Mixtapes are street-level, do-it-yourself products that have grown into a multimillion-dollar business. So record companies (aware of the promotional power of these tapes) provide music to D.J.’s specifically for mixes, and the rappers themselves — who are often the copyright holders — endorse the mixtapes by appearing on them. Are we to really believe that the recording industry doesn’t want these mixes distributed to fans? Of course it does.
But under the current system, the only people who risk punishment are the retailers. I know about this firsthand. In August 2003, police raided my Indianapolis record stores and seized thousands of dollars worth of mixtapes. I was charged with 13 felonies, spent a night in jail and ultimately lost my business. Ten months later, I pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge: selling CD’s that did not conspicuously display the address of the manufacturer.
If the industry truly wanted to stop mixtapes, record companies should simply stop providing tracks to D.J.’s. The industry knows, of course, exactly who’s making these tapes; the industry needs these tapes to be made. Why, then, are tax dollars being spent on arresting people who, by distributing mixes, are doing nothing but promoting upcoming hip-hop releases?
As it stands now, the music industry, record companies and artists are getting rich, and fans are getting the music they want. Meanwhile, stores like Dappa Don, Mondo Kim’s and mine are left to fight costly legal battles.
But even before the city announced the winning bidder, privacy advocates had begun to criticize the Google approach for what they say is its potential to violate consumer privacy. Early last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Council released a joint report calling the EarthLink and Google proposal “privacy-invasive,” because it would involve “cookies” that track users from session to session to enable customized delivery of ads.
Mr. Vein said the criticism was premature given that the city and the companies had not yet negotiated the details of the network.
“While we have picked somebody, we haven’t necessarily agreed to the details of the proposal,” Mr. Vein said. “It is just a starting point.”
Mr. Vein said the city would make decisions related to privacy as the issues came up during negotiations. “I will be pushing to maintain the privacy and security of citizens as best I can as I put this deal together,” he said.
No more than 200 yards from the main gate of the sprawling U.S. base here, stolen computer drives containing classified military assessments of enemy targets, names of corrupt Afghan officials and descriptions of American defenses are on sale in the local bazaar.
Shop owners at the bazaar say Afghan cleaners, garbage collectors and other workers from the base arrive each day offering purloined goods, including knives, watches, refrigerators, packets of Viagra and flash memory drives taken from military laptops. The drives, smaller than a pack of chewing gum, are sold as used equipment.
[…] A reporter recently obtained several drives at the bazaar that contained documents marked “Secret.” The contents included documents that were potentially embarrassing to Pakistan, a U.S. ally, presentations that named suspected militants targeted for “kill or capture” and discussions of U.S. efforts to “remove” or “marginalize” Afghan government officials whom the military considered “problem makers.”
The drives also included deployment rosters and other documents that identified nearly 700 U.S. service members and their Social Security numbers, information that identity thieves could use to open credit card accounts in soldiers’ names.
After choosing the name of an army captain at random, a reporter using the Internet was able to obtain detailed information on the woman, including her home address in Maryland and the license plate numbers of her 2003 Jeep Liberty sport utility vehicle and 1998 Harley Davidson XL883 Hugger motorcycle.
In the four months since it launched, YouTube has become a full-blown Internet tsunami. It streams about 35 million videos a day and attracts an audience of more than 9 million people a month, according to Web measurement firm Nielsen/NetRatings.
That makes it more popular than Google, Yahoo or AOL’s video services. The company plans to eventually convert the traffic to advertising revenue.
YouTube also illustrates the conundrum facing the entertainment industry as it struggles to control the online distribution of its television shows, movies and other types of content. Unlike Internet file-swapping services such as Napster and Kazaa, YouTube doesn’t tout itself as a place to steal other people’s stuff.
By all accounts, it acts like a responsible corporate citizen when asked to remove copyrighted works.
That leaves the studios internally conflicted about how to deal with YouTube, with lawyers sending threatening letters alleging infringement even as other executives contemplate how to exploit its ability to reach a young, tech-savvy audience that is growing up in front of a computer screen instead of a TV.
Although the world’s largest software maker spends millions of dollars annually to combat illegal copying and distribution of its products, critics allege â€” and Microsoft acknowledges â€” that piracy sometimes helps the company establish itself in emerging markets and fend off threats from free open-source programs.
[…] The proliferation of pirated copies nevertheless establishes Microsoft products â€” particularly Windows and Office â€” as the software standard. As economies mature and flourish and people and companies begin buying legitimate versions, they usually buy Microsoft because most others already use it. It’s called the network effect.
“The first dose is free,” said Hal Varian, a professor of information management at UC Berkeley, facetiously comparing Microsoft’s anti-piracy policy to street-corner marketing of illicit drugs. “Once you start using a product, you keep using it.”
As Internet traffic starts to clog, the telephone and cable companies that control the nation’s telecommunications networks are considering charging dot-coms such as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. extra to make sure their data gets special treatment â€” zooming along faster and more reliably than anyone else’s.
The idea has ignited a sort of online road rage in the technology and entertainment industries and in Congress. Although differential pricing is widespread â€” think first-class airline tickets or box seats at the theater â€” it defies the Internet’s egalitarian tradition.
[…] In Washington and Silicon Valley, the debate is over the long-held tenet of network neutrality â€” the notion that access to all the Internet’s offerings should be free from interference from the companies that own the vast fiber-optic and copper-wire networks linking the world’s computers.
Those companies â€” phone and cable companies, mostly â€” counter that they are entitled to offer expedited delivery services because the growth of online video, music and games is jamming their lines. Already, they charge companies for premium offerings such as private networks.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) sees network neutrality as the most contentious issue in Congress’ overall effort to amend federal communications laws.
On Friday, Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) issued a draft bill that contained strong language protecting network neutrality. It would bar broadband providers from charging Internet companies for priority access to faster lanes.
In contrast, a House subcommittee on Wednesday shot down a toughened net neutrality provision championed by the chief executives of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft Corp., EBay Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and IAC/InterActive Corp. A weaker provision gives federal regulators less authority to enforce neutrality principles.
WAS there gridlock before there were automobiles? Was there jet lag before there were airplanes? Who was the first person to say “I Googled it” or “he’s cyberstalking me”? At what moment did a “web log” turn into a “blog”?
Language makes things official. Change in the pace of life over the last decade can be measured by change in our vocabulary. We I.M., we get phished, we have PIN’s. We HotSync, therefore we are.
Does a phenomenon fully exist until it has a name? […]
So he has come up with the following suggestions, among others:
Â¶Screensucking, which he defines as “wasting time engaging with any screen â€” for instance, computer, video game, television, BlackBerry.” He goes on to use his new word in a sentence: “I was supposed to write that article, but instead I spent the whole afternoon screensucking.” That concept hits particularly close to home. […]
JOURNALISTS over the years have assumed they were writing their headlines and articles for two audiences â€” fickle readers and nitpicking editors. Today, there is a third important arbiter of their work: the software programs that scour the Web, analyzing and ranking online news articles on behalf of Internet search engines like Google, Yahoo and MSN.
The search-engine “bots” that crawl the Web are increasingly influential, delivering 30 percent or more of the traffic on some newspaper, magazine or television news Web sites. And traffic means readers and advertisers, at a time when the mainstream media is desperately trying to make a living on the Web.
So news organizations large and small have begun experimenting with tweaking their Web sites for better search engine results. But software bots are not your ordinary readers: They are blazingly fast yet numbingly literal-minded. There are no algorithms for wit, irony, humor or stylish writing. The software is a logical, sequential, left-brain reader, while humans are often right brain.
[…] In journalism, as in other fields, the tradition of today was once an innovation. The so-called inverted pyramid structure of a news article â€” placing the most important information at the top â€” was shaped in part by a new technology of the 19th century, the telegraph, the Internet of its day. Putting words on telegraph wires was costly, so reporters made sure the most significant points were made at the start.
Yet it wasn’t all technological determinism by any means. The inverted pyramid style of journalism, according to Mr. Schudson, became standard practice only in 1900, four decades or more after telegraph networks came into use. It awaited the rise of journalists as “an avowedly independent, self-conscious, professionalizing group,” confident of their judgments about what information was most important, he said.
The new technology shaped practice, but people determined how the technology was used â€” and it took a while. Something similar is the likely path of the Internet.
This all started in late December when my cellphone rang as I was walking into a grocery store. It was the mother of one of Taylor’s friends, explaining that she needed Taylor’s help to shut down her own daughter’s MySpace account.
Taylor, then 12, had helped the daughter set up a site without the mother’s permission, and only Taylor knew the password necessary to delete it.
All of this was news to me. With an embarrassed apology, I promised to set things straight.
I didn’t know much about MySpace.com then. I’ve since had to do my homework.
MySpace, I learned, was created by a couple of Santa Monica tech-heads, and over its two-year life, it has become the biggest website that allows people to find dates, keep in touch and socialize. If you sign onto the site, now owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., you get free personal “space” to post profile information and photographs, write blogs, link music and send e-mails to other members. MySpace claims 68 million members, up more than 20 million in just the three months since I began visiting it.
Some of its fans are young adults. Many are kids like Taylor.
In their suit, Baigent and Leigh set out a 15-point analysis of what they called the central themes of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” noting their work argued that Jesus Christ as a Jew would have married and had offspring, and that after his crucifixion, Mary Magdalene fled the Holy Land for France, where their descendants founded the Merovingian dynasty. Its kings ruled parts of France and Germany from the 5th to 8th centuries.
In his 71-page judgment, Smith said that even if there were central themes to the claimants’ book, “it is merely an expression of a number of facts and ideas at a very general level.” Theirs was historical conjecture rather than original work, he wrote, adding that the points raised by Baigent and Leigh were “artificially taken out of [their book] for the purpose of the litigation.”
The claimants were ordered to pay 85% of the legal expenses incurred by Brown’s publisher, Random House. The first payment of $600,000 toward the fee, which could top $1.75 million, is due by the end of the month.
Smith’s ruling erased fears that an adverse decision could severely damage Brown’s reputation and delay next month’s release of a multimillion-dollar film of “The Da Vinci Code” starring Tom Hanks.
NYTimes’ article: Idea for ‘Da Vinci Code’ Was Not Stolen, Judge Says