>
> BAJ wrote:
> >>
> >> > The point is that not only MP3's but also knowledge and data in
> >> > general is now basically free to store and transmit. Compared to just
> >> > a year or so ago, the site really doesn't cost me very much.
> >>
> >> I am starting to worry seriously about you. What do you mean by 'The point
> >> is that not only MP3's but also knowledge and data in general is now
> >> basically free to store and transmit'. I hope that you mean public domain
> >> knowledge, yes ? I'd like you to answer this.
> >
> >Peter,
> >
> >James wasn't referring to the copyright status of the knowledge, but the
> >physical transmission/storage cost of information. For example 10 years
> >ago RAM ran about $1200 for 32 MB, about $38/MB. Now RAM runs about $40 for
> >120MB, about $0.32 a MB. Essentially a two order of magnitude shift.
> >
>
> I think James is the one who is mixing things up. Yes, storage is
> cheap, technology is cheap, and it's always nice to have your
> grandmother's recipes saved for posterity.
>
> But what James is not adequately distinquishing in his arguments is
> the difference between intellectual property freely given into the
> public domain by the author [ie, his communist/utopian dream], and
> intellectual property that is privately-owned and/or commercially-
> licensed, and disseminated to the public by those who have not
> the legal right to do so.
>
> This entire discussion is moot, when someone is able to distinquish
> between the two.

Dan,

We can all distinguish between the two. We, and the vast majority of Napster,
warez, and other copyright infringers understand said copyright infringement.
However we are technologically at a point where such infringement is so
widespread, and so difficult to police or stem, that the presumed system
that had previously dominated such dissemination will by definition crumble.

I'm not assigning morality to the issue. In my book copying without
authorization is stealing and it's wrong. Period. Exactly two of the nearly
600 MP3's I currently have are not from my personal collection or downloaded
for true fair use (specifically in my kids' school projects).

But a law that has no enforcement ability, and where the majority of the
citizens under that law do not perceive it as lawful, has no chance of being
enforced.

And that's where copyright law is now. It used to be that one had to have
massive infrastructure in order to copy: Presses, film, CD duplicators,
etc. But with the internet, duplication has no cost and truly minimal
policing ability. Simply stating that it's IP and you can't copy it has
absolutely no teeth. If the info has value, it will be copied unless there
is some physical impediment to its copying imposed. And simply declaring it
IP without enforcement makes free information, morality nothwithstanding.

So as a content producer, one must either protect the IP, via security or
enforcement, or free the information in such a way that copying is a part
of the model.

Microsoft understand that. But the consumer revolt is going to be real
interesting when XP locks down applications and media. But I still think that
the volume model where the cost is negligable or fixed for an individual but
the collective revenue is massive will win out in the end.



> ============
>
> .........>
> >The one thing I still haven't figured out is how to limit distribution only
> >to those who pay, and do it in such a way that paying customers can playback
> >their music in all the venues they need (home, vehicle, portable).
> >
> >That's the hard part.
> >
>
> Until that time comes, we can live within the law or not.

Most won't. It's a fact of life we see everyday, especially when the crime
is considered to be petty and victimless to a majority of the people under
that law.

Most people I encounter don't seem to understand that copying software or
music is the same as stealing from a store. And while the vast majority of
them would never consider stealing clothes, food, CDs, or software from a
store, they don't perceive that "borrowing" someone's copy of a CD or software
is tatamount to the same activity.

>
> Also, even when Napsters problem is solved, I don't think that is
> going to solve the issue that James rasied with this thread
> - intellectual property that is not music.

Well it's be real interesting to see how the competition goes between those
who secure their IP and those who release it for open consumption (which BTW
is not public domain. Most Open source folks want to prohibit the securing
of their work further down the line, so it does retain a copyright with a
license that allows for further redistribution.)

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads