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.

response 64 of 87:

Nov 8 18:21 UTC 2001

EFF says it will join in the defense of MusicCity, a company offering
peer-to-peer software which is being sued by the music and movie 
industries.
 
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/eff.html

Real Networks says its legit pay system for downloading encrypted music
users can't do much with will launch within four weeks.
Price plans will be between $9.95 and $19.95 per month.

http://www.washtech.com/news/media/13604-1.html

(this is a Washington Post site.)

response 66 of 87:

Nov 20 17:11 UTC 2001

As a follow-up to the Natalie Imbruglia/BMG CD released in the UK with Cactus
Data Shield's copyright-protection scheme:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22917.html

It would seem that, under pressure from consumers and retailers, BMG will be
reissuing the disc without the copy-protection. A letter from Virgin
Megastores' Head Office to a consumer is reprinted here:
http://uk.eurorights.org/lists/ukcdr/2001-November/001068.html

response 68 of 87:

Nov 29 23:10 UTC 2001

The copyright industry wins two big cases regarding the DMCA and 
free speech claims against it:
 
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,48726,00.html
 
In the first case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld 
a decision prohibiting 2600 Magazine from distributing or linking to 
the DeCSS code.  Only appeal left is to the US Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals found that the restrictions on speech created by
the DMCA were "content neutral" and thus constitutionally permitted.
 
In the second case, the trial court judge dismissed a lawsuit against
the DMCA by Professor Edward Felten and the EFF; Felten was threatened
with DMCA prosecution for attempting to present an academic paper on a 
"watermarking" scheme.  EFF plans to appeal.

response 70 of 87:

Dec 1 07:10 UTC 2001

Illicitly *sold* CD-R's, or illicitly *copied* music?  So far as I know
most people buy CD-R's perfectly legally, then illegally *copy* the
music.  An even more interesting question, probably also missing from
those statistics, is how much of that represents actual "lost" sales? In
my case, I hope to get around to converting some of my CD's to MP3
format purely for my personal convenience.  That may be technically
illegal (although I think it's "fair use"); it's *certainly* not a lost
sale though - I bought those CD's, fair and square.

In what the record industry would probably argue is the more usual case,
that of someone downloading the MP3 ("for free"), the technology
*breaks* the fundemental assumption of the record industry.  That means
either (a) we somehow break the technology, or (b) the record industry
needs to adapt to the new market realities.  Unfortunately, (a) is
difficult or impossible to do in the long run.  The church, in the
middle ages, tried to get rid of guns when they first came out (another
example of new technology), and we all know how successful they were.
It doesn't sound to me like the record industry is working very hard to
do (b).

response 72 of 87:

Dec 2 22:31 UTC 2001

Hm.  I thought "chilling effect" carried some weight with the courts.

response 74 of 87:

Dec 4 06:18 UTC 2001

Here's the Slashdot article on Kazaa, which points to The Register:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/30/0537210&mode=thread
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/23107.html

response 76 of 87:

Dec 4 20:39 UTC 2001

Marcus in resp:70 :: the phrasing of the Financial Times article was 
a little difficult to parse, but on closer reading I think the 
IFPI is arguing that half of all blank CD-R production, estimated
at 4.8 billion discs for 2001, ends up being used for music.

From the IFPI's perspective, discs copied and sold in the great 
pirate bazaars of Asia are no different than the home-made copies 
made in the west; the article flows pretty freely between home copying
and commercial piracy for profit.

-----

News reports almost everywhere that Real Network was supposed to take
their MusicNet system for legitimate music downloads online today.

response 78 of 87:

Dec 11 04:20 UTC 2001

Re #77: I think it'd be a stretch to call the BIOS a copy-protection 
technology.

response 80 of 87:

Dec 18 06:30 UTC 2001

Not directly related to Napster or related subjects, but: 
http://www.newmediamusic.com, a web site which I have referred 
to frequently in these items, has closed up shop.  The web site
is still there, frozen as of mid-November.  
 
NewMediaMusic wanted to be a trade journal for the next round 
of evolution in the music business.  While they were critical of 
Napster and similar systems for their lack of respect for copyrights, 
NMM's editors also tried to take a stick to the major music companies
for sticking their heads in the sand and overlooking what their
customers clearly wanted.   Sometimes their essays seemed utterly 
brilliant, and other times they just seemed to be blowing smoke.

But they were a fun journal, and I will miss them.
 
----------

We knew that mp3.com had been bought by Vivendi Universal, the world's
largest music company, some months back.  I think Vivendi just finished
digesting its purchase.  The http://www.mp3.com/news pages, usually 
pointers  to a lively mix of rubbish and hype and good articles, have 
been frozen for four days.  The mp3.com front page is now promoting
major label R&B artist Toni Braxton. I guess we'll see where 
it goes from here.   (In their continuing attempt to devour
the entire media universe, Vivendi just bought the USA family of 
cable TV networks, including the SciFi channel.)

----------

Salon has a couple of freebies; I don't read them as much as I used to 
since most of the content is now for subscribers only.
 
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/12/13/college_webcast/index.html?x
"Why College Radio Fears the DMCA"
 
The DMCA created a new performance right which Internet radio stations
are to start paying for, a right which over-the-air stations don't 
have to worry about.   The sample station, a college non-profit, 
currently pays $623/year in songwriting royalties but would pay 
$10,000-$20,000/year if the record industry has its way. 
 
KRJ's interpretation, as noted before: the new digital performance
rights means that there will be no small webcast operations, and 
indeed there may not be any webcast operations at all other than 
those owned by the record industry, which can pay itself for its
own rights.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/12/18/dont_steal_music/index.html
"Don't Steal Music, Pretty Please"

I'm not sure I agree with this one.  The author argues that the music 
industry is coming to terms with the rise of the MP3 file and that all 
the anti-MP3 combat is just a delaying action while the biz figures
out what their cash flow model will be.