|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 50 of 151:
| 
Oct 13 00:45 UTC 2003 |
Re #39: It seems to me that so far the trend has been that the more CD
sales drop, the more traction the RIAA members have to get Congress to
restrict what people can do with their own computers. A boycott could
be counterproductive by inspiring yet more legislation.
Re #49: I think it's fundamentally impossible to have effective
copy-protection on CDs while still supporting existing CD players. The
format was designed to be simple to play, and security wasn't even a
remote consideration. Any halfway-effective copy protection scheme will
require a new format.
|
jep
|
|
response 51 of 151:
|
Oct 13 01:02 UTC 2003 |
I do download some music. I downloaded "Big Bad John" because I was
trying to find out who sang it. I saw it when I downloaded Johnny
Cash's "One Piece At A Time", which my son heard. I hadn't heard that
one since I was a kid and I figured I could get it without much
trouble.
I was not going to hop in the car and go to the local record store to
see if I could find either of these songs. I don't feel "entitled" to
copy these songs over the Internet, but I cannot for the life of me
see how it's going to hurt any musicians that I downloaded them. I
don't see how it's going to hurt anyone.
Let's see. Two weeks earlier I downloaded "Mother's Little Helper".
In September I became curious to see if I liked Jethro Tull any more
than I did when I was younger. (I don't.) That one might have cost
someone some money some day. I might have gone out and bought a
Jethro Tull tape or CD if I saw one at a rummage sale, and now I won't.
In August I downloaded "Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah", the night before
my kid was going to camp.
But okay. It was a crime each time I downloaded these songs. I'll
feel bad if I get arrested.
|
russ
|
|
response 52 of 151:
|
Oct 13 02:01 UTC 2003 |
I've been spending some time investigating record labels which
are not RIAA members and encourage try-before-you-buy downloads.
So far I've pulled 3 albums from Magnatunes.com. I haven't had
time to listen to them, but if I like them, I'll buy the CDs.
I'll probably burn MP3 tracks for friends who don't have fast
connections and wouldn't spend the time to check them out otherwise.
Music will be fine even if the RIAA's members drive off a cliff.
|
dah
|
|
response 53 of 151:
|
Oct 13 05:31 UTC 2003 |
Am I the only one who think John Ellis Perry's name is archetypical of an 80s
rocker?
|
jep
|
|
response 54 of 151:
|
Oct 13 13:08 UTC 2003 |
Nuts. I thought I'd put all of that behind me. I don't perform any more,
and am not interested in re-iterating any of that now. It's over with.
Thank you for respecting my need to move on with the new direction of my
life.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 55 of 151:
|
Oct 13 16:22 UTC 2003 |
Will there be much Grex footage in the "John Ellis Perry -- Behind the Music"
special? (And if so, will it be part of your downfall or redemption?)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 56 of 151:
|
Oct 14 17:02 UTC 2003 |
(I guess between Grex and heroin, I'd choose Grex...)
|
jep
|
|
response 57 of 151:
|
Oct 14 19:43 UTC 2003 |
re resp:55: It's unauthorized. I don't know anything about the
details. My former publicist is not allowed to tell anything he knows
about my private life as part of his severance package. I have no
comment on the rest of it.
|
tod
|
|
response 58 of 151:
|
Oct 14 20:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 59 of 151:
|
Oct 14 20:58 UTC 2003 |
Re#51 - technically you probably didnt hurt the band. For any song
there are a certain number of people who will buy it at every price.
For example, lets just say that at $20 there are 1000 people who will
buy the song. And at $10, there are 2000 people who will buy it. And
just suppose that if the price were $0, there would be 5000 people who
would be willing to get this song. If the price of the song is $20, it
doesnt really hurt the artist if the 4000 people who might want it but
arent willing to pay that price download it or whatever. In fact, there
might even be some benefit to the artist if that happens. The problem
is that there isnt an easy way to get the song to the folks who might
be interested in it for free while still getting the people willing to
pay for it to pay for it. So, it being available for free is what is
hurting the artist.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 60 of 151:
|
Oct 14 22:11 UTC 2003 |
One thing is, they could not find a way to stop taping, either.
|
lynne
|
|
response 61 of 151:
|
Oct 15 00:01 UTC 2003 |
Ah, the good old days when all my mix tapes were created by taping songs
off the radio. It didn't hurt sales any--I couldn't have afforded to
buy any of the albums.
|
krj
|
|
response 62 of 151:
|
Oct 16 16:37 UTC 2003 |
An item I just found in
Stereophile reminded me that hardly anyone has noticed that Big Music
is facing a format war which might be as messy as Betamax vs. VHS.
http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1750
The article is about the National Association of Record Merchants --
the trade group for the retailers -- bracing its members for being on
the front lines of consumer discontent as Big Music rolls out more
CDs with the SunnComm "copy-discouraging" technology.
In particular:
The Apple iPod holds a 25% market share in the portable MP3 player
market, or some number like that. But, you cannot use SunnComm
protected CDs to feed your iPod!! For authorized use, SunnComm-
plagued CDs only deliver Windows Media WMA files, which the iPod
doesn't play.
Similarly, Napster 2.0 only delivers WMA. If you've got an iPod,
Napster doesn't want you as a customer.
So we're set for a Windows Media vs. Apple AAC format battle, and a
lot of users may just sit this one out and contine to download MP3
files. Which wasn't Big Music's intent at all...
|
gull
|
|
response 63 of 151:
|
Oct 16 20:18 UTC 2003 |
It's going to be hard to wean people off MP3s. They're more flexible
than any of the alternatives, and have become a defacto standard. The
experiences the movie industry had with Divx (the disc format, not the
more recent video encoding scheme) suggest that people don't like
time-limited, copy-protected media formats, either, and that they do
know the difference.
|
krj
|
|
response 64 of 151:
|
Oct 16 20:27 UTC 2003 |
The Washington Post reports that the FCC is poised to impose
requirements that consumer electronics, including computers,
block the copying and transmission of digital TV and movie programming.
This is the "broadcast flag" proposal. The article says a final rule
is expected at the end of August.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32173-2003Oct15.html
The article contains no technical details, but such a rule seems to
ready to clash drastically with Linux and the other free Unix versions,
and with the general ability of people to freely build computers out of
parts.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 65 of 151:
|
Oct 16 22:15 UTC 2003 |
Mary's notion that, if we don't like the terms, we should just not buy
the product, is more than a little naive. What if we want the product?
Even more naive is her notion that falling sales should teach the music
industry that their approach isn't working. Hah! So far it's only
encouraged them to pursue their approach with greater vehemence. Like
Bush in Iraq, their belief is, "If you get in a hole, dig faster."
on the other hand -
slynne said, "I have copied a few songs to my hard drive so I can
listen to them while playing games and stuff."
I don't even do that. I have my stereo system next to my computer.
(I've tried playing CDs on the computer. It slows down whatever else
I'm doing.)
|
vegetto
|
|
response 66 of 151:
|
Oct 17 09:52 UTC 2003 |
I really think the RIAA should just bow to the inevitable and just give up
the fight which was lost before it began. I personally have over 200 CDs,and
they are all BACKED UP on mp3,so when one scratches I just chuck it and burn
another.Honestly how are you gonna sue muti-millions of people who
download,rip or otherwise copy music?NOT HAPPENING.They'd be smart to cut
their losses and stop rocking the boat,because they're the ones wearing cement
life-preservers.Besides,statistics show that 80% of people wo download music
BUY THE ALBUM IN QUESTION ANYWAY!!
|
krj
|
|
response 67 of 151:
|
Oct 17 19:40 UTC 2003 |
Apple iTunes for Windows launched yesterday with much foofaraw.
If any kind reader tries it out, please bring us a report!!
(Same for Napster 2.0.)
Apple is launching a huge promotion at the Super Bowl with Pepsi;
Apple says it is going to give away 100 million free song downloads
as part of the promotion, and many of those giveways will be keyed
to Pepsi contest caps, where about 1 cap in 3 will win a download.
Also from today's New York Times coverage, which I read in the
dead tree edition (thus no link): the iPod is up to a 31% market
share in the portable MP3 player market.
(Recall what I wrote yesterday about BMG Sunn-Comm plagued CDs, and
Napster 2.0, not interoperating with the iPod.)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 68 of 151:
|
Oct 21 20:04 UTC 2003 |
Meanwhile, at ConClave this past weekend, Steve Salaba
presented Bill Higgins and later, Bill Roper each with a 78 rpm
record of their work. Each cut on a machine that can make 78's
one at a time. Even back when this machine was in use, it was
posible to make copies. In this case, the input stream to the
78 cutter was his Ipod.
|
tod
|
|
response 69 of 151:
|
Oct 21 20:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 70 of 151:
|
Oct 21 20:51 UTC 2003 |
Since the iPod acts as a Firewire disk (if you choose to configure
it to do so) I suppose you could "load" just about any computer file
you want on one, but you wouldn't ordinarily "load" Napster or Kazaa
onto your iPod.
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 151:
|
Oct 21 20:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 72 of 151:
|
Oct 21 23:35 UTC 2003 |
I don't know where to begin picking apart that one, so I'm just going
to assume you're trolling..
|
tod
|
|
response 73 of 151:
|
Oct 22 15:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 74 of 151:
|
Oct 22 18:10 UTC 2003 |
There is a flood of items....
As lawmakers tear out their hair, crying "Why won't they stop?",
adding jail to the list of penalties is the next step.
"UK to adopt EU copyright law"
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=362934
4§ion=news
Quotes:
> "It could be interpreted under these new regulations that you are
> now committing a criminal offence when you use Kazaa or other
> (peer-to-peer) services," said Out-law.com Editor Struan Robertson
> in a statement on the site, which is part of the law firm Masons.
> The law would also make illegal the circumvention of copy-protection
> schemes, such as copying songs from a protected CD or watching a
> DVD on a computer using the Linux operating system.
This is reported as a done deal, with the new penalties coming into force
shortly. Penalty: two years in the pokey.
-----
Meanwhile, the European Union plans to ratchet up the pressure and
throw more people in jail.
"Europe's Antipiracy Proposal Draws Criticism"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/business/worldbusiness/20lobby.html
Quotes:
> The proposal would go far beyond existing laws in Europe and the
> United States by classifying copyright violations and patent
> infringements, even some unwitting ones, as crimes punishable by
> prison terms.
> Lawyers who have studied a draft of the proposed law say that not
> only could a teenager who downloaded a music file be sent to jail
> under it; so too could managers of the Internet service provider that
> the teenager happened to use, whether they knew what the teenager
> was doing or not.
In an outstanding example of how we are now ruled by our corporate masters:
the draft rules originally applied only to for-profit copyright infringements.
However, wording to include file-sharing was inserted in the legislation
by THE WIFE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF VIVENDI, who own the world's largest
record company.
Let me repeat that: Draconian criminal copyright proposals are being
dictated by the wife of a record company executive.
-----
Can't happen in America? According to this report,
the "Free Trade Area of the Americas" treaty (FTAA) will require
all signatories, including the US, to make file sharing a felony.
The treaty also mandates law changes which greatly erode the scope
of fair use and user's rights to backup their own media.
An organization called IP Justice says the treaty implements the
wishlist of the RIAA, the MPAA and Microsoft.
"International treaties will force 34 democracies to change copyright,
IP laws."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12219
|
