In article ,
EggHd wrote:

1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore.

When I can bring myself to buy a CD at all, it's usually something
*very* special, albeit rarely a single disc. Last CD I bought was
harpsichord music, 2 discs, $35.00.

2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD.

I think all of it goes straight up the nose of some elected official,
plus a lot more.

Mike Rivers wrote:

As you repeat ad anusium

I've wondered what his deal is. That does explain it.

--
ha

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
ryanm wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080841276k@trad...

Yeah, but he has to do more work than drag-and-drop, and most of
today's music collectors won't put up with real time recording,
fast-wind-and-search, the pause button, and most of all, not having a
source list generated automatically.

So it's about how difficult it is? I thought it was all
"steeEEEEEeeeling!!!!" Why does how difficult or easy it is matter if
it's a
fundamental crime against humanity that deserves a prison sentence?

It's all stealing. The point is that making it easier for people to steal
things is a bad idea. People who are determined will steal things no
matter
what precautions you take, but the majority of people who steal things do
so just because it's easy and they don't think they'll get caught.

Putting a lock on your front door doesn't do anything to prevent a
determined
thief from getting in, but it will keep random kids from walking in and
perhaps
taking a souvenir.
--scott


Media and software companies have the right to protect thier software by
whatever non-intrusive and non-destructive means they can come up with,
including not selling non-secure media in the first place (cd's). They can
put on a lock, they can change the lock as often as they want, they can
change or move the door.

They don't, or shouldn't, be allowed to attack, physically or legally,
networks that belong to someone else and legislate themselves into a
monopoly on distribution.

Currently, the RIAA companies have been given the right by the US govt. to
nefariously hack any public network that has no central server, in which
there has been any instance of piracy. I can see how a lot of people might
be interested in hindering p2p technology.

jb

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080915683k@trad...

In article writes:

Real Networks stuff

Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/

I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something
other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they
pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from
Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows
application?


That would be something to ask them, but given that it takes a lot of hours
to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it yet.
I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to add
functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'.

jb

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
An interesting book which has absolutely nothing to do with music or P2P
downloading is called _The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as
Usual_ by Chris Locke. You can find it, in its entirety, online he


http://www.peak.org/~luomat/misc/clu...m/cluetrain/fo
reword.html


A great ****ing book!

jb

(Mike Rivers) writes:
Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the
combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution
methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an artist
or as a citizen, as collatteral damage.

That might be a short term bump in the road, and the sooner people
stop doing the thing that causes that bump, the sooner it will go away.

Nonsense, it's about control, not copying. Also, we've had a war on
drugs for the past 30 years that's showing no signs of slowing down.
The war on copying will never slow down either, unless politicians and
the public actually stand up to the MPAA/RIAA, which will stop at
nothing.

I really urge you to read Prof. Lessig's new book "Free Culture" (it's
a pretty fast read). It explains quite well what the copyright wars
are about. You can buy it in bookstores (Penguin Press), or, yes, you
can download the whole thing from its web site (http://free-culture.org).

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080914544k@trad...

I wouldn't lump musicians in with audiophiles when it comes to
enjoying playback from vinyl. Musicians, as a generalization, don't
have audiophile-quality playback systems. (they have their money tied
up in instruments or recording gear)

True, but they're both out buying the cds.

It's a little different. It's publicity that's paid for by the record
companies (sometimes) - and at other times it's an invitation to
steal. But in the days when a station played a whole side of an LP
uninterrupted (and announced it beforehand) recording technology was
at the point where it was pretty much one copy for one listener.
If someone who taped an album from the radio played the tape for his
friends, maybe some of them would go out to buy the album. But today,
they'd just ask for a copy of the file.

