In article writes:

The only way that a copy protection scheme could work to stop piracy
is if either: (1) it couldn't be defeated by *anybody*; or (2) there
wasn't an easy way to share the file with the world once the
protection was defeated.

Both of these go in cycles. I've never experienced music copy
protection (I've dealt with my "non-pro" DAT recorder), but software
copy protection is a good model. At first there was none, then they
made floppy disks (the distribution medium at the time) that had a
buggered sector that didn't allow it to be copied completely, but then
along came commercial programs (with the proviso that were for making
backup copies only) that allowed them to be copied.

When programs got to be too large to put on a handful of floppies, a
CD-R drive had become pretty common in computers, so distributing
software on CD was the next phase of copy protection - CD-RW drives
initially cost $5,000, so for a couple of years, the average person
couldn't afford the hardware to copy a CD. Now that a DVD/CD-R/CD-RW
drive is less than $20, that went out the window (as well as copying a
music CD to another disk). So they came up with key disks and serial
numbers, but once those got passed around, they gave us on-line or
with-the-factory registration before the program became fully
functional.

If we had laws with real teeth (and it's really easy to argue against
this because it's so hard to prove real harm), that could stop
copying. If the copyright police monitored your data path, found
evidence that you were transferring controlled material over the
Internet, got a search warrant for your computer, found data on your
disk that you couldn't account for, and you went to jail for a year,
I'll bet copying would be cut way back. But that will never happen. No
country is that much of a police state.

I say that the record industry should price their products based on
the fact that there will be a certain amount of theft, and anyone who
can't live on the income that produces should get a better job. (and
that includes the artists)



--
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

EggHd wrote:

But it means they signed with SOMEBODY who wasn't their friend, and it
also means they didn't bother to buy their copyrights back when they
became rich enough to do so.

Ian Anderson is a VERY succesful SUPER rich business man in the UK. He knows
what he's doing.


As I heard it, he got out of music and went into fish farming.

Cheers.

James.

Paul Rubin wrote:

(james) writes:
I'm thinking the people who don't risk that would lead the way.
I don't think Ian Anderson would have to flip burgers if he happened
to mention to his producer that he'd like EMI to stop distributing
defective discs with his name on them. Seems like a problem that could
be fixed, should be fixed, and needs to be fixed.

George Michael is taking an interesting approach.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36178.html

I just love The Register.

From a link on that page.......


Music fans beg to buy music
By Ashlee Vance in San Francisco
Posted: 19/02/2004 at 20:54 GMT
The Register Mobile: Find out what the fuss is about.
Take the two week
trial today.

Close to 30 Web sites plan to kick off an act of
"coordinated civil
disobedience" next Tuesday by putting up downloads of a
controversial album despite EMI's demands that the album
be
destroyed.

Anti-RIAA activists at Downhill Battle are leading the
charge for what
they call "Grey Tuesday." The Web site along with other
as yet
unnamed coconspirators will offer downloads of DJ Danger
Mouse's
Grey Album for 24 hours. The groups pitch this as a
protest against
EMI's attempts to stifle distribution of the album,
which combines
Jay-Z's the Black Album and the Beatles' White Album.

EMI has served DJ Danger Mouse and record shops selling
the
Grey Album with cease and desist orders. The label
releases
Beatles' records and doesn't want its intellectual
property abused.

The Grey Tuesday backers say EMI's actions are a form of

censorship against art

"Jay-Z's record label, Roc-A-Fella, released an a
capella version of
his Black Album specifically to encourage remixes like
this one,"
said Downhill Battle. "Danger Mouse’s album is one of
the most
"respectful" and undeniably positive examples of
sampling; it honors
both the Beatles and Jay-Z. Yet the lawyers and
bureaucrats at EMI
have shown zero flexibility and not a glimmer of
interest in the artistic
significance of this work."

"Their actions are also self-defeating: good new music
is being
created that people want to buy, but the major labels
are so
obsessed with hoarding their copyrights that they are
literally turning
customers away."

We'd certainly work hard to protect our Beatles' rights
too, but would
think EMI would jump at the chance of pumping a new
Beatles
avenue. There can only be a finite number of "lost
recordings" to find.


This seems to point to the record labels' tendency to
run well behind
the market. As consumers push barriers for the labels,
the
pigopolists hide behind their luxurious desks or perhaps
slump over
a martini poolside.

Get the mess cleared up and put some music on the
market. ®


" put some music on the market " - Amen to that !!! Sometimes I reckon the
record industry is more interested in selling porn actually.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35692.html


Graham

"reddred" writes:
'Seasoned Artists' more often than not have little control over what
happens to their releases on a label they never signed with, that
acquired those assets through mergers.

Tull and Anderson are with an indie now.

Actually another annoying thing happened on a Tull record in the 70's.
The version of "Bouree" on the "Repeat" collection (or maybe it was on
"M.U.") is the same recording as the original one on Stand-Up, but
it's played a little bit faster, so it's raised in pitch by a semitone
or so. I assume they did that to make it fit on the LP. Do you
seriously think the label could have done that without the band being
ok with it?

WideGlide wrote:

snip

Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had
any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and
my initial impression is not a good one.

Oh well....

Just after I said that the UK Sale of Goods Act should make 'knobbled' CDs
illegal in this kingdom we get....


Copy-crippled CDs launch in UK, baffling
Auntie Beeb
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 13/02/2004 at 03:08 GMT.

For the benefit of non Euopean readers a Mondeo is a popular medium sized
vehicle often given to sales reps.

Mondeo man has lost his music. And not just Mondeo man -
anyone who
has bought a new car and wants to play a CD has been
borked. That
new CD is only half a CD, and in the half where it counts,
it doesn't work.

Crippled CDs that won't play on many CD drives, including
car players,
crept onto the UK market last month. Of course the CDs,
which break
the Red Book standard, don't allow you to copy the music.
And on some
car players they play nothing but silence.

But astonishingly, the advice that crackled out from
bakelite radios
across the home counties this week put the blame on car
manufacturers
for not keeping up to date.

"Are you sure it's not the places you're buying your CDs
from?" an
intrepid reporter from the BBC's Home Service You and Yours
program
asks an unhappy Volkswagon owner who heard nothing but
silence in his
car when he played the new CDs.

Matt Phillips from the British Phonographic Institute was
on hand to fill
explain.

"I think you have to look at the changes in the CD format
over the last
couple of years," says Phillips. "The CD format was first
introduced in
1980 … and there were standards to make sure all CDs would
play. But
things have moved on since then."

"In order to offer the consumers greater choice and a
better package,
we've seen that record companies are not only introducing
enhanced
CDs and video content, but it means the format has ever so
slightly
changed."

"So what the record industry has done is work very, very
carefully with
the manufacturers of these CDs and this format … and
completely
borked them."

Actually, he didn't say that really, although this would
have been closer to
the truth. What he said was -

"So what the record industry has done is work very very
carefully with the
manufacturers of these CDs and this format to make sure all
these CDs
play across a number of formats."

Except in cars, of course. Phillips explains, and make sure
you're sitting
down for this next one.

"The CD player he has got in his car is not actually,
initially supposed to
play audio CDs."

Huh?

"Now that might sound a bit strange," says Phillips.

Indeed it does.

"But within the context of copy protection … there have
been a number of
problems not only with cars but drives. Manufacturers must
be aware of
specifications that have changed considerably since 1980."

Volkswagen's head of PR Paul Bucket is then put in the
hotseat and
prodded with hot irons to explain why (oh why) the car
company could get
it so wrong.

To his credit, Bucket points out the truth: there's an
industry standard
called the Red Book which the record industry, not the
consumer
electronic manufacturers, have failed to follow.

"There is an agreed industry standard between players and
CD
manufactures, and all our players comply."

The segment concludes, in the best BBC tradition - there
are two but only
ever two sides to a story - with Auntie chiding the two
factions to go off
and sort out their differences.

As we know there are more two sides to the story.

A third side involves investigating who is telling the
truth: and it's clearly
Volkswagen. A fourth aspect is the wider context of
copy-protection and
'piracy'. As Harvard's Professor Fisher points out in his
Promises To
Keep discussion here, of the four interested parties
involved (consumers,
artists, electronics manufacturers and the record
industry), three are
interested in new compensation models. And consumers and
manufacturers are vehemently opposed to copy protection.
With borked
CDs, people buy less music and manufacturers sell less
equipment. And
eventually, as Jim Griffin forcefully argues here the
industry will realize it
can make more money by ceasing to pursue doomed attempts to

prevent copying music.

And one of the biggest proponents of free access to arts
and culture is
the BBC, which is contemplating releasing its archives
under a Creative
Commons license.

But at least we now know that borked CDs have hit UK. And
round one in
the publicity wars goes to the BPI. ®


I guess EMI - Sony and others are into self-destruct mode.

No great loss.....

A complete and total windfall for pirates though who can sell perfectly
copy-able and playable CDs. Do the record compnaies share as little as a single
brain cell between them ?


Graham

As I heard it, he got out of music and went into fish farming.

He is not out of music.



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

WideGlide wrote:

Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had
any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and
my initial impression is not a good one.

You may find this interesting......

http://ukcdr.org/issues/cd/

Ever since Napster came to prominence, the music CD publishers have been
looking for a way to stop people sharing MP3s extracted from their CDs, and now
they think they've found it -- by 'copy-protecting' the CD releases. They hope
that by making CDs unplayable on computers ( actually they've been rather more
successful than that and they may refuse to play on normal CD players too esp
car players ! - but - what the heck - you get a pretty silver piece of plastic
for your $15 - my comment ) that this will reduce the number of MP3s getting
onto the internet.

However, these new CD formats are unlikely to reduce MP3 file-sharing, because
you can still copy a CD via digital connections, or if all else fails through
plugging an audio lead into the back of the CD player. Actually, it might turn
out to be even easier than that -- software work-arounds have come to light for
at least one of the formats already.
................................................

See rest of article .....


Graham

WideGlide wrote:

Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had
any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and
my initial impression is not a good one.

"
In one of the first protected CD releases from BMG, Natalie Imbruglia's "White
Lilies Island" prompted numerous returns in the United Kingdom. Universal's
"More Fast and the Furious" disc release in the United States featured a label
warning that the CD would not play on a small number of CD players.

Even when the protection technology works as intended, Wirtz said that normal
wear and tear could eventually overwhelm the error correction for the altered
discs, causing them to become unreadable within a few years.
"

http://ukcdr.org/issues/cd/links/new...23-817937.html

Graham

WideGlide wrote:

Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had
any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and
my initial impression is not a good one.

Record companies' efforts to protect CDs against digital copying are beginning
to draw scrutiny from lawmakers concerned that the plans might violate the law.

On Friday, Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., sent a letter to executives of the
recording industry's trade association, asking whether anti-piracy technology
on CDs might override consumers' abilities to copy albums they have purchased
for personal use.

A 1992 law allows music listeners to make some personal digital copies of their
music. In return, recording companies collect royalties on the blank media used
for this purpose. For every digital audio tape (DAT),
blank audio CD, or minidisc sold, a few cents go to record labels.

"I am particularly concerned that some of these technologies may prevent or
inhibit consumer home-recording using recorders and media covered by the" Audio
Home Recording Act (AHRA), Boucher wrote. "Any
deliberate change to a CD by a content owner that makes (the allowed personal
copies) no longer possible would appear to violate the content owner's
obligations."

The Capitol Hill attention is a potentially daunting sign for recording
companies, which are becoming bolder in their efforts to keep consumers from
making unauthorized copies of CDs. Each of the major record labels
has said it is looking at several versions of new anti-copying technology; in
particular, Universal Music Group executives have said they want to protect a
large proportion of their new releases as soon as midyear.

The labels are worried that the rise of home CD-burners has eaten into album
sales, particularly after the worst year in a decade for the music industry.

Universal was the first major label to openly distribute a copy-protected CD in
the United States, with the release of a soundtrack to the "Fast and the
Furious" film in December. Companies that produce
copy-protection technology say other albums have been quietly released into the
market, but verified sightings have been rare.

The AHRA issue had been spotlighted by a few copyright attorneys for several
months, but until now it has not been a large part of the debate over copy
protection.

"If you put technology in place that prevents people from using their recording
devices, then it seems that you should not be eligible for the royalty
payments" under the AHRA, said Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney
with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

A representative for the Recording Industry Association of America had no
immediate comment on Boucher's letter, saying the group had not yet seen it.

Boucher, who has been a legislative opponent of the big recording companies for
some time, asked the industry group to respond to a long list of questions
describing the technologies the record labels are using. He
stopped short of saying what he might do if he decided that the technologies do
violate the terms of the 1992 law.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-801582.html

Graham

In article writes:

The AHRA issue had been spotlighted by a few copyright attorneys for several
months, but until now it has not been a large part of the debate over copy
protection.

"If you put technology in place that prevents people from using their recording
devices, then it seems that you should not be eligible for the royalty
payments" under the AHRA, said Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney
with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

I wonder if those royalty payments are actually worth fighting for.
It's my imprssion that they were always pretty small potatoes. Now
that most of the copying that the industry is worried about is made to
either data CD-R blanks or direct to a hard drive, neither of which is
subject to that royalty tax, I suspect that any share of that royalty
is quite insignificant.

Has anyone seen any believable figures on how many dollars are
actually involved here? Would it even pay for a good lawyer?


--
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

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1079959128k@trad...

If we had laws with real teeth (and it's really easy to argue against
this because it's so hard to prove real harm), that could stop
copying. If the copyright police monitored your data path, found
evidence that you were transferring controlled material over the
Internet, got a search warrant for your computer, found data on your
disk that you couldn't account for, and you went to jail for a year,
I'll bet copying would be cut way back. But that will never happen. No
country is that much of a police state.

Can't, it would require serious breach of the 4th amendment. Without a
warrant, monitoring your data path could easily be construed as a violation
of your "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches", which would easily let you get
the case thrown out. They need probably cause to get a warrant, and they
can't have probable cause without monitoring your data path, so any way you
slice it, a good lawyer could get you out of it.

I say that the record industry should price their products based on
the fact that there will be a certain amount of theft, and anyone who
can't live on the income that produces should get a better job. (and
that includes the artists)

Oh, you mean do what the software industry has been doing for a decade?
Wait, didn't I say that when the whole P2P sharing thing started getting
press? g

ryanm

(Mike Rivers) writes:

The AHRA issue had been spotlighted by a few copyright attorneys
for several months, but until now it has not been a large part of
the debate over copy protection.

"If you put technology in place that prevents people from using
their recording devices, then it seems that you should not be
eligible for the royalty payments" under the AHRA, said Fred von
Lohmann, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

That's a self-destructive argument for the EFF, since by now the RIAA
must regret lobbying for AHRA and would love to get rid of it. It has
to be a real case of "be careful what you ask for, you just might get
it" for them.

Has anyone seen any believable figures on how many dollars are
actually involved here? Would it even pay for a good lawyer?

Jessica Litman discusses some it in "Digital Copyright". It's not a
huge amount. It can't be tiny either though, since unlike DAT tape, a
fair amount of "audio" CD-R media does get sold to consumers.

(Mike Rivers) writes:
If we had laws with real teeth (and it's really easy to argue against
this because it's so hard to prove real harm), that could stop
copying. If the copyright police monitored your data path, found
evidence that you were transferring controlled material over the
Internet, got a search warrant for your computer, found data on your
disk that you couldn't account for, and you went to jail for a year,
I'll bet copying would be cut way back. But that will never happen. No
country is that much of a police state.

They're working on it. See

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

for where it leads.

In article writes:

Can't, it would require serious breach of the 4th amendment. Without a
warrant, monitoring your data path could easily be construed as a violation
of your "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches", which would easily let you get
the case thrown out.

I thought I just read in the newspaper last week that the Gov't wanted
to be able to "tap into" a user's Internet communication. There are
laws that allow wiretaps for suspected criminal activity so I don't
see why this would be any different. They read a message in a
newsgroup that makes them suspect that you might have a few copyright
violations on your computer and they can get a warrant. Far fetched,
and it doesn't seem very nice, but then neither is denying working
folks their share of the profits.


--
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

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"reddred" writes:
'Seasoned Artists' more often than not have little control over what
happens to their releases on a label they never signed with, that
acquired those assets through mergers.

Tull and Anderson are with an indie now.

Actually another annoying thing happened on a Tull record in the 70's.
The version of "Bouree" on the "Repeat" collection (or maybe it was on
"M.U.") is the same recording as the original one on Stand-Up, but
it's played a little bit faster, so it's raised in pitch by a semitone
or so. I assume they did that to make it fit on the LP. Do you
seriously think the label could have done that without the band being
ok with it?

Yes.

jb

"james" wrote in message
news:dd27c.20033$uh.6621@fed1read02...
In article ,
reddred wrote:

They could mention it in an interview or something.
I'm thinking the people who don't risk that would lead the way.
I don't think Ian Anderson would have to flip burgers if he happened
to mention to his producer that he'd like EMI to stop distributing
defective discs with his name on them. Seems like a problem that could
be fixed, should be fixed, and needs to be fixed.

He may well do that (though a producer would be the wrong person to talk to,
they have nothing to do with this issue) but that is a far cry from making
an issue of it in an interview. And there's not too many people that have
had Anderson's financial success, in several businesses.

jb

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
"james" wrote in message
news:dd27c.20033$uh.6621@fed1read02...

Yep. That would win my respect, absolutely. The reissue from the
chicken**** outfit that my ex-producer sold out to is crap.

And it would win the artist a new job delivering pizzas.

I'm thinking the people who don't risk that would lead the way.
I don't think Ian Anderson would have to flip burgers if he happened
to mention to his producer that he'd like EMI to stop distributing
defective discs with his name on them. Seems like a problem that could
be fixed, should be fixed, and needs to be fixed.

Again, you're not listening. The labels haven't had any respect for
the
opinions of the artists in decades, why would they change now? It's not
like
Anderson can threaten to not release any more music, because EMI isn't who
publishes him. EMI simply bought the back catalog, and is now free to
distribute it however they want. I don't know what makes you think they
would even take a meeting with Anderson, they don't have any kind of
relationship with him, they simply bought an asset and are releasing it
how
they see fit.

ryanm


Well, I took a look at the Jethro Tull webiste and it does seem like he
might have had some kind of role in the remastering process. If so, all I
can figure is that he worked that into his final deal with Chrysalis. But
that has nothing to do with the copy protection end of things, and those
issues barely existed when he stopped producing music for Chrysalis/EMI.

jb

Well, I took a look at the Jethro Tull webiste and it does seem like he
might have had some kind of role in the remastering process.

I'm sure he had to approve it at the least.

If so, all I
can figure is that he worked that into his final deal with Chrysalis.

He may have re done his deal a few times over the years. It's not uncommon
even years after the original deal was done.

But that has nothing to do with the copy protection end of things, and those
issues barely existed when he stopped producing music for Chrysalis/EMI.

I don't believe it is done in mastering but i don't know where it is added.




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

In article ,
reddred wrote:
Do you seriously think the label could have done that without the band being
ok with it?

Yes.

After all this is the band that had a record go all the way through the
production and distribution process, credited to "Jethro Toe"

In article ,
ryanm wrote:

distribute it however they want. I don't know what makes you think they
would even take a meeting with Anderson, they don't have any kind of
relationship with him, they simply bought an asset and are releasing it how
they see fit.

Let's say they decided to do something slightly less heinous; say,
replace the cover art with a truly tasteless photograph. Would you
agree then that the artist should have done something about it, for
instance, scream bloody murder and maybe even start lawsuits?

See, I don't think it's that big a stretch between putting goatse on the
album cover and putting defective tracks on the medium. Saying the
artist didn't have anything to do with it and that it was beyond his
control doesn't sway me as a consumer.

james wrote:

After all this is the band that had a record go all the way through the
production and distribution process, credited to "Jethro Toe"

I guess the label was footing the bill.

--
ha

"james" wrote in message
news:LxP7c.291$Q45.57@fed1read02...

Let's say they decided to do something slightly less heinous; say,
replace the cover art with a truly tasteless photograph. Would you
agree then that the artist should have done something about it, for
instance, scream bloody murder and maybe even start lawsuits?

On a compilation or remaster, they could probably completely replace the
artwork without asking. Now, *changing* a piece of copyrighted artwork
(assuming they don't own the copyright) would be grounds for a suit, but
that a whole different issue.

See, I don't think it's that big a stretch between putting goatse on the
album cover and putting defective tracks on the medium. Saying the
artist didn't have anything to do with it and that it was beyond his
control doesn't sway me as a consumer.

So you're an uninformed and illogical consumer, that's neither my
problem or Ian Anderson's.

ryanm

"EggHd" wrote in message
...

I don't believe it is done in mastering but i don't know where it is
added.

If you mean the copy protection, it is done after the audio is
completely finished, but before the master is burned. In all likelihood, the
people on the audio side never saw the tracks with the copy protection on
them, and if they played the tracks for the band or the producer or whatever
for approval, I seriously doubt it was played from a copy protected disc.

ryanm

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:


Can't, it would require serious breach of the 4th amendment. Without a
warrant, monitoring your data path could easily be construed as a violation
of your "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches", which would easily let you get
the case thrown out.


I thought I just read in the newspaper last week that the Gov't wanted
to be able to "tap into" a user's Internet communication. There are
laws that allow wiretaps for suspected criminal activity so I don't
see why this would be any different. They read a message in a
newsgroup that makes them suspect that you might have a few copyright
violations on your computer and they can get a warrant. Far fetched,
and it doesn't seem very nice, but then neither is denying working
folks their share of the profits.

I have no problem with the government using existing wiretap laws to conduct such surveillance. I have a big problem with them using less stringent search warrant standards to conduct what amount to wiretaps. Our well crafted (see Nixon/Watergate) law is being eroded from all sides and presents a dangerous threat to our privacy.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

I have no problem with the government using existing wiretap laws to
conduct such surveillance. I have a big problem with them using less
stringent search warrant standards to conduct what amount to wiretaps.
Our well crafted (see Nixon/Watergate) law is being eroded from all
sides and presents a dangerous threat to our privacy.


Should have read, "Our well crafted (see Nixon/Watergate) law is being eroded from all sides and these new interpreattions present a dangerous threat to our privacy."

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1079993294k@trad...

I thought I just read in the newspaper last week that the Gov't wanted
to be able to "tap into" a user's Internet communication.

Of course they want to, they also want to be able to tap your phone
without asking, but they're not legally allowed to. Or at least if they do,
they can't use it against you in court.

There are
laws that allow wiretaps for suspected criminal activity so I don't
see why this would be any different.

*With* a warrant, signed by a judge, who was shown both probable cause
*and* exhaustion. Otherwise they can't use it against you. Although the
Patriot Act has poked a couple holes in there for them to sneak through, in
the interest of "national security", of course. But any decent lawyer could
countersue and win on that one, because downloading music illegally is
obviously not any kind of threat to national security.

They read a message in a
newsgroup that makes them suspect that you might have a few copyright
violations on your computer and they can get a warrant. Far fetched,
and it doesn't seem very nice, but then neither is denying working
folks their share of the profits.

Heh, no... at least not yet. I can come in here and proclaim that I have
billions of songs on my hard drive that were downloaded illegally, but
that's not enough for a warrant to tap my phone or even subpoena my ISP's
records. My ISP doesn't keep records of what I have downloaded, so they
would actually have to either hack in to my computer or tap my phone line
(to monitor my internet traffic) to see what I have, both of which require a
warrant so they would have to show not only that it is probable that I am
using the phone to facilitate a crime, but also that they have exhausted all
other approaches. Not to mention copyright violation isn't a serious enough
offense to issue a tap warrant. It's too easy just to bust in and confiscate
my computer (and me), a much easier warrant to obtain, and it would give
them everything they need to either indict me or be proven wrong in their
assertion that I was doing something illegal.

We're not there yet, but it sounds to me like you're in favor of such a
system. How about this scenario? Someone overhears you say "I'd *kill* that
guy..." in public, so the police are given a warrant to tap your phone,
subpoena your phone, electric, internet, etc. records, and hold you in jail
until they sort it out? Is that what you want? Because that's what you're
advocating with your "...it doesn't seem very nice, but then neither is
denying working folks their share of the profits". It doesn't seem very
nice, but neither is letting a *potential murderer* like you walk the
streets, after all, you *were* overheard saying you would kill someone. This
*is* the slippery slope on which we are treading, and given that a lot of
people seem happy to give the RIAA these kinds of rights for such a tiny,
miniscule infraction, how much leeway does that give the police when
investigating serious crimes, like say *speeding*?

ryanm

In article ,
ryanm wrote:


"james" wrote in message
news:LxP7c.291$Q45.57@fed1read02...

Let's say they decided to do something slightly less heinous; say,
replace the cover art with a truly tasteless photograph. Would you
agree then that the artist should have done something about it, for
instance, scream bloody murder and maybe even start lawsuits?

On a compilation or remaster, they could probably completely replace the
artwork without asking.

I think you don't understand where I'm going.

I release a compilation of your music, but the cover art is literally
kiddie-porn. Do you have a problem with that? Now, let's go from the
extreme example and work our way down to exactly how offensive a thing
should be none of the artists business. Okay, so kiddie-porn on the
cover is actually illegal in most places, not just tasteless. So let's
say I release your album with photos and language praising Osama Bin
Laden (and let's say you're not some punk act or somebody who would
think that's cool.) You okay with that, or would you ask me to stop?

Don't you see where I'm going? This "copy protection thing" is *just*
as offensive as my examples. Yet the artists don't get up on the
rooftops with their lawyers screaming bloody murder, ya dig? So I
figure they're okay with it. I won't buy their obscene, pro-terrorist
filth.

Now, *changing* a piece of copyrighted artwork
(assuming they don't own the copyright) would be grounds for a suit, but
that a whole different issue.

I think in this situation, they do indeed own the copyright, at least
they are granted the distribution rights.

So you're an uninformed and illogical consumer, that's neither my
problem or Ian Anderson's.

I really don't think I'm uninformed. I'm painfully aware that record
companies are foisting a defective product on the public and people in
this newsgroup are their victims. I know I'm illogical, but if you have
a consumer who refrains from buying your product because he's insulted
by the merchant, I'm quite certain that's the merchant's problem, not
the customers. I don't think you'll ever sway me from that position,
at least not before you control the only source of food and water!

If the DRM or copy-control data was added before the final master,
then the master itself has 2 seperate copyrights glued together.

One copyright for the actual music, and another for the DRM or copy
protected bits and pops and clicks.

Inseperable for all eternity thanks to the DMCA. 2 copyrights stuck
together at the hips like conjoined twins. One works, while the other
is a life draining parasite.

As an artist how do you expect to ever buy back or recover ownership
of your legacy master recordings when some other party owns the
copyright to the part that isn't the music?

The other copyright gets a free ride on the back of your music beyond
the terms of your recording contract, leaving nothing for you, or your
family to inheirit.

Who own's the copy-control data, or DRM copyright? Is it the record
company, or a subsidary? Surely it is not the artist, nor a
co-songwriter, or a producer arranger, just some entity that owns the
bits to all the pops and clicks.

No new secret thief in the night laws or deals are needed to steal the
music from the artist,just adding copy-control or DRM to the final
master instantly accomplishes it all. Record company stockholders are
happy grinning clams.

They finally got the music away from the artist. Nevermind that
frustrated music lovers easily got around the hurdles of DRM or
copy-control to use the music they bought...perhaps the real motive
for this was not to keep the music from being copied, but to keep the
artists who created it, from ever getting it back.
Andrea

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
|
|Should have read, "Our well crafted (see Nixon/Watergate) law is being eroded from all sides and these new interpreattions present a dangerous threat to our privacy."

But if it keeps us "safe" from terrorists, it has to be OK

Phil

ryanm wrote:
We're not there yet, but it sounds to me like you're in favor of such a
system. How about this scenario? Someone overhears you say "I'd *kill*
that guy..." in public, so the police are given a warrant to tap your
phone, subpoena your phone, electric, internet, etc. records, and hold
you in jail until they sort it out? Is that what you want?

Oh yes, you're there yet. What about those alleged 'terrorists' from
Afghanistan that are locked away on Guantanamo Bay for more than two years
already, without even being indicted or charged? I'm not saying they're not
terrorists, but don't be surprised when a government that's willing to
tread on international law, wouldn't be able to do the same in national law..

Luck, Arjan

--
----Real email: news then at then soundbyte then dot then nl----

reddred wrote:

Well, I took a look at the Jethro Tull webiste and it does seem like he
might have had some kind of role in the remastering process.

I doubt if he had ever seen the inside of a studio.

"S O'Neill" wrote in message
...
reddred wrote:

Well, I took a look at the Jethro Tull webiste and it does seem like he
might have had some kind of role in the remastering process.

I doubt if he had ever seen the inside of a studio.


??.... Oh I get it. Context is everything.

jb

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
As I heard it, he got out of music and went into fish farming.

He is not out of music.



I try to catch them whenever I can, I saw them a few years ago and it was a
great show.

jb

I try to catch them whenever I can, I saw them a few years ago and it was a
great show.

