[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Nochmal MP3......



Beim Aufraeumen fand ich diesen Thread zu mp3, vielleicht hat jemand Lust, das Zeug durchzusehen. Viele neue Argumente fand ich nicht, aber doch ganz interessant, dass es etwa in den USA keine Leercassettenabgabe gibt und warum. Hier diskutieren keine Techniker, sondern Verfassungsrechtler, darum ists vielleicht teilweise etwas laienhaft, bitte, darueber hinwegzusehen:

Subject:      Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

To: <PHIL-LIT@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU>
Sent: 03 January 1999 00:59
Subject: MP3 and the Music Industry


>Some of you may have heard of something called MP3. You may have
noticed the
>music industry's recent attempts to stop this.
>
>MP3 is spreading very fast, it offers a technically superior
solution to
>storing, distributing, and playing music, and it's free. MP3 may
well kill
>the music industry.
>
>MP3 is a compression format. Since current recorded music is
digital, that
>is, it's numbers, a formula can compress the numbers into
smaller numbers to
>reduce the storage size of the information. Upon playback, the
formula
>decompresses the numbers and you hear the music.
>
>A music CD currently holds 60 minutes of music (640 MB fit onto
a CD.)
>
>MP3 allows one to put ten hours of music on a CD.
>
>The MP3 format was invented by a fellow here in Silicon Valley.
In usual web
>manner, he put it on the internet and handed it out for free.
It's fairly
>easy to stream music from your CD player into your computer and
then
>compress the songs. A song, such as the Beatle's Long and
Winding Road, can
>be fetched at a web site or sent as email.
>
>I used Altavista to search for *.MP3 and found over 1.3 million
songs.
>Practically everything has been compressed by dedicated fans.
There are
>thousands of fan web sites for each major musician.
>
>Using GeoCities, Tripod, and many of the other free web sites,
fans set up
>web pages with their favorite tunes. They then announce the
site's address
>at several of the popular MP3 search engines. For several hours,
fans from
>around the planet download the songs. Until the music industry
spots the
>site and GeoCities shuts it down. But fans just do this again at
another
>site. They can create ten sites in a few minutes, and when one
is shut down,
>they open the next one. It's free.
>
>Fans also set up secret web pages which can't be found by search
engines.
>There's a string of HTML code that one can add to a web page
which makes it
>unfindable by search engines. They then pass the location to
each other by
>email.
>
>With CD recorders (now only $200) and blank CDs (buy these in
bulk for less
>than 80 cents each), you can make a CD that holds up to ten
hours of your
>favorite music. It's annoying to pay $15 for a CD to buy just
the one good
>song.
>
>People are beginning to use their computers as stereos: a ten
gigabyte hard
>disk costs about $200 and can hold about 150 CDs. One can use an
old PC for
>this.
>
>With MP3, you don't need CDs anymore. The fellow who invented
MP3 also
>developed a digital Walkman called the Rio. It's about the size
of a pack of
>cigarettes. It's made of RAM chips and holds 64 MB of RAM. It
plays about
>five hours of music. Plug it into your computer, load it with
your favorite
>songs, and carry it around with you all day. Tomorrow, just
erase the songs
>and add new ones from your computer. The Rio is chips, which
means shake it
>as hard as you like: no skipping.
>
>These are the advantages of MP3. Easily swap digital music for
free. The Rio
>has five hours of CD-quality music with no skipping. One can mix
and match
>up to ten hours of one's favorite songs on a CD that costs less
than a
>dollar (the same amount of music would cost $150+ on old-fashion
CDs.)
>
>Many musicians are happy about MP3. They can bypass the record
lables and
>record stores altogether and keep 100% of the money for
themselves. The
>Backstreet Boys could set up a web site with e-commerce and sell
their songs
>directly from their web site. Not a penny to agents or the
record industry.
>Music groups can promote their own music directly to the fans,
and
>listeners buy just the songs they want to hear, and the
musicians get every
>penny. Billy Idol recently released
>a song in MP3, other major muscians are following.
>
>The music industry is in sheer mortal terror. MP3 is growing
extremely fast.
>This will mean a collapse in royalties, CD sales, and radio
station airplay.
>It
>will kill the record labels and the record stores, such as Tower
and others.
>The music industry filed a suit in federal court against the
Rio. The judge
>threw out the suit and sales continued.
>
>The industry recently announced that they would offer their own
technology.
>They're going to learn a lesson: the users, not the industry,
will decide
>which technology it wants. No matter what the industry releases,
MP3 is
>already available, it's widespread, it's free, and there are
over a million
>songs already on the web. A recording studio executive is going
to need a
>kilo of cocaine to explain to a musician why the studio should
keep 90% of
>the sales on a CD. In other words, the music industry can't make
MP3
>disappear. And there's absolutely nothing they can do about it.
>
>So try it. Fire up your favorite search engine and search for
your favorite
>song plus mp3. (For example, "beatles mp3")
>
>You can also visit www.mp3.com for more information and a free
player (you
>may not need the player; modern browsers already include the
ability to play
>MP3.) If you want to start compressing music, you can buy a
ripper (the
>software) from www.mp3.com or you can fetch free rippers. You
can customize
>your MP3 player's look by changing its skin. Thousands of fans
create new
>skins and distribute them for free.
>
>A good site for all things MP3 is www.mp3now.com
>
>MP3 Search engines include:
>    The Borg http://electronicshopper.com/mp3/search.html
>    Kermit http://oth.net/
>    123MP3 http://123mp3.com/
>
>Of course, the best sites are secret, so find the hardcore fans
and ask for
>sites.
>
>I find it fascinating that a simple technology can offer a
better solution
>and thereby wipe out a stale industry. Keep an ear on MP3.



Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

In a message dated 1/2/99 6:38:57 PM MST, je writes:

>>Some of you may have heard of something called MP3. You may have noticed the
>>music industry's recent attempts to stop this.
>>
>>MP3 is spreading very fast, it offers a technically superior solution to
>>storing, distributing, and playing music, and it's free. MP3 may well kill
>>the music industry.

I've been keeping an eye on MP3 for some time now.  It's very interesting from
both the technical and the copyright view points.  Plus, I enjoy listening to
music.

>>MP3 is a compression format.

Correct.

>>A music CD currently holds 60 minutes of music (640 MB fit onto a CD.)

Close enough.  A music CD can hold up to 74 minutes of standard audio.

>>MP3 allows one to put ten hours of music on a CD.

Yes, but then it is only playable by your computer.  Or some other piece of
specialized equipment.

>>The MP3 format was invented by a fellow here in Silicon Valley.  In usual
web
>>manner, he put it on the internet and handed it out for free.

Who wrote this!?  MP3 stands for MPEG layer 3.  MPEG stands for Motion Picture
Experts Group.  This was a group that was organized with the specific goal of
developing open standards for digital TV purposes.  It is currently being used
for Satellite TV, and (in some places) digital Cable TV (CATV).

The "usual web manner" had nothing to do with it.  It was designed to be an
open (i.e., free) standard from the beginning.  Sony wasn't going to use
technology that Phillips owned, and Phillips wasn't going to use technology
that Motorola owned, etc., etc., etc.  They realized that digital TV wasn't
going to get very far unless it was standardized, so they got together and did
it.

>>I used Altavista to search for *.MP3 and found over 1.3 million songs.
>>Practically everything has been compressed by dedicated fans.  There are
>>thousands of fan web sites for each major musician.

And therein lies the problem.  You think that the musicians get *any* money at
all as their music is being passed around like this?  They do not.  Of course,
the recording industry is upset.

>>For several hours, fans from
>>around the planet download the songs. Until the music industry spots the
>>site and GeoCities shuts it down.

Shall we cry "Censorship!"?  I think not.

>>With CD recorders (now only $200) and blank CDs (buy these in bulk for less
>>than 80 cents each), you can make a CD that holds up to ten hours of your
>>favorite music.

Correct.  And the price will keep dropping.

>>It's annoying to pay $15 for a CD to buy just the one good song.

This has *always* been a problem for the consumer.

>>People are beginning to use their computers as stereos: a ten gigabyte hard
>>disk costs about $200 and can hold about 150 CDs. One can use an old PC for
>>this.

True, but I think that there are limits on this.  I don't foresee most people
using their computers (even an old one) as part of the home stereo system.
But, I could well be proven wrong.  After all, I have *my* computer hooked up
to my home stereo system!

>>With MP3, you don't need CDs anymore. The fellow who invented MP3 also
>>developed a digital Walkman called the Rio.

Again, who wrote this!?  As far as I know, the "fellow" who invented MP3 had
nothing to do with the Rio.  The Rio was developed by a company called
Creative Labs.  Creative Labs is well known in the PC industry as a longtime
manufacturer of quality sound cards for the PC.

>>It's about the size of a pack of
>>cigarettes. It's made of RAM chips and holds 64 MB of RAM. It plays about
>>five hours of music.

Can you say "simple math"?  The author correctly said that a standard CD hold
640 MB, and can hold about 10 hours of MP3.  Now, he says that 64 MB can play
about 5 hours.  Wrong.  The Rio hold about 1 hour of music; basically the same
amount as a standard CD player.

>>Plug it into your computer, load it with your favorite
>>songs, and carry it around with you all day. Tomorrow, just erase the songs
>>and add new ones from your computer. The Rio is chips, which means shake it
>>as hard as you like: no skipping.

Correct.  The Rio *is* very cool.

>>These are the advantages of MP3. Easily swap digital music for free.

Right.  These are the DISadvantages, too.  Easily steal digital music for
free.

