la la: Netflix meets Napster meets half.com

On Mar 9, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Chris Pepper wrote:
> The Register has an intriguing article about la la, a $1 P2P
> CD resale service. You list CDs you no longer want. Then (it appears
> from the article), others can pay la la $1 and request one of your
> CDs. la la keeps a bit of profit, and sends you a preprinted CD
> mailer (no jewel cases). You put the CD in the envelope and send it
> to the requester, and la la awards you karma towards satisfying your
> own future requests.
>
> http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/07/lala_launch/print.html
> http://www.lala.com/

That sounds a lot like Peerflix, which does the same with DVDs.

On 09 Mar 2006, at 20:02 , Chris Pepper wrote:
> The Register has an intriguing article about la la, a $1 P2P
> CD resale service. You list CDs you no longer want.

You know the RIAA and the really big hatted country music singer who
is very popular and whose name I can't recall consider selling used
CDs "Theft", right?

Garth Brooks, that's his name.

At 2:24 PM -0800 2006/03/10, Google Kreme wrote:

>You know the RIAA and the really big hatted country music singer who
>is very popular and whose name I can't recall consider selling used
>CDs "Theft", right?
>
>Garth Brooks, that's his name.

        I'd say, "You know I don't care, right?", except now I
dislike him more than before, so actually I do care, a bit. Not
surprised about the RIAA stance, but it's obviously self-interested
garbage.

        You can make a (bogus & contrived) argument that downloading
music you haven't paid an RIAA company for is theft. Obviously it's
not really "theft", since you aren't taking something from whoever
you copy it from, but you can stretch "theft of services" to cover
this point, without sounding like an idiot.

        But CDs are products, not licences, and it's explicitly legal
to resell stuff you own. Reselling DRM iTunes/WMA tracks might be
illegal, but even that isn't theft, since you're (not) "taking it
away" from yourself.

        I hate the RIAA.


                                                Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

On Mar 13, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Chris Pepper wrote:

> You can make a (bogus & contrived) argument that downloading
> music you haven't paid an RIAA company for is theft. Obviously it's
> not really "theft", since you aren't taking something from whoever
> you copy it from, but you can stretch "theft of services" to cover
> this point, without sounding like an idiot.
>
> But CDs are products, not licences, and it's explicitly legal
> to resell stuff you own. Reselling DRM iTunes/WMA tracks might be
> illegal, but even that isn't theft, since you're (not) "taking it
> away" from yourself.

I've been a musician before, and this is my take on it. Using
copyrighted things without permission isn't *theft*, but the fact
that it's not theft doesn't mean it's automatically ethical. And the
medium is largely irrelevant: you're not only buying the CD, you're
buying its contents.

Beyond that, it's legal to *resell* stuff you own, but not
necessarily to *copy* stuff you own. So -- you buy a CD, you rip the
tracks into iTunes, that's legitimate under fair use. You buy a CD,
you listen to it until you're sick of it, you sell it, that's
legitimate under resale rights. You buy a CD, you rip the tracks
into iTunes, you resell it -- that's NOT legitimate, because your
fair-use right to make a copy to listen to in iTunes went away when
you sold the CD. CDs are both products and a limited license to
duplicate the contents of the CD; if you don't have the CD, you
shouldn't have the tracks ripped from that in iTunes.

Of course, none of this should be relevant: ideally, all music would
be out in the digital world completely unencumbered, and all
listeners would send payment directly to the artists. I think it's
completely nuts to argue in favor of the former unless you have some
way of bringing about the latter -- musicians have to eat.

Charlton



--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilburchromatico.net

> You can make a (bogus & contrived) argument that downloading
>music you haven't paid an RIAA company for is theft. Obviously it's
>not really "theft", since you aren't taking something from whoever
>you copy it from, but you can stretch "theft of services" to cover
>this point, without sounding like an idiot.
>
> But CDs are products, not licences, and it's explicitly legal
>to resell stuff you own. Reselling DRM iTunes/WMA tracks might be
>illegal, but even that isn't theft, since you're (not) "taking it
>away" from yourself.


You are relying on a definition of theft that means to take something
away from someone else such that they no longer have it. As though
it must be based on a zero-sum kind of thing.

