Slashdot Mirror

The Internet, combined with widespread broadband access, will revolutionize the distribution of recorded entertainment and other media. Online delivery of music (and other creative products) will be a boon to consumers and record companies alike by reducing production costs, eliminating the danger of unsold inventory, streamlining the purchasing process, and reducing the role of CD manufacturers and music retailers. To the extent that online digital music accomplishes those goals, (including distributing non-copyrighted material through services like Napster) we are strongly in favor of it. Despite the threat of copyright violations, online digital music and other technologies can improve productivity and reduce costs to the consumer, which is clearly in the public interest.

The public debate over Napster, however, shows that the danger to artists and record companies comes not from technological innovation, but from companies and individuals using the technology in illegal ways...

This is a direct quote from PPI's report at http://www.dlcppi.org/texts/tech/naps ter1.htm.

The whole point of MP3's is that they eliminate the middle-men. In this case, the middle-men are the RECORD LABLES and the record stores. Two tiers in this industry are being ripped away (no pun intended.. really!!). That's what the RIAA is so afraid of. No more records, no more RECORDING. MP3's allow a direct channel (crap, another pun) from the artist to the end user. There is NO NEED for a record company in this model, except for artist promotion. None. Zip. No need.

The second paragraph turns right around and contradicts this. Sure, the artists need some kind of protection. But the record companies? They're loosing their jobs. There's no longer a need for them. Their place in society is deteriorating.

Where was congress to protect the Blacksmiths and Wheelrights and Saddlemakers when Henry Ford started selling cars? Entire industries died as a result of the invention of the car. Horse-drawn buggies were no longer needed. Horses were no longer needed. Horseshoes, no more. Did congress step in and say, "But what about the rights of the people in the horse industry??" No! It was considered progress, and a large bunch of horse people had to find new jobs as the years eliminated the need for them.

What Congress needs to understand is that by voting for this, they are STOPPING progress. The record companies are fighting not for a few dollars lost (and that question is up for debate) but for their very lives. If laws like these are put into place, the lables will keep themselves a niche, just another 75% stack of profit on top of an intangible item you buy. Right now, they give you a CD for that profit, and a nice store to buy it in. In the future, what would you get for that markup? Nothing. Personally, I don't want them in that position. If I'm going to pay for a song in MP3 format, I want the majority of the profit to go to the artist, not a middleman who is providing no added value to me, the end user.

I also noticed the footnote on this report, in the first page, where it talks about all the money the poor record companies are loosing. The footnote says they don't have any hard figures. Feh. All the recording industry figures I've seen have said their earnings increased 6% last year. I still say music piracy PROMOTES CD sales. I sure know I've bought more CDs (and enjoyed them more because I liked what I bought) since I started downloading MP3s.

Oh yeah, and one more thing! (hehe) Billions of dollars in damages?? $100,000 per song per infringement? That's looney! Their losses aren't that much -- they don't even make that much!! Damages in any suit like this should be a SMALL percentage of the industry's money, not a LARGE percentage. To say as much money is being "stolen" as is spent on the entire industry in a year is beyond reason.

This is a quote from http://www.dlcppi.org/press/releas e/napster1.htm.

PPI proposes the following changes to the DMCA:

Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users. Napster currently allows its users to sign on anonymously, making it impossible for rights holders to track down the infringers.

Establish a time frame for the "notice and take down" process for removal of infringing material. The law as currently written has no set time table, consequently service providers with a vested interest in the infringing activity of their subscribers, like Napster, have no incentive to act in a timely fashion.

Give judges the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers whose services are substantially used for copyright infringement. It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.

