So if I understand this correctly, music will be streamed to "cache sites" which will than be available for streaming to end users and the cache sites will pay the use fee. IANAL but that places the cache sites in the same boat as file swappers today, distributing music without a license. What am I missing that makes this legal?
The point is, all laws should be fair to all people, and enforced appropriately.
Please define fair. Those who defend breaking copyright law for music claim it's only fair, information is free. OTOH, the artists and distribution companies would like to be paid for their product - it's only fair.
Or, think about those who would like the rich taxed out of existance and their money redistributed to others more fairly vs those who would just like to keep what they've fairly earned.
Now, how about a challenge/response for that minority of people who didn't grow up on the north american continent or whose 1st language isn't english?
Does it? Could they function without the $380 million check from the govt? Maybe we could expand the welfare system to automatically cover "artists" - then they could live on a donation system too.
I'd like to see someone start offering an email service that flat out doesn't accept anything but what the user says can come in.
How do you know in advance everyone who you're interested in hearing from? Sent any resume's out? Used Dice/Monster/etc? Use Ebay or the like for anything? True, throwaway addresses could be used but I'd much prefer a "permanent" address.
After reading about it here, I believe a challenge/response whitelist is the way to go, Active Spam killer [paganini.net/ask] knocked my spam count from 150+ / day to 6 in three months.
... that oregon will hit the taxpayers up for what, another 50-70k per year for mental patients who want to speak a language made up for TV. W.T.F? If people want to check in to a private institution, at their own expense, and speak only klingon, more power to them but do the rest of us need to pay for this crap?
The media companies actually pay a lot of money to get their songs played on the radio (like $100K per song!). Do you have a source for this? I've always heard the opposite, either no money is exchanged (one can't live without the other) or the radio station licenses the broadcast rights. With the rise in influence of companies like Clear Channel, it wouldn't surprise me but I'd like to see something reputable.
So, if they treated MP3 distribution as radio and let the songs go around the P2P netoworks, the music would get similar exposure at a much lower cost.
Similar or greater exposure with the ensuing loss of control - no way to know how many times it was played, who listened, feedback. All the things a radio station can generate.
Music was around a long time before record labels. Moreover, when music is driven by the dollars that it brings in, it tends to suck. I would have absolutely no problem with the record industry coming crashing to earth and half of the crappy musicians in the industry having to get real jobs because they can no longer live off the royalties.
Music has historically been tied to money and sponsorship. Today it's the record labels, yesterday they were court musicians, royal composers, or were tied to the church. Brahms, Bach, Beethoven and their peers are remembered but what about the "independants" of their day? Guess I don't really have a point other than this isn't new, musicians have been selling their souls forever...
The media compaines don't produce music. They sell little plastic bits that cost almost nothing to make and the rest is advertising to move that bit of plastic at its inflated price.
I believe it's exactly the opposite, they purchase rights from musicians, package it and sell it. The product, the thing that differentiates this little plastic bit from some other, is the music. The media is just the delivery vehicle, same as the net bag around the potatos I just bought.
Maybe yes, maybe no. If ten people listen to the song on the radio and don't buy the CD is that theft too?
The media company has entered into an agreement with the station to air the song, it's a form of advertising. If 10 people hear the song and don't buy the cd, it's an unsuccessful attempt. If ten people download an illegal copy it's piracy. What's the difference? Control of property. Illegal copies potentially deprive companies of making a living
Different medium, different scale, same concept: I lean out my window and take a photo of the bum who is currently pissing on my building (I hate this city), print some copies and sell them with the agreement that you may display in your home or office or sell the copy you have. That's it, accept it or don't buy it. You like my picture, buy it and proudly display it at home. After a party, your friends admire my photo, take it to kinkos and burn copies for themselves. You've deprived me of the opportunity to sell my photo to those friends and broken our agreement. It's the same as ripping and distributing mp3's. OTOH, If I get my masterpiece displayed at the radio station's annual art fair, 10 people look at it and don't buy it, once again it's failed advertising...
