Dr. Dre Might Sue Napster Users?

Chad Schmidt linked us to a ZD story where they suggest that Dr. Dre, following his suit against Napster, may go after users directly. I'm kinda torn, I mean, these users are committing theft by distributing MP3s, but there sure are a lot of them. On the other hand, this does open up a new and exciting revenue stream for music superstars who just aren't making as much money selling albums any more *grin*.

Comments

Re:Dr. Dre can bite my shiny metal ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) The MPAA sure gave it a pretty good shot. The only countries that won't side with the US court system have government leaders corrupt enough to be bribed instead.

(2) That doesn't mean you can't be sued. Where are you? You know there are treaties that make it legal for them to sue people in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. In fact, I believe the UN (and member nations) even recognizes a bit of international IP law. Are you logging in from Central Africa or Hong Kong? If not, please see #1 for more info.

(3) That didn't stop the MPAA from still screwing up a lot of people's lives, US citizens or not (see Jon Johansen, if visitation is permitted that is).

(4) Not everywhere and not well. It is best accessed from the same countries that will prosecute for accessing it.

(5) j00 4R3 4 dum455 & 4 7h13f, n07 4 h3r0.

(6) Goto (hell). Stay there.

Get used to it. The IP laws you see now were put in place because corporate lobbyists recognized the threat of the internet in advance and passed laws to allow them to prosecute people that violate it.

I am an artist, and I like copyright. If you steal my work, I will be upset and I will fight for copyrights. If people like you didn't steal (well, if you can technically call it that) at every possible instance, do you really think things like DeCSS would be necessary? Not likely. It's ingrates like you that make me mad. You are not justified in expecting artists to entertain you at no cost. You really think people will keep putting on all those concerts, making all those music videos and every other costly venture to make music for you? No. Corporations follow money - if you pirate, the artists will have to support themselves. And music requires equipment and musical equipment is expensive. So shut the fuck up and go buy a CD.

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[Anonymous Coward]

because he conceived of the lyrics which you probably recited in your wigger days to piss of your parents. now that you're in the corporate world, you probably don't want people to know that you want to be black. white people are so typical.

Re:Dr. Dre is getting sued himself...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the difference being that the two examples you provided would be legit copyright infringement cases, whereas these two are both obviously bogus. The point is that both parties in this case are acting like jerks, whereas in your hypothetical example, very few could contest the legitamacy of either lawsuit, assuming both either side wasn't suing just to be vindictive.

Re:The RIAA would argu otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA tried that argument ("copying music digitally to your computer is illegal") in court, in their suit against the Diamond Rio. They lost utterly and completely.

First the judge rejected the RIAA's attempt to force SCMS onto computers (which are EXEMPT from the SCMS and recorder/media tax provisions of the AHRA).

Then the judge rejected the argument that copying music onto a hard disk is illegal because hard disks are not covered by SCMS. You don't lose your Fair Use rights just because you choose to use a non-AHRA device.

Luser!

[Anonymous Coward]

What was your username sir?

It is drdre

bash# rm -rf /home/drdre

I'm sorry sir, I don't see anything here.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[Anonymous Coward]

You do need to get a grip. Slang changes every year. That's just the way it is.

Gay once meant 'happy.' Then it meant 'homosexual.' Now it means 'cheesy' or some shit like that. Nobody's saying that homosexuals use the word "lame," except maybe you.

My name's George. I'm wearing a hooded sweatshirt.

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes me a G in da hood, right? I wonder if there are more like me. I like Dr. Dre too.

Fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose you are on the highway, going 15 MPH over the speed limit, 5 cars around you are going the same speed.

You get pulled over. You get a ticket. It's not fair, but you WERE breaking the law. You will not get out of it with, "Why didn't the cop stop the other 5 cars, too?"

The slashdork punks should quit whining about illegal MP3s being ok because eveyone does it. Quit rationalizing it. Just buy the damn CD and you're nice and legal. What's so hard about that?

Is this what your generation will be remembered for? "We broke the copyright laws!" Big fscking deal. At least the stupid baby-boomers had a war to protest. The best you guys can do is protest high CD prices. Bah.

