The only groups that seem to have positive comments about the treaty are copyright holders, who hope the pact will let them crack down on infringement in new and more stringent ways.
A double edged-sword, indeed. Yes, copyright holders will gain more stringent protection. But what about people wishing to create derivative works, or use sampling?
Looks like creation of these types of works will be more difficult in the future, should this treaty be signed.
What's wrong with fostering attention spans? An longer attention span = discipline, which is sadly lacking in our society today.
This is the same society which puts TV's in minivans to entertain children on long trips. The problem is that everyone wants it easy now, and are too lazy to work for what they want. Even if it's information.
Yes, but if they want to do this, law enforcement authorities should raise the speed limits. The interstate highway system was designed for safe driving at a consistent 75 mph.
Most speed limits are set artificially low to increase revenues from fines. In other words, fine people who are actually creating dangerous conditions in the first place, not because some government is strung up for cash.
If bands wanna make money, get a tour bus and hit the road.
What? And make them work? Nonsense. Copyright protection exists solely to make artists and labels rich, and keep them that way with outrageously long terms.
I have had lengthy discussions on the Napster forums with an owner of a small record label. You'd think I was taking the food out of his mouth when I spoke of my defense of file-sharing.
The distribution model in place is an outmoded dinosaur with too many hands and the till. Until the industry and public realize that the product isn't worth $20 a pop, the record companies will still produce it. And the public wil buy it.
This article is frightening in that you can publish something legal here, and face litigation in some country you've never been to. Does this mean that anyone who publishes some sort of derivative work need to research the pertinent laws from all other member countries?
This is stifling creativity and the spread of ideas at its finest.
You don't need a recording studio. You don't need to sign with a label. You can sound as good or better than the Million dollar bands (not hard actually) and best of all you don't need to sell your soul.
Interesting you said that. I knew someone from Napster forum that supplied his music for free on Napster, despite being offered contracts by major labels. Why? Because he did not want to compromise his musical style to fit the marketability requirements set by big labels. I have heard his music. It is excellent and of high sound quality.
Who are they kidding? They are going to get people to pay for MP3's that
1. Are of lower bitrate quality (They might cap bitrate to 96kbps)
2. Cannot be copied, archived, etc.
The main selling point of Napster is its ease of use. Once people get a little more savvy, they will discover the alternatives, like Music City and Gnutella.
By the way, they even closed the Forum down. Very disappointing to a now ex-Forum regular.
It will be most difficult to file suit on this point, because even with DMCA, Sonny Bono, et al., copyright terms are still "limited", in this case to 70 years after a copyright holder's death. What it doesn't do is fit most definitions of "reasonable". But reasonableness does not show up in the Constitution.
As for delegating authority, congress does not enforce laws, they just write 'em.
I'd love to see DMCA shot down in flames (thanks AC/DC), but it's not likely that it will happen. Stay tuned.
And the recording industry wonders why sites like Napster sprung up? People got sick of listening to the same songs over and over, but Napster allowed them to choose what they wanted to hear. In a working day (9-5), one station would play the same songs four times during the course of the day. And not just one song, but a small group of them.
I don't even listen to the radio much now, except as background noise while driving. Even then, I'll surf NPR or news stations as well.
Cable and DSL are good, but if your are too far away from the Central Office (CO) like my brother in NY is, you will not be able to get broadband service for a very long time.
Until these people are serviced, dial-up is their only feasible alternative.
Now why are they reporting about supposedly covert operations on mass media? Made about as much sense as all the Gulf War reporting on CNN. Saddam got more info from them than anyone else!
1. Napster is a company based in the United States, and therefore is subject to U.S. law.
2. The Berne Convention. The existence of the Berne convention allows countries to pursue copyright infringement violations in other coutries.
3. The IFPI. A sort of international version of the RIAA. They recently busted a group of college students in Taiwan for music-swapping, and had their equipment seized.
The artist doesn't get any money from a used CD you fucking thief!!
Yes, but does Chevrolet get any money if you bought a used Camaro? But there's no outcry for that. And Chevy frankly does not care what happens to its products after they're sold. It's perfectly legal for someone to sell a CD back and for another to buy it.
It trades on Nasdaq. Stay under $1.00 too long, and you'll get de-listed.
Now this isn't a comprehensive stock analysis, but it might say something for the desperation of this company.
Actually, a lot of tech stocks were hard hit during the past year, when the dot-com bubble burst. Much hype swirled around the stocks during the IPO's, but when investors saw that these ventures were not profitable, they dumped. Most of these firms went out of business.
MediaBay is just another dot-com. It porbably will go out of business, too.
