Slashdot Mirror

But I suppose that college kids don't really like Britney or Eminem, and you can't find anything from either of those artists on Napster. (giggle. snort. guffaw.)
--

some links follow in case you're too lazy to hit google. but most of these are not current - 1995-1998 seem to be the ranges. this could just be google's problem, but again i think a slashdot interview with her would be in order.

• http://www.eff.org/homes/fena.html
• http://www.annonline.com/interviews/97080 4/
• http://www.script ing.com/davenet/stories/LoriFenaonMcCainKerry.html
• http://www.salon.com/21st/straight07.html
• http://people.aol.com/peop le/970728/features/internet.html

Yeah, the story's getting a bit stale, but I thought this article on Salon was interesting.

"The fashion retail site Boo.com was laid to rest Wednesday, after reportedly burning through $120 million in a mere six months. The Web's first immersive retail environment had its own online guide (Miss Boo), its own online magazine (Boom) and some of the hippest clothing brands. But it was wildy overdesigned, difficult to navigate and completely out of touch with most Web retailers' vision of quick shopping and ease of use."

- eddy the lip

I agree that it's not weird information to collect, it's just that in this particular case, there doesn't seem to be much that protects the usage of the database other than "staff professionalism"... oh goody.

I can't really say that I trust Canadian government department employees' professionalism: Fishing for smut
--

No, spam does not present free speech issues. I am as ardent a free-speech advocate as anyone, but it is well established that a "No Soliciting" sign is not a violation of free speech, and that disregarding such a sign is actionable -- even by constitutionally protected groups, such as a religion.

1. Not a public forum
My e-mailbox is not a public space by virtue of connecting to the internet, any more than my driveway or front door are, by virtue of being accessible by public roads. Or even my USPS mailbox -- "[A] letterbox, once designated an 'authorized depository', does not at the same time undergo a transformation into a 'public forum' of some limited nature to which the First Amendment guarantees access to all comers." Justice Rehnquist in U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh, 453 U.S. 114 (1981) (skip down to Greenburgh)

2. The paper 'junk mail' analogy demolished
So how does paper 'junk mail' survive? Partly though lots of expensive lobbying, and partly through a special right granted to the USPS, whereby they have quasi-ownership of my mailbox. (The US is one of the few countries to have a "Statutory Mail Box Restriction") The USPS can even prosecute my neighbors for leaving a note in my mailbox that could have been mailed (18 U.S.C. 1725) even if I, as the owner of the mailbox permit and even welcome the hand-delivery. ("Greenburgh" and other cases) However, the USPS cannot 'choose' to deny delivery of "objectionable" bulk mail, per cases like Bol ger v. Youngs Drugs Prods. (1983) (though Judge Brandeis ruled they could 'choose' to refuse to deliver certain political newspapers in Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921) So much for freedom of the press)

However, to bring this back to 'spam', I as a private recipient can ban junk mail from my mailbox, by filing a form with the USPS. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court, despite the First Amendment arguments by the Direct Marketing Assoc. The whole DMA "free speech" argument for spam is based on a premise that has long been defeated for snail mail

3. Abuse of 'Opt-out' is a crime, and should be an additional charge
Finally, even if Federal Law requires an opt-out address, any savvy user knows that much of the spam on the Internet at large contains fraudulent opt-out options. Not only would 'opting out' put you at risk for 'harvesting' (and hence more spam), but most spammers are fly-by-night operators who are long gone by the time you hit 'reply'. In fact, a recent article investigated and found that the bulk of spam reaches dead addresses even for those foolish enough to accept the offer being made.

In short, such spam is useless to everyone, the sender, the potential customer, and the millions of 'innocent victims'. Most users never learn this, because they are conditioned to ignore the opt-out, after a few 'harvesting' opt-outs flood their e-mail with even more spam. Here one abuse (harvesting) creates a hospitable environment that supports another (fake opt-out), a cycle that repeats in many ways throughout the spam 'industry'.

