wessman
September 26th, 2002, 04:44 PM
State of Online Music: RIAA's Efforts Paying Off |
| from the they-create-a-desolation-and-call-it-a-peace dept. |
| posted by michael on Wednesday September 25, @15:26 (music) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/1532207 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]melquiades writes "The [1]NYT (regreq) has a [2]new article about
online music, suggesting that the recording industry's war against P2P is
paying off: pay-to-download services are rising in popularity. "Largely
because of tough actions by the record companies to combat free music
sites through the courts, legislation and even through techno-guerrilla
tactics, there is a noticeable change of sentiment in a small segment of
the downloading cognoscenti. Though their numbers are low, many are the
early adapters who spot a trend first." Though the article falls into the
common fallacy of equating P2P with illegal copying -- I'm one of the
numerous artists who wants people to download my [3]music for free -- it
sums up the state of affairs well, particularly in this quote from online
music consultant Michael Haile: "Record labels know what consumers want.
We all do. They want a Napster you pay for. We all know that. But why
would the labels want that at all? Making CD's is like printing money.""
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/1532207
Links:
0. http://innig.net
1. http://nytimes.com/
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/arts/music/25DOWN.html
3. http://innig.net/music/
----------------------------------------------------------
P2P foes defend hacking bill
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 26, 2002, 2:44 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959774.html
WASHINGTON--Supporters of a proposed law that would permit copyright holders to assail peer-to-peer networks angrily defended it on Thursday, saying it had been mischaracterized by opponents.
During the first congressional hearing on the bill, Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., denounced critics' "scare tactics" and said their proposal was a modest plan that had been carefully crafted to reduce piracy on peer-to-peer networks.
"There have been some truly outrageous attacks," Berman said. "I never expected that anyone would challenge the underlying premise of the bill, namely that copyrighted owners should be able to use reasonable, limited measures to thwart peer-to-peer piracy."
Berman's aides wrote the bill, which has been applauded by the entertainment industry almost as much as it has been reviled among technology and communications companies. While some copyright laws enacted in the 1990s targeted the Web, this bill represents Congress' first attempt to restrict ever-increasing file sharing on peer-to-peer networks.
According to the P2P Piracy Prevention Act, copyright holders would have the right to disable, interfere with, block, or otherwise impair a peer-to-peer node that they suspect is distributing their intellectual property without permission. The bill doesn't specify what techniques--such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking--would be permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased.
Criticism of the bill has centered around two arguments: Nowhere does it specify what kind of technological attacks would be permissible, nor does it provide sufficient recourse if a computer is unreasonably targeted. Fearing that they may bear the brunt of electronic attacks, Internet providers have joined civil liberties groups in opposition to the proposal.
Coble, who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees copyright law and who convened Thursday's hearing, complained about "vague misinformation that's going around."
"I've never received such notoriety from a bill that I did not introduce," Coble said. "But if Howard Berman asked me today to co-sponsor it, I would do it again. It is our responsibility to promote efforts to reduce infringement or piracy of intellectual property."
Coble added, "Actually, Howard, when I decided to co-sponsor your bill, I thought it was relatively noncontroversial. But there are others who don't share your convictions about property rights and are currently attempting to march me into the woods for political re-education."
Most members of the subcommittee appeared to support the bill, and three of the four witnesses invited to testify welcomed it.
"There has been a lot of misinformation about this bill," said Hilary Rosen, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. "Some have characterized it as allowing copyright vigilantism or letting record companies and movie studios hack into people's computers and crash networks. These irresponsible descriptions at best reveal a misunderstanding of the text and purpose of the bill, and at worst purposely cloud the real issues."
Peer-to-peer crackdown
Randy Saaf, president of an anti-piracy firm called MediaDefender, told the panel that he offered customers two ways to target peer-to-peer piracy: Clogging pirates' outgoing connections, and spoofing networks by distributing files with misleading titles.
"If legal minds believe the current draft of the legislation leaves too much room for abuse, it should be redrafted," Saaf said. "However, the concept should not be abandoned because one thing is certain: P2P technology will continue to improve, and illegal downloading of copyrighted material will only get easier."
Gigi Sohn, president of the Public Knowledge nonprofit group, was the only opponent asked to testify. Under harsh questioning from the panel, Sohn stressed that she was not a copyright abolitionist and believed that there was a role for government in punishing widespread infringement.
But, Sohn said, the Berman-Coble bill went too far and could lead to unintended consequences, including targeting perfectly legal material. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., a leading critic of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other recent copyright laws, has raised the same point.
"The door (would be) wide open for abuse by the copyright owner and harm to computer users," Sohn said. "For example, the limitations on altering and deleting files...conceivably would not prevent a copyright owner from cutting a user's DSL (digital subscriber line) or even his phone line or knocking his satellite dish off his roof."
In a July opinion article for CNET News.com, Berman said it was time to crack down on peer-to-peer pirates. "There is no excuse or justification for P2P piracy. Of course, consumers would like free music at the click of a mouse," he said. "They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
Related News
Superstars blast file swapping September 25, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959537.html
File-swapping foes exert P2P pressure August 13, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-949533.html
Hollywood hacking bill hits House July 25, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-946316.html
Could Hollywood hack your PC? July 23, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html
Hollywood heads up anti-piracy charge July 22, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945691.html
Get this story's "Big Picture"
http://news.com.com/2104-1023-959774.html
Copyright ©1995-2002 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------
Lasting impression--downloading is illegal
By Gary Shapiro
Special to ZDNet
September 26, 2002, 8:36 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-959632.html
COMMENTARY--Hollywood, the music industry, select policy-makers and now the Justice Department have adopted a new "copyspeak" that equates the downloading of files from the Internet with "piracy," "stealing" and "shoplifting."
The pervasive theme of copyspeak is that downloading from the Internet is both illegal and immoral. It is neither. No doubt this era's rapid shift to digital technology is changing the rules of the game--there is little doubt that some use the benefits of technology to make and distribute unauthorized copies for personal financial gain in clear violation of copyright law.
But we've been down the road of technological advancement before. How we resolve this latest tension between copyright and technology will define our future ability to communicate, create and share information, education and entertainment. Indeed, if the play button becomes the pay button, our very ability to raise the world's standard of living and education will be jeopardized.
With each new technology, the fears of the music and motion picture industries have grown. Television and the VCR allegedly marked the end of movies. CDs and cassettes would cause harm from real-time transfers and one-at-a-time copies. Today's technologies make these fears seem almost quaint.
The growth of reproduction, storage and transmission technology has terrified copyright owners--most notably the music and motion picture industries. With high-speed connectivity and the Internet, the perceived copyright theft is not buying a CD and making a copy for a friend; it's downloading from a stranger or making available thousands of copies with the touch of a keystroke.
Based on these and similar threats the content community has gone on a scorched earth campaign--attacking new recording and peer-to-peer technologies--using the Congress, media and courts to challenge recording in the digital age.
As an industry that recognizes the legitimate concerns of copyright owners that exist in a digital world, consumer-electronics companies have been working for years with both the recording and motion picture industries on developing technological measures that meet the needs of both industries by protecting content at the source.
But despite these efforts, the copyright community has declared war on technology and is using lawsuits, legislatures and clever copyspeak public relations to restrict the ability to sell and use new technologies. The downloading of a song to sample an artist's wares--behavior most Americans between 13 and 25 engage in regularly--has been likened to a criminal and immoral act. It's time to take a close, hard look at this characterization.
Downloading is not illegal
Fair use rights--the right of consumers to make copies of copyrighted materials for their personal use--are guaranteed to consumers by statute, and applied judicially on a case-by-case basis. This means that, while some consumer practices ultimately could be adjudicated as either fair use or infringement, there is scant basis for challenging them as criminal activity, as copyspeak would now have it.
In copyspeak, there is no such thing as fair use "rights," rather fair use is only an affirmative defense to copyright infringement and therefore not a right. But various recognized "rights" may only be asserted as affirmative defenses in a lawsuit. For example, in a slander suit, one may assert the First Amendment right but only as an affirmative defense; this does not diminish the fact that the right exists.
Time after time, practices of individuals that were initially equated with "piracy" or "theft" have been shown to be neutral, even beneficial, to copyright owners, and have been accepted as fair use. Think of the VCR and the Supreme Court decision holding that its use to tape full movies is completely legal.
To make downloading immoral, you have to accept that copyrighted products are governed by the same moral and legal principles as real property, thus the recent and continuous reference by the copyright community to label downloading as stealing. But the fact is that real and intellectual property are different and are governed by different principles.
