What we are REALLY paying for -
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 3
In all of the self-righteous speeches about theft made by the Jack Valentis and Hillary Rosens of the MPAA and RIAA, one of the most oft-repeated statements is "Only so-and-so percent of CDs/movies make back the cost to create/record/promote them. It is the big ticket items (Backstreet Boys/Britney Spears) that make up for the rest". They argue that people downloading "pirated" music and movies will cut into their profits and result in no more music or movies.
Bullshit. The costs of marketing these steaming piles of crap are what is making the execs go insane over the bottom line.
"The studios better stop chasing an opening weekend where they're spending 80' to make a dollar," says Jeff Berg of International Creative Management. Studio executives agree that marketing costs are crippling the business, but that doesn't mean star salaries don't take their toll."
So I'm not allowed to download a couple of MP3s or stream a movie over the net b/c I might stiffle the profits that pay for the insane marketing machine that bombards me 24/7 with the most shallow and regurgitated media which makes me want to run to Siberia, just to escape it all?
Fuck. Let's all start downloading and stop paying for CDs and movies. Maybe the industries would collapse, like the Valentis and Rosens predict. But people were making movies and music before it was ever billion dollar profitable to do so - and they will do so again. Maybe the entities that rise up in place of the MPAAs and RIAAs will be more humane to the people who support them.
Personally, I think if it's relatively easy to access (another vague phrase that would need a cleaner definition!) from the Internet, it should be considered part of the "public interface", even if the reason it's easily accessed is 'administrator error' rather than intent.
I don't know if I would agree with that. You're saying that it's alright to take advantage of someone else's mistake. Maybe I'm an idealist but I'd rather help the user by identifying it and suggesting a fix rather than exploiting it by snooping around. But that's me.
To go back to the analogy, if you see our hypothetical wife from the sidewalk you have three choices - walk up to the house and inform her she's showing off all her goodies, walk away and say nothing, or stand and ogle. The first makes you a gallant gentleman; the second, an ambivalent bystander; the third, a perv.
But to leave the analogies out (TBPH, they really don't apply since computers are a completely different beast) if I want to serve stuff up to the public then I stick in a public folder. At that point, I would say, it is legitimately part of the "public interface". But on the same token, I make sure that personal items are hard to get at. A combination is the best answer, I think - use the honor system to trust that people will respect the bounds of privacy but protect yourself from the pukes who will invariably violate that trust.
If you ask me, the only 'computer crime' law we need is to make it illegal to destroy or alter information on a computer that you don't have authorized access too... Yeah, this means if someone cracks your computer without overwriting files or anything nasty like that... that you can't do jack about it in court, but so what?
Blegh. No thanks, I don't want your law either. Maybe a cracker wouldn't alter anything on my computer but I would certainly feel violated if someone sifted through my personal journal or my mushy emails to and from my girlfriend.
you don't arrest people for looking in through the window of a jewelry store or even rattling the cage over the windows.
No, but I bet you'd be screaming at 911 to get the police to your house if your pervert neighbor was peeping through your window at your wife getting out of the shower.
Where do they draw the line?
Will computers be illegal? No
Will encryption tools be illegal? Maybe, or restricted
Will security tools that can be used for hacking be illegal? Most likely
Remember the ILOVEYOU virus. I guess VBScript and MS Outlook are gone too (although I wouldn't be upset about the latter... )
The Madison experiment will continue at least until December 31, 1999, according to Max Martens, a spokesman with the public-relations firm of Porter Novelli in Los Angeles.
So does anyone have more recent news on what is happening with this? From the details in the article I would guess this project is falling flat on its face.
But all copyright law is under Title 17. If the RIAA isn't suing under copyright law, what law can they possibly sue under?
As I was reading through all of the Title I began to wonder if this really was the sum of copyright law. I've tried to play Devil's advocate as best as I could b/c it just didn't seem right that Napster, MP3.com, etc. are being sued under that law when it really doesn't forbid what Napster does and in general is silent on the issue.
Yeah - I noticed that after I made my post and someone pointed it out to me as well. Section 11 deals with recordings of live performances, digitally or otherwise. It wasn't really relevant to the discussion at hand...
