Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
Although Norway is not part of the EU, it is a part of EFTA Anyways, to get access to the EU's inner marked, EFTA (and their members) agreed to implement EU's laws and directives. Interesting, as we (Switzerland) are also members of EFTA, but I haven't heard of Switzerland implementing such a law. Tom ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:55:39AM +0100, T wrote: Although Norway is not part of the EU, it is a part of EFTA Anyways, to get access to the EU's inner marked, EFTA (and their members) agreed to implement EU's laws and directives. Interesting, as we (Switzerland) are also members of EFTA, but I haven't heard of Switzerland implementing such a law. You know, I made a mistake. It's not EFTA, it's something called with the acronym ES in Norway (not sure what it would be in English, probably European Econonmic Cooperationsone?) Switzerland and Norway is part of EFTA, but only Norway (and a couple of other countries) are part of EEC(?). As part of the EEC agreement, Norway promised to implement all of EU's laws and directives. From what I can gather, Switzerland has recently agreed to a similar deal. Interesting enough, so far, of the EU members, only Denmark and Sweden has implemented the directives into law, and they didn't have the format conversion as part of their law (as far as I can figure out). -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:57:35PM -0800, kdf wrote: There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is was just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of such a thing is just vile. If we're thinking about the same thing, it was in Norway, and it wasn't a ruling. It's Norway's implementation of the EU's InfoSoc directive. Basically, as you mentioned, it will be illegal to convert a media from one format to another, so your IPod can only be filled with music you bought from an online store that was selling MP3 (or whatever the formats the IPod supports). No conversion to FLAC or WMA or whatever your choice would be. Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording industry. -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
Quoting John L Fjellstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:57:35PM -0800, kdf wrote: There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is was just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of such a thing is just vile. If we're thinking about the same thing, it was in Norway, and it wasn't a ruling. It's Norway's implementation of the EU's InfoSoc directive. Basically, as you mentioned, it will be illegal to convert a media from one format to another, so your IPod can only be filled with music you bought from an online store that was selling MP3 (or whatever the formats the IPod supports). No conversion to FLAC or WMA or whatever your choice would be. Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording industry. Thanks, that's sounds right. I wasn't having much luck trying to re-find the article :) -kdf ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording industry. Of course they had no say in it, as they're not in the EU. But why did they implement it, and in such a manner? Tom ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 10:12:35PM +0100, T wrote: Of course they had no say in it, as they're not in the EU. But why did they implement it, and in such a manner? Although Norway is not part of the EU, it is a part of EFTA (which is kinda of a trade block, I guess. Haven't really looked into it). Anyways, to get access to the EU's inner marked, EFTA (and their members) agreed to implement EU's laws and directives. Think of it like taxation without representation. EFTA used to be a little more powerful, with members like Sweden, Denmark, UK, Portugal, but since those countries joined the EU, we have tiny countries like Norway and Lichtenstein left with no say (personally somewhat frustrated because the No to EU side, basically forced this agreement through. Their argument being that Norway could have all the benefits of EU membership without actually being a member). Norway could object to implementing directives they didn't like, but the EU would certainly penalize any objections, and since the trade block is too small, in reality, Norway at this moment has no say. As to why it got implemented in that manner, who knows? The law was submitted by the Cultural Department as their interpretation of the InfoSoc directive. -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
Quoting Johan Hübner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: kdf wrote: There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was referred to the European Cour of Justice. ' thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information over mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can actually consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that all the advertising says own it today. I think this could be a big class action if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws. sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who obviously feel some lack of value in their lives. canadian beef unsafe give me a freaking break =kdf ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
kdf wrote: Quoting Johan Hübner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: kdf wrote: There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was referred to the European Cour of Justice. ' thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information over mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can actually consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that all the advertising says own it today. I think this could be a big class action if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws. sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who obviously feel some lack of value in their lives. canadian beef unsafe give me a freaking break Well - your canadian socialism is probably rather slack compared to our swedisg :-). But something that needs to be remembered is that blank media charges (which are being introduced EU-wide, but embedded in the price of the media rather than added on-top at the time of the purchase which is the canadian method) is to compensate the copyright holders for legal copying, ie fair use (US Ca) and statutory private copying (EU). It is quite often journalists muddle this up as being a charge to compensate for illegal copying. But - as I said - copyright is as hot as ever in the European legal society and many believe it can help them walk on water in court proceedings. I wish we could sometime get back to the intention of copyright in the first place - top go give authors and other creators a fair compensation for their contribution to arts and culture and to give them a economic incentive to continue creating. Personally I believe that copyright-enforcement is turning into a farce in the US and in EU. /Johan -- Johan Hübner --!!johan at hubner.se!!-- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
Quoting Johan Hübner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: kdf wrote: Quoting Johan Hübner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: kdf wrote: There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was referred to the European Cour of Justice. ' thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information over mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can actually consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that all the advertising says own it today. I think this could be a big class action if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws. sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who obviously feel some lack of value in their lives. canadian beef unsafe give me a freaking break Well - your canadian socialism is probably rather slack compared to our swedisg :-). But something that needs to be remembered is that blank media charges (which are being introduced EU-wide, but embedded in the price of the media rather than added on-top at the time of the purchase which is the canadian method) is to compensate the copyright holders for legal copying, ie fair use (US Ca) and statutory private copying (EU). It is quite often journalists muddle this up as being a charge to compensate for illegal copying. ) yeah, we're all too busy legalising pot and getting hockey back to worry about such things :) Still, the levy applied to CD's DVD's etc is not so bad. I can still purchase a spindle of 100 DVD for $59 CDN. it was worrying when they considered charging for media that would be used in cameras, and for HD's that were just being purchased for pc's. Then again, I guess our artists are perhaps used to being poor (unless they file for US citizenship0 But - as I said - copyright is as hot as ever in the European legal society and many believe it can help them walk on water in court proceedings. I wish we could sometime get back to the intention of copyright in the first place - top go give authors and other creators a fair compensation for their contribution to arts and culture and to give them a economic incentive to continue creating. Personally I believe that copyright-enforcement is turning into a farce in the US and in EU. as a person who has to perform daily in order to meet demands, I just cant ever support a 'royalty' sytem. as an engineer, anyting I come up with as an ida while I'm with my current compant is owned by that company. why should I feel sympathy for an artist who signs on with a label? my feelings on p2p, is that its the same as it always was. We always traded mix tapes. some of us made them just to pass on in hopes of getting laid (come on, admit it). Computers and the digital age have mad so many things faster and easier, so why not tape trading why should the industry be able to say that they alone have the right to benefit from the improvements in technology? -kdf ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
I've kept out of this thread until now because most people tend to view my views as a little radical. But here's my cue. as a person who has to perform daily in order to meet demands, [...] A cinema ticket at one of the big movie-houses here costs 8-10 EUR. The same movie on a DVD will set you back 20 EUR. In the first case you hopefully get a big screen, nice sound, the cinema experience but only one showing - fine. But these are essentially canned goods that cost next to nothing to duplicate. About the only people working for the money are the cinema staff in the first case. The work's the same for the artists regardless of the number of DVDs or tickets sold. A ticket at local theatres (as in live actorst) is 5-15 EUR (low end for students etc...) Excuse me?? That money has to pay the theatre staff, the writer, a bunch of costumes and props people and most of all the actors who have to perform EVERY EVENING to earn their keep. But who cares, they're all subsidized anyway... /sarcasm The price I have to pay for my entertainment has nothing to do with the work involved in the first place - so much for artist compensation. Back to music: musicians who do classical stuff usually get paid for doing concerts (i. e. performing regularly) and CDs are sold mostly as an income supplement and a way to get an ensemble known. Sure, I don't think anybody ever got rich off doing classical but it sure hasn't vanished either. For mainstream/pop music it seems to me like artists get to make one album per year, and maybe a tour every two. And for some reason I have the feeling those are not about music but rather about light shows. In my eyes music is free in every sense of the word. When I buy a CD I don't pay for the music, I pay for a way to get the music to get from the artist to me. In other words, I pay for distribution. IIRC that's what record companies were created for in the first place. The problem here is, distribution was a very costly enterprise (producing and distributing media, maintaining retail chains ...). Even then I didn't approve of the nation that artists should be able to live off CD sales. Now the distribution requirement has all but vanished - I'd much rather have a few .flac files encoded by the artists themselves than a CD. The price of these should cover the time needed to do the encode and bandwidth cost, but not more. If they want to earn my money they're free to WORK and do an open-air in my general vincinity. Terribly sorry, but the value of something that can be reproduced for 50 cents is 50 cents. C. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Canada Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