And what data do you base that assumption on? All the data I've seen
suggests quite the opposite. I can think of at least 5 factors that *should*
have contributed to lower cd sales in 2003 - 1) The release of DRM cds that
don't work and **** off consumers 2) Less variety in the artists being
publicized 3) Rising costs of cds 4) Severe drop in the economy 5) Bad
publicity due to lawsuits causing many people to boycott RIAA labels - but
by all the available data, the numbers are actually up. So how do they
manage to show an *increase* in sales despite all of these factors? It
certainly can't be that downloading is *hurting* sales. Worst case,
downloading has no significant impact on cd sales. Best case, it is
*responsible* for the rise in sales despite the other factors which
should've contributed to a decline.

ryanm

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080914930k@trad...

As you repeat ad anusium, it's not worth prosicuting 100,000
individuals each for $2 worth of royalties so they need to take
another approach.

Even if the other approach is illegal (unconstitutional) or immoral?

If the record companies see this as a loss of
$200,000, that ain't hay, so they're looking for a way to stop the
process so there won't be anyone to prosecute.

It's not my problem how they see it, that's their problem. *I* don't get
to change the law just because I think I could make more money if it weren't
so damn hung up on people's rights and all that. Why do they? And why do you
condone buying justice?

ryanm

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...

Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record
companies
are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new.

That's because control means long term profits, rather than just more
profits right now.

ryanm

"DrBoom" wrote in message
m...

The concept is pretty simple: the passage of contemptible laws leads
to public contempt of all the laws.

Anyone who cares about this issue should read the full text of his
speeches.

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm

That's excellent, thanks.

ryanm

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Considering the portion that
actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are
just outrageously priced.

1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore.

2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD.

If you post this kind of thing, please back it up.

How about this, I'll retract the statement about $20 CDs since it's been
quite a while since I've bought any, and I'll keep my *opinion* that there
is a lot of money per CD that the labels can use more efficiently. I'll top
it off by shutting up now and stepping out of this discussion.

Sean

Paul Rubin wrote:

(Mike Rivers) writes:

Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the
combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution
methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an artist
or as a citizen, as collatteral damage.

That might be a short term bump in the road, and the sooner people
stop doing the thing that causes that bump, the sooner it will go away.


Nonsense, it's about control, not copying.

So what if it is? All producers of services and goods wish
to control the means of distributing them. Nothing new
under the sun here.

I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to
set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it
to be honored. If it takes new law to make that absolutely
explicit with criminal culpability, then bring it on.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

ryanm wrote:

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...

Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record

companies

are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new.


That's because control means long term profits, rather than just more
profits right now.


Precisely. How nice it is to see that some can still think
that way. 99% of what is wrong with our economy and job
market now and in the future is the loss of this perspective
at every level.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

Real Networks stuff

Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/

I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something
other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they
pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from
Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows
application?

I've often wondered something similar Mike. As in a simple plug-in.

Seems like the answer is no. I guess Real want to preserve their format
and player as unique.

This was actually a major part of the recent issue betwwen the EU and
Microsoft. This time - instead of being berated for bundling their browser
with the OS - to the detriment of Netscape at the time, Microsoft got
clobbered for trying to dominate media content through Media Player. This
time there are TWO other major players; Real and Apple they're head on
with.

It's a pain for us users though !


Graham

Bob Cain writes:
I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to set the
terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it to be honored.

If you really believe they have such a right, then the way to get it
recognized is get two thirds of both houses of Congress and three
quarters of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution to say
so. Right now there is no such "right" anywhere in the law. Rather,
copyright is an economic incentive to produce new works under the
Constitution's Progress clause, similar to the tax credit for buying a
low-emission car is an incentive to reduce air pollution under the
Clean Air Act. Both incentives are simply public policy decisions
made at the discretion of Congress. Neither one is a "right", and
either one could be withdrawn tomorrow if enough people got Congress
to vote that way (think of 60 million angry ex-Napster users). What
we're seeing instead is a bunch of powerful corporate lobbyists
corrupting Congress under the guise of helping creators, who pretty
often don't want that kind of "help".

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to
set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it
to be honored. If it takes new law to make that absolutely
explicit with criminal culpability, then bring it on.