Downloading a copyrighted product does not diminish the product, as would be the case of taking and using tangible property such as a dress. At worst, it is depriving the copyright owner of a potential sale. The truth is, it may be causing a sale (through familiarity) or, even more likely, have no impact on the sale. My son often will become familiar with artists through downloading their music on the Internet and then will go out and buy the CD. Indeed, recent studies by independent organizations have shown this to be the case.
The comparison to real property fails for several other reasons. Real property is subject to ownership taxes. Real property lasts forever and can be owned forever. A copyright can be owned only for a limited period of time. Indeed, the United States Constitution declares this. More, copyright law must bow to the First Amendment, which expressly allows people to use a copyrighted product without the permission of the copyright owner. This concern contributes to the statutory and judicial concept of "fair use". The First Amendment includes not only the right to send but also the right to receive. Indeed, in 1984 the U.S. Supreme Court in declaring the VCR a legal product said that it could be OK to copy an entire copyrighted product. So if the Supreme Court expressly held that VCR copying in the home for noncommercial purposes is a legal activity, how is it suddenly labeled as "piracy" because the device is a computer?
The music industry has made little effort to look at new business models or provide a viable and attractive alternative to the downloading services. Instead, they spend their time complaining they "cannot compete with free," referring to the free downloading the Internet allows. But the marketplace demonstrates you can compete with free. Purveyors of bottled water do it. America Online does it. Book retailers do it with libraries. Independent online music services say they can do it, if they can clear the rights.
The recording industry and motion picture industry need to look for technological solutions to their own problems. Blaming declining revenue on downloading ignores the economic conditions, multiple entertainment options and a dearth of quality major label artists facing consumers. Content providers would be served better by working with technology companies to deploy these solutions rather than suing teenagers and lobbying Congress to legislate unreasonable and consumer-unfriendly mandates.
Gary Shapiro is CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association.
------------------------------------------------------
Xiph.org Releases Theora Alpha One |
| from the soon-my-pretty-soon dept. |
| posted by timothy on Wednesday September 25, @17:06 (announce) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/2029257 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]Pajama Crisis writes "[1]Xiph.org, the crazy guys behind [2]Ogg Vorbis,
have released the first alpha version of [3]Ogg Theora, an open video
codec. Downloading, hacking and smashing into little pieces is cheerfully
encouraged. Theora has been mentioned on Slashdot [4]before. Also, Xiph
has been working with a [5]couple [6]different companies to bring Vorbis
to a portable near you; stay tuned."
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/2029257
Links:
0. http://www.vorbis.com/~emmett/pc/beautiful_science/
1. http://www.xiph.org/
2. http://www.vorbis.com/
3. http://www.theora.org/
4. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/24/0041248&tid=162
5. http://www.iriver.com/
6. http://www.frontierlabs.com/
--------------------------------------------
Liquid Audio awaits vote results
By Evan Hansen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 26, 2002, 1:30 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959744.html
Liquid Audio said it plans to announce next week the results of a closely watched shareholder vote on Thursday that could decide the future of the online music company.
Key issues on the table at Thursday's annual meeting included management's proposal to accept a buyout offer from Alliance Entertainment, a privately held retail music fulfillment company. That plan is opposed by a group of dissident shareholders seeking to oust the current board of directors, shut the company down and return its remaining cash reserves to investors.
A Liquid Audio representative said the company does not plan to release a preliminary vote count. An announcement of the final tally is expected Oct. 4.
Shareholders opposing the merger include Steel Partners, which has made its own bids to buy Liquid Audio, and BCG Strategic Investors co-founder James Mitarotonda.
Liquid Audio has struggled for years to make money from its secure platform for delivering music downloads over the Internet, a plan complicated by the availability of free music over peer-to-peer and file-swapping services.
The company reported revenue of $151,000 for the second quarter of the year and a loss of $5.6 million. Its cash and cash equivalents at June 30, 2002 were $81 million, compared with $86.4 million at March 31 and $91.6 million at Dec. 31, 2001.