They did not lose a sale. They lost a potential sale
Absolutely true, they lost a potential sale - in the case of making N copies, they lost M potential sales where 0 < M < N - some of those people may never have bought the CD, some may have.
Since there's no way to predict do we assume they've incurred no loss in income? Full loss? Try to guesstimate a percentage? I don't know how you can logically argue either of the first two, nor where to start calculating the third. Unfortunately, someone is going to have to if one of these cases actually makes it to trial...
problem is that listening to mp3's does not steal from anyone. As always, IANAL but let's play devil's advocate for a minute anyways. Media companies produce a product, music. It's distributed on CD's, cassettes, LP's , or however but the product itself is music. They've paid money to the musicians, spent money advertising, pressing and distributing media and typical business overhead but the actual product is intangible. US Copyright law [copyright.gov] gives the media company the exclusive right to reproduce the works in copies. I believe most other countries' copyright laws state the same things
While you're correct, the act of listening to mp3's doesn't steal from anyone? Distributing those mp3's, however, does break US copyright law. If one copy of the song was purchased and 10 copies have been distributed, isn't that 10 copies that may have been sold?
Ok, enough devils advocate, I feel dirty already. Want to change things? Stop buying CD's sold by the big companies. Support independant bands by purchasing their stuff or otherwise giving them money, nobody eats for free you know. Swap mp3's if you like but don't believe that "since it's intangible, it's not theft"
Strict penalties for massive spaming (invasion of privacy? illegal excessive use of bandwidth?)
IANAL or, for that matter, a fan of spam but:
Penalties exacted by whom? The state? Neither of these seem like crimes to me, nor should they be. It's been shown how spammers generate email lists -
crawling usenet archives, web pages, and other public places. If you've freely posted info, don't be surprised to find someone ready and willing to use it.
Buying mailing lists from retailers - If this offends you (and it does me), don't deal with retailers who sell info, or, use throwaway email addresses for transactions.
Excessive illegal use of bandwidth? Don't start down this road, it'll come around to bite you.
There are some legal solutions, using existing laws, that I see as acceptable: Trespassing/breaking & entering type laws for mail relays, slander or defamation of character for forged headers. IMHO, what really needs to happen, let the ISP's enforce their TOS's and publicize/blacklist the ones who don't.
My $0.02
"Given the prevalence of the 'if you don't support the war you should shut up and stop supporting terrorism',"
Since that's all that has come out of our fearless leader's mouth in the last 2 years, I'm not surprised that line gets spouted so much. Even two of my otherwise "rational" friends have picked up on it and now sound like CNN/MSNBC drones.
I think it was Woodie Guthrie who was quoted as "wanting to be a liberal in a room full of conservatives and a conservative in a room ful of liberals..." I suppose you could be both also..
IIRC, that was the point of the "Line Item Veto" dispute many years ago. Instead of your clean and simple solution, they prefer to obfuscate the matter even more...
"No, I don't think the legislators who support these bills really understand the harm they would do. In my experience, if you can explain to them what the problem is, they will want to do the right thing."... "The hard part is to get their attention, and then to explain the problem in a manner that non-geeks can understand"
Isn't the hard part convincing them to vote against the PACs who funded their campaigns and in favor of the individuals they're supposed to represent?
Beyond that, so many laws are passed as riders or ammendments to unrelated bills. Several politicians have stated "I didn't know I voted for X". Shouldn't we expect our legislators to Read The F***ing Bill before voting?
We (the U.S.) have been increasingly rejecting that philosophy, why stop now? Those convicted of felonies already lose the right to own firearms. They often lose the privacy the rest of us have or the right to vote. Their property is forfeitted, and educational aid is often denied. This after they've "paid their debt to society". Why not cut off their ability to make a living? Hell, make them non-persons, brand an "F" onto their foreheads and leave them to the dogs...
While I agree completely that spam is a pain and costs mail providers money, do we really want laws passed? After all, these are the people who crafted Patriot I & II, DMCA, and COPA/CIPA that most of us are opposed to. What will we give up to in anti-spam legislation?