Re:Fairness

[Eccles]

Many content creators simply can't perform.

Probably too many drugs, or perhaps "Brewer's Droop"?

"Sir, it provokes, and unprovokes: it provokes
the desire, but it takes away the performance."
--MacBeth

Re:Fairness

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually I hope my generation will be remembered for significantly reforming the copyright laws in such a way that they shrink in scope and duration and applicability.

But that's a smaller aspect of what I'd really like us to be remembered for, which is to break the back of corporate control of people and government. We are surpassing the excesses of the late 19th century and it's time to get business back in line as a useful tool of society and not ends in and of themselves.

Re:Fairness

[mechtoad]

Dr. Dre is a hypocrite. He's just upset that LucasArts busted him out for using the THX sound on his album without permission so he's going to follow their lead and sue people who steal from HIM... the fact that he stole from someone else is neither here nor there, apparently...

"now all i get all day is hate mail sayin dre fell off..."

Keep up the shit like this and you can guarantee that hate mail will continue to come by the ton.

Re:Fairness

[Riff10111]

Let's face it, be it a musician, writer, etc. these people are getting 10% of what we pay. Where does all of that money go? Personally, I'd rather have it go directly to the artists, not to these corporations.

So would I. But removing copyright laws would lower the artists profits to 0. 10% is better than 0.

What about a distribution scheme similar to what Stephen King did with "Riding the Bullet"? Apparently, he made 10 to 20 times the money off of that than he would have made had he sold the story to a regular publisher, even considering the number of copies that got passed around for free. Suppose artists could post their tracks for download, at (say) a buck a song? The customers buy only the songs they want - no crap filler. Not only do the artists get to cut out the middleman and get the profits they deserve, but they get direct feedback from their audience as to which songs are good and which aren't.

--Riff

Re:Fairness

[cwhicks]

That got an "Insightful"?
You pick the weakest part of the argument as your straw man, knock it down, and say that proves the entire argument is invalid. Very weak.

Fight on Boomer. "Sign, sign everywhere a sign..."

Re:Fairness

[HannaPuckoMail]

That's why we need a simple, workable system for digital cash, and we need it now. If it was easy to pay for downloaded music I think a lot more people would pay. I for one would happily give money to artists I like. Currently, giving money to support artists is pretty much impossible if you don't go through the record industry.

Re:Fairness

[jg253]

This has to do with a lot more than just CD prices, it has to do with the right to spread information. Be that source code, software, books, journals, music, video content ... you name it.

If big corporations are going to be able to abuse the system by "bribing" the government in order to get their "cut" of content, without any thoughts to the users, then we get to complain, and try to do something about it.

Let's face it, be it a musician, writer, etc. these people are getting 10% of what we pay. Where does all of that money go? Personally, I'd rather have it go directly to the artists, not to these corporations.

There are not more distribution costs, it's called the internet. We don't need extensive advertising if content can roam around freely. That's whay the entertainment groups are scared of: losing their monopoly on distribution of content.

Re:Fairness

[jg253]

So would I. But removing copyright laws would lower the artists profits to 0. 10% is better than 0.

I agree, I was not calling for a "removal" of copyright laws. I am not calling for GPL'ing all bit-information that exists. I am calling for a removal of the middle man, or at least lessening the middle man's "part" of the process.

You still need some amount of advertising so people know about it. While the distribution costs are lower, having content "roam around freely" would just mean that the content creators won't get paid for their work at all. And please don't bring up the tired old "they can make money off of performances" argument. Many content creators simply can't perform. And if the content they create is good, and others benefit from it, shouldn't that be good enough? Why do some people think content should always take the role of "loss leader"?

As an artist, I definitely agree with you. I need money to survive, and I need so sell my "art" to get that money. You're also correcct in saying that one needs to advertise to sell. However, how much do I really need to advertise?