>>Many musicians are happy about MP3. They can bypass the record lables and
>>record stores altogether and keep 100% of the money for themselves.

Many musicians who have been unable (so far) to break into the mainstream are
*very* excited about this.

>>The
>>Backstreet Boys could set up a web site with e-commerce and sell their songs
>>directly from their web site. Not a penny to agents or the record industry.

To date, I recall only hearing about one (maybe two) well-known musicians that
have embraced this technology (directly selling their music via the web).

>>The music industry is in sheer mortal terror.

Yup.  Just as the TV & movie industries were in sheer mortal terror over the
VCR.  Remember when they advocated that the US Gov't place a tax of (at least)
several dollars in each VCR tape sold?  They wanted the money to be
distributed back to them, based on their market share.

This idea lost out mainly because they could not adequately address the
unfairness of charging two groups of people: Those who used the tapes to
record non-copyrighted material (recording home movies, etc.), and those who
used to tapes to time-shift their viewing.  Time-shifting is when you record a
show to watch it later, because you aren't home, or because you're currently
watching something else.  The industry tried to say time-shifting was still an
inappropriate use because viewers would fast-forward through the commercials.
Critics correctly pointed out the viewers already get up and leave the room
during commercial breaks, and asked what the difference was.

>>MP3 is growing extremely fast.
>>This will mean a collapse in royalties, CD sales, and radio station airplay.

A collapse in royalties could harm the consumer, too.  A big reason for why
there is so much music out there, of such a wide variety, is that there is
money to be made.  If you kill the royalties, then you *may* just kill off a
lot of the music.

>>It will kill the record labels and the record stores, such as Tower and
others.

Hmm.  We'll see.  I have my doubts.  There were many predictions that VCRs
would  kill movie theaters and $7 tickets.  That didn't happen.  There were
many predictions that VCRs would cause massive harm to the TV & movie
industries, but that didn't happen either.  Movies adapted to the technology,
and now VCR sales are a major market for most movies.

>>The music industry filed a suit in federal court against the Rio. The judge
>>threw out the suit and sales continued.

Yes, they did file suit.  They wanted to halt the sale of the Rio until such
time as it had anti-copying technology built in.  The anti-VCR crowd tried to
go the same route, and failed.  The anti-Rio crowd went the same route with
Digital Audio Tape (DAT), and convinced the manufacturers to put it in (or
they would not release any product in that format).  DAT never really took
off, and many critics blamed the anti-copying technology.

I've been waiting to hear the latest news, and I was unaware that the judge
had thrown out the suit.

>>The industry recently announced that they would offer their own technology.

Yes, that is true.  They will announce some new format that has anti-copying
technology built in.  Only time will tell how well it will be received, and
whether or not it will succeed.


If you can't tell by now, I'm not really arguing either for or against MP3.
I'm merely trying to point out the flaws in the arguments on both sides of the
issue.  More of a devil's advocate at this point.  I do object to the idea of
the recording industry being able to halt the sales of technology that can be
used for both good and bad.  But I also object to people indiscriminately
stealing copyrighted material.

The music industry is going to have to figure out how to adapt to this new
technology.  MP3 is a bigger threat than VCRs ever were.  Going to the big-
screen theater is still a better movie experience for most people as compare
to viewing the same movie at home.  Sure, movie ticket sales have dropped
significantly because of VCRs, but the production companies' overall revenues
have been enhanced.  The biggest losers have probably been the movie theaters.
But there are still new theaters being built where I live, so they can't have
fared too badly.

The problem (threat) with MP3 is that an audio CD doesn't offer a
significantly better listening experience than an MP3 player.  In fact, the
MP3 player is technically a superior device because it has no moving parts.
The biggest losers in MP3 may well be the local distributors (Tower Records,
etc.).  It remains to be seen as to whether or not the musicians will be
harmed, and the same is true of the major record labels.  There is still a lot
of power in distribution and advertising; I find it hard to believe that all
musicians will make a good living selling their product directly off of the
internet.

Which brings up another point: The author talks about musicians selling their
music directly off of the net via e-commerce.  But, this isn't really working
out yet.  How much is an artist going to charge for each song?  How much of
this is going to be eaten up by overhead?  What is to prevent people from
freely sharing their MP3 copies after they buy them?  After all, they're
freely sharing their illegal copies now.

Oh well, enough of me for one weekend!

JB :)

Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?
To:           AMEND1-L@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU

Jim, thank you for your reply.  I cut the sender's name as I
know almost nothing about the field but did think there
might be a free speech issue here, and
wanted comments.

>I've been keeping an eye on MP3 for some time now.  It's very
interesting from
>both the technical and the copyright view points.  Plus, I enjoy
listening to
>music.
>
>>>MP3 is a compression format.
>
>Correct.
>
>>>A music CD currently holds 60 minutes of music (640 MB fit
onto a CD.)
>
>Close enough.  A music CD can hold up to 74 minutes of standard
audio.
>
>>>MP3 allows one to put ten hours of music on a CD.
>
>Yes, but then it is only playable by your computer.  Or some
other piece of
>specialized equipment.

