«

"Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has
received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by
business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not
valid copyright claims."

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../03/18/2223232

Nik Coughlin wrote:
> "Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has
> received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by
> business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were
> not valid copyright claims."
> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../03/18/2223232

You can read the rest of the submissions here ...
http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d54321...4710785f6.html

There has to be something really wrong with section 92a when these folk
speak out against it;
Auckland District Law Society
Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal
CFF representing over 9,000 artists and musicians
Internet NZ
and many others.


Peter

Peter wrote:
> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>> "Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has
>> received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by
>> business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were
>> not valid copyright claims."
>> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../03/18/2223232
>
> You can read the rest of the submissions here ...
> http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d54321...4710785f6.html
>
> There has to be something really wrong with section 92a when these folk
> speak out against it;
> Auckland District Law Society
> Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal
> CFF representing over 9,000 artists and musicians
> Internet NZ
> and many others.
>
>
> Peter
>
>
It is so fundamentally wrong that there is no "code of practice" that
TCF could propose that would fix it

It is polishing a turd

You could cache the entire internet onto your computer and it would mean
you were any more likely to be able to listen to more music.
Google does, no one cancels their account.

Downloading content is a transitional phase and the future of musical
content is in the cloud, on demand as this article proposes.

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/03/teri.html#more

Punitive approaches like S92a are weapons to fight the last war

Nothing is going to return the income that record companies made out of
CDs because they made that out of a distribution system that improved on
shipping musicians around. Now telecommunications has built a better
system that anyone can use. You used to have to be a superstar to be
seen worldwide now you just need a camcorder and an exhibitionist cat.

I listen to streaming music now as much as tracks I have locally, and I
expect to be able to use a service like Stumbler for music any day now
where I'll be able to give tracks a thumbs up and it will profile me
according to my peer group and be my personal DJ. For podcasts, streams,
spoken word, radio docos, whatever

Thats the **** the music wankstains need to be working towards.
The selling CDs approach crudely converted for the internet with
draconian copyright protecting it is just lazy, they don't need any
restriction on data if they do it right.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs oneofus wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>>> "Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it
>>> has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998,
>>> were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third
>>> (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims."
>>> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../03/18/2223232
>>
>> You can read the rest of the submissions here ...
>> http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d54321...4710785f6.html
>>
>> There has to be something really wrong with section 92a when these
>> folk speak out against it;
>> Auckland District Law Society
>> Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal
>> CFF representing over 9,000 artists and musicians
>> Internet NZ
>> and many others.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
> It is so fundamentally wrong that there is no "code of practice" that
> TCF could propose that would fix it
>
> It is polishing a turd
>
> You could cache the entire internet onto your computer and it would
> mean you were any more likely to be able to listen to more music.
> Google does, no one cancels their account.
>
> Downloading content is a transitional phase and the future of musical
> content is in the cloud, on demand as this article proposes.
>
> http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/03/teri.html#more
>
> Punitive approaches like S92a are weapons to fight the last war
>
> Nothing is going to return the income that record companies made out
> of CDs because they made that out of a distribution system that
> improved on shipping musicians around. Now telecommunications has
> built a better system that anyone can use. You used to have to be a
> superstar to be seen worldwide now you just need a camcorder and an
> exhibitionist cat.
> I listen to streaming music now as much as tracks I have locally, and
> I expect to be able to use a service like Stumbler for music any day
> now where I'll be able to give tracks a thumbs up and it will profile
> me according to my peer group and be my personal DJ.

I used to use something like that a couple years ago. I forget the name now.
I'd 'tell' it either artists or songs that I liked and it'd suggest others
(based on other people's selections). I could either veto new suggestions,
or rate them (for frequency of playing) or just ignore if I was busy and
it'd rate them as 'ok'. It was really cool. I had three custom 'stations',
one for everyday listening, one for mellow stuff (Portishead style) and one
for rocking out (Tool style). It showed the album art in the sidebar with
links to a bio of the band and a link to (Amazon?) buying the CD if so
desired. IIRC you could select the quality, 64, 92 or 128. (Streaming mp3s.)

Then one day they went and made it US IPs only and I lost all my saved
choices before I had a chance to try to proxy my way back in. I was honest
about location when I opened the account.
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.

> For podcasts,
> streams, spoken word, radio docos, whatever
>
> Thats the **** the music wankstains need to be working towards.
> The selling CDs approach crudely converted for the internet with
> draconian copyright protecting it is just lazy, they don't need any
> restriction on data if they do it right.

