Thanks to a provision in the 1976 Copyright Act, U.S. law allows the first purchaser of copyrighted material (a book, CD, etc) to subsequently re-sell that item without the copyright owner’s consent. In this age of online distribution and the budding, halting attempts at legitimizing it, is the the right to re-sell going to be upheld?On April 28 of this year, Steve Jobs unveiled the iTunes Music Store. It was billed as a convenient, legal alternative to file-sharing networks such as KaZaa and Morpheus, complete with 30 second track previews, one-click purchasing, virtually unlimited CD burning, spoken word content from Audible.com, and comparatively light digital rights management (DRM) restrictions placed on what you could or could not do with purchased content.
Despite the fact that the iTunes Music Store was only available in the U.S., only available for Macs, and even then only available for Macs running OS X, it has proven to be significantly more successful than similar efforts such as Pressplay, MusicNet, or Listen.com. In fact, in the first day Apple’s service was available, the number of downloads equaled the total number of subscribers of competing services during the previous six months. Since then, Apple claims over seven million tracks have been purchased through the iTunes Music Store. By many accounts, it appears to be a hit. However, some growing DRM-related concerns are just now surfacing.
During Jobs’ announcement of the iTunes Music Store, he asserted that subscription-based services were not the best approach, and that “people have always bought their music”. Similarly, Apple’s own web site for their service proclaims “once you buy the music, you own it — no complicated rules, no clubs, and no subscription fees”. George Hotelling, an iTunes Music Store user, now aims to test exactly how Apple defines the word “own”. He is attempting to sell a track he legally purchased from the iTunes Music Store, via Ebay, to examine whether it is technically and legally possible to do so.
The track in question is Double Dutch Bus, featured on the soundtrack of Dana Carvey’s ill-received film, Master of Disguise. If Hotelling had purchased the actual soundtrack CD, he would have little difficulty selling it at Half.com or elsewhere. Since he is instead attempting to sell a digital audio file, encoded in the MPEG 4-based Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) standard, using Apple’s Fair Play rights management scheme, there are no shortage of potential issues that could block this sale. As such, this is less an auction over a 99 cent download, and more a pivotal moment examining how the long-enjoyed First Sale doctrine translates into the digital age.
The First Sale doctrine was codified in section 109 of the 1976 Copyright Act, and has been revisited numerous times since then. As the name implies, First Sale refers to the right of one person to sell their legally-aquired copyrighted material — such as a book — to another person, without the prior consent of the copyright holder. According to Duke Law & Technology Review, First Sale “covers transfers of ownership not merely transfers of possession, such as rental, lease or lending”. Since Apple has often stated that “once you buy the music, you own it”, it would be logical to assume that First Sale would apply. That is, unlike competing services, Apple has not stated that iTunes Music Store users are merely purchasing a license to listen a given track. If you buy music from Apple, it is apparently yours to do with as you please. Yet, Apple’s terms of service for the iTunes Music Stores specifies content is strictly for “personal, noncommercial” use. Confusing, isn’t it?
So, would selling a legally-downloaded AAC file purchased from the iTunes Music Store constitute personal, noncommercial use? Is it even possible, from a technical perspective, to transfer ownership of the song? Hotelling could certainly just burn it to a CD, then import it back to iTunes and encode it as an MP3, but he is intentionally opting not to do so. As such, it is too soon to tell if there is even a mechanism within the service that would allow this type of transaction. Music downloaded from Apple is tied to specific user accounts registered at the iTunes Music Store and, from there, is further tied to a maximum of three “authorized” computers. If Mr. Hotelling sells his track, and neither Apple nor the RIAA object, does this mean the new owner can also only play it on up to three computers? After all, this hypothetical new owner did not agree to any terms of service.
One way or the other, it was likely to be a significant fallout from Hotelling’s auction, if eBay wouldn’t take down the auction. An obscure, 99 cent track from an equally obscure film may end up being one of the most widely-known songs of the year, but in a manner entirely unintended.
So AAC is a standard eh…
I thought Apple made it up just like MS made up WMA.
anyway, this guy should just sell the song to his buddy, then when his buddy can’t use the thing, sue in federal court, I am sure Lessig would represent him pro-bono.
Why can I not rent a music cd, but I can rent a dvd?
It does not make sense.
It does seem strange that you can’t rent CDs, when you can also rent VHS tapes, which can be copied about as easily as a CD can.
As for the article, people have to realize that when you buy a digital song or movie, it’s not the same thing as owning the original CD or VHS/DVD. If it were, then the pundits who say that pirating movies/music would be the exact same thing as walking into a store and stealing a copy would be right.
So, the question is … is it the same, or isn’t it?
AAC is the audio portion of MPEG 4, just as MP3 is the audio layer of an MPEG 1. It’s not and Apple thing.
The songs can actually be burned to a disc and reimported without the DRM.
You can actually check out music cd’s from public libraries, although the selection is very limited.
You can check CDs out from most libraries in the US, though. I think they don’t rent CDs because there’s no economically viable market for it.
So THAT’S why the RIAA has never gone after Cheapo. I always wondered about that…they don’t get a single dime off the sale of a CD at Cheapo, yet I haven’t heard them bitch or moan about it.
The fog lifts.
Is it really illegal to rent out cd’s? I don’t really think it is. I just think nobody does it.
to qoute someone else…
The relevant section of US
copyright law is 17 USC 109:
[A person who owns a particular copy of a sound recording or
computer program is not allowed] for the purposes of direct or
indirect commercial advantage [to] dispose of, or authorize the
disposal of, the posession of that phonorecord or computer program
(including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program)
by rental, lease, or lending…
— 17 USC 109 (b)(1)(A)
This subsection does not apply to […] (ii) a computer program
embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer
that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for
— 17 USC 109 (b)(1)(B)
In other words:
* Renting out sound recordings is a violation.
* Renting out CD-ROMS for home computer systems is a violation.
* Renting out CD-ROMs for home videogame systems is not a violation
(there’s a specific exemption).
The law prohibiting rental (17 USC 1101 as far as I can tell) applies
to sound recordings — the format doesn’t matter.
This is a discussion that we should not even be having. If we wish to win the game against the RIAA and Copywrong laws, the best thing we can do is overthrow the hold that both have on us.
1. Don’t purchase music that has any association with
2. Only purchase music from businesses and artists
who follow the licensing/copyright ideas found
One such example is Magnatune(www.magnatune.com)
From their information page:
1. all music should be shareware. Just as with software, you want to preview, evaluate, and pass along good music to others–in the process of buying it.
2.find a way of getting music from the musician to their audience that’s inexpensive and supports musicians. Otherwise, musical diversity will continue to greatly suffer under the current system where only mega-hits make money.
3.musicians need to be in control and enjoy the process of having their music released. The systematic destruction of musician’s lives is unacceptable: musicians are very close to staging a revolution (and some already have).
4.creativity needs to be encouraged: today’s copyright system of “all rights reserved” is too strict. We support the Creative Commons “some rights reserved” system, which allows derivative works, sampling and no-cost non-commercial use.
Make your choice people.
…is what I’m doing. Downloading fabulous, FREE and LEGAL mp3s from audiogalaxy.com, mp3.com and any other random sites I find, and then *only* sharing those. I’m sharing hundreds of them and they are fabulous songs that you can’t hear anywhere else, and I don’t have any worries about RIAA subpoenas. At this stage of the game, the best thing we can do to fight the RIAA is to turn our backs on their stuff, not buy it, not share it, not download it. THAT is what they are really afraid of, people developing a taste for music that they don’t control and infecting others with it. They don’t care if someone downloads a copy of Fast Car without paying for it, they are quaking in their boots of what comes next, when everybody has all of their crap and wants more, and the p2p services will be used to distribute free and legal songs that they have no claim to. They control the radio, and the tv, and the movies, and the shelves at wal-mart, but they do not control gnutella, fasttrack, gnutella2, blubster/piolet, et al. That’s why they are trying to scare people off file sharing services, not because they’re worried about protecting Tracy Chapman and her fast, fast car.
My 3 cents.
1) From what I read of the itunes agrement you don’t buy the
music you license if to a personal performance.
2) etunes sells you the track so you could sell them.
-) Don’t forget you will need to provide a paper trail
since etunes has no drm and no physical source.
3) Buy news guys RIAA isn’t doing anything wrong. RIAA is acting for it’s members to protect their rights. RIAA has only gone after people distributing music not downloading it. EFF dosen’t have a case. (When you share music and advertise your computer through a P2P system you invite people to come get your music. RIAA follow your invinatation found their members property their and decided to to recover losses.)
