Napster and "Viral Marketing"

Posts: 539
From: Seattle, Washington, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-26-2001 06:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moses     Edit/Delete Message

I'm certainly not going to claim that I know the real statistics and demographic profile of the "typical" Napster user, but I can speak for my own experience.

When music started to become available to me to listen to first before I bought (for me) when the local Block Buster Music stores would let you listen to anything in the store first before you agreed to buy it at their often inflated prices (15.99 to 21.99). This was a real bad thing for my pocket book because I often walked out of that store with at least two or three CDs. Before that, I would rarely even go into a record store and buy anything because I got tired of buying albums that I really didn't like.

Then along comes Amazon.com. They had little snippets of RealAudio (yuk) samples I could listen to before I bought. So, I started spending between 65.00 and 200.00 dollars a month at Amazon. While being able to hear only small fractions of the tracks on a CD, I still ran into some selections that if I had heard the whole thing, I probably wouldn't have bought it. So I began to investigate this new technology I had read about - "MP3." I read that the quality was much better than those "RealAudio" clips and wondered why Amazon didn't use MP3 instead. So I went to search for it on the Web.

Along came MP3.com. Hmmm, here's a Site offering full length tracks to download and listen as long or as many times as I wanted? But Oh No! They only have artists no one has ever heard of before. OK, I thought I would browse through some of the music to see if any of it was any good. Just about the time I was ready to give up after listening to a dozen or so tracks, I ran across a track I really liked! Investigating the rest of the tracks by this artist led me to a whole bunch of music that was great! Wow! Here's an artist that I and probably most of the real world had never heard of who is making this quality music! And it was all available for free! I started to wonder what he was doing giving away all his music and what the motivation was to create all these wonderful tracks without any kind of compensation. Looking closer at the artist's page, I see that he was selling CDs through this new site MP.com. I thought, great! He must make something through selling these on line. I went ahead and bought every CD he had. I also thought it was very unique that I was able to communicate with this artist via email. I found that he was also selling a CD direct and thought yes, I'll buy that one too. He probably makes more money than from those that he sold via MP3.com. So I e-mailed him with complements for his music and asked to buy everything he had. It turned out he had like 3 or 4 CDs which he promptly sent in the mail to me. In the time that it took for them to arrive in the mail, I knew he didn't have time to get my check yet, so this guy sent them to me on my word that I would pay him for them. How cool!

So I continued to search the charts for any other music that might be worth listening to. I heard a lot of works I couldn't appreciate and a few that were OK. From the ones I did like, over the next 8 months I bought about 85 DAM CDs and numerous CDs directly from the Indie artists themselves.

Then along comes Napster. I first tried Napster to download a few tracks I was reminded of that even if I did try probably wouldn't be able to find in any store. Then I started using it to preview whole CDs that I would find on Amazon.com. If I found one of Amazon's recommendations that sounded interesting, I would switch over to my Napster window and do a quick search for the music. If I liked it, I would sometimes listen to the whole thing all the way through over the course of several days. If it was something I knew I could repeatedly listen to for the long term, I would then start a search for the best price from the numerous online sources and then buy the CD(s). I haven't kept track, but I can estimate that there has been at least 100 CDs I have bought this way.

So I guess the point of this lengthy post is: Would I have bought them if it weren't for being able to listen to them first? Not nearly that many! Maybe a half dozen. It was the ability to listen to how much I wanted, when I wanted, that sold me. So if Napster goes the way of the Dodo bird, then I guess I'll be buying a lot less CDs. Maybe that's a blessing (for my wallet) in disguise. I know there are probably plenty of leaches out there that will download music they like with no intention of ever buying it. Those people exist and you can't eliminate them. The truth of it though is they probably would never have bought the music even without Napster. The people that are really in the market for music are the ones going to Napster and then the online and brick and mortar music outlets to buy their CDs. So how has this hurt the record industry? It hasn't the way I see it. How is this hurting the artist? Maybe the naysayers are looking at the wrong party for blame. It's the major labels that have been hurting the artists for years, and I suspect will continue doing so for millennia. Are the listeners getting hurt? They will if Napster is shut down. If that doesn't make your heart bleed, then maybe you should find another product to sell. Because it's the listeners who are ultimately going to buy the bread on the table or buy that new piece of equipment you've been wanting - not the major labels. That is if your in this to make a living. I mean If I was in the shoes of an artist, I wouldn't care about the pettiness of going through a few listeners that were never going to buy my music anyway, if I had the ability to reach the vast pool of listeners who have money and will buy good quality music.