That doesn't make any sense, though. Where does criminal culpability
come into play in civil matters of property? It's not stealing, that much is
obvious (in order to be theft, the owner must be denied possession of it at
least temporarily), it's not even property damage. This, and should be, a
civil matter. There is no inalienable right to have a monopoly on property.
I urge you to read the excellent reference someone else posted:

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm

It is a quote of some speeches given in Parliament in 1841 regarding
copyright law, and it outlines some of the problems with copyright law as a
whole, which puts these questions of criminal charges by 3rd party owners of
copyrights in a completely different light if you can be bothered to
understand his (Thomas Babington Macaulay's) point.

ryanm

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

This was actually a major part of the recent issue betwwen the EU and
Microsoft. This time - instead of being berated for bundling their browser
with the OS - to the detriment of Netscape at the time, Microsoft got
clobbered for trying to dominate media content through Media Player. This
time there are TWO other major players; Real and Apple they're head on
with.

It's a pain for us users though !

And this is the point. MS is trying to make things easier for the users,
and is getting sued for it. They are not trying dominate media content, they
are simply trying to provide a single player capable of playing back all
media types, which comes with Windows so that no 3rd party downloads
(especially of invasive, aggressive player software) is necessary to view
online media.

ryanm

"reddred" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080915683k@trad...

In article writes:

Real Networks stuff

Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/

I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something
other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they
pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from
Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows
application?


That would be something to ask them, but given that it takes a lot of
hours
to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it
yet.
I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to
add
functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'.

jb


Oh, I see. I misunderstood. I guess the reason Real doesn't allow their
format to be used by others is because they want you to download their
adware.

jb

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
ryanm wrote:

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...

Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record

companies

are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new.


That's because control means long term profits, rather than just
more
profits right now.


Precisely. How nice it is to see that some can still think
that way. 99% of what is wrong with our economy and job
market now and in the future is the loss of this perspective
at every level.

Vertically integrated control is precisely the reason our economy sucks
right now, jobs move overseas, and the free market doesn't work for 98
percent of the people on the planet.

jb

In article writes:

Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/

given that it takes a lot of hours
to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it yet.
I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to add
functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'.


Oh, c'mon, you know what I meant. I wasn't asking why THAT program
hadn't been ported to Windows. I was just expressing surprise that
since nobody but Real has a product for Windows that plays their
format, someone has built one for Linux. There are hundreds of WAV
file players, and MP3 players. Why not RA? As unpopular as RealPlayer
is with people who are computer-smart, a Windows "aftermarket" Real
Player would have come out long ago.

Hard to believe that the program code or data format is so difficult
to reverse engineer that only a Linux programmer could (or would) do
it.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Nonsense, it's about control, not copying.

Forget copying, it's distribution that they want to control.

They aren't quibbling about you buying a CD and making an MP3 copy of
it to play on your iPod or even selecting tunes from it to put on a
compilation disk for a road trip or party. There's a law that says you
can do that.

What they want to control is your distributing that material to
others, and it seems that it's their right to exercise that control.

We're really attacking the wrong people because they're easiest to
identify. We're attacking the downloaders, when really we should be
attacking those who make music available to the downloaders. However,
those people tend not to be large buyers (SOMEBODY has to buy at least
one CD) but tend to be large downloaders themselves. So before
arresting someone who has a large number of music files on his
computer, let them see the original CDs or at least purchase receipts
for them. No got? Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote:

If you really believe they have such a right, then the way to get it
recognized is get two thirds of both houses of Congress and three
quarters of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution to say
so. Right now there is no such "right" anywhere in the law.

You have some serious misunderstandings about copyright in the USA, and
I wouldn't know where to start!

Copyright on your creative works is a Constitutional right to begin
with. It would require an Act of Congress to take it away.

But, you are free to bequeath that right. When you sign the instrument
that does so, it's your choice. And that's the moment that the artist
loses control of distribution. He does it because it's the only way
his material is going to get produced, and it's the only way he's going
to get to play on a stage with a sign advertising a beer company.