4) Losing money as an corporation is never a good thing.
5) The big 5 labels released over 30,000 new items (bar coded releases last year) me thinks you will find that their is something you will like in there.
6) re Shawna
You are not fighting RIAA you are supporting an industry. HOwevere since those artist never make money I wonder how long they will stay in business.
7) On the idea of the Artist, P2P and the “new economic model” is their any “good” (being a relative term) open source project that hasn’t at some time been backed by a university or corporation????
Final Note: I support the FBI’s carnarvore. why??? because I would rather have the Internet packets treated like speech at a curb side cafe then then a system where your packets on leaving your machine are protected (privacy) THat is the US mail system and that means the goverment can regulatw the packets. Freedom has a price, and freedom at a cafe may mean some listens in.
We need more people to show why privacy is bad and why we need big government to monitor everything. Only when government owns everything and monitors it can you, the individual, be assured of freedom.
All we need is more brave new thinkers like Donaldson and the world will finally be safe. Every last bit of information must be monitored and controlled and only then will safety, freedom, and democracy truly exist and flourish.
You are a smart man, Donaldson. If you keep working hard for freedom and democracy, we will make sure you get your promotion.
“3) Buy news guys RIAA isn’t doing anything wrong.”
You don’t call price-fixing(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32048.html) wrong?
If you don’t, what about payola(http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/13/indie_promotion/)?
Sounds like a strange sense of values to me.
It may be illegal in the US, but there is a shop here in Cologne (Germany) that has been renting CDs for years. Doesn’t appear to be a huge success though — they’re still in business, but they’re also still the same small shop, and there’s still just the one.
>1. all music should be shareware. Just as with software, you
> want to preview, evaluate, and pass along good music to
> others–in the process of buying it.
1.) THe only form of shareware that works is crippled ware, Turn off a save option disable a key render feature , set a time limit.
2.) (THis is from memory so I may make a mistake here) on macslash.com a shareware company released an upgrade that caused their fully functional shareware to call home when upgraded. They discovered 80% of the “loyal users” never paid for the next version. Since the wanted to stay in bussiness they added cripple ware and a key for the next version. Doubled their revenue stream.
3.) How many people reading this, calling me an idiot, have paid for their gzip program ??????
4.) Without DRM I can’t release crippled version of songs, with DRM everyone calls me evil. The problem is shareware only works when you give the enduser a reason to want the full version. With your version their is no carrot to upgrade, their is no reason other than to support the artist. We all know that is a lie, no one will part with their money. period.
Ahh you don’t understand my comment on the IP’s.
Note; USA law
1.) If you sit at a roadside cafe talking with friends you have no precieved right of privacy. I can sit next to you and listen in on all things you say. I can turn to you an call you an idiot if I want. (Did that one day to a guy how said all people of a certain background should be killed
1a.) In a cafe I can record you on tape because there is no preceived privacy.
2.) If I’m in my house and have made reasonable accomedations I have a percieved right of privacy.
2a.) I can’t record you.
Following on the above.
1. My machine is my house and I have the right to a precieved form of privacy. THe question arises that when the packets leave my machine what do I think will happen to them????
1. a) You may argue they should be protected, Noone is allowed to see them open them and their protected speech. If this is desired then the goverment will insure your privacy, all equipement will be subject to new regulations, wireless networks will be outlawed, THe goverment may regulate the kind of data and charge a usage fee.
Example: US Mail
US Roads (right not privalage)
The goverment will protect your rights but you give up something for the goverment to insure it. Such as they may outla encrypted packets.
1. b) If there is no preceived privacy once the packets leave my machine then the goverment will have no desire to regulate, tax or even care. It then becomes my resposibility to protect my packets (SSL, encyption etc.) In this model their is a higher chance for people to see them but there is no goverment controls on my packets.
Also rember that packets go through private and public networks on their way to a destionation. If Qwest, or ATT wants to look at packets crossing thier networks what rights do they have. According to the AOL case once you try to stop or regulate data flow you are then legally resposible for it. So If the goverment says all packets must be protected then Qwest will forced to protect all packets going through and in fact will not be able to stop any (DOS, spam etc) unless the goverment passes law regulateing those types. Consifer harrassing and threating phone calls. Until the goverment made those illegal they were protected by the fedral communication regulations. So If you ISP dumps spam and the fedral goverment rules it’s protected speech the ISP could be sued. You will then have to get a law outlawing spam. THis then means the goverment is in the business of regulateing internet packets. Mrs. Gore will outlaw all bad words and rap songs and Mrs. Bush will get the naked women. Personally I prefer the cafe model, a little more work for me but the goverment stays the hell out.
RE: Tim C.
Last time I was in Japan it was popular too. Tou rented them for 2 hours. Can you say mini-disk recorders,
(Note this was about 10 years ago, not sure of current practices)
> You don’t call price-fixing(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32048.html) wrong?
From the above article:
> A pair of major music labels have been hit with another
> round of price-fixing charges courtesy of the FT
Lets see, RIAA is a oragnization support by major (and some minor labels) This is about 2 companies on their own fixing prices. RIAA can’t fix prices because they don’t sell the music.
> If you don’t, what about payola(http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/13/indie_promotion/)?
from the above article:
>This time around, the major labels hope to build a broad
> coalition, including smaller independent record companies
> as well as artists, in their brewing battle over
> “It would be great to work with the RIAA, I’d welcome it,”
> says Jenny Toomey, executive director of the Future of
> Music Coalition, a musician advocacy group that has
> publicly challenged the RIAA over a range of issues,
> including royalties and copyrights.
This about RIAA acting for the major labels to remove the current system of payola which the iny labels WANT to happen because it levels the playing field. Remember this current system came into being (I think) late 50’s after the giant payola scam, where labels did pay for music to be played.
And If you read page 2 you will find that the radio stations control what gets paid and they bill the labels for it. SO it means the labels have no control.
> Sounds like a strange sense of values to me.
No it sounds like RIAA is a trade orginazation like thousands of others.
“We all know that is a lie, no one will part with their money. period.”
Funny, I just bought the download version of one CD from a website, then went to the artists’ website and bought the exact same title in CD form, as a gift for a friend.
Guess that makes me a double “no one.” And I will be d*mned if I didn’t “preview, evaluate, and pass along good music to others–in the process of buying it.”
So much for “no one will part with their money. period.”
Some of us are happy to spend cash when we know it is not going into the RIAA’s pocket.
“Thanks to a provision in the 1976 Copyright Act, U.S. law allows the first purchaser of copyrighted material (a book, CD, etc) to subsequently re-sell that item without the copyright owner’s consent.”
It’s utterly stupid, even if it’s a law and everybody is accustomed to it. Why the hell do I have to ask somebody, be it first or 337th time a particular copy is sold, as long as I DON’T MAKE MORE COPIES OF IT??? How a particular copy of copyrighted work is different from, say, a showel, as long as it remains ONE COPY? A showel can be sold however many times you want, without anybody putting some silly restrictions…
I would have to do more reading to be sure but I think the issue is the language used.
“allows the first purchaser”
This would refer to the first purchaser of the item gives that purchaser a signle copy. I think the language of first refers to the chain of purchases from the copyright. THus this gives the abilty to always stay one transaction removed from the copyright holder but dosen’t allow the purchaser to claim they have the right to produce duplicates. I think that is a key work codified in law.
should : An action that may or may not be perfromed. It is not required.
shall : AN action that must be performed.
(These definitions or from the NRC of the USA)
A shovel could could be sold just like a cd and since there are no patents or copyrights on a shovel you can reproduce them and sell them. I think the 1976 law was drawing a distinction between a music album being an produced work or a work for hire.
Defiently need a US goverment lawyer to get the fine points on that one.
so you bought 2 copies, so be it I said if you got a copy free as with shareware.
Ever paid for winzip???
Are you sure 2a) isn’t you can’t record me and use the recording in court without my knowledge beforehand(as in sworn depositions on tape?)
“Ever paid for winzip???”
Why would I pay for something I don’t use?
tar, gzip and bzip2 are GPL.
But if I were to take complete leave of my senses and use windows, there is always 7-zip, which is also GPL, and does not require 5MB in size to unzip a file.
2a.) I can’t record you.
2a) isn’t you can’t record me and use the recording in court without my knowledge beforehand(as in sworn depositions on tape?)
Same statement different recorder. In both cases their is a preceived right to privacy. I may volintary give it up, aka an police officer, an insurance adjuster but both parties (in most states) must know of the recording.
