RIAA drops eDonkey

[nightflier]

$30M fine and another one bites the dust. For those that still want to download free music, all that's left is Limewire & Pirate Bay, according the article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/13/edonkey_settles_copyright_suit/

Given that Limewire is open source, it may be harder to bring them to heel, but one day soon the party will be over for the average joe who's not a hacker. Let's hope that iTunes gets some real competition and lowers prices before that happens...

[kexodusc]

You know, I think this is for the better - maybe once the RIAA quits blaming everyone else for the industry's woes, they'll finally point the finger back at themselves and the shoddy 15-minutes-of-fame hacks they slap onto CD's these days.

Most artists worth their salt use the internet as a tool to support the album by now anyway.

I dunno, I like getting stuff free, but I don't like seeing goofs like Napster and Morpheus make a bunch of money off other people's work and then claim they have nothing to do with the piracy problems.

Speaking of goofs like Morpheus, pretty sure you can still get tunes from there for free if you want...Is Kazaa still alive?

[noddin0ff]

I don't really get why peer to peer's keep getting shot down. I was just re-reading some of the Grokster statements. Mostly from this 2005 Salon article (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/28/grokster/index.html?pn=1). The gist was that if the programs induced people to infringe then they were illegal. That just seems stupid and arbitrary. It seems that if a program just made you read and click a statement saying that you the user agree to not use the application for infringing on copyright then the company should be in the clear.

It's kind of like guns. If you shoot someone, to a large degree it's your intent that determines your crime/non-crime/obligation (murder, self defense, or service to your country).

But I suppose the betamax ruling was really only 5-4 to allow recording for personal use. That's not a slam dunk for the individual...

I also don't understand why opensource, freeware for peer-to-peer doesn't proliferate. If noone claims ownership of the application, who is there to sue or shut down? But , noooo, every one wants some profit out of it, not just the RIAA. Seems like word of mouth would be sufficient. I wouldn't name it Pirate Bay though...

[nightflier]

It's kind of like guns. If you shoot someone, to a large degree it's your intent that determines your crime/non-crime/obligation (murder, self defense, or service to your country).

Yes, when the courts found against Kazaa sometime two years ago, I believe, Congress was quick to create an exception for gun manufacturers. After all, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds 'em. It's that kind of hypocricy that makes people so apathetic about wanting to change things - it plays right into the hand of a small minority in power who's only interest is in protecting the right to make money, no matter what the human cost.
It's ironic that in this country, we the people have more democratic power than in any industrialized democracy in the world and yet we care about it the least. Now that this freedom is being chipped away in little bits, we feel powerless to do anything to stop it.

Free music downloads might have been wrong fundamentally, but it was a response to pathetic selection and the failure on the promise that CD prices would drop over time. Moreover, there was never any attempt by both parties to meet each other half way, like only allowing low quality (64bit?) files to be traded as samples for the higher quality tune, for one example, or to for older tunes to be sold at lower rates as another example. In the end, it's the black & white mentality of our upbriging, education, and values that makes it so hard for us as a society to meet opposing views somewhere in the middle.

I guess a simplified black & white world makes for entertaining debates between planar-philes and box-speakers-nuts, but in the political arena it only means we will be paying more for everything that we purchase. With incomes stagnating, jobs going overseas, work-hours increasing and national depression reaching epidemic proportions, how much more can we take before something snaps? I for one, believe that people ape the behavior they see in their leaders - the psycology is that if the top shleps behave like selfish simpletons, then the majority of people will follow like lemmings. Only a scandal of watergate proportions seems to wake us up every few decades or so, but it does not look like we are due for one ...or, more disturbingly, we've had so many that we've forgotten their importance.

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Lensman]

Well said, Nightflier.

[kexodusc]

Yes, when the courts found against Kazaa sometime two years ago, I believe, Congress was quick to create an exception for gun manufacturers. After all, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds 'em. It's that kind of hypocricy that makes people so apathetic about wanting to change things - it plays right into the hand of a small minority in power who's only interest is in protecting the right to make money, no matter what the human cost.
It's ironic that in this country, we the people have more democratic power than in any industrialized democracy in the world and yet we care about it the least. Now that this freedom is being chipped away in little bits, we feel powerless to do anything to stop it.

.

Governments the world over rely on the popular vote to get elected, but cater to the lobbyists once they've assumed power. I wouldn't say the US has the most democratic power anymore - there's a lot of countries with even more democratic power. They have problems too though - essentially the special interest groups become the political parties, and the process gets bogged down.

