Napster Wants License to License By Michael Stroud 2:00 a.m. Oct. 30, 2001 PST LOS ANGELES -- Napster CEO Konrad Hilbers says the government should consider compulsory standards requiring music labels to license music at a fair price if they don't close deals with Napster and other independent distributors. "Like any other business person, I'm hesitant to bring government in," Hilbers said. "But government has an obligation to set standards. If there's no agreement, the government should consider compulsory licensing." <snip> http://wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,47977,00.html Compulsory licensing = theft, buddy.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 06:31:49AM -0800, Khoder bin Hakkin wrote: | Napster Wants License to License | By Michael Stroud | LOS ANGELES -- Napster CEO Konrad Hilbers says the | government should consider | compulsory standards requiring music labels to license music | at a fair price if they | don't close deals with Napster and other independent | distributors. [...] | Compulsory licensing = theft, buddy. Perhaps you should expand your analysis to non-excludable goods (those things which, like air, don't get used up). The government grants people who've created stories, songs, and other works certain rights in those works. The set of rights that they've been granted has changed dramatically over time, usually driven by new technology, such as the printing press, the radio, or the internet. Compulsory licensing of something that the government gave you is very different from compulsory licensing of something you created. Further, compulsory licensing of a non-excludable good (such as TV broadcasts) is very different from compulsory licensing of an excludable good, such as your computer. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Adam Shostack wrote:
Perhaps you should expand your analysis to non-excludable goods (those things which, like air, don't get used up).
Air (O2) does get used up. Kill the algea and the trees and see how long you can breath. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:29:58 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Adam Shostack wrote:
Perhaps you should expand your analysis to non-excludable goods (those things which, like air, don't get used up).
Air (O2) does get used up. Kill the algea and the trees and see how long you can breath.
Great idea! I have a few trees in my garden that produce copious O2! I'll Fed-Ex an invoice to Hillary Rosen immediately for all the air he's using up! Hey I just 'farm' the air, I don't ask anyone to breath it! Once I factor in the rosebush and all the grass, I may have quite an enterprise going. Dogbert.
on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 10:56:20PM -0000, Anonymous (nobody@hyperreal.pl) wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:29:58 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate wrote:
I'll Fed-Ex an invoice to Hillary Rosen immediately for all the air he's using up! Hey I just 'farm' the air, I don't ask anyone to breath it!
She.
--
Karsten M. Self
on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 06:31:49AM -0800, Khoder bin Hakkin (hakkin@sarin.com) wrote:
Compulsory licensing = theft, buddy.
Misappropriation, not theft. These aren't material goods. You might
also read the Wind Done Gone ruling and reexamine exlusive rights to see
what you own under copyright in a work -- hint: it's not the work.
I'd also recommend for reading 17 USC 115, "Scope of exclusive rights in
nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and
distributing phonorecords", providing for compulsory licensing for
distribution and making arrangements (covers) of a work.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.text.html
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 02:59:26PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 06:31:49AM -0800, Khoder bin Hakkin (hakkin@sarin.com) wrote:
Compulsory licensing = theft, buddy.
Misappropriation, not theft. These aren't material goods. You might also read the Wind Done Gone ruling and reexamine exlusive rights to see what you own under copyright in a work -- hint: it's not the work.
It all depends on your view of intellectual property. I license photos to news organizations and other publishers. I've licensed about $250 worth of them in three (admittedly relatively low-value each) transactions today. If forced by the government to license my photos at a certain rate, in principle I wouldn't be thrilled. In practice it would depend on the per-photo rate, but somehow I think I can do a better job of negotiating on my own. Also I would not expect to be able to influence the Copyright Office to see things my way in the first place. -Declan
participants (6)
-
Adam Shostack -
Anonymous -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Karsten M. Self -
Khoder bin Hakkin