hi pod, let me say that i can only lend my music, either from home or online, one file per person at a time, just like my local library does, and the us supreme court says i can.
they said i can record a program using my vcr and dispose of it as i see fit – even if that means
selling it. i’m not about to do that but until I hear otherwise it’s my position that their ruling applies to me
lending my cds and my recordings of cds and broadcasts, to friends, and acquaintances, real or virtual.
the recording industry has had years to offer music online. in '96 they were so worried about the net they wanted to shut it down - but not worried enough to offer songs to subscribers. the explosion of file sharing has answered pent-up demand unmet by the labels for half a decade - and unmet to this day.
also i'm aware of the conflicts between the hardware guys and the software guys. i linked a story
3 days ago but it's not exactly about helping the people secure copyright access. for instance congress is now considering systems that prevent the copying of webcasts, after congress already instituted fees on webcasts to cover alleged losses suffered by the labels because of
the copying of webcasts (fees which btw forced most webcasters off the net). so we'll pay $ to receive copyable webcasts but copying them will require disabling the new digital rights management flags, and that's a felony. who’s kidding who? the labels are using fear and technological obscuration to try to accomplish what they’ve never been able to do before. they want to control it all. i'm just working to see that doesn't happen.
these new communication tools are so important they can't be left to a handfull of for profit conglomerates like microsoft, aol time warner, vivendi and others to carve up. we don't need their distribution systems anymore, if we ever did. we can without question do it better ourselves, and we have been. the only way they can stop us is by an act of congress, with back-up from the supreme court.
and maybe even an army...
- js.