"In my movie script..."
Lef,
But how are you going to pay all those expensive actors in your movie? - Ha
Ha, it always comes back to that, doesn't it?
I think if all these music biz desk pilots would take a few months off and
buy some of those new age quantum reality books and take some evening
courses on quantum physics for dummys they might, if not understand, accept
the Net as it is more.
You are quite right, it is totally counter intuitive if you come at it with
typical macro world expectations and lusts. And of course it can't be
"fixed" any more than quantum physics can be "fixed" to somehow eliminate
all that perplexing supernatural stuff that we find so difficult to accept
is actually happening there. But sorry, literally unbelievable quantum
strangeness IS the honest to no God foundational architecture benieth
EVERYTHING we have always thought of as "reality." Yet (for some "reason?")
it all actually operates in completely opposite and UNPHYSICAL ways, even
the speed of light and the existence of time are questions, not facts
there, and practically nothing happening there bears any functional
resemblence to Newton's discoveries at all. So we will never use our, as
yet. scant knowledge of it to our collective advantage if we go in
demanding that it conform to Newtonian thinking just because THOSE are the
only laws we have ever figured out how to make money with.
So as we move through this Holideck we refer to as reality, which is really
inexplicably formed by PHENOMENA operating imperceptably underneith it
which is functionally unrelated to it, a fact we were obviously constrained
from ever realizing for eons using only the particular, limited, "God
given" bundle of natural, built in perceptual capabilities (or perceptual
blinders if you like) of our species, but stumbled across it once we had
sufficiently developed our own comparitively supernatural, out of body
perceptual tools and equipment that our science provided, it almost
indicates a universal "plan" of timed access to important realizations for
the evolution of intellegence - we evolved unable to discover stuff like
the existence of quantum mechanics inside everything until, one hopes, we
had necessarily evolved sufficiently to "use" such knowledge wisely. (That
atomic bomb thingy was sure a close call in that timing wasn't it?...or
should I say isn't it?)
And if you think such life changing revelations must be just about complete
now, you haven't looked at space very closely. It's WAY WAY WAY too big to
believe this is the one and only outpost of intellegence in it, and it's
WAY WAY WAY too old to think it doesn't contain grandfathers as well as
babies like us. And because we haven't met them yet, (though some might
disagree!) we obviously aren't ready for that either. If you think of
evolution as some kind of ladder to Heaven, we are still on the first rung,
just now reaching for the second, and the top goes right out of sight. We
don't know nothing yet, especially how arrogant we are about how much we
assume we "know." It's still completely early enough to agree with the
Firesign's contention that "Everything you know is wrong."
Which brings me back to making money on the Internet. Ha, ha, it always
comes back to that doesn't it?
Well, you know what? No it doesn't.
Live free and prosper.
DJ
Negativland
>Lets go back to first principals. The reason Don, congress, the courts, and
>everyone on this list has to keep coming up with analogies to explicate the
>absurdity is that since digital copying is cloning, the entire rules of
>reality as we know it vis a vis "copying" are thrown out. You are using
>three dimensional concepts in a four dimensional world. It's bizarro
>world. Its always the opposite of what you think. We make money by giving
>things away; we throw teenagers in jail, and give awards to mobsters who
>call the FBI when someone tries to take back into the public domain what
>was originally stolen by copyright term extension amendments, bought and
>paid for with soft money and hard money alike. We say artist when we mean
>record company, call listening "piracy" etc. . Our brain cells are dying
>while we try to figure out how to pump music into cell phones with the
>shittyest sounding speaker we can find, while we have bose systems in our
>homes and cars. This is all screwed up
>
>The people who started this legislative and cultural mess were simply not
>up to
>the task, and disrespected obvious rules of nature. Like the uncertainty
>principle says, you change an object or a system by entering its gravity
>to inspect it closely. The RIAA is now sitting there with blood and
>entrails hanging out of its overstuffed mounth, having killed the sanctity
>of "master recordings" wit unfettered mass digitization for 20 years
>without copy protection, essentially creating the attractive nuisance that
>fostered Napster, like a deformed offspring, which is then subjected to a
>vivisection in an open star chamber in order to see how it works, so they
>could use its brain and throw away its carcass.
>
>In my movie script, Hilary Rosen is played by Linda Hunt, Zach Horowitz by
>Willem Dafoe in his dracula costume, Shawn Fanning by Brad Pitt, and David
>Boise by Professor Irwin Cory.
>
>Jim Griffin, of course, plays himself.
>
>Don Joyce wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, nobody at the crucial decision vectors of this issue is
>> learning to discuss it accurately. There are unhelpful mental blocks at
>> work here.
>>
>> Electronic looters: They got a lot of stuff and didn't pay for it AND they
>> didn't remove anything from the store in doing so! Lights don't have much
>> to do with it as I belive this was happening in broad daylight too. Since
>> these new kinds of digitized units can be acquired without being removed,
>> we might do better to start considering the perveyors of these items to now
>> be in a NEW kind of business that's all about SPREADING these copied units
>> which never need to be replenished, in fact never need to be manufactured
>> (!) rather than impossibly trying to sell your master over and over, one at
>> a time, the charge for which is no longer justified by either logistics or
>> expenses and only encourages looters who apparently understand this better
>> than you do. In this town, the stores are all unlocked and no inventory is
>> "lost" and it will be this way at least until 1984, so it might be more
>> helpful if you just started charging looters to get into town or something
>> like that...and for God's sake stop trying to follow everyone who's leaving
>> town!
>> Otherwise, you are just inviting 1984 to hurry up and get here, and killing
>> interest in your music master in the process.
>>
>> DJ
>> Negativland
>>
>> >One of the more, um, interesting analogies this week...