But you can steal a glance, a kiss or steal a base, without s/he from
whom it was stolen having had it in the first place.

Once we accept the idea of intellectual property, it logically
follows that ignoring that ownership of that property might be
labeled theft. You don't have to "take it away" in order for it to
necessarily be "theft.

But selling used CDs is selling used CDs. There's no licensing
agreement there, I don't think. (Ignoring the issues of piracy for
personal use, of course.)

--
=alex hoffman

On Mar 13, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Chris Pepper wrote:

> But CDs are products, not licences, and it's explicitly legal
> to resell stuff you own. Reselling DRM iTunes/WMA tracks might be
> illegal, but even that isn't theft, since you're (not) "taking it
> away" from yourself.

On the other hand, it seems reasonable that you can't/shouldn't buy
the CD, pick off the content, then resell the CD.

RIAA, naturally, assumes all customers are stealing from them. That
is a natural route to having no customers.

   --John

At 9:55 PM -0800 3/13/06, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>On Mar 13, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Chris Pepper wrote:
>
>> You can make a (bogus & contrived) argument that downloading
>>music you haven't paid an RIAA company for is theft. Obviously it's
>>not really "theft", since you aren't taking something from whoever
>>you copy it from, but you can stretch "theft of services" to cover
>>this point, without sounding like an idiot.

That's a more narrow definition of "theft" than would likely play in
many courts, but let's not get hung up on semantics.

>> But CDs are products, not licences, and it's explicitly legal
>>to resell stuff you own. Reselling DRM iTunes/WMA tracks might be
>>illegal, but even that isn't theft, since you're (not) "taking it
>>away" from yourself.

Reselling tracks from the iTunes Music Store would be explicitly in
violation of their agreement, so it's breach of contract if nothing
else.

>I've been a musician before, and this is my take on it. Using
>copyrighted things without permission isn't *theft*, but the fact
>that it's not theft doesn't mean it's automatically ethical. And the
>medium is largely irrelevant: you're not only buying the CD, you're
>buying its contents.

It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

>Beyond that, it's legal to *resell* stuff you own, but not
>necessarily to *copy* stuff you own. So -- you buy a CD, you rip the
>tracks into iTunes, that's legitimate under fair use. You buy a CD,
>you listen to it until you're sick of it, you sell it, that's
>legitimate under resale rights.

Absolutely reasonable in both cases.

> You buy a CD, you rip the tracks
>into iTunes, you resell it -- that's NOT legitimate, because your
>fair-use right to make a copy to listen to in iTunes went away when
>you sold the CD.

Now here we come to the nub of the issue. I think most people would
agree with you that it's not OK, to buy a CD, rip it into iTunes,
resell it, and then continue to listen to the music you ripped. I
make that distinction for two reasons. First, I don't think doing
this is a problem from fair use in terms of copying; when you copied
the CD, you did have fair use rights and no one would argue with
that. However, I suspect there's a more subtle performance argument
that comes into play; you had the right to copy the music at one
point in time, but you don't have the right to play it over and over
again.

> CDs are both products and a limited license to
>duplicate the contents of the CD; if you don't have the CD, you
>shouldn't have the tracks ripped from that in iTunes.

That definitely meets the commonsense test when you're selling the
CD. But, let's remove the selling of the CD from the equation. Let's
assume that you lose access to the CD for other reasons:

a) There's a fire, and the original CD is melted. But since you have
excellent off-site backups, you retain access to the tracks. That
meets the commonsense test of allowing you to keep playing them.

b) You suffer a burglary, and the CD is stolen. In this case, the
actual CD really is somewhere else (perhaps it's pawned and
repurchased). Technically speaking, I believe the repurchaser lacks
rights, given that the goods were stolen, but that fails the
commonsense test on its own, since the repurchaser can have no idea
of the provenance of the CD. And similarly the commonsense test says
that you can continue to play the songs you ripped.

c) You give the CD to a friend to listen to. Before digital music,
that would be completely commonplace, and I believe it's entirely
legitimate. The commonsense test wouldn't say that you shouldn't
listen to those tracks while your friend has the CD, I don't think
(since making a tape to listen to in the car is certainly fair use
and is unrelated to the physical presence of the CD), and it
certainly doesn't make sense that you should delete the tracks and
re-rip once the CD is returned. Commonsense says that your friend
shouldn't rip the CD and return it, but on the other hand,
commonsense also says that the friend should be allowed to listen to
the CD as much as she wants without returning it. And, of course, if
we again go back in time slightly, if your friend only had a tape
player, you couldn't lend the CD, so you might make her a tape
instead, and since you had the CD, you wouldn't ask for the tape back.