Now, A court order can overide this and you may or may not know of this order. (telphone lines, bugging bedrooms)
Don’t get me wrong, the goverment might may the internet a safer cleaner place, but that worries me. After all I’m still paying a tax on my phone line to support the Spanish american war. shudder.
“1.) THe only form of shareware that works is crippled ware, Turn off a save option disable a key render feature , set a time limit. ”
He is speaking of the idea of shareware applied to music files. But if you think about it, what happened to the artists who already allow shareware of their music, like Greatful Dead, Phish, Janis Ian, etc? They did not cripple the tapes, videos, or mpegs they have allowed to spread. Additionally, I do not recall where any of the people associated with these groups dropped dead from starvation, due to earning no money from freely spreading their art around.
So can someone please explain to me again how shareware of music doesn’t work?
CD vending machines.
Put credit card in, pick a cd. When you return it you only get charged a small fee for use (wear and tear on the item) or a small user fee to use the machine that way you are not renting the cd you are only charging for using a machine. If you don’t return the cd your credit card gets billed for the full amount of the cd.
You can earn credits for use by giving a cd to the machine. Lets say you supply a cd, you then get 7 machine uses on your account.
You can then listen to the cd all you want and as many time as you want within the time frame of lets say 14 days. If you don’t return the cd you get billed.
Now if you scratch it the machine is smart and will test it, if the cd is bad you get billed for it.
CD Vending Machine Library (CDVML) Put one in every shopping mall.
Now take that a step further, connect all the machines to each other via private network. The main headquarter has all the cds in stock and the machines use computers and burn the cds for the customer as needed. Use current dvd technology and the cd will self destruct in 14 days. After 14 days the cd can be recycled back into the system. And you can only lend out as many copies as the headquarter has.
Now remeber you are not renting the cds you are loaning them just like a library does. The difference it you are charging a user fee for the the use of a machine. (just like ATM’s do). If someone likes what they borrowed they can then go purchase it and everyone is happy.
This is a copyrighted thought and if this every happens then I want my royalties per cd used or loaned. 10 cents per cd sounds good.
PS, oops, I guess they could copy it while they had it anyway. But then again don’t people copy movies from the movie rentals or can copy it from any real library. hmmm guess theres always a catch 22 on things.
This is getting so old. All you gotta do is burn the thing to a CD, give the CD to the seller, and delete the old AAC file(s)
“This is getting so old. All you gotta do is burn the thing to a CD, give the CD to the seller, and delete the old AAC file(s)”
Yeah but then we don’t get the pleasure of seeing the RIAA soil their undies over the coverage of the court case!
I know it’s somewhat off topic, but since I heard some people speaking here who seem to know something about legal stuff:
How is it possible that a new ordinary cd costs E 21.99 in Holland (where I live), and in Germany, for example, only E 16.99? And in the US it’s about $ 16 (If I’m not mistaken).
I just had to throw that out…. I thought we had a European ‘Union’ here… The only thing it could be good for (comparable prices in Western Europe) and IT refuses to do so… Probably because the ‘high ones’ in Brussel/Strassburg can’t enrich themselves with this issue…
“How is it possible that a new ordinary cd costs E 21.99 in Holland (where I live), and in Germany, for example, only E 16.99?”
Probably only because not enough people have started buying all their CDs in Germany. Once sales go down in Holland, the local shops will reduce prices.
The Euro is still quite a new thing. It will take a while for the effects to work through.
What we need is micropayments. I would prefer to pay 0.25$ per song directly to the artist for a digital format than buying a 12.00$ CD in store. For one, it costs me less and to top it off, the artist most likely makes more money.
Now that said, I don’t see any reason why the digitally purchased music would have to be subject to any other kind of regulation than the CD I would have bought in store. I can make a copy of the CD if it’s for archive/backup purposes; I can make a copy of my digital song for backup/archive purposes. I can sell the CD to a friend if I don’t want it anymore, I should have the same right for a digital song.
But quite frankly, if it’s 0.25$ per song that I anyone can get with a single click, I don’t see why my friend wouldn’t buy it directly from the artist.
The music industry need the following in place for “trialware”, it’s making an official 30s sample/demo of their song available for free and fully shareable/copyable. You get the sample for free, you can copy/share it as you wish.
I don’t get all this fuss about DRM and this and that. The problem the RIAA has right now is it’s losing control of how much money flows into their pocket. They should instead invest their time in building a system of micropayments for artists, build up a database of demo/samples and use their high bandwidth lines for distributing the music rather than finding P2P users.