Instead of jumping on the major label's band wagon, why aren't independent artists looking for a way to develop this technology into something that will work for them. It's obviously not going to be the majors helping you. Why aren't you taking advantage of the ID3 Tag in the MP3 file and leaving a URL where your music can be bought? Put your music in folders named after popular artists you may sound like? Or name the file "Like Vangelis" or "Like Peter Frampton" or whatever? Use it as a marketing tool. Believe me, there are quite a few listeners out there who have money and want to buy music. Sitting back and whining that someone is hearing your music that hasn't paid for it isn't going to advance the cause of the independent artist. See it as an opportunity. Be creative.

I guess I've said too much already.

By the way, Hi everybody. I haven't been around here in a long time!

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

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-26-2001 06:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

By the way, you were named .com "Customer of the Month" again, Moses.

But to address your point, artists are trying "Viral Marketing". Aimee Mann had a deal where an instant message would go to someone who download her track from Napster. And they reported a lot of sales from this. I haven't studied it in detail yet, but I plan to.

Misleading labels have been tried, but they are reported to just piss people off. If someone wants Vangelis they don't like getting something else.

So, I think that the Aimee Mann method is the type that we will see more of. Where people who download tracks will get a note from the artist saying, "If you like this track, please buy the album at CDNow.com. Click this link." Or somesuch.

In the long term, pro-consumer methods will work. Anti-consumer methods will fail.

Or, I guess I should say, anti-Moses methods will fail.

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

[This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 02-26-2001).]

Posts: 141
From: Crested Butte, Colorado, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 02-26-2001 09:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Snake Crew        Edit/Delete Message

I'm a record label too I hate the whole deal it is bullshit and will surely kill my industry IMHO.

Napster has to go immediately. the sooner the better.

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

Posts: 539
From: Seattle, Washington, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-26-2001 10:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moses     Edit/Delete Message

Anyway, what I was saying in regards to an independent artist leaving their music in a folder with the name of an artist that they are "like" was just that. The artist should make it clear that they are like that artist. If they just use a big name just to pull attention and they are not really like that big name, then it becomes a "cry wolfe" scenario. They are going to have to make sure they are really like the artist they are claiming they are like.

And as for the lengthy post I made, maybe I could sum it up this way:

If you give your music to 100 people to listen to and 50 of them say "thanks but I don't like it," and 25 of them say "Hey thanks! that's cool, I'll send you a check next payday" (but secretly, never do) and then 25 of them buy not only the CD you gave them, but all the rest you have too, PLUS every CD you produce afterwards, would you do it?

Now I know that this is over-simplified, but the concept (I believe) is very real. I've been conversing with other listeners, artists, Napster users, friends, associates, and family about this for a long time. The subject interests me. My opinion and conclusions are based on both experience and input from many other people. Actually, the big labels are the ones who are most happy that the independent artists just can't seem to get it together. Because if they did, the mass listeners would discover that they don't have to support the big labels to get great music. The big labels would be left out in the cold.

Anyway, I knew I would probably attract the naysayers to this thread as well, and if the moment moves me, I might, or might not respond to them. I sure as hell am not going to respond if they can't even make an intelligent point.

By the way: you are pretty much of a die-hard. I think you should be the moderator around here or something. You've been here thick or thin and the first thing I thought of when I decided to make an appearance here again was "I wonder if KennyLee is still here."

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

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-26-2001 10:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snake Crew:
I will never buy it from the store your analogy is a load of shit in my mind.

---

Well, Moses said he sampled the music and listened for days. If he liked it after that then he would find the cheapest online price and buy it.

In your case, Rene, you just found a cheaper online price is all. A 50 cent blank and 10 cents worth of printing.

Also, you may not be aware of it, but there is a place online where you can send the money to Jeff Beck that he would have got if you had bought the CD outright.

I'll search for the link.

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

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-26-2001 10:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moses:
[ I think you should be the moderator around here or something. You've been here thick or thin and the first thing I thought of when I decided to make an appearance here again was "I wonder if KennyLee is still here."

---

I appointed myself moderator here months ago, Moses.

I looked at pubezboard and said "Nah". It's so chintzy and cheap. But listensmart.com? It's beautiful, man. Functional artist pages. Bulletin Board space that stretches for miles. Nice oceanfront view. Full kitchen.

If you get up early enough, stop by for breakfast. I'm squeezing some mango's right now.

