What do you think about Napster?

[tw]

I believe you are misreading what I posted. Clearly stated is that the creator has a right to profit. Also that it is critical to the society / economy for innovations to be shared - to the advantage of all AND to the profit of its creator. The problem is one of people who stifle the new creations. This is but another problem, another example, of copyright and patent laws that require serious, pro-active legislation.

Xerox had every right to sue Apple for stealing their technology - legally. And legally Xerox had every right to stifle the GUI interface, mouse type devices, etc. IOW if the creator's bosses chose to stifle technology, then why is this not reason enough for the bosses to surrender the innovation to the creator? McPherson suspension is a classic example of an idea patented in 1946 and kept out of America until 1980. In the meantime, the creator McPherson was forced to leave America to continue work on his baby.

However the fumdamental point I made was that the creator also must be able to profit from his creation - as muscians should be able to profit from their's. The problem with music is that for all practical purposes, it is all but public domain after five years - and the industry's non-innovators don't like it.

Originally posted by wst3

How is it anti-anything to want to be compensated for the cost of developing an idea? Why shouldn't it be IBM's choice as to whether or not they license this technology?

I agree that licensing makes the most sense for a lot of reasons... it helps the creator recoup expenses at the least, and maybe even make a profit, which encourages future innovation, and it allows others to enhance the idea.

And if this is alright then why isn't it alright for an artist to license their creations and be compensated for their efforts?

In some other points: the internet's first major function was to share Grateful Dead concert --- in the 1970s. The internet is that old - just was mostly in the acemdemic community. Even in we fear to innovate Aydinin early 1980s, I was running an internet connected VAX. But the facts known from all that technology should have been sufficient warning for even Congressmen and music industry executives to see the future. No they sat on their asses almost another 10 years after the Internet became more ubiquitious - intentionally ignoring everything about the Internet even before Napster existed.

When is it illegal to copy something if you don't sell it? Also this special exemption for entertainment is new to me - as is the interesting lawyer's twist of claiming the CD's are for music study.

Napster's loss in court was not that they were infriging on copyright but that they were doing damage to the industry. Napster was not selling anything. Indeed most of the music exchanges were not even on their machines. But it was Napsters action's that hurt the industry.

Limiting law only to it myopic perspectives, then OK, that is correct. Lawyers are only interested in the letter of the law - not its purpose. But I agrue that the Napster case ignored the bigger picture - that people and music creator both are denied rights to freely exchange (and profit) from new technologies because, like McPherson, the big industry leaders have conspired to ignore new market demands, needs, and possibilities. Indeed Bertlemann is not being openly blackballed - just like the American auto industry was not blackballing Honda and Volvo - even though the industry kept shutting down trade associations so that Honda and Volvo would be excluded again. Actually Bertlemann is getting a very cold shoulder from it industry peer only because they endorsed the new markets. Bertlesmann has chosen to confront and do business with the internet. The others still sit on their asses - they don't even have a good plan to deal with China after how many decades?

The concepts of the Internet were learned first in the 1970s. To say the industry could not have known in the late 1990 is to prove the industry is guilty of being an ostrich. From PBS's Trimuph of the Nerds - the major internet function was music exchange. That should have been well known to the music industry by the late 1980s. Instead they ignored same.

BTW the same problems in music will also be in movies as technology marches on. Without better internet music solutions, then the same piracy problems will expand to all other electronic entertainment industries.

I am not saying that stealing is supported or legal. Indeed the little people (ie. Metallica) are always the first to suffer when the industry big wigs fear innovation. I share Metallica's pain. But I must first worry about America.

Any industry that is more worried about their profits than about their products - is no different than the mafia. Only the enemies of a free market system would say that the purpose of a company is to earn profits. That is corruption. The purpose of a company is to provide society with new products and services. If said company serves its purpose, then it deserves the REWARD - profits. If said company is only worried about profits, then it is to society's advantage that it have none. Napster indicates that the industry may have more profits than it deserves - not necessarily legally but economically and socially.

