I have the movie Sneakers, and have seen it a few times... and they're not figuring out the key a person pressed by the time it took to press the keys.
They were using a video camera, zoomed up to his hands. That was why it failed when someone walked in the way, and why the conversation went: "It looks like he pressed "L".... "L" isn't even on that side of the keyboard!"
However, kudos for a Sneakers reference!! I wish they made more caper movies like that.
Yea, that's the saying. But it's only true until you lose in court and have to shut down. And then pay for each copyright infringement, and all the VC's lose their money. I think Napster was rocking and rolling well before the law suit started, and could have implimented their business plan and been successful (Whatever their business plan might be of course)
Heh,
Someone just emailed me too about "Talent & time wasted on Napster".
What I really meant was C/S students weren't learning/honing programming skills on a possible fun project, but instead were cruising on the internet, downloading songs on Napster. I almost said playing computer games, but thought that Napster was more suitable, since Napster is also the bandwidth nightmare of many colleges.
So... I didn't really mean Sean Fenning's talent or lack of talent of making Napster, etc, I meant that students were spending more time playing games or playing with Napster, instead of programming.
Not that I don't waste time on MP3's or computer games...
Channel One for the universities now? Yea, I couldn't believe all the snickers commercials we had to put up with in High School.
The universities CHARGE for everything. What the hell are they doing this for?! I can understand the ads--maybe. But the profiling and money-cut from purchases is terrible.
The universities should all chip in a small annual fee to create an organization that would write this type of service themselves. They could even have volunteer work from their C/S department to help write some code for it. All that talent... wasted on Napster. When I was getting my CS degree, I didn't touch the comptuer club with a 10 foot pole, since they weren't doing anything interesting. But this type of work could have had promise.
Check out what my local college did this year (Ball State University , if you were curious) They oversold the Freshman Parking lot by 500! And to make up for this, they ticketed the freshman that had to park on the grass, and are now "correcting" the problem by giving them tickets to a different parking lot... but it's one where the shuttle bus doesn't go too... so 1 mile walk for you!
His point was that maybe ebooks will replace paper books, or maybe not. Also, they might become popular, or they might not. And to finish up, ebooks might be profitable, but at the same time, they definately might not.
You bring up some good points (and didn't even take 40 pages to explain it... heh, ok bad poke at Katz)
So I wonder... usually if something isn't feasible, won't work economically, or is too early for its time... it just doesn't happen.
So I'm wondering why we make such a big deal about ebooks then. We do we keep on asking ourselves... where are our ebooks?
It reminds me of the commerical that's on TV... The black guy with a great deep voice... it might be an IBM commerical. He starts asking loudly, "Where are my flying cars!"
I love it.
Actually, I'd like to have some sunglasses that scrolled text. I could then read it on the plane, I could read it on the train.
I wonder if Katz was dissed by the zillion-dollar New York Publishing House.
On topic (maybe) : I wonder how Katz would react if he saw all his books in multi-formats being spread around on the internet. A few web sites here and there, with catch phrases like: Why buy the book? Get it here for free!
He'd either have to become a hypocrite and defend his copyrights by going against the site, or maybe he'd use his own new catchphrase: Most copied & plagarized Author: John Katz!
Ok, ok... whose mom didn't berate us for not coming up with "www.drugs.com" and selling it for $800,000.
Basically, I wasn't on the ball back '95 or '96 when the kid first registered it (heck I couldn't even afford the $100 registration fee back then:)
But I feel pretty silly right now for not doing something this clever myself. Maybe clever isn't the word, but he's at $20,000 right now, right!? Doh Doh. *slaps head*
Eureka!
I would rather have seen them develop their unsigned artists. If you look around long enough, you see a bunch of pissed off artists talking about MP3.com selling out.
For instance... the 'free' Limp Bizket tour. Alana Morrisete (or is it Cherly Crow?) getting stock, etc. The people already made it, so why give them a ton of money?
I think it'd be great to see mp3.com become another label... one that chould shake the industry... not a service of distribution for the Big-5.
Even worse then. The MPAA and RIAA are actually the right arm of 5 over-large corporations.
I knew already that the MPAA and RIAA are entities of themselves. Not only representing the big 5, but all the artists (yea right:)
But I'll disagree that we need to learn to differentiate the difference. I think many of the masses are swept away with the idea that the RIAA is a separate entity. "Oh it must be ok, some acronymed-group in charge of Artist's rights are taking care of it". ---When in fact the RIAA is 99.999% geared towards the Big 5's goals.
So I guess when I say RIAA=Big 5, I'd like to portray it that way, so that others will see through the smoke too.
However, except for that personal point of mine, I agree with the information you presented, and unfortunately agree with the last paragraph.
And whether you and I are right or wrong, logical or not, doesn't work in the court room.
Look at MP3Board.com that's getting sued because they do web searches of Gnutella files. Crazy... So to get the work done for them, they go and sue AOL (whose newly founded employees of Nullsoft were the creators of Gnutella).
And don't forget the worste one yet: The magazine "2600" getting sued for publishing a list of web sites that had the DECSS software. Or a professor getting sued for showing a T-Shirt on the internet that contains the DECSS software on it. Or suing web site owners that point to web sites that point to web sites that have the DECSS software on it.
These over-large corporations (MPAA, RIAA) with a 50 million dollar a year legal department, are writing their own laws.
Great... First we have Al Gore create the internet for us, and now they're siding against Napster.
Anyone notice how conveniently they wait until it's almost in the bag?
It's time to stop use of Lobbyist groups with the most money, getting their way. Maybe if we were able to make mp3's addictive with nicotine---we'd have a leg to stand on!!! Just look at how long the Tobacco industry has been running the government...
Let's sneak onto Chelsea Clinton's laptop. A million bucks says she has MP3's on there!
Great.. just what we need, another notch and feather in the cap for the MPAA when the time comes. If things keep up this way, we'll no longer have to wonder about copyright infringement and its interpretations---We'll just do whatever the RIAA and MPAA say.
. --- So - back to your example. If you had a clear cut court case that said 'it is OK for the CD owner or their designated agent to make a digital copy for the purposes of providing it to the CD owner' - would you reconsider the business?
---
Yes. I would have then proceeded to the next step of figuring out what to charge people, do some type of research to figure out if the service would be popular, do some hardware testing to figure out ripping times, and then write software that would automate most of the process.
You make a good example of the RIO case. The lawsuit against that was pretty ridiculous. Charges against being able to copy mp3's to others? Hardly! Looks like their virgin case was a good warmup, though. It seems that the MPAA and RIAA are constantly fighting the "General Use" clause. It will be a sad sad day if that ever gets changed. Just having a computer would no longer be allowed. (Their goal was to have certified & proprietary CDROM's, harddrives, etc, to keep people from storing media.) What needs to happen is the RIAA be sued for their reckless suing. Suing just for the sake of saving a dying business is wrong.
-- You didn't actually find a definitive statement that what you wanted to do was either legal or illegal. (Right?) --
Actually, reading the "Fair Use Act" was quite positive. The RIAA & MPAA must have fainted back when that was first finalized. The user/owner truly does have a lot of rights once the media is purchased.
However, one had to read the more recent (and more cryptic) Digital Act (passed I believe in 1995) to find out the rules were different for digital copies of media. The RIAA & MPAA must have had a party with this one. It was definately written up to combat the fear of mass digital bootlegging. However, the new rules in place to combat that, are now being used illogically to supress the owners of media now.
To answer your question, I did find statements that said no one is allowed to make digital backups for others. I even found statements that said even the owners of the media are not allowed to make digital copies of their own media. And of course, on that point, I found conflicting statements. So back and forth, back and forth on a person allowed to make digital copies of their media. However, no helpful information on *me* profitting from make copies of *their* media, just the opposite.
That's why I went down the library angle. They atleast had a whole new set of laws allowing digital archiving. But then it got pretty complex since it mostly covered printed material only.
I often think about winning the "Survivor" $1 mill, or the "Big Brother" 1/2 mill, and I would definately start up a string of these businesses with that cash, and knowingly go to court, just to get the legislation written.
Can you imagine the publicity the lawsuite would give the stores? The RIAA would unwittingly popularize the idea... and the similar services would spring up!
I knew I shouldn't have been so lazy, and should have posted a reference. Sometimes I just figure everyone reads about mp3's as much as I do...
Anyway, now that I'm at home, (not that surfing at work doesn't happen) I did find this article while doing a quick search on "MP3.com Loses".
Briefly, it says that back on June 9th, MP3.Com will pay about $100 million to settle claims with Warner & BMG. The resolution permits MP3.Com to include songs from their labels in its Beam-It database.
I also saw someone else post in slashdot today that this type of arrangement happened with 4 of the Big-5, with Universal not going along with it yet (obviously... we're in this message board right now because of the Universal lawsuit today). The person also mentioned that MP3.com should ignore Universal, and only go with the other 4 of the Big-5... And as they enjoy profits from MP3.Com's service... Universal might come crawling back, PAYING to have MP3.Com do the service...
Well, I don't think they'll ever beg, but I sure hope something like that would happen!:)
I will agree though... MP3.Com has some deep pockets to shell out around 400 million. The only thing I figure is that they've crunched the numbers on the advertising and hits. Just think, almost every song people play on their lists equals a hit. I'm also thinking that they've got some ideas to add to the service soon. Hell, they're probably going to get in bed with AT&T so people can listen to their collection over their cell phone --- or something else that inane. Probably they see themselves as the future standard.
If you read the article I linked to, you'll see that MP3.Com had only (only?) 45,000 albums ripped & converted back in June. It was 25,000 back when I first heard about it. And now it's 80,000. Obviously, even while sued, they spent the time and money to keep on ripping.
I just saw this site called Ace-MP3. They actually sell CD-R's of MP3's on it. They have 12,500 albums to choose from. Hard to believe their legal disclaimer... That they pay ASCAP fees, and are legit!!!!
I just saw this site called Ace-MP3. They actually sell CD-R's of MP3's on it. They have 12,500 albums to choose from (and we're talking about good ones, and 'copyrighted' ones too)
You can mix and match albums. It costs $25 for 1 CDR, (about 10 albums on that CDR they say). However it comes down to about $5 a CDR if you buy enough of them.
Check out the stats: 12,500 albums, 550 GB!
AND they claim that they're paying ASCAP licensing fees, so it's all legit! I can't believe it. If this is true... why haven't we heard of this place?!!! I can't believe it, personally. Coming from Russia, makes it less believable too, but they sure are acting like it's the real deal. I'm interested in any info anyone has!
Heheheh, well I shot myself in the foot only because I'm not doing the business idea at all anyways.
However, I don't see how your argument works for the lawyers? First of all, it would have been only for my benefit or usage. And plus.. you can't shut down a 1-hour photo mat just because they have the POTENTIAL to make extra copies of all the pictures that come through that place.
Bad analogy.. how about... Kinko's can't get shut down just because there's a posibility that their copiers could be used by the evil manager to make secret copies of everything.
Yea, being awarded that much money seems kind of rediculous. But the law says that EACH infringement of copyright violation can be up to $150,000 !!!
(I thought it was only 100,000 but the article mentioned 150,000)
Seems pretty steep, but I think the law was made long before distribution of the internet was even concieved of. Probably wanted to make it extremely steep for just 1 violation. But Imagine, getting 200,000 consecutive life-time sentences for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima or something.
Well, don't forget that MP3.com also gained their main objective: Permission to use the music in this way. I don't know if all their lawsuits ended up this way, but one of the first lawsuits ended with a large cash settlement AND permission to use all CD's from that Big Label. (sony, i think).
Well, don't worry, this BEAM-IT thing was just a side project. Sure... a pretty big one, but they still have the 100,000 unsigned artist thing going for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Rader
They were using a video camera, zoomed up to his hands. That was why it failed when someone walked in the way, and why the conversation went: "It looks like he pressed "L".... "L" isn't even on that side of the keyboard!"
However, kudos for a Sneakers reference!! I wish they made more caper movies like that.
Rader
Yea, that's the saying. But it's only true until you lose in court and have to shut down. And then pay for each copyright infringement, and all the VC's lose their money. I think Napster was rocking and rolling well before the law suit started, and could have implimented their business plan and been successful (Whatever their business plan might be of course)
Rader
What I really meant was C/S students weren't learning/honing programming skills on a possible fun project, but instead were cruising on the internet, downloading songs on Napster. I almost said playing computer games, but thought that Napster was more suitable, since Napster is also the bandwidth nightmare of many colleges.
So... I didn't really mean Sean Fenning's talent or lack of talent of making Napster, etc, I meant that students were spending more time playing games or playing with Napster, instead of programming.
Not that I don't waste time on MP3's or computer games...
Rader
I think Alanis was headlining the mp3.com tour.
Rader
The universities CHARGE for everything. What the hell are they doing this for?! I can understand the ads--maybe. But the profiling and money-cut from purchases is terrible.
The universities should all chip in a small annual fee to create an organization that would write this type of service themselves. They could even have volunteer work from their C/S department to help write some code for it. All that talent... wasted on Napster. When I was getting my CS degree, I didn't touch the comptuer club with a 10 foot pole, since they weren't doing anything interesting. But this type of work could have had promise.
Check out what my local college did this year (Ball State University , if you were curious) They oversold the Freshman Parking lot by 500! And to make up for this, they ticketed the freshman that had to park on the grass, and are now "correcting" the problem by giving them tickets to a different parking lot... but it's one where the shuttle bus doesn't go too... so 1 mile walk for you!
Rader
Also, they might become popular, or they might not.
And to finish up, ebooks might be profitable, but at the same time, they definately might not.
Rader
So I wonder... usually if something isn't feasible, won't work economically, or is too early for its time... it just doesn't happen.
So I'm wondering why we make such a big deal about ebooks then. We do we keep on asking ourselves... where are our ebooks?
It reminds me of the commerical that's on TV... The black guy with a great deep voice... it might be an IBM commerical. He starts asking loudly, "Where are my flying cars!"
I love it.
Actually, I'd like to have some sunglasses that scrolled text. I could then read it on the plane, I could read it on the train.
Rader
On topic (maybe) : I wonder how Katz would react if he saw all his books in multi-formats being spread around on the internet. A few web sites here and there, with catch phrases like: Why buy the book? Get it here for free!
He'd either have to become a hypocrite and defend his copyrights by going against the site, or maybe he'd use his own new catchphrase: Most copied & plagarized Author: John Katz!
It would be interesting to see.
Rader
Basically, I wasn't on the ball back '95 or '96 when the kid first registered it (heck I couldn't even afford the $100 registration fee back then :)
But I feel pretty silly right now for not doing something this clever myself. Maybe clever isn't the word, but he's at $20,000 right now, right!? Doh Doh. *slaps head*
Eureka!
Rader
For instance... the 'free' Limp Bizket tour. Alana Morrisete (or is it Cherly Crow?) getting stock, etc. The people already made it, so why give them a ton of money?
I think it'd be great to see mp3.com become another label... one that chould shake the industry... not a service of distribution for the Big-5.
Rader
I knew already that the MPAA and RIAA are entities of themselves. Not only representing the big 5, but all the artists (yea right :)
But I'll disagree that we need to learn to differentiate the difference. I think many of the masses are swept away with the idea that the RIAA is a separate entity. "Oh it must be ok, some acronymed-group in charge of Artist's rights are taking care of it". ---When in fact the RIAA is 99.999% geared towards the Big 5's goals.
So I guess when I say RIAA=Big 5, I'd like to portray it that way, so that others will see through the smoke too.
However, except for that personal point of mine, I agree with the information you presented, and unfortunately agree with the last paragraph.
Rader
And whether you and I are right or wrong, logical or not, doesn't work in the court room.
Look at MP3Board.com that's getting sued because they do web searches of Gnutella files. Crazy... So to get the work done for them, they go and sue AOL (whose newly founded employees of Nullsoft were the creators of Gnutella).
And don't forget the worste one yet: The magazine "2600" getting sued for publishing a list of web sites that had the DECSS software. Or a professor getting sued for showing a T-Shirt on the internet that contains the DECSS software on it. Or suing web site owners that point to web sites that point to web sites that have the DECSS software on it.
These over-large corporations (MPAA, RIAA) with a 50 million dollar a year legal department, are writing their own laws.
Rader
A million bucks says she's got MP3's on there!
Rader
Anyone notice how conveniently they wait until it's almost in the bag?
It's time to stop use of Lobbyist groups with the most money, getting their way. Maybe if we were able to make mp3's addictive with nicotine---we'd have a leg to stand on!!! Just look at how long the Tobacco industry has been running the government...
Let's sneak onto Chelsea Clinton's laptop. A million bucks says she has MP3's on there!
Rader
Rader
test
--- So - back to your example. If you had a clear cut court case that said 'it is OK for the CD owner or their designated agent to make a digital copy for the purposes of providing it to the CD owner' - would you reconsider the business? ---
Yes. I would have then proceeded to the next step of figuring out what to charge people, do some type of research to figure out if the service would be popular, do some hardware testing to figure out ripping times, and then write software that would automate most of the process.
You make a good example of the RIO case. The lawsuit against that was pretty ridiculous. Charges against being able to copy mp3's to others? Hardly! Looks like their virgin case was a good warmup, though. It seems that the MPAA and RIAA are constantly fighting the "General Use" clause. It will be a sad sad day if that ever gets changed. Just having a computer would no longer be allowed. (Their goal was to have certified & proprietary CDROM's, harddrives, etc, to keep people from storing media.) What needs to happen is the RIAA be sued for their reckless suing. Suing just for the sake of saving a dying business is wrong.
-- You didn't actually find a definitive statement that what you wanted to do was either legal or illegal. (Right?) --
Actually, reading the "Fair Use Act" was quite positive. The RIAA & MPAA must have fainted back when that was first finalized. The user/owner truly does have a lot of rights once the media is purchased.
However, one had to read the more recent (and more cryptic) Digital Act (passed I believe in 1995) to find out the rules were different for digital copies of media. The RIAA & MPAA must have had a party with this one. It was definately written up to combat the fear of mass digital bootlegging. However, the new rules in place to combat that, are now being used illogically to supress the owners of media now.
To answer your question, I did find statements that said no one is allowed to make digital backups for others. I even found statements that said even the owners of the media are not allowed to make digital copies of their own media. And of course, on that point, I found conflicting statements. So back and forth, back and forth on a person allowed to make digital copies of their media. However, no helpful information on *me* profitting from make copies of *their* media, just the opposite.
That's why I went down the library angle. They atleast had a whole new set of laws allowing digital archiving. But then it got pretty complex since it mostly covered printed material only.
I often think about winning the "Survivor" $1 mill, or the "Big Brother" 1/2 mill, and I would definately start up a string of these businesses with that cash, and knowingly go to court, just to get the legislation written.
Can you imagine the publicity the lawsuite would give the stores? The RIAA would unwittingly popularize the idea... and the similar services would spring up!
Rader
Anyway, now that I'm at home, (not that surfing at work doesn't happen) I did find this article while doing a quick search on "MP3.com Loses".
Briefly, it says that back on June 9th, MP3.Com will pay about $100 million to settle claims with Warner & BMG. The resolution permits MP3.Com to include songs from their labels in its Beam-It database.
I also saw someone else post in slashdot today that this type of arrangement happened with 4 of the Big-5, with Universal not going along with it yet (obviously... we're in this message board right now because of the Universal lawsuit today). The person also mentioned that MP3.com should ignore Universal, and only go with the other 4 of the Big-5... And as they enjoy profits from MP3.Com's service... Universal might come crawling back, PAYING to have MP3.Com do the service...
Well, I don't think they'll ever beg, but I sure hope something like that would happen! :)
I will agree though... MP3.Com has some deep pockets to shell out around 400 million. The only thing I figure is that they've crunched the numbers on the advertising and hits. Just think, almost every song people play on their lists equals a hit. I'm also thinking that they've got some ideas to add to the service soon. Hell, they're probably going to get in bed with AT&T so people can listen to their collection over their cell phone --- or something else that inane. Probably they see themselves as the future standard.
If you read the article I linked to, you'll see that MP3.Com had only (only?) 45,000 albums ripped & converted back in June. It was 25,000 back when I first heard about it. And now it's 80,000. Obviously, even while sued, they spent the time and money to keep on ripping.
Rader
Rader
I just saw this site called Ace-MP3. They actually sell CD-R's of MP3's on it. They have 12,500 albums to choose from (and we're talking about good ones, and 'copyrighted' ones too)
You can mix and match albums. It costs $25 for 1 CDR, (about 10 albums on that CDR they say). However it comes down to about $5 a CDR if you buy enough of them.
Check out the stats: 12,500 albums, 550 GB!
AND they claim that they're paying ASCAP licensing fees, so it's all legit! I can't believe it. If this is true... why haven't we heard of this place?!!! I can't believe it, personally. Coming from Russia, makes it less believable too, but they sure are acting like it's the real deal. I'm interested in any info anyone has!
Rader
However, I don't see how your argument works for the lawyers? First of all, it would have been only for my benefit or usage. And plus.. you can't shut down a 1-hour photo mat just because they have the POTENTIAL to make extra copies of all the pictures that come through that place.
Bad analogy.. how about... Kinko's can't get shut down just because there's a posibility that their copiers could be used by the evil manager to make secret copies of everything.
Rader
(I thought it was only 100,000 but the article mentioned 150,000)
Seems pretty steep, but I think the law was made long before distribution of the internet was even concieved of. Probably wanted to make it extremely steep for just 1 violation. But Imagine, getting 200,000 consecutive life-time sentences for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima or something.
Rader
Rader
Rader