Slashdot Mirror

Well congrats. You're friends with a lot of warez d00dz. Unfortunately, this has obviously colored your view of humanity, or at least your view of Internet users. See the thing is, these days the two are getting more and more synonymous. Napster has over 20 million users these days, and chances are only a very very few of them are like your illustrious friends, willing to spend hours of their time working on entirely suboptimal solutions for avoiding paying for a CD. (i.e. downloading MP3s, converting them to .wav and recording on a CD-R. Gak! Talk about a humongous waste of time for a finished product barely more listenable than a tape!)

As it turns out, there is apparently a large body of independent evidence backing up my claims that most Napster users engage in significant fair uses like sampling and space-shifting, and that the majority of their "non-fair uses" (if even there are any, since the AHRA explicitly legalizes all noncommercial copying of audio recordings) do not displace purchases which would otherwise be made. The Jupiter study is the only one I can find which has been released to the news media. (Sorry for relying on the press release; the actual study, like all their studies, is only available for a very large fee. However, it's worth noting that this was an independent study, not commissioned by Napster.) However, there are references to many others which substantially agree with the Jupiter study in Napster's court filings. I suggest you read the Opposition to RIAA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (182 kB PDF) and Napster's Brief Appealing Preliminary Injunction to the Ninth Circuit (216kB PDF) in particular. They not only include quite a lot of information on the various independent studies of Napster (plus the ones commissioned by Napster and the RIAA), but a lot of other data indicating that much if not most Napster traffic is non-infringing, even if the AHRA's safeguarding of non-commercial copying is disregarded, and that Napster use helps CD sales.

Beyond that general statement, I'd like to point out a few specific places where your argument is particularly lacking.

[re: the health of the publishing industry in the face of libraries] It's been empirically proven. The industry is healthy, despite the existence numerous of libraries.

LOL! This in no way precludes the fact that libraries have damaged book sales; all it says is that libraries haven't put the publishers out of business. Meanwhile, not only are the RIAA-member labels "empirically" "healthy", but their profits are the highest they have ever been in history, rising a remarkable 8% in the first half of 2000 over a year earlier, all whilst Napster's user base was ramping from 0 to 20 million! There are probably more Napster users than library users, and the recording industry has never had it this good.

[re: the Jupiter study]I don't see how they could gather a reliable sample. Napster is essentially anonymous, it would be virtually impossible to get a truely random sample here. They obviously did not do a before and after, and most likely it was not random in the least. The biggest hint we get is:
"But when we conducted our consumer survey, controlled for key music purchasing factors-such as existing spending level, age, income, gender, and online tenure-we still found that Napster usage is one of the strongest determinants of increased music buying." If you ever studied statistics, you would know this does not mean anything like: Those who start using napster, start buying more music. Quite the contrary, it means: Those who use napster, are more likely to buy music. In other words, Jupiter looked at a certain population based on the above controls, and determined that those who used napster were 45% more likely to buy CDs than those who appeared the same based on those criteria and did not use the service. The problem with this statistic is that it does not tell you whether or not those same music lovers in the selected populations would be more inclined to use napster and would be self-selecting in the survey. It does not deny the possibility that those users DECREASED their CD purchases since they started using napster

Unfortunately, your reading comprehension is apparently not so good. How, pray tell, do you conclude that Jupiter "obviously did not do a before and after" study when one of the factors they controlled for was "existing spending level"??? When the press release specifically said on numerous occasions that Napster users had "increased" spending levels rather than "greater" or "larger" or "higher" spending levels?? (For the English-challenged "increase" is a verb meaning to become greater or larger; it explicitly implies a period of time and a before-and-after comparison.) And for crying out loud, why on earth would a firm as respected as Jupiter release a study which made the horrifically obvious error of only measuring whether Napster users (i.e. music fans) buy more music than non-Napster users (non-music fans)? And by the way, in case you have never taken a statistics course, it is dreadfully easy to find a random selection of people and to measure their before/after music buying. One simple method for doing so:

1) Call random people on the phone (all telephone-based poll studies are seeded with randomly generated telephone numbers, checked only to make sure they are valid numbers).

2) Ask the person answering if they have ever used Napster. If no, thank them for their time and call someone else.

3) If yes, ask them a variety of questions on their demographic information/Napster using habits/music buying habits. For example, "how many CD's a month did you buy before you started using Napster?" and, "how many CD's a month have you bought since you started using Napster?"

4) Compile and realize that Napster use causes a 45% increase in CD buying over before the same person used Napster.

Obviously you lack experience with the internet and the vast quantities of warez (pirated software) available to those who know how to get it. If you had, you'd know that the warez groups are able to distribute warez out to thousands, and millions, of people with just one copy, in a compressed format, such that if even one byte is corrupt, the entire package is bad. Similar systems could easily be setup within napster, and in fact, there were atleast such groups when I used mp3s more regularly. They took responsibility for ensuring a clean rip and a decent encoding, not to mention distribution [which is largely moot now] With decreased file size sensitivity, these groups could essentially gaurantee very high quality mp3s.

...Combine this with the above mentioned "mp3 group", and it could happen with reliability [i.e., check summing schemes] What's more, these groups can get and distribute the songs before others can even buy them, they don't even half to wait....but people do anyways. I encourage you to look at the warez groups, it may give you a little insight here.

And I encourage you to actually go on Napster, as it will give you a great deal more insight into how songs actually get uploaded these days. Alright, I'll do it for you. Since we've used the new N'Sync CD as our example, I just searched for "It's Gonna Be Me" off of that album. In its current incarnation, Napster is limited to returning 100 results. But of those 100 results, there were fully 40 different filesizes. Thus we find that out of 100 files shared, there were 40 different rips. (To be fair, a couple of these were from N'Sync's performance at the MTV Music Awards; on the other hand, I believe all these live performances had the same filesize, so it's possible we would have gotten more source files if they were excluded.) To make sure that "It's Gonna Be Me" wasn't a bit of a fluke, I did the same experiment with Britney Spears' "Baby One More Time". 60 different source files in the first 100 results. I think this pretty much demolishes your argument. Now let's take a look at why.

You made the comparison to the warez scene and to the early MP3 scene, both of which you are apparently more familiar with than with Napster. First, let's go through the typical process by which a new game gets warezed.

1) A member of a warez cl4n, typically picked out in advance, buys the game the first day it comes out.

2) Then they get out their debugger and their disassembler and get to work. Most games these days ship with either a CD check mechanism or a key input mechanism as copy protection.

3) The cracker determines which is at work, or whether a more novel copy protection scheme has been utilized.

4a) If it's a CD check mechanism, the cracker "simply" needs to find the routine called in memory by the CD check (with his debugger), go there and figure out how it works (with his disassembler), find out where it is called from, and what it calls when the CD check is passed (debugger and disassembler needed here), then go back to the original calling function and hand edit the hex machine code to skip the CD check and call the function called after the check would normally be passed. Also they need to hope the scheme isn't more complicated than this, that the CD isn't expected any other time during the game. Oh, it is? You just need to change all of those functions too. And repackage the game with a new installer which copies files which would have otherwise been left on the CD off it. And maybe edit out any wasteful pieces of code, like video and CD audio tracks, that would make a full HD installation too large. All of this with your hex editor working on assembly or with an editor working on obfuscated decompiled junk. Then you need to test your edited game, make sure all the packaging works and installs correctly, and ship it out.