An article that sites sources! =)
Thanks for the interesting article, this is the first time I’ve heard the real reason this is interesting, without all of the annoying slashdot “oh my god” focusing on the selling rather than the repercussions.
The DVD’s people rent at BlockBuster have a different license to those which you buy at blockbuster. Block Buster pays significantly more for a DVD than the 20bucks you pay when you buy one. They get to rent it out time and time again which you could not do legally with the version you bought.
Most people only watch a movie once, but listen to CD’s many times. Hence the reason why CD’s are not profitable to rent.
Don Cox wrote:
> Probably only because not enough people have started buying
> all their CDs in Germany. Once sales go down in Holland, the
> local shops will reduce prices.
No they won’t. The dutch music-industry will complain that piracy is taking an even bigger share of the sale and claim that Holland is special and more prone to piracy than Germany.
It has already happened here in Denmark where a CD also costs around E 20. People are buying them online in the UK or not buying at all. (nobody wants broken copy-controlled discs).
But consumers reluctance to buying bad expensive products are taken as an argument for even tighter copyright law.
Actually, you or I could start out own blockbuster type store with the DVDs we own.
There is no law requiring Blockbuster to pay a rental charge.
It falls under the first sale doctrine.
If you buy it, you rent it, sell it, let someone borrow it, or stomp into the ground.
“Are you sure 2a) isn’t you can’t record me and use the recording in court without my knowledge beforehand(as in sworn depositions on tape?)”
I believe it would depend on the judge, whether such tape would be admissable in court or not. It would also depend on whether the recorded party could testify to validate the tape.
In the US, the legality of recording someone without their knowlede is determined by state law. In most states, it’s legal to record a conversation if one party (it could be the person making the recording) knows. In Maryland, for example, where Linda Tripp lived, it’s legal to record a conversation with Monical Lewinsky without her knowledge, IIRC. In some states, all parties must have been notified. That’s why when you call your bank they tell you while you’re on hold that the call may be recorded.
“Final Note: I support the FBI’s carnarvore. why??? because I would rather have the Internet packets treated like speech at a curb side cafe then then a system where your packets on leaving your machine are protected (privacy) THat is the US mail system and that means the goverment can regulatw the packets. Freedom has a price, and freedom at a cafe may mean some listens in. ”
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about privacy, computers and the general ideas of “personal”. Would you be ok with the government monitoring your TV and radio programs? How about what foods you eat? Maybe let the government delve into your medical records? Privacy is privacy.
Also, your “analogy” fails as the US postal system is not allowed to actually read our mail. That is a federal offense. There must be a known threat posed by a piece of mail before anything is allowed to be examined. This is what privacy is all about. If we start letting the government listen to all our packets, we are then bound and regulated by the government. That is not freedom, not even close.
“1. b) If there is no preceived privacy once the packets leave my machine then the goverment will have no desire to regulate, tax or even care. It then becomes my resposibility to protect my packets (SSL, encyption etc.) In this model their is a higher chance for people to see them but there is no goverment controls on my packets.
Also rember that packets go through private and public networks on their way to a destionation. If Qwest, or ATT wants to look at packets crossing thier networks what rights do they have. According to the AOL case once you try to stop or regulate data flow you are then legally resposible for it. So If the goverment says all packets must be protected then Qwest will forced to protect all packets going through and in fact will not be able to stop any (DOS, spam etc) unless the goverment passes law regulateing those types. Consifer harrassing and threating phone calls. Until the goverment made those illegal they were protected by the fedral communication regulations. So If you ISP dumps spam and the fedral goverment rules it’s protected speech the ISP could be sued. You will then have to get a law outlawing spam. THis then means the goverment is in the business of regulateing internet packets. Mrs. Gore will outlaw all bad words and rap songs and Mrs. Bush will get the naked women. Personally I prefer the cafe model, a little more work for me but the goverment stays the hell out. ”
Again, you don’t understand what you are saying. Threatening phone calls are illegal, but not screened. One must report the offense for it to be investigated. If we had a national governmental switchboard that all phone calls must pass through and would be individually monitored for offensive material….what kind of country would that be??
“3.) How many people reading this, calling me an idiot, have paid for their gzip program ??????”
I doubt anyone paid for it…gzip is GPL.
