response 40 of 87:

Oct 4 20:49 UTC 2001

Re 35.  On the real estate restrictive covenant tangent: racially and
other such covenants were ruled to be void as against public policy by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948.  More broadly, most states
have laws which provide that covenants are not enforceable unless they
have expiration dates, usually limited to 40 years or so.  (I could go on,
but this is the wrong item.)

response 42 of 87:

Oct 9 22:38 UTC 2001

The Register moves another alarmist story.  According to their 
leak sources, the RIAA held a secret meeting last week with 
the record label heads, movie studios, US Senators Fritz Hollings
and Ted Stevens (sponsors of the SSSCA), and the heads of Toshiba
and Matsushita.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22087.html

Some highlights:
 
Hilary Rosen of the RIAA said, "we are working with sound card manufacturers
to implement technology that will block the recording of watermarked content
in both digital and analogue form."  ((That would have to be backed up 
with a SSSCA requirement that all sound cards use this system, of course.))

The RIAA intends to push for the adoption of a hard drive specification
similar to the rejected CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media)
rules.

Rosen wants ISPs to be liable for the copyright violations of their users.

Disney's Michael Eisner wants to gut privacy rules:  he said, "Privacy 
laws are our biggest impediment to us obtaining our objectives."

response 44 of 87:

Oct 10 13:27 UTC 2001

Re #23: Recording a CD you own to MP3 files for your own use is one of 
the things record companies would like to prevent you from doing.  
(It's already technically illegal.)

What the record companies really want to see is for something else to 
replace the CD.  They're hoping for this for two reasons:  it'd give 
them a chance to come up with a format that's more difficult to copy, 
and they think it would allow them to sell everyone another copy of all 
the albums they own.  They made out like bandits when people converted 
from LPs to CDs, and they're hoping they can do so again.  Under some 
schemes I've seen, you'd actually need to buy more than one new copy; 
some of them would license the copy to the player, so that, for 
example, you'd need to buy one for your home stereo, one for your car, 
and one for your portable...

Re #42: The Register has published a retraction of that story here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html
It's likely the meeting never happened.  I'm guessing the Michael 
Eisner quote was probably made up -- even if he thinks that, I don't 
think he'd actually say it out loud.

response 46 of 87:

Oct 10 17:08 UTC 2001

I heard that the largest representative of recording artists has agreed to
make all their music available on line from a source for a fee as yet to be
determined.

response 48 of 87:

Oct 10 21:05 UTC 2001

It doesn't surprise me.  It's not clear that the money paid out in
the Payback for Playback program ever helped create much revenue 
for mp3.com.  I chalk it up as another failed dot-com business model.

response 50 of 87:

Oct 15 18:59 UTC 2001

The outrages keep on coming...  From Declan McCullagh & Wired:
 
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47552,00.html

The RIAA wants to be immunized from any liability if they break into 
computers or networks in search of illicit MP3 files.  
They want immunity from consequential damages if they screw up your 
system.
 
So far their attempts to slip this into anti-terrorism bills have failed.
But it does show that the RIAA's thinking in terms of vigilanteeism.

((The RIAA's spokesman in this matter is lying weasel Mitch Glazer. 
Glazer is the former Senate staffer who betrayed his trust by 
slipping the "work-for-hire" changes into copyright law, thus 
drastically revising the ownership rights for recorded music without
any responsible legislators realizing what was going on.  
Glazer was rewarded for his betrayal of the Senate's trust with a 
plum position at the RIAA. ))

response 52 of 87:

Oct 15 21:28 UTC 2001

LA Times story on the same subject, with a tad less outrage:
 
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000082201oct15.story
 
LA Times also carries a report about Department of Justice antitrust 
invesigators looking at the creation of the authorized music download
systems for the major labels.  I get lost every time I read about anti
trust law, though:
 
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000082195oct15.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines
%2Dbusiness

response 54 of 87:

Oct 16 19:06 UTC 2001

ZDnet on the RIAA's plan to launch denial of service attacks against
users running file swapping software:
 
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2818064,00.html?chkpt=zdnnp1t
p01

response 56 of 87:

Oct 18 12:16 UTC 2001

Aren't DoS attacks illegal?  Boy the RIAA may have gone over the edge!

response 58 of 87:

Oct 23 19:20 UTC 2001

A couple of weblog pointers:
 
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7617315.html
"Tech giants pan anti-piracy mandate."  Intel, IBM, Microsoft and Compaq
held a press conference to oppose the SSSCA proposal.

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7612135.html
is mostly about Windows XP and its support (or lack) for MP3 and Windows
Media Audio formats.  It includes the news that InterTrust is suing 
Microsoft, claiming the Digital Rights Management stuff in WMA 
infringes on their patent.  It also reports that WMA copy-prevention 
has been broken by an anoynymous hacker.  No doubt that exploit will
quickly be as criminalized as the DeCSS code, and as effectively.

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/disney.html
This one is so humorous I'm not sure I believe it.  According to the 
underlying story at 
  http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/10/22/1636242&mode=thread
a Disney Channel cartoon portrays a small child's music file trading as 
leading to bankruptcy for her favorite artist, record store and eventually 
to the child being tracked down by the cops.  (Rane and Brighn might 
approve of the storyline, perhaps?)

Supposedly this is an epidsode of "The Proud Family" which aired on 
October 5.  Gumby and Pokey for the modern era.  :)

response 60 of 87:

Nov 4 04:12 UTC 2001

The ABC, NBC and CBS television networks are suing to block the 
introduction of Replay TV's new digital TV recorder, the 
ReplayTV 4000.  The networks claim that the new device makes it 
too easy for users to share TV shows over the Internet, and the
networks also claim that the device allows users to painlessly 
skip the all-important commercials which pay for "free" TV.
 
Given the precedent of the Betamax case, I don't see how this 
suit stands a chance; but then, Napster thought it could hide
behind the Betamax precedent as well and that did not work
out.
 
http://www.tvguide.com/techguide/techwatch/
 

response 62 of 87:

Nov 5 17:32 UTC 2001

Re #61: My understanding is that you can plug the ReplayTV box into an 
internet connection and share files directly.  I could be wrong, that's 
just the impression I got from another article about it.