Rather,
copyright is an economic incentive to produce new works under the
Constitution's Progress clause, similar to the tax credit for buying a
low-emission car is an incentive to reduce air pollution under the
Clean Air Act. Both incentives are simply public policy decisions
made at the discretion of Congress. Neither one is a "right", and
either one could be withdrawn tomorrow if enough people got Congress
to vote that way (think of 60 million angry ex-Napster users). What
we're seeing instead is a bunch of powerful corporate lobbyists
corrupting Congress under the guise of helping creators, who pretty
often don't want that kind of "help".

Copyright is an essential right. It isn't justified solely by economic
considerations. Your analysis is almost completely wrong, even though I tend
to agree with your take on corporatism.

If you don't assign your rights to another party, they are yours,
period. If you do assign your rights to another party, well, you should
read and understand anything you sign, ever.

In article ,
reddred wrote:

They're already doing that stuff. Maybe not on a scale that is ideal, but
these are BIG ASS companies we are talking about, not the biggest, but big
enough to where change is really expensive and they inherently resist change
anyway.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. If they manage to take over
control of governments on the way, even harder do they fall.

Hey, are you red dred the fantastic guitarist by any chance?

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
Paul Rubin wrote:

(Mike Rivers) writes:

Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the
combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution
methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an
artist
or as a citizen, as collatteral damage.

That might be a short term bump in the road, and the sooner people
stop doing the thing that causes that bump, the sooner it will go away.


Nonsense, it's about control, not copying.

So what if it is? All producers of services and goods wish
to control the means of distributing them. Nothing new
under the sun here.

I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to
set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it
to be honored. If it takes new law to make that absolutely
explicit with criminal culpability, then bring it on.



I think it's more a question of what needs to be done in order to enforce a
new law. It could become a very dangerous and non-free world with the
technology in place that would enforce the law, not to mention that
deployment would cost more than the entire music and movie industry is
worth.

They don't need a new law, they need to stop selling a format that can be
ripped off so easily - cd's and dvd's... Their problem, their solution. Then
we can all bitch and moan about how our cd players are obsolete.

jb

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080853095k@trad...

In article
writes:

I think what the music business leaders don't want to realize is that
they're simply losing money through bad business practices

So how do you suggest that they change? Do what they're doing now only
drop the retail price by 50%? That's a good way to lose even more
money.

1. Look around for way to tighten up operations. I've worked for a number
of
large companies and there were always plenty of ways to improve the
efficiency of operations.

2. Set reasonable prices to increase volume. If you reduce prices by 30%
but
double your volume you will come out ahead. Considering the portion that
actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are
just outrageously priced.


They're already doing that stuff. Maybe not on a scale that is ideal, but
these are BIG ASS companies we are talking about, not the biggest, but big
enough to where change is really expensive and they inherently resist change
anyway.

jb

No matter how large the profit margin may be, a company will tend to
expand
it's inefficiency to absorb those profits to the point of just breaking
even. When demand is reduced (weren't we just in a recession?) they
suddenly
find themselves on the wrong side of the profit / loss equation trying to
figure out what went wrong.

Don't get me wrong, downloading is clearly harming the industry and is
flat
out illegal, no question about that IMO. On the other hand I firmly
believe
that the industry has made some of their own problems and need to figure
out
how to get CDs from artists to consumers for less money. I've worked for
several companies that reduced their costs by 50% and actually expanded
their gross revenue at the same time, they simply looked hard at where the
money was really going. Usually there's no pressure to make that kind of
hard assessment until you're already losing money.

Sean

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Considering the portion that
actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are
just outrageously priced.

1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore.


My local record shop!

jb


2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD.

If you post this kind of thing, please back it up.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

Precisely. How nice it is to see that some can still think
that way. 99% of what is wrong with our economy and job
market now and in the future is the loss of this perspective
at every level.

That doesn't mean it is good for consumers. In fact, quite the opposite.
It is detrimental to the general publics interests to allow long-term
monopoly control over IP. It creates artificial scarcity, which in turn
artificially inflates the cost of that IP. And *not* to the benefit of the
creator.

Going back, again, to the purpose of copyright law, it was intended to
foster creativity, not stifle it. It was meant to give the creators of IP an
incentive to continue creating IP, because the true creators of IP are
almost always the poor inventor, writer, musician, etc, rather than the
publishing companies who end up owning the rights to their works. A few
great quotes:


On the necessary evil of copyright - "The advantages arising from a system
of copyright are obvious. It is desirable that we should have a supply of
good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally
remunerated; and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by
means of copyright... It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the
least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly
is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the
evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of
securing the good."

And example of the purpose of copyright - "I will take an example. Dr
Johnson died fifty-six years ago. If the law were what my honourable and
learned friend wishes to make it, somebody would now have the monopoly of Dr
Johnson's works. Who that somebody would be it is impossible to say; but we
may venture to guess. I guess, then, that it would have been some
bookseller, who was the assign of another bookseller, who was the grandson
of a third bookseller, who had bought the copyright from Black Frank, the
doctor's servant and residuary legatee, in 1785 or 1786. Now, would the
knowledge that this copyright would exist in 1841 have been a source of
gratification to Johnson? Would it have stimulated his exertions? Would it
have once drawn him out of his bed before noon? Would it have once cheered
him under a fit of the spleen? Would it have induced him to give us one more
allegory, one more life of a poet, one more imitation of Juvenal? I firmly
believe not. I firmly believe that a hundred years ago, when he was writing
our debates for the Gentleman's Magazine, he would very much rather have had
twopence to buy a plate of shin of beef at a cook's shop underground.
Considered as a reward to him, the difference between a twenty years' and
sixty years' term of posthumous copyright would have been nothing or next to
nothing. But is the difference nothing to us? I can buy Rasselas for
sixpence; I might have had to give five shillings for it. I can buy the
Dictionary, the entire genuine Dictionary, for two guineas, perhaps for
less; I might have had to give five or six guineas for it. Do I grudge this
to a man like Dr Johnson? Not at all. Show me that the prospect of this boon
roused him to any vigorous effort, or sustained his spirits under depressing
circumstances, and I am quite willing to pay the price of such an object,
heavy as that price is. But what I do complain of is that my circumstances
are to be worse, and Johnson's none the better; that I am to give five
pounds for what to him was not worth a farthing."

On the inherent danger of copyright - "On which side indeed should the
public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as
Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or
whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage
of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a
hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?"

~Thomas Babington Macaulay to Parliament ins 1841

Does any of that sound familiar? Anything like the state of the music
industry today? To summarize, the intention of copyright law is to maintain
a monopoly on the IP during the creators life, so that he may make money
with it, *not* to allow 3rd parties (publishing companies) to attain the
rights and horde them into perpetuity. This benefits no one but the 3rd
party who absconded with *our* (the public's) works. And they should rightly
belong to the public when the author is dead or after a reasonable amount of
time so that he may generate income from them.

And the most telling quote, the one that sounds like it could've been
written this year:

"I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should
produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and
which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a
very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale
of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue
acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be
virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of
copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are
regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men.
Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled
to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have
anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that
feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical
booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of
capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art
will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the
plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question
is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's
Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the
libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a
bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the
copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when
once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade
literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The
public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now
exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you
are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose
unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you
have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men
from pillaging and defrauding the living."

ryanm

"james" wrote in message
news:btmbc.22164$Q45.8922@fed1read02...

You have some serious misunderstandings about copyright in the USA, and
I wouldn't know where to start!

Copyright on your creative works is a Constitutional right to begin
with. It would require an Act of Congress to take it away.

No, it isn't. He just outlined it pretty accurately, especially
considering how brief and concise he was.

Copyright is an essential right. It isn't justified solely by economic
considerations. Your analysis is almost completely wrong, even though I
tend
to agree with your take on corporatism.

He is completely correct and accurate according to US law.

ryanm

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080937935k@trad...