-- does that matter?  and is it also the case -- as with using a
PC as a TV -- that there are new and quite cheap, albeit
specialized, devices that mitigate that?

>>>The MP3 format was invented by a fellow here in Silicon
Valley.  In usual
>web
>>>manner, he put it on the internet and handed it out for free.
>
>Who wrote this!?  MP3 stands for MPEG layer 3.  MPEG stands for
Motion Picture
>Experts Group.  This was a group that was organized with the
specific goal of
>developing open standards for digital TV purposes.  It is
currently being used
>for Satellite TV, and (in some places) digital Cable TV (CATV).
>

Oh.  I know what MPEG is, though not what the full name was --
sorry
as I must have told the List already, I have 'flu.  I knew a lot
of other people had it, but I didn't know 1)  that it had
reached epidemic status in the North and hospitals
could not cope and 2) that it was a more virulent
strain than the Govt has expected --
I am reading with less care than I might.  My apologies, Jim.
(I don't _really_ know what MPEG is, but I have that kind of
software on my computer -- the previous generation --
right now.)

>The "usual web manner" had nothing to do with it.  It was
designed to be an
>open (i.e., free) standard from the beginning.  Sony wasn't
going to

>>>thousands of fan web sites for each major musician.
>
>And therein lies the problem.  You think that the musicians get
*any* money at
>all as their music is being passed around like this?  They do
not.  Of course,
>the recording industry is upset.

Yes.  I take the point.  Writers have the same problem.
-- though it would be nice to think that it was the
_musicians_ and not the industry who both were
protected, and benefitted.

-- I thought this might be an instance of "corporate speech".
It seems I was wrong.  But see below.

(different point)
>True, but I think that there are limits on this.  I don't
foresee most people
>using their computers (even an old one) as part of the home
stereo system.
>But, I could well be proven wrong.  After all, I have *my*
computer hooked up
>to my home stereo system!

:)


>>>With MP3, you don't need CDs anymore. The fellow who invented
MP3 also
>>>developed a digital Walkman called the Rio.

Creative Labs.  Creative Labs is well known in the PC industry as
a longtime
>manufacturer of quality sound cards for the PC.

Thanks, Jim.  I am a Creative Labs fan -- their customer
service is *wonderful*, *unbelievable*.  (I like their
sound cards too; they have served me well -- good cheap
cards for voice recognition are not that easy to find,
esp. ones from a company that will continue to support them.)

>>>Plug it into your computer, load it with your favorite
>>>songs, and carry it around with you all day. Tomorrow, just
erase the songs
>>>and add new ones from your computer. The Rio is chips, which
means shake it
>>>as hard as you like: no skipping.
>
>Correct.  The Rio *is* very cool.

_Ah._.  I see.  There are machines like that for voice computing,
now: they are digital and the neatest ones play a .wav file
directly into the computer -- and yes it could be played back
as sound, though that is not the normal use -- the sound quality
is very high.

>>>These are the advantages of MP3. Easily swap digital music for
free.
>
>Right.  These are the DISadvantages, too.  Easily steal digital
music for
>free.

OK.  Point taken!


>Many musicians who have been unable (so far) to break into the
mainstream are
>*very* excited about this.

Then perhaps this *is* a case of corporate speech and
limitation of voice?

>
>>>The
>>>Backstreet Boys could set up a web site with e-commerce and
sell their songs
>>>directly from their web site. Not a penny to agents or the
record industry.
>
>To date, I recall only hearing about one (maybe two) well-known
musicians that
>have embraced this technology (directly selling their music via
the web).

>This idea lost out mainly because they could not adequately
address the
>unfairness of charging two groups of people: Those who used the
tapes to
>record non-copyrighted material (recording home movies, etc.),
and those who
>used to tapes to time-shift their viewing.  Time-shifting is
when you record a
>show to watch it later, because you aren't home, or because
you're currently
>watching something else.  The industry tried to say
time-shifting was still an
>inappropriate use because viewers would fast-forward through the
commercials.
>Critics correctly pointed out the viewers already get up and
leave the room
>during commercial breaks, and asked what the difference was.

Oh yes.  I remember -- dimly -- something about that.

>A collapse in royalties could harm the consumer, too.  A big
reason for why
>there is so much music out there, of such a wide variety, is
that there is
>money to be made.  If you kill the royalties, then you *may*
just kill off a
>lot of the music.
>
>>>It will kill the record labels and the record stores, such as
Tower and
>others.
>
>Hmm.  We'll see.  I have my doubts.  There were many predictions
that VCRs
>would  kill movie theaters and $7 tickets.  That didn't happen.
There were
>many predictions that VCRs would cause massive harm to the TV &
movie
>industries, but that didn't happen either.  Movies adapted to
the technology,
>and now VCR sales are a major market for most movies.