That's not correct: The media fees are not to compensate for fair use, since by the definition of fair use, no money was owed. The media fees compensate for copying onto blank media that would not otherwise be legal. This fee hasn't been addressed much in Canadian court --- accept for the spectacular loss by the recording industry! --- but reading lawyers' opinions on how it would likely be interpreted in court is fascinating. For instance, I can buy a CD, copy it onto a blank CD, keep the copy and give you the original --- that's clearly legal in Canadian law, because the media fee allows copying for personal use. If I buy a CD, copy it, and give you the copy, that's probably not covered under the media fee, because then *I* did the copy, but *you* are using it, so the copy on the blank media wasn't for personal use. If instead I buy the CD, hand it to you, you do the copy, and then you give the original back to me, that's clearly legal. It matters who does they copying, even though the typical consumer wouldn't understand the difference. The end result is the same, but the process matters. If I threw a brick through the window of the local CD outlet, stole a CD, took it home and copied it onto a blank CD, the copy is legal and I have good title to it... but, of course, still face charges for the crimes I committed acquiring the original. None of the above are fair use; that's what the media fee compensates for, copying that would otherwise not be legal. You shouldn't say this compensates for illegal copying. The clearer statement is that the fee compensates for copying, to blank media, for personal use, that would otherwise be illegal. It's very important to note that, having paid the fee, personal-use copying onto blank media is legal. So most copying of music in Canada is legal. A notable exception would be if you downloaded an MP3 over the net to your hard drive. The fee has not (yet) been collected on hard drives, and thus this downloaded copy is not covered under this law. Your only legal defense would be fair use, and downloading the latest hit song to play without buying the CD is not fair use. You'd be screwed. If you downloaded it and first burned it to CD, then you could probably claim fair-use for the copy on your hard drive. This has not been tested in court. The fee is set based on studies of what percentage of blank media of each type is used for recording songs, and how many songs get stored on each on average. It is completely disconnected from any other form of illegal copying; for instance, the fee does not compensate content creators for people who buy a CD, make 10,000 copies, and sell the copies; that wasn't personal use, and it doesn't matter how much such activities cost the creators of the music, it isn't part of what the fee is supposed to cover. For another quirk of Canadian law: If you buy an IPod, the fee is charged on it (and it's a significant part of the purchase price). If Apple were to put a sample song on the IPod, it would be exempt from the fee, because the fee only applies to media which has never had a recording on it. But if Apple did that, you could only copy music to your IPod as allowed under fair use, a concept which is only defined by the courts, and there being no court cases I know of dealing with MP3 recorders, who knows if you could ever legally use your IPod? Flip side: Since an IPod bought in Canada is subject to the media fee, all music the owner puts on it is legal, period. It doesn't matter how you got the music, if it's your IPod, and you are the one who put the music on the IPod, it's legal. Plus, the creator of the music gets paid for it. No fuss, no muss. In Canada. (But make sure none of your friends adds music to your IPod when you're not looking!) If you buy a commercial cassette tape, and record over the music that came on it with some other song, that copy is not legal. The fee is not fair: I paid it for years on blank CDs before I ever recorded a song to one. But I haven't been able to come up with a system that is as simple and low-cost and unhackable. It used to cost me a couple of dollars a year unfairly, but hey, I wouldn't be a Canadian if I wasn't paying taxes for things I didn't use :-). I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. - Message from Johan Hübner [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:56:37 +0100 - To: Slim Devices Discussion discuss@lists.slimdevices.com Subject: Re: [slim] US Supreme Court Well - your canadian socialism is probably rather slack compared to our swedisg :-). But something that needs to be remembered is that blank media charges (which are being introduced EU-wide, but embedded
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
I appreciate everyone's responses and am understanding the situation a bit better now. I do think it's time for the music industry to entirely overhaul their cost and distribution structure to be more fair to the artists and the consumers. Something Christian wrote got me thinking and I wanted to respond: Christian Pernegger wrote in message In the first case you hopefully get a big screen, nice sound, the cinema experience but only one showing - fine. But these are essentially canned goods that cost next to nothing to duplicate. About the only people working for the money are the cinema staff in the first case. The work's the same for the artists regardless of the number of DVDs or tickets sold. A ticket at local theatres (as in live actorst) is 5-15 EUR (low end for students etc...) Excuse me?? That money has to pay the theatre staff, the writer, a bunch of costumes and props people and most of all the actors who have to perform EVERY EVENING to earn their keep. But who cares, they're all subsidized anyway... /sarcasm The price I have to pay for my entertainment has nothing to do with the work involved in the first place - so much for artist compensation. This isn't true at all. Certainly the one-time cost and the work that goes into producing a high-quality movie is far greater than the amount that goes into a play by a local theater even during the entire run of a show. The price you pay for the entertainment is proportional to the work involved: if low quality movies were made then theaters would charge less to see them. Conversely, if the price of going to the movie theater were lowered to simply the cost of keeping the building up and paying the ushers then we would see a bunch of crappy movies since no one could afford to make $150 million productions (ok, I know, spending more money on a movie doesn't always mean it's going to be better...but still...). If they want to earn my money they're free to WORK and do an open-air in my general vincinity. Terribly sorry, but the value of something that can be reproduced for 50 cents is 50 cents. This makes no sense. This totally disregards the value of any kind of intellectual property. Just because what artists (or even consider scientists at pharmaceutical companies) create while doing their WORK doesn't take a physical form doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Would you say that a 10 cent blank CD is equal in value to the same cd with music on it? I think not. And how much in excess of 10 cents is to be determined by the market. And right now the market has settled on $10~$15. New technologies are changing things, but there still is value to the music. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
