bit of a
stretch, because the term *is* still limited, the limit is just longer than
most of us would like. It's hard to say exactly what *would* violate the
wording of the Constitution except for a law that explicitly declared a
perpeptual copyright.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 54 of 160:
|
Oct 11 19:28 UTC 2002 |
I imagine movies may be a little different. Isn't film harder to duplicate
than other media?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 55 of 160:
|
Oct 11 23:12 UTC 2002 |
About ten or fifteen years ago, during the height of the VCR boom,
one of the early movie studios which had become more or less defunct
(perhaps Republic?) accidentally let the copyright on a great deal
of material lapse because whoever owned the rights neglected to
renew them. All of a sudden the market was flooded with inexpensive
reproductions of movies like "It's a Wonderful Life" and movies that
hadn't been broadcast on television in years were rediscovered,
while the ones that had been popular enough to still show (like "It's
a Wonderful Life") became so commonly aired that people started to
make jokes about it.
|
russ
|
|
response 56 of 160:
|
Oct 12 02:19 UTC 2002 |
The New York Times ran an editorial opining that the Sonny Bono
\C\o\n\s\u\m\e\r\ \E\x\t\o\r\t\i\o\n Copyright Extension Act
should be held to be unconstitutional. I hope the Court agrees.
Re #50: The argument that public-domain works lose all commercial
value is blatantly false on its face; just look at the great
commercial revenues reaped by Disney on Victor Hugo's works shortly
after they entered the public domain. Of course, Disney will argue
that Steamboat Willie and the Hunchback of Notre Dame have nothing
in common. I hope the Court is smart enough to see through that.
|
scott
|
|
response 57 of 160:
|
Oct 12 03:16 UTC 2002 |
Or how Disney took public domain stories like "Snow White and the Seven
Dwarves" and made a bunch of money, but is horrified that somebody might make
some money from Disney property in public domain?
|
krj
|
|
response 58 of 160:
|
Oct 13 04:28 UTC 2002 |
"Global CD Slump Accelerates"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2319209.stm
"The value of music sold dropped by 9.2% in the first half
of 2002, the International Federation of the Phonographic
Industry (IFPI) has said.... The slump follows a 5%
drop in 2001."
((The IFPI is the international version of the RIAA.))
A sidebar lists declines for several markets for first half 2002:
US: down 6.8%
Japan: down 14.2%
UK: down 6.2% (UK was up about 5% last year)
France: up 5.2% (!!!)
Western Europe total: down 7.5%
Asia total: down 15.6%
These are money values, not units sold.
|
gull
|
|
response 59 of 160:
|
Oct 14 13:06 UTC 2002 |
The Register is reporting that HR.5469, the bill that was supposed to save
online webcasting, has been heavily amended in a backroom deal with a "cabal
of thirteen small commercial operations." Most webcasters now feel that the
bill will merely ensure only the largest commercial webcasters survive. It
also apparently would require, for the first time, that educational and
religious terrestrial stations (meaning regular radio stations) pay
performance royalties, though the article only mentions that in passing.
http://www.theregus.com/content/6/26615.html
|
polytarp
|
|
response 60 of 160:
|
Oct 14 13:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mxyzptlk
|
|
response 61 of 160:
|
Oct 16 11:52 UTC 2002 |
The Register is one small notch above the Enquirer. If it was valid,
they probably reprinted or stole from someone else.
Just venting...
|
gull
|
|
response 62 of 160:
|
Oct 16 13:34 UTC 2002 |
Most Internet news sites just reprint stuff from other places. My
expectations of them are pretty low -- The Register is more consistantly
accurate than Slashdot, and doesn't have the annoying comments, which is
why I started reading it. Like Slashdot and Security Focus, I mostly
use it as a convenient overview of interesting stuff other sites are
reporting on, because I don't have time to read them all.
A couple more items that came up there recently (mxyzptlk can skip these):
More on HR.5469, including comments from some of the people involved.
The bill is not expected to pass, due to opposition from terrestrial
broadcasters.
http://www.theregus.com/content/6/26644.html
An odd situation involving a RedHat errata and the DMCA. The headline
doesn't really tell the story on this one -- you have to dig in to find
what's really going on:
http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26656.html
Basically, RedHat is issuing a kernel bugfix errata for a
security-related bug. But if you're in the U.S., they can't tell you
what the bug is. The reason is the person who discovered it is afraid
of DMCA prosecution, and has copyrighted his analysis with a license
that stipulates only non-U.S. citizens can read it.
(Okay, mxyzptlk can start reading again.)
Dimitri Skylarov, the Russian programmer prosecuted under the DMCA for
breaking Adobe's eBook cipher, is once again in kind of a bind. He's
legally required to attend a trial in the U.S. and testify against his
employer ElcomSoft in the U.S. But the American Embassy in Moscow has
denied him a visa.
http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=2400
|
scott
|
|
response 63 of 160:
|
Oct 16 15:19 UTC 2002 |
The Register is a bit like Hunter S. Thompson's early 70's political writing
in Rolling Stone. The regular publications would say "Senator X gave a speech
where he said Y", while Thompson made a point of neglecting the official
details in favor of his own personal observations, such as "A disturbingly
offbalanced Senator X was quickly hustled out to make yet another stump speech
written by his handlers, after which he was pulled out of sight and hopefully
taken to a hospital".
|
