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 : Diamond Multimedia -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jonathan Quick who wrote (3760)	10/26/1998 9:42:00 AM
From: Scott Garee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4679

Jonathon, you're arguments are getting weaker. In the past you have done an excellent job of making your point, but you've degenerated to quibbling over small points taken out of context. The whole recording issue basically rests on your claim of the equivalence of Rio flash cards to cassette cartridges. A blank cassette is < $10 for the best. A flash card is $100. At $100, a rewriteable flash memory module capable of storing pirated music that can be transferred to any Rio on the market for the lifetime of the device is hardly something I would term "cost prohibitive." Do you really believe that someone will pay me >$100 for a flash copy of a $14 CD? Remember, I have to charge a premium over the cost of the flash card to make it worth my while. The court is not foolish, they will not make a ruling based on ludicrous arguments. Someone with Rio can do nothing which you describe. Someone with a PC can do all of this, regardless of whether or not they possess a Rio. Excepting the storing to Rio, of course. You're contradicting yourself again. The Rio is made for connection to a PC, therefore anyone with a Rio will also be a PC owner. You completely ignored your original claim which I was refuting and chose to take my statement out of context to make an irrelevant point. In doing so you inadvertently substantiated my argument. You originally stated: "There is nothing to prevent someone with Rio from logging onto the Internet, downloading an MP3 from an FTP site, web page, or IRC session, and then storing that MP3 in Rio's flash memory." My response was Rio possession has no bearing on this statement. You legitimize Rio by confirming that it is a PC peripheral and is useless without a computer, thus is exempt from AHRA. MD is better as a matter of fact. The rest of the above is inconsistent with what you wrote in previous paragraphs. By your own admission, Rio is non-mechanical, portable, digital recording and playback. One is plenty? How is MD better? Bigger, mechanical, proprietary, not what I consider better. You ever try mountain biking with a MD? I regret my use of the word "record" to describe the transfer of information from the host computer to Rio, as you have repeatedly used it in an attempt to twist my words to make it appear I have contradicted myself. Surely you are aware that the same word can have multiple meanings based on context. Why would you resort to pretending this is not so in arguing your points? A cassette recorder can be used to make affordable serial copies without the use of a home computer. Rio cannot, thus is exempt from AHRA, as it is a computer peripheral. The issue isn't the number of illegal copies that can be made with Rio. The issue is whether or not it is possible to illegally record and playback copyrighted music with Rio. If the issue doesn't involve the number of illegal copies which can be made, then the court is wasting a lot of time and money on an irrelevant issue, as is RIAA. If the number of copies is not an issue, then what is the RIAA's concern? Maybe it really is the loss of control over the media market? They've already refuted that argument, so I guess we should take them at their word. Are they concerned that I might make a single, legal copy of a CD for my own personal enjoyment? My, wouldn't that be mean spirited? No, I think RIAA is clearly concerned with the number of copies which can be made, or they've mislead us on their motives. I can make illegal copies of copyrighted music with many existing technologies, including minidisc, CDR, DVDRAM, laptop computers, palmtops, etc. Why is Rio in violation of AHRA and these others aren't? SCMS does not prevent anyone from making copies. It only makes it slightly more difficult. If I recall correctly, your original reason for arguing this issue was that Diamond had wasted resources by subjecting themselves to lawsuits by not including SCMS (which is impossible to include in MP3's) in Rio. What about wasting resources by putting useless technology (SCMS) into the device, making it not support the standard it was intended for (mp3) and thus being a non-product? Diamond's legal exposure is minimal compared to the earnings potential of Rio. I think they made a wise decision in developing the product. We'll find out later today if they lose their bet.