I make very little money off of my art. Not enough to live on. But everyone once in a while, I sell something, have some stuff go to a show, or what not. If I put more time into it, I might be able to make enough to live on. Not millions, just a few tens of Ks a year to live. Now I am happy that a few people are able to make much $$$ out there; but what about all of the other artists that don't make the loads of $$$? Wouldn't they be willing to give their stuff away for free? or at least for very little? If I only had to pay $4 for the equivalent of a CD, I might be willing to try more stuff out. Spreading the revenues, fostering a greater variety of music.

I would like an economic model that reflects the internet and it's possibilities. I am willing to pay the artist, and whatever structure is needed for that artist to live. But I am not willing to pay for things that are outdated because of today's technology.

What about books that no one publishes anymore? The authors should be able to publish those on the web themselves (go to the author's site) for free, or very little? It's not like anyone's making money off of this stuff anyways.

Paying for art is ok, as long as the prices reflect the optimum way to spread the information.

Re:Fairness

[pheraydor]

Just had to comment. Yes, it is wrong to keep your girlfriend for yourself, as your girlfriend is not your property, intellectual or not.

The girlfriend, though, might object to being ripped to disk and uploaded to the Internet... that's another problem entirely.

Re:Fairness

[Zagadka]

Let's face it, be it a musician, writer, etc. these people are getting 10% of what we pay. Where does all of that money go? Personally, I'd rather have it go directly to the artists, not to these corporations.

So would I. But removing copyright laws would lower the artists profits to 0. 10% is better than 0.

There are not more distribution costs, it's called the internet. We don't need extensive advertising if content can roam around freely. That's whay the entertainment groups are scared of: losing their monopoly on distribution of content.

You still need some amount of advertising so people know about it. While the distribution costs are lower, having content "roam around freely" would just mean that the content creators won't get paid for their work at all. And please don't bring up the tired old "they can make money off of performances" argument. Many content creators simply can't perform. And if the content they create is good, and others benefit from it, shouldn't that be good enough? Why do some people think content should always take the role of "loss leader"?

We need a system where content creators can get paid fairly for the effort they put into creation. The current system is far from perfect, but it's better than one with no copyright laws. With no copyright, the situation would only be worse.

Re:Fairness

[Mr. Slippery]

Is this what your generation will be remembered for? "We broke the copyright laws!" Big fscking deal.

How about, "We broke the corporate control of information, and thus of culture!"

Copyright is dead - it just ain't stopped moving yet, and it's death throes might well hurt a lot of people.

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[Yarn]

maybe if they ganged up they could, uh, never mind.

Andre Young Vs. TCP/IP

[Nick]

This absolutely rediculous. Napster just keeps a database of anything in MP3 format. It's like sueing TCP/IP, it's just a service. What's next, someone copyrights the period mark?

Re: What is CmdrTaco saying?

[MagPulse]

I think maybe Taco meant that this large number of people shows that something has to change. MP3s and copyright laws aren't a clear-cut issue like murder. A whole lot of people think the old laws don't make sense any more, and therefore disregard the law. Sure, people do it because they can, but a lot of people do it because it really isn't that bad, and it hasn't been proven that in the end this takes money away from the record companies or the artists.

If this large number of people represents a new way of thinking, laws can be amended. Having numbers by itself doesn't make it right, but in this case I think it's indicitave of a need for change.

Re:forget about Dre

[Eccles]

Unfortunately, my understanding of the DMCA is that making a mp3 of a CD you own is still illegal.

Actually, the DMCA (among other things) sets the conditions for distributing and marketing devices specifically intended for copying digital music in digital form. It does not explicitly remove fair use rights, which has at times been interpreted to include format conversion. So it's a bit of a gray area, and thus the RIAA's attempt to block sales of the Rio failed, and plenty of companies sell MP3 encoders. (Yeah, you could use those on little Johnny's piano recital, I suppose...)

A reasonable reading of the constitional clause that allows Congress to pass laws re: intellectual property would allow any court to rule that home creation and use of MP3s was in fact legal.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[extra88]

> Then why does a CD cost so much more than a tape? Same content, right?

It's NOT the same content. The CD sounds better than the tape, allows for random access, doesn't wear out with use and is overall a better medium than tape. Isn't that worth a few extra bucks?