[wst3]

Originally posted by tw
I believe you are misreading what I posted. Clearly stated is that the creator has a right to profit. Also that it is critical to the society / economy for innovations to be shared - to the advantage of all AND to the profit of its creator. The problem is one of people who stifle the new creations. This is but another problem, another example, of copyright and patent laws that require serious, pro-active legislation.

I guess I did miss something... if you believe that both society and innovators benefit from the protection of intellectual property why aren't you extending that courtesy to artists?

Originally posted by tw
However the fumdamental point I made was that the creator also must be able to profit from his creation - as muscians should be able to profit from their's. The problem with music is that for all practical purposes, it is all but public domain after five years - and the industry's non-innovators don't like it.

How is music "all but public domain" after five years?

Originally posted by tw
In some other points: the internet's first major function was to share Grateful Dead concert --- in the 1970s. The internet is that old - just was mostly in the acemdemic community.

The internet goes back to the late 50's, and it's principle purpose up until the world wide web was the dissemination of information between the DOD and academia. That tape trading went on between deadhead geeks at universities didn't bother anyone, including the Greatful Dead, back then because the band encouraged taping and trading.

Originally posted by tw
When is it illegal to copy something if you don't sell it?

When you prevent the person who owns the rights from recognizing a return. If I steal a car and give it to a friend is that legal?

Originally posted by tw Also this special exemption for entertainment is new to me - as is the interesting lawyer's twist of claiming the CD's are for music study.

You'd be surprised at the breaks musicians get<G>! If I buy a CD for the sole purpose of research I can write it off on my taxes... now my accountant tells me that such things can be red flags, and the number of CDs I buy for purely research is so small that I don't bother, but the idea that artists study other art is not new.

Originally posted by tw
Napster's loss in court was not that they were infriging on copyright but that they were doing damage to the industry. Napster was not selling anything. Indeed most of the music exchanges were not even on their machines. But it was Napsters action's that hurt the industry.

That is not how I interpret the news stories I've read. I understood that the Judge issued a TRO because she felt that the prosecutors had sufficient evidence of copyright violations to win their case.

Originally posted by tw
Limiting law only to it myopic perspectives, then OK, that is correct. Lawyers are only interested in the letter of the law - not its purpose. But I agrue that the Napster case ignored the bigger picture - that people and music creator both are denied rights to freely exchange (and profit) from new technologies because,<examples snipped>

Lawyers (and legislators) are supposed to think about the intent of a law, judges are supposed to interpret laws in their context.

You suggest that the bigger picture is that artists and consumers are supposed to be have access to free exchange - while at the same time allowing the creator to profit. If it is free than there is no renumeration, and no one can profit.

The really insulting irony is that the only one who profits from the Napster debacle was the greedy bottom feeders who started it.

Originally posted by tw
Any industry that is more worried about their profits than about their products - is no different than the mafia.

I don't know if that analogy fits perfectly, but the fact that most medium to large sized businesses fear Wall Street analysts is a symptom of the problem. The consumer is no longer the person to whom the CEO answers to (maybe they never really were), but rather, it is the investor who now calls the shots.

Originally posted by tw
The purpose of a company is to provide society with new products and services.

Maybe in a ideal world, but today, in the real world, most company's first priority is keepling the shareholders happy. And we've brought this whole mess on ourselves through rampant greed.

Originally posted by tw
If said company serves its purpose, then it deserves the REWARD - profits. If said company is only worried about profits, then it is to society's advantage that it have none.

Again only in the ideal world. And (getting back on topic) I really don't see how the corruption of the free marketplace can justify hurting yet another business person, in this case the artist.

Originally posted by tw
Napster indicates that the industry may have more profits than it deserves - not necessarily legally but economically and socially.

Who is it that decides whether or not a company makes too much profit? I know who decides when they don't, Wall Street, but who is appointed the profit czar?

If the marketplace provides demand, then someone is going to provide supply, and they'll play with the price point until they find their maximum return on investment. That's called free market capitalism.

You want to get really angry? Do a little research and find out how much it costs to produce a compact disc recording. Include the costs of A&R, recording, mastering, publicity, etc, and I think you'll still be quite surprised. Yet we still buy them, even though we are being taken to the cleaners every time. I believe that is called an inelastic demand<G>!

