>I assume that as it stands, only BMG artists will be allowed on napster. This basically is a
big "fsckyou" to all the indie
>artists or those who aren't signed with a major label.
Well that seems like a pretty poor assumption,
1. because we all know about assumptions
2. because the details haven't been announced yet and
3. because Hank Barry (Napster CEO) has said, and a wide selection of articles on the announcement have pointed out, that there will still be traditional Napster (i.e. free) trading, while also a secure system using, for now, BMG songs. So, your assumption is wrong (if we can trust what Barry et al. say).
>Also, what about incomplete downloads, poor encodes, or mislabeled songs?
Presumably this is what the agreement is designed to avoid. The quality of the BMG-licensed songs, on the secure system, will be higher than the regular files. As such, the issues you raise shouldn't be problems.
I think maybe we need to sit back and wait to see how this deal is going to pan out a bit before we all get worked up about how this is the end of the 'revolution' and all that. Details have been hugely scarce so far....
Sam
As Project Mayo will readily admit, DivX;-) is mostly used for piracy these days, but their goal is to be something a lot more than that.
There was an article a while back in the WSJ about this, and I also did one not too long ago (which you can find here, if you want).
While DivX;-) is just a piracy tool now, thanks to its MPEG roots, it's close to the up-coming digital television broadcast format.
If what PM says is true, we ought to expect to see more of DivX;-) on screens other than PC screens.
Sam
Even better is to include the title and the bill number (H.R. 5225).
Also, even better than writing a letter is making a phone call.
Apparently, there's some sort of loose equation that they use in Washington to determine the public's support of issues:
one phone call=100 people in support
one letter=10 people
one email=one person
Or something very similar to that. If anyone knows more accurately, please correct me.
Sam
Actually, they're (the RIAA) saying that this is essentially just a modified version of draft legislation that MP3.com has been circulating on Capitol Hill for a while now.
A bit more above the board....
Sam
Thanks, Masem.
Though working for a big corporate media outlet feels a little funny sometimes (and not funny like "when we used to climb the rope in gym class"), I think that the distribution reach these companies have can really help broaden the debate on these issues. And that's what's needed.
Sam
No need for correction there. You're right. The injunction does only apply to 2600. Even the MPAA admits it.
However, they're counting on Kaplan's decision as being a precedent that other courts will rely on.
Also, they say just because there is not a specific law against DeCSS (which they contend, due to Kaplan's ruling, is illegal)doesn't make it legal to post it.
If you want, check out this story I wrote about the situation a while back, which contains some observations from lawyers about these exact actions and the MPAA's responses.
Does anyone know if there has been a court date set for the appeal?
Sam
C'mon...the DeCSS decision Kaplan handed down explicitly requires that there be intent to circumvent CSS for the links to be illegal. He put that in there specifically to safeguard search engines and ISPs and free home page providers, etc.
So, yes, the MPAA's claims do threaten the basis of the 'net (links), and yes, it is scary, but get off the "why aren't they suing the search engines?" soap box? It's just factually wrong.
Sam
Slashdot Mirror
>I assume that as it stands, only BMG artists will be allowed on napster. This basically is a big "fsckyou" to all the indie
>artists or those who aren't signed with a major label. Well that seems like a pretty poor assumption, 1. because we all know about assumptions
2. because the details haven't been announced yet and
3. because Hank Barry (Napster CEO) has said, and a wide selection of articles on the announcement have pointed out, that there will still be traditional Napster (i.e. free) trading, while also a secure system using, for now, BMG songs. So, your assumption is wrong (if we can trust what Barry et al. say). >Also, what about incomplete downloads, poor encodes, or mislabeled songs? Presumably this is what the agreement is designed to avoid. The quality of the BMG-licensed songs, on the secure system, will be higher than the regular files. As such, the issues you raise shouldn't be problems. I think maybe we need to sit back and wait to see how this deal is going to pan out a bit before we all get worked up about how this is the end of the 'revolution' and all that. Details have been hugely scarce so far.... Sam
As Project Mayo will readily admit, DivX ;-) is mostly used for piracy these days, but their goal is to be something a lot more than that.
There was an article a while back in the WSJ about this, and I also did one not too long ago (which you can find here, if you want).
While DivX ;-) is just a piracy tool now, thanks to its MPEG roots, it's close to the up-coming digital television broadcast format.
If what PM says is true, we ought to expect to see more of DivX ;-) on screens other than PC screens.
Sam
Even better is to include the title and the bill number (H.R. 5225). Also, even better than writing a letter is making a phone call. Apparently, there's some sort of loose equation that they use in Washington to determine the public's support of issues: one phone call=100 people in support
one letter=10 people
one email=one person Or something very similar to that. If anyone knows more accurately, please correct me. Sam
Actually, they're (the RIAA) saying that this is essentially just a modified version of draft legislation that MP3.com has been circulating on Capitol Hill for a while now. A bit more above the board.... Sam
Thanks, Masem. Though working for a big corporate media outlet feels a little funny sometimes (and not funny like "when we used to climb the rope in gym class"), I think that the distribution reach these companies have can really help broaden the debate on these issues. And that's what's needed. Sam
No need for correction there. You're right. The injunction does only apply to 2600. Even the MPAA admits it. However, they're counting on Kaplan's decision as being a precedent that other courts will rely on. Also, they say just because there is not a specific law against DeCSS (which they contend, due to Kaplan's ruling, is illegal)doesn't make it legal to post it. If you want, check out this story I wrote about the situation a while back, which contains some observations from lawyers about these exact actions and the MPAA's responses. Does anyone know if there has been a court date set for the appeal? Sam
C'mon...the DeCSS decision Kaplan handed down explicitly requires that there be intent to circumvent CSS for the links to be illegal. He put that in there specifically to safeguard search engines and ISPs and free home page providers, etc. So, yes, the MPAA's claims do threaten the basis of the 'net (links), and yes, it is scary, but get off the "why aren't they suing the search engines?" soap box? It's just factually wrong. Sam