We're really attacking the wrong people because they're easiest to
identify. We're attacking the downloaders, when really we should be
attacking those who make music available to the downloaders. However,
those people tend not to be large buyers (SOMEBODY has to buy at least
one CD) but tend to be large downloaders themselves. So before
arresting someone who has a large number of music files on his
computer, let them see the original CDs or at least purchase receipts
for them. No got? Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

But possession of unlicensed IP is not a crime in and of itself
(although recent bills may change that or may have already changed that).
The offense is distribution. There isn't even an offense outlined for
"receiving unlicensed IP", because it's not actually breaking the copyright.

ryanm

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080938329k@trad...

Oh, c'mon, you know what I meant. I wasn't asking why THAT program
hadn't been ported to Windows. I was just expressing surprise that
since nobody but Real has a product for Windows that plays their
format, someone has built one for Linux. There are hundreds of WAV
file players, and MP3 players. Why not RA? As unpopular as RealPlayer
is with people who are computer-smart, a Windows "aftermarket" Real
Player would have come out long ago.

MS tried and got sued.

Hard to believe that the program code or data format is so difficult
to reverse engineer that only a Linux programmer could (or would) do
it.

The guys writing these Linux apps are often in countries that don't
recognize US copyright law, so they can get away with it. And even if they
were in the US, one guy writing an app for Linux doesn't constitute the same
threat to the RealPlayer as MS releasing a media player that can play RA
files.

ryanm

ryanm wrote:

They are not trying dominate media content,

Wanna buy a bridge? They've said so, in more words.

"reddred" writes:
I think it's more a question of what needs to be done in order to enforce a
new law. It could become a very dangerous and non-free world with the
technology in place that would enforce the law, not to mention that
deployment would cost more than the entire music and movie industry is
worth.

See

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

for where it goes.

reddred wrote:

the free market doesn't work for 98 percent of the people on the planet.

Sure it does. Those 98% are the engine that fuels the Stock Market.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080938329k@trad...

In article
writes:

Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/

given that it takes a lot of hours
to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it
yet.
I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to
add
functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'.


Oh, c'mon, you know what I meant.

Um, actually, I keep getting it wrong... I think I'll blame the weather.

I wasn't asking why THAT program
hadn't been ported to Windows. I was just expressing surprise that
since nobody but Real has a product for Windows that plays their
format, someone has built one for Linux.

Those guys with the Linux app could just be waiting for the cease and desist
letters... could be Real is deliberately letting this one go under the
radar, because it means .ra support for Linux, but they don't have to have
an application and provide support, I think multimedia apps in Linux would
be particularly hard to support right now.


Hard to believe that the program code or data format is so difficult
to reverse engineer that only a Linux programmer could (or would) do
it.


No question that lots of people could do it, but 'would' does seem to be an
issue for some reason.

jb


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

This was actually a major part of the recent issue betwwen the EU and
Microsoft. This time - instead of being berated for bundling their
browser
with the OS - to the detriment of Netscape at the time, Microsoft got
clobbered for trying to dominate media content through Media Player.
This
time there are TWO other major players; Real and Apple they're head on
with.

It's a pain for us users though !

And this is the point. MS is trying to make things easier for the
users,
and is getting sued for it. They are not trying dominate media content,
they
are simply trying to provide a single player capable of playing back all
media types, which comes with Windows so that no 3rd party downloads
(especially of invasive, aggressive player software) is necessary to view
online media.

ryanm


They are trying to do both, and if they didn't have a monopoly, it would be
OK.

jb

(james) writes:
Copyright on your creative works is a Constitutional right to begin
with. It would require an Act of Congress to take it away.

Sorry, but you're incorrect on both counts. First of all, a
Constitutional right is by definition a right that an Act of Congress
can NOT take away. For example, free speech is a Constitutional
right, which is why the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law"
restricting it. An Act of Congress can't take away your right of free
speech. Only an amendment can do that.

Second, there is currently NO constitutional right to copyright. If
you read the actual Constitution, you will not find one. Rather,
there's a clause (the "Progress Clause") giving Congress an enumerated
power to "promote progress", similar to the enumerated powers to
declare war or collect taxes. Copyright is one of the mechanisms
through which congress is allowed to exercise the power to promote
progress. That is, Congress has the authority to grant copyrights,
but it doesn't have the -obligation- to do so.

