"The entire space of the music "sharing" discussion is: Does giving my friend Joe a copy of this track/disc/collection constitute fair use or not?"
Actually, no. The entire space of the music "sharing" discussion is: is it ok to give everybody a copy every track.
If the question revolved around giving a track to a friend (or just letting her listen to it over te Web), I think that's a much more interesting question.
Here in NYC, I just walk into my public library, go downstairs, walk to the back (where the network is), and plug my laptop in. Simple as that, and it's awesome.
But now, will a bunch of kiddies come in and abuse it, and will I soon have to stnad in line and give my ID, thanks to them?
We'll see... (but even after 9/11 they never asked for an ID)
What you seem to be missing is that it's not at all like controlling 90% of some natural resource. There's plenty of great non-RIAA music, go listen to that instead.
Re:Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich...
on
OpenIPO and Lindows
·
· Score: 1
"Oh, come on. MP3.com was sued into obscurity, it didn't fail because it was a bad idea. Get your wagons in a circle, ya?"
In fact, I was a big fan of My.MP3.com -- that was the service that got them into so much trouble (not the 'regular' MP3.com catalog). For those who don't rememeber, My.MP3.com provided a service where you could put a CD into your drive, it would then get the unique ID from that CD, and then -- if that CD was already in the My.MP3.com -- provided you with immediate streaming access to an online locker, from anywhere on the net.
It seemed very reasonable to me, moreso than Napster. At the time, Napster was still wining its cases and My.MP3.com was losing, and I thought that made no sense.
In any case, just because I thought it was fair doesn't make it legally sound. And, as it turns out, it wasn't -- to build a commercial service copying CDs and making them available, they needed licenses that they didn't have.
In any case, the premise of the original post -- that just because Michael Robertson had a successful IPO with MP3.com during the height of the dot com boom -- that somehow means that a Linspire IPO will fare similarly, is just plain bad advice.
And likely advice from someody who didn't lose money on MP3.com stock...;)
Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich...
on
OpenIPO and Lindows
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Why didn't anybody think of this before?;)
"Same CEO had near perfect timing raising 300MM with MP3.com"
Chat seems too dependent on everybody being available at the same time, and not so good for larger, more complicated ideas (as compared to conversational ones).
Just curious: when a bunch of smart authors get together to hammer out a new protocol, what's the best way to come to a consensus? Mailing lists? Blog? Wiki?
"Also, as another pointed out, a free song download is really equivalent to a chapter or other sizable excerpt, and these are often available from O'Reilly (and these days often available on Amazon)."
Except that O'Reilly already sells CDs of multiple books on one CD -- in that case, each book is more like a track.
However, he generally does not sell single-book downloads, why not?
The fact is that he:
wants to bundle multiple 'tracks' (in his case books) onto one disc -- just like the record labels
and wants to sell a service -- just like the labels
and ultimately wants to avoid making his work easily file-shared -- just like the labels
"You might be partly right, but at least, you are not correct about all of his books:
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook"
Sure, some small number of books might be available, but the vast majority are not. He wants you to subscribe to his service. And of the books he sells on CDs, he bundles multiple books onto one expensive CD.
Does that really not sound familiar to you?
1) he want to make some stuff available, but reserve the rest for sale
2) he want to sell access to a service
3) he bundles multiple 'tracks' onto one disc, and doesn't let you buy the 'tracks' that you want.
What's good for the wood-cut goose apparently is not good for the wood-cut gander.
Regarding Tim O'Reilly, I didn't know that he is an EFF Board Member, but I do know that he has commented favorably about P2P:
"I have watched my 19 year-old daughter and her friends sample countless bands on Napster and Kazaa and, enthusiastic for their music, go out to purchase CDs. "
And yet, O'Reilly doesn't release his books as single, convenient downloads (they're not even sold that way).
If he's so comfortable with the notion that his daughter buys more CDs on account of P2P, then why doens't the same hold true for his ebooks?
Slashdot Mirror
p2p isn't about copyright term extension.