If your workplace puts a fake (or placebo) certificate where the elevator inspection card belongs, is that not a crime even more serious than failure to have a timely inspection (the former is willful criminal intent, the latter may be an accident)? If a con artist is caught in the act of trying to cheat a citizen, is it just 'free speech' until they actually walk off with the cash? Similarly, a 'fake opt-out' should a crime separate from 'failure to comply with spam regs'.

As of April 19, 2000 at least 18 states had passed or were working on legislation to restrict or regulate spam. There are, of course, serious jurisdictional issues.

_____________

No, spam does not present free speech issues. I am as ardent a free-speech advocate as anyone, but it is well established that a "No Soliciting" sign is not a violation of free speech, and that disregarding such a sign is actionable -- even by constitutionally protected groups, such as a religion.

1. Not a public forum
My e-mailbox is not a public space by virtue of connecting to the internet, any more than my driveway or front door are, by virtue of being accessible by public roads. Or even my USPS mailbox -- "[A] letterbox, once designated an 'authorized depository', does not at the same time undergo a transformation into a 'public forum' of some limited nature to which the First Amendment guarantees access to all comers." Justice Rehnquist in U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh, 453 U.S. 114 (1981) (skip down to Greenburgh)

2. The paper 'junk mail' analogy demolished
So how does paper 'junk mail' survive? Partly though lots of expensive lobbying, and partly through a special right granted to the USPS, whereby they have quasi-ownership of my mailbox. (The US is one of the few countries to have a "Statutory Mail Box Restriction") The USPS can even prosecute my neighbors for leaving a note in my mailbox that could have been mailed (18 U.S.C. 1725) even if I, as the owner of the mailbox permit and even welcome the hand-delivery. ("Greenburgh" and other cases) However, the USPS cannot 'choose' to deny delivery of "objectionable" bulk mail, per cases like Bol ger v. Youngs Drugs Prods. (1983) (though Judge Brandeis ruled they could 'choose' to refuse to deliver certain political newspapers in Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921) So much for freedom of the press)

However, to bring this back to 'spam', I as a private recipient can ban junk mail from my mailbox, by filing a form with the USPS. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court, despite the First Amendment arguments by the Direct Marketing Assoc. The whole DMA "free speech" argument for spam is based on a premise that has long been defeated for snail mail

3. Abuse of 'Opt-out' is a crime, and should be an additional charge
Finally, even if Federal Law requires an opt-out address, any savvy user knows that much of the spam on the Internet at large contains fraudulent opt-out options. Not only would 'opting out' put you at risk for 'harvesting' (and hence more spam), but most spammers are fly-by-night operators who are long gone by the time you hit 'reply'. In fact, a recent article investigated and found that the bulk of spam reaches dead addresses even for those foolish enough to accept the offer being made.

In short, such spam is useless to everyone, the sender, the potential customer, and the millions of 'innocent victims'. Most users never learn this, because they are conditioned to ignore the opt-out, after a few 'harvesting' opt-outs flood their e-mail with even more spam. Here one abuse (harvesting) creates a hospitable environment that supports another (fake opt-out), a cycle that repeats in many ways throughout the spam 'industry'.

If your workplace puts a fake (or placebo) certificate where the elevator inspection card belongs, is that not a crime even more serious than failure to have a timely inspection (the former is willful criminal intent, the latter may be an accident)? If a con artist is caught in the act of trying to cheat a citizen, is it just 'free speech' until they actually walk off with the cash? Similarly, a 'fake opt-out' should a crime separate from 'failure to comply with spam regs'.

As of April 19, 2000 at least 18 states had passed or were working on legislation to restrict or regulate spam. There are, of course, serious jurisdictional issues.

_____________

No, spam does not present free speech issues. I am as ardent a free-speech advocate as anyone, but it is well established that a "No Soliciting" sign is not a violation of free speech, and that disregarding such a sign is actionable -- even by constitutionally protected groups, such as a religion.