I believe the best rock show I ever saw was the Passion Play tour. This was a
great band. Very unique.




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

"reddred" wrote in message
...

I try to catch them whenever I can, I saw them a few years ago and it was
a
great show.

They were in Dallas a year or so ago and I missed it, but my keyboard
player went and said it was one of the best shows he's seen in a long time.
He said Anderson is better then ever.

ryanm

"james" wrote in message
news:0NQ7c.313$Q45.181@fed1read02...

I think you don't understand where I'm going.

I understand precisely where you're going, what you seem to be missing
is that, in this case, Anderson likely had no involvement with the release.
The label owns his catalog, they can do with it what they want. He has *no*
real say in the matter. Sure, he could kick up a fuss, but he is also likely
to not know that there is even a problem.

I really don't think I'm uninformed.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that artists signed to a
major label (or, in this case, a label bought his catalog) have control over
how their works are distributed. That would be called "uninformed."

ryanm

"Arjan P" wrote in message
...

Oh yes, you're there yet. What about those alleged 'terrorists' from
Afghanistan that are locked away on Guantanamo Bay for more than two years
already, without even being indicted or charged? I'm not saying they're
not
terrorists, but don't be surprised when a government that's willing to
tread on international law, wouldn't be able to do the same in national
law..

See, this is where the difference between being an American citizen and
a *subject* of someplace like Canada or Britain becomes obvious. I expect
and will demand my right to due process, by force if necessary. They haven't
managed to disarm us or stifle the free press yet, and as long as that is
true I have the means to get my due process. Foreigners have no inalienable
right to due process under US law.

ryanm

In article ,
ryanm wrote:


"james" wrote in message
news:0NQ7c.313$Q45.181@fed1read02...

I think you don't understand where I'm going.

I understand precisely where you're going, what you seem to be missing
is that, in this case, Anderson likely had no involvement with the release.

Yeah, you're missing my point. He likely had no involvement. I'm
firmly in the "well, he damned well SHOULD HAVE."

It's his reputation being sullied. He should be interested, and he
should take action.

The label owns his catalog, they can do with it what they want. He has *no*
real say in the matter. Sure, he could kick up a fuss, but he is also likely
to not know that there is even a problem.

Again, he *should* know. I'm just a random guy, and *I* know about the
problem, and I think it's a pretty serious problem. I'm the consumer,
and I think the producer knowingly created a defective product. Maybe
their isn't a straight hierarchy with the artist at the top, or even
connected in any way. I still think silence == consent.

If somebody buys YOUR back catalog, and released your work under
conditions that could seriously impair your reputation and integrity as
an artist, you wouldn't do this helpless, defeated act I hope.

"james" wrote in message
news:0p38c.875$Q45.512@fed1read02...

Yeah, you're missing my point. He likely had no involvement. I'm
firmly in the "well, he damned well SHOULD HAVE."

Except for you, no one else seems to relate this to the artists
themselves, but instead relate it directly to the publisher. So the vast
majority of people, even the non-technical "common folk", seem to understand
that this wasn't something the artist had any control over and point the
finger at the label, where it should be. You seem to be the only person
incapable of making that distinction.

ryanm

ryanm wrote:
"Arjan P" wrote in message

Oh yes, you're there yet. What about those alleged 'terrorists' from
Afghanistan that are locked away on Guantanamo Bay for more than two years
already, without even being indicted or charged? I'm not saying they're
not
terrorists, but don't be surprised when a government that's willing to
tread on international law, wouldn't be able to do the same in national
law..

See, this is where the difference between being an American citizen and
a *subject* of someplace like Canada or Britain becomes obvious. I expect
and will demand my right to due process, by force if necessary. They haven't
managed to disarm us or stifle the free press yet, and as long as that is
true I have the means to get my due process. Foreigners have no inalienable
right to due process under US law.

They have no constitutional right to due process, it is true.

However, the US government has signed this contract in Geneva which
sets down the rules of war. It's not absolutely binding, but it is
a good thing to follow, because if you don't follow it, other countries
won't follow it when fighting you either.

We also have this problem in that we're trying to fight for freedom,
and taking prisoners in the general cause of freedom might be necessary,
but it's a difficult thing to explain and it's certainly a difficult
thing to justify. At the very least we should treat them under the
standard provisions for handling enemy prisoners.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."