[rumori] Re: pho: RE: Burned?


From: Don Joyce (djATwebbnet.com)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 23:01:47 PDT


Rifat,
Your estimate of how big and difficult my idea would be to accomplish is
probably true. But just try to estimate how big and difficult (and fraud
filled and leaky) any form of currently envisioned copy-protected
stop-and-pay scheme would be. Either way is big and difficult, but I
certainly like the results of the former effort much more than the latter
(and so will the public.) No contest.
But that's why it has to be taken on as a non-profit, government overseen
digital compensation plan. It's too big to be anything else, and NO ONE is
going to trust a bunch of sqwabbling privateers trying to get ahead of each
other to put anything like this forward in the public interest.

And there would surely be gnashing of teeth while such an instituted plan
remains only partially effective within a transition period during which
this scheme would not be universal to all our relevant hardware and
software. On the other hand, once the digital access tax is established,
(must be step one, really, to produce the desire to participate) anyone who
immediately jumps on with the applicable payment encoding on their
reproduced products would immediately start to get paid from giving away
their music on-line, where as those not participating and continuing to
pursue their various pay as you go schemes on-line would continue to make
what they make, which is not much either!

Along with establishing the digital access tax by law, the passive payment
encoding/reading electronics would become mandetory in all future
hardware/software manufacturing. No different than the Gov. requiring UL
approval or FCC shielding on all electronic. That didn't happen overnight
either but now it's universal and no one thinks twice about the wisdom of
it, so it can be done. Then it's just a matter of time before compensating
through digital access will far outrun private stop-and-pay ideas, none of
which have now or will ever have a comprehensive way to channel enough
traffic through all their separate little on-line toll gates to make
decent profit. But let the two paths compete as long as they want to -
there is no doubt in my mind which will be preferred by both providers and
users over time.

But of course, although ALL private toll content providers will surely also
start encoding their content to get THAT cut of the total traffic too, they
can also pursue any private tolls on-line they want to in addition.
Inevitably, most, but not necessarily all, privately controled pay schemes
will be avoided unless their custom services are perfected to something
users can't do without. But so far, we haven't seen anything like that yet
either. But public tax supported digital access compensation would simply
come on-line as an addition to all the currently impotent plans, not
legally eliminating any other private possibility whatsoever. This would
succeed by choice or not at all. ONLY electronics manufacturers would have
no choice about participating in this plan, but perhaps the initial access
tax could also subsidise the necessary retooling, although that apparently
was not seen as necessary for UL or FCC hardware mandates. The goal is to
have all file using hardware/software (burners, players, file sharing, etc)
have the capability to read and pass on to all reproductions the payment
encoding that originates in the master. 100% passive information that
remains part of any reproducable work. Once that is in effect, the rest
will follow.

It seems to my highly untechnical head that all the tracking of ID payment
encoding which is then passing across the Net within content (presumably
detected either in the form of providers sending or annonymous users
accessing files) could be automatically registered as it happens and
relayed 24/7 automatically to a central compensation main frame on-line
that could handle this kind of delineated volume. It seems to me that a lot
of the main frame's process of correlating specific content usage with
those registered as owning the content can be highly automated. (and the
ONLY way to keep user ID entirely out of this process is to do so by Gov.
mandate and operation)

Setting compensation rates to be paid out of this total usage is also a big
"problem," but at least one we have some experience in doing in other
venues. I'm not saying this would be easy, just a far preferable (and
doable) headache than where we're going now, which is nowhere. It would be
trial and error for awhile as we discover how much can be paid out vs. how
much is coming in. Infinitely adjustable as we go along. We would all be
excepting this plan as (horrors!) a national digital compensation
EXPERIMENT. If it turns out that access fees are far ovewrwhelmed by usage
volume, we raise the Net access tax. If it turns out that millions in
monthly access fees sit around undelegated by actual usage, we lower the
access tax. Again, ONLY the non-profit Gov. can be halfway trusted to keep
this in any kind of public interest balance as it develops. The digital
access tax could fluctuate monthly like the price of oil if need be, but
the theoretical goal would be to take in only what needs to be payed out.
Non-profit!

