RIAA drops eDonkey

[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’ 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 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 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.

[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…

[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]

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.