I really don't blame the government much here though. They have the duty to protect the right to own property - intellectual or otherwise - if we compromise that principle for the bad guys (RIAA and some artists) we open Pandora's box. And despite all the sickening movie industry commercials you see now with the patronizing lighting-crew guys pleading to protect their jobs, truth is, they WILL be the ones to suffer first.

I say let the RIAA make the whole world choose between buying or not buying - then rely solely on the product, with no excuses and nobody else to blame....once sales plummet, these idiots will get fired, and capable people will hopefully be put in their place

[nightflier]

once sales plummet, these idiots will get fired, and capable people will hopefully be put in their place

That's just the thing, in this industry the people that replace them either are worse or just marginally better. The system does not change when people are replaced. The only thing that had a chance of forcing change was a revolutionary product that threatened the whole system (in this case Napster). It was the "Watergate" that was beaten back with a vengeance.

[noddin0ff]

Just to be the devil's advocate. If it weren't for the Napster's, we wouldn't have such stifling DRM. Thanks to the Napsters of the world we're just going to keep getting low-res, highly DRM's offerings. Of course, people are buying them, so go figure...

I'm just rambling...

I'm actually kind of surprised that SACD isn't taking over the CD market, now that DVD-A is no longer (I think). I'd be curious to know what the barrier is to ripping the SACD layer. Regardless of 'superiority', just the fact that it is non-copyable seems to be a no brainer to support it. They pushed it as a multichannel format, whereas if they'd primarily billed it as delivering a superior 2 channel format I think it would have caught on quickly.

I suppose the industry could just go back to LP's. No DRM there... every one could just digitize their analog outputs to their iPods. There'd be a new market for 48x high speed ripping TT's maybe.

[nightflier]

I'd be curious to know what the barrier is to ripping the SACD layer. Regardless of 'superiority', just the fact that it is non-copyable seems to be a no brainer to support it. They pushed it as a multichannel format, whereas if they'd primarily billed it as delivering a superior 2 channel format I think it would have caught on quickly.

Actually I've been happily ripping my hybrid SACDs to MP3s for some time now, going from the player to my recorder using optical cable. It's actually ironic that not a single SACD has any copy protection on the 2-channel layer - never saw any root-kits, DRM encryption or other nonsense using SACDs. I'm fine with the 2-channels stereo recording because I only have two sides to my headphones - surround sound makes no sense in compressed audio applications.

[noddin0ff]

Yeah, I rip the hybrid CD layer also. But, I've got some SACD's (the Living Stereo series) that have only two channel in the SACD layer. Even if it were 5.1 channel, though, I could see wanting to be able to extract that data to a computer someday in the future. I haven't read anything that suggests it can be done. I've finally ripped all my CD's to a hard drive; it won't be too long until I'm wondering how I can put my multi-channel SACD's on a server too. "You mean I will never be able to serve up the 5.1 DSOTM?!"

Unfortunately, it's a hardware issue too. Authorized SACD players do not output the raw digital (encrypted, watermarked) data. So, computer drives, I guess, just can't recognize SACD at all? Ever?

But the CD layers have all been very good, so not a big issue for 2 channel.

[jocko_nc]

It's nice to see the courts so in favor of individual "property rights" for a change.

Funny, they only see the right to own property when it is an abstraction. When the property in question is actual, real property, they favor the benefit to the society at large and screw the individual.

Wacky thought: Can my town seize intellictual property under imminent domain? Wouldn't the benefit to society at large be greater than the benefit to the individual? Isn't that analogous to siezing a farm to build build a casino?

At least the record companies are safe with the value of their beloved property. The rest of us have to look over our shoulder because people are constantly are trying to take ours.

Since ideas are valuable property, how about we tax the owners to the max. Send them a bill every year, sieze it if they don't fork it over. It's only fair, isn't it?

jocko

[teledynepost]

I thought the Pirate Bay was raided but I see the website still exists, so nothing ever came of it? I haven't downloaded anything from an RIAA affiliated label in like 5 years anyway so :). I will sample things by download but buy everything for the most part.