<blush>... and after I got done blasting that guy about checking your facts before you post.</blush>
Ugh.
Yup - I completely missed the word "live" before musical recording. Okay, strike that argument. But here's another question -
Does noncommercial use entail distribution on a scale possible by Napster? Also, Napster is a business - how does that commercial "service" figure into noncommercial use by the consumer. I have the right to download music off of someone else's computer (apparently) but what is the legality of Napster providing a commercial service to facilitate this? Perhaps, under this title, file-swapping using Freenet or Gnutella is legal but Napster is not?
I suppose that's the key wording anyways - "under this title". Assuming the RIAA doesn't allege infringement under title 17, this won't hold any bearing.
As I understand it, the way Napster works is to point you to a share folder on another computer - the copying is done peer-to-peer. I don't know the technical details of Napster (I always used Scour myself) but as I understand it Napster merely opens a port on your computer for the data to enter and then ensures that the whole file copied. The copying is done by one of the computers not Napster. All Napster does is provide a list of the available MP3 files and the IP addresses they are available at. No more. Napster is not a digital audio device or medium.
And even if it were, Section 11 prohibits the distribution of digital audio copied recordings. So Napster users who provide access to MP3s are still breaking the law.
If you are going to respond, at least get your facts straight before you do. I'm beginning to think you are just trolling.
However, Napster and Napster users are still infringing according to this document. Read Section 11. Here's the text -
Sec. 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos
(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved -
(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical
performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or
phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,
(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the
sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or
(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to
sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or
phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of
whether the fixations occurred in the United States, shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.
(b) Definition. - As used in this section, the term ''traffic in'' means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.
(c) Applicability. - This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
(d) State Law Not Preempted. - Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.
It was wishful thinking but the AHRA still screws consumers.
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
The highlighted sentence refers to the distribution of a device or medium - it says nothing about the recording. Read the definition section -
(3) A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or
device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by
individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some
other machine or device, the digital recording function of which
is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is
capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private
use, except for -
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio
recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for
the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of
nonmusical sounds.
(4)
(A) A ''digital audio recording medium'' is any material
object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals,
that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
(B) Such term does not include any material object -
(i) that embodies a sound recording at the time it is first
distributed by the importer or manufacturer; or
(ii) that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by
consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion
pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of
making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer
programs or data bases.
These definitions refer to CD-Recorders, Hand-held MP3 players, and MP3 encoders as devices and CDRs, CD-RWs, DAT tape for mediums. I would say the MP3 codec would qualify as a medium. However...
(1) A ''digital audio copied recording'' is a reproduction in a
digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether
that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical
recording or indirectly from a transmission.
Once you record music onto the digital music medium it becomes a digital music recording.
This is what the actual MP3 song files would fall under. The MP3 codec is the digital music medium that is "most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device."
Now re-read the section 1008 - You can distribute the CD Burners, MP3 encoders, and even the codec all you like. Do you see any mention of digital audio copied recording? I sure don't. Guess Napster is still illegal as far as this piece of legislation is concerned.
Think before you post, maybe?
I do. Maybe you should research the source material before you flame someone.
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
This doesn't say anything about distribution of digital music recordings. Napster is a service that facilitates the distribution of digital music recordings, not the creation of them. As far as I can tell, this section would in no way protect Napster or Napster users.
But this does open up a whole new can of worms. If I have the Fair Use rights for music, movies, etc that I legally purchase, why the hell am I paying a tax on a medium that I use for non-commercial, personal duplication???? And more importantly, why the hell is money going to the RIAA for the CDRs I purchased to back up my programs, pictures and email????
This law is already out of date. There are so many more uses for CDR and CD-RW beyond music recording.
And here's another thought - if DVD-Audio takes off in the next few years (guaranteed to have some form of CSS on it) will we still be lining the pockets of the RIAA for a medium that we cannot technically or legally copy music on to?
Make no mistake kiddies - all this bru-ha-ha has nothing to do to with piracy and copying. Wait, strike that - it has to with copying insomuch as taping movies off of pay-per-view, HBO, Showtime, etc. will eliminate the need for a consumer to pay every single time she wishes to view a movie.