4b) If it's a key check, well you're in luck--you might be able to bypass it according to the above method. Or maybe you can't. In which case you need to code your own key generator. Don't worry; it's just a matter of finding the key-checking function with your debugger/disassembler, and reverse engineering it. In possibly obfuscated assembly code. What if it's a true cryptographic one-way hash? Well, it's back to square one. If you're lucky, though, you'll be able to figure it out and generate working keys. Now you just need to code that algorithm into your own app, package it with the original game, and ship it out.

5) Where do you post to? Well, you probably ship it to your warez d00dz buddies first, and then maybe you go on IRC for a couple hours to brag and barter for other warez. Or maybe you upload it to a ratio FTP site. Or maybe you post it on your own warez website, in which case you have to set up banner ads which will pay you a lot for click-throughs, because you'll require a password which can only be gotten by clicking on a series of ads.

6) Be sure to include a little text file detailing your crack, shouting out to your warez budz, etc. Sign it with a clever handle, hopefully something with lots of z's and x's. Be sure to include some neat ASCII art to top it off!

Phew. I may have gotten the process a bit off (you might be able to correct me; I was never into the whole BBS/warez scene, although some friends were), but I think it's mostly right. And who actually goes through the trouble to get warez? Kids with a lot of time on their hands. There's emphatically no Napster for warez, so the only way to get some is to have some (i.e. for ratio sites) or to jump through a lot of hoops on IRC or the web. Even if noncommercial software sharing were legal like noncommercial music sharing (it's not; the AHRA explicitly excludes software), little of what goes on in the warez community would qualify; ratio sites, barter exchanges on IRC, and even forced banner ad clicks all qualify as "commercial" under current law (the DMCA). Sharing files on Napster, on the other hand, is not, because there is no quid pro quo exchange.

Alrighty. Now, let's take a look at how the average song gets on Napster.

1) Someone buys a CD.

2) They are one of the millions of people who want to listen to it on their Rio/other portable MP3 player.

3) They rip it using one-click ripping software included with their Rio etc.

4) Some (large) portion of users will have their default MP3 directory shared on Napster; others may have to *gasp* move the file to their Napster directory.

5) Log onto Napster to get more MP3's, and don't even notice that you are sharing a new file.

That's it. In other words, there is a vast vast population (we're talking in the millions) who doesn't have to do anything intentional to provide a source file for Napster. Most of them certainly must realize what's going on, and probably many are slightly proud of providing new source material to Napster, since it's a form of giving back to a great service and community. But they don't have to go out of their way to do so. Furthermore, there is emphatically no subculture surrounding MP3's to increase one's standing in, and no way of signing "your" rips anyways (technically you could use the ID3 tags, although no one ever looks at those). There is no ego boost to doing something that thousands of people are going to do "accidentally" just by using their Rio's and signing on to Napster.

Frankly, your notion of an "MP3 ripping group" is anachronistic and laughable. The proportion of the 20 million Napster users who would even care who ripped their MP3s, much less be impressed by them the way warez kids are by warez clans, is miniscule. And in any case, they are the sort of people you used to hang out with on #mp3--the ones who would trade MP3s just as easily if Napster and every other peer-to-peer program were shut down.

They are the type who will actually buy huge hard drives and work out the technicalities of hooking up real speakers to a computer (or converting MP3's to .wav and recording on a CD-R! God that's funny!) just so they can "save money" and be all b4d4ss. They used to make up a significant proportion of the MP3 sharing community; now the vast majority of MP3 users also buy CD's, and indeed buy more CD's then they did before, as a result of their MP3 collections. For them, for most people, MP3 complements purchased music, not replaces it.

Books build on each other and on the mind in a way that music does not [part of the reason why libraries are key]. One can go to a library, and providing they have enough diligence, teach themselves hundreds of usefull things--even more than you think you know. The reader can improve themselves in ways that society can grasp and appreciate.

Music may be marvelous, but it is simply not interchangable with the many forms of books. Society has long placed a preference on reading, and has regarded music as a form of entertainment. Consider, for a moment, what portion of your curiculuum has been dedicated to books versus music. Most likely, your answer is something around 1/40th. If you were told that your kids weren't going to read anymore, but would listen to music in class instead, how would you react? You know damn well how you would react...It's a question of priorities, just one more reason why you can't quite make that analogy.

Books are more informational than music. Books have several academic uses that music has no analogue for. There is no musical equivalent to the textbook. However, the majority of library check-outs are for entertainment and artistic pleasure, and from a cultural or artistic perspective, there is no arguing that books are any more or less "superior" than music. As for why literature is more often studied in schools than is music, it's generally for the following reasons:

1) Music, like visual art, is more difficult to appreciate than are books. Most music is either not terribly artisticly redeeming, or is too subtle and complex for serious study much below the college level.

2) Furthermore, books tend to be more concrete and thus easier to teach than music or visual art. It's easier to write a paper on a book than a song, especially when you have more practice with the first. This doesn't mean they're any less worthy of individual study or appreciation, though.

3) Habit and prejudice.

In any case, there is no good argument that fictional books are more socially redeeming than music, and no good argument why we should have an almost infinite selection of (government-subsidized no less!) free books while we have to either pay for music or listen to the 150 predetermined hits/year the RIAA purchases radio time for.

Well congrats. You're friends with a lot of warez d00dz. Unfortunately, this has obviously colored your view of humanity, or at least your view of Internet users. See the thing is, these days the two are getting more and more synonymous. Napster has over 20 million users these days, and chances are only a very very few of them are like your illustrious friends, willing to spend hours of their time working on entirely suboptimal solutions for avoiding paying for a CD. (i.e. downloading MP3s, converting them to .wav and recording on a CD-R. Gak! Talk about a humongous waste of time for a finished product barely more listenable than a tape!)

As it turns out, there is apparently a large body of independent evidence backing up my claims that most Napster users engage in significant fair uses like sampling and space-shifting, and that the majority of their "non-fair uses" (if even there are any, since the AHRA explicitly legalizes all noncommercial copying of audio recordings) do not displace purchases which would otherwise be made. The Jupiter study is the only one I can find which has been released to the news media. (Sorry for relying on the press release; the actual study, like all their studies, is only available for a very large fee. However, it's worth noting that this was an independent study, not commissioned by Napster.) However, there are references to many others which substantially agree with the Jupiter study in Napster's court filings. I suggest you read the Opposition to RIAA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (182 kB PDF) and Napster's Brief Appealing Preliminary Injunction to the Ninth Circuit (216kB PDF) in particular. They not only include quite a lot of information on the various independent studies of Napster (plus the ones commissioned by Napster and the RIAA), but a lot of other data indicating that much if not most Napster traffic is non-infringing, even if the AHRA's safeguarding of non-commercial copying is disregarded, and that Napster use helps CD sales.

Beyond that general statement, I'd like to point out a few specific places where your argument is particularly lacking.

[re: the health of the publishing industry in the face of libraries] It's been empirically proven. The industry is healthy, despite the existence numerous of libraries.

LOL! This in no way precludes the fact that libraries have damaged book sales; all it says is that libraries haven't put the publishers out of business. Meanwhile, not only are the RIAA-member labels "empirically" "healthy", but their profits are the highest they have ever been in history, rising a remarkable 8% in the first half of 2000 over a year earlier, all whilst Napster's user base was ramping from 0 to 20 million! There are probably more Napster users than library users, and the recording industry has never had it this good.