[nightflier]

Nod,
I suppose you could take each of the five analog SACD streams and mix them using Acid or some other audio editor, but that would be way too much work IMO - certainly wouldn't be worth it for a quick rip, like a 2 channel conversion to MP3/OGG, a 10 minute per CD affair. The real problem is that there are no SACD players on computers. Even if the hardware were available, you'd still need the software. There is no such thing, not even a Linux hack. I suppose the DVD-decryption fiasco and the fact that the MPAA is still trying to nail the poor sucker who wrote it, scared off any takers. I consider these types of restrictions and fear-mongering akin to hobbling progress, and maybe one day enough people will realize that. We'll just have to wait and see.

Jocko,
Why don't you get your town to seize that intellectual property. We won't know until someone tries it.

Tele,
Yes, Pirate Bay is alive an well and so is limewire. Both of these are open-source, so it will be harder for the RIAA/MPAA to sue them in a US court. The question ultimately will be whether they can do anything about software written (and/or hosted) in Western Europe, Romania, or Russia and China, for that matter.

[noddin0ff]

The real problem is that there are no SACD players on computers. Even if the hardware were available, you'd still need the software. There is no such thing, not even a Linux hack. I suppose the DVD-decryption fiasco and the fact that the MPAA is still trying to nail the poor sucker who wrote it, scared off any takers. I consider these types of restrictions and fear-mongering akin to hobbling progress, and maybe one day enough people will realize that. We'll just have to wait and see.


Bingo! Sony has refused to allow computers to utilize SACD and there are no software based decoders as there were with DVD's (which enabled cracking), only black box hardware decoders. They did learn.

[jocko_nc]

What makes me wonder is all the unsecured wireless broadband networks out there. I routinely pick up connections and use them. Classic example being a hotel from the parking lot. There is really no harm, I just need to get some data. I used my neighbor's when I moved into the neighborhood. With his offer.

Just because something passes through an ISP account does not mean any particular individual was involved. That is the case now and will only increase over time. Sorry, RIAA.

jocko

[swicken]

For those of you who were using eDonkey, switch over to soulseek.
http://www.slsknet.org/download.html

I've never had a song that I couldn't find, and I listen to some weird/obscure stuff.

[nightflier]

What makes me wonder is all the unsecured wireless broadband networks out there. I routinely pick up connections and use them. Classic example being a hotel from the parking lot. There is really no harm, I just need to get some data. I used my neighbor's when I moved into the neighborhood.

Last I checked, that was theft. You are using a service that someone else has paid for w/o paying. Of course, if you've read any of my other posts, I'm the last person who should be preaching. Think of it as speeding, everyone does it and only a few unlucky suckers get ticketed as an example to the rest of us sinners.

That said, I don't know if that's the same argument as music downloads. For one, there are all sorts of different rates for getting online and one pays more for higher speed. With music, it's one rate for everything, whether it's Beethoven's 5th that is in the public domain, or John Cage's 4'33'' which apprently people are downloading (go figure). Another difference is that Internet access from one provider is the same as that from another, but a downloaded compressed file is not the same as the high-quality file on CD. You can also access wifi routers/AP's with hundreds of different types of devices that compete with each other on price & features, but to download music you need that service's proprietary hardware/software combination (standardization has improved somewhat over the years, but only when it guaranteed that profits would not be affected). Another big difference is the image/stygma: if grandma gets caught speeding, she gets a fine, traffic school, and maybe a point on her insurance. But if grandma downloads Avril Lavigne's latest, she's a cyber-terrorist helping to fund drug traffickers in Columbia. Apparently endangering the lives of others with a car is a lot less offensive to our sensibilities than appearing to pilfer someone's profits.

So "borrowing" someone else's bandwidth is more along the lines of speeding than the odious offensive cyber-crime of downloading music at less that $1/song.

[jocko_nc]

Sorry. If its unsecured, its unsecured. Mine is unsecured, though the computer-to-computer is disabled. Many others are, too. Many hotels do not try to secure their networks, either. The inevitable Windows and hardware screw-ups have led to this. Security is unmanageable w/o IT support, which is one thing that is expensive.

There is no harm, nothing morally wrong, and nothing illegal about using these connections. It will become more the norm, like a water fountain or a bathroom. Trying to track who does what with "open" networks is impossible.

jocko

[jocko_nc]

Here's something else...

After sitting unopened for six months, I finally used an IPod I was given as a promotional gift. It's a 1G shuffle. $50.00? I don't know.

This is the real problem with downloads, music, digital copyrights, software, and all the crappy technology out there: Just like everything else since the rise of Microsoft, the end-game is to try to capitalize on something desireable or essential in order to leverage a broader market. The consumer gets hijacked into accepting a bunch of crap. I stuck the IPod in the USB. It told me I had to install the "software". Wary of what these scumbags do, I tried to opt for the "custom" install, to try and avoid unnecessary files. No way. In order to use the IPod, I get stuck with Itunes. I don't want Itunes. I don't want their lousy music store. I certainly didn't want QuickTime to overwrite my OS defaults. But it did. You want computer problems, let QuickTime, Media Player, and Real Player get into a knife fight over your OS. Now, I have to clean all the traces (they won't let you completely get rid of them) of QuickTime off my computer. This process corrupts my browser and imbedded video content. More cleaning. Oops. You cannot run the IPod without the QuickTime software. It is bundled and is "essential" to access your IPod. Jeez.... Sorry, but these are greedy, heavy-handed, dishonest b*st*rds. It is an unfortunately common vein that runs through "tech".

Now. I am going to "purchase" a bunch of music from these people? All I get is an encrypted data file and their pledge not to change the ground rules or otherwise screw me over in the future. No disc? No tape? No actual product? Nothing I can actually "play" in any way? No way. No way in hell. I smell the ol' tech bait-and-switch. Just wait 'til Apple gets to deny you an "upgrade" and gets to shut down your stereo. Just like your "obsolete" Windows PC. Get in bed with these people and prepare to be fleeced. If I pay for something, I want to actually have it. I want to be able to use it. I want to be able to keep it. Such arrangements went away in 1998.

Given the choices available, stealing digital music from the internet is probably the most honest transaction going on.

I actually enjoy the heck out of that little IPod, it is a saviour on airplanes. Great product.

jocko

[noddin0ff]

You're going on a rant because a pre-condition to using an iPod you obtained for free you need to install free software? I mean you can read the package right? iTunes is required to run the iPod. Big whoop. You don't need a subscription. You don't need to buy stuff at the iTunes store. Millions are able to install iTunes without panick. What's the bait and switch?

If you want an actual product, go buy a CD. If you want to live in a fantasy bubble, babble on about how stealing is honest...

Why is it that you all feel that we have a god given entitlement to free music? Explain me that.

[jocko_nc]

The bait and switch is that they hijacked my computer. Jeez, man, are that thick?

Let's spell this out so you might understand. I'll try to type slow. They used the opportunity of my purchase of their product to hack the operating on my PC. Yes, hack is the correct word. QuickTime. 1) The code was hidden and could not be unselected. 2) The code was unrelated to the operation of the IPod. 3) The code was malicious in that it automatically changed my preferences and settings and caused my existing software to crash.

Why is this a big deal? I cleaned things up o.k. and my computer is fine. However, some part of QuickTime is still on my hard drive and still has its fingerprints all over my registry. In that regard, they have taken the use of my property. At some point I fully expect to have some conflict with a future version of Media Player and whatever code QuickTime left on my machine. That's how the game works. Why to you think computers become so squirrly after a couple of years? Why do we have to keep replacing software?

Why should I care? Because this is just another example of how these guys operate.

QuickTime was installed without my approval and without my opportunity to decline. Apple set it up such that they could eliminate millions of copies of Microsoft software in use. I was able to correct the settings, but a large percentage of users are not. Apple knows this, that is why they bundled the software. The real question is: Why would Apple be so hell-bent to get their video player out there? What is their end-game? How do they plan to leverage the gained market share to generate a revenue stream? At some point, they plan to get out the big stick and make you pay. Just like Microsoft, Adobe, and all. Make no mistake, that is what is really going on. In the end, the consumer wishes he never had never started down that rosey path.

Go ahead. Buy your IPods and encrypted music. Sell your soul to dishonest people. Be sure to hold on to you wallet.

You buy what you think is a portable music player, what you get is a worthless nothing without the "terms of use" the manufacturer decides to dictate. They may be above board and honest. They may, however, decide to squeeze you and try to control (they would say "develop") your future actions. They have total discretion. Isn't that the software agreement you mentioned? Isn't that called leveraging? I call it crap. What happens when IPod gets 90% market share and decides to pull support for Windows? Will you throw away your IPod or buy the Mac?

This is a rant, yes. However, it is a supremely important issue as entertainment goes digital. The consumer electronics industry simply cannot go the way of the PC.

jocko

[jocko_nc]

Oh yea. I'd trust a room full of music pirates before I'd trust a single tech company executive.

