Fri Jul 19 21:28:38 2024
EVENTS
 FREE
SOFTWARE
INSTITUTE

POLITICS
JOBS
MEMBERS'
CORNER

MAILING
LIST

NYLXS Mailing Lists and Archives
NYLXS Members have a lot to say and share but we don't keep many secrets. Join the Hangout Mailing List and say your peice.

DATE 2012-06-01

HANGOUT

2024-07-19 | 2024-06-19 | 2024-05-19 | 2024-04-19 | 2024-03-19 | 2024-02-19 | 2024-01-19 | 2023-12-19 | 2023-11-19 | 2023-10-19 | 2023-09-19 | 2023-08-19 | 2023-07-19 | 2023-06-19 | 2023-05-19 | 2023-04-19 | 2023-03-19 | 2023-02-19 | 2023-01-19 | 2022-12-19 | 2022-11-19 | 2022-10-19 | 2022-09-19 | 2022-08-19 | 2022-07-19 | 2022-06-19 | 2022-05-19 | 2022-04-19 | 2022-03-19 | 2022-02-19 | 2022-01-19 | 2021-12-19 | 2021-11-19 | 2021-10-19 | 2021-09-19 | 2021-08-19 | 2021-07-19 | 2021-06-19 | 2021-05-19 | 2021-04-19 | 2021-03-19 | 2021-02-19 | 2021-01-19 | 2020-12-19 | 2020-11-19 | 2020-10-19 | 2020-09-19 | 2020-08-19 | 2020-07-19 | 2020-06-19 | 2020-05-19 | 2020-04-19 | 2020-03-19 | 2020-02-19 | 2020-01-19 | 2019-12-19 | 2019-11-19 | 2019-10-19 | 2019-09-19 | 2019-08-19 | 2019-07-19 | 2019-06-19 | 2019-05-19 | 2019-04-19 | 2019-03-19 | 2019-02-19 | 2019-01-19 | 2018-12-19 | 2018-11-19 | 2018-10-19 | 2018-09-19 | 2018-08-19 | 2018-07-19 | 2018-06-19 | 2018-05-19 | 2018-04-19 | 2018-03-19 | 2018-02-19 | 2018-01-19 | 2017-12-19 | 2017-11-19 | 2017-10-19 | 2017-09-19 | 2017-08-19 | 2017-07-19 | 2017-06-19 | 2017-05-19 | 2017-04-19 | 2017-03-19 | 2017-02-19 | 2017-01-19 | 2016-12-19 | 2016-11-19 | 2016-10-19 | 2016-09-19 | 2016-08-19 | 2016-07-19 | 2016-06-19 | 2016-05-19 | 2016-04-19 | 2016-03-19 | 2016-02-19 | 2016-01-19 | 2015-12-19 | 2015-11-19 | 2015-10-19 | 2015-09-19 | 2015-08-19 | 2015-07-19 | 2015-06-19 | 2015-05-19 | 2015-04-19 | 2015-03-19 | 2015-02-19 | 2015-01-19 | 2014-12-19 | 2014-11-19 | 2014-10-19 | 2014-09-19 | 2014-08-19 | 2014-07-19 | 2014-06-19 | 2014-05-19 | 2014-04-19 | 2014-03-19 | 2014-02-19 | 2014-01-19 | 2013-12-19 | 2013-11-19 | 2013-10-19 | 2013-09-19 | 2013-08-19 | 2013-07-19 | 2013-06-19 | 2013-05-19 | 2013-04-19 | 2013-03-19 | 2013-02-19 | 2013-01-19 | 2012-12-19 | 2012-11-19 | 2012-10-19 | 2012-09-19 | 2012-08-19 | 2012-07-19 | 2012-06-19 | 2012-05-19 | 2012-04-19 | 2012-03-19 | 2012-02-19 | 2012-01-19 | 2011-12-19 | 2011-11-19 | 2011-10-19 | 2011-09-19 | 2011-08-19 | 2011-07-19 | 2011-06-19 | 2011-05-19 | 2011-04-19 | 2011-03-19 | 2011-02-19 | 2011-01-19 | 2010-12-19 | 2010-11-19 | 2010-10-19 | 2010-09-19 | 2010-08-19 | 2010-07-19 | 2010-06-19 | 2010-05-19 | 2010-04-19 | 2010-03-19 | 2010-02-19 | 2010-01-19 | 2009-12-19 | 2009-11-19 | 2009-10-19 | 2009-09-19 | 2009-08-19 | 2009-07-19 | 2009-06-19 | 2009-05-19 | 2009-04-19 | 2009-03-19 | 2009-02-19 | 2009-01-19 | 2008-12-19 | 2008-11-19 | 2008-10-19 | 2008-09-19 | 2008-08-19 | 2008-07-19 | 2008-06-19 | 2008-05-19 | 2008-04-19 | 2008-03-19 | 2008-02-19 | 2008-01-19 | 2007-12-19 | 2007-11-19 | 2007-10-19 | 2007-09-19 | 2007-08-19 | 2007-07-19 | 2007-06-19 | 2007-05-19 | 2007-04-19 | 2007-03-19 | 2007-02-19 | 2007-01-19 | 2006-12-19 | 2006-11-19 | 2006-10-19 | 2006-09-19 | 2006-08-19 | 2006-07-19 | 2006-06-19 | 2006-05-19 | 2006-04-19 | 2006-03-19 | 2006-02-19 | 2006-01-19 | 2005-12-19 | 2005-11-19 | 2005-10-19 | 2005-09-19 | 2005-08-19 | 2005-07-19 | 2005-06-19 | 2005-05-19 | 2005-04-19 | 2005-03-19 | 2005-02-19 | 2005-01-19 | 2004-12-19 | 2004-11-19 | 2004-10-19 | 2004-09-19 | 2004-08-19 | 2004-07-19 | 2004-06-19 | 2004-05-19 | 2004-04-19 | 2004-03-19 | 2004-02-19 | 2004-01-19 | 2003-12-19 | 2003-11-19 | 2003-10-19 | 2003-09-19 | 2003-08-19 | 2003-07-19 | 2003-06-19 | 2003-05-19 | 2003-04-19 | 2003-03-19 | 2003-02-19 | 2003-01-19 | 2002-12-19 | 2002-11-19 | 2002-10-19 | 2002-09-19 | 2002-08-19 | 2002-07-19 | 2002-06-19 | 2002-05-19 | 2002-04-19 | 2002-03-19 | 2002-02-19 | 2002-01-19 | 2001-12-19 | 2001-11-19 | 2001-10-19 | 2001-09-19 | 2001-08-19 | 2001-07-19 | 2001-06-19 | 2001-05-19 | 2001-04-19 | 2001-03-19 | 2001-02-19 | 2001-01-19 | 2000-12-19 | 2000-11-19 | 2000-10-19 | 2000-09-19 | 2000-08-19 | 2000-07-19 | 2000-06-19 | 2000-05-19 | 2000-04-19 | 2000-03-19 | 2000-02-19 | 2000-01-19 | 1999-12-19