[re: the Jupiter study]I don't see how they could gather a reliable sample. Napster is essentially anonymous, it would be virtually impossible to get a truely random sample here. They obviously did not do a before and after, and most likely it was not random in the least. The biggest hint we get is:
"But when we conducted our consumer survey, controlled for key music purchasing factors-such as existing spending level, age, income, gender, and online tenure-we still found that Napster usage is one of the strongest determinants of increased music buying." If you ever studied statistics, you would know this does not mean anything like: Those who start using napster, start buying more music. Quite the contrary, it means: Those who use napster, are more likely to buy music. In other words, Jupiter looked at a certain population based on the above controls, and determined that those who used napster were 45% more likely to buy CDs than those who appeared the same based on those criteria and did not use the service. The problem with this statistic is that it does not tell you whether or not those same music lovers in the selected populations would be more inclined to use napster and would be self-selecting in the survey. It does not deny the possibility that those users DECREASED their CD purchases since they started using napster

Unfortunately, your reading comprehension is apparently not so good. How, pray tell, do you conclude that Jupiter "obviously did not do a before and after" study when one of the factors they controlled for was "existing spending level"??? When the press release specifically said on numerous occasions that Napster users had "increased" spending levels rather than "greater" or "larger" or "higher" spending levels?? (For the English-challenged "increase" is a verb meaning to become greater or larger; it explicitly implies a period of time and a before-and-after comparison.) And for crying out loud, why on earth would a firm as respected as Jupiter release a study which made the horrifically obvious error of only measuring whether Napster users (i.e. music fans) buy more music than non-Napster users (non-music fans)? And by the way, in case you have never taken a statistics course, it is dreadfully easy to find a random selection of people and to measure their before/after music buying. One simple method for doing so:

1) Call random people on the phone (all telephone-based poll studies are seeded with randomly generated telephone numbers, checked only to make sure they are valid numbers).

2) Ask the person answering if they have ever used Napster. If no, thank them for their time and call someone else.

3) If yes, ask them a variety of questions on their demographic information/Napster using habits/music buying habits. For example, "how many CD's a month did you buy before you started using Napster?" and, "how many CD's a month have you bought since you started using Napster?"

4) Compile and realize that Napster use causes a 45% increase in CD buying over before the same person used Napster.

Obviously you lack experience with the internet and the vast quantities of warez (pirated software) available to those who know how to get it. If you had, you'd know that the warez groups are able to distribute warez out to thousands, and millions, of people with just one copy, in a compressed format, such that if even one byte is corrupt, the entire package is bad. Similar systems could easily be setup within napster, and in fact, there were atleast such groups when I used mp3s more regularly. They took responsibility for ensuring a clean rip and a decent encoding, not to mention distribution [which is largely moot now] With decreased file size sensitivity, these groups could essentially gaurantee very high quality mp3s.

...Combine this with the above mentioned "mp3 group", and it could happen with reliability [i.e., check summing schemes] What's more, these groups can get and distribute the songs before others can even buy them, they don't even half to wait....but people do anyways. I encourage you to look at the warez groups, it may give you a little insight here.

And I encourage you to actually go on Napster, as it will give you a great deal more insight into how songs actually get uploaded these days. Alright, I'll do it for you. Since we've used the new N'Sync CD as our example, I just searched for "It's Gonna Be Me" off of that album. In its current incarnation, Napster is limited to returning 100 results. But of those 100 results, there were fully 40 different filesizes. Thus we find that out of 100 files shared, there were 40 different rips. (To be fair, a couple of these were from N'Sync's performance at the MTV Music Awards; on the other hand, I believe all these live performances had the same filesize, so it's possible we would have gotten more source files if they were excluded.) To make sure that "It's Gonna Be Me" wasn't a bit of a fluke, I did the same experiment with Britney Spears' "Baby One More Time". 60 different source files in the first 100 results. I think this pretty much demolishes your argument. Now let's take a look at why.

You made the comparison to the warez scene and to the early MP3 scene, both of which you are apparently more familiar with than with Napster. First, let's go through the typical process by which a new game gets warezed.

1) A member of a warez cl4n, typically picked out in advance, buys the game the first day it comes out.

2) Then they get out their debugger and their disassembler and get to work. Most games these days ship with either a CD check mechanism or a key input mechanism as copy protection.

3) The cracker determines which is at work, or whether a more novel copy protection scheme has been utilized.

4a) If it's a CD check mechanism, the cracker "simply" needs to find the routine called in memory by the CD check (with his debugger), go there and figure out how it works (with his disassembler), find out where it is called from, and what it calls when the CD check is passed (debugger and disassembler needed here), then go back to the original calling function and hand edit the hex machine code to skip the CD check and call the function called after the check would normally be passed. Also they need to hope the scheme isn't more complicated than this, that the CD isn't expected any other time during the game. Oh, it is? You just need to change all of those functions too. And repackage the game with a new installer which copies files which would have otherwise been left on the CD off it. And maybe edit out any wasteful pieces of code, like video and CD audio tracks, that would make a full HD installation too large. All of this with your hex editor working on assembly or with an editor working on obfuscated decompiled junk. Then you need to test your edited game, make sure all the packaging works and installs correctly, and ship it out.

4b) If it's a key check, well you're in luck--you might be able to bypass it according to the above method. Or maybe you can't. In which case you need to code your own key generator. Don't worry; it's just a matter of finding the key-checking function with your debugger/disassembler, and reverse engineering it. In possibly obfuscated assembly code. What if it's a true cryptographic one-way hash? Well, it's back to square one. If you're lucky, though, you'll be able to figure it out and generate working keys. Now you just need to code that algorithm into your own app, package it with the original game, and ship it out.

5) Where do you post to? Well, you probably ship it to your warez d00dz buddies first, and then maybe you go on IRC for a couple hours to brag and barter for other warez. Or maybe you upload it to a ratio FTP site. Or maybe you post it on your own warez website, in which case you have to set up banner ads which will pay you a lot for click-throughs, because you'll require a password which can only be gotten by clicking on a series of ads.

6) Be sure to include a little text file detailing your crack, shouting out to your warez budz, etc. Sign it with a clever handle, hopefully something with lots of z's and x's. Be sure to include some neat ASCII art to top it off!

Phew. I may have gotten the process a bit off (you might be able to correct me; I was never into the whole BBS/warez scene, although some friends were), but I think it's mostly right. And who actually goes through the trouble to get warez? Kids with a lot of time on their hands. There's emphatically no Napster for warez, so the only way to get some is to have some (i.e. for ratio sites) or to jump through a lot of hoops on IRC or the web. Even if noncommercial software sharing were legal like noncommercial music sharing (it's not; the AHRA explicitly excludes software), little of what goes on in the warez community would qualify; ratio sites, barter exchanges on IRC, and even forced banner ad clicks all qualify as "commercial" under current law (the DMCA). Sharing files on Napster, on the other hand, is not, because there is no quid pro quo exchange.

Alrighty. Now, let's take a look at how the average song gets on Napster.

1) Someone buys a CD.

2) They are one of the millions of people who want to listen to it on their Rio/other portable MP3 player.

3) They rip it using one-click ripping software included with their Rio etc.

4) Some (large) portion of users will have their default MP3 directory shared on Napster; others may have to *gasp* move the file to their Napster directory.

5) Log onto Napster to get more MP3's, and don't even notice that you are sharing a new file.

That's it. In other words, there is a vast vast population (we're talking in the millions) who doesn't have to do anything intentional to provide a source file for Napster. Most of them certainly must realize what's going on, and probably many are slightly proud of providing new source material to Napster, since it's a form of giving back to a great service and community. But they don't have to go out of their way to do so. Furthermore, there is emphatically no subculture surrounding MP3's to increase one's standing in, and no way of signing "your" rips anyways (technically you could use the ID3 tags, although no one ever looks at those). There is no ego boost to doing something that thousands of people are going to do "accidentally" just by using their Rio's and signing on to Napster.

Frankly, your notion of an "MP3 ripping group" is anachronistic and laughable. The proportion of the 20 million Napster users who would even care who ripped their MP3s, much less be impressed by them the way warez kids are by warez clans, is miniscule. And in any case, they are the sort of people you used to hang out with on #mp3--the ones who would trade MP3s just as easily if Napster and every other peer-to-peer program were shut down.

They are the type who will actually buy huge hard drives and work out the technicalities of hooking up real speakers to a computer (or converting MP3's to .wav and recording on a CD-R! God that's funny!) just so they can "save money" and be all b4d4ss. They used to make up a significant proportion of the MP3 sharing community; now the vast majority of MP3 users also buy CD's, and indeed buy more CD's then they did before, as a result of their MP3 collections. For them, for most people, MP3 complements purchased music, not replaces it.

Books build on each other and on the mind in a way that music does not [part of the reason why libraries are key]. One can go to a library, and providing they have enough diligence, teach themselves hundreds of usefull things--even more than you think you know. The reader can improve themselves in ways that society can grasp and appreciate.

Music may be marvelous, but it is simply not interchangable with the many forms of books. Society has long placed a preference on reading, and has regarded music as a form of entertainment. Consider, for a moment, what portion of your curiculuum has been dedicated to books versus music. Most likely, your answer is something around 1/40th. If you were told that your kids weren't going to read anymore, but would listen to music in class instead, how would you react? You know damn well how you would react...It's a question of priorities, just one more reason why you can't quite make that analogy.

Books are more informational than music. Books have several academic uses that music has no analogue for. There is no musical equivalent to the textbook. However, the majority of library check-outs are for entertainment and artistic pleasure, and from a cultural or artistic perspective, there is no arguing that books are any more or less "superior" than music. As for why literature is more often studied in schools than is music, it's generally for the following reasons:

1) Music, like visual art, is more difficult to appreciate than are books. Most music is either not terribly artisticly redeeming, or is too subtle and complex for serious study much below the college level.

2) Furthermore, books tend to be more concrete and thus easier to teach than music or visual art. It's easier to write a paper on a book than a song, especially when you have more practice with the first. This doesn't mean they're any less worthy of individual study or appreciation, though.

3) Habit and prejudice.

In any case, there is no good argument that fictional books are more socially redeeming than music, and no good argument why we should have an almost infinite selection of (government-subsidized no less!) free books while we have to either pay for music or listen to the 150 predetermined hits/year the RIAA purchases radio time for.

For now, I think it's cool that MP3.com won't get shut down, unlike some other services I could mention. It's interesting that none of the companies that sued mp3.com for my.mp3.com never even used it, kinda like that other trial.

Library's have been proven not to be a great threat to the sale of books.

Where has this been proven? Can you show me some evidence?? The fact is that libraries would continue to enjoy wide public support even if they were shown to hurt book sales, because they provide an undeniable public benefit, just as Napster does.

The same cannot be said, that napster will not hurt the sale of records.

In fact much more can be said: Napster actually helps the sale of records.

And while you may try to refute that sales will actually be hurt, that is unproven, and highly doubtful.

No it's not. Read the link. (I've included it several times in this thread, but you seem to have never clicked on it.) In case you're wondering, Jupiter Communications is one of the most respected media research and analysis in the world.

As that article in the Atlantic Monthly pointed out, CD sales around college campuses were down [though not in huge numbers], while national sales were up. This fact alone is cause for concern, or at least question.

Yes it is. Luckily, these questions have been answered. The research at issue was part of a study bought by the RIAA to use at the trial. Fortunately, there are myriad problems with its seemingly negative conclusions. Most egregiously, the study failed to take into account purchases of CDs at online stores like CDNow. Due to the fact that college students are among the most wired and moreover among the most likely to purchase items online of any demographic, this failing very likely explains entirely the fall in "college music store" sales. Further supporting this conclusion is the fact that the study found sales at "college music stores" fell more in the year before Napster came out than in the year after!! Thus the most likely conclusion to be drawn from this RIAA-sponsered study is that 1) online stores like CDNow and amazon.com have taken sales from record stores near college campuses, but 2) Napster has spurred CD sales enough amongst college students to partially reverse the trend.

And in any case, despite what you may believe, the average Napster user is *not* a college student. Besides, speaking from my own experience as a college student, Napster has actually limited my recent CD purchases, because I don't currently own a stereo besides my computer. Once I move out of my tiny dorm room into an apartment, though, you can bet I'll buy a good stereo, and plenty of CD's--many of them purchases I would never have made had I not had my enjoyment of different types of music enhanced by Napster.

Napster traffics the most popular songs in almost instantly, and theoretically, only one purchase needs to be made for this to happen!

Oh come on. For one thing, there are something like 100 different (unconnected) Napster servers, and most users are only logged on a small fraction of the time, so in any real world situation hundreds of source copies are necessary to cause any particular song to be available on Napster even remotely reliably. But this is all besides the point. Are you honestly telling me that only 1 (or very few) of Napster's 20 million users went out and bought, eg. the new N'Sync CD which sold 2.4 million copies in its first week? Obviously not. This is totally, patently absurd and has nothing to do with whatever real effect Napster has on CD sales.

Something like 90% of the mp3s listed on there are redundant--only the most recent and currently popular songs.

Just logged onto Napster now, and it's showing 765,685 songs being shared on this particular server alone. If we accept your 90% figure (I'd guess 95% is closer to the truth, but whatever), that means people are sharing over 75,000 unique songs at this moment on that server alone!! In comparison, the RIAA ensures that only 150 new songs get radio play in any given year. 150. So let's see which avenue of free music is more culturally enriching and offers more avenues away from the "most recent and currently popular songs":

radio--150 songs a year
Napster--75,000 songs at any given time

Hmm...looks like society and the spread of worthwhile art come out about 500 times better with Napster than with the old way of getting free music. Indeed, that 75,000 songs represents almost three times as many songs as are released by the major labels in an entire year! That's right--the major labels only released around 2,600 albums in 1999; meanwhile, over 3,000 artists have explicitly released their music for distribution over Napster (and an additional 14,000 have given their permission by joining Napster's new artist program). Let me restate that for you: there have been more songs expressly released to Internet public domain sharing since Napster debuted than there have been songs distributed by the major labels in the same time period.

And you want to claim that Napster consists only of "the most recent and currently popular songs"? Are you joking or just remarkably ignorant???

You're going to have a hard time arguing that music enriches the mind to the same extent that a good book does, especially when it's pop music!

Well now you've really made an idiot of yourself. Suffice it to say that no one with any appreciation of art or culture--least of all writers of important literature--would ever claim inherent superiority for any one particular medium of art over all others. In fact, most knowledgable people would argue that particular pieces of music can be every bit as expressive, enriching, artistic and important as the greatest works of literature, much less the trashy romance novel drivel which makes up the plurality of check outs at the typical public library. Nevermind Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms (although you can certainly find not only their works but those of almost every classical composer of note on Napster); nevermind even the great impact of jazz, argued by many to be the most important artistic movement of the 20th Century. There are plenty of challenging, important, "mind enriching" works of art to be found even amongst today's pop music. Any attempt to compare the artistic worth of the typical piece of fiction on the New York Times Bestseller List to, just to take a very successful and rather mainstream pop album, Radiohead's masterful Ok Computer, is laughable. For crying out loud, look at that list! It's all romance novels and police thrillers, with some battle-the-Antichrist born-again lit thrown for variety (#11). You have to go all the way to #16 (off the official list) to even find an important author. And this is without taking into account the NYT's recently spun-off Harry Potter Bestseller List.

The average piece of new fiction sold today is almost certainly of lower cultural and artistic value some of the most popular new music. Sorry to destroy your illusions, but the average book checked out of a public library is probably of even lower quality.

But that's besides the point. The point of all this isn't to engage in cultural snobbery and certainly not to censor based on it. Despite, probably because of, the fact that libraries check out millions of copies of trashy romance novels a day, they are still vital institutions to society, providing important positive functions to their communities. Exactly the same, if not more, can be said of Napster.

On a side note, if you really don't believe that music can be as enriching as written words, you probably just haven't heard enough good music. Start exploring.

Now just where the #@$*#@ did you see that? Certainly not on their announcements page.

Last time I checked, they were being sued to get shut down. MP3.com has entered into arrangements with certain labels, not Napster.

Sheesh.

sulli

Napster
Gnutella

But Freenet has several unique features that distinguish it from Napster and Gnutella. I especially like the fact that content can be uploaded anonymously which is great for banned intellectual assets like DeCSS.
Ultimatly, Freenet will probably be good for the internet if it takes off with success - the idea of unrestricted, free and anonymous content publishing will encourage Web diversity without the fear of lawsuits or just plan technical limitations.

--
Kiro

Patel's injunction has to mean that a TOS or EULA, no matter how carefully crafted, doesn't absolve a company of responsibility for the abuse of their product.
Now, this may well be the kind of thinking that enables families of, say, murder victims to sue gunmakers, but it's also the kind of thinking that put seatbelts into automobiles.

There is an upside: what are viruses if not an abuse of software (specifically, of the security holes in software)?
If the EULA doesn't protect companies from liability for abuse of their software, well, places like M$ will have to take security & privacy concerns a lot more seriously lest they face class-action suits.

The law cuts both ways.

Patel's injunction has to mean that a TOS or EULA, no matter how carefully crafted, doesn't absolve a company of responsibility for the abuse of their product.
Now, this may well be the kind of thinking that enables families of, say, murder victims to sue gunmakers, but it's also the kind of thinking that put seatbelts into automobiles.

There is an upside: what are viruses if not an abuse of software (specifically, of the security holes in software)?
If the EULA doesn't protect companies from liability for abuse of their software, well, places like M$ will have to take security & privacy concerns a lot more seriously lest they face class-action suits.

The law cuts both ways.

• National Rifle Association (NRA): 3 million members.
• U.S. Farmers: 5 million farmers.
• American Association of Retired Persons (AARP): 22 million subscribers.
• Napster: 20 million users.

Napster already has a write-to-Congress page. Gnutilla probably should have one, too.

In the end, popular music will probably be free, but it will have ads. Look for big growth in product placement.

(I see that http://www.musicisland.com/ claims to be "the home of Independant Music on the Web" but their web site is a mess of pop-up add windows, unreadable fonts, and critical links that are busted.)

I took a look at the Napster "Buycott" (http://www.napster.com/buycott.html) and it looks okay, though they've only got about fifty or so artists (not labels) in the list. In any case, I would definitely recommend DJ Spooky: he's an incredibly prolific, really creative ambient sample artist.

As a place to find cool new stuff, I'd recommend: http://www.aquariusrecordsSF.com/. This is a record store that does mail orders. They essentially refuse to stock anything they don't really love. Subscribe to their email newsletter: it's full of really chatty, detailed reviews of nearly every good new release in the last month.

People seem to have picked boycotting as a reaction simply because it's the first thing that jumps at them-- Someone's selling something and we don't like their policies! Stop buying their stuff! Unfortunately, the RIAA is too far-reaching and the group they've actively offended is too small and specific for this to be the most effective form of protest. Since the RIAA is already of the opinion that these people don't pay for their music, a sharp decrease in sales is something that would jsut fuel their fire... if there even was a sharp decrease in sales. As is, a boycott would simply make a slight dip in their sales in the area that they're currently expecting one: giving them fuel for future reports where they can state that "as Napster became more high-profile, sales of RIAA music went down." Just what we need.

As has already been mentioned, Napster is promoting the idea of a "buycott," which is an excellent way of supporting their supporters (instead of punishing their adversaries) and demonstrating the buying power that Napster users have. A powerful statement, if it works. Even better, write to the heads of the record labels and TELL THEM that you're a music fan and you support Napster, that you buy music and would like them to support Napster, too. There are some more suggestions on Napster's site, and here are some addresses to write to:
BMG
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Fax: 212-930-4398
Strauss Zelnick

EMI Music Group
1290 6th Ave.
New York, NY 10104
Ken Berry

NMPA
711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Fax: 212-242-4173
Edward Murphy

RIAA
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Fax: 202-775-7253
Hilary Rosen

Sony Music Entertainment
550 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10022
Fax: 212-833-4583
Tommy Mottola
Michele Anthony

Time Warner
75 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10019
Fax: 212-275-3839
Gerald Levin

Universal Music Group
70 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
Doug Morris

People seem to have picked boycotting as a reaction simply because it's the first thing that jumps at them-- Someone's selling something and we don't like their policies! Stop buying their stuff! Unfortunately, the RIAA is too far-reaching and the group they've actively offended is too small and specific for this to be the most effective form of protest. Since the RIAA is already of the opinion that these people don't pay for their music, a sharp decrease in sales is something that would jsut fuel their fire... if there even was a sharp decrease in sales. As is, a boycott would simply make a slight dip in their sales in the area that they're currently expecting one: giving them fuel for future reports where they can state that "as Napster became more high-profile, sales of RIAA music went down." Just what we need.

As has already been mentioned, Napster is promoting the idea of a "buycott," which is an excellent way of supporting their supporters (instead of punishing their adversaries) and demonstrating the buying power that Napster users have. A powerful statement, if it works. Even better, write to the heads of the record labels and TELL THEM that you're a music fan and you support Napster, that you buy music and would like them to support Napster, too. There are some more suggestions on Napster's site, and here are some addresses to write to:
BMG
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Fax: 212-930-4398
Strauss Zelnick

EMI Music Group
1290 6th Ave.
New York, NY 10104
Ken Berry

NMPA
711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Fax: 212-242-4173
Edward Murphy

RIAA
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Fax: 202-775-7253
Hilary Rosen

Sony Music Entertainment
550 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10022
Fax: 212-833-4583
Tommy Mottola
Michele Anthony

Time Warner
75 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10019
Fax: 212-275-3839
Gerald Levin

Universal Music Group
70 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
Doug Morris

There's a list of non-RIAA afilliated bands on napster's site.

--
Homer: "No beer, No TV make Homer something something";
Marge: "Go crazy?";
Homer: "Don't mind if I do!"

While I disapprove of the way the RIAA operates and most specifically how it "treats Napster," I don't think that a boycott of the RIAA would be productive. In fact, I think it would be counter productive. Napster seems to have the same take, and has organized a "buycott". Instead of not buying music (the thing the RIAA says that Napster users do anyhow), there should instead be an INCREASE in spending on artists who support Napster. This shows the RIAA how much money they stand to lose by offending Napster users, as opposed to losing them money (something they already think they're doing.) Napster has posted a list of groups that are supporting Napster. Go out and buy more music today!

While I disapprove of the way the RIAA operates and most specifically how it "treats Napster," I don't think that a boycott of the RIAA would be productive. In fact, I think it would be counter productive. Napster seems to have the same take, and has organized a "buycott". Instead of not buying music (the thing the RIAA says that Napster users do anyhow), there should instead be an INCREASE in spending on artists who support Napster. This shows the RIAA how much money they stand to lose by offending Napster users, as opposed to losing them money (something they already think they're doing.) Napster has posted a list of groups that are supporting Napster. Go out and buy more music today!

well, napster has posted a Buy-Cott list on their web site of groups who support napster, and they recommend you buy the cds of the bands on the list even though these bands are on RIAA labels. some of them include Sunny Day Real Estate, Radiohead, and the Get-upKids. being as i'm a huge SDRE fan, i was happy to see them on the Buy list. as Napster is blocked from my corporate firewall, i am not sure of the exact link, but i think it's here. Buy these CDs! especially radiohead's OK Computer /the Bends and Sunny Day Real Estate's The Rising Tide. These are three of best cds ever made. and the bands support Napster.

This is not true either. Although other file formats might be far less popular for trade on Napster, there is a program available for download known as Wrapster that masks *.(any) extention to a *.mp3 extention, and allows any type of file to be posted for DL on Napster. The files are generally named after their content, ie: "Natalie_Portman_Nude.mp3" After downloading, the "Wrapster" utility converts the fake *.mp3 file back into whatever it was.

This is not true either. Although other file formats might be far less popular for trade on Napster, there is a program available for download known as Wrapster that masks *.(any) extention to a *.mp3 extention, and allows any type of file to be posted for DL on Napster. The files are generally named after their content, ie: "Natalie_Portman_Nude.mp3" After downloading, the "Wrapster" utility converts the fake *.mp3 file back into whatever it was.

Napster BUYcott
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

They didn't need to look hard for reasons to grant a stay: the 9th Circuit judges tore the earlier court's decision to shreds in so many ways that the stay verdict document (pdf) is an absolutely hoot to read. They practically said "You're a load of idiots."

I especially liked this little technicality:

Copyright registration is not a prerequisite to a valid copyright, but it is a prerequisite to a suit based on copyright. [Kodadek v. MTV]

Apparently the plaintiffs had merely identified some 200 songs for which they allegedly claimed copyright without providing proof of copyright registration, and to add to their incompetence, they then tried to extend the claim to millions of songs which they didn't even bother to name, let alone declare under copyright. Apparently this is a legal no-no.

And lawyers get paid for all this fun. Sigh ...

www.boycott-riaa.com

www.riaaboycott.org

Napster Buycott (that's not a typo :))

RIAA Member List (for the boycotting, duh!)

RIAA Contact List (let your voice be heard!)

--

www.boycott-riaa.com

www.riaaboycott.org

Napster Buycott (that's not a typo :))

RIAA Member List (for the boycotting, duh!)

RIAA Contact List (let your voice be heard!)

--

The Motion to the Ninth Circuit, which resulted in the stay, is available here, in .pdf. Makes for a very interesting read.

Napster.com has been updated with a list of Napster-friendly bands /artists to support (buy buying CDs).

TheGeek

If napster stays shut down for long enough it would be interesting to see the impact on CD sales - or CD sales around universities, or whatever exactly it was all of those damning studies proved.

Napster's current message:

We're getting a lot of questions about what people can do to help.

Here are three things you can do right away.

1. Write the heads of the major record companies and tell them you are their best customers - loyal and active music fans -- and that you don't want them to kill Napster. Here's a link to their emails: http://www.napster.com/labels.html.
2. Show the companies your power. We're calling for a two-day "buy-cott" this weekend. Support the artists (found here: http://www.napster.com/buycott.html) who support Napster by going out and buying their CDs. Be sure to let the record store know you came from Napster.
3. Keep coming back. We'll keep you informed as time goes on.

Of course given how subjective the studies were before it would be hard for an apparent further decrease in sales to "prove" that Napster was good for the recording industry.

It's going to be impossible to prove anything either way. Up, down or sideways. This is about bullying and potential cooption. One of the major record labels will likely own Napster within the year.

If napster stays shut down for long enough it would be interesting to see the impact on CD sales - or CD sales around universities, or whatever exactly it was all of those damning studies proved.

Napster's current message:

We're getting a lot of questions about what people can do to help.

Here are three things you can do right away.

1. Write the heads of the major record companies and tell them you are their best customers - loyal and active music fans -- and that you don't want them to kill Napster. Here's a link to their emails: http://www.napster.com/labels.html.
2. Show the companies your power. We're calling for a two-day "buy-cott" this weekend. Support the artists (found here: http://www.napster.com/buycott.html) who support Napster by going out and buying their CDs. Be sure to let the record store know you came from Napster.
3. Keep coming back. We'll keep you informed as time goes on.

Of course given how subjective the studies were before it would be hard for an apparent further decrease in sales to "prove" that Napster was good for the recording industry.

It's going to be impossible to prove anything either way. Up, down or sideways. This is about bullying and potential cooption. One of the major record labels will likely own Napster within the year.

Seriously, don't argue the point, it was created to swap copies of songs, not to "promote small artists" or whatever. Do you think when Shawn Fanning wrote the software he thought, "Great! Now my friends and I can exchange all the unsigned bands we listen to!"

I'm not so sure about that. The angle of promoting bands through mp3 far predates Napster. And their New Artist Program, accessable from their front page, gives the name of songs and artists that are not so well-known to search for.

If everyone used Napster, both Fred Durst AND Lars Ulrich would be working at McDonalds, probably together, bitching about how they wish they could make money off of their music, instead of having to distribute it for free.

Oh really? Metallica is one of many bands that has benefitted from the promotion available through ostensibly illegal bootlegging and copying. In Lars' interview with /., he not only admitted that but that he himself bootlegs the work of other bands. His justification was that if he likes the tape he hears, he buys the album, just like the fans who made Metallica famous by spreading bootlegged tapes of albums and concerts, and now Napster.

Metallica supported bootlegging and continues to support it in any form but Napster. the reason is that they acknowledge that they would be working at McDonald's if people did not "steal" their music. The Napster thing is more about control. Lars wants the ability to opt-out if he does not like the medium. "[I]t's not a money issue" (his own words).

Seriously, don't argue the point, it was created to swap copies of songs, not to "promote small artists" or whatever. Do you think when Shawn Fanning wrote the software he thought, "Great! Now my friends and I can exchange all the unsigned bands we listen to!"

I'm not so sure about that. The angle of promoting bands through mp3 far predates Napster. And their New Artist Program, accessable from their front page, gives the name of songs and artists that are not so well-known to search for.

If everyone used Napster, both Fred Durst AND Lars Ulrich would be working at McDonalds, probably together, bitching about how they wish they could make money off of their music, instead of having to distribute it for free.

Oh really? Metallica is one of many bands that has benefitted from the promotion available through ostensibly illegal bootlegging and copying. In Lars' interview with /., he not only admitted that but that he himself bootlegs the work of other bands. His justification was that if he likes the tape he hears, he buys the album, just like the fans who made Metallica famous by spreading bootlegged tapes of albums and concerts, and now Napster.

Metallica supported bootlegging and continues to support it in any form but Napster. the reason is that they acknowledge that they would be working at McDonald's if people did not "steal" their music. The Napster thing is more about control. Lars wants the ability to opt-out if he does not like the medium. "[I]t's not a money issue" (his own words).

I was looking through napster's MOTD file, when I tried to log in this morning, and I noticed that it had some information on how to do something about what's going on. http://www.napster.com/labels.html All the email addresses of all the record labels, I personally wrote to the RIAA telling them my views. They also have a "buycott" day going on, the link is on the page above. Support supporting artists! :)

I use Napster. I buy CD's. I only buy the CD if I like the music on it, and I won't buy a CD if I don't know what it sounds like. Legal or not, Napster has made it very easy to preview music by artists. If I don't like the music, I don't buy the CD, but if I do like the music, I do buy the CD.

Here's the point: By shutting down Napster, you have taken away my ability to preview music, and I will buy less CD's. That's the bottom line.