"...Makes many of the RIAA arguments ring a little hollow."
I could not have said that better myself. I have always held on tho the common-sense maxim of "No harm, no foul". I have questioned the whole validity of this lawsuit on the grounds of "is it hurting sales".
An analogy can be taken from a real-life experince I had in a shopping-mall parking lot at Christmas time. I stopped for a stop signat the end of an aisle in the lot. However, the driver behind me was not quite so alert, he rear-ended me rather gently. After looking at my car and assessing that I had no damage, the other driver came to me all apologetic, I said" no problem here, it's clean. Is your car alright?" now if I had behaved like the recording industry, I would have slapped him with a lawsuit a short time later. Since I was not harmed or damaged in any way, I did not deem it necessary to vilify the other driver in any way.
After looking at this and other data at RIAA's website, I find that the whole P2P sharing phenomenon is not affecting sales much in either direction.
The bottom line: We live in a far too litigious society. Instead of wrking together and compromising a solution, we sue, this only fosters hostility.
This piece of brilliant legislation is from the same people who decided you cannot order a rare hamburger.
I've played video games for many years, ranging from Pong to point and shoot to RPG's and they haven't affected my behaviour in any way. In fact, those games are quite cathartic; a release of anger and frustration from a long working day.
It's ust another example of the notion of "it takes a village...". No thanks, I have two wonderful parents already.
Slashdot Mirror
The only groups that seem to have positive comments about the treaty are copyright holders, who hope the pact will let them crack down on infringement in new and more stringent ways.
A double edged-sword, indeed. Yes, copyright holders will gain more stringent protection. But what about people wishing to create derivative works, or use sampling?
Looks like creation of these types of works will be more difficult in the future, should this treaty be signed.
What's wrong with fostering attention spans? An longer attention span = discipline, which is sadly lacking in our society today.
This is the same society which puts TV's in minivans to entertain children on long trips. The problem is that everyone wants it easy now, and are too lazy to work for what they want. Even if it's information.
Yes, but if they want to do this, law enforcement authorities should raise the speed limits. The interstate highway system was designed for safe driving at a consistent 75 mph.
Most speed limits are set artificially low to increase revenues from fines. In other words, fine people who are actually creating dangerous conditions in the first place, not because some government is strung up for cash.
True. In most states, it's 10 MPH over the limit, since fines for small speeding infractions are not very high. It's a case of "bigger fish to fry".
...a model of AirIQ that can detect when your daughter is having sex in the back seat!
Instant peace-of-mind!
If bands wanna make money, get a tour bus and hit the road. What? And make them work? Nonsense. Copyright protection exists solely to make artists and labels rich, and keep them that way with outrageously long terms. I have had lengthy discussions on the Napster forums with an owner of a small record label. You'd think I was taking the food out of his mouth when I spoke of my defense of file-sharing. The distribution model in place is an outmoded dinosaur with too many hands and the till. Until the industry and public realize that the product isn't worth $20 a pop, the record companies will still produce it. And the public wil buy it.
but people would rather buy stuff
Huh? On the 'Net? Then explain to me why all those dot coms failed? Explain to me why brick and mortar stores are crowded?
A lot less people buy stuff on the 'Net than you realize. I don't. The internet was free. Let it remain that way.
This article is frightening in that you can publish something legal here, and face litigation in some country you've never been to. Does this mean that anyone who publishes some sort of derivative work need to research the pertinent laws from all other member countries?
This is stifling creativity and the spread of ideas at its finest.
Whether you agree with SPAM or not, it's a constitutionally protected right of the sender, just like gun ownership.
Yes, but much like guns, Spam need to be controlled. Spam accounts for roughly 25% of all e-mail sent, producing unnecessary load on networks.
You don't need a recording studio. You don't need to sign with a label. You can sound as good or better than the Million dollar bands (not hard actually) and best of all you don't need to sell your soul.
Interesting you said that. I knew someone from Napster forum that supplied his music for free on Napster, despite being offered contracts by major labels. Why? Because he did not want to compromise his musical style to fit the marketability requirements set by big labels. I have heard his music. It is excellent and of high sound quality.
Find the music here: S A O
Enjoy!
Who are they kidding? They are going to get people to pay for MP3's that
1. Are of lower bitrate quality (They might cap bitrate to 96kbps)
2. Cannot be copied, archived, etc.
The main selling point of Napster is its ease of use. Once people get a little more savvy, they will discover the alternatives, like Music City and Gnutella.
By the way, they even closed the Forum down. Very disappointing to a now ex-Forum regular.
