|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 134 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 99 of 134:
| 
Feb 21 08:11 UTC 2001 |
And the latest news is Napster wants to try to settel with all the record
companies including the indies for a cool billion dollars. This works
out to 20 dollars a subscriber for napsters current 50 million subscribers,
assuming most of them stay signed up for a subscriber service which is a big
if, with open nap, guntella, etc, available for free. Seems like a sketchy
business model, but it could way to reach the win win solution of unlimited
aqccess to music while assuring the record companies and more importantly
the artisits their cut.
|
mdw
|
|
response 100 of 134:
|
Feb 21 09:38 UTC 2001 |
The artists? Doubtful even in the most optimistic model.
|
krj
|
|
response 101 of 134:
|
Feb 21 17:20 UTC 2001 |
resp:96, resp:97 :: ZDnet(UK) runs a story that the IFPI (the global
version of the RIAA) is pushing hard for raids on Napster users in
Belgium. "The head of IFPI in Belgium, Marcel Heymans, claimed
Thursday that Belgian police were poised to raid the homes of hundreds
of Napster users."
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2687923,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnew
s01
or some URL like that.
As for the billion dollar settlement offer, it smacks of desperation
to me. If the four major labels (other than BMG) wanted Napster to
continue to exist, and if they thought it could produce a billion dollars
in revenue, then they could just continue their lawsuit, win, and collect
all Napster assets in the judgement; then they would own Napster and
its potential revenues forever.
Several of the pieces I read yesterday -- there was a huge flurry of them
prompted by the billion dollar offer -- suggest the most likely outcome
will be that someone sets up a Napster-ish directory server in one of the
countries which currently host off-shore gambling sites. Revenue?
One could probably get millions of Napster users to pay a small monthly
fee for access to the directory server if the files traded were unrestricted
MP3 files, rather than the restricted-use files planned for Napster II.
|
brighn
|
|
response 102 of 134:
|
Feb 22 17:11 UTC 2001 |
#110, 99> Even fairly optimistic lil ol' me isn't naive enough to think any
noticable amount of Napster's settlement with the RIAA and the Majors will
go to the artists.
(er, that was 100, not 110)
|
krj
|
|
response 103 of 134:
|
Feb 22 17:58 UTC 2001 |
Couple of fascinating (to me, anyway) news items.
Slashdot's "YRO" (Your Rights Online) section links to a story at
www.law.com about Dave Powell and Copyright Control Services, who hunt
down copyright infringers on the net. So far his business has been
mostly defending expensive software packages for pro audio, but he's
just chomping at the bit to start working over Napster users.
What's holding him back, so far, is the PR concerns of the record labels.
The www.law.com URL is just too mindboggling to transcribe, sorry.
And Congress, most notably Senator Orrin Hatch (R, Utah), continues
to make noises. A story I missed at the Washington Post last Thursday
quotes Hatch as raising the possibility that Congress could enact
a "compulsory license" for the Internet sale of music.
A compulsory license would mean that the copyright holder would lose
veto power over the ability of a company to use or sell its music;
it's similar to what exists today for radio, I think.
The record company screams would be heard for miles.
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va) criticizes the record labels for their
reluctance to allow sales of individual songs, rather than complete
albums.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12511-2001Feb15.html
Non-original thoughts: Hatch, in particular, seems particularly
irked because he was a principal author of the Digital Millenium
Copyright Act. The act, which gave the copyright industry just
about everything it wanted, was supposed to speed the arrival of an
online music business, but here we are, years later, and there's no
real online music business, just lawsuits galore. I've lost the
essay which claimed that the major labels are still in "deep denial"
about the Internet and its implications for their business.
And I haven't mentioned a piece from www.musicdish.com, which
put forth the proposal that the promotion and distribution sides
of the music business converge on the Net... later this afternoon maybe.
|
brighn
|
|
response 104 of 134:
|
Feb 23 18:12 UTC 2001 |
(Side note. question: I'd also heard about ten years back or so that there
were laws drafted or transcribed that would allow anyone who wants to *cover*
a song to do so despite the wishes of the copyright holder, so long as they
pay a royalty fee. Is that accurate, or was some media source confused about
what was going on?)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 105 of 134:
|
Feb 23 19:03 UTC 2001 |
I thought that was already the case..
|
krj
|
|
response 106 of 134:
|
Feb 23 19:28 UTC 2001 |
That's essentially correct, as I understand it. The right to make a
first recording is under the control of the copyright holder, but
to make subsequent recordings, all a performer has to do is pay
the statutory licensing fees, and the copyright holder has nothing
to say about it. I am not aware that there was any recent change
to these rules.
|
krj
|
|
response 107 of 134:
|
Feb 23 19:44 UTC 2001 |
News item: "Next on record industry's hit list -- Napster clones"
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2689187,00.html
(or find it at http://www.mp3.com/news)
With the Court of Appeals ruling against Napster as a precedent,
the RIAA has fired off 60 legal notices to the ISPs of people who
are running "Open Napster" servers. Presumably this is the
DMCA "notice and take down" form letter, in which the ISP has to cut
off the user to protect its own immunity from copyright lawsuit.
What's not mentioned in the story, but what I think I remember from
the Scientology cases, is that the copyright holder has to follow
up with a lawsuit against the user within a short period of time,
or else the ISP and the user are free to continue as before.
The story mentions the difficulties with Open Napster servers located
outside the USA.
The RIAA's lawyer says they have ideas about how to attack Gnutella,
but he declined to discuss them.
|
danr
|
|
response 108 of 134:
|
Feb 24 04:01 UTC 2001 |
Sounds like a losing battle to me. As soon as one program or service is
beaten down, two will spring up to take its place. And that's not even
taking into account websites outside the US.
|
krj
|
|
response 109 of 134:
|
Mar 1 21:04 UTC 2001 |
Napster's next court date with Judge Marilyn Patel is tomorrow.
She's supposed to be working on the injunction to force Napster to
cease exchanging copyrighted material, under the direction she was
given by the appeals court panel. Does this mean Napster will shut
down tomorrow? Seems iffy, since Napster would probably appeal the
ruling just to play out the string. But don't be surprised if the
survival of Napster-as-we-know-it is measured in days or weeks.
Watch online news media for breaking reports of whatever happens.
Napster has urged its users to take its cause to Congress, and
in response the RIAA has been stocking up on Republican lobbyists.
Their most prominent signing is Bob Dole, and this one brings warmth
to my heart: I can think of no better Republican representative
of the Old Regime, the pre-Internet years, than Bob Dole, Yesterday's
Man.
The RIAA has also signed up Governor Marc Racicot, who is quoted in
a wide variety of news stories that he sees his role as
educating Congress as to the role of intellectual property.
He specifically names Sen. Orrin Hatch as someone who needs to be
educated; I hope Hatch, who co-authored the last major revision of
copyright law and who is also a independent songwriter in his spare
time, bops Racicot on the head. :)
|
krj
|
|
response 110 of 134:
|
Mar 1 23:41 UTC 2001 |
This isn't directly a Napster-related news item but I'll stick it
in here anyway, since some of the players and arguments have figured
in the Napster arguments:
http://www.latimes.com/business/updates/lat_love010228.htm
Lead paragraphs: "Just as actress Olivia de Havilland brought down
the Hollywood studio system in the 1950s and outfielder Curt Flood
fought for free agency in baseball in the 1970s, rock star Courtney
Love is determined to radically redefine the nature of the music
recording business for the next century.
"Love is seeking to break her contract with Vivendi Universal, the
world's largest record conglomerate, and expose what she calls the
'unconscionable and unlawful' tactics of the major record labels."
Summarizing:
The basic argument seems to be that the standard record label
contract is a servitude-for-life kind of deal, and courts have
held those to be unreasonable.
California has a law which limits entertainment contracts to seven years,
but the law has never been tested in the music business.
