|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 134 responses total. |
polygon
|
|
response 73 of 134:
| 
Feb 13 14:12 UTC 2001 |
Re 69. The issue is not whether somebody is getting compensated at
all. The issue, for me, as I originally stated it, is that the cost
of a new CD in a store is so outlandishly high that I'm not really
interested in buying any at that price. The fact that none of that
large amount of money benefits the artist, except very indirectly and
speculatively, only reinforces this.
Buying a CD at a concert is slightly different. It's almost like a
donation toward the living expenses of someone who is doing music because
they love doing it, given that they could enjoy a higher income doing
almost anything else. In fact, at the kind of concerts I go to, usually
it's the performer himself/herself, or a band member, at the CD table
taking the money.
|
ashke
|
|
response 74 of 134:
|
Feb 13 15:20 UTC 2001 |
So for those who are against napster, and I'll admit freely that some use it
for getting all they can, aren't we splitting hairs because the courts feel
that a computer does not constitute a home recording device (even though I
have a program like Adaptec's Disc Jockey where I can import my vinyl and
tapes into it) therefore it's not protected like your dual cassette recorder
is?
I'm more offended that Eminem and other artists feel that "If you can afford
a computer you can afford the $16 to buy my ...CD" I am COMPLETELY offended
by that. I DO buy thier overpriced CD's. What you see coming out of the
woodwork on this issue are hippocrites and money grubbing artists against this
system. Case in Point, Metallica, who advocated bootlegging not only the
albums, but the concerts they did, who now have been vocal about napster and
equally as tightfisted with their concert material. they saw $$$. They had
a big enough fan base. So they changed their mind. So that means that every
other artist has to as well, right? Big bad metallica has offically spoken
out of both sides of their face.
I'm especially angry that the shift after Frampton Comes Alive is for MONEY
to rule the recording industry. I am all for the little people who do what
they can and produce their own, like Ani Defranco. But now you have MBA's
dictating what the public will like, wanting cookie cutter bands, and warping
any idea of "music" as played by the musician. The RIAA has made the artist
a comodity of the Record Company, similiar to Slave Labor, and some of us
might actually LIKE to hear something GOOD.
If you go after napster, by all rights you should go after ever kid who gives
his friend or his sweetheart a tape of "their songs". But because of all the
BS that happened 20-30 years ago, you can't. It's just a matter of setting
precident with a computer as a recording device. I wonder if I should send
the appelate court judges a copy of one of the several computer programs that
COMPOSE music?
|
brighn
|
|
response 75 of 134:
|
Feb 13 16:19 UTC 2001 |
(#73> Having reread the thread, I do admit that I took a side comment of
Larry's and made a major thread out of it, and then, having forgotten it was
a side note of his, commented as if it had been the crux of his argument. My
apologies for that; it was inadvertant, not malicious, but it was still
inappropraite.)
#72> Beady, all the rest of your comments aside, child porn is illegal.
Metallica songs aren't. There's a HUGE difference between the illegal exchange
of legal material and the exchange of illegal material. While I think the
former is still inappropriate, in the "Grand Sheme," your comparison sucks
wad. If anything, it represents those of us who are opposed to Napster on
solid moral grounds as fruitcakes who don't know the difference between
Metallica and kiddie porn.
|
brighn
|
|
response 76 of 134:
|
Feb 13 16:26 UTC 2001 |
#74> The most apropos comparison to Napster in the non-virtual world would
be someone standing at a concert with a crate full of home-burned CDs, giving
them away to people for $1/per to cover costs. Someone giving copies to all
their friends isn't a "large enough" example. The point being: You may have
five or six friends that you regularly give pirated music to. Napster gives
far far more than five or six people access to your HD.
|
ashke
|
|
response 77 of 134:
|
Feb 13 16:52 UTC 2001 |
Well, for an example, NO ONE has access to my hard drive. I don't allow
downloads when I'm online. It slows down the process. Another thing, it is
an urealistic expectation that a preson is going to do that, have a crate and
sell them. First off, nothing is being sold, and secondly, those are the SAME
fears that came with dual tape copies. And tapes from vinyl. Tapes were EVIL
remember? It is the SAME thing, only we have the ability to make a cd, not
just a tape. I think the problems are unfounded.
|
gull
|
|
response 78 of 134:
|
Feb 13 17:56 UTC 2001 |
I think the big question with recording industry practices is "is there
any alternative?" The problem is there really isn't. They control all
the distribution channels, so they can conspire to make the contracts as
bad as they want and it'll be a matter of "my way or the highway." At
one point they even made a nearly-successful attempt to keep stores from
selling used CDs.