The price I have to pay for my entertainment has nothing to do with the#12288;work#12288;involved in the first place - so much for artist compensation. This isn't true at all. Certainly the one-time cost and the work that goes into producing a high-quality movie is far greater than the amount that goes into a play by a local theater even during the entire run of a show. Certainly more money gets burned in the production of a high-profile Hollywood movie. I still think a movie actor should not earn the same or more for starring in one movie than a theatre actor for an entire season. The price you pay for the entertainment is proportional to the work involved: I don't think so, but that's just that - my opinion. At the very least, the price is not proportional to the _creative_ work involved. Sure it's more expensive to shoot a whole movie than run a small theatre production perhaps - but is the acting really so different as to justify differences in paychecks in the order of magnitudes? [...] then we would see a bunch of crappy movies since no one could afford to make $150 million productions [...] See, that's exactly what I mean. $150 million for a two hour long entertainment product. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. This makes no sense. This totally disregards the value of any kind of intellectual property. Got it in one. I said mine was a radical opinion. After a lot of deliberating on the subject of intellectual property I've come to the conclusion that it is an artificial construct that we'd better do without. Information, knowledge just isn't something that can be owned. consider scientists at pharmaceutical companies IP in the sciences leads to the scientific results not being easily accessible by the scientific community. Would you say that a 10 cent blank CD is equal in value to the same cd with music on it? Ultimately, yes. There is a lot of value in music and arts, I just don't think it is monetary value, necessarily. When people get together and play music, they create, and what they do has value, even monetary value if we they get someone to pay them for the performance. Just the fact that we can make a recording and duplicate it a million times does not change that value in my eyes. I think not. And how much in excess of 10 cents is to be determined by the market. And right now the market has settled on $10~$15. It's the market that has settled on close to 0. What we have at the moment is competition between downloaded music from p2p and music on a CD Both are products, even if one is illegal by current standards. Nearly all new CDs have DRM which makes .mp3s not only less expensive but more comfortable and versatile to use. I just hope the music labels will stop ligitating and try to compete... Free concert ticket with the purchase of every album, exclusive artwork, excellent quality with- out DRM, available from online shops that ship fast and cheaply. THAT would kill the 'pirates'. Case in point: I like the Japanese duo Billy Ken, stumbled across them on a radio feed. Now I happen to like having CDs so I venture over to amazon.jp to order. $25? Fine. $8 shipping? Fine. Copy protected!? No, thanks. I don't even have a CD player but keep everything on a server and play via Squeezebox, computer and iAudio U2. Enough rambling :) C. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
Patrick Cosson wrote FYI...Slim Devices, along with other emerging technology companies, submitted an Amicus (friend of the court) Brief to the US Supreme Court in defense of the landmark 1984 Betamax ruling. Below you can find an articled from the Associated Press summarizing the case before the court. The brief can be downloaded from EFF's web site: * http://www.eff.org/ip/p2p/mgm_v_grokster/20050301_emerging_tech.pdf For more information about the case, visit: * http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/ Patrick I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case. I'm no lawyer and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I could understand having a direct impact on Slim's business). Could someone enlighten me as to why Slim has such an interest in this? What's the big picture here that I'm missing? -Aaron ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
Because it gets right to the question of whether or not technology can legally exist for making copies of copyrighted material. From: "Aaron Zinck" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Slim Devices Discussion discuss@lists.slimdevices.com To: discuss@lists.slimdevices.com Subject: Re: [slim] US Supreme Court Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:28:19 -0500 "Patrick Cosson" wrote FYI...Slim Devices, along with other emerging technology companies, submitted an Amicus (friend of the court) Brief to the US Supreme Court in defense of the landmark 1984 Betamax ruling. Below you can find an articled from the Associated Press summarizing the case before the court. The brief can be downloaded from EFF's web site: * http://www.eff.org/ip/p2p/mgm_v_grokster/20050301_emerging_tech.pdf For more information about the case, visit: * http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/ Patrick I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case.I'm no lawyer and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I could understand having a direct impact on Slim's business).Could someone enlighten me as to why Slim has such an interest in this?What's the big picture here that I'm missing? -Aaron ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
