|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 162 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 61 of 162:
| 
Jul 27 18:20 UTC 2003 |
The Ann Arbor News reports on the RIAA's target in Ann Arbor:
http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1059144149193700.xml?aan
ews?NEA
(i hope that works)
Quote: "The RIAA subpoena claims the Ann Arbor user violated
copyright laws by offering up pop and rock songs, including
Madonna's "Material Girl," No Doubt's "Underneath It All"
and the Guns and Roses tune "Sweet Child of Mine.""
This leads me to the catty suggestion that a Kazaa user's best protection
against an RIAA lawsuit may simply be to improve one's taste in music. :)
|
oval
|
|
response 62 of 162:
|
Jul 28 19:40 UTC 2003 |
:)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 63 of 162:
|
Jul 29 16:59 UTC 2003 |
I'm, uh, truly shocked that Ken Josenhans doesn't like Guns and Roses.
|
goose
|
|
response 64 of 162:
|
Jul 29 20:57 UTC 2003 |
That's _Sweet Child O' Mine_.......;-)
|
krj
|
|
response 65 of 162:
|
Jul 30 05:36 UTC 2003 |
I have not got a link immediately at hand. However, Hilary Rosen's replacement
at the RIAA is the former chief of staff of the Republican Senate Majority
Leader. This most likely represents a tremendous boost in access and
influence over legislation for the RIAA.
|
goose
|
|
response 66 of 162:
|
Jul 30 13:20 UTC 2003 |
Oh boy.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=3173482
|
dbratman
|
|
response 67 of 162:
|
Jul 30 17:30 UTC 2003 |
It says:
"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The music industry's leading trade group on
Monday named Mitch Bainwol, a former top congressional aide with
contacts in the Republican party, as its new chief executive and top
lobbyist in Washington."
But it's accompanied by a photo of Saddam Hussein.
Ken #60: I conceive that it's possible that a rise in file-sharing,
leading to a glut in listening to recorded-music, might dampen down the
desire of students to attend concerts. But more likely the fall of big-
ticket pop-music concert items is due to the fact that they suck, and
the "safety first" attitude of concert promoters is responsible for
that.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 68 of 162:
|
Jul 30 17:31 UTC 2003 |
(By "concert promoters" I don't mean just the ilk of Bill Graham, but
the whole record industry.)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 69 of 162:
|
Jul 30 17:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 70 of 162:
|
Jul 30 18:53 UTC 2003 |
The Fresno Bee profiles one Fresno-area target of a RIAA subpoena:
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/7187003p-8115681c.html
"Could file sharing cost Fresno man $45 million?"
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 162:
|
Jul 30 20:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 72 of 162:
|
Jul 31 23:36 UTC 2003 |
SBC's Pacific Bell internet service provider is contesting the DMCA
subpoenas they have received from the RIAA for alleged file sharing.
SBC makes objections on procedural grounds -- subpoenas being issued
from the wrong federal court, and multiple individuals being targeted
in a single subpoena -- and they also make constitutional privacy
claims on behalf of their customers. Many news stories on this everywhere,
here's one:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-07-31-pac-bell_x.htm
-----
Vivendi Universal, the French conglomerate which owns the largest
music company, reports distressing results for the first half of 2003.
"Fewer international releases, currency effects, and weakness in
the music market helped push sales at Vivendi's Universal Music
down 29 percent to 1.068 billion euros. At constant exchange rates,
sales dropped 19 percent."
((Vivendi reports its results in Euros, and the Euro has gone up
relative to the dollar this year. I think the 19 percent number is
the key one -- this is a fall twice the predicted rate for CD sales
this year. Also, this news story is measuring money, not units sold.))
http://www.msnbc.com/news/946407.asp?0cv=BA00
|
dcat
|
|
response 73 of 162:
|
Aug 1 01:09 UTC 2003 |
MIT and, IIRC, Boston University (or maybe College, I can never keep them
straight) are contesting the subpoenas they have received on similar grounds.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 74 of 162:
|
Aug 1 01:10 UTC 2003 |
MIT is Boston College.
|
lynne
|
|
response 75 of 162:
|
Aug 1 19:36 UTC 2003 |
It was MIT and BU. The undergrad working with me thinks she knows the MIT
subpoena subject.
|
krj
|
|
response 76 of 162:
|
Aug 4 18:20 UTC 2003 |
Cnet ran this story about discussions between the RIAA and unnamed
universities, with a goal of creating a legal online music service
aimed at the campuses.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5059030.html?tag=lh
My guess is that the RIAA's goal is to tamp down the number of students
who run Kazaa and similar services, and thus offer large number of files
going outbound from the high-speed University networks -- I speculate
that they are hoping to throttle the uploading side of P2P and are
willing to sell songs at minimal cost to accomplish that.
I expect that the discussions will founder; according to the article,
the universities want some sort of all-you-can-eat system, while the
record companies remain stuck on the pay-for-each-song model.
In a related topic, I realized last week that the RIAA has timed its
lawsuits to coincide almost precisely with the students' return to
their schools.
-----
In a story reported everywhere, so I won't bother pulling up a link:
Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota would like to chat with the RIAA about
the shotgun approach they are taking with their subpoenas.
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 162:
|
Aug 5 21:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 78 of 162:
|
Aug 5 22:33 UTC 2003 |
Hey tod! You might want to close those table tags...
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 162:
|
Aug 5 22:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 80 of 162:
|
Aug 5 22:59 UTC 2003 |
Sorry, on the main page.
|
tod
|
|
response 81 of 162:
|
Aug 5 23:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 82 of 162:
|
Aug 6 02:35 UTC 2003 |
Ahem! The html table tags on http://www.megachump.com/ are not closed.
Oh, never mind.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 83 of 162:
|
Aug 6 05:28 UTC 2003 |
Huh?
|
tod
|
|
response 84 of 162:
|
Aug 6 19:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 85 of 162:
|
Aug 6 20:28 UTC 2003 |
Essay from Cnet which has some interesting arguments:
"Congress, the new copyright bully"
http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-5060347.html?tag=fd_nc_1
Quotes:
"Congress has become exasperated with its inability to get Americans
to stop engaging in copyright infringement."
...
"In the past decade, through dozens of congressional oversight hearings
where USUALLY ONLY INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES TESTIFY, Congress has been
completely convinced that rampant copyright infringement threatens to
destroy the American economy. Having internalized this threat, Congress
is now determined to fix that problem the only way it knows how--threaten
ordinary citizens with jail, despite collateral consequences."
((emphasis KRJ))
"Rather than making a seemingly endless number of ad hoc proposals,
Congress needs to develop an integrated policy about criminal copyright
infringement. To do so, Congress needs to recognize two things. First,
it is not acceptable to put average Americans at the peril of going
to jail for doing everyday activities. Second, if the existing laws
are not yielding the desired results, perhaps they were bad policy,
in which case making them tougher only compounds the initial policy
failure."
The author gets near to my question:
why is the government essentially refusing to enforce the existing law,
the No Electronic Theft Act, against file sharing users? And, given
that failure, what does Congress expect to accomplish by passing
even worse laws?
Theft Act of 1997, and given this refusal, what does it
|