And so, you turn out to be correct that an Act of Congress could stop
the issuance of new copyrights, for the precise reason that copyright
is NOT a constitutional right. (Congress could only stop issuing new
copyrights though; it can't invalidate already-existing ones, because
of the Takings clause). There would actually also be some treaties to
deal with too, but those are fairly recent and anyway we never should
have signed them.

Copyright is an essential right. It isn't justified solely by
economic considerations. Your analysis is almost completely wrong,
even though I tend to agree with your take on corporatism.

That's your opinion, but you're completely ignorant about the legal
history of copyright. I'm certainly no law expert but I do have some
understanding of these basic things. See Prof. Malla Pollack's brief
in Eldred vs. Ashcroft for some further analysis:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw...i/pollack.html

Prof. Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School also has a new book out
called "Free Culture", which can give you some more background. You
can buy it in bookstores or read it online at http://free-culture.org.
I highly recommend it no matter what views you have about how these
things should work, because even if you disagree about how things
should be, you'll get some better understanding of how things actually are.
It's very readable, written for a popular audience and not in
legalese.

For a more technically oriented book, see "Digital Copyright" by
Prof. Jessica Litman: http://digital-copyright.com. There's an
online sample chapter about how we got to the current situation:

http://www.msen.com/~litman/digital-copyright/ch2.html

In article writes:

I wouldn't lump musicians in with audiophiles when it comes to
enjoying playback from vinyl.

True, but they're both out buying the cds.

Confused? I thought you were saying they were buying vinyl records?

If someone who taped an album from the radio played the tape for his
friends, maybe some of them would go out to buy the album. But today,
they'd just ask for a copy of the file.

And what data do you base that assumption on?

Do I need data? If this wasn't so obvious, there wouldn't be a
problem.

All the data I've seen
suggests quite the opposite. I can think of at least 5 factors that *should*
have contributed to lower cd sales in 2003 - 1) The release of DRM cds that
don't work and **** off consumers 2) Less variety in the artists being
publicized 3) Rising costs of cds 4) Severe drop in the economy 5) Bad
publicity due to lawsuits causing many people to boycott RIAA labels - but
by all the available data, the numbers are actually up.

There are more people to buy CDs. Of course the numbers are going up.
But I doubt that there's any valid data that shows a trend in free
music sharing. There never was, because each side can make the other
side look bad with the "data" they collect. You can argue "data" but
that won't win any arguements in the real world. The people you're
fighting have their own data, which they won't share with you, but it
proves what they want it to prove. That's what data is all about.

So how do they
manage to show an *increase* in sales despite all of these factors?

Just because there are more sales doesn't mean there's not a problem
with lost sales.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

That's because control means long term profits, rather than just more
profits right now.

Isn't that always a good business goal?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

They don't need a new law, they need to stop selling a format that can be
ripped off so easily - cd's and dvd's... Their problem, their solution. Then
we can all bitch and moan about how our cd players are obsolete.

They tried, and people bitched that they couldn't play the CDs they
bought when they put them in their computers (and unfortunately
sometimes also in players designed for playing music CDs rather than
data CDs).

I think this would be a great opportunity to go back to vinyl and put
an end to easy digital copying.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

And this is the point. MS is trying to make things easier for the users,
and is getting sued for it. They are not trying dominate media content, they
are simply trying to provide a single player capable of playing back all
media types, which comes with Windows so that no 3rd party downloads
(especially of invasive, aggressive player software) is necessary to view
online media.

Does the current Windows Media player play Real Audio? I have Version
9.0something that doesn't. It will play most everything else, however.

I didn't understand what the fuss over there was about. How much
cheaper is Windows without the Media Player?

And speaking of Windows, I just got a Micro Center flyer today and
noticed that they sell OEM versions of Windows XP, 2000, and 98SE for
less than the retail versions if you buy it along with some computer
hardware. "See store for details" (which I haven't yet). I wonder how
little hardware you have to buy in order to get the OEM software?
Probalby a motherboard and CPU would qualify. I wonder if I could buy
a $3 CPU fan and save about $100.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo