[wst3]

Originally posted by tw
If I can photocopy are article for another but not Napster a music recording - why the different standards?

I did a little reading on Fair Use this weekend, because I thought you brought up a very interesting point... seems there is a clear delineation between what you can and can not copy under the fair use provisions, and a pretty good reason...

You can make a copy of just about anything that is copyrighted for you own use as long as it is for some research purpose, NOT entertainment. What this means, ironically, is that I could go to Napster and download a tune to learn it so that I can teach it to one of my students. How's that for twisted?

Originally posted by tw
IOW it is never stealing, legally, until the law defines what is stealing and the lawmakers have, as usual, chosen to let reluctant courts make the laws.

Really two different things here... of course it isn't stealing LEGALLY until defined as such. But once it is defined as such we have a responsibilty, as citizens, to either respect the law or cause it to be changed!

As far as the legistators and jurists, and even executives all trying to change their roles... truly one of the more frustrating parts of being an American in this era. The systems needs change, but until enough citizens wake up and do something about it there will be no change.

Originally posted by tw
This whole Napster mess and even the China copyright problems are directly traceable to reactive laws made because of what our Congressman are more interested in. My god, Intel had to get into an expensive, silly lawsuit with AMD before microcode copyright laws were created. Ergo the copyright symbol now printed on all Intel chips. Laws not created by a Congress only because WE relected 95% of the incumbants even when we were mad at them in 1992.

The Napster mess has little to do with Congress or anything else other than some people believing that the world owes them a living!

Foreign countries ignoring out intellectual property rights is really just another case of someone who thinks that there is no value in intellectual property or innovation.

The Intel vs. AMD question goes a lot deeper though. When that case came about there were no laws, or interpretations of existing laws that addressed microcode. It was a new manifestation of intellectual property and the laws had to be revised to take care of them. Now it SHOULD have been the legislative branch that took care of the matter, but the problems with our system of governance are still a separate question.

Originally posted by tw
The industry had not made any attempt at new business models until very recently - the last five years.<snip happens>

Actually, there were many in the music industry who recognized the internet for what it was back when the web was still in it's infancy! That they haven't found a solution is not for lack of trying! If you really have the answer you should execute it and get rich.

Originally posted by tw
That the industry can not find a way to harness the internet that benefits consumer, artist, and industry is hardly their fault... is clearly and directly traceable to industry top management.<more snip happens>

The industry made a huge wrong turn when they turned over the reigns to bean counters, I think everyone will agree.

It is an interesting phenomenon though, because there are two very strong influences that caused the change. The first was the discovery that not only was popular music NOT a fad, but that you could make money in it. This attracted the bottom feeders who have more interest in profits than art.

The second was the public's demand for a bigger return on their investment. Let's face it, few industries pay more attention to their customers than the street.

Originally posted by tw
Rather than endorse the Napster concept, they ignored the whole thing. Now they would blackball Bertelsmann for attempting a negotiated solution? How myopic.

No one, to my knowledge, is blackballing Bertelsmann. There are some jealous complaints because Bertelsmann had the foresight to buy CDNow... which may have been more good luck than good management<G>! And you might have noticed that no one has yet endorsed the Napster concept... they are trying to make the Napster technology profitable, a very different thing.

Originally posted by tw
I fear you worry about something trivial as Napster. The real problem is international piracy - especially mainland China. The theft numbers there are phenomonally greater and up to now have not been addressed by an industry that was willing to accept this piracy.

Whoa there... it's alright for you to steal music via Napster but it isn't alright for someone else to make pirate copies? Why? The profit motive? That's really splitting hairs!

Originally posted by tw
I worked for a company called Aydin<big snip>

You just made me very glad I never accepted a job there<G>!

But again I have to ask, are you saying that software piracy is OK or not OK, I'm not sure! And if you are saying that it is not OK, how do you reconcile stealing from the music industry?

Originally posted by tw
Again, Napster is only a symptom. It is legal to duplicate your CDs for all friends but illegal to do so through Napster. It is illegal for China to distribute CD everywhere but the industry makes rediculous and trivial attempts to end the problem - even leaving laws in confused, archaeic states.

Huh... it is NOT legal to make a copy of a CD for a friend, never has been, hopefully never will be!

And how does the inadequacy of the attempt made to block piracy make piracy OK?

Originally posted by tw
The stealing does occur. Napster is on the undefined edge of legal vs illegal. My perspective is not about wanting freer music. My complaint is that the industry knew these problems were coming decades previously and did nothing until very recently. What was the biggest first function of the Intenet? To share copies of Grateful Dead concerts. Music piracy? Twenty years later, the industry still did nothing to address the issue? How myopic. They have the problem they deserve - and a reasonable solution is still not defined in US copyright laws.

Napster is not on any undefined edge!!!!!

The industry did not have a clue decades ago because the web did not exist decades ago... the internet as it existed as late as the early 90's was a place for academics and geeks. The rest of the world could not grok it without a gui front end, thus there was not commercial threat or potential there. (I for one do somedays miss the pre web internet!)

The biggest first function of the internet was not sharing Dead tapes... that didn't come along until just before the web itself, AND, that practice was completely sanctioned by the band. This is another case of an artist making a choice and other people interpreting that to mean that all artists would make that choice. There is no logical path from one to the other.

A rasonable solution is not defined because there are many who believe that the "reasonable" solution is to allow access to intellectual property with out reimbursement regardless of the owner's choice on the matter. I have to agree with those who believe this is in no way reasonable.

Originally posted by tw
They ignored the laws that Napster straddles until the problem because too big.

That is a fact of life today... problems aren't addressed until they become big problems because:
(a) there are so many problems to address
-or-
(b) our legislators are idiots

Take your pick, but the later doesn't speak well for the citizens!

Originally posted by tw
BTW I also said the artist were victims. But again, the employees will always be the first victims when top management is anti-American - anti-innovation. I have been posting these 'we fear to innovate' examples both here and in the many previous Cellar Mark x for years. Don't worry about the artists. They were victims years ago. It is too late to help them. The old problem is just starting to affect them.

I really hope you are kidding here. It is not too late, and it is NOT management's (no matter how anti-American) fault that people want something for nothing.

Originally posted by tw
Address the real problem - a management that fears to innovate and that entrenches itself AND a Congress that cannot even trash the useless penny and nickel, that demands to have Clinton's penis examined, and that still cannot address copyright and patent laws. These other problems are only symptoms of myopic management and a 'do nothing' Congress.

How about addressing another real problem, the fact that a large number of people have no respect for other peoples property, intellectual or real? How about addressing another problem, people with severly distorted views on entitlement?

Our system of government has flaws, problems, and needs to be fixed. Stealing isn't going to fix it!