It is a bit odd that the technology has not had the adverse
efffect
it might have, but then, the US is not in recession.
This country either is, or is on the brink.
And I wonder if the situation is different, here.

>
>>>The music industry filed a suit in federal court against the
Rio. The judge
>>>threw out the suit and sales continued.
>
>Yes, they did file suit.  They wanted to halt the sale of the
Rio until such
>time as it had anti-copying technology built in.  The anti-VCR
crowd tried to
>go the same route, and failed.  The anti-Rio crowd went the same
route with
>Digital Audio Tape (DAT), and convinced the manufacturers to put
it in (or
>they would not release any product in that format).  DAT never
really took
>off, and many critics blamed the anti-copying technology.

Mini-DAT is one of the voice-user solutions, mini-disc (the
Rio is probably that) the other.  Mini-disc is probably better,
actually -- in sound quality, that is.
I didn't realise there had been a problem as the new
voice recorders are designed specifically for voice work.

>I've been waiting to hear the latest news, and I was unaware
that the judge
>had thrown out the suit.
>
>>>The industry recently announced that they would offer their
own technology.
>
>Yes, that is true.  They will announce some new format that has
anti-copying
>technology built in.  Only time will tell how well it will be
received, and
>whether or not it will succeed.
>
>
>If you can't tell by now, I'm not really arguing either for or
against MP3.
>I'm merely trying to point out the flaws in the arguments on
both sides of the
>issue.  More of a devil's advocate at this point.  I do object
to the idea of
>the recording industry being able to halt the sales of
technology that can be
>used for both good and bad.  But I also object to people
indiscriminately
>stealing copyrighted material.

Than I think you and I are on the same side, well,
I do have 'flu ;-)

>The music industry is going to have to figure out how to adapt
to this new
>technology.  MP3 is a bigger threat than VCRs ever were.  Going
to the big-
>screen theater is still a better movie experience for most
people as compare
>to viewing the same movie at home.  Sure, movie ticket sales
have dropped
>significantly because of VCRs, but the production companies'
overall revenues
>have been enhanced.  The biggest losers have probably been the
movie theaters.
>But there are still new theaters being built where I live, so
they can't have
>fared too badly.
>
>The problem (threat) with MP3 is that an audio CD doesn't offer
a
>significantly better listening experience than an MP3 player.
In fact, the
>MP3 player is technically a superior device because it has no
moving parts.
>The biggest losers in MP3 may well be the local distributors
(Tower Records,
>etc.).  It remains to be seen as to whether or not the musicians
will be
>harmed, and the same is true of the major record labels.  There
is still a lot
>of power in distribution and advertising; I find it hard to
believe that all
>musicians will make a good living selling their product directly
off of the
>internet.
>
>Which brings up another point: The author talks about musicians
selling their
>music directly off of the net via e-commerce.  But, this isn't
really working
>out yet.  How much is an artist going to charge for each song?
How much of
>this is going to be eaten up by overhead?  What is to prevent
people from
>freely sharing their MP3 copies after they buy them?  After all,
they're
>freely sharing their illegal copies now.
>
>Oh well, enough of me for one weekend!

*Never*! :)



Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

        Probably drifting from free speech, but....
        At a recent holiday party, someone interested in starting an unlicensed
radio station asked me a bunch of questions.  After I explained that the
FCC is considering establishing a low power FM service, we moved on to
music licensing.  He just couldn't see why he should have to pay music
licensing fees for his proposed station.  I explained that he wouldn't
have to IF he played music that was in the public domain, or if the
composer had decided to not have ASCAP et al collect money for him/her.
If the station owner could work out some other deal with the creator of
the music, he was free to do so.  Otherwise, it's the creator of the
music who decides how it is to be used.  These are the rules we've
decided upon (with an allowance for free "fair use" exceptions).
However, the proposed station operator thought these "rules" unfairly
benefited the copyright owner at the expense of the public, so he wasn't
going to follow them (or at least he was going to complain about it).
        Similarly, a local weekly paper (San Luis Obispo New Times) ran a big
story a few months ago about bars complaining about having to pay music
licensing fees when the bands they hire play music composed by others.
To me, this is all part of the cost of doing business!  If they find a
composer who is willing to give away the music for free, go for it!  If
they cannot, they can write their own music.  I wonder how many of those
who promote free exchange of other people's music continue to promote it
once it is their music being exchanged?
        There is, of course, a group of composers who release music directly
into the public domain.  That doesn't seem to be the stuff that's ending
up on these MP3 web sites, though.

H.

Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

In a message dated 1/3/99 11:55:11 AM Mountain Standard Time, je
writes:

>>>>MP3 allows one to put ten hours of music on a CD.
>>
>>Yes, but then it is only playable by your computer.  Or some other piece of
>>specialized equipment.
>
>-- does that matter?  and is it also the case -- as with using a
>PC as a TV -- that there are new and quite cheap, albeit
>specialized, devices that mitigate that?

I am not sure how much it matters.  As it stands, the MP3 format is not
readily usable by most people on their stereo systems.  So, until this
changes, I don't see a threat to the standard CD (and, by extension, the
current recording industry).

But this will probably change.  The Rio is the first step.  I don't recall the
price, but I think that it is around the same price as a portable CD player
(less than $100).

>Yes.  I take the point.  Writers have the same problem.
>-- though it would be nice to think that it was the
>_musicians_ and not the industry who both were
>protected, and benefitted.

I think that writers, too, are going to need to look at how the internet will
affect their 'business' of writing.  You can either associate yourself with an
established (or up-and-coming) venture (for example, Newsweek if you are a
news writer), or you can try to go out on your own.  If you go with Newsweek,
they sell advertising space (on the printed paper, or at the web site), and
you get some small amount of the overall revenue.

Or, as some people are doing, you can start your own web page.  If you get big
enough, you can start to sell advertising space on your web site, too.  Or,
maybe in the future, you will be able to sell access to your page via e-money.
If the cost is low enough, say 5 cents, then most people probably will not
balk at paying the fee to read your material.  If you had enough readers, you
could make a decent living.

The same thing applies to musicians.  This whole area is very intriguing to
me, and I often ponder what the world will be like in 10 or 20 years as all of
this starts to fall into place.


>Then perhaps this *is* a case of corporate speech and
>limitation of voice?

I don't *think* so, but I could be wrong.  So far, the recording industry
isn't trying to shut this down because of the threat of new artists.  They see
it as a direct threat to their business, to their own bottom line.  (And I
don't fault them at all for worrying about this! :)

Their basic stance is this: This device will be used almost exclusively to
play stolen music.  Therefore, the device ought to be outlawed.  (Sounds a
*lot* like an anti-gun argument.)

So, you tell me, is this a case of corporate free speech?


>>Hmm.  We'll see.  I have my doubts.  There were many predictions that VCRs
>>would  kill movie theaters and $7 tickets.  That didn't happen.  There were
>>many predictions that VCRs would cause massive harm to the TV & movie
>>industries, but that didn't happen either.  Movies adapted to the
technology,
>>and now VCR sales are a major market for most movies.
>
>It is a bit odd that the technology has not had the adverse effect
>it might have, but then, the US is not in recession.
>This country either is, or is on the brink.
>And I wonder if the situation is different, here.

I'm not sure that I follow what you are referring to, or why a recession would
be relevant.  Should the laws differ because of the economy?  I'm sure you
don't think so, so I must be confused.  (Effects of your flu, no doubt! ;)


>Mini-DAT is one of the voice-user solutions, mini-disc (the
>Rio is probably that) the other.  Mini-disc is probably better,
>actually -- in sound quality, that is.
>I didn't realise there had been a problem as the new
>voice recorders are designed specifically for voice work.

The Rio is not mini-disc.  Mini-disc is essentially a physically smaller CD.
Everything else is the same, except that you get much less recording time.  (I
don't know what the playtime of a mini-disc is.)


>Than I think you and I are on the same side, well,
>I do have 'flu ;-)

LOL!


>>Oh well, enough of me for one weekend!
>
>*Never*! :)

Ouch, ouch!  Don't twist so hard!


The other thing I forgot in my long-winded post was a brief mention of CD-R
and DVD and their possible impact.  CD-R is a write-once CD.  CD-R uses the
same format as a standard CD, and it can be played in standard CD players.
The price is dropping fast, and a current unit can be had for $200 where I
live.  With this, I can theoretically record my own CDs.  I can go out on the
web, download a couple of pieces of software for free, and pull in the music
data off of a CD.  Since it is in digital format, there is no quality
degradation.  Then, another piece of software will allow me to mix and match
songs, and build a new CD with only my favorite songs on it.  It is only
*slightly* more cumbersome than collecting MP3 tracks.

CD-Rs can be used for a variety of legitimate uses, including backing up data
from your hard drive.  (Which is why I will be getting one soon.)  The
recording industry has made no effort to limit the availability of these
devices.  One might well ask in court: Why stop one technology, and not the
other?  Both are a threat to the business.

DVD is the next generation of CDs.  The current format is 4.3 GB, or more than
6 times larger than a standard CD.  So, one of these could hold over 7 1/2
hours of music.  There are no DVD-R units currently available (that I know
of), but I expect that in 3 to 5 years, they will be.  And, like the CD-R
units, the price will drop over two years from a starting price of $2000 to
under $200.  But, the 4.3 GB is just the beginning.  The DVD format is
designed to quickly double to 8.6 GB.  I believe that this is still in the
works, but that it will still happen.  Current DVD players may not be able to
read the newer format, but that remains to be seen.

Now, imagine combining MP3 with DVD.  You could get almost 70 hours of music
onto one 4.3 GB disk.  Double that on the next generation of DVDs.  Imagine,
most people could easily put every single one of their favorite songs on a
single disk!  I expect that such a service would quickly become available on
the internet: You tell them what songs you want on the CD, the pull them in
off of their extensive music library, then they burn the CD and mail it to
you.  You would pay a hefty price for the CD (more than the cost of a single,
store-bought CD), but it will certainly be a *lot* less than buying 40 or 50
CDs.

In fact, it already exists now with CD-R!  Visit this site:
   http://www.musicmaker.com/

But this company suffers from what I consider to be a serious gaps in their
offerings.  They may still make a go of it yet, though.


I don't know how all of this is going to impact the recording industry.  It
seems like some serious changes are ahead, but the consequences are
*extremely* difficult to predict.  There *is* a big problem with internet
technology: both the written and the recorded are getting easier and easier to
pirate.  Artists (visual, sound, and written) *do* have valid concerns that
need to be addressed.  I *don't* think that outlawing technology is the
answer.


Perhaps the best example of possibilities to date are the software industry.
People early on were terribly concerned about indiscriminate copying.  There
was a long-running cat-and-mouse game between software developers (mostly
games, but also serious business applications) and hackers.  The software
people spent enormous amounts of time trying to come up with effective copy-
protection schemes, and hackers spent even more time defeating them.
Eventually, things got to a point where legitimate users were becoming
seriously impacted by the copy-protection schemes.  Sales started to be
affected.

Eventually, some bright (or brave, or stupid! ;) souls decided to start
selling non-copy-protected software.  Sales of this type of software surged
ahead of protected software, and pretty soon, almost all copy-protection
schemes disappeared.  About the same time, the shareware concept was launched.
People would write programs and put them out for everyone to freely download
and use.  All they asked was: If you like it, if you use it, then please pay
for it.  Shareware allows people to try before they buy, and is tremendously
popular.  Do a lot of people use the software and not pay for it?  You bet.

But a lot of people *do* register it.  And those that don't, probably wouldn't
have bought the software anyway.  They're cash-poor students, or whatever.
But enough people do pay, that the business is doing fairly well.  A lot of
people make a nice little side income.  More than one are making a full-time
living from it.  I have conversed (via e-mail) with the author of the text
editor that I use (am using, right now!).  This is his sole source of income
for his family.  He isn't getting rich, by any means, but he's making a
living.

Some people see the same opportunities for alternative musicians.  They can
post their music in MP3 format, along with a simple message: If you like our
music, please send us $5 (or whatever), so we can continue to make more music.
Who knows!?

Jim :)

Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

In a message dated 1/3/99 2:16:12 PM MST, h. writes:

>He just couldn't see why he should have to pay music
>licensing fees for his proposed station.  I explained that he wouldn't
>have to IF he played music that was in the public domain, or if the
>composer had decided to not have ASCAP et al collect money for him/her.
>If the station owner could work out some other deal with the creator of
>the music, he was free to do so.  Otherwise, it's the creator of the
>music who decides how it is to be used.  These are the rules we've
>decided upon (with an allowance for free "fair use" exceptions).

Exactly.  And I think we probably need to do a better job of helping the
common person understand these issues.  People think that some stuff is like a
book: Once I buy it, I can read it and pass it on to others.  They think that
software is the same.  What they don't realize at first is that computers and
software allow more than one 'person' to read the same copy of the 'book' at
the same time.  It just isn't fair to the authors, or the publishers.

In this respect, music is the same thing as software.

I don't expect junior high school kids to understand and accept why it isn't
OK for them to freely give away copies of the software and music that they
own.  But, they *do* need to understand this by the time they become adults.

>However, the proposed station operator thought these "rules" unfairly
>benefited the copyright owner at the expense of the public, so he wasn't
>going to follow them (or at least he was going to complain about it).

Ho!  I haven't heard it phrased like *that* before!!

Jim :)

Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

Put the word "free" into a phrase and the crowds gather.......

Of course, nothing much is really free, but notice free rhymes with me and probably is a slurring of the phrase "for me" also used in the phrase "free for me".

I wonder how many of the "why should we pay for someone else's work?" crowd jumps up in agony when governments impose taxes that benefit those who don't pay the taxes....

Heh heh, nothing like money issues to bring out the truth!

All the legal education in the world (and it is indeed a noble idea to provide basic legal education to high school students with respect to copyrights and lots of other stuff) means nothing if basic value education is missing. Plenty are the well educated, almost-all-knowing attorneys who use their knowledge for wrongful purposes because they don't share the same value set as those who make law or affiliate with social custom. (Pardon me, but I've just finished digesting (in the legal sense) a bunch of cases involving lawyers trying to maximize tax deductions --- clever, creative, persistent, knowldegeable, but oh so craftly, deceptive, outrageous, stubborn and uncooperative).