Divx may have met a swift demise but Hollywood, through the MPAA, is slowly laying the groundwork for a pay-per-view system anytime you wish to see a movie. You don't want to pay each time? Okay, then buy the DVD for $29.95 (and up!). Otherwise, it's $8.95 a pop.
This is a classic bait-and-switch. They lull the public with arguments about thwarting pirates but in the end, they will wield technology (through legislation) to utterly control their programming. Folks, we are watching a monopoly use their monopolistic power to stiffle innovation. My question is why are they proposing legislation instead of being investigated by the DoJ for anti-trust violations?
... and then I swear, I'm finished with this rant.:)
HTML code and design are not the same either. When that guy lifted the design he may or may not have lifted the HTML code. HTML code is a lot like layout - there's only so much you can do with it. A lot of web designers I know don't give a rat's ass if you lift their HTML code (hell, that's how I learned all those years ago), just use your own graphics.
Things get a bit more tricky when you're talking about JavaScript. Since it is much more flexible to use, a greater amount of creativity can be exhibited in the code (and it typically takes a lot more work). But since client-side JS is available for all to see most web designers just want a credit if you use it.
And I think most everyone can agree that one should give credit where credit is due.
By providing my address, I did not give my consent to sell that info to other people.
According to their Conditions of Use agreement, you did. That's why it's call Conditions of Use - if you don't like the conditions, you don't use it. Meaning, if you don't give consent, then you take your business elsewhere. When you choose to shop at Amazon, you made your choice to consent.
I think layout and design need to be distinguished in this discussion. Layout is where things go on the page - nav menu on left, title banner on top, content in the middle, additional links on the left, etc. Design is the graphics, motif, color scheme, font faces all rolled together that give a site a distinct look and feel. That hack ripped-off the latter, not the former.
Layout is something that cannot really be ripped off. There are only so many ways to display a collection of items on a page, to say nothing of displaying them effectively. But design is something that takes blood, sweat, and tears. Effective design is something that is hard to attain and is typically intertwined with a logo and look, as far as businesses go.
Although I hate analogies with print media (web design and print design are two completely different balls of wax) I don't think anyone would argue that stealing layout (TOC in front, advertisement in back) is the same as stealing design (logo, look, and feel).
And sorry to break it to you but just because a web page is available to the public does not mean the design is public domain. You swipe someone's design w/o permission, you're ripping them off. If it's a corporate site, you can be prosecuted - if it's a personal site, you're just an asshole (fortunate for you).
Sorry if I seem a little pissy but I'm a web designer/developer and this hits close to home. Most of you have seen the shitty web pages out there - effective, clean design is not easy. I personally, would not serve up design I spend days and weeks on to some uncreative, lazy ass. At the very least, ask permission.
"Willingly Provided" isn't strictly accurate. It was provided on the basis that it wouldn't be sold, so it's not true to claim consent for its sale.
Maybe...
We reserve the right to make changes to our site, policies, and these conditions of use at any time.
... or maybe not. I'm fully aware that practically every Conditions of Use statement has this short but subversive clause. This in effect is the consent to resell personal data should they decide to do that. I'm not agreeing or defending - I think it's bullshit. But by providing the personal data you are consenting. If you think they'll change their privacy policy and sell your data then you don't provide it.
IMO, privacy policies are a frappin' joke. They don't mean shit if the terms can be changed at a corp's discretion.
Concerns were brought to the forefront this year when Internet advertising broker DoubleClick was criticized for a plan to market a record of Web pages consumers have visited...
Forget that noise about Amazon - this line from the article bothered me even more. Has anyone else heard about this?
This is NOT the same as selling data I willingly provided to Toysmart or Amazon. One involves consent and the other does not. I agree with the/.ers who are saying the Amazon news is no big deal - it's not. Although changing user agreements after the fact is a bit underhanded, I'm not concerned about my personal data. Brick and mortar and credit card companies sell it all the time. If you don't like it then pay with cash and don't give Radio Shack your address. Or you don't shop online. Simple.
