Let me say first that I agree with Metallica's legal rights as far as Napster and trading of copyrighted music. What I don't agree with is the business sense.
When I was 13 years old, (1985) a friend of mine gave me a dubbed cassette of "Ride the Lightning", and I was an instant fanatic. When I told him how much I liked it, he also dubbed "Kill 'em All" for me. When I finally had the income for it, I bought both of those on cassette, along with "Master of Puppets", and eventually everything Metallica ever made (until recently) on CD.
If it had not been for the original "illegal" copy that I obtained, I would never have bought anything, nor do I think would most of the people I know that were into Metallica back then. I can say for a fact that there are several people that I introduced to Metallica in the same way.
I am convinced that this was pretty much the way Metallica got to be as big as they are today. Does the band feel that this is not the case? And if not, how do they think they gained their popularity?
-Tommy
------ "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
When will the argument be turned from whether or not distributing mp3s are legal to whether or not posessing mp3s are legal?
What is there to argue? Distributing/Posessing MP3's are no different than doing the same with Software. Whether or not it is legal depends on whether or not it is yours to distribute or posess.
The RIAA is quickly making posession illegal -- even if I own the CD, I'm not allowed to have the mp3's from that CD.
I'm pretty sure that this is not the case. If you own a CD legally, then you are allowed to make copies of that CD for your own personal use.
That is not what my.mp3.com has done though. They have made copies of CDs that they have purchased for the use of their customers, and are profiting from it. What's more, they cannot ever be sure that the people they are distributing those copies to do own an original copy legally. If you want an mp3 of a CD you legally posess, go make it yourself. It's not as if it will cost you to do it, and it may even be faster than d/ling it from the internet.
There should not be any debate here. If it was the IP of a/.er that was being distributed by some other company, they would be raising hell too. Disagree? Go read "Postscript:Who owns the Hellmouth Posts?".
-Tommy
------ "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
Although I believe that MP3.com has always walked the fine line between legitimacy and illegitimacy, I honestly don't see the crime they committed.
Taken from this article on Wired: The lawsuit brought by the RIAA and filed in the Southern District of New York claims that MP3.com created an illegal database of 45,000 CDs, which the company purchased and uploaded on to MP3.com's servers. The suit sought to shut down the service.
What's wrong with that? Does this mean that I have been breaking the law by converting my own 100s of CDs to MP3 format for my own convenience? The last I heard, this was no more illegal than dubbing a CD onto cassette to play in my non-CD equipped car. (If it is illegal, I didn't just post the previous paragraph)
Easily as outrageous, from the same article: The RIAA suit asked the court to award $150,000 in damages per song streamed, which could cost MP3.com billions of dollars in back penalties.
Where did they get that math from? Do they honestly believe that every song streamed is then transmitted to tens of thousands of people?
Of course, IANAL, but at least I have a little common sense.
-Tommy
------ "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
I find it interesting that both Metallica's and Dr Dre's lawsuits are stemming from the same attorney, Howard King. Especially when there seems to be no other connections between the artists.
I also find it interesting that the same attorney has led artists into similar grey area IP fights before, such as the Temptations suit against one of their own vocalists use of the Temptations name.
Is it more likely that the artists are seeking out King for his expertise in such matters, or that he is selling artists on the idea of suing for what they perceive themselves to be entitled to?
------ "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
  Given, also, that my main tool - my weapon - was fragile and sensitive to even the most minor of abuses that occur in the field, do they really think something like a PDA and a CELL PHONE are going to survive a grunt's life?
  Not to mention the fact that given the military's nature to train (read brainwash) grunts to react to any situation in an instinctive manner, what happens when it does fail? Will they know what to do without it?
  Any military man will tell you that this can be an infantryman's worst nightmare, and not because they are afraid that it may happen to them and they won't know what to do. Quite the contrary, grunts (esp. Marines) are well equipped to "adapt and overcome", but as we all know, there's always one knucklehead, and he's the one that gets his fireteam killed.
  Were I still in, the idea of such fragile technology on the battlefield would terrify me, although it would be a great toy for back in the barracks.
I can already hear the, "Do your own fsking research!" flames... However, I think it is a good topic for discussion.
There was an excellent article in the April 2000 issue of WIRED magazine about this, written by Bill Joy.
I have to admit that I whole heartedly agreed with the passage, "The New Luddite Challenge", and was more than a little freaked out to find that such unsettling words of wisdom were coming from the Unabomber Manifesto.
Also, there are good references to follow in the footnotes.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me say first that I agree with Metallica's legal rights as far as Napster and trading of copyrighted music. What I don't agree with is the business sense.
When I was 13 years old, (1985) a friend of mine gave me a dubbed cassette of "Ride the Lightning", and I was an instant fanatic. When I told him how much I liked it, he also dubbed "Kill 'em All" for me. When I finally had the income for it, I bought both of those on cassette, along with "Master of Puppets", and eventually everything Metallica ever made (until recently) on CD.
If it had not been for the original "illegal" copy that I obtained, I would never have bought anything, nor do I think would most of the people I know that were into Metallica back then. I can say for a fact that there are several people that I introduced to Metallica in the same way.
I am convinced that this was pretty much the way Metallica got to be as big as they are today. Does the band feel that this is not the case? And if not, how do they think they gained their popularity?
-Tommy
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
Ask Timmy.
Of course, he'd only have one thing to say about it...
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
When will the argument be turned from whether or not distributing mp3s are legal to whether or not posessing mp3s are legal?
What is there to argue? Distributing/Posessing MP3's are no different than doing the same with Software. Whether or not it is legal depends on whether or not it is yours to distribute or posess.
The RIAA is quickly making posession illegal -- even if I own the CD, I'm not allowed to have the mp3's from that CD.
I'm pretty sure that this is not the case. If you own a CD legally, then you are allowed to make copies of that CD for your own personal use.
That is not what my.mp3.com has done though. They have made copies of CDs that they have purchased for the use of their customers, and are profiting from it. What's more, they cannot ever be sure that the people they are distributing those copies to do own an original copy legally. If you want an mp3 of a CD you legally posess, go make it yourself. It's not as if it will cost you to do it, and it may even be faster than d/ling it from the internet.
There should not be any debate here. If it was the IP of a /.er that was being distributed by some other company, they would be raising hell too. Disagree? Go read "Postscript:Who owns the Hellmouth Posts?".
-Tommy
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
Although I believe that MP3.com has always walked the fine line between legitimacy and illegitimacy, I honestly don't see the crime they committed.
Taken from this article on Wired:
The lawsuit brought by the RIAA and filed in the Southern District of New York claims that MP3.com created an illegal database of 45,000 CDs, which the company purchased and uploaded on to MP3.com's servers. The suit sought to shut down the service.
What's wrong with that? Does this mean that I have been breaking the law by converting my own 100s of CDs to MP3 format for my own convenience? The last I heard, this was no more illegal than dubbing a CD onto cassette to play in my non-CD equipped car. (If it is illegal, I didn't just post the previous paragraph)
Easily as outrageous, from the same article:
The RIAA suit asked the court to award $150,000 in damages per song streamed, which could cost MP3.com billions of dollars in back penalties.
Where did they get that math from? Do they honestly believe that every song streamed is then transmitted to tens of thousands of people?
Of course, IANAL, but at least I have a little common sense.
-Tommy
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
I find it interesting that both Metallica's and Dr Dre's lawsuits are stemming from the same attorney, Howard King. Especially when there seems to be no other connections between the artists.
I also find it interesting that the same attorney has led artists into similar grey area IP fights before, such as the Temptations suit against one of their own vocalists use of the Temptations name.
Is it more likely that the artists are seeking out King for his expertise in such matters, or that he is selling artists on the idea of suing for what they perceive themselves to be entitled to?
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
Getting a bit off topic now, but if you look here you will find everything you need to know about Windows Script Technologies.
Again, I am not supporting M$, just reporting the facts.
-Tommy
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this, but Windows DOES have scripting.
Not that I'm advocating Windows (or anything else), but just because YOU don't know how to do something, doesn't mean that it CAN'T be done.
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
  Not to mention the fact that given the military's nature to train (read brainwash) grunts to react to any situation in an instinctive manner, what happens when it does fail? Will they know what to do without it?
  Any military man will tell you that this can be an infantryman's worst nightmare, and not because they are afraid that it may happen to them and they won't know what to do. Quite the contrary, grunts (esp. Marines) are well equipped to "adapt and overcome", but as we all know, there's always one knucklehead, and he's the one that gets his fireteam killed.
  Were I still in, the idea of such fragile technology on the battlefield would terrify me, although it would be a great toy for back in the barracks.
I can already hear the, "Do your own fsking research!" flames... However, I think it is a good topic for discussion.
There was an excellent article in the April 2000 issue of WIRED magazine about this, written by Bill Joy.
I have to admit that I whole heartedly agreed with the passage, "The New Luddite Challenge", and was more than a little freaked out to find that such unsettling words of wisdom were coming from the Unabomber Manifesto.
Also, there are good references to follow in the footnotes.
Good luck with your assignment.
---