“4.) Without DRM I can’t release crippled version of songs, with DRM everyone calls me evil. The problem is shareware only works when you give the enduser a reason to want the full version. With your version their is no carrot to upgrade, their is no reason other than to support the artist. We all know that is a lie, no one will part with their money. period. ”
This is pure fantasy. I have paid for some great shareware programs that were not crippled (Think: UltraEdit and PaintShopPro), and I have even bought CDs after I have downloaded each and every song (and the bitrates were high enough that I could burn them to CD and not notice that much of a drop off, but I bought the CD anyway).
What you are saying is “I never would pay for it, therefore noone else would either”..and that is simply not the case. Generalizations never work….
I just encoded a song in AAC through nero and it played in WMP 9
It’s not entirely true that Blockbuster pays more for DVD’s. The reason they pay higher fees is that movies are generally (with a few exceptions for major releases) released initially at a price point of around $99. After a few months, that drops to $75 or so, then $60 or so, and so on… eventually (6 or so months later) the video settles at a standard price of $12-18 dollars. Video rental places pay more, to have them when they first come out.
This enormous cost caused many of the rental places to collaborate on Renttrak, a system where video stores lease a copy of a video for an upfront fee of $6-10 but then split a percentage (30-40%) of revenues with the studios, etc.
I’m curious in this whole thread, whereby the overwhelming thought seems to be to reward ONLY the artists. What about producers/editors, graphic artists, composers, backup musicians, and all the other elements and people who combine to put that final fit and finish on an album?
between the price that a cd costs to produce and distribute ($2 per cd at most) plus the artists cut (another $2 or 3$) and what we pay for it ($15 to $20) you know someone is robbing you, multiply that for the number of cd’s you have in your collection and see why people have no respect for the music industry.
And while you’re at it download some great free music from artists that the industry seems to have forgotten (too good I guess): http://www.clannzu.com/
>Also, your “analogy” fails as the US postal system is not
>allowed to actually read our mail. That is a federal
For a post master if they feel there is something wrong with a letter or a package they are allowed to open it.
>There must be a known threat posed by a piece of mail
>before anything is allowed to be examined.
By the post master
> This is what privacy is all about. If we start letting the
> government listen to all our packets, we are then bound
> and regulated by the government. That is not freedom, not
> even close.
Yet the cop at the coffe shop can monitor everything you say because you do it in a public forum. The question is the internet pipes from the back of my computet a public forum or a private forum.
>Again, you don’t understand what you are saying.
>Threatening phone calls are illegal, but not screened.
true, I know this, but the law had to be passed to make them illegal.
> One must report the offense for it to be investigated. If
> we had a national governmental switchboard that all phone
> calls must pass through and would be individually
> monitored for offensive material….what kind of country
> would that be??
And that is what I DONT want to happpen. The state’s have already started to try to limit the packets on the internet. My fear if it’s ruled private forum and the states must enforce it legally they will continue to regulate it.
Accoring to LA if 2 guys have sex in their bedroom they are in violation of the state laws. In some states veiwing pornographic material on a computer may be illegal. Eventually these laws get used.
I want the goverment out not in.
And suprise , except for content your phone calls are monitored. I can tell from where you called, how the call was routed when it was answered, and how much “noise” was sent down the phone line. And in the 20’s and 30’s the operator did screen calls and ocassionally listened in. (before telephone switches)
> I doubt anyone paid for it…gzip is GPL.
sorry I meant winzip
>What you are saying is “I never would pay for it, therefore
> noone else would either”..and that is simply not the case.
> Generalizations never work….
yhea considering I’m one of the exceptions. The numbrs show around 80 percent of the users will screw the producers. If you want to use special cases I’ll pull out the case of the guy who jumped out of a plane over Flordia , parachute failed, landed in a swamp an walked away. Therefore we need no saftey systems in planes because falling from a plan is not always fatal. (same for seat bealts, condom usage, unproteced sex with someone with aids, etc etc)(I’m choosing to argue numbers and the majority of users of an unprotected piece of software are using it illegaly.) ( For all the old timers out thier let me say HST, Dual Standard, And the Pits in New York.)
Re grateful dead, they survived off marketing and selling records. the other bands I’ve not heard of so I can’t say. Think grateful dead ties, and other yuppie wear.)
Got to bail on this thread, new project deadline. Didn’t want anybody think I was running
See yall on the next high throughput utilizing comment thread.