Give me a break. here's who I am and here's what Lessig has to say.
Nope -- the GPL is indeed a Licence Agreement, but when violated, the defense falls back to copyright protection.
Actually, no. The entire space of the music "sharing" discussion is: is it ok to give everybody a copy every track.
If the question revolved around giving a track to a friend (or just letting her listen to it over te Web), I think that's a much more interesting question.
copyright is GOOD when protecting the GPL
copyright is BAD when protecting music
copyright is GOOD when protecting Linux art
That about right?
This Slashdot story freaked me out for a sec! My Andromeda lives on... ;)
I used to live in fear of backing up, now -- dorky as it sounds -- I enjoy backing up. Seriously.
A fine text editor!
The recently launched service is not the revised MP3.com -- it's the new music.download.com.
But now, will a bunch of kiddies come in and abuse it, and will I soon have to stnad in line and give my ID, thanks to them?
We'll see... (but even after 9/11 they never asked for an ID)
Is that about right?
What you seem to be missing is that it's not at all like controlling 90% of some natural resource. There's plenty of great non-RIAA music, go listen to that instead.
In fact, I was a big fan of My.MP3.com -- that was the service that got them into so much trouble (not the 'regular' MP3.com catalog). For those who don't rememeber, My.MP3.com provided a service where you could put a CD into your drive, it would then get the unique ID from that CD, and then -- if that CD was already in the My.MP3.com -- provided you with immediate streaming access to an online locker, from anywhere on the net.
It seemed very reasonable to me, moreso than Napster. At the time, Napster was still wining its cases and My.MP3.com was losing, and I thought that made no sense.
In any case, just because I thought it was fair doesn't make it legally sound. And, as it turns out, it wasn't -- to build a commercial service copying CDs and making them available, they needed licenses that they didn't have.
In any case, the premise of the original post -- that just because Michael Robertson had a successful IPO with MP3.com during the height of the dot com boom -- that somehow means that a Linspire IPO will fare similarly, is just plain bad advice.
And likely advice from someody who didn't lose money on MP3.com stock... ;)
"Same CEO had near perfect timing raising 300MM with MP3.com"
hmmm, what's the current value of MP3.com stock?
Aren't mailing lists increasingly getting spam-filtered? And don't wikis have a tendency to get whacky?
Chat seems too dependent on everybody being available at the same time, and not so good for larger, more complicated ideas (as compared to conversational ones).
Just curious: when a bunch of smart authors get together to hammer out a new protocol, what's the best way to come to a consensus? Mailing lists? Blog? Wiki?
Easy! The Quantum Improbability Engine.
And that still doesn't address the discrepancy of favoring P2P for others' works, but not for his own publications...
And one third of Slashdot posts are First Post
1) MPAA
2) Do you fear riAA or mpAA in .uk?
Except that O'Reilly already sells CDs of multiple books on one CD -- in that case, each book is more like a track.
However, he generally does not sell single-book downloads, why not?
The fact is that he:
wants to bundle multiple 'tracks' (in his case books) onto one disc -- just like the record labels
and wants to sell a service -- just like the labels
and ultimately wants to avoid making his work easily file-shared -- just like the labels
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook"
Sure, some small number of books might be available, but the vast majority are not. He wants you to subscribe to his service. And of the books he sells on CDs, he bundles multiple books onto one expensive CD.
Does that really not sound familiar to you?
1) he want to make some stuff available, but reserve the rest for sale
2) he want to sell access to a service
3) he bundles multiple 'tracks' onto one disc, and doesn't let you buy the 'tracks' that you want.
What's good for the wood-cut goose apparently is not good for the wood-cut gander.
"I have watched my 19 year-old daughter and her friends sample countless bands on Napster and Kazaa and, enthusiastic for their music, go out to purchase CDs. "
And yet, O'Reilly doesn't release his books as single, convenient downloads (they're not even sold that way).
If he's so comfortable with the notion that his daughter buys more CDs on account of P2P, then why doens't the same hold true for his ebooks?
It's all just about personal agendas.
Brewster Kahle