The record companies have settled similar suits with other artists,
but Love has strong financial resources, since she controls the
Kurt Cobain estate, and she has already fired her previous attorney
for trying to settle the suit.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 111 of 134:
|
Mar 2 00:23 UTC 2001 |
She may have a point. It's entirely possible that seven years exceeds
Courtney Love's life expectancy..
|
krj
|
|
response 112 of 134:
|
Mar 2 01:23 UTC 2001 |
There was a similar suit filed within the last six months or so, and
my mind has gone vague on the details. It was by the leader/songwriter
of Foreigner, or some similar hard rock hair band of days gone by.
The plaintiff's argument went like this. Under the contract, he still owes
two albums to the record label. However, the label has lost all interest
in his style of music, which he admits is now out of fashion, and
so the label won't accept or release anything he turns in.
There is still a minority interest in his music,
and he would like to be free to look for an independent boutique
label or maybe market himself;
but the label refuses to release him.
So essentially he is in permanent bondage and can never earn money
through recording music again. He asks the court to terminate the
contract because it cannot be fulfilled. I've heard nothing further
about this.
|
aaron
|
|
response 113 of 134:
|
Mar 2 16:55 UTC 2001 |
He should change his name to a symbol, and wait out his record contract.
It worked for Prince, sort of....
|
krj
|
|
response 114 of 134:
|
Mar 2 21:00 UTC 2001 |
Breaking news items on today's court hearing: Judge Patel
"concluded the hearing by saying she will rule at an undisclosed
time." Napster says it will block one million songs from being
traded, starting this weekend, in an attempt to pacify the
record companies. (from www.sfgate.com)
|
aaron
|
|
response 115 of 134:
|
Mar 2 21:19 UTC 2001 |
According to Britney Spears, there are nine million wonderful songs in
the world, so that doesn't seem too bad for Napster. <cough>
|
scott
|
|
response 116 of 134:
|
Mar 2 22:21 UTC 2001 |
Aaron, do you have a cite for that "statistic"?
Seriously, it sounds like something which would be a pretty funny read. :)
|
aaron
|
|
response 117 of 134:
|
Mar 2 22:38 UTC 2001 |
http://www.mtv.com/sendme.tin?page=/news/gallery/s/spears00_2/index3.htm
l
|
aaron
|
|
response 118 of 134:
|
Mar 2 22:39 UTC 2001 |
(the "l" wrapped)
|
scott
|
|
response 119 of 134:
|
Mar 2 23:01 UTC 2001 |
Amusing little interview:
"MTV: People always think, "Oh, this whole teen pop craze is
only going to last five minutes." How is it important
for you to show that that won't happen to you?
Britney: I think it really boils down to good music.
If you do that, I think you'll be around for a while."
Hee hee. :)
|
krj
|
|
response 120 of 134:
|
Mar 3 02:23 UTC 2001 |
News media reports differ on whether Napster is going to block
"one million songs" or "one million file names;" the RIAA says that
one million file names could be as few as 100 songs, since the users
pick and mispell the file names as they wish.
|
remmers
|
|
response 121 of 134:
|
Mar 3 18:19 UTC 2001 |
So presumably users could get around any blocking based on
file names, simply by renaming files. Is such an approach
likely to satisfy the court?
|
scott
|
|
response 122 of 134:
|
Mar 3 18:28 UTC 2001 |
Dude! Heard the latest mp3 from Meta11ica? ;)
|
krj
|
|
response 123 of 134:
|
Mar 3 22:12 UTC 2001 |
In the original preliminary injunction order from Judge Patel
last July, Napster was directed to halt all trading of copyrighted
material involving their service, even if it required Napster to
shut down.
In contrast, the directions of the appeals court seem to be saying
(this is based on press reports and fallible memory, remember)
that Napster has to stop the exchanging of copyrighted files to the
extent that their technology allows them to do so, while not
unreasonably hampering lawful file transfers. All Napster HQ
ever sees is the file names; the actual transfers of binary song
files take place directly between the users. So the file names
are all Napster Inc. has to work with.
|