In essence, what we have here is a serious conflict between the
analog and digital worlds, exacerbated by copyright laws that either
haven't changed appropriately to take account of digital, or that
were bought and paid for by the Content Cartel to ensure that rights
that were granted for analog media were removed for digital media.
It's a mess.

cheers... -Adam

--
New Take Control ebooks! ........... http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/
_____________________________________________________________________
Adam C. Engst: I publish TidBITS, write books, and make sure the
acetidbits.com right people know each other in the Mac industry.
Me: http://www.tidbits.com/adam/ TidBITS: http://www.tidbits.com/

At 10:36 PM -0800 3/15/06, Adam C. Engst wrote:
>>I've been a musician before, and this is my take on it. Using
>>copyrighted things without permission isn't *theft*, but the fact
>>that it's not theft doesn't mean it's automatically ethical. And the
>>medium is largely irrelevant: you're not only buying the CD, you're
>>buying its contents.
>
>It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

This is the great win of the RIAA and MPAA. By constantly repeating
the mantra of "theft theft theft" they have converted copyright
infringement (which they have rigged in the legal codes and even the
Librarian of Congress says so) into the more morally reprehensible
charge of "theft" in people's minds and in open conversation.

On Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 05:08AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com> wrote:

><<<Let's assume that you lose access to the CD for other reasons:
a) There's a fire, and the original CD is melted.
b) You suffer a burglary, and the CD is stolen.>>

And there's yet another twist to this, over which there was heated disagreement on another forum a while back (I don't recall which forum). I had 24 of CDs in one of those nylon CD cases. I left it on the roof of my van. When I got home, I realized I'd done that, but of course it was too late...I'd lost them several hours away. I didn't have them ripped to my computer. However, I still have the cases to them, and over the years since then, any time I find a friend that has one of them, I burn myself a copy and put it in the case, and put the CD back in my CD rack. It seems to me that since I paid for the CD, and as far as I know those original CDs are either run over or lying in the muck in a ditch, it's perfectly legitimate for me to recreate them and return them to my collection. On that other forum, there were some who agreed, and some who quite angrily completely disagreed, claiming that I was at least ethically obligated to purchase them again if I wanted to retain them in my collection.

--Steve--

Or I go to the library, and check out a CD of great 1970's classic
hits that you had on 8-track up until the point where 8-track players
weren't available anymore. Does one have a license to the song,
regardless of the media it's on or format it is in? If I have bought
the tune from iTunes, and then have a friend that has the actual CD,
do I not have a license to rip/copy that tune from the higher quality
source? Common sense says yes. And your tax dollars went to
purchase that CD that remains in the library. Common sense says
that's ok too. Giving a mix CD to your SO just like you used to make
a mixed tape? Is that ok?

Repurchasing of content that you once owned on 8-track/cassette/VHS/
DVD/watched on tv but want to keep forever on DVD is a big, big sales
area.

I personally have no qualms with busting the DCMA to make backup
copies of my DVD's ever since my 3-year-old snapped a DVD because the
manufacturer's made the little nubs too tight that fit into the hole
of the DVD and hold it in the case.

M

On 3/17/06 12:09 PM, "Matthew Clay Childress" <mccprairienet.org> wrote:

> Or I go to the library, and check out a CD of great 1970's classic
> hits that you had on 8-track up until the point where 8-track players
> weren't available anymore. Does one have a license to the song,
> regardless of the media it's on or format it is in?

No.

> If I have bought
> the tune from iTunes, and then have a friend that has the actual CD,
> do I not have a license to rip/copy that tune from the higher quality
> source? Common sense says yes.

I don't think it's okay or that it makes sense precisely *because* the track
copied from the CD would be of higher quality than the 128Kbps AAC file from
iTunes. If iTunes Music Store sold files in Apple Lossless format instead of
AAC files (at the current bitrate), then I think it would be ok because the
quality would be the same (actually, the Apple Lossless might sound better
if its source was re-mastered and the CD wasn't). With Apple Lossless files
you could burn them to CD then rip them to another format so borrowing and
ripping the track from your friend's CD would save you that hassle but the
end result, quality-wise, would be the same. But it's unlikely that iTMS
will sell files in any lossless format for $.99.

> And your tax dollars went to
> purchase that CD that remains in the library. Common sense says
> that's ok too.

I don't think so, why would a copyright holder give up their rights just
because a government office bought one copy of their work? The library
bought one copy of the CD, they didn't buy the right to allow their patrons
to distribute unlimited copies of the work. The library provides access to
copyrighted materials under the principle of fair use, it's up to the
patrons not to exceed what fair use allows. Making and keeping copies of CDs
(or any work still under copyright) that you borrow from the library would
definitely be exceeding fair use's allowances.

> Giving a mix CD to your SO just like you used to make
> a mixed tape? Is that ok?

Legally, no, and it never was, even when it was a tape. *But* this kind of
one-to-one copying, especially if there's some degree of "creation" in the
assemblage of the mix, it's about the least objectionable copyright
infringement. If our CDs weren't already joint property, I still wouldn't
have any qualms about doing it.

With tape, it *felt* more okay to do it because of the degraded quality
relative to the original but that doesn't apply when making mix CDs. It was
just a rationalization anyway, I don't think there's anything in the law
that says the quality of the copy makes it okay to do it. If there was,
those bootleg movies filmed with camcorders in movie theaters would be
advertised in the newspaper :)
 
> Repurchasing of content that you once owned on 8-track/cassette/VHS/
> DVD/watched on tv but want to keep forever on DVD is a big, big sales
> area.

Yep because even though you have the right to "space shift" the copyies you
have to other media (according to most people, except the big media
corporations), it's a hassle and has its own expense. I have dozens of
cassettes but I'm trying to find replacements for them at used CD stores
because recording the cassettes, getting the levels right, splitting them
into tracks and so on is a pain. It's worth $5-10 to me to buy the used CD
rather than go through that.

> I personally have no qualms with busting the DCMA to make backup
> copies of my DVD's ever since my 3-year-old snapped a DVD because the
> manufacturer's made the little nubs too tight that fit into the hole
> of the DVD and hold it in the case.

I agree, the DMCA (not "DCMA") has terrible provisions which really must be
eliminated.
 

On Mar 17, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Matthew Clay Childress wrote:

IANAL, but from what I understand ...

> Or I go to the library, and check out a CD of great 1970's classic
> hits that you had on 8-track up until the point where 8-track players
> weren't available anymore. Does one have a license to the song,
> regardless of the media it's on or format it is in?

Not by default. You can transfer the information into another format
under fair use, but you can't go out and get the information in
another format. The person you're getting the other format from also
can't legally give you a copy.

(Ethically, I don't see a problem with it though.)

> If I have bought
> the tune from iTunes, and then have a friend that has the actual CD,
> do I not have a license to rip/copy that tune from the higher quality
> source? Common sense says yes.

The law says no. You're not buying a license to hold that
information in any format; you're buying a copy of that information,
which someone else holds the copyright to, and copyright law gives
you the right to copy it under certain circumstances.

(Ethically, I don't see a problem with it though.)

> And your tax dollars went to
> purchase that CD that remains in the library. Common sense says
> that's ok too.

Not my common sense! Not any more than I could photocopy a book
entire from the library just because I didn't want to buy it. Of
course, photocopying a book often winds up being more expensive than
buying it, while burning a copy of a CD is much cheaper.

> Giving a mix CD to your SO just like you used to make
> a mixed tape? Is that ok?

I think this has been ruled as acceptable.

> Repurchasing of content that you once owned on 8-track/cassette/VHS/
> DVD/watched on tv but want to keep forever on DVD is a big, big sales
> area.

Yes, and under pre-DMCA copyright law, transferring information from
one format to another was considered fair use. That's part of why
the media lobby is so pro-DRM: if they tried to explicitly forbid
format conversions, they'd fail, because that has long been held as
fair use. So they encrypt their formats, and forbid breaking the
encryption instead.

> I personally have no qualms with busting the DCMA to make backup
> copies of my DVD's ever since my 3-year-old snapped a DVD because the
> manufacturer's made the little nubs too tight that fit into the hole
> of the DVD and hold it in the case.

As far as copyright goes, that's completely legal. It's the
encryption-busting that's illegal.

--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilburchromatico.net

Adam, you said, "Reselling tracks from the iTunes Music Store would be explicitly in violation of their agreement, so it's breach of contract if nothing else."

Everything makes sense in your post except this sentence. Do I have a contract with Apple? Don't contracts have to be signed? I'm just not following here.

-Joseph

On Mar 21, 2006, at 4:51 PM, jbayly wrote:

> Adam, you said,
> "Reselling tracks from the iTunes Music Store would be explicitly in
> violation of their agreement, so it's breach of contract if nothing
> else."
>
> Everything makes sense in your post except this sentence. Do I have
> a contract with Apple? Don't contracts have to be signed? I'm just
> not following here.

You do have a contract with Apple, and contracts do not have to be
signed so long as there's a clear meeting of the minds. Signing them
is one way to produce evidence of this meeting of the minds, but it's
not necessary.

Apple says, "By downloading tracks from the iTunes Music Store, you
agree...." -- and even before you get to download tracks, Apple says
"By clicking on the "Next" button, you signify that you have read
this agreement." Because you've had a chance to read the contract,
and because you've taken an action that, by the terms of the
contract, indicates your consent to be bound by it, you are. A
signature would be clear evidence of your consent, but absence of
that particular bit of evidence does not indicate absence of consent.

Shrinkwrap EULAs -- the sort where you need to install the software
to read the license agreement in the first place -- are unenforceable
in some jurisdictions because you must do something that implicitly
agrees to them before you get a chance to read them. But you have a
chance to read Apple's terms long before you do anything that
signifies assent, and so they are enforceable, and they have the
force of contract.

Charlton
(not a lawyer, but friends with several)

--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilburchromatico.net

>Adam, you said,
>"Reselling tracks from the iTunes Music Store would be explicitly in
>violation of their agreement, so it's breach of contract if nothing
>else."
>
>Everything makes sense in your post except this sentence. Do I have
>a contract with Apple? Don't contracts have to be signed? I'm just
>not following here.

No, "click-wrap" contracts are considered legal (though I personally
find that iffy), and by using the iTunes Music Store, you agree to
the Terms of Sale at:

http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/policies.html

cheers... -Adam

On Mar 21, 2006, at 4:51 PM, jbayly wrote:

> Adam, you said,
> "Reselling tracks from the iTunes Music Store would be explicitly in
> violation of their agreement, so it's breach of contract if nothing
> else."
>
> Everything makes sense in your post except this sentence. Do I have a
> contract with Apple? Don't contracts have to be signed? I'm just not
> following here.
>

I don't know if "contract" has a specific legal meaning but by using
the Music Store (even if you don't buy anything) Apple believes you're
bound by their Terms of Service which they describe as a "legal
agreement." I think it's similar to the typical End User License
Agreement (EULA) displayed when you install many commercial programs or
access some web sites. Also, verbal agreements can be legally binding
and obviously there's no signature involved then. In the US, the
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (signed into
law in 2000) made many actions (electronic ones, obviously) other than
writing your name in cursive on a piece of paper a "signature."

http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/terms.html

There's also a Terms of Sale agreement but all the real "meat" is in
the Terms of Service.

http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/policies.html

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and did not give the pages above a close,
careful reading.

Interestingly, I didn't see anything that explicitly forbids selling a
track you purchased to someone else under the doctrine of first sale.
There's this sentence, "You agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan,
sell, distribute, or create derivative works based on the Service, in
any manner, and you shall not exploit the Service in any unauthorized
way whatsoever, including but not limited to, by trespass or burdening
network capacity." but the page appears to make a distinction between
the "Service" (the Music Store) and the "Product" (a track). I wouldn't
call the private sale of a track or tracks from one individual to
another "reselling." That word implies it's a part of an ongoing
commercial enterprise when it's more like a garage sale.

Now to keep from violating the copyright holder's rights, you'd have to
remove all access to the track from yourself. Since Apple doesn't let
you re-download purchased tracks this is feasible, burning the track to
an audio CD would be the least encumbered method of providing the track
to the purchaser. Auction sites like eBay and other web sites have
policies which forbid this kind of sale but that's because it's too
risky for them to trust you, not because the sale is by definition
illegal. If you tried to advertise the sale somewhere on the web, I
believe the copyright holder could send a DMCA takedown notice (I think
they can be used not only to take down copyrighted material itself but
also advertisements for the illegal distribution of copyrighted
material. I could be wrong.) In a sane world the onus would be upon
them to show that you weren't completely transferring the track to the
purchaser but I don't know all the provisions of the DMCA, it could
well shift the burden of proof on to the accused.

On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Curtis Wilcox wrote:

> On 3/17/06 12:09 PM, "Matthew Clay Childress" <mccprairienet.org> wrote:
> With tape, it *felt* more okay to do it because of the degraded quality
> relative to the original but that doesn't apply when making mix CDs. It was
> just a rationalization anyway, I don't think there's anything in the law
> that says the quality of the copy makes it okay to do it. If there was,
> those bootleg movies filmed with camcorders in movie theaters would be
> advertised in the newspaper :)

Hearkening back to the days of yore, longer than I care to admit I'm
old...

When I was in college in the pre-CD/DVD/internet days, there were
always a number of kids on any given day scattered about pretty much
every campus and the blocks nearby doing a brisk business selling
bootleg cassette tapes they made from albums. Since albums were so
expensive, the kids that had reps for making good copies and were
able to effectively duck campus security seemed to do fairly well
earning pocket money.

The copies were degraded, but given the expense of purchasing new
albums vs. the chronic lack of money of most students, and the fact
that vinyl and tape degraded rather quickly anyway, it was an option
most students would consider. Periodically there'd be items in the
press about people selling bootleg tapes getting busted and the
record companies threatening crackdowns.

Whatever the entertainment companies say, bootlegging and sharing is
not a new thing.

Marilyn

On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Charlton Wilbur wrote:

> You do have a contract with Apple, and contracts do not have to be
> signed so long as there's a clear meeting of the minds. Signing them
> is one way to produce evidence of this meeting of the minds, but it's
> not necessary.

And this is nothing new. A fairly extreme example where a court held
that a contract for purchase and sale existed was

A (a person known to G) passes G's (somewhat old-fashioned as we look
at things) grocery store. Fronting the sidewalk is a display of
apples. A picks up an apple, and holds it up so G sees it. G nods.
A walks on.

That's all it takes. A has bought and G has sold an apple, with
payment deferred (since it didn't happen then).

The Uniform Commercial Code might have changed the details (my old
low-level law texts precede the UCC being fully adopted).

In the old days (before Uniform Commercial Code), a thing called the
"statute of frauds" (short hand for a British enactment whose title
was something about a statute for the prevention of frauds) provided
that "a writing signed by the party to be charged" had to exist with
respect to contracts for purchase and sale of real property and for
"large" transactions--typically $5,000 I think, which shows how old
this is. That might not have been the case in Louisiana, with the
French origins of its law system.

        Two real problems with la la so far. It doesn't work in
Safari (hidden on the FAQ page, which you can't see until you join).
This is lame, but it does work in Firefox.

        Also, although they claim CDs cost $1 each, there's a 49-cent
shipping fee, so the cost is 50% higher than the claim. That's bad.

        I can't find a way to list CDs they don't already know about.
We'll see if support is any help.

        The iTunes plug-in only works in non-fullscreen mode.
Reported, so they can mention this in their documentation. It also
won't let me sign in, using either email address or nickname.
Reported to the plugin guy...


                                                Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>