There are no "privacy" issues that I can see. The applicable encoding
within participating content (the only thing the collecting main frame can
"read") is simply the info on who to pay when that content is accessed,
every time it's accessed. Content providers register their payment IDs to
participate, and that's by choice. This is also a familiar process, like
ASCAP, BMI, or even the check-out scanner codes on all hard goods now. User
ID, the who, where, or why of all usage, would remain totally invisable to
this technology. All it's for is paying who gets used, period.

"Theft" or piracy becomes a futile and irrelevant mindset because all
digital content on-line becomes free for the taking. Copyrights become what
allows you to register your payment encoded content, but plays no role
whatsoever in "protecting" on-line distribution. There would be nothing to
protect there. The more your content is freely spread there, the more you
get paid! This utter reversal of all present commerce priorities there is
the most amazing aspect of all, and content owners' ability to reap from
TOTAL net wide usage rather than whatever little islands of control they
can painfully negotiate there is a double plus good win win for commerce.
It would represent a gain in income rather than a loss for on-line content
owners, yet the Net remains free for all. Common, fellas and gals, what
more can I possibly do for you!?!

Even with it's messy and partialized transition into being, within 10 years
it could become universal, including spreading to foreign Net
neighborhoods. Is there really ANY other prospect out there that can even
come close to suggesting this? And most importantly, what kind of Net do we
end up with if THEY become our digital payment system? Some results are
worth the effort to achieve and some are best left undone. If you're going
to work hard at getting paid, work hard for the solution that can please
EVERYONE rather than solutions intended to benefit a tiny minority while
pissing off the vast majority. Especially when one appears no more
difficult to achieve than the other.
DJ
Negativland