I wouldn't be surprised if profit margins are better on CDs than tapes. So what? What something cost to make does not determine its worth. I thought high schools were teaching more economics than they used to.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[extra88]

Think about this while you're finishing your paper route, MrSparkle. The fact that you think "most [musical] artists" make a lot of money shows how the Music Industry has distorted your view. The millionaire musicians are a small minority of all the artists signed to major labels, never mind the many, many more unsigned artists. I hope the Internet can help tear down the Industry so there is more choice for listeners, but also so there are more opportunities for talented musicians to be heard and make a living at their profession.

You don't want to call copying music stealing, fine, call it something else. It still leads to less money in the pocket of the people who created it just as much as if you reached in their jeans and pulled dollar bills out. The purpose of copyright law is to protect people's ability to make a profession out of creating easily duplicable content. Something being easily duplicable does not automatically make it worth less. If there was any chance your mind was going produce something someone else would want, you'd probably feel differently.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[David Price]

Another Chapin fan. Rock on.

If you ever think of me let it be around twilight
When the world is settled down and the
Last round of sunlight is waning in the sky
And you sit and watch the night descending...

Of course, classifying her as 'country' is like casting - no, mistaking pearls for swine.

Re:this isn't so different than parts of IRC

[Evangelion]

Have you ever actually been on an mp3 channel on irc?

Just have someone join one, and log the client activity. Most of the fileservers nowadays announce to the channel the files that they are transferring to whom...

What is thus guy, nuts?

[Millennium]

Now, it is somewhat more clueful to go after Napster users than Napster itself. Napster is not committing any crime. It provides a venue for users to trade legal music. It can be used to trade illegal music, but this is not the purpose of Napster, and Napster itself takes every precaution it can feasibly take in order to ensure that people act in a lawful manner on its site. By contrast, the users who trade music illegally over Napster are committing a crime (no flames, please; whether or not it should be a crime is not the issue; the sad fact is that, currently, it's a crime). They can control their actions.

However, as a practical matter, Dr. Dre is not going to be able to sue all of the Napster users who trade his music. There are simply too many of them, and the exorbitant amount which Dre is legally allowed to ask (several thousand per violation) is more than he'll ever get from the users. This is a losing venture for him; he will lose far more money than he will gain.

And while I never did much like his music, Dre and Metallica have assured themselves the loss of this potential customer, even if I do by some unexplainable phenomenon acquire a taste for it.

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[smkndrkn]

Whether or not "Dr. Shug Knight beat me like a bitch" wants to sue the entire internet is the not the issue...its really about him going after SOME users...there is no way he could sue everyone but he sure as hell will be able to sue a FEW of them and that is what is important. It will be another victory for the RIAA saying "If you steal music we WILL get you" when in fact 99.9% of the MP3 users will never be affected. Its just going to be a publicity win to make an example out of a few people.

Re:A Great Defense...

[smkndrkn]

OK that doesn't make sense...do you honestly think that the courts anyone with half a brain is going to forgive you after you decide to purchase the albums AFTER you got caught? Thats like stealing a car and then getting caught for it and saying "Well I'll buy it now!"

Limp Bizkit

[Vermifax]

Is it just me or did I not just hear on the radio that Napster is fronting the money for their next tour?

Vermifax

Re:Ummm

[cpt kangarooski]

What license?

When I buy CDs I haven't seen any license at all. And if there were, it's debatable whether or not it would hold up in court (it probably wouldn't, though IANAL)

As for Napster, I suspect that it's license disclaims responsibility. (which will also probably not hold up in court)

So I don't see what the hell you're talking about.

OTOH, illegally copying copyrighted material (it's not stealing, and it's not property) violates copyright law. No license need be involved. In fact, if you reject the GPL, you're still allowed to use it - you're just bound by copyright law, which is more restrictive than the GPL is.

Besides, the worthiness and constitutionality of present US copyright law is _very_ debatable. And don't forget that copyrights are not inherent in the human condition, nor are they consistant (or even exist) in all parts of the world. IMHO we've gone very far in the wrong direction.

Re:Enforcing?

[cpt kangarooski]

IANAL but they may be able to get you with contempt of court, and you may be required to do it under an injunction. Of course the results of decryption might be inadmissable. anyone know more about this one?