As far as Napster goes, the bottom line is that a couple of greedy folks (the kind that pander to Wall Street, probably East Coast MBA's) figured out a way to let people share files on their computers and get paid. They didn't need servers, they didn't need content, all they needed was a hacked up copy of NFS, and something to display banners.

They don't share all the income from banner advertising with the artists from whom they effect the theft of intellectual property, or their "customers", the people who think that the world owes them a large music collection. They keep it for themselves, all the while hoping to make the really big kill through venture capital and eventually an IPO.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is a very clever business plan. Sadly, if you consider it ethically, it sucks!

Yes, they have provided a glimpse of some of the innovations that are necessary in this new internetworked world, but they've done so at great cost to the artistic community that we need to provide us with content. That is as short-sighted as managing for quarterly profits.

The music industry as a whole has a long history of taking advantage of the artistic community! Their ranks include some of the most ruthless, unethical business people ever.

But they aren't stupid! They have been looking at ways to profit from the internet for several years. The first time I heard it discussed was at an Audio Engineering Society meeting in (I think) 1994.

The problems are great. Once you open that door you open it to both honest consumers and piratess, and one thing Napster has demonstrated is that many of the former are quite willing to become the later. All the more reason to be cautious.

If you think that is an exageration, the first circuit to unset the SCMS bit in the SP/DIF data stream was available on the net within a couple of months of the release of the first consumer DAT recorder.

The entertainment industry as a whole needs to figure out how to manage the internet before broadband connections become commonplace. This is not up for debate.

Stealing music from artists is wrong, no matter what the rationale, and I still don't see how this can be debated either. Two wrongs still don't make a right!

[alphageek31337]

I have a question, concerning fair use....I'm thoroughly obfuscated on the subject. Between my father and I, we have hundreds of vynils (for those of you under the age of 25, I mean the big, black, plastic records). Do I have the legal right to download these songs from napster, even though the songs I'm downloading are remastered and taken from CDs? Technically, I'm downloading a higher quality copy of the song than the one I bought, and I'm not sure if that falls under fair use.

Later

Steve

[wst3]

now that's a tricky question!

On the one hand, copyrights cover the song, and mechanical rights cover the performance, so one would think that if either changed it would require re-licensing.

On the other hand, you do have a licensed copy, and (by my understanding, and I am not a lawyer) that entitles you to make copies.

On the third hand, the copies you make are supposed to be from your original.

From a practical point of view, unless your turntable, cartridge, stylus, and records are all in bad shape I'm not sure that an MP3 copy of a CD would actually sound better.

Bill

[tw]

Originally posted by wst3

How is music "all but public domain" after five years?

The internet goes back to the late 50's, and it's principle purpose up until the world wide web was the dissemination of information between the DOD and academia. That tape trading went on between deadhead geeks at universities didn't bother anyone, including the Greatful Dead, back then because the band encouraged taping and trading.
[/b]

The NY Times publishes a news report today. Should one wish to republish the report, the NY Times owns the copyright and must be consulted. However we all routinely photocopy and use those articles even when we don't buy the newspaper. Of course, the NY Times, et al have adjusted to these new technologies (Xerox machines) which make the articles all but public domain rather quickly.

The problems with music dissemination was made obvious with Dead Head concert exchanges twenty years ago. IOW music, like newspaper stories, were to become all but public domain just as quickly. Any responsible music industry executive should have seen the writing on the wall a generation ago. They either did not see, or (more likely)they just played ostrich. Either way, they now have the Napster and China problems they deserve.

Again, the victims of this mismanagement are artists. The little people always suffer first when top management is anti-innovation. That is unfortunate but it is a symptom - is not the problem to be solved. The problem is that technology moves on. Not only are new standards for copyright, just conpensation, etc necessay for music BUT the same problem looms for movies and books. The same problem will only fester and reappear in all other media industries.