>If I might add, Don's model might be two steps ahead of the logical
>iterative steps need to achieve that ideal free flow, from where we are
>today.
>
>Taxing the distribution gateways seems reasonable. And payment ID encoding
>seems reasonable. And taxing the storage device (CDs, etc) as a blanket tax
>seems reasonable. If we can implement any of the above, to keep the flow of
>files free, then it would certainly makes transparent the commerce element,
>and reach back to the original intent of the Internet.
>
>But, firstly, to ID the market participants for each file distributed and
>tracked at each node, and to distribute monies to each participant, is a
>huge undertaking. For example, telecom network guys have enough problems
>with current mediation and settlement issues to service those along the
>value chain, and let's not forget the mobile layer. The business process
>alone to database each market participant, to indicate their percentage of
>the take (which has to be agreed to in advance), to do the actual settlement
>of monies collected, and to support the costs of the entire mediation
>process, would be very challenging indeed.
>
>Secondly, the security issue. Tracking ID and payment ID might have to be
>opt-in, otherwise the privacy issues are raised. That was seen in Real's
>dilemma a while ago.
>
>Thirdly, the largest issue, is whether copyright holders (in this case,
>corporations), can wrap a business rationale and build a pro forma around
>the above untested processes? Can they say to their stakeholders, Sure let's
>remove today's legacy bottlenecks of distribution, open it up, and let's
>just see if it will work, and hopefully everyone will get paid properly, on
>time, taxes paid, no fraud, no leakage, no etc etc.
>
>I think a lot of faith is required in each iterative step, first starting
>from the main copyright boys and girls today, and not to lock up copyright
>further, but to re-think copyright as copy-value. Each touchpoint with the
>customer is another moment where the corporation can win over the hearts. If
>that means swallowing the Internet as a loss leader, the price of doing
>business, but getting huge customer loyalty and goodwill out of it... maybe,
>that's the way to go.
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Don Joyce" <djATwebbnet.com>
>To: <phoATonehouse.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:38 AM
>Subject: Re: pho: RE: Burned?
>
>
>> "Stealing is stealing."
>>
>> Not if you're giving it away.
>>
>> Sociological problem: Welfare is "stealing" too by capitalistic standards.
>> Recipients generally neither earn nor pay for what they get, but we've
>> decided as a society that it's a matter of public welfare we want to allow
>> for, thus it's not (usually) defined as stealing. There is such a thing as
>> our cultural welfare too. It could be improved through expanded, unfenced
>> access to it all. All it takes is for a concensus to agree that it no
>> longer necessarily needs to be bought per unit on line, BUT it could still
>> be paid for per use on line. That's the beauty of the Net's technological
>> potential - entirely "free" content available to ALL who go there without
>> being confused with stealing an object from a store. Digitized music is
>not
>> an object and the Internet was never designed to be a store.
>>
>> Tower would not object to you walking out the door with their CDs if they
>> were not even charging for them in the first place, but sufficiently
>> charging everyone to get in the front door and noting what you take in
>> order to compensate the CD creators out of the total door fees. You
>> literally can't steal what's "free" for the taking. That should be the
>> redefining goal of all digitized culture. Tower can't do that because
>their
>> exclusively local traffic wont support it and the store would be empty all
>> the time, but the Net cannot be emptied out and the traffic coming through
>> the door is planetary.
>>
>> You are probably thinking that content compensation must take a loss to
>> distribute itself this way. I am suggesting the Net is a different scale
>of
>> beast entirely and you will make more that way, even with any number of
>> free(down)loaders coming to the american Net from other countries that may
>> not be contributing to any compensating access fee where they are(!) than
>> you ever will by withholding all cultural products for a per unit price on
>> line. All we have to do is institute it here, along with the necessary
>> payment ID encoding of all our own digitized content, and content creators
>> everywhere will soon demand to participate with payment encoded content
>and
>> an Internet access/compensation tax where they are too. I can't think of a
>> single form of foreign capitalist reasoning that would want to avoid doing
>> this. This is where the human tendency for copying comes in real handy...
>>
>> Expansion means EXPANSION. Free Net content will expand the content taker
>> numbers a hundred fold, a thousand fold, who knows? There is no limited
>> supply to diminish there. No one I have talked to about this would object
>> to paying, say 5 or even 10 dollars more for Net access PER MONTH if all
>> the Net's content remained free for the taking. (It would still be cheap
>> enough, way below what is commonly paid for cable TV for instance, which
>> most viewers consider only partially worth it at best.)
>> That's God knows how many billions per year just coming from America to
>> divide up among the specific, appropriately encoded content providers who
>> get "used" on-line.
>>
>> And think of how much we'll save in court clogging and legal costs once we
>> can dispose of all concepts of "stealing" and copyright infringement there
>> ENTIRELY!!! Boggles the mind with sociological (excuse the expression)
>> optimism.
>>
>> DJ
>> Negativland
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >JP:
>> >
>> >I don't think the whole world views this as a business model problem, and
>I
>> >definately agree with Albhy Galuten that it is a sociological problem in
>> >part, which is the foundation of my argument.
>> >
>> >If any of us walks into Tower Records, grabs a CD, and decides to leave
>> >without paying, a majority of the world would agree that this is
>stealing.
>> >And I bet there is a good chance that you'll get nabbed in the process.
>So
>> >most of us wouldn't try to steal because we "might" get busted. Just the
>> >thought of getting busted deters most people from commiting crimes, or so
>we
>> >would like to think. But if I decide to burn CDs full of music that I
>> >acquired through Napster and other related services, this people would
>argue
>> >is not stealing. I think this way of thinking/teaching (sociological) is
>not
>> >good for anyone. Stealing is stealing. If anyone wants to say that file
>> >sharing is not stealing, I'm down with that IF YOU HAVE THE PERMISSION OF
>> >THE ARTIST AND/OR COPYRIGHT OWNER. If you don't, then you're stealing
>IMHO.
>> >
>> >My final thoughts:
>> >
>> >1. Sheryl Crow is right. People like to burn CDs and there is a certain
>> >excitement in doing so. I like to burn CDs and definately get excited
>when I
>> >do it. I would also be excited if Sheryl Crow asked me to play bass
>guitar
>> >for her band.
>> >2. The BEST minds in the business are trying to find/make solutions that
>> >BEST enable responsible digital commerce - solutions that benefit both
>> >businesses and consumers alike. And I would argue that
>copylock-control-DRM
>> >solutions are a very necessary component for responsible commerce.
>> >3. Hilary is right. For now, individuals are liable and they are subject
>to
>> >prosecution should the RIAA, MPAA, or any other agency, business, or
>artist
>> >decides to protect their rights.
>> >
>> >Brett
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: owner-phoATonehouse.com [mailto:owner-phoATonehouse.com]On Behalf Of
>> >John Parres
>> >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:49 PM
>> >To: phoATonehouse.com
>> >Subject: pho: Burned?
>> >
>> >
>> >Sheryl Crow sez "...There's a ''sex appeal'' to burning CDs..., Ron Fair
>sez
>> >"...the best minds in the business are spending copious amounts of time
>to
>> >find
>> >a [copylock] solution..." and Hilary is lecturing to students and does
>not
>> >rule
>> >out suing people, saying "...individuals are liable..."
>> >
>> >But perhaps the most telling comment belongs to Albhy Galuten (standing
>at
>> >Vivendi-Universal's ground zero) who sees all this as "...a sociological
>> >problem..."
>> >
>> >But of course the rest of the world already knows it's a business model
>> >problem, which I think, raises two interesting questions: Won't these
>> >confused
>> >executives be thrown overboard eventually and how far does the market
>need
>> >to
>> >drift before that happens?
>> >
>> >JP
>> >
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------
>> >http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/111/living/Burned_+.shtml
>> >
>> >Burned?
>> >
>> >Last year, recordable discs outsold CDs for the first time. With so many
>> >people
>> >copying music, is the record industry toast?
>> >
>> >By Steve Morse, Globe Staff, 4/21/2002
>> >
>> >The cries are getting louder from many artists and record companies.
>Sheryl
>> >Crow calls it ''shoplifting.'' Elvis Costello calls it ''stealing.'' But
>> >many
>> >young music fans are calling it their personal right in the digital age.
>> >
>> >The issue is CD burning - the act of duping a CD for free on your
>computer.
>> >It's become the central worry of a music industry that slumped last year
>and
>> >continues to dive alarmingly, as more and more consumers feel entitled to
>> >burn
>> >CDs and often distribute copies to friends.
>> >
>> >Even Harvard Law School students are getting into the act. When Hilary
>> >Rosen,
>> >the head of the Recording Industry Association of America, lectured at
>> >Harvard
>> >last week, she asked how many of the law students had illegally
>downloaded
>> >music. About one-third of them put their hands up. But when she asked how
>> >many
>> >had burned CDs for friends, the vast majority raised their hands.
>> >
>> >''And some of these people are thinking of going into the entertainment
>> >industry,'' Rosen said afterward, shaking her head in disbelief. ''This
>is
>> >what
>> >we're up against.''
>> >
>> >For decades, people have made cassette recordings for friends. But
>> >record-label
>> >representatives say that home taping was never as prevalent as CD
>burning,
>> >mainly because blank tapes cost up to eight times what you now pay for
>blank
>> >CDs. Also, the sound depreciated every time you made another copy.
>> >
>> >Not so in the digital age, when immaculate-sounding copies can be made
>every
>> >time.
>> >
>> >Ownership of CD burners
>> >
>> >has nearly tripled since 1999. Last year, according to a study by Peter
>Hart
>> >Research Associates (commissioned by the RIAA), two in five music
>consumers
>> >owned a CD burner, as compared with 14 percent in 1999. And the same
>study
>> >found that 23 percent of consumers bought less music last year because
>they
>> >downloaded or copied most of it for free.
>> >
>> >Many new computers now come equipped with burners, and recent TV
>commercials
>> >tout them as being hip accessories. Sales of blank CDs - used for
>recording
>> >purposes - have skyrocketed to the point that, for the first time, more
>> >blank
>> >CDs (1.1 billion) were sold last year than prerecorded CDs (968 million).
>> >
>> >''Obviously, something is being done with those blank CDs,'' says Mike
>> >Dreese,
>> >owner of the Boston-based Newbury Comics record chain and prophetic
>coauthor
>> >two years ago of a widely distributed essay, ''Disc burning equals
>death.''
>> >
>> >Dreese notes that CD sales were down 4 percent last year from the year
>> >before.
>> >They are down 9 percent so far in 2002 and he predicts a 13 percent
>overall
>> >decline this year, based on how many consumers will buy new CD burners.
>> >
>> >There's a ''sex appeal'' to burning CDs, says Crow, adding that it is a
>> >social
>> >event for young people, just as listening to 45s was once a social event
>for
>> >their parents.
>> >
>> >The industry is grappling with technologies that prevent copying to help
>> >stall
>> >this trend and especially to harness the ''cottage industry'' (as Dreese
>> >calls
>> >it) of people who make copies on a dorm floor and sell them to other
>> >students.
>> >This goes way beyond just making copies for friends.
>> >
>> >''None of the [copy-prevention technologies] totally work yet, but the
>best
>> >minds in the business are spending copious amounts of time to find a
>> >solution,'' says Ron Fair, president of A&M Records.
>> >
>> >In the meantime, the industry is mounting a massive public-education
>> >campaign
>> >before other, sterner tactics are tried, as happened when the RIAA
>> >effectively
>> >shut down the file-sharing service Napster by hitting it with a lawsuit
>that
>> >succeeded, ultimately protecting against copyright infringement and
>ensuring
>> >that record companies and artists would be compensated for past copyright
>> >violations.
>> >
>> >Seeing both sides
>> >
>> >It's a complex issue that is far from cut-and-dried in the eyes of many
>> >observers, including some artists. ''I see it from two different sides,''
>> >says
>> >Boyd Tinsley of the Dave Matthews Band. ''It sucks because musicians will
>> >make
>> >a lot less money'' from CD burning, he says. ''But, on the other hand,
>it's
>> >a
>> >cool thing because kids gets exposed to so much music through the
>Internet -
>> >and that's a good thing.''
>> >
>> >Many young people such as Eric Gregory, a 16-year-old student at
>Cambridge's
>> >Buckingham, Browne & Nichols School, also see both sides of the issue.
>But
>> >they
>> >burn CDs anyway, convinced that store-bought CDs are just too expensive
>(up
>> >to
>> >$19.98 apiece for domestic releases).
>> >
>> >''The amount you have to pay for CDs is horrendous,'' says Gregory.
>Instead,
>> >he's joined the parade of fans who buy blank CDs in bulk (costing between
>25
>> >and 50 cents each) and then add the CD cover artwork by checking Internet
>> >sites
>> >such as www.CD-cover-search.com. His CD burner cost less than $100 and he
>> >can
>> >copy a CD in about three minutes.
>> >
>> >''Burning a CD is a good thing,'' he says, ''because you get to see if
>you
>> >like