But DoubleClick's plan sounds so much more sinister. The thought of being stalked while I surf is disturbing enough - but I can't abide the possibility of receiving all kinds of spam (both regular and electronic) simply because I visited a site. I'm all for target marketing - that's why I don't mind giving my info to Amazon, Buy.com (when I buy something) and signing up for emailing lists of my choosing. But just because I go to a site looking for erotic pictures of Jennifer Lopez does not mean I am on the prowl for a new buttplug.
I'm going to put on a different hat for a second and ask is this really where we want things to go? Micropayments for everything?
Sure, I own some CD's that I love so much I would have paid $50 for them. A tip system would be great to show my gratitude to the artist. And as the poster wrote, there are some personal websites that had me ROTFLMAO or greatly influenced me as a web developer and designer. I would love to send them $5 and say "Thanks! Have a beer on me."
That said, I wonder how long it will go on before things we used to do for pleasure and personal edification are motivated by the prospect of being micropaid for it. Art by the amateur has always been done for the love of producing art - it freaks me out a bit to think that amateur art may now be done for micropayments. Obviously, that's not the sole reason it's done but it could certainly be a motivator now. As an example, most/.ers participate because they enjoy participating but, be honest now, karma is definately a motivator, right? And what is karma? An abstract point system for quality posts - it doesn't really do anything but make you feel good. Now imagine if karma were micropayments - even more incentive right?
I guess I'm just wondering if micropayments will devalue the intrinsic good of things like art. I pull off and help someone change their flat tire or return a lost wallet to contribute good to the world, not b/c I'm hoping for compensation. A "Thanks a lot" is the only compensation I want. And while this may be extreme, it's possible these things could be motivated by the micropayment.
"Hey, nice shoes!"
"Thanks, here's a $1 micropayment!"
I realize that is a silly example but it helps to illustrate the possible trend towards money being the sole motivator and compensator for everything. I remember reading an article a while back about sites like Epinions and "expert" sites. They explored why people would devote large amounts of time to writing reviews and answering questions for complete strangers. The short answer was "egoboo" or ego boosts that came from being positively rated as a reviewer. But it made me proud that these sites went counter to the idea of the net being a commercial medium, like the corps view it. I was proud to be involved with a medium that is about free exchange of information and assistance with the motivation being the virtue of helping someone else out without compensation. I just wonder if micropayments for everything will threaten that notion.
Sorry to play devil's advocate but I have only read about how wonderful a micropayment system will be in light of the whole Napster fiasco. I've just been waiting for the other shoe to drop...
Hello everybody,
My name is Bill Gates. I have just written up an
e-mail tracing program that traces everyone to whom this message is forwarded to. I am experimenting with this and I need your help.
Forward this to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list will receive $1000 at my expense.
To tell you the truth, -I- can't bring myself to watch American TV, and I've lived here my whole life. I don't know how the rest of the world gets so addicted to it.
Evidently, you've never seen a lot of what Asia offers up. My girlfriend is Taiwanese and I have watched tapes of some of the most popular shows that her relatives send to her parents. A lot of it has the production quality of local cable channels. The only way we have been entertained has been by laughing at its gaudiness and silliness.
Obviously, this is my opinion and based off of a small sample. And I'm certainly not saying that all entertainment out of Asia is crap. I have avidly watched Hong Kong cinema and Japanese Anime for years and consider it to be superior to a lot of the crap Hollywood has churned out. I have begun exploring some of the other offerings of Asian cinema too. But they definately put out their share of bad programming.
I guess it depends on what shows they want. America has some great TV programs and we have some absolutely horrible ones. I just hope they don't go for the dreg like most Americans seem to.
I'm a little curious why it was not disclosed in the news article. I get most of my mainstream news from CNN and they are typically very good when it comes to informing readers of the relationship b/w CNN and Time-Warner (when it is relevant).
The writer may have thought that since they are not a direct plaintiff there was no need to disclose. But IMO, that should have been in the first paragraph.
Kudos to the writer (Deborah Durham-Vichr) - she graciously gave credibility to Corley's defense, probably w/o realizing it. Was she promoting piracy or subverting copyright through the distribution of pirating software? No, she was reporting a story, same as Corley.
Slashdot Mirror
Time
-------
Bullshit. The costs of marketing these steaming piles of crap are what is making the execs go insane over the bottom line.
"The studios better stop chasing an opening weekend where they're spending 80' to make a dollar," says Jeff Berg of International Creative Management. Studio executives agree that marketing costs are crippling the business, but that doesn't mean star salaries don't take their toll."
- from Time
So I'm not allowed to download a couple of MP3s or stream a movie over the net b/c I might stiffle the profits that pay for the insane marketing machine that bombards me 24/7 with the most shallow and regurgitated media which makes me want to run to Siberia, just to escape it all?
Fuck. Let's all start downloading and stop paying for CDs and movies. Maybe the industries would collapse, like the Valentis and Rosens predict. But people were making movies and music before it was ever billion dollar profitable to do so - and they will do so again. Maybe the entities that rise up in place of the MPAAs and RIAAs will be more humane to the people who support them.
-------
I don't know if I would agree with that. You're saying that it's alright to take advantage of someone else's mistake. Maybe I'm an idealist but I'd rather help the user by identifying it and suggesting a fix rather than exploiting it by snooping around. But that's me.
To go back to the analogy, if you see our hypothetical wife from the sidewalk you have three choices - walk up to the house and inform her she's showing off all her goodies, walk away and say nothing, or stand and ogle. The first makes you a gallant gentleman; the second, an ambivalent bystander; the third, a perv.
But to leave the analogies out (TBPH, they really don't apply since computers are a completely different beast) if I want to serve stuff up to the public then I stick in a public folder. At that point, I would say, it is legitimately part of the "public interface". But on the same token, I make sure that personal items are hard to get at. A combination is the best answer, I think - use the honor system to trust that people will respect the bounds of privacy but protect yourself from the pukes who will invariably violate that trust.
-------
Blegh. No thanks, I don't want your law either. Maybe a cracker wouldn't alter anything on my computer but I would certainly feel violated if someone sifted through my personal journal or my mushy emails to and from my girlfriend.
you don't arrest people for looking in through the window of a jewelry store or even rattling the cage over the windows.
No, but I bet you'd be screaming at 911 to get the police to your house if your pervert neighbor was peeping through your window at your wife getting out of the shower.
-------
Will computers be illegal? No
Will encryption tools be illegal? Maybe, or restricted
Will security tools that can be used for hacking be illegal? Most likely
Remember the ILOVEYOU virus. I guess VBScript and MS Outlook are gone too (although I wouldn't be upset about the latter... )
-------
So does anyone have more recent news on what is happening with this? From the details in the article I would guess this project is falling flat on its face.
-------
As I was reading through all of the Title I began to wonder if this really was the sum of copyright law. I've tried to play Devil's advocate as best as I could b/c it just didn't seem right that Napster, MP3.com, etc. are being sued under that law when it really doesn't forbid what Napster does and in general is silent on the issue.
-------
<blush>... and after I got done blasting that guy about checking your facts before you post.</blush> Ugh.
-------
Does noncommercial use entail distribution on a scale possible by Napster? Also, Napster is a business - how does that commercial "service" figure into noncommercial use by the consumer. I have the right to download music off of someone else's computer (apparently) but what is the legality of Napster providing a commercial service to facilitate this? Perhaps, under this title, file-swapping using Freenet or Gnutella is legal but Napster is not?
I suppose that's the key wording anyways - "under this title". Assuming the RIAA doesn't allege infringement under title 17, this won't hold any bearing.
-------
And even if it were, Section 11 prohibits the distribution of digital audio copied recordings. So Napster users who provide access to MP3s are still breaking the law.
If you are going to respond, at least get your facts straight before you do. I'm beginning to think you are just trolling.
-------
However, Napster and Napster users are still infringing according to this document. Read Section 11. Here's the text -
Sec. 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos
(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved -
(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or
(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States, shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.
(b) Definition. - As used in this section, the term ''traffic in'' means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.
(c) Applicability. - This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
(d) State Law Not Preempted. - Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.
It was wishful thinking but the AHRA still screws consumers.
-------
The highlighted sentence refers to the distribution of a device or medium - it says nothing about the recording. Read the definition section -
(3) A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for - (A) professional model products, and (B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
(4) (A) A ''digital audio recording medium'' is any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device. (B) Such term does not include any material object - (i) that embodies a sound recording at the time it is first distributed by the importer or manufacturer; or (ii) that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer programs or data bases.
