Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maverick61 who wrote (30687)	7/28/2000 6:30:27 AM
From: appro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Thank goodness for >>various points of view<<. Your message touches on the complex legal and ethical issues of protecting intellectual property. We want to encourage its development and beneficial uses for society. Saving Napster may be one way to do that. Music industry spokesmen have concluded that this "preliminary injunction" pending trial is all the evidence needed to begin burning everyone at the stake. The fact is the legal proceedings are hardly over. It is easy for some to revel in self-righteous descriptions of how we should not commit illegal or unethical acts just because we can. No one can argue with that. But just as in the Salem witch trials, all is not necessarily what it first appears to be. Personally I think the music industry is using this "no-brainer" self-righteousness to crush new technologies until they can control it. No one including Napster argues against the rights of copyright holders to be compensated legally and fairly, but peer-to-peer sharing really makes it difficult to say how it should be done. Radio presented a similar problem at one time and after much controversy (as well as blatant attempts by the music industry to secretly control what could be played) a system was developed whereby ASCAP collects the royalties and distributes them. Radio pays and so should Napster. Radio argued that it was impossibly cumbersome to log every single airplay so I think it is done by surveys and sophisticated statistical analysis. A similar royalty payment plan with Napster would actually be much easier to implement because computers provide much more accurate logs of which files are accessed and how many times. But I think the music industry wants to crush this technology for now because they have to play lip service to record stores until most people have wideband access to digital distribution - ten years away(?). I think it is the same reason Microsoft crushed Netscape. They needed time to create the same technology shift under their control. Killing Napster will be like prohibition in the 1920s in the U.S. It will simply make it harder to police and regulate file sharing. Anyway, that is why I am glad to see more than the music industry lobbist's point of view presented. As Judge Roy Bean said, let's give 'em a fair trial. And then we will hang 'em! <VBG>

To: maverick61 who wrote (30687)	7/28/2000 7:24:38 AM
From: Rande Is	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

. . . .Not Just the Music. . . . . Mav, while it is true that this newest technology of music distribution will be nearly impossible to stop. My point was that the record industry not give up trying. I believe it is important that it be stopped. . .one way or another. . .whether or not it is even possible. To give up would be suicidal to industry. . . .not just the music industry. . . .this will soon spill over into music videos, software, movies, television shows, books, DMV records, health records, answers to tests, legal documents, there is simply no end. But speaking to the argument about music being copied and shared with friends. . .copying a record onto a cassette, DAT, CD or DVD for the purpose of sharing with friends is considered into the price of the original recording. If you bought a cassette, it is understood that there will probably be a copy made. If you bought a CD, it is far more expensive because it has a far longer life expectancy. That single CD may spawn 4 or 5 copies on average, then get swapped at a used CD store and make another couple of copies on average before getting tossed into the CD abyss. Again that is figured into the price. Yes, today's CD-RW and Recordable DVD is making it "easier" to make high quality recordings of movies and CDs for friends. . . but again, that was anticipated into the original price. . .even though the Copyright law only provides for making "personal" copies. . . .still . . no problem. But when a single CD gets digitized into a streaming audio format whereby it can be downloaded by strangers, that is called "publishing". There are OTHER Federal laws against publishing without license by the copyright owners. If I were to grab this week's #1 Best Seller, scan it to a format that would place it into an E-Book or a software driven Book simulator for a PC. . .then place it online in a format that allowed strangers to download as they please or even print out their own copies. . .again, I would be publishing the book. If I received a copy of Jim Carrey's "The Grinch" and began to distribute the streaming video via a Gnutella style distribution network. . . allowing anyone I wish to download their own copy in October & November. . . .spreading around the world by Christmas. . . . .who would go see the movie on Christmas day? Why bother spending the $7 bucks? I've got a copy right here on my R-DVD I downloaded free off the net. And instead of the movie making money for its company and creators, it loses them money. . . .after too much of that. . .why bother making them at all? You see, it isn't about music. It is about creative commerce. And that is why I believe that all efforts must be taken to stop the sort of Hacker Style Technology that created this monster in the first place. If I was publishing books, music, movies or software without a license by the copyright owner, I would be breaking the law and should be stopped. Plain and simple. If I were publishing confidential medical records, financial records prior to publication by the company, news releases intercepted from Business wire or the U.S.D.A. crop report ahead of an announcement. . . there would be no questions asked. I'd quickly be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent. But if I were to gain a copy of a Korn's upcoming release, and post it to the net via Gnutella. . . .would I not be equally guilty? And what about their last release? And the one before that? The bottom line is that without permission to publish, I would be breaking the law. Plain and simple. HOW this is to be enforced, is up to the crackshot experts at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the F.B.I., and other agencies designed for just such situations. Yes, it will be difficult. Impossible? We'll see. Rande Is

To: maverick61 who wrote (30687)	7/28/2000 7:53:48 AM
From: Rande Is	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

OT> Incidentally, I've owned a Sony USB CD-RW for several months now and have a tall stack of blank CDs. . .but have yet to use one for copying someone elses music. . . I still chase down the kids for certain CDs. Instead, I use it for making safety copies of my own music from my DATs, moving my own data files from PC to notebook, storing my digital videos, backing up my art files, storing my photographs, storing music sequencing and audio files and now and then I'll use them as coasters. And I wish to get a DVD recorder, once a standard for audiophile recordings is established. . . but again, primarily for professional and personal use. . . not for copying movies for friends and family. . . that is something primarily younger people do. [Did I just draw that dividing line myself? When did I leave that group? I never said I wanted to grow up!] Rande Is