Key: Value:

Key: Value:

MESSAGE
DATE 2012-06-19
FROM Elfen Magix
SUBJECT Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fair Use bills
From owner-hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Tue Jun 19 10:29:39 2012
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id DF2E4395AE; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:29:38 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: hangout-outgoing-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id CC14D395AF; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:29:38 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: from nm25-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm25-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.156])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DCB58395AE
for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:29:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [98.139.212.153] by nm25.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2012 14:30:04 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.230] by tm10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2012 14:30:04 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1039.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2012 14:30:04 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 446685.73064.bm-at-omp1039.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 19198 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Jun 2012 14:30:04 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1340116204; bh=andnX9MOgN2u5pjN0F8xhBQ4GcY3Aq7cKiHQzeOHDSM=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=L22fa8v8xWwQWizo8tFb5Fg7IUUUkY5Th2T32Ne9qzdAlx4/RiqfOyBvGHXfLHJg7PvbpT7ODtDsf0My3CKDX2+5ezbIhV0spIQGyuhOez1hSo8BQ3Meotz/i34diLxNzi+9YnDWOhvUXT9DO7tqOkKgaKV40v+keQJ3pzFoUes=
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
b=4Fe6aYcYc68pMg2YirgXxgBYuDZIJVjGYa9Y+1trf9K2e9goq+AM5jywCkawTKifFR82Op/RkMlIXxYQXezyOhiRiGo+T4/j1KjcWYroth/u0BQVQ/i0nVyZaWXBFzBmJhIhC3ezeIypBNe4OZq+4QQK7zaroemyaZE7yIGPoEk=;
X-YMail-OSG: l_FvJdgVM1mi3ku4VR18iz7kkCqsW98IBpcHgYQACxDmj03
m4NGetxouGdoIts56fmRJxGNVbfdcn3lZj60LOCd.6i6GY1KAhY_VB8wu4qk
6HVDWe7lkHEIaCm75ljcZ_90ifIiysP8uLbOpPbnUYDTRJFsM9AdP3J8bdV8
aaXirnF7FYFWtdUn80rlX_ycOnW0ga4JgKAZLdbAZP2BVmAy.w7ZxNQw7oWu
7f33guBAU7eHBfMPvF1RXyU.xI8i20zgMAwzJRHvgMZ2oZ3ZP8xwetxMYXpP
ATbHnx9GItCWR4gXDsvq8Ox5ACxkgzu6oKaXXr0hiiVQz7jvK5KZReh3Eucl
kXLExqewvwtqDuVByKUoZ9mUTr9R5m7tdM7_HozDSs4YfMla26GZPEZw8OXw
_LwU09XwTEYCygUFHULDHl.FBfG5mIws0LAVXHbPgriO4B0HNT4wz89Ww4zf
tMvLPr8xOkml.A9pAdngD69E_aJ.Aa2mhnCnE1dCmtoKZJELucmyoOBhILN0
r8FmP1QvvAMWTRNqFQDL2YfaPpWIVx7iNB6YyXmGXFV70MIjIHBloPkEkb4H
ymwpHThMrQdO9jgojrWcmCt.uur2EWM4Rd8fHoKMaY0IwSBwGYGD0cJo_3CD
PdCpX786Q9JwyOcMf4Y1CxNW4TsKdM0qJiIrRmx6nNpDClk0JaXgOgCWnMt7
v
Received: from [71.244.87.8] by web162605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:30:04 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524
References: <20120618153505.GA15599-at-panix.com>
Message-ID: <1340116204.89725.YahooMailNeo-at-web162605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Elfen Magix
Subject: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fair Use bills
To: "hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1157309285-2085109150-1340116204=:89725"
Sender: owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com

--1157309285-2085109150-1340116204=:89725
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As long as Rule 34 still applies...=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0A______________________=
__________=0A From: Paul Robert Marino =0ATo: hangout-at-=
mrbrklyn.com =0ASent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:52 PM=0ASubject: Re: [NYLXS =
- HANGOUT] Fair Use bills=0A =0Awell sort of rule 10 needs revising or more=
specifically it need be=0Abroken into subclauses or multiple rules.=0AAs i=