The syndicates that handle newspaper comic strips are in a similar
situation. There's only about five of them, and if you're a cartoonist
and you don't like the terms they offer you, well, too bad. They've
locked up the market for newspaper comic page space. There's no room
for independents.
|
krj
|
|
response 79 of 134:
|
Feb 13 18:24 UTC 2001 |
Sun/ashke in resp:74 :: "aren't we splitting hairs because the courts feel
that a computer does not constitute a home recording device (even though I
have a program like Adaptec's Disc Jockey where I can import my vinyl and
tapes into it) therefore it's not protected like your dual cassette recorder
is?"
This isn't the courts splitting hairs. This is the courts applying the
definitions -- pretty clear ones -- laid down by Congress in the
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. These are the same definitions
which the courts interpreted to allow MP3 players to be sold, even
though they do not incorporate SCMS.
Yes, at some level it's splitting hairs, in the sense that most laws
eventually end up splitting hairs somewhere. On the other hand,
the AHRA was also one of those grand compromises which tried to
balance the competing interests of the copyright industry, the
electronics industry, and the consumers, and like it or not,
resolutions like this are what Congress is for.
See http://www.hrrc.org (Home Recording Rights Coalition) for
a good background on the law.
((I have more to pass along about the Napster ruling and will hope to
get it cranked out later today.))
|
ashke
|
|
response 80 of 134:
|
Feb 13 19:24 UTC 2001 |
But that definition was laid down BEFORE mass applications for computers were
truly used....correct? The leaps and bounds in computer technology and home
pc technology are amazing. If you had told me in 91 that I'd be playing music
on a computer, I'd have called you crazy. Now? I use it as much as my
stereo.
|
brighn
|
|
response 81 of 134:
|
Feb 13 20:07 UTC 2001 |
I was playing music on the computer in 1991. I was playing music on the
computer in 1984.
Mass reproduction has been available for quite some time. The law is plain:
Reproduce a few times, and we won't prosecute, even though it's illegal.
Reproduce a few thousand times, and we'll prosecute. This isn't a matter of
new v. old technology. The only way that new technology is relevant is that
it's now easier to break the law. That doesn't mean you're not breaking the
law anymore.
|
gull
|
|
response 82 of 134:
|
Feb 13 20:37 UTC 2001 |
Re #80, 81: Actually, the law says, "reproduce a few times, using a
stand-alone audio CD burner and audio CD blanks, and we won't
prosecute. Reproduce a few times, using a computer and data CD blanks,
and we might." It does sort of split hairs. Stand-alone audio burners
are considered "home recording devices" and computers aren't.
|
krj
|
|
response 83 of 134:
|
Feb 13 21:14 UTC 2001 |
Brighn is somewhat mistaken in #81: he's describing prosecutorial
discretion and allocation of resources, not the law, and we are
generally concerned with civil copyright infringement here, not
criminal. And so far no individual users of Napster have been
sued.
Gull in resp:82 :: yes, that's the law. In exchange
for the extra royalties one pays for the audio CD burner and the
audio CD blanks, Congress rules that you are immune from copyright
suit for the non-commercial use of those things, even if you are
duplicating copyrighted material. There's no technical
difference between an audio blank and a data blank, merely a
legal/royalty difference. You could be sued for copyright
infringement for the use of your computer to clone CDs on data
discs, and if you did it often enough the felony provisions
of the No Electronic Theft Act would apply.
|
brighn
|
|
response 84 of 134:
|
Feb 14 04:28 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 85 of 134:
|
Feb 14 04:34 UTC 2001 |
>Somebody somewhere here a long time ago referred to a law that limited home
>copies to a certain number. There was some discussion at that point as to
>whether or not that was a law or just a practice, but I thought that it had
>ultimately come down that it was a law.
|
gull
|
|
response 86 of 134:
|
Feb 14 04:54 UTC 2001 |
Re #83: Who decides who gets the royalties? Do they just go to the
record companies?
(Interestingly, it's also *impossible* to use the legal, audio blanks in
a computer. You get an 'application code' error.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 87 of 134:
|
Feb 14 17:51 UTC 2001 |
OOC, I've been archiving my old vinyls onto CD via computer. Not that I'm
going to stop or anything, but I assume that's legal... is it? (It's for my
own usage, recording LPs I own into CDs I own).
#85> I recall now that it was determined that it wasn't law, but rather a
legal guideline agreed to by some grand power like the RIAA or other...
details remain sketchy in my head, though. *shrug*
This is why I keep trying to remind myself to stay out of legal discussions
and keep to moral discussions. The law is overly intricate and pointless, in
many ways.
|
gull
|
|
response 88 of 134:
|
Feb 14 18:58 UTC 2001 |
Re #87: It's technically illegal, but the chances of getting sued over
it are nonexistant.
|
mwg
|
|
response 89 of 134:
|
Feb 14 19:29 UTC 2001 |
In theory it is also impossible to use data blanks on home audio CD
recorders, but some can be fooled and anything can be hacked.