[nightflier]

Why is it that you all feel that we have a god given entitlement to free music? Explain me that.

Nod, I know you and I have gone a few rounds on this topic already. But to answer your question, not all music is owned. As a matter of fact all classical music written before the 1930's (if there's a lawyer in the room, please provide exact date), is public domain. But somehow, I still have to pay for it, even if its only software that comes without a medium (i.e. downloaded as opposed to on disk). And I don't care if YoYoMama's boy has re-recorded it again for the umptieth time. I didn't want him to in the first place, because that only means his Sony/MGM/Warner godfathers get to charge me for something that they don't own either - sounds like a racket to me.


Why is this a big deal? I cleaned things up o.k. and my computer is fine. However, some part of QuickTime is still on my hard drive and still has its fingerprints all over my registry. In that regard, they have taken the use of my property. At some point I fully expect to have some conflict with a future version of Media Player and whatever code QuickTime left on my machine. That's how the game works. Why to you think computers become so squirrly after a couple of years? Why do we have to keep replacing software?

Sorry to rain on your parade, jocko, but if you read the license agreement on your Windows software, you'll see that you don't actually own that. If is leased to you and you have the right to use it until Microsoft obsoletes it. As such, you do not have the right to claim that another company, in this case Apple, is installing their software into Windows. You own the hardware, but even the firmware is not yours exclusively. Of course, there are always open source OSs like Debian Linux or FreeBSD, but then iTunes and QuickTime won't run on it. And if anyone was to write an iTunes/QuickTime clone for Linux, they would be violating the DMCA.

Which brings me back to the point that in order to use online music, one has to lease a software/hardware combination from a specific manufacturer. To be truely free of licensing agreements, one would have to give up most online music choices. Hence the anger that many people have against the manufacturers and the copyright holders. As consumers we should all be outraged, and if we're not, then we deserve to pay again for the same thing over and over again.

[noddin0ff]

The bait and switch is that they hijacked my computer. Jeez, man, are that thick?I suggest you carefully look up the meaning and usage of ‘bait and switch’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch) before you try to use it in a sentence. This was not ‘bait and switch’


Nod, I know you and I have gone a few rounds on this topic already. But to answer your question, not all music is owned. As a matter of fact all classical music written before the 1930's (if there's a lawyer in the room, please provide exact date), is public domain. But somehow, I still have to pay for it, even if it only software that comes without a medium (i.e. downloaded as opposed to on disk). And I don't care if YoYoMama's boy has re-recorded it again for the umptieth time. I didn't want him to in the first place, because that only means his Sony/MGM/Warner godfathers get to charge me for something that they don't not own either - sounds like a racket to me.

And they were enjoyable rounds. Would've been better with beer though...

With regards to dates n' things Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) is a good source for this

The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998—alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act—extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act (under the Copyright Act of 1976), copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and 95 years respectively. The act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, increasing their term of protection by 20 years as well. This effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will enter the public domain until 2019, unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that.

I don't think it takes a cynic to see that this legislation was enacted to protect the trove of recorded works owned by mega media corporations. Passed under the Clinton Admin. The dates correspond nicely with the birth of recording technologies, huh?

You’re right that classical compositions are public domain, but copyright extends to the performance as a creative act. Thus a current performance of an old work will be protected for a long time. But the composition is public domain for classical music. You can try Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:The_Sheet_Music_Project) for some. There’s a link on that page for some non-copyrighted recordings (in the US).--also a terrific resource for public domain books. The music part is slim pickings, but getting better.

I don’t like the DMCA, I think its bone-headed legislation. I think extending copyright was a terrible thing to do, and had no purpose but to line the pockets of media corporations.

But, I will say that I think DRM is a good thing. Artist should have a right to own their work, control it’s distribution, and profit by it. If artist choose to sell their rights to Sony, that’s their choice. It’s not your right to circumvent that choice.

My ideal vision for the future is for open source, public domain, universal DRM. So artists can release/sell their works directly over the internet to consumers with whatever DRM the artist sees fit to attach to it, if any. Internet distribution can cut out the corporate middleman. More money and control to artists. Consumers get direct access to artists and hopefully would respect the artist’s wishes with regard to use and copy of the artists work.

[jocko_nc]

You are correct, nightflier, with regards to MS Windows.