Please find an agreeable way to work WITH Napster instead of against it. Use this network to your advantage, don't pit the network against you. The internet will find other ways of previewing music. I have already found a few other channels. They aren't as convenient as Napster, but I'm sure that public use and pressure will push these channels to mature.

A message to Big Music: Stop fighting. Face the music. Try listening to what the public wants, instead of this futile attempt to keep your pockets filled. The internet is democracy in its most pure form -- work against it and you will ultimately lose. And please, stop hiding behind the claim that your only "trying to protect the artists." Many artists have seen the great advantage that the internet can provide, and are profiting from it without your help.

This is my very first chain letter. Please send it to every one you know, who uses Napster.

The music industry organization, RIAA, is suing Napster.

RIAA has been awarded a preliminary injunction forcing the Napster network to be shut down, friday, July 28th, at midnight - for the duration of the trial, if not permanently.

Many accounts have indicated music purchasing has increased because of Napster, possibly because it has generally spurred interest in music.

If you want to show RIAA your disapproval of their heavy handed legal tactics...

Do not purchase any of their members' products for the duration of the trial. The dominant members of RIAA areSony Music, EMI Recorded Music, Bertelsmann's BMG Entertainment, Time Warner's Warner Music and Seagram's Universal Music Group - which pretty much includes all music CDs, except those from obscure independent labels.

Don't accept RIAA's (or Metallica's) labeling you as a 'criminal' for sharing or downloading MP3s. Napster's attorney cited a recent federal court case that decided some noncommercial copying of music is protected by law. That extends even to making a song available for thousands of random Net users to download.

You're not doing anything wrong.

Nothing gets a large corporation's attention faster than a sharp drop in sales.

What I am about to say has been said again and again, in this discussion, in earlier discussions, on newsgroups and in chatrooms and in every real-world discussion between people who disagree about Napster, but apparently you didn't catch it any of those times, so I'll say it again.

first read this quote: Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights. You should be aware that some MP3 files may have been created or distributed without copyright owner authorization. As a condition to your account with Napster, you agree that you will not use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, of others.

You know what that's from? the Napster Copyright Policy. You can read it here.

It is not up to Napster to make sure people don't rip off recording artists. Since the much-cited copy-shop metaphor (already used several times in this thread) doesn't appear to be working for you, here's a fresh one: Would you hold TDK responsible if one of the tapes they made and sold (and profitted from) was used to record a movie, say one on HBO, and therefore cut back on video sales?

If you would, well then, I don't know what to tell you.

But most people wouldn't, and I bet you wouldn't either. In fact, in almost any other situation, be it movies, books, tv, or even music taped from the radio, it seems ludicrous to attempt to hold the seller of the medium responsible. Yet for some reason, people like you want to hold Napster responsible for the uses of their product in copyright infringement.

And in response to the hypocrisy charge, Napster is not acting hypocritical by protecting its own copyrights and trademarks, because its lack of direct action against copyright-infringers is not meant to tell artists that they shouldn't try to protect their copyrights, but to tell artists that it is their job, not Napster's.

I'm sure someone already posted the napster webcast that happened a short time ago .. I beleive it is still viewable from that link ... also, FYI Wired Magazine has a good 2 page article about the trial today, some interesting reading....

I can't find resources for pro-Napster resources on the web. Can you?

If you mean pro-Napster legal arguments and such, try going here.

Of particular interest is the Opposition to RIAA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (182 kb PDF).

I can't find resources for pro-Napster resources on the web. Can you?

If you mean pro-Napster legal arguments and such, try going here.

Of particular interest is the Opposition to RIAA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (182 kb PDF).

I make that about 7.5 - 8 weeks of music... give or take! J

I had my CD full of Metallica songs from Napster and I was ready to rock ass.

Oh, boy, here it comes...

Think of it this way ... if you take the NY Post into your local library and copy an article for your friend, are you breaking the law? Sure but not on any grand scope. Now take this SAME article, scan it and put it up on your Geocities account, then get it linked from /. ... are you breaking the law then? You're damn right you are, regardless if you intended for hundreds of thousands of people to utilize your illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

This is why your argument for "non-commercial" duplication and distribution is deemed to fail, it's a brave new world out there were the individual has gained a tremendous amount of publishing power, more than anyone could have ever dreamed ... now it's time for folks to step up to the plate and realize that with this power comes accountability, regardless of your intent to be "non-commercial".

Luckily your argument is completely without any legal merit. According to the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, any non-commercial sharing of music is in fact perfectly legal and not copyright infringement at all. The method, scale, or "impact" of the copying has nothing to do with it. Period. So long as there is no fee or other quid pro quo exchange, trading music on Napster is not infringement.

What's more astonishing is how your argument is so completely...well, to be fair, so completely based on ethical norms which are opposite mine. You realize that the Internet has moved us into a "brave new world" of content distribution, where, amongst other things, music is no longer a scarce good (like, for example, a car) but a potentially nonscarce good (like air). According to any economic theory (especially free market Capitalism), goods only need to be controlled and sold for profit when they are scarce; once a good is ubiquitous, it ought to be freely available. It has nothing to do with how much the good is worth to someone--after all, air to breathe is undeniably worth more than any other possible good, but any economic system which suggested that air should be charged for would be both unconscionable and plain dumb.

The fact that our technology has partially moved music from the scarce category to the ubiquitous category should be cause for celebration, not handwringing and worry. Napster and programs like it are providing a positive service for humanity (or at least that portion with Internet access), and so are those who, like the poster you responded to, choose to share their music with others.

Yet you apparently don't see it this way at all. You view the "brave new world" the Internet has moved us all into, which allows everyone to (just in this example) share in all the world's musical art, as a negative to be handled with some extra-legal sense of "accountability"--which, by the tone of your post, apparently means "ignoring the possibilities inherent in the Internet".

Perhaps you cling to this view out of the mistaken idea that non-commercial sharing of music is illegal (it isn't) or that Napster is somehow "stealing" money from musical artists (click here to find out who's really stealing money from artists). Maybe you somehow believe it would be a bad thing if the record labels had to undergo actual competition to their monopoly-abusing business model; but even there you would be misinformed, because not only are both CD sales and the outrageous average selling price of CD's up for the past year, but studies show that most Napster users buy more CD's after Napster than they did before, and that their use of Napster is primarily as a sampling tool to try out songs before they commit to buying an album. (This is covered under the fair use doctrine of copyright law, BTW.)

I don't know. But I'm choosing to believe that you're simply misinformed or haven't thought the issues through completely rather than that you're against people being able to listen to more music, against economic progress through new technologies, or are just a record company shill.

So get informed: Napster's legal brief (PDF file) is a wonderful place to start. Of course, many people do disagree on this issue; still, I'd request that you at least read the brief through before making up your mind.

The internet tends to be cordoned off into various "sectors." Thus from the RIAA's site, you can link to RIAA-liking links, and then from those, they merely link to more RIAA-liking links, because they are RIAA-liking sites to begin with, and do not want you going to, say, napster.com or mp3.com.
Most "illegal" sites are probably linked to by "illegal" or semi-"illegal" sites. Furthermore, they probably only link to "illegal" or semi-"illegal" sites.
* Note that this does not include, say, going to geoshitties' main page from a geoshitties page that is used to store warez, because that is not a link that is part of the actual content of the page, and was not put there by the author.

...then most of the internet is [illegal]
But of course! :) The internet is evil.
---

--

Napster:

The MP3 files that you locate using Napster are not stored on Napster's servers. Napster does not, and cannot, control what content is available to you using the Napster browser. Napster users decide what content to make available to others using the Napster browser, and what content to download. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable federal and state laws applicable to such content, including copyright laws. As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way....

