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: Craig Freeman who wrote (13401)	7/29/2000 10:11:05 AM
From: capt rocky 1	Respond to of 60323

i own a charter fishing,boat rental and "surf shop " in sw. fla. about 10 years ago a representative of ASCAP stopped in the shop to see if i was illegaly useing ascap protected music to entertain my customers. this would have included blasting the music over loud speakers toward englewood beach (right accross the road from my shop)or sending it thru speakers in the shop to supply mood music for my customers.this music was coming from my radio! not cds or tapes. he explained that any commerial use of protected music was a violation of ascap rights and must be paid for. all the bars that use ascap artists music in any form,radio,jukebox,live bands etc must have a ascap license. napster doesn't have a shot. rocky

To: Craig Freeman who wrote (13401)	7/29/2000 12:04:07 PM
From: Andre Williamson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Craig (mostly OT), Andre, if one of your leaders steps over a cliff, go for it! As I recall, lemmings have no special legal status. I found your post somewhat cryptic. I took it to mean a) You think all copying (except one bizarre exception) is morally wrong b) You think I'm a Napster lemming FWIW, I believe you ignored the essence of my post. That aside, FWIW I believe in most aspects of IP rights and am not a Napster lemming. There are cases where I disagree vehemently with the RIAA though. If they had it their way, it would be illegal to make a copy of music you had purchased into a different format (CD to tape, for example). From what I've read, their position is that each change of format requires new royalty payments. I disagree with this, and believe that most of the law surrounding this issue favors multiple forms of personal use. Your exception (to replace copies lost but where royalties were paid) is absolutely bizarre. It implies that if you bought a CD and then lost it, that you would have the right to download the songs via Napster and still be in the right? This makes sense to me, but implies that some uses of Napster (or copying devices generally) are ok. So who's going to police this? IMO it flies in the face of both reality and practicality. What solution would you suggest, one that is consistent with copying and replacement of material that has been purchased? Otherwise it's just shouting at the wind. Andre PS: Beyond all this is the whole issue of IP ownership in the Napster case - nearly all of the IP belongs to the RIAA members, not the artists themselves - and much of it was obtained through economically abusive practices, imposed on both artists and consumers.