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.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Starlight who wrote (13379)	7/28/2000 5:11:48 PM
From: Jason Rooks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Company Press Release SanDisk CEO Interviews On RadioWallStreet.com PHILADELPHIA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 28, 2000--Listen to RadioWallStreet.com's interview with SanDisk Corporation (Nasdaq:SNDK - news) President, CEO and Founder, Dr. Eli Harari, discussing the company's recent earnings announcement and future prospects. This event will be available for on-demand listening on Friday, July 28, 2000 at 2:45 PM ET. To access this RadioWallStreet.com broadcast, investors should go to radiowallstreet.com. It may be necessary for first time visitors to RadioWallStreet.com to go to the site to download and install any necessary audio software. There is no charge to access any event. If you are viewing this release after the day of the event, go to radiowallstreet.com. Questions for this RadioWallStreet.com event may be submitted in advance by e-mailing lhernandez@radiowallstreet.com. Please reference date and time of the interview in the Subject of the e-mail. About Investor Broadcast Network Investor Broadcast Network is the leading broadcaster of real-time investment information and analysis on the Internet. With a complete portfolio of web-based broadcast communication services, the company gives investors access to the inner circle of corporate executives and industry thought leaders, while providing public companies with an efficient online investor relations strategy that meets their financial needs and reduces the high-risk of selective disclosure. For more information on Investor Broadcast Network visit www.investorbroadcast.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact: Investor Broadcast Network Lynn Hernandez 888/311-8225 5843-00 RWS

To: Starlight who wrote (13379)	7/28/2000 5:29:10 PM
From: Steve 667	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Elizabeth - Napster is only stealing from the thieves! Your point is well taken and I would agree with you in a perfect world. But since we don't have one, here is my thinking: I am rather amused by this whole RIAA outrage when they are the victim instead of the perpetrator. RIAA has been stealing from artists for years. They just use different tools to do so. Big lawyers, complicated contracts and lobbyists and now they are having it done to them by those using Napster. Turnaround is fair play. To see what I am talking about I refer you to this excellent article by Courtney Love which was noted a while back on this thread. Kinda paints a different picture doesn't it? salon.com So I see it as a rewrite of the Golden Rule. Do onto others as they do onto others. Maybe that's why I liked the Dirty Harry movies so much. I think there will be a big change that started with Napster and it will benefit the ARTISTS and hurt the RIAA as it well should. That's my 2 cents. Steve 667 P.S. Of course stealing patents from SNDK is different. They are the good guys! :-)

To: Starlight who wrote (13379)	7/28/2000 11:02:46 PM
From: Andre Williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Elizabeth - At the risk of sounding rude - and though I appreciate aspects of your point of view - I find some of what you say inaccurate, and some naive. It isn't okay to copy material that is copyrighted. From my readings, I don't think that's legally accurate. Until last week I hadn't heard about the Home Audio Recording Act, but it was always my understanding that copying materials you have purchased for personal non-commercial use is ok. What I've read about the act over the past few weeks suggests that distribution to others in a non-commercial manner is also ok (though I have not read the act itself and am relying solely on published accounts). At any rate, it's clear that some copying of copyrighted materials is in fact legal. Why have copyrights in the first place if they can't provide some protection to those who own them? Here I think the key issue is to not allow someone to make money off the copyrighted material of others. This purpose certainly strikes me as fair and desirable. The issue under debate with Napster is non-commercial copying and distribution of copyrighted material, with the central question being, "Where do we draw the line?" At what point does non-commercial copying violate copyright law? When the recipient of the copy is no longer someone known to you? When 10 people have received copies from you? 100? 10,000? Is it ok to sing a copyrighted song to a few friends? To a room full of non-paying people? Over a megaphone? To half a million? Would it be okay with you if other companies took SNDK's copyrighted IP and used it without compensating the company? How is this any different from someone taking a copyrighted song and distributing it all over the internet for copying? Again, this is a very different issue. In the first case the company is generating revenue off someone else's IP, in the second, they aren't. I'm not passing judgment on whether non-commercial copying should be legal or not, but the two issues are very clearly different. As for the position of the artists, I'm with Steve - after reading how the industry works, it's a) clear to me that the music distributors are an oligopoly that needs to (and will be) broken, and b) not so clear that the vast majority of artists wouldn't be better off with a more direct form of distribution and a better chance of owning the music they create. I had no idea what leeches the record companies were. MP3 will flourish, but only after some form of protection is afforded the artists whose music is being downloaded. I think the public would be willing to pay a dollar or two for a downloaded song, and I think the artist deserves to be paid for their work. How would you like to have something you've produced and worked hard on, passed around on the internet for free? Here's where I think naive comes in. Regardless of fairness, regardless of legality, MP3 IS flourishing. Wishing it is not so will not make it not so. Andre

To: Starlight who wrote (13379)	7/29/2000 2:32:21 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Elizabeth, Napster does not infringe copyright laws. The data rate from a CD is 1411 kps while most of the songs exchanged on Napster do not exceed 128 kps. It's akin to me recording a song from CD to cassette and giving it to you. I am not creating an equal to the CD. BTW, the courts said something similar to this in the early days of Betamax. From the home where MP3 was created: iis.fhg.de For a digital audio signal from a CD, the bit-rate is 1411.2 kbps. With MPEG-2 AAC, CD-like sound quality is achieved at 96 kbps. BK