The answer, ultimately, lies in the continued development of anti-piracy technology that progresses to match the accomplishments of those who use technology for purposes inconsistent with law. (Cf. the technology to handle DVD broadcast)

Gotta run. Diogenes is on the phone.....

Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?


In a message dated 1/3/99 8:37:26 PM MST, m. writes:

>All the legal education in the world (and it is indeed a noble idea to
>provide basic legal education to high school students with respect to
>copyrights and lots of other stuff) means nothing if basic value education is
>missing.

Ah, but that is what I did mean!

I didn't mean that we need to teach the law.  I meant that we needed to teach
the moral and economic whys.  And these form (or ought to!) the basis of our
laws.

Jim :)

Subject:      Re: MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

>The answer, ultimately, lies in the continued development of anti-piracy
technology that progresses to match the accomplishments of those who use
technology for purposes inconsistent with law. (Cf. the technology to handle
DVD broadcast)


>From the consumer perspective:
A consumer goes to the record store and buys a CD of his or her favorite
recording artist, then goes home and copies the three favorite songs onto a
audio tape. Copying onto the audio tape  for personal consumption is fair
use. Consumer then takes the CD and sends the CD by snail mail to a friend
as a gift. The friend now owns the CD, and repeats the steps above of
copying the favorite songs and then sending the CD as a gift to another
friend.

In that scenario, a very strong argument can be made that there is no
unlawful infringement, since each audio tape copy was made by the owner of
the CD for personal use. Once the audio tape copy has been made, no law
prevents the owner from gifting the CD to someone else.

>From the point of view of the consumer who followed the above scenario, MP3
technology simplifies accomplishing the same end.

L.

Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

As you know the new U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
contains a provision that make it a criminal act to circumvent
technological protection of copyright material.  Given that most
CDs contain copy-protection that prohibits copying more than a
set number of times (I believe it is 2, but I may be wrong).  It
seems that the answer to the piracy of intellectual property in
music would be a technological protection that adheres to the
copied file (rather than the disk).  This would permit fair use
copying of music or parts of music, while protecting the IP
rights of the authors.

The conflict between IP protection and free speech is very
interesting issue that has often been discussed on the cni
copyright list (cni-copyright@cni.org - to subscribe send a
message to listproc@cni.org subscribe cni-copyright firstname
lastname) and one that I think will become more important as IP
laws continue to expand, especially the EC Database Directive
(and proposed US database protection) which by protecting the
extraction of facts from databases limits the ability to discuss
the "facts" and which (at least in the EC version) removes almost
all fair use rights for information in databases.  It will be
interesting to watch the case law develop to see where the burden
of proof will lie (how do you prove the source of information if
it available from more than one source?) and what impact will be
on freedom of speech due to the restriction on the use of
information only available from a single source.
--
S.

Subject:      Re: Fw:      MP3 and the Music Industry --  a free speech issue?

In a message dated 1/4/99 11:59:29 AM MST, s. writes:

>As you know the new U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
>contains a provision that make it a criminal act to circumvent
>technological protection of copyright material.  Given that most
>CDs contain copy-protection that prohibits copying more than a
>set number of times (I believe it is 2, but I may be wrong).

I don't believe that there is any such thing built into current CDs.  In the
past, the recording industry has talked about trying to get something like
this implemented.  One of the big sticking points is just what constitutes
fair use?  As I recall (and I could be wrong) the RIAA (a recording industry
trade group, and a major player in this topic) has always pushed for zero
copying.  They wanted safeguards built into DAT so that you could *not* copy a
store-bought CD onto a DAT tape that you would then listen to in the car.  The
consumer groups were very upset about this, but the RIAA was very adamant that
if you wanted the same album, on both CD and DAT, that you needed to buy a
copy of both.

One of the solutions that the RIAA is looking at for the MP3 problem, is to
somehow register the MP3 with a single device.  That way, the MP3-type file
would only play on that player.  It is easy to see why they want something
like this.  But, the consumer groups are even more correct in trying to fight
it.  This would mean that you could download (and presumably pay for) the
RIAA-MP3-format file, and it would only play on your computer, and not you Rio
device.  Or, it might not play on your computer at all if you up grade.  Can
consumers swap these files, like CDs can be swapped?  No.

>It
>seems that the answer to the piracy of intellectual property in
>music would be a technological protection that adheres to the
>copied file (rather than the disk).  This would permit fair use
>copying of music or parts of music, while protecting the IP
>rights of the authors.

I agree with what you're saying, to a certain extent.  But I think that it is
going to be *very* difficult to come up with something that is fair to
everyone, and respects the rights of everyone involved.  This whole situation
strikes me as one of those where there just isn't any Win-Win solutions.  I
think that any solution will inevitably violate the rights of someone, either
consumer, publisher, or artist.

Jim :)

--
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz