Re:It's called IP for a reason
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Sure, and the creators of physical property (invention) have no debt to past innovations?
Re:It's called IP for a reason
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Right, I guess that makes it ok. After all, it's not like the creator willingly assigns the IP rights to the entity of their choosing (e.g. label, publisher, etc.) in return for some benefit like world-wide distribution, and that entity is contractually obligated to protect the assigned rights on behalf of the creator.
Main Entry: crime
Pronunciation: 'krIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin crimen fault, accusation, crime
1 : conduct that is prohibited and has a specific punishment (as incarceration or fine) prescribed by public law --compare DELICT, TORT
2 : an offense against public law usually excluding a petty violation --see also FELONY, MISDEMEANOR
NOTE: Crimes in the common-law tradition were originally defined primarily by judicial decision. For the most part, common-law crimes are now codified. There is a general principle "nullum crimen sine lege," that there can be no crime without a law. A crime generally consists of both conduct, known as the actus reus, and a concurrent state of mind, known as the mens rea.
3 : criminal activity
Maybe I'm the only one who is confused, by why is a request for ideas on how to store content in violation of the law a news item on slashdot? I thought this was "news for nerds" not "news for criminals"?
Yes, I learned about this in school. The particle in question is the darkon and it's anti-particle is the photon, right? Or was it the darkoff and the photon...
"Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod," Real Networks said in a statement given to MacCentral.
"There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq," said RealNetworks. "Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software."
But this is like buying paper for students who would otherwise steal it. If the university pays for the service and the students use it instead of pirating music, the illegal behavior stops.
Probably too late now, but you need to do research on payolla. The labels used to pay to have songs played and this practice was outlawed. They don't determine what gets played since their promotion dollars don't go to radio.
As far as the conclusion of your post goes, I completely agree.
If anything, you should be upset about how much of your donations are wasted on bandwidth to download pirated movies, music, and software. Go talk to the school's IT staff if you don't think this is a problem.
And are you going to ask the President & Board to cut off the student's cable TV and non-education related internet access? Let's be serious here, every university provides services that are not direclty related to academics.
I applaud them for spending a few dollars to keep their student populations from committing piracy. Students need to learn to respect IP rights, and I personally feel that the Universities are doing the right thing. After all, many students will face IP issues when they write papers, file patents, develop software, etc., and the universities can't choose to selectively ignore IP problems.
This is just a rationalization of piracy, it's not a legitimate reason. There are a number of ways that you can hear music before you buy it. Try the artist's web site, go to Amazon and listen to the clips, go into a record store with listening stations. I'd love to see you in front of a judge trying to defend the fact that you pirated something because it didn't get airplay and you couldn't hear it before you bought the CD.
Also, remember that the RIAA does not determine what gets played on the radio, Clear Channel (sp?), Infinity, and the other broadcasters do. The RIAA would be *thrilled* to have non-mainstream artists and up and coming bands get airplay.
Guess what, they have to get the music industry's buy-in to do this kiosk service in the first place. Without licenses from the majors, Starbucks wouldn't have much of a business opportunity here, so the majors have clearly approved of the idea.
The problem is not with the music industry, it's with the broadcasters who play the same thing on every station. The music industry would be happy to get exposure for new bands, but they don't decide what gets played. They did influence that at one point, but payolla was declared illegal.
Sorry, this is not a communist country. The rights of the many do not over-rule the rights of the few. The law reserves certain rights for content creators (artist, musicians, software developers), and this country is based on the constitution and rule of law. If you are a content creator and "things don't go your way" because someone is ignoring the law, you certainly have a right to take action (aka "get pissy").
Something like this exists today, and more will be coming soon. If you ever happen to make it to Santa Monica, California, there is a "Hear Music" store in the 3rd St Promenade (a pedestrian mall) that has burning on demand kiosks. You pick the tracks that you want from a computer display (you can preview them, too) and your disc is burned to CD a few minutes later. I think there are about 10,000 tracks in the kiosk library.
Hey, rather than justifying new ways to get music without paying why don't you people shell out a measly $10/month for the 400,000 tracks on Rhapsody or Napster so that the artist can get something for their trouble?
If you saw the original Wall St Journal article, it was very interesting that the table they included had examples from all but one of the majors. Universal seems to be the most liberal in terms of DRM rules and the lowest in terms of price.
The thing you are forgetting is that artists want that upfront payment that they get from a major label contract. The majors are just venture capital firms for artists: they give the artist "seed money" and instead of making their money from selling stock they make money by selling CDs. If you had your choice of $1 million up front from a major or taking the path you described, which would you choose?
I agree. I've got an Xbox and Xbox live and it's always surprising to see how many people are on during prime time. I looked at the Crimson Skies on-line rankings a few nights ago and there were at least 10,000 people who went on-line even though the game was only out for about a week. I think the on-line gamers have more fun killing each other than watching TV.
This is not accurate. The artist payment comes from the label portion, not Apple's portion. It should be obvious that the lables pay the artists, not Apple. Also, the $.80 figure is not correct, either. In fact, the labels get less than this.
The labels are doing a lot of work to perpare the content. Not only do they have to get legal clearance for the songs, they also have to prepare & QA the audio, metadata, and graphics. Apple packages the files in their DRM, does another round of QA, hosts the files, loads the metadata into the store, and manages the merchandising and sales.
It may look easy from the outside, but I can tell you that it requires a lot of work from a lot of people on both sides of the equation. Also, which do you think is easier: dealing with lawyers or computers?;-)
Dude, you're wrong. That's what Steve says. Don't be caught in his reality distortion field. The audio that Apple gets is the same audio that all the other services are getting, and the source is WAV files ripped from CDs. I know people supplying these services from the major label side and they're not going back to the masters.
The highest quality pay service in the US at this point is MusicMatch, who is selling WMA tracks encoded at 160Kbits vs Apple's 128Kbits AAC. That said, iTunes is way easier to use.
How many millions must engage in sharing of other media before we start hearing a call to legitimize that sharing? After all, millions can't be wrong, can they?
No, certainly not. Millions of people believe in ghosts and UFOs, that Elvis is alive, and that Windows is a great operating system. Let's take everything that millions do and make it valid! I'm writing my congressman right now about legalizing drunk driving.
To represent the views of someone who makes a living from music, while I'm not in favor of copy protected CDs your comments demonstrate that you've swallowed the slashdot coolaid.
Copyright law gives them control over distribution and price BY DEFINITION. No one is forcing you to buy their over priced product. At the same time, a high price does not give you the right to pirate.
Read the news: the labels are scrambling to offer legitimate alternatives. Another two services are about to launch with more coming next year. Remember they have to rely on web companies for this since they can't sell direct (no one wants to shop from just one label).
They have never tried to pass a law allowing them to attack computers. Do not confuse them with misguided legistlators. I personally know someone from a major who was in a meeting with the congressman who introduced that stupid bill, and they met with the express purpose to explain to him why it was such a bad idea.
As for their legal tactics, I don't see why age or sex should matter when pursuing someone who has violated copyright law - breaking the law is breaking the law. Obviously they have no right to go after people who did nothing wrong, but don't confuse the two issues.
Anyway, none of the things you list justify pirating someone's content. If you don't agree with what they're doing, the moral thing to do is boycott, not pirate. Remember that there is a whole chain of people who make money from music sales and pirating affects more than just the majors.
Ok, if you believe that the people being sued own the 1000 songs that they're sharing, I've got a bridge to sell you. Read the articles: they're looking at what people are sharing and they know the files being shared are not owned by the sharers.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, and the creators of physical property (invention) have no debt to past innovations?
Right, I guess that makes it ok. After all, it's not like the creator willingly assigns the IP rights to the entity of their choosing (e.g. label, publisher, etc.) in return for some benefit like world-wide distribution, and that entity is contractually obligated to protect the assigned rights on behalf of the creator.
IP is short for Intellectual Property. I find it interesting that no one cares about the rights of the creator.
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: crime
Pronunciation: 'krIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin crimen fault, accusation, crime
1 : conduct that is prohibited and has a specific punishment (as incarceration or fine) prescribed by public law --compare DELICT, TORT
2 : an offense against public law usually excluding a petty violation --see also FELONY, MISDEMEANOR
NOTE: Crimes in the common-law tradition were originally defined primarily by judicial decision. For the most part, common-law crimes are now codified. There is a general principle "nullum crimen sine lege," that there can be no crime without a law. A crime generally consists of both conduct, known as the actus reus, and a concurrent state of mind, known as the mens rea.
3 : criminal activity
Maybe I'm the only one who is confused, by why is a request for ideas on how to store content in violation of the law a news item on slashdot? I thought this was "news for nerds" not "news for criminals"?
Yes, I learned about this in school. The particle in question is the darkon and it's anti-particle is the photon, right? Or was it the darkoff and the photon...
Real just responded to Apple's PR machine:
"Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod," Real Networks said in a statement given to MacCentral.
"There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq," said RealNetworks. "Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software."
But this is like buying paper for students who would otherwise steal it. If the university pays for the service and the students use it instead of pirating music, the illegal behavior stops.
Probably too late now, but you need to do research on payolla. The labels used to pay to have songs played and this practice was outlawed. They don't determine what gets played since their promotion dollars don't go to radio.
As far as the conclusion of your post goes, I completely agree.
If anything, you should be upset about how much of your donations are wasted on bandwidth to download pirated movies, music, and software. Go talk to the school's IT staff if you don't think this is a problem.
And are you going to ask the President & Board to cut off the student's cable TV and non-education related internet access? Let's be serious here, every university provides services that are not direclty related to academics.
I applaud them for spending a few dollars to keep their student populations from committing piracy. Students need to learn to respect IP rights, and I personally feel that the Universities are doing the right thing. After all, many students will face IP issues when they write papers, file patents, develop software, etc., and the universities can't choose to selectively ignore IP problems.
This is just a rationalization of piracy, it's not a legitimate reason. There are a number of ways that you can hear music before you buy it. Try the artist's web site, go to Amazon and listen to the clips, go into a record store with listening stations. I'd love to see you in front of a judge trying to defend the fact that you pirated something because it didn't get airplay and you couldn't hear it before you bought the CD.
Also, remember that the RIAA does not determine what gets played on the radio, Clear Channel (sp?), Infinity, and the other broadcasters do. The RIAA would be *thrilled* to have non-mainstream artists and up and coming bands get airplay.
Guess what, they have to get the music industry's buy-in to do this kiosk service in the first place. Without licenses from the majors, Starbucks wouldn't have much of a business opportunity here, so the majors have clearly approved of the idea.
The problem is not with the music industry, it's with the broadcasters who play the same thing on every station. The music industry would be happy to get exposure for new bands, but they don't decide what gets played. They did influence that at one point, but payolla was declared illegal.
Sorry, this is not a communist country. The rights of the many do not over-rule the rights of the few. The law reserves certain rights for content creators (artist, musicians, software developers), and this country is based on the constitution and rule of law. If you are a content creator and "things don't go your way" because someone is ignoring the law, you certainly have a right to take action (aka "get pissy").
Something like this exists today, and more will be coming soon. If you ever happen to make it to Santa Monica, California, there is a "Hear Music" store in the 3rd St Promenade (a pedestrian mall) that has burning on demand kiosks. You pick the tracks that you want from a computer display (you can preview them, too) and your disc is burned to CD a few minutes later. I think there are about 10,000 tracks in the kiosk library.
Hey, rather than justifying new ways to get music without paying why don't you people shell out a measly $10/month for the 400,000 tracks on Rhapsody or Napster so that the artist can get something for their trouble?
If you saw the original Wall St Journal article, it was very interesting that the table they included had examples from all but one of the majors. Universal seems to be the most liberal in terms of DRM rules and the lowest in terms of price.
Yes, this describes so many artists....
The thing you are forgetting is that artists want that upfront payment that they get from a major label contract. The majors are just venture capital firms for artists: they give the artist "seed money" and instead of making their money from selling stock they make money by selling CDs. If you had your choice of $1 million up front from a major or taking the path you described, which would you choose?
Not true, there is PureTracks which launched last month with content from all of the majors. The url is www.puretracks.com
I agree. I've got an Xbox and Xbox live and it's always surprising to see how many people are on during prime time. I looked at the Crimson Skies on-line rankings a few nights ago and there were at least 10,000 people who went on-line even though the game was only out for about a week. I think the on-line gamers have more fun killing each other than watching TV.
This is not accurate. The artist payment comes from the label portion, not Apple's portion. It should be obvious that the lables pay the artists, not Apple. Also, the $.80 figure is not correct, either. In fact, the labels get less than this.
;-)
The labels are doing a lot of work to perpare the content. Not only do they have to get legal clearance for the songs, they also have to prepare & QA the audio, metadata, and graphics. Apple packages the files in their DRM, does another round of QA, hosts the files, loads the metadata into the store, and manages the merchandising and sales.
It may look easy from the outside, but I can tell you that it requires a lot of work from a lot of people on both sides of the equation. Also, which do you think is easier: dealing with lawyers or computers?
Dude, you're wrong. That's what Steve says. Don't be caught in his reality distortion field. The audio that Apple gets is the same audio that all the other services are getting, and the source is WAV files ripped from CDs. I know people supplying these services from the major label side and they're not going back to the masters.
The highest quality pay service in the US at this point is MusicMatch, who is selling WMA tracks encoded at 160Kbits vs Apple's 128Kbits AAC. That said, iTunes is way easier to use.
How many millions must engage in sharing of other media before we start hearing a call to legitimize that sharing? After all, millions can't be wrong, can they?
No, certainly not. Millions of people believe in ghosts and UFOs, that Elvis is alive, and that Windows is a great operating system. Let's take everything that millions do and make it valid! I'm writing my congressman right now about legalizing drunk driving.
The iPod should be high on your list.
To represent the views of someone who makes a living from music, while I'm not in favor of copy protected CDs your comments demonstrate that you've swallowed the slashdot coolaid.
Copyright law gives them control over distribution and price BY DEFINITION. No one is forcing you to buy their over priced product. At the same time, a high price does not give you the right to pirate.
Read the news: the labels are scrambling to offer legitimate alternatives. Another two services are about to launch with more coming next year. Remember they have to rely on web companies for this since they can't sell direct (no one wants to shop from just one label).
They have never tried to pass a law allowing them to attack computers. Do not confuse them with misguided legistlators. I personally know someone from a major who was in a meeting with the congressman who introduced that stupid bill, and they met with the express purpose to explain to him why it was such a bad idea.
As for their legal tactics, I don't see why age or sex should matter when pursuing someone who has violated copyright law - breaking the law is breaking the law. Obviously they have no right to go after people who did nothing wrong, but don't confuse the two issues.
Anyway, none of the things you list justify pirating someone's content. If you don't agree with what they're doing, the moral thing to do is boycott, not pirate. Remember that there is a whole chain of people who make money from music sales and pirating affects more than just the majors.
Ok, if you believe that the people being sued own the 1000 songs that they're sharing, I've got a bridge to sell you. Read the articles: they're looking at what people are sharing and they know the files being shared are not owned by the sharers.