Slashdot Mirror
So if I understand this correctly, music will be streamed to "cache sites" which will than be available for streaming to end users and the cache sites will pay the use fee. IANAL but that places the cache sites in the same boat as file swappers today, distributing music without a license. What am I missing that makes this legal?
The point is, all laws should be fair to all people, and enforced appropriately.
Please define fair. Those who defend breaking copyright law for music claim it's only fair, information is free. OTOH, the artists and distribution companies would like to be paid for their product - it's only fair.
Or, think about those who would like the rich taxed out of existance and their money redistributed to others more fairly vs those who would just like to keep what they've fairly earned.
Now, how about a challenge/response for that minority of people who didn't grow up on the north american continent or whose 1st language isn't english?
It works for Public Broadcasting
Does it? Could they function without the $380 million check from the govt? Maybe we could expand the welfare system to automatically cover "artists" - then they could live on a donation system too.
I'd like to see someone start offering an email service that flat out doesn't accept anything but what the user says can come in.
How do you know in advance everyone who you're interested in hearing from? Sent any resume's out? Used Dice/Monster/etc? Use Ebay or the like for anything? True, throwaway addresses could be used but I'd much prefer a "permanent" address.
After reading about it here, I believe a challenge/response whitelist is the way to go, Active Spam killer [paganini.net/ask] knocked my spam count from 150+ / day to 6 in three months.
... that oregon will hit the taxpayers up for what, another 50-70k per year for mental patients who want to speak a language made up for TV. W.T.F? If people want to check in to a private institution, at their own expense, and speak only klingon, more power to them but do the rest of us need to pay for this crap?
thus endeth the rant...
very cool, thanks...
The media companies actually pay a lot of money to get their songs played on the radio (like $100K per song!). Do you have a source for this? I've always heard the opposite, either no money is exchanged (one can't live without the other) or the radio station licenses the broadcast rights. With the rise in influence of companies like Clear Channel, it wouldn't surprise me but I'd like to see something reputable.
So, if they treated MP3 distribution as radio and let the songs go around the P2P netoworks, the music would get similar exposure at a much lower cost.
Similar or greater exposure with the ensuing loss of control - no way to know how many times it was played, who listened, feedback. All the things a radio station can generate.
Music was around a long time before record labels. Moreover, when music is driven by the dollars that it brings in, it tends to suck. I would have absolutely no problem with the record industry coming crashing to earth and half of the crappy musicians in the industry having to get real jobs because they can no longer live off the royalties.
Music has historically been tied to money and sponsorship. Today it's the record labels, yesterday they were court musicians, royal composers, or were tied to the church. Brahms, Bach, Beethoven and their peers are remembered but what about the "independants" of their day? Guess I don't really have a point other than this isn't new, musicians have been selling their souls forever...
The media compaines don't produce music. They sell little plastic bits that cost almost nothing to make and the rest is advertising to move that bit of plastic at its inflated price.
I believe it's exactly the opposite, they purchase rights from musicians, package it and sell it. The product, the thing that differentiates this little plastic bit from some other, is the music. The media is just the delivery vehicle, same as the net bag around the potatos I just bought.
Maybe yes, maybe no. If ten people listen to the song on the radio and don't buy the CD is that theft too?
The media company has entered into an agreement with the station to air the song, it's a form of advertising. If 10 people hear the song and don't buy the cd, it's an unsuccessful attempt. If ten people download an illegal copy it's piracy. What's the difference? Control of property. Illegal copies potentially deprive companies of making a living
Different medium, different scale, same concept: I lean out my window and take a photo of the bum who is currently pissing on my building (I hate this city), print some copies and sell them with the agreement that you may display in your home or office or sell the copy you have. That's it, accept it or don't buy it. You like my picture, buy it and proudly display it at home. After a party, your friends admire my photo, take it to kinkos and burn copies for themselves. You've deprived me of the opportunity to sell my photo to those friends and broken our agreement. It's the same as ripping and distributing mp3's. OTOH, If I get my masterpiece displayed at the radio station's annual art fair, 10 people look at it and don't buy it, once again it's failed advertising...
They did not lose a sale. They lost a potential sale
Absolutely true, they lost a potential sale - in the case of making N copies, they lost M potential sales where 0 < M < N - some of those people may never have bought the CD, some may have.
Since there's no way to predict do we assume they've incurred no loss in income? Full loss? Try to guesstimate a percentage? I don't know how you can logically argue either of the first two, nor where to start calculating the third. Unfortunately, someone is going to have to if one of these cases actually makes it to trial...
problem is that listening to mp3's does not steal from anyone.
As always, IANAL but let's play devil's advocate for a minute anyways. Media companies produce a product, music. It's distributed on CD's, cassettes, LP's , or however but the product itself is music. They've paid money to the musicians, spent money advertising, pressing and distributing media and typical business overhead but the actual product is intangible. US Copyright law [copyright.gov] gives the media company the exclusive right to reproduce the works in copies. I believe most other countries' copyright laws state the same things
While you're correct, the act of listening to mp3's doesn't steal from anyone? Distributing those mp3's, however, does break US copyright law. If one copy of the song was purchased and 10 copies have been distributed, isn't that 10 copies that may have been sold?
Ok, enough devils advocate, I feel dirty already. Want to change things? Stop buying CD's sold by the big companies. Support independant bands by purchasing their stuff or otherwise giving them money, nobody eats for free you know. Swap mp3's if you like but don't believe that "since it's intangible, it's not theft"
thus endeth the rant...
IANAL or, for that matter, a fan of spam but: Penalties exacted by whom? The state? Neither of these seem like crimes to me, nor should they be. It's been shown how spammers generate email lists -
- crawling usenet archives, web pages, and other public places. If you've freely posted info, don't be surprised to find someone ready and willing to use it.
- Buying mailing lists from retailers - If this offends you (and it does me), don't deal with retailers who sell info, or, use throwaway email addresses for transactions.
Excessive illegal use of bandwidth? Don't start down this road, it'll come around to bite you.There are some legal solutions, using existing laws, that I see as acceptable: Trespassing/breaking & entering type laws for mail relays, slander or defamation of character for forged headers. IMHO, what really needs to happen, let the ISP's enforce their TOS's and publicize/blacklist the ones who don't. My $0.02
"Given the prevalence of the 'if you don't support the war you should shut up and stop supporting terrorism'," Since that's all that has come out of our fearless leader's mouth in the last 2 years, I'm not surprised that line gets spouted so much. Even two of my otherwise "rational" friends have picked up on it and now sound like CNN/MSNBC drones.
I think it was Woodie Guthrie who was quoted as "wanting to be a liberal in a room full of conservatives and a conservative in a room ful of liberals..." I suppose you could be both also..
IIRC, that was the point of the "Line Item Veto" dispute many years ago. Instead of your clean and simple solution, they prefer to obfuscate the matter even more...
"No, I don't think the legislators who support these bills really understand the harm they would do. In my experience, if you can explain to them what the problem is, they will want to do the right thing." ... "The hard part is to get their attention, and then to explain the problem in a manner that non-geeks can understand"
Isn't the hard part convincing them to vote against the PACs who funded their campaigns and in favor of the individuals they're supposed to represent?
Beyond that, so many laws are passed as riders or ammendments to unrelated bills. Several politicians have stated "I didn't know I voted for X". Shouldn't we expect our legislators to Read The F***ing Bill before voting?
Or some present day countries where loss of a hand or stoning are appropriate punishments...
We (the U.S.) have been increasingly rejecting that philosophy, why stop now? Those convicted of felonies already lose the right to own firearms. They often lose the privacy the rest of us have or the right to vote. Their property is forfeitted, and educational aid is often denied. This after they've "paid their debt to society". Why not cut off their ability to make a living? Hell, make them non-persons, brand an "F" onto their foreheads and leave them to the dogs...
While I agree completely that spam is a pain and costs mail providers money, do we really want laws passed? After all, these are the people who crafted Patriot I & II, DMCA, and COPA/CIPA that most of us are opposed to. What will we give up to in anti-spam legislation?