t stands its too wide open for interpretation.=0Ait need to lay out some ru=
les about under what cases would be=0Aconsidered a violation of someones in=
tellectual property what actions=0Acan be taken and some limits on how it c=
an be monitored.=0A=0A=0AThis all stems back to how the copyright act was p=
urposefully=0Amisinterpreted and abused by the layers on both sides of the =
Napster=0Acase. put quite simply calling it sharing with friends when what =
users=0Awere really doing was republishing screwed us all.=0AThat said Naps=
ter and other music sharing sites and applications like=0Ait actually did i=
ncrease the profits of the record companies however=0Afrom a business persp=
ective the recording and movie industry found it=0Adisturbing because if th=
ey hadn't done something about it there were=0Aclauses in the copyright act=
that did allow for them to become public=0Adomain if others were republish=
ing and it could be proven that they=0Awere aware but hadn't taken action f=
or a certain number of years.=0AThe real problem with how they handled it w=
as that they were purposely=0Asetting up the Napster case as a justificatio=
n for future lobbying for=0Athings like the digital millennium copyright ac=
t and SOAP. The truth=0Aof the matter is they could have taken a lighter ha=
nd with the Napster=0Acase and kept the the new revenue stream intact but t=
hey over reacted=0Abecause they were listening to internal annalist who wer=
e coming up=0Awith industry dooms day scenarios.=0A=0AThe funny thing is th=
ey inadvertently caused a backlash that fulfilled=0Atheir prophecies. more =
and more recording artists who write original=0Amusic are self publishing i=
nstead of signing away their rights to=0Arecording companies for initial fu=
nding and promotion simply because=0Athey don't need it as much. The record=
ing companies that do get most=0Aof this new talent to sign contract are sm=
aller ones that are looking=0Aat things like youtube viewing statistics and=
offering the artist=0Asignificantly better contract because they know that=
the artist=0Aalready have an audience. The real heart of the issue is that=
the=0Arecording companies and the radio industry have been controlling wha=
t=0Apeople hear and telling them to like essentially what the big=0Arecordi=
ng companies tell them to for along time. in the new internet=0Aera that co=
ntrol has been lost and their business model is to tied to=0Ait to change e=
asily. This will start hitting the movie industry very=0Asoon, although tel=
evision companies already get it and are planing for=0Ait. Televisions mode=
l is different the don't really dictate to the=0Aviewer instead they use st=
atistics to figure out what gets the most=0Apeople consistently watching (w=
hich oddly doesn't always mean they=0Alike it). What television is primaril=
y selling is eye balls (yea i=0Aknow that term sounds creepy but that's the=
term they use) looking at=0Acommercials so they are focusing on things lik=
e how do we take=0Aadvantage of the internet to capture more eye balls on t=
he commercials=0Aso they are starting to think along the lines of who cares=
about DRM=0Awe never had it before and it causes problems so let focuse on=
how to=0Aembed the commercials in a way that's difficult as possible to re=
move.=0AThen allowing other more experienced companies to deal with thing l=
ike=0Apremium commercial free digital distribution as a secondary market.=
=0A=0A=0Aby the way the actual site is here=0Ahttp://keepthewebopen.com/dig=
ital-bill-of-rights=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Safi=
r wrote:=0A> OK they are finally beginning to come aro=
und=0A>=0A> http://www.geekosystem.com/digital-bill-of-rights/=0A>=0A>
--1157309285-2085109150-1340116204=:89725
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
As long as=
Rule 34 still applies...
 