On 2009-03-19, Peter <> wrote:
> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>> "Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has
>> received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by
>> business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were
>> not valid copyright claims."
>> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../03/18/2223232
>
> You can read the rest of the submissions here ...
> http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d54321...4710785f6.html
>
> There has to be something really wrong with section 92a when these folk
> speak out against it;
> Auckland District Law Society
> Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal
> CFF representing over 9,000 artists and musicians
> Internet NZ
> and many others.
>
Including the select committee considering it

Somewhere on teh intarwebs ~misfit~ wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs oneofus wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>>> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>>>> "Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it
>>>> has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998,
>>>> were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third
>>>> (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims."
>>>> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../03/18/2223232
>>>
>>> You can read the rest of the submissions here ...
>>> http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d54321...4710785f6.html
>>>
>>> There has to be something really wrong with section 92a when these
>>> folk speak out against it;
>>> Auckland District Law Society
>>> Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal
>>> CFF representing over 9,000 artists and musicians
>>> Internet NZ
>>> and many others.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>> It is so fundamentally wrong that there is no "code of practice" that
>> TCF could propose that would fix it
>>
>> It is polishing a turd
>>
>> You could cache the entire internet onto your computer and it would
>> mean you were any more likely to be able to listen to more music.
>> Google does, no one cancels their account.
>>
>> Downloading content is a transitional phase and the future of musical
>> content is in the cloud, on demand as this article proposes.
>>
>> http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/03/teri.html#more
>>
>> Punitive approaches like S92a are weapons to fight the last war
>>
>> Nothing is going to return the income that record companies made out
>> of CDs because they made that out of a distribution system that
>> improved on shipping musicians around. Now telecommunications has
>> built a better system that anyone can use. You used to have to be a
>> superstar to be seen worldwide now you just need a camcorder and an
>> exhibitionist cat.
>> I listen to streaming music now as much as tracks I have locally, and
>> I expect to be able to use a service like Stumbler for music any day
>> now where I'll be able to give tracks a thumbs up and it will profile
>> me according to my peer group and be my personal DJ.
>
> I used to use something like that a couple years ago. I forget the
> name now. I'd 'tell' it either artists or songs that I liked and it'd
> suggest others (based on other people's selections). I could either
> veto new suggestions, or rate them (for frequency of playing) or just
> ignore if I was busy and it'd rate them as 'ok'. It was really cool.
> I had three custom 'stations', one for everyday listening, one for
> mellow stuff (Portishead style) and one for rocking out (Tool style).
> It showed the album art in the sidebar with links to a bio of the
> band and a link to (Amazon?) buying the CD if so desired. IIRC you
> could select the quality, 64, 92 or 128. (Streaming mp3s.)
> Then one day they went and made it US IPs only and I lost all my saved
> choices before I had a chance to try to proxy my way back in. I was
> honest about location when I opened the account.

Pandora. Used what it called a music genome. Was very cool.

Type www.pandora.com into your browser, it'll tell you that you're not in
the US so you're SOOL.
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.