>> >the band, and then you can go to their shows, where you help them by
>buying
>> >tickets and merchandise. I'm not trying to rip off the band. And a lot of
>> >times, kids will buy the CDs after they've burned a CD, just to support
>the
>> >band.''
>> >
>> >The RIAA's Rosen, however, sees some of this as bogus logic. ''It's in
>vogue
>> >to
>> >diss record companies. That gives fans the license to say, `Well, we're
>only
>> >hurting record companies. We're not hurting the artists,''' she says.
>> >''People
>> >sometimes think `If an artist is well known enough and I've heard of
>them,
>> >they
>> >have a lot of money and I don't care. And if an artist is unknown, they
>> >ought
>> >to be grateful to me for spreading their name around.' So they create
>this
>> >sort
>> >of rationalization.''
>> >
>> >Rosen does a lot of public speaking at schools and she prods the students
>to
>> >think about what they're doing by burning CDs, since the artists aren't
>> >getting
>> >any royalties from that. ''Analogies are what really work best,'' she
>says.
>> >''I
>> >ask them, `What have you done last week? They may say they wrote a paper
>on
>> >this or that. So I tell them, `Oh, you wrote a paper, and you got an A?
>> >Would
>> >it bother you if somebody could just take that paper and get an A too?
>Would
>> >that bug you?' So this sense of personal investment does ring true with
>> >people.''
>> >
>> >In today's volatile business climate, arguments over CD burning can
>> >sometimes
>> >get much more testy. Dreese of Newbury Comics recently spoke at Berklee
>> >College
>> >of Music and lost his temper with one student who said that he could hack
>> >through any encryption technology and still get the music for free.
>> >
>> >''I said, `Well, what if you could steal a penny from every senior
>citizen's
>> >bank account in the country? They're not going to miss it, but you'd
>quickly
>> >make yourself a million dollars. Now what would happen if everybody
>behaved
>> >that way?'
>> >
>> >''These type of people perceive the risk of getting caught as being
>> >nonexistent. It's like a hacker mentality. If there's a way you can hack
>it,
>> >then you should just be entitled to it. It goes with the hacker ethic.''
>> >
>> >The downturn
>> >
>> >The reasons are debatable, but signs of a record industry swan dive are
>> >everywhere. There have been recent bankruptcies by the National Record
>Mart
>> >and
>> >Northeast One-Stop (the No.1 supplier of music for Newbury Comics),
>Valley
>> >Records in California, and a stunning move by EMI Records to lay off
>1,400
>> >employees globally and drop 400 acts.
>> >
>> >It's also notable where the people who still buy music are buying it.
>Chains
>> >like Tower and Virgin are down 8 to 9 percent, according to SoundScan,
>while
>> >mass merchants such as Wal-Mart and Target (that is, stores that sell
>many
>> >other products besides CDs) are up 6 percent. That has a negative impact
>on
>> >the
>> >selection of music in record stores, because obviously, those retailers
>> >focus
>> >on the faster-selling hit-making acts, rather than exposing a lot of new,
>> >lesser-known CDs that sell fewer copies and take up space.
>> >
>> >Stopping the practice of CD burning, however, could be thorny on legal
>> >grounds.
>> >''Is CD burning legal? That's a little complicated. Probably the answer
>is
>> >yes,'' says William Fisher, co-director of Harvard's Berkman Center for
>the
>> >Internet and Society.
>> >
>> >''The cottage industry of kids burning CDs and selling them around dorms
>is
>> >plainly illegal. That's a commercial use,'' he adds, noting that it
>violates
>> >the Audio Home Recording Act Congress passed in 1992. ''But if a kid
>wants
>> >to
>> >distribute 10 copies around his dorm for free, that's looking a lot more
>> >like
>> >it's OK. That sounds like what was happening for [what led up to] the
>Audio
>> >Home Recording Act. You'd make a mix and distribute it to friends as
>gifts.
>> >And
>> >gifts are not commercial, so it's very hard to stop.''
>> >
>> >The way to address the record industry's concerns about loss of revenue
>is
>> >by
>> >finding other means of compensation, Fisher says, such as a tax increase
>on
>> >blank CDs. The major record labels may eventually push for that tax, or a
>> >tax
>> >on CD burners.
>> >
>> >For now, though, the labels are exploring copy-prevention technologies.
>Sony
>> >just released the new Celine Dion CD in Europe as an encrypted CD, though
>> >the
>> >results are not yet in. Universal experimented with copy prevention on
>the
>> >domestic release of a second volume of ''The Fast and the Furious''
>> >soundtrack).
>> >
>> >More ominous for digital free-use advocates is a bill introduced last
>month
>> >by
>> >Senator Ernest Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina. Called the