=
ize: 12pt;">
erif; font-size: 12pt;">
=

From: Pau=
l Robert Marino <prmarino1-at-gmail.com>
ht: bold;">To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
weight: bold;">Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:52 PM
style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fai=
r Use bills

=0Awell sort of rule 10 needs revising o=
r more specifically it need be
broken into subclauses or multiple rules.=

As it stands its too wide open for interpretation.
it need to lay ou=
t some rules about under what cases would be
considered a violation of s=
omeones intellectual property what actions
can be taken and some limits =
on how it can be monitored.


This all stems back to how the copyr=
ight act was purposefully
misinterpreted and abused by the layers on bot=
h sides of the Napster
case. put quite simply calling it sharing with fr=
iends when what users
were really doing was republishing screwed us all.=

That said Napster and other music sharing sites and applications liker>it actually did increase the profits of the record companies however
f=
rom a business perspective the recording and movie industry found it
dis=
turbing because if they hadn't done something about it there were
clause=
s in the copyright act that did
allow for them to become public
domain if others were republishing and =
it could be proven that they
were aware but hadn't taken action for a ce=
rtain number of years.
The real problem with how they handled it was tha=
t they were purposely
setting up the Napster case as a justification for=
future lobbying for
things like the digital millennium copyright act an=
d SOAP. The truth
of the matter is they could have taken a lighter hand =
with the Napster
case and kept the the new revenue stream intact but the=
y over reacted
because they were listening to internal annalist who were=
coming up
with industry dooms day scenarios.

The funny thing is =
they inadvertently caused a backlash that fulfilled
their prophecies. mo=
re and more recording artists who write original
music are self publishi=
ng instead of signing away their rights to
recording companies for initi=
al funding and promotion simply because
they don't need it as
much. The recording companies that do get most
of this new talent to si=
gn contract are smaller ones that are looking
at things like youtube vie=
wing statistics and offering the artist
significantly better contract be=
cause they know that the artist
already have an audience. The real heart=
of the issue is that the
recording companies and the radio industry hav=
e been controlling what
people hear and telling them to like essentially=
what the big
recording companies tell them to for along time. in the ne=
w internet
era that control has been lost and their business model is to=
tied to
it to change easily. This will start hitting the movie industry=
very
soon, although television companies already get it and are planing=
for
it. Televisions model is different the don't really dictate to the<=
br>viewer instead they use statistics to figure out what gets the most
p=
eople consistently watching (which oddly doesn't always mean
they
like it). What television is primarily selling is eye balls (yea i=

know that term sounds creepy but that's the term they use) looking atr>commercials so they are focusing on things like how do we take
advanta=
ge of the internet to capture more eye balls on the commercials
so they =
are starting to think along the lines of who cares about DRM
we never ha=
d it before and it causes problems so let focuse on how to
embed the com=
mercials in a way that's difficult as possible to remove.
Then allowing =
other more experienced companies to deal with thing like
premium commerc=
ial free digital distribution as a secondary market.


by the way =
the actual site is here
http://keepthewebopen.com/digital-bill-of-rights=




On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Safir <o=3D"mailto:mrbrklyn-at-panix.com" href=3D"mailto:mrbrklyn-at-panix.com">mrbrklyn=
-at-panix.com
> wrote:
> OK they are finally beginning to come
around
>
> http://www.geekosystem.com/digital-bill-of-rights/<=
br>>
>



--1157309285-2085109150-1340116204=:89725--

--1157309285-2085109150-1340116204=:89725
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As long as Rule 34 still applies...=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0A______________________=
__________=0A From: Paul Robert Marino =0ATo: hangout-at-=
mrbrklyn.com =0ASent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:52 PM=0ASubject: Re: [NYLXS =
- HANGOUT] Fair Use bills=0A =0Awell sort of rule 10 needs revising or more=
specifically it need be=0Abroken into subclauses or multiple rules.=0AAs i=
t stands its too wide open for interpretation.=0Ait need to lay out some ru=
les about under what cases would be=0Aconsidered a violation of someones in=
tellectual property what actions=0Acan be taken and some limits on how it c=
an be monitored.=0A=0A=0AThis all stems back to how the copyright act was p=
urposefully=0Amisinterpreted and abused by the layers on both sides of the =
Napster=0Acase. put quite simply calling it sharing with friends when what =
users=0Awere really doing was republishing screwed us all.=0AThat said Naps=
ter and other music sharing sites and applications like=0Ait actually did i=
ncrease the profits of the record companies however=0Afrom a business persp=
ective the recording and movie industry found it=0Adisturbing because if th=
ey hadn't done something about it there were=0Aclauses in the copyright act=
that did allow for them to become public=0Adomain if others were republish=
ing and it could be proven that they=0Awere aware but hadn't taken action f=
or a certain number of years.=0AThe real problem with how they handled it w=
as that they were purposely=0Asetting up the Napster case as a justificatio=
n for future lobbying for=0Athings like the digital millennium copyright ac=
t and SOAP. The truth=0Aof the matter is they could have taken a lighter ha=
nd with the Napster=0Acase and kept the the new revenue stream intact but t=
hey over reacted=0Abecause they were listening to internal annalist who wer=
e coming up=0Awith industry dooms day scenarios.=0A=0AThe funny thing is th=
ey inadvertently caused a backlash that fulfilled=0Atheir prophecies. more =
and more recording artists who write original=0Amusic are self publishing i=
nstead of signing away their rights to=0Arecording companies for initial fu=
nding and promotion simply because=0Athey don't need it as much. The record=
ing companies that do get most=0Aof this new talent to sign contract are sm=
aller ones that are looking=0Aat things like youtube viewing statistics and=
offering the artist=0Asignificantly better contract because they know that=
the artist=0Aalready have an audience. The real heart of the issue is that=
the=0Arecording companies and the radio industry have been controlling wha=
t=0Apeople hear and telling them to like essentially what the big=0Arecordi=
ng companies tell them to for along time. in the new internet=0Aera that co=
ntrol has been lost and their business model is to tied to=0Ait to change e=
asily. This will start hitting the movie industry very=0Asoon, although tel=
evision companies already get it and are planing for=0Ait. Televisions mode=
l is different the don't really dictate to the=0Aviewer instead they use st=
atistics to figure out what gets the most=0Apeople consistently watching (w=
hich oddly doesn't always mean they=0Alike it). What television is primaril=
y selling is eye balls (yea i=0Aknow that term sounds creepy but that's the=
term they use) looking at=0Acommercials so they are focusing on things lik=
e how do we take=0Aadvantage of the internet to capture more eye balls on t=
he commercials=0Aso they are starting to think along the lines of who cares=
about DRM=0Awe never had it before and it causes problems so let focuse on=
how to=0Aembed the commercials in a way that's difficult as possible to re=
move.=0AThen allowing other more experienced companies to deal with thing l=
ike=0Apremium commercial free digital distribution as a secondary market.=
=0A=0A=0Aby the way the actual site is here=0Ahttp://keepthewebopen.com/dig=
ital-bill-of-rights=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Safi=
r wrote:=0A> OK they are finally beginning to come aro=
und=0A>=0A> http://www.geekosystem.com/digital-bill-of-rights/=0A>=0A>
--1157309285-2085109150-1340116204=:89725
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
As long as=
Rule 34 still applies...
 

=
ize: 12pt;">
erif; font-size: 12pt;">
=

From: Pau=
l Robert Marino <prmarino1-at-gmail.com>
ht: bold;">To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
weight: bold;">Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:52 PM
style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fai=
r Use bills

=0Awell sort of rule 10 needs revising o=
r more specifically it need be
broken into subclauses or multiple rules.=

As it stands its too wide open for interpretation.
it need to lay ou=
t some rules about under what cases would be
considered a violation of s=
omeones intellectual property what actions
can be taken and some limits =
on how it can be monitored.


This all stems back to how the copyr=
ight act was purposefully
misinterpreted and abused by the layers on bot=
h sides of the Napster
case. put quite simply calling it sharing with fr=
iends when what users
were really doing was republishing screwed us all.=

That said Napster and other music sharing sites and applications liker>it actually did increase the profits of the record companies however
f=
rom a business perspective the recording and movie industry found it
dis=
turbing because if they hadn't done something about it there were
clause=
s in the copyright act that did
allow for them to become public
domain if others were republishing and =
it could be proven that they
were aware but hadn't taken action for a ce=
rtain number of years.
The real problem with how they handled it was tha=
t they were purposely
setting up the Napster case as a justification for=
future lobbying for
things like the digital millennium copyright act an=
d SOAP. The truth
of the matter is they could have taken a lighter hand =
with the Napster
case and kept the the new revenue stream intact but the=
y over reacted
because they were listening to internal annalist who were=
coming up
with industry dooms day scenarios.

The funny thing is =
they inadvertently caused a backlash that fulfilled
their prophecies. mo=
re and more recording artists who write original
music are self publishi=
ng instead of signing away their rights to
recording companies for initi=
al funding and promotion simply because
they don't need it as
much. The recording companies that do get most
of this new talent to si=
gn contract are smaller ones that are looking
at things like youtube vie=
wing statistics and offering the artist
significantly better contract be=
cause they know that the artist
already have an audience. The real heart=
of the issue is that the
recording companies and the radio industry hav=
e been controlling what
people hear and telling them to like essentially=
what the big
recording companies tell them to for along time. in the ne=
w internet
era that control has been lost and their business model is to=
tied to
it to change easily. This will start hitting the movie industry=
very
soon, although television companies already get it and are planing=
for
it. Televisions model is different the don't really dictate to the<=
br>viewer instead they use statistics to figure out what gets the most
p=
eople consistently watching (which oddly doesn't always mean
they
like it). What television is primarily selling is eye balls (yea i=

know that term sounds creepy but that's the term they use) looking atr>commercials so they are focusing on things like how do we take
advanta=
ge of the internet to capture more eye balls on the commercials
so they =
are starting to think along the lines of who cares about DRM
we never ha=
d it before and it causes problems so let focuse on how to
embed the com=
mercials in a way that's difficult as possible to remove.
Then allowing =
other more experienced companies to deal with thing like
premium commerc=
ial free digital distribution as a secondary market.


by the way =
the actual site is here
http://keepthewebopen.com/digital-bill-of-rights=




On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Safir <o=3D"mailto:mrbrklyn-at-panix.com" href=3D"mailto:mrbrklyn-at-panix.com">mrbrklyn=
-at-panix.com
> wrote:
> OK they are finally beginning to come
around
>
> http://www.geekosystem.com/digital-bill-of-rights/<=
br>>
>



--1157309285-2085109150-1340116204=:89725--

  1. 2012-06-03 Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Installfest
  2. 2012-06-04 Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Installfest
  3. 2012-06-04 Contrarian <adrba-at-nyct.net> Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Installfest
  4. 2012-06-08 Elfen Magix <elfen_magix-at-yahoo.com> Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Installfest
  5. 2012-06-08 Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Installfest
  6. 2012-06-18 Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fair Use bills
  7. 2012-06-18 Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] going for the throat
  8. 2012-06-18 Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1-at-gmail.com> Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fair Use bills
  9. 2012-06-19 Elfen Magix <elfen_magix-at-yahoo.com> Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fair Use bills
  10. 2012-06-27 Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Patant wars take a bad twist
  11. 2012-06-28 Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Patant wars take a bad twist
  12. 2012-06-28 Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1-at-gmail.com> Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Patant wars take a bad twist

NYLXS are Do'ers and the first step of Doing is Joining! Join NYLXS and make a difference in your community today!