"~misfit~" <> wrote in message
news:gq20a5$af6$...
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs oneofus wrote:
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>>>>> "Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it
>>>>> has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998,
>>>>> were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third
>>>>> (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims."
>>>>> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../03/18/2223232
>>>>
>>>> You can read the rest of the submissions here ...
>>>> http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d54321...4710785f6.html
>>>>
>>>> There has to be something really wrong with section 92a when these
>>>> folk speak out against it;
>>>> Auckland District Law Society
>>>> Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal
>>>> CFF representing over 9,000 artists and musicians
>>>> Internet NZ
>>>> and many others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is so fundamentally wrong that there is no "code of practice" that
>>> TCF could propose that would fix it
>>>
>>> It is polishing a turd
>>>
>>> You could cache the entire internet onto your computer and it would
>>> mean you were any more likely to be able to listen to more music.
>>> Google does, no one cancels their account.
>>>
>>> Downloading content is a transitional phase and the future of musical
>>> content is in the cloud, on demand as this article proposes.
>>>
>>> http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/03/teri.html#more
>>>
>>> Punitive approaches like S92a are weapons to fight the last war
>>>
>>> Nothing is going to return the income that record companies made out
>>> of CDs because they made that out of a distribution system that
>>> improved on shipping musicians around. Now telecommunications has
>>> built a better system that anyone can use. You used to have to be a
>>> superstar to be seen worldwide now you just need a camcorder and an
>>> exhibitionist cat.
>>> I listen to streaming music now as much as tracks I have locally, and
>>> I expect to be able to use a service like Stumbler for music any day
>>> now where I'll be able to give tracks a thumbs up and it will profile
>>> me according to my peer group and be my personal DJ.
>>
>> I used to use something like that a couple years ago. I forget the
>> name now. I'd 'tell' it either artists or songs that I liked and it'd
>> suggest others (based on other people's selections). I could either
>> veto new suggestions, or rate them (for frequency of playing) or just
>> ignore if I was busy and it'd rate them as 'ok'. It was really cool.
>> I had three custom 'stations', one for everyday listening, one for
>> mellow stuff (Portishead style) and one for rocking out (Tool style).
>> It showed the album art in the sidebar with links to a bio of the
>> band and a link to (Amazon?) buying the CD if so desired. IIRC you
>> could select the quality, 64, 92 or 128. (Streaming mp3s.)
>> Then one day they went and made it US IPs only and I lost all my saved
>> choices before I had a chance to try to proxy my way back in. I was
>> honest about location when I opened the account.
>
> Pandora. Used what it called a music genome. Was very cool.
>
> Type www.pandora.com into your browser, it'll tell you that you're not in
> the US so you're SOOL.

Grooveshark is pretty good

http://listen.grooveshark.com/

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Nik Coughlin wrote:
> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
> news:gq20a5$af6$...
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs oneofus wrote:
>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>>>>>> "Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices
>>>>>> it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act
>>>>>> 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one
>>>>>> third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims."
>>>>>> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../03/18/2223232
>>>>>
>>>>> You can read the rest of the submissions here ...
>>>>> http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d54321...4710785f6.html
>>>>>
>>>>> There has to be something really wrong with section 92a when these
>>>>> folk speak out against it;
>>>>> Auckland District Law Society
>>>>> Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal
>>>>> CFF representing over 9,000 artists and musicians
>>>>> Internet NZ
>>>>> and many others.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It is so fundamentally wrong that there is no "code of practice"
>>>> that TCF could propose that would fix it
>>>>
>>>> It is polishing a turd
>>>>
>>>> You could cache the entire internet onto your computer and it would
>>>> mean you were any more likely to be able to listen to more music.
>>>> Google does, no one cancels their account.
>>>>
>>>> Downloading content is a transitional phase and the future of
>>>> musical content is in the cloud, on demand as this article
>>>> proposes. http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/03/teri.html#more
>>>>
>>>> Punitive approaches like S92a are weapons to fight the last war
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is going to return the income that record companies made
>>>> out of CDs because they made that out of a distribution system that
>>>> improved on shipping musicians around. Now telecommunications has
>>>> built a better system that anyone can use. You used to have to be a
>>>> superstar to be seen worldwide now you just need a camcorder and an
>>>> exhibitionist cat.
>>>> I listen to streaming music now as much as tracks I have locally,
>>>> and I expect to be able to use a service like Stumbler for music
>>>> any day now where I'll be able to give tracks a thumbs up and it
>>>> will profile me according to my peer group and be my personal DJ.
>>>
>>> I used to use something like that a couple years ago. I forget the
>>> name now. I'd 'tell' it either artists or songs that I liked and
>>> it'd suggest others (based on other people's selections). I could
>>> either veto new suggestions, or rate them (for frequency of
>>> playing) or just ignore if I was busy and it'd rate them as 'ok'.
>>> It was really cool. I had three custom 'stations', one for everyday
>>> listening, one for mellow stuff (Portishead style) and one for
>>> rocking out (Tool style). It showed the album art in the sidebar
>>> with links to a bio of the band and a link to (Amazon?) buying the
>>> CD if so desired. IIRC you could select the quality, 64, 92 or 128.
>>> (Streaming mp3s.) Then one day they went and made it US IPs only and I
>>> lost all my
>>> saved choices before I had a chance to try to proxy my way back in.
>>> I was honest about location when I opened the account.
>>
>> Pandora. Used what it called a music genome. Was very cool.
>>
>> Type www.pandora.com into your browser, it'll tell you that you're
>> not in the US so you're SOOL.
>
> Grooveshark is pretty good
>
> http://listen.grooveshark.com/

I'll check it out, thanks.
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.