I've been prowling through Napster a bit. It is a good place to pick up
those goofy fringe recordings of horrible things happening to a purple
reptile or to mutants with video displays embedded into thier digestive
systems, or other oddball things that you won't find on a mass-produced
audio format.
And if Napster does get heavily modified, as has been pointed out,
alernatives exist already, including servers using Napster protocol that
will work with clients that can be given specified servers. (I don't know
what a real Napster client is like, so I don't know if this is
easy/hard/impossible on them.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 90 of 134:
|
Feb 14 22:41 UTC 2001 |
The technological cat's out of the bag, re: Napster.
Frankly, the best the Majors and the RIAA can hope for is maintaining enough
of a PR image that some of us actually respect them enough to keep from
ripping them off. I think that's Bertelmann's strategy.
Of course, they could ALWAYS restructure how they pay artists so those of us
who don't respect them begin to again. If anything, that's one really good
thing that could come out of this mess, once the dust settles. Personally,
I'm not going to hold my breath, but that DOES seem to be a motivator that
I've heard a lot -- the first is that CDs are too pricey, but the second is
that none or little of that money goes to the artists (directly, at least,
and the indirectly is clearly too "indirectly" for some people's tastes).
|
aaron
|
|
response 91 of 134:
|
Feb 14 23:02 UTC 2001 |
Their best response, barring an unforeseen advance in encryption and
pay-per-download technology, would probably be to offer affordable
blanket licenses for various libraries of downloadable music (akin to
what is available to commercial enterprises through BMI and ASCAP),
while pursuing legal remedies against those responsible for any
significant level of piracy.
|
polygon
|
|
response 92 of 134:
|
Feb 15 17:16 UTC 2001 |
Re 75 re 73. Many thanks for this acknowledgement. I appreciate it.
|
krj
|
|
response 93 of 134:
|
Feb 16 22:33 UTC 2001 |
Back to my resp:0, second paragraph... today we have a wire service
story about a Napster statement that they are continuing to work on
developing their subscription service:
http://www.latimes.com/wires/20010216/tCB00a6683.html
"The new business model and technology enables digital music
files to be transferred from computer user to computer user -- so-called
peer-to-peer sharing -- but restrictions such as limiting the ability
to copy files on a CD will be placed on the transferred files,
Napster said."
So I guess my first thought was correct: they must be planning on having
either the sending or receiving program put a Digital Rights Management
wrapper around the vanilla MP3 file. ???
|
dbratman
|
|
response 94 of 134:
|
Feb 17 00:56 UTC 2001 |
Stanford University, where I work, has instituted network routines to
put Napster and several other such services at the bottom priority of
network processing. They've been eating up so much network resources
it slows everybody down. There is no prohibition, and in fact they
recommend certain times of day when other network traffic is low.
As I suspected, it's the bandwidth.
Response among students has been mixed. Some whine that they can't get
everything they want RIGHT NOW. Others suggest that perhaps this move
will improve the dating scene on campus, as students will be impelled
to go out instead of spending all their evenings downloading music from
the Web.
A list of things that _I_ would prefer doing to watching little
completion percentage bars crawl across my computer screen would be a
very long list indeed.
|
gull
|
|
response 95 of 134:
|
Feb 17 05:07 UTC 2001 |
At Michigan Tech they banned Napster use because they found the usage
pattern it created was aggravating a problem with their backbone
switch. (A problem that the switch's manufacturer had, at the time I
left, been utterly unable to fix over a period of two or three months.)
It wasn't a bandwidth usage problem, exactly; something about the
rapid-fire way Napster makes connections was triggering the switch to
drop whole network segments for ten or fifteen minutes at a time.
|
krj
|
|
response 96 of 134:
|
Feb 17 05:42 UTC 2001 |
News item:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010215/tc/belgium_napsster_1.html
"Belgian Cops Raid Music-Sharers."
The raids of users homes were primarily aimed at a web site.
However, the prosecution spokesman says, "four cases against
Napster users were currently under review."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 97 of 134:
|
Feb 18 02:14 UTC 2001 |
I much preferred the hysterical Slashdot extrapolations (jackbooted Belgian
stormtroopers conducting mass arrests) to the actual story, which involves
police seizing computers from several people who operated an MP3 download
site, but this could indeed turn into a trend to watch..
|