Your observation further illustrates my point. If software is involved, you don't actually own anything. Funny, though, you may spend a lot of money. That was MS's game plan from the begining: To leverage their copyrights and market share to make the hardware side of PC's irrelevant. Their vision was a meaningless box that was a vehicle for software. The box was to have no value except the software. The box could be killed at any time.

It took two decades, but isn't that precisely what they accomplished? The irony of ironies, most MS products were directly copied from competitors.

Now. Do I want the same thing to happen to my stereo equipment and my televisions? No way.

[jocko_nc]

Bait and Switch: You think you are getting one deal, you actually get something else. The bait is the IPod. The switch is the QuickTime software you didn't know was coming and didn't want.

[Feanor]

.... Of course, there are always open source OSs like Debian Linux or FreeBSD, but then iTunes and QuickTime won't run on it. And if anyone was to write an iTunes/QuickTime clone for Linux, they would be violating the DMCA.
...



Not to put to fine a point on, it but there is at least one non-Apple iPod manager, Sveta ...
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/sveta-portable-audio.htm


It's not free however: registration costs a wopping $14.00.



You can rip CDs to Apple formats using the following which is free. (iPods do play MP3s in native mode.) ...
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm

[noddin0ff]

Bait and Switch: You think you are getting one deal, you actually get something else. The bait is the IPod. The switch is the QuickTime software you didn't know was coming and didn't want.

No. Try again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch).

[nightflier]

And they were enjoyable rounds. Would've been better with beer though.

I would prefer a fine wine, but to each his own...


With regards to dates n' things...

Yes, 1923. that's what I was trying to get at. Wiki gets the gist of it, but the reality is much more confusing unfortunately. I've been studying copyright in relation to 2-dimensional art, and I'm going to presume that music is similar. If so, the copyright time stamp actually only starts from the time the work is first published or recorded. Hence the concerns with hand-written unfinished pieces, notes in sidebars of notebooks, etc., essentially anything that has yet to be recorded or transcribed to a reproducible medium.

Another problem is that most classical music of the previous century and before is from Europe, where copyright laws are entirely different and will likely remain so. So one could legally acquire free music in Europe that one could not purchase here. There are tarifs, of course, but they are vague and seldom applied unless they involve large quantities where the value of the tarif would be greater than the cost of processing it. This reminds me of a related discussion we had here about music purchased in Russia and whether it was legal to ship it here.

Anyhow, I digress. The point is that what is a near-terrorist act in the US (downloading US copyrighted music via p2p), is mostly legal elsewhere, or at least as benign as a speediing ticket.


...passed under the Clinton Admin....

OK, I've heard this enough. Clinton was so wrapped up in wiping stains off dresses that he probably had no idea what he was signing. I don't want to get in a political debate, but to have to read this crap about Clinton's administration when the current administration starts wars for profit, tortures people, is probably recording what I'm typing right now into some profile database, and then brags about it to the world, is just over the top. Anyhow, it was a Republican congress that pushed the DMCA through - who knows what kinds of deals Clinton had to make to keep his cigars from being used as evidence. So, Nod, let's stop playing with that snake, OK?


But, I will say that I think DRM is a good thing. Artist should have a right to own their work, control it’s distribution, and profit by it. If artist choose to sell their rights to Sony, that’s their choice. It’s not your right to circumvent that choice. My ideal vision for the future is for open source, public domain, universal DRM. So artists can release/sell their works directly over the internet to consumers with whatever DRM the artist sees fit to attach to it, if any. Internet distribution can cut out the corporate middleman. More money and control to artists. Consumers get direct access to artists and hopefully would respect the artist’s wishes with regard to use and copy of the artists work.

This is exactly what the Sony/BMG/Warner folks will fight to the death to prevent. They have done fine for themselves by giving artists just pennies on the dollar, making it nearly impossible for them to own and distribute their own music, and by criminalizing anyone who tries to circumvent their monopoly. Why should they change anything? Believeing that they are on the side of the artists is like believing that our current government is interested in peace. Fact is, they are only interested in profits - if artists, consumers, smaller companies, our civil rights and grandma get trampled on the way, well that's just too bad.

Napster/Morpheus/Limewire/eDonkey are wake-up calls. Whether we choose to hit the snooze button again, is up to us.

[noddin0ff]

And they were enjoyable rounds. Would've been better with beer though.
I would prefer a fine wine, but to each his own......as would I but ‘enjoyable rounds’ reads better with ‘beer’ than ‘wine’. You don’t go another round with wine. As a digression, normally a Cab man, I’m trying to home in on a good Malbec (Mendoza?). If anyone has suggestions…And why is it that people who profess a love for beer can roll with the punches, people who love scotch can handle an argument, but wine people... ah well, something about generalizations probably.


Yes, 1923. that's what I was trying to get at. Wiki gets the gist of it, but the reality is much more confusing unfortunately. I've been studying copyright in relation to 2-dimensional art, and I'm going to presume that music is similar. If so, the copyright time stamp actually only starts from the time the work is first published or recorded. Hence the concerns with hand-written unfinished pieces, notes in sidebars of notebooks, etc., essentially anything that has yet to be recorded or transcribed to a reproducible medium.

That's interesting. I can see that if a stylistic change or format is applied then copyright could be extended to a written work, but I'd think the copyright would only apply to the aspects associated with the style. In the sense that sheet music is art I could see copyright handled that way (margin notes, maybe) but as to actual content, it seems that one only needs much of the standard notation to transmit the intent--same way you could reproduce Moby Dick with the alphabet. But you couldn't reproduce the impression of a leather bound first edition... I realize for someone really digging deep into the artistic intent of the creator holding the original vellum is the goal. But that’s the way with every thing.

But for old stuff, once the artist is dead isn't it public domain? It seems like I should be able to come up with examples of paintings in museums that always say something like may not be reproduced...blah, blah. But the only reproductions I can recall offhand are all from the last century. What about medieval arts? I’m also trying to remember what Microsoft was trying to do with digitizing art a number of years ago…aside from make money…

[noddin0ff]

OK, I've heard this enough. Clinton was so wrapped up in wiping stains off dresses that he probably had no idea what he was signing. I don't want to get in a political debate, but to have to read this crap about Clinton's administration when the current administration starts wars for profit, tortures people, is probably recording what I'm typing right now into some profile database, and then brags about it to the world, is just over the top. Anyhow, it was a Republican congress that pushed the DMCA through - who knows what kinds of deals Clinton had to make to keep his cigars from being used as evidence. So, Nod, let's stop playing with that snake, OK?
Whoa, Nellie. Raw nerve or something? I prefer to judge politicians by legislation, not by their personal life. And I think Clinton did so much that was right, that the DCMA stands out as a bit of a blight. It only illustrates the close ties he had with 'Hollywood' and his star supporters, which is relevant to a topic on DRM, unlike say...torture. If you feel like ranting about Bush, be my guest. Start a thread and I'll join in with you.

[nightflier]

THE WINE:


As a digression, normally a Cab man, I’m trying to home in on a good Malbec (Mendoza?). If anyone has suggestions…And why is it that people who profess a love for beer can roll with the punches, people who love scotch can handle an argument, but wine people... ah well, something about generalizations probably.

I agree that "going a few rounds" with wine sounds a bit incongruent.

Malbec is a tough one. I've had a good Chilean Malbec, can't remember the name off-hand, but I also read that the Argentinians really have the best ones. Without sounding too pretentious I'm a Petit Syrah collector and have some very nice French ones in the cooler (we don't have cellars in California - too much shakin' goin' on). And despite Paul Giamatti's great line, I would also consider an occasional Merlot, albeit not more recent than '02.

Of course, I do like my beers, too - bitter is better - perhaps my favorite one is Grolsch. Funny thing about wine is that in moderation it seems to enhance the musical experience and at the risk of generalizations I would pair Debussy with a Malbec, Beethoven with an aged Petit Syrah, and finish Mahler off with an ruby port.

THE CHEESE:

...and what is an aged port w/o a nice crusty English Stilton?


I realize for someone really digging deep into the artistic intent of the creator holding the original vellum is the goal. But that’s the way with every thing.

This is what makes copyright cases soo hard to try. Here in the US, so much rides on the whims of the judge and juries, their prejudices, political affiliations, past experience, and not to sound too cynical, but also how much money each side can throw into the pot. The RIAA with its deep pockets can buy any court, so the Napsters and eDonkeys, even if they are on the side of righteousness and the public's best interest, can almost never win a case - the deck is stacked against them from the start.