[image not archived]

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

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

[This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 02-26-2001).]

Posts: 370
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-27-2001 08:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude        Edit/Delete Message

quote:

---

If you give your music to 100 people to listen to and 50 of them say "thanks but I don't like it," and 25 of them say "Hey thanks! that's cool, I'll send you a check next payday" (but secretly, never do) and then 25 of them buy not only the CD you gave them, but all the rest you have too, PLUS every CD you produce afterwards, would you do it?

---

I think the point you're missing in your analogy is that you are asking me if I would do it... In the world of Napster/Napster-spinoffs, artists are not given that respect... More often than not their music (note that it is their music) is simply made available by someone who violated that artist's rights (and the rights of the label) by distributing what is by definition an illegal copy of a protected product.

Please note: In your analogy, you continually refer to "you" as the artist... "If you give your music to 100 people to listen to" etc. You are acknowldeging my rights as the owner of my product. Do you know how many artists were "asked" if their music could be made available on Napster? Thought not... I don't either, but I'll bet that fewer than 1% of artists "represented" on Napster/Napster-clones were given that courtesy... Nevermind that it is and will continue to be decidedly illegal to violate copyright and performance rights.

Hi, Kenny!

------------------
Jonathan Lowry
My Personal Page @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ Rolling Stone
Dolo @ MP3.COM
Dolo @ Besonic.com

[This message has been edited by TheBassDude (edited 02-27-2001).]

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-27-2001 01:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

From the archives:

quote:

---

One of the members of our Board of Directors is Jim Griffin. Jim is one of the most respected players in the music and new media space. He is music industry veteran (as the former Director of Technology at Geffen Records responsible for the first downloadable song track EVER - Aerosmith/Compuserve) and also considered an entertainment technology visionary.

The proceeding post will be a quote from Jim Griffin. To fully comprehend Jim's perspective, it helps to understand the foundation of his position.

1. Music as a "service" vs. Music as a "product."

Before the 20th century, music was always a "service." If you wanted to enjoy music, you would hire musicians to provide the service of performing music for your pleasure. However, with the progression of technology, and the advent of sound recording on portable media, music as we know it became an object, or a "product." Currently, that "product" represents a $15 CD.

Jim's prediction is that 2000 years from now, music as a "product" will be a tiny blip on the radar screen of history. He feels as though the key to expanding the marketplace is to offer ubiquitous access to music as a "service" model, such as cable, cellular, or ISPs.

Take the ISP model for example... Imagine if access to the Internet cost only $.01 per page view. The average person would never really exceed the $15 they're paying now, but would Internet usage and ISP subscriptions have exploded the way they have? There would always be that hesitancy and risk -- however slight -- that the user just may not enjoy that next "link" as much as the $.01 value could justify for them.

2. Option Value

Option value is a term used by economists to describe the value inherent in having options built into the consumption of a product or use of a service. For example, Pay-per-view has more "option value" than does having to tune into a movie exactly at 9pm.

3. Marginal Cost

Marginal cost is term used by economists to describe the cost of producing a product beyond the cost necessary to create the first product. Thus, the "marginal cost" of producing an MP3 (or any digital file for that matter) is equal to or near zero.

---

OK, let's move to the meat of the message>>>

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

[This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 02-27-2001).]

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-27-2001 01:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

quote:

---

The customer (Moses) is always right.

I am not suggesting for a moment that creators and licensors of music,
movies, books and the like should have their work conscripted by the state
or the people or should in any way be deprived of the full value to which
they are entitled. Quite the opposite.

I am suggesting that we glean more value when we respect the notion that the
consumer (Moses) puts the money on the counter or enters the credit card number.
Appealing to the consumer's (Moses) sense of fairness is our paramount goal, unless
we seek nothing more than an academic debate on intellectual property
rights. If the customer (Moses) is not right, they will choose not to be our
customer. They have alternatives aplenty; we have few.

Increasingly, those consumer alternatives are technology-based. MP3
recorders will learn from their video brethren; Replay and Tivo devices will
migrate to the audio world, snagging singles from digital airplay to fill an
almost unlimited jukebox -- especially those commerical-free,
disc-jockey-free 500-channel satellite services -- giving the device owner
option value over the singles broadcast during lunch, or a day in the
office. The intelligent buffers themselves will plumment in price,
eventually built-in to computer operating systems, finally suffering the
same fate, becoming network-based services offered at marginal cost.

Already consumers mastered compact disc reproduction in record time, far
faster than our worst nightmares. We can expect this trend to accelerate,
making a mockery of content as product, but offering wonderful service
opportunities.

At its most rational, consumer behavior suggests they believe media should
be priced at or near marginal cost of delivery, which is closer to zero than
99 cents. This is the price to which they have grown accustomed in radio,
television, newspapers, magazines, and so on. Where media can be controlled,
such as concert seats or difficult-to-replicate analog items, consumers are
more likely to be compelled to accept a wide disparity between price and
marginal cost, but uncontrolled media generally move at or near marginal
cost.

Digitization means we lose control of our ability to control the quantity
and destiny of our digits. We must accept that our best hope is in business
models that destroy the consumer's motive to pirate, not their mechanism. We
must let go of the product and accept that a service that makes music and
other mind candy plentiful and on demand will eliminate our motive to copy
or even store content, with the inevitable tightly bonded relationship,
whether ad- or fee-based, highly profitable. Serving as gatekeeper to this
audience is a lucrative opportunity for artists and their enablers that must
not be missed.

*this part responds to your comments Bass Dude>>>>>>
Even if we can control the destiny of songs, we give up control over
quantity and commoditization, creating a singles business where none has
ever proved profitable. Even singles at a dollar apiece reduce album-related
income because debundled consumers will skim the cream off a market built on
bundled pricing. For years we've promoted singles and sold albums -- what
will we do when the singles themselves are available in unlimited quantity
to satiate the single-driven appetite?

We must realize that our digits will flow like water from their
source to their destination. Whether disintermediated from broadcast or
networks or disk duplication or kids plugging into listening posts or
whatever, our reality is that our inability to control has a dramatic effect
on pricing and our business plans.

Furthermore, consumers (Moses, Rene) may only be our second worst pricing enemy. Our worst fears can probably be viewed in the mirror; we are our own worst enemy. With
flat-fee-pull merchants like America On-Line and lifestyle peddlers like
Tommy Hilfiger entering the business, music's ability to draw a crowd may
prove far greater than its transactional value, driving the price of music
to its ability to drive traffic for on-line services or blue jeans.

If we fail to recognize this and discuss the alternatives freely and openly,
we make a huge mistake. Those of us who want to make music feel free (ala
subscription- and advertising-based services that bundle price but not
choice) must not be confused with those who suggest music should be free.
The latter is ridiculous, in my opinion, but the former is the key to
success, as has been proven time and again.

The winning business model will destroy the consumer's motive to steal, not
their mechanism. There can never be enough resources to mold any open
marketplace into the image we want; our opportunity is to supply the demands
of the market for art and profit from the honor of servicing its patrons.
Our place in the market is a privilege earned every day by competing for the
affection of consumers, not granted by virtue of copyright or other
government-tolerated monopoly.

The disconnect here is that many people seem most concerned about the product-based
music business disappearing without product-based alternatives to replace
it. Many feel that the business of music the service is where the real money is anyway, and has been for thousands of years, and that whether for money or not there is plenty of incentive for artists to create.

Great music was made long before music the product was even conceived. Music
the product is a relatively modern invention, and has been part of music for
only a blip in history.

Promoting ubiquitous music as a service creates the right business model --
with the permission of the appropriate rights holders (which may or may not
include the artist, and may or may not include the music listener). When we
move away from the package we liberate the content to seek larger audiences,
and serving as gatekeeper to that ever-growing crowd is the key to viral
success.

Even product-based business will thrive from entertainment the service. By
creating a flat-fee buffer with positive economic consequences of
consumption (i.e., pay flat-fee and trying new music becomes a value add)
instead of the current tax on trying new things ($15 to see if you might
like more than one song from that new band), we'll likely see merchandise
and concert tickets and all manner of ancillary income increase. At the same
time, we can grow the bundled subscription revenues to support the financial
licensing needs of the industry.

By the way, how do you feel about Replay and Tivo devices? They provide a
pull service not entirely unlike MP3.com, but they do it with broadcast
content which you had the right to see once on television. They use your
right to watch the content as their right to grab it for you and let you
watch it when you want. They let you click away the advertisements, and
print the show to tape. The resultant service feels interactive, gives the
viewer option value without mechanical license payment and without
commercials.

How will you feel about audio Replay and audio Tivo devices? They will do
for you what Michael Robertson does, but they don't require you own it (they
grab it off the broadcast) and they aren't offering to pay for the right.

As I wrote before, I think it's time to set a price for the interactive
license and administer it. The consumer wants option value without the disk,
and in an increasingly mobile and wireless world this is not an unreasonable
request, certainly no more unreasonable than wanting to watch a local
network television station via my DirecTV satellite dish (which congress
mercifully now permits over the objections of the local network television
station, which copyrights the content).

*I'll be using this as a closer to my comments from now on, also>>>>>>

Thank you for your kind words, and seeking the mutuality I know there is between our persepectives.

---

So you see, while I'm finishing breakfast and beginning to think about lunch, all your questions are easily answered by quoting this speech by listensmart.com Board Member Jim Griffin.

Plus a new understanding of the wonderful digital age is now upon all of you. I'll be here whipping up some fresh trout almondine and a shrimp cocktail. (I don't know who stocks the fridge here, but they do a great fucking job)

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

[This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 02-27-2001).]

Posts: 370
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-27-2001 04:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude        Edit/Delete Message

quote:

---

1. Music as a "service" vs. Music as a "product."

---

Sorry... When did we stop treating services like products? Do we not pay for services rendered in much the same manner as we pay for a product? Seems to me the phrase "goods and services" came from some obvious connection between the two. hmmmmm...

------------------
Jonathan Lowry
My Personal Page @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ Rolling Stone
Dolo @ MP3.COM
Dolo @ Besonic.com

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-27-2001 05:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheBassDude:
Sorry... When did we stop treating services like products? Do we not pay for services rendered in much the same manner as we pay for a product? Seems to me the phrase "goods and services" came from some obvious connection between the two. hmmmmm...

---

BassDude, Jim Griffin does not say we do not pay. The example he uses is Internet Service Provider.

An example you may relate to is MP3.com. A Music Service Provider. Free downloads. Subscription Music. All provided as a service, not a physical product. Money still changes hands.

Digital Technology and the Internet has removed the need for owning a physical copy of the music. It is always available on a server connected to the Internet somewhere.

Napster has evolved the service model beyond the level that Jim envisioned a year ago. Because EVERYONE HAS A SERVER NOW. Everyone can also store as much music as they want to now. On either a CD-R or a Hard Drive. And serve it up to the world from a computer anywhere in the world.

Jim's point is, that we have lived in the short period of time where we think of music as a "Good", a product. Now technology has made music a "Service". And the business model that applies is the "Service" model. Providing a "Service" to the customer (Moses, Rene) instead of a physical "Product" or "Good".

I'm marinating a filet right now, but I'll be back to discuss this further, if you'd like.

In closing this post I would just like to say:

"Thank you for your kind words, and seeking the mutuality I know there is between our perspectives."

listenSMART.com kitchen
[image not archived]

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

[This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 02-27-2001).]

Posts: 178
From:
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 02-27-2001 11:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tundead The One and Only     Edit/Delete Message

quote:

---

i just downloaded Jeff Beck's new record off of Napster, then I went and got the cover, and the track list from cdnow. I
burned it all on a cd I love the record, but if I can get it this way. I will never buy it from the store your analogy is a load of
shit in my mind.

---

a load of shit is an understatement.
I hope you enjoy your FREE Jeff Beck CD

I really dont understand how people try to justify this thing. I mean who are they really trying to kid.

It clearly breaks down to who the serious minded musicians really are and WE LOATH NAPSTER.

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-28-2001 03:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

www.Copyright.Net

And I want all serious minded musicians to go there and sign up right now.

This means you, Tundead. You are always talking about Copyright protection. Now you can do something about it. Instead of being negative all the time you can do something positive. Spread the word and get Jeff Beck his money.

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

Posts: 370
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-28-2001 06:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude        Edit/Delete Message

www.copyright.gov

And I want all serious minded Napsterites to go there and turn themselves in right now.

This means you, KennyLee. You are always talking about our inherent right to free access of the works of others. Now you can do something about it. Instead of being negative all the time you can do something positive. Spread the word and get Napster shut down permanently.

------------------
Jonathan Lowry
My Personal Page @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ Rolling Stone
Dolo @ MP3.COM
Dolo @ Besonic.com

[This message has been edited by TheBassDude (edited 02-28-2001).]

Posts: 370
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-28-2001 07:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude        Edit/Delete Message

quote:

---

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?

Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works
(7) sound recordings
(8) architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

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

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

---

Get it yet?

I also found this to be enlightening:

quote:

---

Two General Principles

Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.

Minors may claim copyright, but state laws may regulate the business dealings involving copyrights owned by minors. For information on relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

---

I found this first of those two points most interesting...

------------------
Jonathan Lowry
My Personal Page @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ Rolling Stone
Dolo @ MP3.COM
Dolo @ Besonic.com

Posts: 370
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-28-2001 09:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude        Edit/Delete Message

------------------
Jonathan Lowry
My Personal Page @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ Rolling Stone
Dolo @ MP3.COM
Dolo @ Besonic.com

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-28-2001 12:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

Nice parody of my post, by the way. Linking to the US government page on copyright law.

Your point this morning seems to be: Kenny Lee indicated a disregard for copyright. But I have never done that. Hell, even Napster has never done that. Napster has vigorously defended its own copyright.

The question before the courts and us is: How does copyright apply in the digital age?

Sometime soon, we will see. The justice system is slowly working through the issue as it has in the past. I feel good about it.

My other thought emanating from your post is: The US is only a part of the digital world. There is a link to the WIPO agreement in your reference though. Here are two parts I want you to look at.

quote:

---

from the WIPO treaty:
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.

(2) Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph (1) applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorization of the author.

---

#1 deals with sale and transfer of ownership. None of that going on with Napster.

#2 says that each country gets to decide how it wants to deal with the exhaustion of these issues. That's a lot of Supreme Courts to go through.

Anyhow, your big point seems to be that the LAW is going to crack down on the 60 million plus users of Napster. For engaging in a non-commercial activity. Guess we will see. I don't think so. I think we will see the LAW used as a means to bankrupt companies. Like MP3.com and Napster. But that's been going on for ages. Part of big business competition. Costs a lot for a start-up company to get to the Supreme Court. Most settle or sell out.

My point in my post that you parodied was: There is now a service available which protects your copyright in the digital age. And allows consumers and artists to profit from it.

You should signup, Bass Dude, and do something positive with the issue. Instead of trying to criminalize the very audience you are trying to reach with your artistry.

But maybe that's just the fresh ground Columbian talking.

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

Oh, almost forgot. "Thank you for your kind words, and seeking the mutuality I know there is between our persepectives."

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

Posts: 370
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-28-2001 01:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude        Edit/Delete Message

hey, man... I want you to know that I have always had the utmost respect for you since we both started posting here... But Colombian? really, Ken... Why not Viennese Roast, or maybe a Celebes Kalossi?

quote:

---

(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.

---

This just supports my contention... You say that when someone makes available a copy of someone else's works no transfer of ownership has occured, but follow this:

1: someone makes a copy of a song from a CD. That person then "owns" an illegal copy of someone else's authored work.

2: that person then makes that illegal copy available on Napster.

3: someone makes a copy of that illegal copy

4: transfer of ownership has just occured without the authorization of the original copyright owner.

This is the law. It is the legal standard by which Napster will justly be shut-down. They are, literally, aiding and abetting the unauthorized transfer of ownership of other people's copyrighted material.

End of class for today.

Seriously, KL... try some Celebes if you can find it (assuming you are a coffee-drinker, natch!)

------------------
Jonathan Lowry
My Personal Page @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ ListenSmart.com
Dolo @ Rolling Stone
Dolo @ MP3.COM
Dolo @ Besonic.com

Posts: 1539
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-28-2001 04:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee        Edit/Delete Message

Looks like you are taking an expanded view of the word "ownership" to me. When you make a copy you don't "own" the copyright. You just make a copy of the information. When you buy a CD, you are actually just buying the physical product. That is what you own. In the new digital age we do not need physical product though. Which is why music is becoming a "service" (refer to previous posts)

Anyhow, BassDude, you, like a lot of people, are looking to the LAW. Bust everybody unless they bow to the wishes of the RIAA. Pay the RIAA price or else is what the existing court ruling says. The price is what they say it is. They turned down a billion. They turned down 3 billion.

Orrin Hatch says mandatory licensing at a reasonable rate. I like that.

Anyhow, the sooner they shut down Napster the better for me. 60 million users won't get political until they lose Napster. The law won't be fully tested until Napster falls and the next wave begins.

Most important, the discussions of the issue will be stuck in the same old pattern until Napster falls.

Hopefully, in a month we will be talking about KaZaA instead.

Mahi-Mahi for supper it looks like. Wish you were here. It's too much for me.

"Thank you for your kind words, and seeking the mutuality I know there is between our persepectives."

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

All times are ET (US)