Old copyright laws worked because the hardware protected the software. Good records could not easily be reproduced. Books were too difficult to pirate. Decent movie copies were difficult to create and replay at home. All this is changing. We even have copy machine technology at home. Good music was reproducible in DAT and now on the internet. DVD movies will soon be easy to reproduce. And yes, even digital paper (discussed in Cellar Mark II) will be here soon. You download a book into your digial paper - something akin to bubble paper. How will the industry address open book exchanges?

IOW the old copyright laws have been subverted by innovation. How can we demand new 'horse and carriage' laws when everyone has automobiles. That is the problem with current copyright laws. They assume the old hardware (vinyl records, printing press, large heavy movie projectors and 8mm movie cameras) will remain the current technology. Top industry leaders fear to face the innovation music (a bad pun).

Recently this got more interesting. The EU has decided that the music industry conspires to keep prices high. The EU will either sue the music industry like the Feds went after IBM and Microsoft - or penalize with their new EU laws.

None of what I say claims that the artists are getting too much. On the contrary. The artists receive so little for their creations - much like the farmer now earns so little from a loaf of bread even though bread prices remain high. There is a problem with the middle men who have not addressed their China, et al problems, who have ignored how new technologies require new business models, who think they will encrypt their problems away and who now run to the government for protection - only demanding protection for their artists when it was convenient.

Napster is but a small example of serious copyright problems not just with music, but coming to all media. China type problems are far more serious. Both Napster and China are indicative of a music industry now, and other medias later, that have refused to address new copyright requirements. Current and future technology make current copyright laws and current business models obsolete.

If we don't address copyright and patent laws, then who will suffer. Not the big industry leaders who created the problem. Unfortunately the first victims will always be the little guys - the artists, writers, etc. You already see such people suffering in the commmercial actors strike (call Jaime Lee Curtis a scum bag for crossing picket lines). The upcoming actors strike again will be necessary to protect the actors. But none of this addresses the problems. These strikes protect the little people from the sypmtoms of a bigger problem. That bigger problem is myopia in the top media corporate offices - myopia which exists because not enough people have been hurt yet. That last sentence should be scary for everyone because, as noted earlier, those who will be hurt most are innocent victims - the artists.

[wst3]

Originally posted by tw
The NY Times publishes a news report today. Should one wish to republish the report, the NY Times owns the copyright and must be consulted. However we all routinely photocopy and use those articles even when we don't buy the newspaper. Of course, the NY Times, et al have adjusted to these new technologies (Xerox machines) which make the articles all but public domain rather quickly.

Think so? Just quote from one of their articles on a newsgroup and get caught! This happened to a friend, they later waived the penalties, but they did make him sweat it out.

And just for the record... the fact that I can photocopy an article does not place it in the public domain!

Originally posted by tw
The problems with music dissemination was made obvious with Dead Head concert exchanges twenty years ago. IOW music, like newspaper stories, were to become all but public domain just as quickly. Any responsible music industry executive should have seen the writing on the wall a generation ago. They either did not see, or (more likely)they just played ostrich. Either way, they now have the Napster and China problems they deserve.

You are not making sense here... the Grateful Dead not only permitted taping and trading, they encouraged it. AND, they did not release their copyrights, their music is not yet in the public domain. They have simply chosen to allow their fans to record their live performances and trade those tapes. If you get caught pirating their released recordings you won't get such a friendly result.

Originally posted by tw
Old copyright laws worked because the hardware protected the software. Good records could not easily be reproduced. <snip>

Horse-feathers... long ago I could copy an LP onto a cassette and have it sound just as good.

Originally posted by tw
IOW the old copyright laws have been subverted by innovation. How can we demand new 'horse and carriage' laws when everyone has automobiles. That is the problem with current copyright laws. They assume the old hardware (vinyl records, printing press, large heavy movie projectors and 8mm movie cameras) will remain the current technology. Top industry leaders fear to face the innovation music (a bad pun).

The old copyright laws have not been subverted by new technology, they've been subverted by a generation that thinks that new technology entitles them to anything they want!

The industry does not fear innovation... they simply want to maximize the profit they make from innovation. That is greedy, shortsighted even, but the only fear is that someone else will make more money than they do. Just as soon as they figure out how to leverage the net they will. History demonstrates this.

Originally posted by tw
Recently this got more interesting. The EU has decided that the music industry conspires to keep prices high. The EU will either sue the music industry like the Feds went after IBM and Microsoft - or penalize with their new EU laws.

Not just the EU... the US is also investigating the music industry to see if they have kept CD prices artificially high.

Originally posted by tw
Napster is but a small example of serious copyright problems not just with music, but coming to all media. China type problems are far more serious. Both Napster and China are indicative of a music industry now, and other medias later, that have refused to address new copyright requirements. Current and future technology make current copyright laws and current business models obsolete.

So you still want to solve the problem of piracy in the Pacific Rim, but you don't think that responsible citizens should respect intellectual property law. I don't understand how you make the leap.

Originally posted by tw
If we don't address copyright and patent laws, then who will suffer. <snip>

If I understand your argument correctly, you want intellectual property laws updated so that piracy is no longer illegal... this addresses the innovations in technology.

It does not, however, address the fact that if we don't protect intellectual property then there will be no motivation to create something new because the reward will be gone.

What we really need to do is educate people that they are not entitled to everything for nothing.

[richlevy]

[quote]Originally posted by wst3

Originally posted by tw
The NY Times publishes a news report today. Should one wish to republish the report, the NY Times owns the copyright and must be consulted. However we all routinely photocopy and use those articles even when we don't buy the newspaper. Of course, the NY Times, et al have adjusted to these new technologies (Xerox machines) which make the articles all but public domain rather quickly.

Think so? Just quote from one of their articles on a newsgroup and get caught! This happened to a friend, they later waived the penalties, but they did make him sweat it out.

And just for the record... the fact that I can photocopy an article does not place it in the public domain!

No but there is the concept of "fair use", which was an attempt by the court to prevent abuses by copyright holders. If you copy a part (not the entire) of an article for commentary, you are protected. This does not mean that lawyers cannot threaten you, but it does mean that they have a very poor foundation for their case. (disclaimer-I AM NOT A LAYWER).

The past few years has seen content providers in all media attempt to weaken this concept, using the Internet as an excuse. I say excuse because these issues have always existed and were addressed. It is just recent legislation which in many peoples opinions gives too much power to the holder of the copyright. Remember, there is right and wrong on both sides of this issue. Piracy is wrong, but so is the use of trademarks and copyrights in a predatory manner or to establish a trust (remember that trusts are also illegal).

The record industry holds up artists as the losers, but the reality is that most rights are held by corporations. Read Courtney Love's dissection of anti-artist financial practices, or the recent successful (only recently recinded) attempt to define all creative works under contract as "works for hire", which would strip the artist of any rights to work developed while under a contract to a record company, even though they do not work for a salary and through creative financing might never actually get paid.

An interesting example is the sales tax intiatives by states against online purchases. Sears and Roebuck started mail order 100 years ago, and 800 number catalogues have been a major industry for at least 20 years, yet it took the Internet to provide the excuse states needed to assert their sales tax rights.

[wst3]

Originally posted by richlevy

No but there is the concept of "fair use", which was an attempt by the court to prevent abuses by copyright holders. If you copy a part (not the entire) of an article for commentary, you are protected. This does not mean that lawyers cannot threaten you, but it does mean that they have a very poor foundation for their case. (disclaimer-I AM NOT A LAYWER).

We've been through the fair use provisions earlier in the thread... and there is simply no way that I can understand how anyone can justify stealing copyrighted material via Napster as fair use.

Fair Use provisions were provided to encourage research and discourse... not free use.

Originally posted by richlevy
The past few years has seen content providers in all media attempt to weaken this concept, using the Internet as an excuse. I say excuse because these issues have always existed and were addressed.

One of the ironies that few seem to appreciate is that the same vultures who would give away other's intellectual property guard their own pretty jealously!