Related News
Liquid Audio's future remains fluid September 25, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959323.html
Liquid Audio sues over tracking patent July 2, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-941272.html
Liquid Audio finds a buyer June 13, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-935620.html
Liquid Audio refuses buyout offers November 6, 2001
http://news.com.com/2110-1023-275453.html
Get this story's "Big Picture"
http://news.com.com/2104-1023-959744.html
Copyright ©1995-2002 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------
Public Domain Superheroes? |
| from the stretch-dude-and-clobber-girl dept. |
| posted by michael on Wednesday September 25, @09:22 (news) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/1156221 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
SerpicoWasTaken writes "Here is an interesting article about a group of
comic book heroes from the golden age that are in the public domain.
Apparently, a bunch of golden age heroes were never copyrighted and just
faded into obscurity. The article also contains a long discussion of
copyright and the public domain. It is an interesting read for all those
interested in the public domain." Update: 09/25 17:51 GMT by [0]M: Link
removed at the request of the site maintainers because it's killing their
server. Update: 09/25 19:02 GMT by [0]M: They've put the document on a
[1]static page instead of a cgi script. :)
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/1156221
Links:
0. mailto:michael@@slashdot.org
1. http://newsarama.com/public.html
Hearings On Bills To "Promote" Digital TV |
| from the shoving-the-free-market-around dept. |
| posted by timothy on Wednesday September 25, @13:16 (tv) |
| http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/1637205 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
jsproul writes "The New York Times (registration required) is reporting
that [0]hearings will be held today on a bill by Billy Tauzin (R-Disney)
to require the digital broadcast flag, end analog broadcasts by 2006, and
(according to the [1]Consumer Federation of America) obsolete VCRs and
make taping of television shows subject to the control of broadcasters.
Another bill by Howard Berman (D-Hollywood) will also be debated, which
bill allows record companies to attack peer-to-peer networks without
liability for 'accidental' damages."
Discuss this story at:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/1637205
Links:
0. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/technology/25DIGI.html
1. http://www.consumerfed.org/
Top Ten Physics Experiments Of All Times |
| from the beating-back-the-unknown dept. |
| posted by Hemos on Wednesday September 25, @01:55 (science) |
| http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/0256200 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
MarkedMan writes "The New York Times is running [0]an article about the
top ten physics experiments of all time. You may disagree with the order,
but it is hard to imagine pulling any one of these from the top ten. And
most of them could be done by a patient amateur, at least one with access
to cannonballs." The Times article wraps up the work by Robert P. Crease
[1]mentioned a few weeks ago.
Discuss this story at:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/0256200
Links:
0. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/science/24BEAU.html?8hpib
1. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/30/1458233&tid=134
Roll Your Own Browser |
| from the picture-your-own-throbber dept. |
| posted by timothy on Wednesday September 25, @13:37 (mozilla) |
| http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/1649237 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]davidwboswell writes "[1]Oreillynet is running an article about how to
[2]create your own browser with Mozilla. This is a follow-up to a
[3]previous article that surveyed many of the alternate Mozilla browsers
currently available including [4]Chimera, [5]Galeon, [6]Phoenix and
[7]Aphrodite."
Discuss this story at:
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/1649237
Links:
0. mailto:david@mozdev.org
1. http://www.oreillynet.com/
2. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mozilla/2002/09/24/mozilla_custom.html
3. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mozilla/2002/09/12/mozilla_browsers.html
4. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/chimera
5. http://galeon.sourceforge.net/
6. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix
7. http://aphrodite.mozdev.org/
---------------------------------------------------------
Web habits: New moms serious, dads not
By Lisa M. Bowman
Special to ZDNet News
September 26, 2002, 11:12 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-959704.html
Women change their Web habits more than men when they become parents, according to a new study by an Internet market research group.
ComScore Networks found that family community sites and home furnishings retailers attracted the highest percentage of new and expectant moms. Toy retailers then porn sites, respectively, garnered the highest concentration of dads.
ComScore spokesman Max Kalehoff said gaming, porn and sports sites have always been popular among young men. That trend doesn't seem to change much immediately before or after they have children.
"It's kind of business as usual for the men, except for buying toys," Kalehoff said.
New and expectant moms, however, are more likely to visit child-related sites, including Babiesrus.com, ParentsPlace.com and BabyCenter.com. Sites that offer fragrances and coupons also remain popular among women who are pregnant or new moms.
Mothers in particular make up one of the fastest-growing Web segments, and they're also among the biggest online spenders.
The study examined the surfing habits of people who had become new parents in the past six months or were expecting a new baby in the next six months. According to ComScore, 7.1 million U.S. Internet users were new or expectant parents in the first quarter of 2002.
:sw
| from the they-create-a-desolation-and-call-it-a-peace dept. |
| posted by michael on Wednesday September 25, @15:26 (music) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/1532207 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]melquiades writes "The [1]NYT (regreq) has a [2]new article about
online music, suggesting that the recording industry's war against P2P is
paying off: pay-to-download services are rising in popularity. "Largely
because of tough actions by the record companies to combat free music
sites through the courts, legislation and even through techno-guerrilla
tactics, there is a noticeable change of sentiment in a small segment of
the downloading cognoscenti. Though their numbers are low, many are the
early adapters who spot a trend first." Though the article falls into the
common fallacy of equating P2P with illegal copying -- I'm one of the
numerous artists who wants people to download my [3]music for free -- it
sums up the state of affairs well, particularly in this quote from online
music consultant Michael Haile: "Record labels know what consumers want.
We all do. They want a Napster you pay for. We all know that. But why
would the labels want that at all? Making CD's is like printing money.""
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/1532207
Links:
0. http://innig.net
1. http://nytimes.com/
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/arts/music/25DOWN.html
3. http://innig.net/music/
----------------------------------------------------------
P2P foes defend hacking bill
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 26, 2002, 2:44 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959774.html
WASHINGTON--Supporters of a proposed law that would permit copyright holders to assail peer-to-peer networks angrily defended it on Thursday, saying it had been mischaracterized by opponents.
During the first congressional hearing on the bill, Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., denounced critics' "scare tactics" and said their proposal was a modest plan that had been carefully crafted to reduce piracy on peer-to-peer networks.
"There have been some truly outrageous attacks," Berman said. "I never expected that anyone would challenge the underlying premise of the bill, namely that copyrighted owners should be able to use reasonable, limited measures to thwart peer-to-peer piracy."
Berman's aides wrote the bill, which has been applauded by the entertainment industry almost as much as it has been reviled among technology and communications companies. While some copyright laws enacted in the 1990s targeted the Web, this bill represents Congress' first attempt to restrict ever-increasing file sharing on peer-to-peer networks.
According to the P2P Piracy Prevention Act, copyright holders would have the right to disable, interfere with, block, or otherwise impair a peer-to-peer node that they suspect is distributing their intellectual property without permission. The bill doesn't specify what techniques--such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking--would be permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased.
Criticism of the bill has centered around two arguments: Nowhere does it specify what kind of technological attacks would be permissible, nor does it provide sufficient recourse if a computer is unreasonably targeted. Fearing that they may bear the brunt of electronic attacks, Internet providers have joined civil liberties groups in opposition to the proposal.
Coble, who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees copyright law and who convened Thursday's hearing, complained about "vague misinformation that's going around."
"I've never received such notoriety from a bill that I did not introduce," Coble said. "But if Howard Berman asked me today to co-sponsor it, I would do it again. It is our responsibility to promote efforts to reduce infringement or piracy of intellectual property."
Coble added, "Actually, Howard, when I decided to co-sponsor your bill, I thought it was relatively noncontroversial. But there are others who don't share your convictions about property rights and are currently attempting to march me into the woods for political re-education."
Most members of the subcommittee appeared to support the bill, and three of the four witnesses invited to testify welcomed it.
"There has been a lot of misinformation about this bill," said Hilary Rosen, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. "Some have characterized it as allowing copyright vigilantism or letting record companies and movie studios hack into people's computers and crash networks. These irresponsible descriptions at best reveal a misunderstanding of the text and purpose of the bill, and at worst purposely cloud the real issues."
Peer-to-peer crackdown
Randy Saaf, president of an anti-piracy firm called MediaDefender, told the panel that he offered customers two ways to target peer-to-peer piracy: Clogging pirates' outgoing connections, and spoofing networks by distributing files with misleading titles.
"If legal minds believe the current draft of the legislation leaves too much room for abuse, it should be redrafted," Saaf said. "However, the concept should not be abandoned because one thing is certain: P2P technology will continue to improve, and illegal downloading of copyrighted material will only get easier."
Gigi Sohn, president of the Public Knowledge nonprofit group, was the only opponent asked to testify. Under harsh questioning from the panel, Sohn stressed that she was not a copyright abolitionist and believed that there was a role for government in punishing widespread infringement.
But, Sohn said, the Berman-Coble bill went too far and could lead to unintended consequences, including targeting perfectly legal material. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., a leading critic of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other recent copyright laws, has raised the same point.
"The door (would be) wide open for abuse by the copyright owner and harm to computer users," Sohn said. "For example, the limitations on altering and deleting files...conceivably would not prevent a copyright owner from cutting a user's DSL (digital subscriber line) or even his phone line or knocking his satellite dish off his roof."
In a July opinion article for CNET News.com, Berman said it was time to crack down on peer-to-peer pirates. "There is no excuse or justification for P2P piracy. Of course, consumers would like free music at the click of a mouse," he said. "They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
Related News
Superstars blast file swapping September 25, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959537.html
File-swapping foes exert P2P pressure August 13, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-949533.html
Hollywood hacking bill hits House July 25, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-946316.html
Could Hollywood hack your PC? July 23, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html
Hollywood heads up anti-piracy charge July 22, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945691.html
Get this story's "Big Picture"
http://news.com.com/2104-1023-959774.html
Copyright ©1995-2002 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------
Lasting impression--downloading is illegal
By Gary Shapiro
Special to ZDNet
September 26, 2002, 8:36 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-959632.html
COMMENTARY--Hollywood, the music industry, select policy-makers and now the Justice Department have adopted a new "copyspeak" that equates the downloading of files from the Internet with "piracy," "stealing" and "shoplifting."
The pervasive theme of copyspeak is that downloading from the Internet is both illegal and immoral. It is neither. No doubt this era's rapid shift to digital technology is changing the rules of the game--there is little doubt that some use the benefits of technology to make and distribute unauthorized copies for personal financial gain in clear violation of copyright law.
But we've been down the road of technological advancement before. How we resolve this latest tension between copyright and technology will define our future ability to communicate, create and share information, education and entertainment. Indeed, if the play button becomes the pay button, our very ability to raise the world's standard of living and education will be jeopardized.
With each new technology, the fears of the music and motion picture industries have grown. Television and the VCR allegedly marked the end of movies. CDs and cassettes would cause harm from real-time transfers and one-at-a-time copies. Today's technologies make these fears seem almost quaint.
The growth of reproduction, storage and transmission technology has terrified copyright owners--most notably the music and motion picture industries. With high-speed connectivity and the Internet, the perceived copyright theft is not buying a CD and making a copy for a friend; it's downloading from a stranger or making available thousands of copies with the touch of a keystroke.
Based on these and similar threats the content community has gone on a scorched earth campaign--attacking new recording and peer-to-peer technologies--using the Congress, media and courts to challenge recording in the digital age.
As an industry that recognizes the legitimate concerns of copyright owners that exist in a digital world, consumer-electronics companies have been working for years with both the recording and motion picture industries on developing technological measures that meet the needs of both industries by protecting content at the source.
But despite these efforts, the copyright community has declared war on technology and is using lawsuits, legislatures and clever copyspeak public relations to restrict the ability to sell and use new technologies. The downloading of a song to sample an artist's wares--behavior most Americans between 13 and 25 engage in regularly--has been likened to a criminal and immoral act. It's time to take a close, hard look at this characterization.
Downloading is not illegal
Fair use rights--the right of consumers to make copies of copyrighted materials for their personal use--are guaranteed to consumers by statute, and applied judicially on a case-by-case basis. This means that, while some consumer practices ultimately could be adjudicated as either fair use or infringement, there is scant basis for challenging them as criminal activity, as copyspeak would now have it.
In copyspeak, there is no such thing as fair use "rights," rather fair use is only an affirmative defense to copyright infringement and therefore not a right. But various recognized "rights" may only be asserted as affirmative defenses in a lawsuit. For example, in a slander suit, one may assert the First Amendment right but only as an affirmative defense; this does not diminish the fact that the right exists.
Time after time, practices of individuals that were initially equated with "piracy" or "theft" have been shown to be neutral, even beneficial, to copyright owners, and have been accepted as fair use. Think of the VCR and the Supreme Court decision holding that its use to tape full movies is completely legal.
To make downloading immoral, you have to accept that copyrighted products are governed by the same moral and legal principles as real property, thus the recent and continuous reference by the copyright community to label downloading as stealing. But the fact is that real and intellectual property are different and are governed by different principles.
Downloading a copyrighted product does not diminish the product, as would be the case of taking and using tangible property such as a dress. At worst, it is depriving the copyright owner of a potential sale. The truth is, it may be causing a sale (through familiarity) or, even more likely, have no impact on the sale. My son often will become familiar with artists through downloading their music on the Internet and then will go out and buy the CD. Indeed, recent studies by independent organizations have shown this to be the case.
The comparison to real property fails for several other reasons. Real property is subject to ownership taxes. Real property lasts forever and can be owned forever. A copyright can be owned only for a limited period of time. Indeed, the United States Constitution declares this. More, copyright law must bow to the First Amendment, which expressly allows people to use a copyrighted product without the permission of the copyright owner. This concern contributes to the statutory and judicial concept of "fair use". The First Amendment includes not only the right to send but also the right to receive. Indeed, in 1984 the U.S. Supreme Court in declaring the VCR a legal product said that it could be OK to copy an entire copyrighted product. So if the Supreme Court expressly held that VCR copying in the home for noncommercial purposes is a legal activity, how is it suddenly labeled as "piracy" because the device is a computer?
The music industry has made little effort to look at new business models or provide a viable and attractive alternative to the downloading services. Instead, they spend their time complaining they "cannot compete with free," referring to the free downloading the Internet allows. But the marketplace demonstrates you can compete with free. Purveyors of bottled water do it. America Online does it. Book retailers do it with libraries. Independent online music services say they can do it, if they can clear the rights.
The recording industry and motion picture industry need to look for technological solutions to their own problems. Blaming declining revenue on downloading ignores the economic conditions, multiple entertainment options and a dearth of quality major label artists facing consumers. Content providers would be served better by working with technology companies to deploy these solutions rather than suing teenagers and lobbying Congress to legislate unreasonable and consumer-unfriendly mandates.
Gary Shapiro is CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association.
------------------------------------------------------
Xiph.org Releases Theora Alpha One |
| from the soon-my-pretty-soon dept. |
| posted by timothy on Wednesday September 25, @17:06 (announce) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/2029257 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]Pajama Crisis writes "[1]Xiph.org, the crazy guys behind [2]Ogg Vorbis,
have released the first alpha version of [3]Ogg Theora, an open video
codec. Downloading, hacking and smashing into little pieces is cheerfully
encouraged. Theora has been mentioned on Slashdot [4]before. Also, Xiph
has been working with a [5]couple [6]different companies to bring Vorbis
to a portable near you; stay tuned."
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/2029257
Links:
0. http://www.vorbis.com/~emmett/pc/beautiful_science/
1. http://www.xiph.org/
2. http://www.vorbis.com/
3. http://www.theora.org/
4. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/24/0041248&tid=162
5. http://www.iriver.com/
6. http://www.frontierlabs.com/
--------------------------------------------
Liquid Audio awaits vote results
By Evan Hansen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 26, 2002, 1:30 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959744.html
Liquid Audio said it plans to announce next week the results of a closely watched shareholder vote on Thursday that could decide the future of the online music company.
Key issues on the table at Thursday's annual meeting included management's proposal to accept a buyout offer from Alliance Entertainment, a privately held retail music fulfillment company. That plan is opposed by a group of dissident shareholders seeking to oust the current board of directors, shut the company down and return its remaining cash reserves to investors.
A Liquid Audio representative said the company does not plan to release a preliminary vote count. An announcement of the final tally is expected Oct. 4.
Shareholders opposing the merger include Steel Partners, which has made its own bids to buy Liquid Audio, and BCG Strategic Investors co-founder James Mitarotonda.
Liquid Audio has struggled for years to make money from its secure platform for delivering music downloads over the Internet, a plan complicated by the availability of free music over peer-to-peer and file-swapping services.
The company reported revenue of $151,000 for the second quarter of the year and a loss of $5.6 million. Its cash and cash equivalents at June 30, 2002 were $81 million, compared with $86.4 million at March 31 and $91.6 million at Dec. 31, 2001.
Related News
Liquid Audio's future remains fluid September 25, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959323.html
Liquid Audio sues over tracking patent July 2, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-941272.html
Liquid Audio finds a buyer June 13, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-935620.html
Liquid Audio refuses buyout offers November 6, 2001
http://news.com.com/2110-1023-275453.html
Get this story's "Big Picture"
http://news.com.com/2104-1023-959744.html
Copyright ©1995-2002 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------
Public Domain Superheroes? |
| from the stretch-dude-and-clobber-girl dept. |
| posted by michael on Wednesday September 25, @09:22 (news) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/1156221 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
SerpicoWasTaken writes "Here is an interesting article about a group of
comic book heroes from the golden age that are in the public domain.
