OT: Re: Interesting Tim O'Reilly article.

From: Sellam Ismail <foo_at_siconic.com>
Date: Fri Dec 13 10:16:00 2002

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Wayne M. Smith wrote:

> > Speaking for my personal CD purchasing habits, I'd have to say
> > O'Reilly's observations match my practices. For one, I don't like
> > "Top 40" or mainstream music. Most all of it is crap. And nearly none
> > of the music I enjoy gets played on the radio stations in my area; so
> > my ability to find out about music I like is somewhat hampered. If
> > someone recommends a song or a band to me, they'll often point me in
> > the direction of some of their MP3s. If I like their work, I buy
> > their CDs.
> >
> You are to be lauded, but you are in a shrinking minority.

Wayne, I can't buy your argument for the same reason I can't believe
anything the RIAA or MPAA or any of those silly acronym-based
organizations say. They don't back them up with hard data, because if
they did, we would probably find that sales are only increasing. When the
recording industry is willing to allow an independent auditor to check its
books and report the findings, then I'll believe it. Until then, I don't
take their word for anything.

Also, I think it's pretty petty for the recording industry especially to
be griping about losing sales, especially when it robs most recording
artists blind anyway. But that's another (and even more off-topic)

> I understood his point, but I don't agree that the studios/record
> companies are obligated to do anything or face having their content
> stolen. There's a difference between being annoyed and therefore not
> buying something, and being annoyed and using that as a justification
> for stealing. The argument some make that the studios/record companies
> need to pander to those who would otherwise steal from them really
> doesn't fly.

Well, we are basically dealing with human behavior here, and no matter how
much pissing and moaning and bitching and griping by the recording
industry and no matter how many silly laws that do not at all cater to the
general benefit of society are passed, people will still do what people
do. The trick is to figure out how to make money from it, rather than
being completely obnoxious about it as the recording industry has been so

O'Reilly was right on, and history will prove him (and all the others
striking the same chord) right.

> > lousy CSS encryption is a crime. I think that's absurd, and I'm really
> > surprised that /anyone/ on /this/ list would agree with the idea that
> > reverse engineering something is, in itself, a criminal act.
> >
> No, he didn't, but he did distribute DeCSS, and then others did. The DCMA
> doesn't preclude reverse engineering CSS for purely encryption research or
> security testing, and I'm certain the MPAA has not said otherwise.

But it does preclude distributing that research, and I can't believe you
could support that provision.

> The movie biz is right about where the music biz was 5 years ago. DVD
> burners are around $300-400, the media is approaching $1 per disk and
> connectivity speeds are increasing. We will see.

The economy is also right about where it was 5 years ago. People just
don't have the money they did in 1999 (I certainly don't). The
correlation is more than a coincidence.

Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org

 * Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Received on Fri Dec 13 2002 - 10:16:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:40 BST