These definitions refer to CD-Recorders, Hand-held MP3 players, and MP3 encoders as devices and CDRs, CD-RWs, DAT tape for mediums. I would say the MP3 codec would qualify as a medium. However...
(1) A ''digital audio copied recording'' is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.
Once you record music onto the digital music medium it becomes a digital music recording. This is what the actual MP3 song files would fall under. The MP3 codec is the digital music medium that is "most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device." Now re-read the section 1008 - You can distribute the CD Burners, MP3 encoders, and even the codec all you like. Do you see any mention of digital audio copied recording? I sure don't. Guess Napster is still illegal as far as this piece of legislation is concerned.
Think before you post, maybe?
I do. Maybe you should research the source material before you flame someone.
-------
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
This doesn't say anything about distribution of digital music recordings. Napster is a service that facilitates the distribution of digital music recordings, not the creation of them. As far as I can tell, this section would in no way protect Napster or Napster users.
But this does open up a whole new can of worms. If I have the Fair Use rights for music, movies, etc that I legally purchase, why the hell am I paying a tax on a medium that I use for non-commercial, personal duplication???? And more importantly, why the hell is money going to the RIAA for the CDRs I purchased to back up my programs, pictures and email????
This law is already out of date. There are so many more uses for CDR and CD-RW beyond music recording.
And here's another thought - if DVD-Audio takes off in the next few years (guaranteed to have some form of CSS on it) will we still be lining the pockets of the RIAA for a medium that we cannot technically or legally copy music on to?
-------
Divx may have met a swift demise but Hollywood, through the MPAA, is slowly laying the groundwork for a pay-per-view system anytime you wish to see a movie. You don't want to pay each time? Okay, then buy the DVD for $29.95 (and up!). Otherwise, it's $8.95 a pop.
This is a classic bait-and-switch. They lull the public with arguments about thwarting pirates but in the end, they will wield technology (through legislation) to utterly control their programming. Folks, we are watching a monopoly use their monopolistic power to stiffle innovation. My question is why are they proposing legislation instead of being investigated by the DoJ for anti-trust violations?
-------
HTML code and design are not the same either. When that guy lifted the design he may or may not have lifted the HTML code. HTML code is a lot like layout - there's only so much you can do with it. A lot of web designers I know don't give a rat's ass if you lift their HTML code (hell, that's how I learned all those years ago), just use your own graphics.
Things get a bit more tricky when you're talking about JavaScript. Since it is much more flexible to use, a greater amount of creativity can be exhibited in the code (and it typically takes a lot more work). But since client-side JS is available for all to see most web designers just want a credit if you use it.
And I think most everyone can agree that one should give credit where credit is due.
-------
According to their Conditions of Use agreement, you did. That's why it's call Conditions of Use - if you don't like the conditions, you don't use it. Meaning, if you don't give consent, then you take your business elsewhere. When you choose to shop at Amazon, you made your choice to consent.
-------
Layout is something that cannot really be ripped off. There are only so many ways to display a collection of items on a page, to say nothing of displaying them effectively. But design is something that takes blood, sweat, and tears. Effective design is something that is hard to attain and is typically intertwined with a logo and look, as far as businesses go.
Although I hate analogies with print media (web design and print design are two completely different balls of wax) I don't think anyone would argue that stealing layout (TOC in front, advertisement in back) is the same as stealing design (logo, look, and feel).
And sorry to break it to you but just because a web page is available to the public does not mean the design is public domain. You swipe someone's design w/o permission, you're ripping them off. If it's a corporate site, you can be prosecuted - if it's a personal site, you're just an asshole (fortunate for you).
Sorry if I seem a little pissy but I'm a web designer/developer and this hits close to home. Most of you have seen the shitty web pages out there - effective, clean design is not easy. I personally, would not serve up design I spend days and weeks on to some uncreative, lazy ass. At the very least, ask permission.
-------
Maybe...
We reserve the right to make changes to our site, policies, and these conditions of use at any time.
IMO, privacy policies are a frappin' joke. They don't mean shit if the terms can be changed at a corp's discretion.
-------
Forget that noise about Amazon - this line from the article bothered me even more. Has anyone else heard about this?