>> >
>> >"Ian C. Ballon, an expert in Internet law and a partner at Manatt, Phelps &
>> >Phillips, a California law firm, likens the decision to the lights coming
>> >back on after a prolonged blackout. 'Sometimes when there's a power failure
>> >in a city, and the lights go out, someone might throw a rock through a
>> >window and people may begin taking things out of stores,' Mr. Ballon said.
>> >'The fact that hundreds of people carry off televisions and stereos and do
>> >it for free doesn't mean it's legal,' he added. People loot because the
>> >lights are out and the alarms are off. But sooner or later the lights go
>> >back on, the strange interlude ends and 'the law is re-imposed,' he said."
>> >
>> >-----------------------------
>> >February 16, 2001
>> >Legal Expert Sees Light Focused on Napster Users
>> >By CARL S. KAPLAN
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/16/technology/16CYBERLAW.html
>> >
>> >It's no secret that Napster suffered a major and perhaps fatal blow Monday
>> >when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San
>> >Francisco, issued its long-awaited decision. Boiled down, the federal
>> >appeals court found it likely that the popular online music-swapping
>>service
>> >illegally aided others in violating copyright law.
>> >
>> >But who are the others? That's the second major issue resolved by the Ninth
>> >Circuit's decision -- a point overlooked by a lot of press accounts.
>> >
>> >Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Robert R. Beezer indicated that
>> >Napster's 50 million users have engaged in a kind of mass looting by
>> >downloading and copying music files from the system without permission from
>> >the record companies. The users are the primary infringers of
>>copyright, the
>> >court said. Napster is the contributory infringer. The first conclusion
>>is a
>> >necessary ingredient of the second.
>> >
>> >Of course, it's not likely that the record industry will go after millions
>> >of music-swapping addicts for copyright infringement. That would be
>> >impractical as well as bad for public relations. Still, it's not every day
>> >that an august panel of appellate judges declares that millions of software
>> >users are breaking the law.
>> >
>> >Ian C. Ballon, an expert in Internet law and a partner at Manatt, Phelps &
>> >Phillips, a California law firm, likens the decision to the lights coming
>> >back on after a prolonged blackout. "Sometimes when there's a power failure
>> >in a city, and the lights go out, someone might throw a rock through a
>> >window and people may begin taking things out of stores," Mr. Ballon said.
>> >"The fact that hundreds of people carry off televisions and stereos and do
>> >it for free doesn't mean it's legal," he added. People loot because the
>> >lights are out and the alarms are off. But sooner or later the lights go
>> >back on, the strange interlude ends and "the law is re-imposed," he said.
>> >
>> >The appeals court addressed the question of infringement at some length.
>> >Napster argued that many of its users do not directly infringe on the
>>record
>> >industry's copyrights because they are engaged in a "fair use" of the
>> >material. Among other things, Napster asserted that many consumers used its
>> >system merely to access music they already owned in CD format.
>> >
>> >There was rationale behind the argument. Suppose a high school student from
>> >Los Angeles owns 200 CD's. Suppose, too, that the student just got accepted
>> >at Yale. Why should the kid carry all his CD's to New Haven? Isn't it
>>just a
>> >matter of convenience for him to upload his CD's to Napster, so that he may
>> >access them from his new dorm room at his leisure?
>> >
>> >The defense is a variation on a winning point in Sony v. Universal City
>> >Studios, Inc., a leading Supreme Court case on copyright infringement that
>> >was decided in 1984. In the Sony "Betamax" case, the Supreme Court found
>> >that most VCR owners use their machines to tape a copyrighted television
>> >show for later personal viewing. The court said this practice,
>> >"time-shifting," was a fair use.
>> >
>> >A later case, RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., decided by the
>> >United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1999, extended the
>> >concept. The appeals court said it was a fair use for consumers to use the
>> >Rio, a portable MP3 player, to make copies in order to "space-shift," or
>> >render portable, those music files that already resided on their hard
>> >drives.
>> >
>> >In its Napster decision, however, the appeals court panel said that the
>> >prior arguments about time- and space-shifting were "inapposite," or
>> >irrelevant.
>> >
>> >In the Sony case, the court observed, the vast majority of VCR users
>>did not
>> >distribute the television broadcasts they taped to the general public.
>> >Rather, they enjoyed them privately at home at a later time. Similarly, a
>> >Rio user transferred copyrighted music he already owned from a hard
>>drive to
>> >a portable MP3 player. In both situations, the copied material was exposed
>> >only to the original user.
>> >
>> >"Conversely," the appeals court wrote ominously in its Napster
>>decision, "it
>> >is obvious that once a user lists a copy of music he already owns on the
>> >Napster system in order to access the music from another location, the song
>> >becomes available to millions of other individuals, not just the
>>original CD
>> >owner." Because the Napster user willy-nilly shares his music with
>>countless
>> >millions of other Napster users, there can be no fair use, the court said.
>> >
>> >Now that a federal appeals court has written in lawyerly prose that
>> >countless Napster users are engaged in copyright infringement, will it make
>> >any difference to the individuals who copy music? Some might think not. But
>> >Mr. Ballon is optimistic.
>> >
>> >"Now that the lights are on," he said, those who use Napster might try a
>> >lawful system of downloading music. One result of the appeals court's
>> >decision, which ultimately modified a broad injunction issued by a lower
>> >court, is that Napster and the music industry have more time to create a
>> >legitimate system for distributing MP3 music files. A cheap and lawful
>> >system would not be such a bad outcome, Mr. Ballon said.
>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>> >This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>> >
>> >To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> >To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>> >request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> >To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> >"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>>
>> To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>> request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="leflaw.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for leflaw
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="leflaw.vcf"
>
>Attachment converted: FRIDAY:leflaw.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (00021675)
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.