Quoting Michael Haan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Because it gets right to the question of whether or not technology can legally exist for making copies of copyrighted material. it is also because they happen to care about fair use rights, beyond simple selfish reasons. Just think about it. If the kinds of restrictions desires by the record companies come into play, it will be illegal to copy CD's to your hard drive even for personal use. It will be illegal to resell your used CD's, possibly even to copy to your mp3 player for jogging. There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is was just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of such a thing is just vile. -kdf From: Aaron Zinck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Slim Devices Discussion discuss@lists.slimdevices.com To: discuss@lists.slimdevices.com Subject: Re: [slim] US Supreme Court Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:28:19 -0500 Patrick Cosson wrote FYI...Slim Devices, along with other emerging technology companies, submitted an Amicus (friend of the court) Brief to the US Supreme Court in defense of the landmark 1984 Betamax ruling. Below you can find an articled from the Associated Press summarizing the case before the court. The brief can be downloaded from EFF's web site: * http://www.eff.org/ip/p2p/mgm_v_grokster/20050301_emerging_tech.pdf For more information about the case, visit: * http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/ Patrick I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case. I'm no lawyer and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I could understand having a direct impact on Slim's business). Could someone enlighten me as to why Slim has such an interest in this? What's the big picture here that I'm missing? -Aaron ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
--- Aaron Zinck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case. I'm no lawyer and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I I'm no lawyer either or that familiar with the case but I would imagine that if the Betamax ruling were overturned then it would not only affect how you can use P2P software but how you use all sorts of tecnology such as CD burners. It's the Betamax case that protects your rights to rip or copy your own music. I'm certainly no angel when it comes to P2P and would be lying if I said I didn't ever download stuff. But it cracks me up that these companies' even try to pretend that they created their software for anything other than illegal file sharing (be it music or other). Sure there are legal uses for P2P and I would hate to see a ruling against them, but if someone were to try and sell me on the pretense that they were motivated by anything other than the sight of the 50,000,000 users and potential customers they saw orphaned by Napster I would be insulted. Of course, I realize they are trying to win a case so they will base their case on merits by which they can win. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
RE: [slim] US Supreme Court
I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case. I'm no lawyer and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I could understand having a direct impact on Slim's business). Could someone enlighten me as to why Slim has such an interest in this? What's the big picture here that I'm missing? -Aaron Because companies like Slim could go out of business if a tighter law required them to provide information on every song that a player has played, serial numbers on players, new hardware designs being mandated to enable such changes, etc, etc, etc. It's a dominoes thing, if the Supreme Court sides with the RIAA and MPAA then we are going to see some big changes happen very quickly in the computer/software businesses. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:55:09 -0600, Ben Klaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it cracks me up that these companies' even try to pretend that they created their software for anything other than illegal file sharing (be it music or other). I get new Linux distros from BitTorrent when they come out. Everything from the Mozilla foundation has a bittorrent link. So, there are definitely non-pirate applications that P2P is good for... I have seen P2P used by university students who want to colaborate with each other on a project and either don't have the technical know how to set up a ftp/webdav/etc server, or don't want to go through the paperwork to have university computer services do it for them. They could colaborate by sharing files over aim or something - but with P2P they just have to leave the computers on. Personally I think a better solution is webDAV or ftp etc. but those are more difficult to set up than a P2P app for the average person. P2P has its place - I don't think it should be used to violate copyright law, but it does have its legitimate uses. -- http://mpeters.us/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] US Supreme Court
--- Michael Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:55:09 -0600, Ben Klaas I get new Linux distros from BitTorrent when they come out. Everything from the Mozilla foundation has a bittorrent link. So, there are definitely non-pirate applications that P2P is good for... I have seen P2P used by university students who want to colaborate with each other on a project and either don't have the I'm referring to the defendents in this case, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc., which were pretty much created to compete for all of the music traders that were all of a sudden Napsterless. I certainly realize that P2P has it's useful legal applications. BitTorrent and its successors as well as hub based communities such as Direct Connect may revolutionize data distribution. I use P2P myself (although I don't use Kazaa or other Gnuntella networks, not because I'm high and mighty about the legal aspects, but because I found it difficult to sift through the crap to find quality stuff.) Please don't misconstrue my comments to be support for the RIAA's attempt to stop anything that can transfer a file or pull music off of a disc. I am very bothered by the music industry's attempts to keep me from doing what I want with the music I spend my hard earned cash on. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
