Re: OT: Music

[Elizabeth Ross <beth -at- vcubed -dot- com>]

Courtney Love made an interesting speech on this.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html

Basically, it's the record companies who own the copyright to songs, making
musicians more like technical writers than creative writers, who at least
retain the copyright to their work. This situation is heinous IMHO.

If Napster raises our awareness on this issue, then Napster has performed a
wonderful service.
-- 
Elizabeth Ross
Senior Technical Writer, V3 Semiconductor Corp.
beth -at- vcubed -dot- com          http://www.vcubed.com
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.


> From: "Humbird, LenX" <lenx -dot- humbird -at- intel -dot- com>
> Reply-To: "Humbird, LenX" <lenx -dot- humbird -at- intel -dot- com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:32:00 -0700
> To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
> Subject: RE: OT: Music
<snip>
> But beyond that tired debate, there is a much bigger story to this than
> simply RIAA suing Napster because they're encouraging illegal copying of
> copyrighted materials by the general public. It's whether or not Napster and
> other businesses like this are engaging in illegal activity, and more
> importantly, if this operation is protected under the constitutional 1st
> amendment regarding freedom of speech. I believe they are. Besides, IF RIAA
> could show a recent and significant drop in overall sales, what is the
> likelihood of them proving that it was due to Napster? I don't think they
> could. 
> 
> What's really the point is how the recording industry (and Hollywood) is
> operating, and where the money is flowing. On this issue, I tend to agree
> with the wackos in that the concept of "albums" is a convenient bundling a
> bunch of crap with one or two good songs and charging a premium for it.
> Nevermind how many tech writers they employ.