Maybe Im not understanding this correctly, but this sounds a little too Naziesque for my tastes. The first point sounds like they want to implement a system where they can essentially brand the users of programs like Napster solely for the purpose of prosecution. I really don't have a problem with the second point. The third point would essentiall give the bablance of power to judges. This could be a Bad Thing. Judges who don't Get It may turn this whole thing into a Salem Witch Trial: you have MP3s, you go to jail.
------------------------------------------- -

The Progressive Policy Institute is a "thinktank" branch of the Democratic Leadership Council. The Democratic Leadership Council is paid for by a funding organization called "The Third Way Foundation". I couldn't find out who their sponsors were, but who their politicians are is pretty evident:

"With the help of Chairman Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Vice Chairman Governor Roy Romer (D-CO), the DLC is putting its ideas into action at the local, state, and national levels"

They publish a magazine, The New Democrat, and their leader, Al From, is an old time, connected, Friend of Bill. This is, in short, a Democratic (donkey-style) initiative. The DLC's main agenda points appear to be Gun Control and Internet Control. Here are their stated goals:

"Renewing our democracy by challenging the special interests and returning power to citizens and local institutions."

So remember, as stated above, one of their major goals is to empower citizens to defeat the special interests.

And here, in the case of Napster, is what they think, and what they hope to achieve:

"Digital audio technology and the Internet have combined to take music piracy to a new level. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a music industry trade group, estimates that piracy of physical music products, cassettes, and compact discs costs the industry nearly $5 billion in sales worldwide every year"

Ok, so the special interest (the RIAA) is getting ripped off by people promoting their music, and despite explosive growth, it isn't growing explosively enough.

They continue:

This provision [the DMCA] has been extremely important for phone companies, search engines such as Yahoo, and for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as America Online, which faced the possibility of being sued whenever one of its customers transmitted a pirated song."5" But because Congress suffers from a severe lack of 18-year-old computer whizzes, it could not anticipate technological breakthroughs that have fostered "service providers" such as Napster, whose users must provide their own connections to the Internet and whose "service" is used almost exclusively for song piracy.

To some, it may seem inevitable that high-tech digital pirates will always stay one step ahead of the law, and even countervailing technology to prevent online theft

Ok, so they didn't anticipate peer-to-peer distributed networks (um, the WEB)... that's fine. Here's the change they advocate (remember, their goal is to empower the people:

We believe the DMCA should be amended to hold Napster, its users, and similar services accountable for copyright violations while maintaining protections from liability for service providers that are innocent bystanders to digital piracy. The amendment should:

• 
  
• require service providers, as a condition to qualifying for the liability limitation under the DMCA, to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users;
  
• set a concrete time frame for the " notice and take down" process; and
  
• allow the courts the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers that are primarily used for online piracy.
  

Yep, that's how they're gonna give power to the people. By pointing the finger at the providers of peer-to-peer distributed networking software. And by requiring service providers to get verifiable information on their users. How you say, um... Anonymous Coward? Slashdot will no longer qualify for DMCA protection.

What's the solution? Make it peer-to-peer encrypted file sharing software open-source (like gnutella), and publish it anonymously. Write your congressman, and tell him you don't feel very empowered by people who don't understand the internet attempting to create policy for it. And most of all, realize that Gun Control and Internet Control are powerful steps towards a police state - and that the democratic party is sponsoring them. I'll leave you with their comment about us:

While some "cyberlibertarians" might think that cyberspace is a government-free zone that can operate without any rules, we believe differently. Theft of intellectual property is just as wrong if done on the Internet as it is on a Xerox machine or VCR.

Do any of you believe what they're telling you you believe? I don't.

From PPI's Napster proposal:

"It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it."

Um ... is this anything like "we can't define pornography but we'll know it when we see it."

This idea that judges will be able to just tell, upon seeing it, that something is illegal (in terms of the DMCA) frightens me. Government makes the laws, the police enforce them, the judicial system passes down judgement based on them. This sounds like an expansion of the judge's roll that allows the judge to decide what needs policing, in terms of the DMCA.

--
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.

Before goig off like a cork, read the paper published by the PPI which will likely form the basis of their argument.

Of course, it might get you even more pissed off, since they propose:

Require service providers, as a condition to qualifying for the liability limitation under the DMCA, to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users.

which as someone noted above, is far more sinister. What are they going to do - require my Social Insurace Number or credit card number to access file-sharing services?

You also have to question these people's grasp on reality when they base their arguments on statements such as:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a music industry trade group, estimates that piracy of physical music products, cassettes, and compact discs costs the industry nearly $5 billion in sales worldwide every year.

which we all know is crap.

This PPI group seems to have more suggestions that will just jam a few fingers in the dyke while water will continue to pour through. If they are successful, all they will do is further harm privacy on the internet along the way.

From the article poster:
For the opposition, the Progressive Policy Institute has written a report that recommends extending the DMCA to explicitly outlaw technologies like Napster.

From the PPI site:
PPI proposes the following changes to the DMCA:

1. Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users. Napster currently allows its users to sign on anonymously, making it impossible for rights holders to track down the infringers.

1. Establish a time frame for the "notice and take down" process for removal of infringing material. The law as currently written has no set time table, consequently service providers with a vested interest in the infringing activity of their subscribers, like Napster, have no incentive to act in a timely fashion.

1. Give judges the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers whose services are substantially used for copyright infringement. It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.

From what's currently on the PPI site I cannot see how this is supposed to be outlawing technologies like Napster. Instead it seems to me like PPI has found the perfect median position in the Napster vs. RIAA debate. Let me explain how I came to this realization.

1.) Napster wanted to claim that it is a common carrier under current law and thus should not be held responsible for the actions of it's users. What Napster has forgotten is that all common carriers (e.g. phone companies and ISPs) have personal information about their users so that if they are involved in illegal activities the users can be prosecuted. The PPI's first point is simply that if a company or service wants to claim innocence as a common carrier then it should be ready to cough up user info if the users participate in criminal endeavors through their service. After in the U.S. obscene phone callers and people who host illegal material on their ISP pages can be dealt with through their service providers, so why should Napster be different?

2.) What's wrong with a reasonable time frame for cease and desist? I see nothing wrong with a law that explicitly states how long service providers can give users to remove illegal material (especially since it would take 5 minutes in front of a computer to do this) as long as the time frame is suitable.

3.) Agreed. Make the law general enough so that it evolves with technology instead of creating a specific law to handle Napster, then another one to handle digital movies when bandwidth becomes ubiqitous and another to handle whatever else the future brings. This is very logical, after all the U.S. constitution is over 200 years old and has mainly survived due to it's general nature while countries with constitutions containing massive specificity and minutae seem to be in constant turmoil and have to deal with constantly changing laws and environments.

Basically, I can't see much wrong with PPI's recommendations and it certainly is a whole lot better for everyone than Napster's proposals (leave us alone, so our users can keep ripping artists off) or the RIAA's (explixitly ban anything that affects our bottom line) plus if implemented properly will also be able to deal with whatever other disruptive technologies that may appear in the future.

Hoboy.

Did anyone else catch the line:
The report proposes that services like Napster be required to collect identifiable and verifiable information from its users, such as addresses and credit-card information. -- Progressive Policy Institute.
This one hand of the government saying to protect online privacy, now the other is saying be big brother for us!
I think it's time to start bugging the hell out of my Senator/Representives.

I'm not sure whether PPI has multiple inconsistent positions, but their "third way proposal" found here does not talk about outlawing Napster, it talks about creating more accountability.

I'm not sure I like it, but it seems at least more rational.

I'm not quite sure if I have this right, but I believe that one of the nuclear disarmament treaties the US holds with the former USSR specifically allows an ABM facility to be placed in North Dakota and nowhere else.

I won't get into the little economic-political debates with any Alaskans on /., but North Dakota does make a lot of sense. First, we're in the middle of North America, providing equal coverage to both coasts. An Alaskan installation would cover Hawaii but wouldn't be able to cover the east coast as effectively.

Additionally anyone who has ever visited northeastern North Dakota has seen the relatively massive Airforce presence in the region. Though most lay empty, the state is dotted with nuclear missle silos, enough where (I think) North Dakota would have been the world's 3rd largest nuclear power if the state had seceded. Then there is the still functioning Cavalier Air Station which watchers the north pole for incoming nukes... And one cannot forget the abandoned but friggin cool Nekoma installation whose purpose actually was ABM. [Picture - Best I Could Find]

From http://www.redstone.army.m il/history/vigilant/chap4.html

SAFEGUARD

The parallel mission responsibility of ARADCOM to develop and deploy a ballistic missile defense system for CONUS was continued until the functions were assumed by the Ballistic Missile Defense Program Manager on September 3, 1974.

This September 3 handoff from ARADCOM to the program manager preceded, by 13 months, the date that the SAFEGUARD complex in North Dakota became operational. This complex, called the Mickelsen Complex after ARADCOM 's third commanding general, Lt. Gen. Stanley R. Mickelsen, was located 100 miles northwest of Grand Forks. Its reason for being was to defend 150 Minuteman missiles located nearby and to provide a "light" defense of the upper-Midwest of the continent against ballistic missile attack.

Donald Baucom gives a succinct description of the Mickelsen complex in his book, The Origins of SDI: In a number of ways, the Mickelsen facility was a technological marvel. The 80-foot-tall truncated pyramid that housed the antennas for the MSR dominated the flat landscape around the town of Nekoma. The structure's four-foot-thick concrete walls were sloped at a 35-degree angle to provide hardening against the effects of nuclear blast. Each sloping surface of the pyramid held a radar antenna that was 13 feet in diameter and contained five thousand phased-array elements.

The four faces of the MSR allowed it to search for targets coming from all directions, and it could acquire these targets at a range of 300 miles. The MSR worked in conjunction with a PAR near Cavalier, North Dakota, 25 miles northeast of the missile Site. This was also a phased-array radar, but it was designed to search in only one direction - toward the north. In the event of a Soviet attack, the PAR would detect incoming missiles at a range of I 800 miles, about the time the warheads were passing over the North Pole. Detection at this range would allow only six minutes to plan the battle against the approaching reentry vehicles. Computers associated with the PAR would determine the trajectory of incoming missiles and pass the information to the MSR for control of the defensive missiles that would attack the warheads.

Two types of missiles were employed in the SAFEGUARD system. The high-altitude SPARTAN missile was built by McDonnell Douglas. It was a three-stage, solid-propellant rocket armed with a nuclear warhead that killed warheads by blast and X-rays that were lethal to warheads several miles away. SPARTAN was 55 feet long. The second missile, SPRINT, was a marvel of aeronautics and space technology. Built by Martin Marietta, it was designed to operate at hypersonic speeds in the earth's atmosphere; at its top speed, the missile's skin became hotter than the interior of its rocket motor and glowed incandescently. If one somehow could have trained an acetylene torch on the nose of the missile at this speed, the hot gases of the torch would have cooled the nose. The electronic components of the SPRINT were designed to withstand accelerations of 100 times gravity. The missile was 27 feet long, consisted of two stages, and used solid fuel. Like SPARTAN, SPRINT carried a nuclear warhead.

Together these missiles provided a "layered" defense. SPARTAN was designed to attack the incoming "threat cloud" of warheads, boosters and decoys while it was still above the atmosphere. SPRINT would then attack surviving warheads after they had penetrated the atmosphere where the resistance and friction of the air would separate the warheads from decoys and booster debris.

Also, from http://www.dlcppi.org/TEXTS/FOREIGN/MISSILE.HTM

Nothing in the ABM Treaty prohibits the United States from reactivating the Nekoma ABM base. Nor is the United States prevented from destroying the Nekoma facilities and building a new ABM site in a location near an ICBM deployment area. One could be chosen to provide better coverage of the contiguous 48 states than could be achieved from North Dakota. The United States also has the option to move its single site to a location within 150 kilometers (km) of Washington, DC. If well-chosen, such a deployment might protect a small fraction of the American population against a few nuclear warheads.

So there's the history, at least. BTW, some of you may be wonderinghow I could just pull this knowledge from the ether--The brother-in-law of an ex-girlfriend of mine was stationed at the Cavalier Air Station. Supposedly, he played Quake all day. Makes you feel really safe, doesn't it? :-)