Just thought I'd be helpful. Since all law stuff is based on precedent: Here's a link and some stuff about the case that started this stuff. The case is called "Bernstein v. Dept. of State" and covers the story of a teacher trying to publish information about "export restricted" crypto technology. I personally worry that we're becoming to lax about property rights in general, but as soon the gov't tries to tell me what code I can and cannot write, I get pissed.
The point here is a baseball. IMHO, this is a swing and miss. The RIAA wants money, sure... and they don't get it doesn't bother me too much one way or the other.
What I would love to see (and I'm talking theory and philosophy here, not C.S.) is there to be a way for artists who, for whatever god forsaken reason, choose not to have thier music posted on Napster (and it's relatives) have that option.
Sure, I see problems with this like Record labels trying to get artists to assert this right, and of course I see the complete lack of feasability at this point in the game. But if the good captian's suggestion actually came around, I don't think there would be quite so much whining and wrangling about this sort of stuff.
Artists who chose to have their music shared freely would happily benefit from the exposure. Listeners would get a goodly amount of tunes. I would even think that there would be a certain ill stigma attached to opting out.
Anyway, that's my little dream for the morning. Once again, I haven't the foggiest notion of how this would ever work, nor will I even have a clue until I get a cup of coffee. Signing Off,
Cap'n Cal.
Slashdot Mirror
Just thought I'd be helpful. Since all law stuff is based on precedent: Here's a link and some stuff about the case that started this stuff. The case is called "Bernstein v. Dept. of State" and covers the story of a teacher trying to publish information about "export restricted" crypto technology. I personally worry that we're becoming to lax about property rights in general, but as soon the gov't tries to tell me what code I can and cannot write, I get pissed.
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS /
The point here is a baseball. IMHO, this is a swing and miss. The RIAA wants money, sure... and they don't get it doesn't bother me too much one way or the other. What I would love to see (and I'm talking theory and philosophy here, not C.S.) is there to be a way for artists who, for whatever god forsaken reason, choose not to have thier music posted on Napster (and it's relatives) have that option. Sure, I see problems with this like Record labels trying to get artists to assert this right, and of course I see the complete lack of feasability at this point in the game. But if the good captian's suggestion actually came around, I don't think there would be quite so much whining and wrangling about this sort of stuff. Artists who chose to have their music shared freely would happily benefit from the exposure. Listeners would get a goodly amount of tunes. I would even think that there would be a certain ill stigma attached to opting out. Anyway, that's my little dream for the morning. Once again, I haven't the foggiest notion of how this would ever work, nor will I even have a clue until I get a cup of coffee. Signing Off, Cap'n Cal.