1. Not a public forum
My e-mailbox is not a public space by virtue of connecting to the internet, any more than my driveway or front door are, by virtue of being accessible by public roads. Or even my USPS mailbox -- "[A] letterbox, once designated an 'authorized depository', does not at the same time undergo a transformation into a 'public forum' of some limited nature to which the First Amendment guarantees access to all comers." Justice Rehnquist in U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh, 453 U.S. 114 (1981) (skip down to Greenburgh)

2. The paper 'junk mail' analogy demolished
So how does paper 'junk mail' survive? Partly though lots of expensive lobbying, and partly through a special right granted to the USPS, whereby they have quasi-ownership of my mailbox. (The US is one of the few countries to have a "Statutory Mail Box Restriction") The USPS can even prosecute my neighbors for leaving a note in my mailbox that could have been mailed (18 U.S.C. 1725) even if I, as the owner of the mailbox permit and even welcome the hand-delivery. ("Greenburgh" and other cases) However, the USPS cannot 'choose' to deny delivery of "objectionable" bulk mail, per cases like Bol ger v. Youngs Drugs Prods. (1983) (though Judge Brandeis ruled they could 'choose' to refuse to deliver certain political newspapers in Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921) So much for freedom of the press)

However, to bring this back to 'spam', I as a private recipient can ban junk mail from my mailbox, by filing a form with the USPS. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court, despite the First Amendment arguments by the Direct Marketing Assoc. The whole DMA "free speech" argument for spam is based on a premise that has long been defeated for snail mail

3. Abuse of 'Opt-out' is a crime, and should be an additional charge
Finally, even if Federal Law requires an opt-out address, any savvy user knows that much of the spam on the Internet at large contains fraudulent opt-out options. Not only would 'opting out' put you at risk for 'harvesting' (and hence more spam), but most spammers are fly-by-night operators who are long gone by the time you hit 'reply'. In fact, a recent article investigated and found that the bulk of spam reaches dead addresses even for those foolish enough to accept the offer being made.

In short, such spam is useless to everyone, the sender, the potential customer, and the millions of 'innocent victims'. Most users never learn this, because they are conditioned to ignore the opt-out, after a few 'harvesting' opt-outs flood their e-mail with even more spam. Here one abuse (harvesting) creates a hospitable environment that supports another (fake opt-out), a cycle that repeats in many ways throughout the spam 'industry'.

If your workplace puts a fake (or placebo) certificate where the elevator inspection card belongs, is that not a crime even more serious than failure to have a timely inspection (the former is willful criminal intent, the latter may be an accident)? If a con artist is caught in the act of trying to cheat a citizen, is it just 'free speech' until they actually walk off with the cash? Similarly, a 'fake opt-out' should a crime separate from 'failure to comply with spam regs'.

As of April 19, 2000 at least 18 states had passed or were working on legislation to restrict or regulate spam. There are, of course, serious jurisdictional issues.

_____________

Now this is the analogy of the day.
Mod this guy up...
Not sure (memory fails at the moment) but i think the salon peice was the only one that went into the details on this one.
Should something that I slightly modify be considered protected under my own licence agreements if it was a slightly hacked version of the original?

The whole discussion has missed an important point, IMO. Just what is the nature of the extension? Exactly what incompatibility is introduced? My point being, if we discuss (in prose, not code) what Microsoft's extension does, we do not violate their copyright! Remember, copyright covers expression of ideas, not ideas themselves. This is the priciple whereby Phoenix was able to create a non-IBM BIOS, Gus Van Zant was able to remake Hitchcock's Psycho, etc.

So all we need here is enough detailed description of the ideas in the PAC that some industrious Linux coder who has never read Microsoft's document can code it up himself. Then the storm passes: no trade secrets remain, no copyrights violated, no one left on base.

The whole discussion has missed an important point, IMO. Just what is the nature of the extension? Exactly what incompatibility is introduced? My point being, if we discuss (in prose, not code) what Microsoft's extension does, we do not violate their copyright! Remember, copyright covers expression of ideas, not ideas themselves. This is the priciple whereby Phoenix was able to create a non-IBM BIOS, Gus Van Zant was able to remake Hitchcock's Psycho, etc.

