[iwar] Re: Napster


From:
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
From: DrewSchaefer@ftnetwork.com
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com

Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:32:34 -0800


fc  Wed Feb 14 04:39:07 2001
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:39:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Wed Feb 14 12:39:01 2001)
X-From_: DrewSchaefer@ftnetwork.com  Wed Feb 14 06:38:13 2001
Received: from ml.egroups.com (ml.egroups.com [208.50.144.77])
	by multi33.netcomi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA30463
	for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:38:11 -0600
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-939-982154291-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.56] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Feb 2001 12:38:11 -0000
X-Sender: drewschaefer@ftnetwork.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 12:38:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 45153 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 12:37:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 12:37:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO email002) (216.35.122.207) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 13:38:43 -0000
Received: from AspEmail - 216.35.122.205 by email002  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1774.114.11); Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:58:20 -0800
To: "iwar@yahoogroups.com" 
Message-ID: <02dc92058120e21EMAIL002@email002>
From: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:32:34 -0800
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] Re: Napster
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi list,

Tony, you raise an interesting point on Napster.  Part of their legal argument, if I recall, was that there was little difference from this legal turmoil and that presented when Sony Beta and VHS video systems hit the markets.

Bertellsmann says that this ruling actually should help precipitate the 'pay model' that they endorsed when aligning themselves with Napster.

One interesting phenomenon is the endorsement of the ' old messengers' against the 'new messengers', let me clarify:

You are a musician, you want to be paid for your creativity.  That meant gaining a first contract (invariably weak as to artist) and, with success, future (better) contracts.  Those contracts (should) pay you royalties based on sales, which increased through (often) radio play, etc.

Now, as a musician, you have an 'Established channel' of legal distribution, as well as (thanks to the Appeals Court) a new 'illegal' system of distribution.

The PROBLEM, is that the new 'illegal' system *may* generate MUCH more exposure, which *may* actually lead to further legal sales, but which is chafing the 'Establishment channel' (and their $$$ legal offices especially).

Will Napster II become what Bertelsmann wants it to be?  Sign up, pay, and find out!

Ciao,
Drew

_________________________________________________
Message: 6
   Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:34:54 -0800
   From: Tony Bartoletti 
Subject: Re: Hello world


>I enjoy the occasional contributions of Toni Bartoletti, who puts some 
>life into the thing.

Thanks for the kind words, Markus!

I read the list daily, and try to contribute when something hits one of my 
"buttons".  Recently, the only thing that has irked me is the "Oh 
My!  Terrorists use the Internet to exchange secret messages!" 
revelations.  Clearly, we should all stand up and do something about this, 
perhaps:

a.  Require all terrorists to submit their messages though proper channels.
b.  Criminalize the posting of all encrypted or non-ASCII content.
c.  Abolish the Internet.

I prefer (c).  After all, the Internet is basically a haven for dangerous, 
non-conformist, free-thinking "individualist" types, who flaunt the 
freedoms it provides to thumb their nose at the hallowed institutions of 
conventional wisdom.  How can such a medium possibly benefit "society" as a 
whole, when it gives individuals such power? 

On a less-IWAR-based front (but still, related,) I was a bit dismayed 
(though not surprised) at the heaviness of the recent Napster ruling.  Yes, 
Napster could likely have done more to prevent the blatant appearance of 
complicity in copyright infringement, and perhaps 99% of the searchable 
listings were of copyrighted works, and that should have been addressed by 
Napster early on.  What really bothers me about the entire process is that 
it seems to preclude what should be a universally available and beneficial 
service; coordinating what people are willing to share, in a conveniently 
searchable and cross-indexed fashion.  Individuals who abuse such a 
service, by sharing what they have no right to share, should be the ones 
who incur legal hassles, not the "coordinator of references".  Otherwise, 
we should, by extension, hold the newspaper responsible for not 
investigating the veracity of all items listed by individuals in the 
classified ads.
I suppose I could argue that newspapers "facilitate the exchange of stolen 
car parts."

I think Napster "behaved badly", but the force of the ruling seems mainly 
to enforce the notion that "individuals are consumers" and cannot be 
legitimate "producers" unless they have a corporate logo and a legal 
department.  More to the point, individuals who might want to gain 
recognition by freely sharing works in an effective "meritocracy" cannot 
hope to gain such recognition except by a contract with, and given the 
blessings of, a giant media company.

(There, got that off my chest :)

Cheers,

___tony___


Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Drew Schaefer, JD  FPLC 1997

9, ruelle des Galeries
1248 Hermance, Suisse (Switz.)
41 76 549 1907 (DiAx Mobile #)

*****************************************************
The opinions or uncited facts contained in this Email
constitute opinions, conjecture or humor representing
the author's own viewpoint, and are not to be
attributed in any way, nor connected to any
professional Organization to which the author may be
associated.  Should you receive this Email by error,
you are requested to DELETE and EMPTY the 'Trash' or
'Recycling' file to which it may be moved.
******************************************************


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Get your free e-mail account with *unlimited* storage at  http://www.ftnetwork.com

Visit the web site of the Financial Times at  http://www.ft.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/595019/_/982154291/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

------------------
http://all.net/