Napster's Fanning has Snocap-ped vision

TalkBack 1 of 1:

Thread View
Flat View

Wheres the: commentors around here at today.

I really cant go for any of these network ideas.They are among many schemes that can preclude use of copyrighted works that include the features of copy,storage,communication,and performance.

Why I cant go for it,is the isms affected by the intrensic calamity of voyerism put upon the persons,manufactures,copyright holders by:

1.creating database of a music collectors personal holdings.

2.putting audio doctor in there just to make sure the voyerism works for everyone with a person.

This could of course always be a patent pend,and as with most of them.Where the patent starts the pend usually ends.

There is many ways of wich 'security can be coupled to a digital file.Of wich the programing defaults are utilized.The application used for playback,the digital file itself having its own properties.

Most of what programming conditions apply will be portrayed to just what the Music (and Movie )industry wants to get out of it.Artists need payback for their work - and this means more for a different effect that might seem arbitrarily leaving an original agreement out of the loop sort of speaking.CD disk manufacturers can shell out as long as 'shells are coming in.

I do not enjoy any kind of jostling with the asset of personal effects like this does.We have place for public debate of just what copyrighted affect are apherent for person.Person of copyright,Person of author - wherever that person may be. The idea of databasing anybodies stuff unihibited should always be questionable.As it is notable quantifying does not qualify.

There are plenty of qualifying assets to be defined (1),defined (2) within the digital utility. It does not have to give unmentionable relationship outside of purpose of any person to them.This is the reason authors and artists need to recognize they have usage within the digital utility beyond the recognized contractual dimensions of the past within copyrights.

Another story told of Time-Warner selling there music business.A single artist,author group could create a myriad amount of 'feature toward the digital utility with a single recording studio.

The music industry has used the 'patent pend. of the past to equate to its own dayview of copyright business and effects.If they are to carry on they are going to have to take another different position as well on our hardrives in the microscopic worlds everybody can exist to.Doesn't seem to be a monopoly there. As long as every individual continues in their own asset.

It is as well true that finaciers do not have to play all that royalty business to the only representation that can be brought of a digital utility. Artists and authors have got to be getting to tuning these relationships as something that can be enjoyed.

If you look at the Canadian situation,and you think about it.The whole scheme of choice among artists in its individual choice of esthetic went with the candid displacment of that person to the 'royalty band. Any true affect that could be utilized was stonwalled as ineffectual technology.Of wich there is plenty of relationship to decide beyond the precept of royalty,towards features of value in copyrighted products.

The status quos are at their own exhibition.But I like the assets I have.Stay away from them.

-just talking.; Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey Posted on: 01/27/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use