Interesting Tim O'Reilly article.

From: Geoff Reed <geoffr_at_zipcon.net>
Date: Fri Dec 13 23:27:01 2002

At 09:12 PM 12/13/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Every recording contract with a participation clause has an audit provision in
>it that allows the artist to come in with their own auditor/accountant and
>have
>full access to the books. Same is true in the movie biz. So I don't really
>know what you're referring to.

  -BZZZTTTT- Wrong answer... the recording industry contracts state that
Yes, you can ahve your contract audited, but only with a list of 'approved'
auditors, as a matter of fact if you show your contract to ANYONE you are
in violation of the contract.

> > 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)
> > thread.
> >
>I see you've been reading the popular press and the gospel according to
>Courtney
>Love.

I haven't, I have friends that are / were in signed bands, and they were
ripped off royally by the record companies they were signed through. There
are plenty of stories out there by recording artists that are getting the
royal purple shaft by their recording companies (lets start with the band
having to pay the recording company back for all expenses incurred in
advertising a record or tour...., the same expenses that the record company
wrote off in their takes but the band has to repay.)


>It depends on what you mean by "distributing that research." If you mean
>unrestricted distribution of a hack -- particularly when you know that
>99.9% of
>those who will use it have no interest in "research" (other than to "research"
>whether they can crack a DVD) -- then I do support it.

Um, I seem to remember text in the DMCA that makes it a criminal offense to
do ANYTHING that could be construed as an attempt at bypassing copy
protection, that would include reverse-engineering CSS....
Received on Fri Dec 13 2002 - 23:27:01 GMT