Yahoo:

You understand that all information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other materials ("Content"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the person from which such Content originated. This means that you, and not Yahoo, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post, email or otherwise transmit via the Service. Yahoo does not control the Content posted via the Service....

CNN:

CNN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties and Subscribers. Accordingly, CNN has no more editorial control over such content than does a public library, bookstore, or newsstand. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or other information or content expressed or made available by third parties, including information providers, Subscribers or any other user of CNN Interactive, are those of the respective author(s) or distributor(s) and not of CNN. Neither CNN nor any third-party provider of information guarantees the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any content, nor its merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.

Slashdot:

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster.

If Napster loses, we're all in trouble.

--

The article tells us that the senate is moving for digital signatures that are as legally binding as a pen and paper signature. Does that mean that current internet documents that are "digitally signed + legally binding" are, in fact, NOT legally binding? (Case in point: the Napster-getting-unbanned-by-Metallica declaration?)

Does this mean that, in it's current state, a legally-binding, digitally-signed document does NOT exist?


.- CitizenC (User Info)

I just finished a group final for a Stanford class called Computers, Ethics, and Social Responsibility, and our project focused on the ethical issues surrounding Napster. We cloned the Napster design for our ethics website, which is apparently allowable under Napster's Terms of Use agreement, as long as we don't mock them or cause brand confusion. Anyway, if any of you have a particularly strong opinion about Napster, MP3s, the RIAA, or artists' and listeners' rights, please consider posting it on our Outside Opinions page. Thanks a lot!

Exactly what IS Napster's business model?

They aren't making any money off of me, if and/or when I use the Napster software.

Why DOES the company exist?

So far, this is the one element to the entire saga I've not yet seen clearly explained.

Of course, if the site wasn't either down, swamped, or blocked (who can tell, anymore?), I'd just go to their website and find out for myself.

TRADEMARKS
Trademarks owned by Napster
Napster, the Napster logo, and all other trademarks, service marks, and trade names of Napster appearing on this web site are owned by Napster. Napster's trademarks, logos, service marks, and trade names may not be used in connection with any product or service that is not Napster's, in any manner that is likely to cause confusion, or in any manner that disparages or discredits Napster. All other trademarks, product or service names, brand names, company names and/or logos appearing on this web site are the property of their respective owners.

That counter example would hold if the thief walked up to your cars, saw your CDS, and used a Magic HTML Ray-Gun, to make copies of yours while leaving the originals. Later, at a party, he was laughing with his friends about what crap music you listen to. But since he didn't do that, I don't think that is a good counter example. Thanks for playing, you win the Slashback Door Prize. Access to damn near every recording in the modern era. (put together by the poeple of Earth in UNDER 1 YEAR, Great Library eat your heart out.) But remember, you have to share, and you can't sell them, that would be stealing, IMHO.

--

I'm not sure who's "paying the bills" right now, but I'm sure the long term goal is to set up Napster as a web-based equivalent of a brick-and-mortar record label. More people certainly know about Napster than Gnutella, etc. They mention "proprietary MusicShare technology" that their client uses, so I'm sure they could try to parlay that into some kind of subscription-based service.

Remember that all these software clients are just at the beta or preview stage, so once they are finally at the release stage, they could also sell the client software for profit. And, since they control the database of MP3's, they could easily make it so older/beta clients would no longer work.

It's funny how their executive bosses who are making ten times what they are just happen to be so quiet during this ordeal. But people already are weary of the executives so they use one of the people's favorite "artists". It's just political propaganda they are feeding us over the mess. Blur the facts, confuse people as much as possible. Create FUD. Typical guerilla tactics.

Metallica endorsed people taping their concerts just a few years ago but these people were never kicked out of their concert much less had their players taken away. So how is that any different?

Another quirk in this fiasco is Paylars.com. Thankfully they have only recieved $261. Interestingly enough there is a line below the logo in the upperleft hand corner that states the site is not affiliated with Metallica.

IMHO, music should under some license similar to the BSDL/GPL. It would allow people who had the love do it for the love of it. Not a gaggle of suits telling us what the new trend to consume is. These "artists" don't deserve to be making well over ten million dollars a year while some government employee who designed weapons is now homeless after defense spending cuts and Vietnam vets who are missing limbs live in a cardboard box. Metallica has a lot of gaul going after their fans who have spent hundreds of dollars on albums, merchandise, and concert tickets.

The URL they want you to go to Infringe? is basically an admission of guilt on your part. Just having some Metallica mp3's on my computer doesn't mean I obtained them from Napster nor does it mean that I transfered them on Napster. Being on a 28.8 doesn't give me much overhead so I can't necessarily transfer any even if I wanted to. I had (threw them away twenty minutes ago) several Metallica albums. Maybe I just made some mp3's from the albums? Or who can say I didn't obtain them from some dime-a-dozen ratio ftp?

I tried editing my registry after deleting, reinstalling and creating a new user name but I was stilled banned. I even attempted to get on from multiple ISPs. They couldn't be banning entire IP ranges, that is too clandestine. So I did a regedit looking for any Napster entries in my registry. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Napster was the only entry to be found. I went through the uninstall/reinstall/new user process again but I am still banned. I don't want their software on my machine which I'm not using! I was never told what exactly I am guilty of. No specifics were mentioned at all. Only ambiguous mentions of infringement. What exact songs I am guilty of "illegaling" owning?

I am (Napster username: Neuracnu_Coyote) one of the over 300,000 users who have been banned from Napster's network for supposedly propagating pirated MP3s of Metallica songs. As mentioned in a previous feedback article, Metallica and NetPD claim that the list they have produced is 99% accurate, admitting that they inadvertently included some 3000 innocent users in their list of offenders. I am also one of these 3000 users.

I don't have the bandwidth to handle all the requests I would get from Napster, so I do what most people do - I make my shared directory an empty directory and, when a file gets downloaded, I move it out of there and refresh my file library to make sure there's nothing in there for people to download. I NEVER SERVE FILES.

How, then, can Napster and Metallica claim that I have, and say that they have caught me in the act? Where is this proof? May I see it? Is a federal judge just goint to take NetPD's word for it that I pirated music?

And that reminds me, when exactly did this ban go into effect? I read about it on Slashdot, then immediately started up Napster to see if people were still trading Metallica songs. I was able to log in and found that, yes, they were. I got a good chuckle out of this and shut down the client. Last night, I started the client to find that I had been banned! It also said that I should visit their Counter Notification page (http://infringe.napster.com/metallica.html) in order to protest my ban. I'm having a lawyer friend of mine go over this to make sure that my signing it will not set into motion a whole set of legal shenanigans only to end with me getting spanked with a charge of perjury.

But now, I should get back to the subject of the message. I went into the registry and removed my user information before uninstalling and reinstalling the software. I tried to get it to create a new user, but after going through the signup process, I got the same message that my account, for the new username, had been banned - they must be doing it by IP address as well as usernames.

In the meantime, banned (windows) Napster users can download Napigator, a client that allows you to navigate through official Napster servers as well as OpenNap and other unofficial Napster servers and connect to those without bother from Metallica's musical meddling. Either that, or Gnutella, IRC, ICQ or any of the other genies that have popped out of the bottle.

This article at Salon summarizing this message from Napster -- Napster is using DMCA as a defense! Users who were fingered by Metallica are allowed under DMCA (assuming, that is, you count napster as an ISP) to submit a counternotification is they think they were incorrectly identified as copyright infringers. Unless Metallica pursues legal action against those individuals within ten days of the receipt of the counternotification, Napster must reinstate them!