>Consumer
>> >Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, it would give the
>> >entertainment
>> >and computer industries up to 18 months to agree to a technological
>standard
>> >to
>> >stop the spread of unauthorized copying of digital audio and video. A Web
>> >site
>> >known as DigitalConsumer.org was started to rally support against this
>> >Congressional bill.
>> >
>> >Record labels have also started their own subscription services that are
>> >trying
>> >to grab a piece of the pie. These services include Pressplay (jointly
>owned
>> >by
>> >Sony and Universal), MusicNet (funded by BMG, Warners, and EMI) and
>> >Listen.com's Rhapsody. They offer the downloading of music, but Pressplay
>> >boasts that it is the only one to also offer CD burning (on a very
>limited
>> >basis) so that you can make a portable copy for your car or your Walkman.
>> >
>> >Pressplay, which pays artist royalties, was launched in December and
>offers
>> >a
>> >14-day free trial. After that, consumers can sign up for the ''silver''
>plan
>> >for $14.95 a month (offering 500 streams, 50 downloads, and 10 burns -
>but
>> >only
>> >two songs from any one album), the ''gold'' plan for $19.95 a month (750
>> >streams, 75 downloads, and 15 burns), or the ''platinum'' plan for $24.95
>> >(1,000 streams, 100 downloads, 20 burns). There are no statistics yet as
>to
>> >its
>> >success, according to Pressplay vice president Seth Oster, but it has
>> >''exceeded our internal estimates,'' he says. Pressplay is also
>partnering
>> >with
>> >Billboard to offer the latter's archives, so someone could go back 20
>years,
>> >for example, and grab the Top 10 hits of that particular week to make a
>> >compilation CD.
>> >
>> >The cost of these services is similar to paying a monthly rate for cable
>TV,
>> >but the difference, according to Dreese, is that consumers never got
>cable
>> >TV
>> >for free, whereas they are now used to getting music for free because of
>CD
>> >burning.
>> >
>> >''I don't see why anyone is going to pay $10 to $15 a month for a
>severely
>> >limited bit of music,'' says Dreese, who predicts that Pressplay is going
>to
>> >meet consumer resistance.
>> >
>> >But music-industry executives argue that the landscape is going to have
>to
>> >change, one way or another.
>> >
>> >''We have got to do something to protect intellectual property. It's just
>> >not
>> >right to steal,'' says Albhy Galuten, vice president of new media for
>> >Universal
>> >Records. ''We're not living in the Renaissance when the Medicis funded
>> >artists.
>> >We live in a capitalist society.
>> >
>> >''This is a sociological problem and we have got to work it out,'' adds
>> >Galuten. ''I find it incredibly ironic that some people will spend an
>extra
>> >$1,000 on their hard drives just so they can store more music, but they
>> >won't
>> >pay for the music.''
>> >
>> >The RIAA is taking a wait-and-see approach at the moment, but Rosen does
>not
>> >rule out seeking legal redress against individuals who ignore copyright
>> >protection. It's a last resort, but she says ''individuals are liable.''
>> >
>> >And Elvis Costello doesn't mince words when he says, ''If you're a
>carpenter
>> >and you make a chair, and then somebody comes around your workshop and
>takes
>> >the chair away, you call the police. There isn't any gray area. It's just
>> >stealing.
>> >
>> >''Why should it be any different with music?'' he asks. ''If music is all
>> >free,
>> >then why not go and make up your own songs? Music isn't just in the air.
>> >Somebody has to determine the order in which these tones and rhythms are
>> >played
>> >and arranged and recorded.The woolly idea that music should be for free
>is
>> >ridiculous.''
>> >
>> >Yet even Costello acknowledges that, at least in terms of the big record
>> >companies, ''They've loaded the game so the house has been winning for a
>> >long
>> >time. Now it's time maybe for the house not to win for a while. Maybe
>they
>> >have
>> >to take some losses.''
>> >
>> >This story ran on page L1 of the Boston Globe on 4/21/2002.
>> > Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.
>> >
>> >
>> >[ Send this story to a friend | Easy-print version | Search archives ]
>> >
>> >__________________________________________________
>> >Do You Yahoo!?
>> >Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
>> >http://games.yahoo.com/
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>> >-
>> >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.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>> 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.

----------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------



Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index


[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.