This is NOT the same as selling data I willingly provided to Toysmart or Amazon. One involves consent and the other does not. I agree with the /.ers who are saying the Amazon news is no big deal - it's not. Although changing user agreements after the fact is a bit underhanded, I'm not concerned about my personal data. Brick and mortar and credit card companies sell it all the time. If you don't like it then pay with cash and don't give Radio Shack your address. Or you don't shop online. Simple.
But DoubleClick's plan sounds so much more sinister. The thought of being stalked while I surf is disturbing enough - but I can't abide the possibility of receiving all kinds of spam (both regular and electronic) simply because I visited a site. I'm all for target marketing - that's why I don't mind giving my info to Amazon, Buy.com (when I buy something) and signing up for emailing lists of my choosing. But just because I go to a site looking for erotic pictures of Jennifer Lopez does not mean I am on the prowl for a new buttplug.
-------
Sure, I own some CD's that I love so much I would have paid $50 for them. A tip system would be great to show my gratitude to the artist. And as the poster wrote, there are some personal websites that had me ROTFLMAO or greatly influenced me as a web developer and designer. I would love to send them $5 and say "Thanks! Have a beer on me."
That said, I wonder how long it will go on before things we used to do for pleasure and personal edification are motivated by the prospect of being micropaid for it. Art by the amateur has always been done for the love of producing art - it freaks me out a bit to think that amateur art may now be done for micropayments. Obviously, that's not the sole reason it's done but it could certainly be a motivator now. As an example, most /.ers participate because they enjoy participating but, be honest now, karma is definately a motivator, right? And what is karma? An abstract point system for quality posts - it doesn't really do anything but make you feel good. Now imagine if karma were micropayments - even more incentive right?
I guess I'm just wondering if micropayments will devalue the intrinsic good of things like art. I pull off and help someone change their flat tire or return a lost wallet to contribute good to the world, not b/c I'm hoping for compensation. A "Thanks a lot" is the only compensation I want. And while this may be extreme, it's possible these things could be motivated by the micropayment.
"Hey, nice shoes!"
"Thanks, here's a $1 micropayment!"
I realize that is a silly example but it helps to illustrate the possible trend towards money being the sole motivator and compensator for everything. I remember reading an article a while back about sites like Epinions and "expert" sites. They explored why people would devote large amounts of time to writing reviews and answering questions for complete strangers. The short answer was "egoboo" or ego boosts that came from being positively rated as a reviewer. But it made me proud that these sites went counter to the idea of the net being a commercial medium, like the corps view it. I was proud to be involved with a medium that is about free exchange of information and assistance with the motivation being the virtue of helping someone else out without compensation. I just wonder if micropayments for everything will threaten that notion.
Sorry to play devil's advocate but I have only read about how wonderful a micropayment system will be in light of the whole Napster fiasco. I've just been waiting for the other shoe to drop...
-------
My name is Bill Gates. I have just written up an e-mail tracing program that traces everyone to whom this message is forwarded to. I am experimenting with this and I need your help.
Forward this to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list will receive $1000 at my expense.
Enjoy.
Your friend,
Bill Gates
Damn! This was totally true and I missed out!
-------
Evidently, you've never seen a lot of what Asia offers up. My girlfriend is Taiwanese and I have watched tapes of some of the most popular shows that her relatives send to her parents. A lot of it has the production quality of local cable channels. The only way we have been entertained has been by laughing at its gaudiness and silliness.
Obviously, this is my opinion and based off of a small sample. And I'm certainly not saying that all entertainment out of Asia is crap. I have avidly watched Hong Kong cinema and Japanese Anime for years and consider it to be superior to a lot of the crap Hollywood has churned out. I have begun exploring some of the other offerings of Asian cinema too. But they definately put out their share of bad programming.
I guess it depends on what shows they want. America has some great TV programs and we have some absolutely horrible ones. I just hope they don't go for the dreg like most Americans seem to.
-------
The writer may have thought that since they are not a direct plaintiff there was no need to disclose. But IMO, that should have been in the first paragraph.
-------
-------
I doubt it. More likely, someone flamed them for the hypocrisy (or politely pointed it out :]).
-------