It will be most difficult to file suit on this point, because even with DMCA, Sonny Bono, et al., copyright terms are still "limited", in this case to 70 years after a copyright holder's death. What it doesn't do is fit most definitions of "reasonable". But reasonableness does not show up in the Constitution.
As for delegating authority, congress does not enforce laws, they just write 'em.
I'd love to see DMCA shot down in flames (thanks AC/DC), but it's not likely that it will happen. Stay tuned.
[rant]
And the recording industry wonders why sites like Napster sprung up? People got sick of listening to the same songs over and over, but Napster allowed them to choose what they wanted to hear. In a working day (9-5), one station would play the same songs four times during the course of the day. And not just one song, but a small group of them.
I don't even listen to the radio much now, except as background noise while driving. Even then, I'll surf NPR or news stations as well.
[/rant]
Cable and DSL are good, but if your are too far away from the Central Office (CO) like my brother in NY is, you will not be able to get broadband service for a very long time.
Until these people are serviced, dial-up is their only feasible alternative.
Now I can play "Telengard Online" with my good ol' C64. Yippee!!
Where is there no law? What about the ocean? Broadcasting off a boat is easy with a little invention called a satellite.
Let's be practical. Would you want to maintain a boat in the middle of the ocean for years? Isn't sinking a potential hazard?
Not worth the trouble, I think.
So, what power would they have over, for example, over a P2P development effort hosted in Europe?
The RIAA works with the IFPI, an international version of the RIAA, protecting artists (copy)rights worldwide.
Also, the Berne convention allows countries to purse copyright infringement in other countries.
Pro-copyright entities have most of the world covered.
Nope, but I did play Illuminati. Great game!
Now why are they reporting about supposedly covert operations on mass media? Made about as much sense as all the Gulf War reporting on CNN. Saddam got more info from them than anyone else!
This wouldn't work for several reasons:
1. Napster is a company based in the United States, and therefore is subject to U.S. law.
2. The Berne Convention. The existence of the Berne convention allows countries to pursue copyright infringement violations in other coutries.
3. The IFPI. A sort of international version of the RIAA. They recently busted a group of college students in Taiwan for music-swapping, and had their equipment seized.
The artist doesn't get any money from a used CD you fucking thief!!
Yes, but does Chevrolet get any money if you bought a used Camaro? But there's no outcry for that. And Chevy frankly does not care what happens to its products after they're sold. It's perfectly legal for someone to sell a CD back and for another to buy it.
They do however assume a song downloaded is a song not bought but taken anyway. This distinctive lack of a KerChing is upsetting them.
;+)~
Correct. Only an assumption. So why do they not hear the Ker-ching? No one holds a gun to a Napster user's head and tells them NOT to buy the CD.
Wait a sec?
A lot of assumptions are being made here. Assume I don't care about music in any form.
Huh? Another assumption? Not going to help matters, you know...
Its down 6 cents to $0.94.
It trades on Nasdaq. Stay under $1.00 too long, and you'll get de-listed.
Now this isn't a comprehensive stock analysis, but it might say something for the desperation of this company.
Actually, a lot of tech stocks were hard hit during the past year, when the dot-com bubble burst. Much hype swirled around the stocks during the IPO's, but when investors saw that these ventures were not profitable, they dumped. Most of these firms went out of business.
MediaBay is just another dot-com. It porbably will go out of business, too.
"...Makes many of the RIAA arguments ring a little hollow."
I could not have said that better myself. I have always held on tho the common-sense maxim of "No harm, no foul". I have questioned the whole validity of this lawsuit on the grounds of "is it hurting sales".
An analogy can be taken from a real-life experince I had in a shopping-mall parking lot at Christmas time. I stopped for a stop signat the end of an aisle in the lot. However, the driver behind me was not quite so alert, he rear-ended me rather gently. After looking at my car and assessing that I had no damage, the other driver came to me all apologetic, I said" no problem here, it's clean. Is your car alright?" now if I had behaved like the recording industry, I would have slapped him with a lawsuit a short time later. Since I was not harmed or damaged in any way, I did not deem it necessary to vilify the other driver in any way.
After looking at this and other data at RIAA's website, I find that the whole P2P sharing phenomenon is not affecting sales much in either direction.
The bottom line: We live in a far too litigious society. Instead of wrking together and compromising a solution, we sue, this only fosters hostility.
This piece of brilliant legislation is from the same people who decided you cannot order a rare hamburger.
I've played video games for many years, ranging from Pong to point and shoot to RPG's and they haven't affected my behaviour in any way. In fact, those games are quite cathartic; a release of anger and frustration from a long working day.
It's ust another example of the notion of "it takes a village...". No thanks, I have two wonderful parents already.