But for old stuff, once the artist is dead isn't it public domain? It seems like I should be able to come up with examples of paintings in museums that always say something like may not be reproduced...blah, blah. But the only reproductions I can recall offhand are all from the last century. What about medieval arts? I’m also trying to remember what Microsoft was trying to do with digitizing art a number of years ago…aside from make money…

Microsoft wanted to own and profit from the right to reproduce art that was in the public domain. If that pisses you off, well you should be. Corporations are scrambling to find ways to make what is public private. First they squeeze the funding from publicly owned entities then they show how privatizing these starved services would improve things just a hair over their current state. Sound familiar? Nowhere is this more prevalent than with art (and consequently music); it is the American way: profits trump everything.

There is this pervasive belief in everything and everyone around us that it is better for things to be privately owned than to be publicly owned. Ironically, everyone else in the world is trying to copy the American system - in a perverse way, we are their mirror into the future. Problem is, there just ain't enough resources to go around and we Americans really don't want to share. If a future w/o free music, free internet, public parks, free libraries, subsidized healthcare for the needy, public education and governement funded police and firefighting seems far away, then you're not paying attention to the current playbook. Listen to the lines in the movie "V for Vendetta;" while it could have been better, the premise is eerily close to our own world. If you haven't seen it, you should. Private ownership is fine in a small rural Adam-Smith-idealized community, but it falters in large complex national socio-economic systems for the simple reason that it has no checks for good old greed.

Our current economic system may seem fine in a simplifed way, but its inability to provide checks against abuse of power gives it that inpalatable quality. And so even the best cheeses, from the creamiest Morbier to the longest aged Gouda, have their undigestible crust. And in that crust live...

THE WORMS:


Whoa, Nellie. Raw nerve or something? I prefer to judge politicians by legislation, not by their personal life. And I think Clinton did so much that was right, that the DCMA stands out as a bit of a blight. It only illustrates the close ties he had with 'Hollywood' and his star supporters, which is relevant to a topic on DRM, unlike say...torture. If you feel like ranting about Bush, be my guest. Start a thread and I'll join in with you.

My apologies - I am just so tired of having to hear that it was Clinton that signed the DMCA into law, when there are so many more things wrong today. And you are correct about calling politicians to task; Clinton signed a lot of other things into law that would make even Cheney blush. With regard to music, I am more concerned that the Supreme court has become so corrupted. There ought to be equity between sides who don't have the same financial resources to fight their cases, and the court seems to be entirely blind to that.

Looking at the record for the past decade, several justices are not impartial on this issue as well as many other cases that they have reviewed or sent back down with prejudice. Their ties to the richest interests in our society are a disgrace. And the fact that congress was not able to check for these conflicts of interest when these justices had their hearings, is a stain on our democratic system. This court's rulings will be like the the Manzanars, the Ton-Kins, and the Iran-Contras that future historians will wish they could erase from children's textbooks. If the current system persists, they probably will.

In principle, downloading copyrighted music is a violation of the law, but so was standing in front of tank in Tien An Men, refusing to sit on the back of a bus, the underground railroad; heck, even the signing of the Declaration of Independence was criminal in its time. Sometimes it takes an act of protest to bring about change in society. I know I'm echoing the words of our founding fathers, but their voices seem all but forgotten now, don't they?

Sometimes it takes the realization that the worms in the cheese actually make the cheese better. If the worms are allowed to do their work, the cheese becomes one of the most sought after delicacies in the world. If they are taken out too soon, the cheese is just another ball of fat molding over into mediocrity.

[noddin0ff]

Impressive response, thanks! Now I have Floyd's 'tear down the wall...tear down the wall' stuck in my head.

Haven't had many Petit Syrahs. The first one that opened my eyes to them was Amphora (http://www.amphorawines.com/) in Healdsburg. We really hit it off with the guy that makes it. Met him after hours and had several bottles at his trailer house in the vinyards. He also makes amphoras. As he put it, he likes to lay it all out there, full on. His wine, as with his life., At the time (maybe 5 years ago) I was pretty sure it would be the next merlot. Some of the less expensive bottles we took home were not as impressive. But I remember the impact of the good stuff.

Also, ran into a Malbec for the first time in one of the valleys. It was a breeze through of many wineries with inlaws. Deep, loamy, plum and dark dark cherry. It was the deep earthy musky quality I liked. Not a bad pair with Debussy. Still trying to remember who it was. It was kind of an experimental release for them. But, yes, Argentina is supposed to be the place. My problem is I have no head for names and appellations. Makes it difficult to find a wine and remember it. It's like those French have a different word for everthing.

[nightflier]

I think this calls for a new thread. See "How does alcohol affect your apreciation of music?" under general audio.