As a "Content Provider", Napster lacks the authorization from the holder of the intellectual property to distribute the intellectual property. They provide the means for these illegal transfers, and they whine that it isn't their fault. They've gone on record, however, stating that their software is their intellectual property, and that they will prosecute anyone who violates their rights.

Originally posted by richlevy
It is just recent legislation which in many peoples opinions gives too much power to the holder of the copyright. Remember, there is right and wrong on both sides of this issue. Piracy is wrong, but so is the use of trademarks and copyrights in a predatory manner or to establish a trust (remember that trusts are also illegal).

No one has ever accused the music business of playing fair. But these days they don't own the rights to the vast majority of their libraries... the artists do. Artist's have gotten smarter, and they don't give up nearly as much as they once did. The labels have agreements with the artists for the exclusive right to distribute... otherwise they probably wouldn't care too much about Napster.

My point is that even if Napster hurt the record companies, it hurts the artists more! If an artist does not wish to have their material distributed over Napster then Napster, and the public should respect that.

Originally posted by richlevy
The record industry holds up artists as the losers, but the reality is that most rights are held by corporations. Read Courtney Love's dissection of anti-artist financial practices,

Actually most artists are savvy enough to hold on to the copyrights... they usually have to give up a portion of the publishing and mechanicals, but the smart ones maintain ownership.

As far as Ms. Love's infamous article... very little was news to anyone who has been around for a while... the record companies have a great scam going, of course they want to keep it that way.

A friend recently pointed out that the current state of affairs is not what bothers most of the executives. While Napster is a problem, it isn't what many thing. The real issues are more likely two-fold: first, Napster seems to make stealing more acceptable to some who might not otherwise steal, and two, stolen or not, a new channel will cut into their overall control. The later is probably what keeps them awake at night.

Funny thing is, new distribution channels are already here. Anyone who has the stamina can establish a publishing company, label, whatever, and distribute their material, for a profit. They don't necessarilly need the web, but it is convenient.

Originally posted by richlevy
or the recent successful (only recently recinded) attempt to define all creative works under contract as "works for hire", which would strip the artist of any rights to work developed while under a contract to a record company, even though they do not work for a salary and through creative financing might never actually get paid.

This one was truly ugly. I never expected it to stand, but it says something about the level of greed we as a society have reached that it was even attempted.

I've done work as both a writer for trade journals, and as a composer, and I am quite familiar with the work-for-hire statute. It bugged me a little that the articles I wrote belonged to someone else, but I would never stand for that when it comes to compositions... which is one of the reasons I don't make a living as a composer.

Originally posted by richlevy
An interesting example is the sales tax intiatives by states against online purchases. Sears and Roebuck started mail order 100 years ago, and 800 number catalogues have been a major industry for at least 20 years, yet it took the Internet to provide the excuse states needed to assert their sales tax rights.

That one has me baffled... I know that e-commerce has turned up the heat, but I was quite surprised to see just how much more interstate commerce occurs as a result of the net.

[russotto]

Originally posted by wst3
Fair Use provisions were provided to encourage research and discourse... not free use.

Fair Use provisions were provided because they were part of case law; the statutes were updated to match that. If I quote a NYT article and the NYT sends me a threatening letter, said letter will go straight to file 13. If I don't send it to the EFF instead.

No one has ever accused the music business of playing fair. But these days they don't own the rights to the vast majority of their libraries... the artists do.

The labels typically still own the copyright on the recording itself. Metallica is an exception there.

A friend recently pointed out that the current state of affairs is not what bothers most of the executives. While Napster is a problem, it isn't what many thing. The real issues are more likely two-fold: first, Napster seems to make stealing more acceptable to some who might not otherwise steal, and two, stolen or not, a new channel will cut into their overall control. The later is probably what keeps them awake at night.

If you're going to rely on the law (written by the entertainment industry lobbiests), you're going to have to drop that word "steal". It's a loaded term that copyright law does not use.

That one has me baffled... I know that e-commerce has turned up the heat, but I was quite surprised to see just how much more interstate commerce occurs as a result of the net. [/b]

The last Supreme Court case on that was Quill, in 1992. It wasn't an Internet case, and the states lost. As they have before.