So all we need here is enough detailed description of the ideas in the PAC that some industrious Linux coder who has never read Microsoft's document can code it up himself. Then the storm passes: no trade secrets remain, no copyrights violated, no one left on base.

"If I were a Microsoft public relations person, I would probably be sobbing on a desk right now," says Miller.

"Microsoft has no comment at this time," said a Microsoft public relations spokesperson.

This article at Salon summarizing this message from Napster -- Napster is using DMCA as a defense! Users who were fingered by Metallica are allowed under DMCA (assuming, that is, you count napster as an ISP) to submit a counternotification is they think they were incorrectly identified as copyright infringers. Unless Metallica pursues legal action against those individuals within ten days of the receipt of the counternotification, Napster must reinstate them!

The article says:

"Under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if an Internet service provider receives a complaint about a user who is allegedly violating a copyright, the ISP is supposed to immediately remove that user from its service. But if that user thinks he has been misidentified and submits a legal counternotification, then the copyright holder has 10 days to decide whether to take legal action. If the copyright holder doesn't initiate legal action against the user, the ISP must reinstate the user.

"Now, Napster, identifying with the ISPs, is using this law to force Metallica to take up its piracy concerns with individual Napster users. On a page on its Web site, Napster explains this. "The Napster software will direct all users barred as a result of Metallica's allegations to an infringement notification page. That page explains the notice that Metallica has given us, explains who Metallica has stated to us it intends to block, and gives the user an opportunity to submit a counter notification if the user has been misidentified. If the user has been misidentified, and requests to be reinstated by submitting a counter notification under penalty of perjury, then, unless Metallica chooses to pursue legal action against that user within 10 working days of being notified of that user's counter notification, the user is entitled to be reinstated."

***

So, what would happen if all those Metallica fans who own all the CDs for the MP3's they were trading stepped forward and gave counternotification?

Would Metallica have a legal leg to stand on?

-- Diana Hsieh

Salon article for more on Napster's response and some FTC action re. CD prices.

There was an interview in Salon today with the Napster CEO. I dunno, Napster seems more and more like a bunch of profiteers all the time. Plus the CEO seems a little over-optimistic. Information only wants to be free until the servers get unplugged. I kinda hope that this victory for the RIAA pushes along development on Gnutella, and to a greater extent, Freenet. A much more ideal situation would be one where no matter what laws are passed, the system remains intact.

There is little cause to worry.

"ATTENTION, AMERICA! EVERYTHING IS JUST FINE! PLEASE STOP CARING AND START WATCHING HOURS UPON HOURS OF WWF WRESTLING! YOUR LEADERS WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU!"

There *is* cause to worry, in fact there's a lot of them. We'll start with the easiest, which is the fact that the majority of the "safeguards", that you're referencing such as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 that made sure that banks and insurance companies stayed out of other markets, are being repealed left and right.

I'm telling you, the people in power are going absolutely apeshit this time around, and if there is a crash, this time it's going to be *big*. And it's not going to have anything to do with economics, I would guess, since the ruling economic institutions have found themselves to be able to keep things seemingly good no matter what happens...

No, if there's a crash, it will most likely be environmentally based. Think about the fact that we can eat over 30,000 different types of fruits and vegetables, but yet we focus on 30 specific types/strains? What about the fact that this group that we do rely on is becoming increasingly genetically modified, pesticide-ridden, irradiated, etc?

What about the fact that the World Water Forum has concluded that the next World War will probably be fought over access to clean water? What about the fact that, despite this, they're looking to privatize water supplies (rivers, lakes, oceans, etc) anyways?

The truth is that people and the environment are not governed by the rules of "the market", and either we can help destroy this economy of ours, or some horrid environmental issue will do it for us.

Also, look here for a perspective on the corporate state.

For how long are we going to watch people like Donald Fischer (The Gap CEO) exploit sweatshop labor and destroy old growth forests? How long can we let Monsanto have it's way with nature? How long will we allow the corporate press to wax ecstatic about an economy that's completely fake?

How long will we buy their bullshit before we turn around, find ourselves a big stick, and clock these bastards upside the head?

As for me? I hope for the land of do-as-you-please.


Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

Try salon.com:
Very clued-in article on Love and Outlook

HOW THE HELL IS NAPSTER MAKING MONEY?

In case no one has noticed, I believe Slate and Salon have both done articles (here for the Slate one, can't find the Salon one) showing that Napster isn't a money-making thing. Isn't it a bit preposterous to accuse Napster of being more acquisitive here?

I'm not saying Metallica has no IP rights here, just, Napster seems to have no profit model.

...the other day I wrote a rebuttal to a recent interview on Salon.com...here it is again. Hilary, are you listening?

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort. v1.1

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in greater detail if you like. So can a bunch of others around here. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problem. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, we like it. How much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessary complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like "works for hire"? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, those costs must be absorbed. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you, and that distrubution part for you, and that reproction part for you. You just sell CDs. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' roll thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again? What do you guys do?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a. Wah

--

over at Salon

The crew have rejected it twice, so I'll burn more karma.
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.

--

over at Salon

The crew have rejected it twice, so I'll burn more karma.
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.

--

Speaking of April Fools....Did anyone see this? Here's my retort

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.
--

Speaking of April Fools....Did anyone see this? Here's my retort

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.
--

Did you even read the interview? Oh yeah... he's a homophobe. A politically correct homophobe, but one nonetheless.

I love Ender's game. I read it in one sitting when I was a freshman in high school. For a few years I read everything of his I could get my hands on.

Sadly, in recent years I've learned things about Orson Scott Card that make him rather hard to enjoy. Specifically, he has advocated keeping sodomy laws on the books in order to allow the jailing of homosexual community leaders.

The following interview has its flaws, namely the self-obsessed interviewer. However, it will give you a pretty good idea of why I have trouble stomaching Card these days.

Dan
(Note, I understand others may be able to look past his political views, or even agree with them. I just can't and don't.)

I wonder how much it cost to "create" or buy those names?

Salon had a very good article on that very same subject. I was both amused and appalled by it.

But these problems should be seen as part of a larger challenge facing intellectual property protections. The Napster and DMCA and DeCSS problems are all related to copyright - another form of intellectual property protection, which is challenged by our new information technologies' ease of dissemination.

Some people have called for major revisions to our copyright laws, and others (like Jeff Bezos and the people in the introduction above) have suggested that the patent system should face strict reforms.

These are sometimes extremely good suggestions, but we would do well to keep in mind the following:

• 1. The battles over intellectual property protection have been at least this
• intense before (even if patent applications have not be so prolific before), and the system survived.

  2. We cannot just tinker with these systems, but must treat them with profound respect (even if they are broken) because huge amounts of money and acclaim could end up going to people who don't deserve them, while innovators who do deserve them could get screwed.

  3. If we think of copyright and patent problems as parts of a larger set of intellectual property issues that need consideration, it will actually help avoid confusion -- and we will be more likely to convince others (read: legislators) that these issues deserve attention.

For more background on the patent problem, see James Gleick's superb piece, Patently Absurd (NY Times, 12 Mar 00).

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Actually, it's funny... this already sort of happened years ago, before the buy out. TSR shut down all fan-sites, taking all of those items (including GPL'd software) and relicensing it, without permission. (still there, see ftp.mpgn.com).

They threatened to sue people who were producing anything in anyway related to TSR materials. (They'd claim trademark infringement without ever publishing a list of exactly what those claimed trademarks were.)

The claim is that "rules" are a representation of "the idea of a particular game". Thus the rules themselves (and thus any game using those rules or rules derived thereof) are protected by copyright. So anyone producing a D&D knockoff gets sued (even the guy who *invented* D&D got a lawyer pummling for producing a similar game).

But that was long ago...

These days, WotC (aka Hasbro) is claiming that it will be putting out D&D/3rd under an open source license. Hmm

Feh, our games seem to be getting less Free year after year. This is bad.

And just last month they announced open sourcing of Dungeons and Dragons (or something). One hand giveth while the other taketh away? Or could they both be playing to the same game plan?

I suppose I could accept this proprietariness if it was the original creators who were benefitting, but these are just cases of lawyers and business critters sucking marrow. I wonder if they've even played the games they're seeking to exert their control over.

It just isn't right. Makes me feel strongly that we need to put our full support behind Free games.

I still haven't seen a format to beat books for useability of portable print media, I don't think there has been a significant improvement (other than mass production) since Julius Caesar decided to sew some scrolls together and make a "codex."

In fact, a significant number of the books I buy, from O'Reilly and others, contain information that could be pieced together from online sources, if I had the time and the patience.

Will eBooks ever reach a point where they will equal the usability of real books? Maybe, but this Salon article suggests they have a ways to go.

Essentially it is an elitist, anti-democratic argument. People who can't afford to buy real books (and some of the best ones are hard to get, anyone read Hugo's The Man Who Laughed in English translation lately?) would have a big advantage if they could read them online. They'd have to give up the aesthetic appeal and useability of a real book, but they'd have access to the content. I think, underneath it all, the argument made by the Librarian of Congress is a class argument. I.e. if you can't afford, or be able to get ahold of a "real book" you don't deserve to read it. (I bet if I checked my local library, I wouldn't necessarily find some of the great works out there... but I'd find a stack of Halequin Romances big enough to build furniture out of... Certainly not the selection of important books available at the Library of Congress!)

Well, to top it off I'm reminded of Brainiac's quote to Superman when he was asked why he was destroying worlds after he had downloaded all of their knowledge, "The fewer beings that have the knowledge, the more valuable it becomes."

On a more serious note, David Brin wrote a thought provoking article for Salon a while back entitled "Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" Populists. He seriously examines the moral themes of the Star Wars series and compares them to Star Trek.

Brin argues that the moral lessons that we are supposed to draw from Star Wars include:

Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.

"Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.

Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.

True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.

Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.

Not too surprising given Lucas's view that "there's probably no better form of government than a good despot." (New York Times interview, March 1999)

Brin makes one particularly interesting point about Darth Vader's redemption in Return of the Jedi. He writes:

To put it in perspective, let's imagine that the United States and its allies managed to capture Adolf Hitler at the end of the Second World War, putting him on trial for war crimes. The prosecution spends months listing all the horrors done at his behest. Then it is the turn of Hitler's defense attorney, who rises and utters just one sentence:

"But, your honors ... Adolf did save the life of his own son!"

Gasp! The prosecutors blanch in chagrin. "We didn't know that! Of course all charges should be dismissed at once!"

The allies then throw a big parade for Hitler, down the avenues of Nuremberg.

It may sound silly, but that's exactly the lesson taught by "Return of the Jedi," wherein Darth Vader is forgiven all his sins, because he saved the life of his own son.

-- Diana Hsieh

In a way, he's right because I downloaded several of their songs from Napster and realized that Creed had only one song that I enjoyed. So I didn't buy the album, thus depriving whomever of the $17.99 I would have had to shell out for it.

Your name made me ask myself whatever happened to the gnulix_guy (he was so lovable). Anyways, Salon.com is running a very nice article on that very issue, Ralph Reed's attachment to Bush, Jr. and the influence Bill Gate might be hoping to buy.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/04/12/micr osoft/index.html
The Ralph Reed-Redmond connection

Here is a little more recent set of numbers for MS, HP, IBM, Oracle, Apple and some others.

It even talks about Bill's personal charity foundation.

-Marc

Artists to Napster: Drop dead!

crush-

Thank you for your comments. I do agree with some of your points.

I want to point out that I am not arguing that the media in general is 'better' or more diverse or whatever now than it was then. I think the media has and always will be biased, towards specific nations, towards corporations, towards politicians, towards its readership, etc. This is inescapable. For a good example of this, take a look at today's Salon articles. The newspapers in Miami aren't reporting that some of the Miami relatives have criminal pasts. Why? Because a large portion of their readership is from Cuba, many of their advertisements come from Cuban-owned companies, etc.

The point is that the source of your information is at least as important as the information itself. That being said, I understand your point that many (who knows what the number might be) people just click on their AOL icon and blindly trust whatever shows up on their homepage. I agree this is a problem, and I have no idea what to do about it.

AOL hasn't really done anything wrong, and who knows if they will? And if they do do something wrong, who's going to report on it? This is all very sticky...

LL

I think it's important to remember that censorship has many forms. In the US it's pretty hard for the government to get away with banning something altogether, but that doesn't stop them from abusing taxpayer money to alter things like TV programs, the product of a supposed private corporation, to spread their "helpful" messages.

I think it's important to remember that censorship has many forms. In the US it's pretty hard for the government to get away with banning something altogether, but that doesn't stop them from abusing taxpayer money to alter things like TV programs, the product of a supposed private corporation, to spread their "helpful" messages.

Artists primarily sell their music (or the rights to it) to gain enough fans to host/be a part of a concert. Concerts generate VAST amounts of revenue - $30-40 per person.. multiplied by the tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of people.

Are you a professional musician? No? Do you know any? No? Then shut the fuck up and read this story (particularly this part of the article it links to). I am an amateur musician and used to think it might be possible to make a living from concerts until I read that story. Then I looked at some of the musicians I know and realized it was impossible.

One of my buddies is an excellent drummer, guitarist and bassist. He played with several big bands, including one band who enjoyed moderate success (10k+ crowds, opening for some pretty big names). They played some pretty big venues. He made no money because nobody was buying their album.

I know another band that has since all but broken up. It wasn't as big as the above band, but they played all the time and made no money because nobody would buy their albums or T-shirts, even though they played at least once a week, each crowd about 30-50 people. It actually cost them more to drive to the venues (read: bars) than they got paid.

I know one guy that just got signed. He's made no money, but is excited because the studios are paying for instruments, back-up musicians and album distribution. More goes into making a song than you might think.


Please read that article. Get this through your head: The GPL doesn't work for music. The important thing to remember is that most musicians can barely afford to get started and that it's honoring copyright that let's them dedicate all their time to the art you claim to love so much.

Not at all. The only people who actually do better than break even on the road are a few bands who are huge draws. Almost all artists break even or even lose money on tours as a way of generating interest so they sell albums. In the article Artists to Napster: Drop dead! the argument that people trading copyrighted mp3s is ok because the artists can make the money back on the road is discussed and one singer says:

"It's laughable. Those people have no idea how the music business works. Because unless you're Alanis Morissette or Dave Mathews, you're not making money on the road. It's all I can do to break even on tour. And the only reason to tour is to promote the sale of my CD."

The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land

Great movie, all around. Go see it.
But you don't have to take my word for it:
Salon's Review

http://salon .com/ent/movies/review/2000/03/31/high_fidelity/in dex.html

----

Hornby actually discusses the limits of geography on story in the interview.

It should be noted that while Rob is a bit self-pitying, it isn't really accurate to describe him as simply "lonely." He's not just a frustrated geek who can't get a date - rather, he's under the impression that he is getting rejected, yet is initially blind to the ways in which he sabotaged the relationships he was in.

Because if you had to be destroyed, I guess "large firm breasts" would be the way to go. ^_^

...can be found here. There are a bunch of other cool pieces there, too.
--

At least if I were Tux it would be my dream come true.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

I know it's sad to reply to your own post but the source for the lack of open source support of mozilla is an interview with Jamie Zawinski.

much more amusing than the cnn-report is this report on salon.com (even though it's not a list)...

It might make an interesting study to see how many Wired News articles actually are original in comparison to those which are "me too" follow-ons to the reporting of others.

Then again, it might not.

I found an article in Salon that might be interesting to reproachful SFO implants.