Apparently, a bunch of golden age heroes were never copyrighted and just
faded into obscurity. The article also contains a long discussion of
copyright and the public domain. It is an interesting read for all those
interested in the public domain." Update: 09/25 17:51 GMT by [0]M: Link
removed at the request of the site maintainers because it's killing their
server. Update: 09/25 19:02 GMT by [0]M: They've put the document on a
[1]static page instead of a cgi script. :)
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/1156221
Links:
0. mailto:michael@@slashdot.org
1. http://newsarama.com/public.html
Hearings On Bills To "Promote" Digital TV |
| from the shoving-the-free-market-around dept. |
| posted by timothy on Wednesday September 25, @13:16 (tv) |
| http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/1637205 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
jsproul writes "The New York Times (registration required) is reporting
that [0]hearings will be held today on a bill by Billy Tauzin (R-Disney)
to require the digital broadcast flag, end analog broadcasts by 2006, and
(according to the [1]Consumer Federation of America) obsolete VCRs and
make taping of television shows subject to the control of broadcasters.
Another bill by Howard Berman (D-Hollywood) will also be debated, which
bill allows record companies to attack peer-to-peer networks without
liability for 'accidental' damages."
Discuss this story at:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/1637205
Links:
0. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/technology/25DIGI.html
1. http://www.consumerfed.org/
Top Ten Physics Experiments Of All Times |
| from the beating-back-the-unknown dept. |
| posted by Hemos on Wednesday September 25, @01:55 (science) |
| http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/0256200 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
MarkedMan writes "The New York Times is running [0]an article about the
top ten physics experiments of all time. You may disagree with the order,
but it is hard to imagine pulling any one of these from the top ten. And
most of them could be done by a patient amateur, at least one with access
to cannonballs." The Times article wraps up the work by Robert P. Crease
[1]mentioned a few weeks ago.
Discuss this story at:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/0256200
Links:
0. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/science/24BEAU.html?8hpib
1. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/30/1458233&tid=134
Roll Your Own Browser |
| from the picture-your-own-throbber dept. |
| posted by timothy on Wednesday September 25, @13:37 (mozilla) |
| http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/25/1649237 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]davidwboswell writes "[1]Oreillynet is running an article about how to
[2]create your own browser with Mozilla. This is a follow-up to a
[3]previous article that surveyed many of the alternate Mozilla browsers
currently available including [4]Chimera, [5]Galeon, [6]Phoenix and
[7]Aphrodite."
Discuss this story at:
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/09/25/1649237
Links:
0. mailto:david@mozdev.org
1. http://www.oreillynet.com/
2. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mozilla/2002/09/24/mozilla_custom.html
3. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mozilla/2002/09/12/mozilla_browsers.html
4. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/chimera
5. http://galeon.sourceforge.net/
6. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix
7. http://aphrodite.mozdev.org/
---------------------------------------------------------
Web habits: New moms serious, dads not
By Lisa M. Bowman
Special to ZDNet News
September 26, 2002, 11:12 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-959704.html
Women change their Web habits more than men when they become parents, according to a new study by an Internet market research group.
ComScore Networks found that family community sites and home furnishings retailers attracted the highest percentage of new and expectant moms. Toy retailers then porn sites, respectively, garnered the highest concentration of dads.
ComScore spokesman Max Kalehoff said gaming, porn and sports sites have always been popular among young men. That trend doesn't seem to change much immediately before or after they have children.
"It's kind of business as usual for the men, except for buying toys," Kalehoff said.
New and expectant moms, however, are more likely to visit child-related sites, including Babiesrus.com, ParentsPlace.com and BabyCenter.com. Sites that offer fragrances and coupons also remain popular among women who are pregnant or new moms.
Mothers in particular make up one of the fastest-growing Web segments, and they're also among the biggest online spenders.
The study examined the surfing habits of people who had become new parents in the past six months or were expecting a new baby in the next six months. According to ComScore, 7.1 million U.S. Internet users were new or expectant parents in the first quarter of 2002.
:sw