Re:Ummm

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, as for me, I'd like to see copyrights expire (with no grandfather clauses, preferably) after 10 years, and no future extensions of copyright law permitted to apply retroactively.

If this means that MS releases old, public domain copies of Emacs, that's fine with me. I think that we'll all be better off.

As for not stealing, it's not. You are absolutely not depriving someone else of the copyrighted material. What you're doing is copying it. Think about why copyright should have that name. It's the right to copy (specifically the right to distribute copies)

And it's not property either. Property is tangible. It's a thing. Copyrighted material is not, although some particular expression of it - like _your_ copy of a book might be property, though the information in the book is not.

Copyrights are simply a limited-duration monopoly on the distribution of copies of that information. You obviously don't own it. You just control the distribution of copies of it. And that monopoly ends after a certain amount of time, which means that you lose your control. If it were property, none of this would be the case. And yet, it is the case.

I don't reject the _idea_ of copyrights per se. I do think that modern copyright law is blatantly unconstitutional and is in serious need of being reformed. IIRC the framers of the constitution came very close to never implementing copyright law at all, because of their fears of the sort of situation we have today. (in which they are perpetually and tight-fistedly held) And of course, copyrights are being granted to all kinds of things that don't promote the arts or useful sciences. They shouldn't be automatic - if you want a copyright, I think you ought to have to justify it, rather like how patents work, when examiners don't give them out willy-nilly either.

Re:Yaright

[cpt kangarooski]

Which will pay for something like 15 minutes of the lawyer's time. Still a losing proposition. (heh - you could increase the financial impact on Dr. Dre merely by stalling for time, since you'll never be able to pay it anyway)

Honestly, as others have proposed, it's probably the RIAA using artists as puppets to obscure the fact that nearly all objection to Napster outside of bandwidth concerns is coming from the RIAA and the RIAA alone.

Re:Owning CDs and Napster

[lambda]

You're not only copying. You're putting it where other people have the ability to download it, knowingly. This is possibly quite illegal.

Owning CDs and Napster

[lambda]

It's arguable that even if you do own the CDs, putting the mp3s of these CDs in your Napster directory is illegal, because it's knowingly facilitating copyright infringement.

If I put up Dre's "2001" up on my website, could I get away with it, even if I owned the CD? Of course not, because it's very easy for somebody to copy it. The same thing applies for Napster.

mp3.com can't just put up the mp3s of the songs in their magical mp3-download-on-CD-purchase system. They are required to have some sort of authentication to show that there is not blatant copyright infringement taking place, and they are *still* being sued.

Note: Some people might say that putting up mp3s so they return hits on Napster is not necessarily illegal, but the Windows client always allows at least 1 connection, and the lawyers could also check by downloading.

Re:Owning CDs and Napster

[mindstrm]

Funny. the digital home recording act expressly says that you cannot be proesecuted for copyright infringement for noncommercial copying. Therefore, it's not copyright infringement, as you have the right to do so.

Established artists fight - upcoming ones adapt

[Lettuce B. Qrious]

I follow the ongoing wave of litigation with interest, but it won't do a lick of long-term difference for music piracy over the Internet. IRC, Scour Media Exchange and a host other tools stand ready to "keep up the dirty work". So, what are the consequences of this?

At the risk of sounding like John Katz, I think we'll see people's willingness to pay for music decrease, but not vanish entirely. The established artists and the recording industry will see their income irreversibly reduced. New and secure music formats won't be able to compete with free mp3's, and the feeble attempts we see now ($2.50 pr song? Get a grip!) will dwindle.

To emerging and/or off-label artists, the situation is reversed: If you have submitted your material to a dozen record companies, and nobody bites, the chances are slim to none for getting into a position where you could be losing any roalty income in the first place. Spreading your music via the Internet, then has only upside to it. It may not be big, but at least there's no significant downside.

And maybe, just maybe, people will be more interested in contributing to or paying for music from artists that they honestly care for.

Re:This is stealing

[kabloie]

If I download Dr. Dre and I find it offensive and delete it and resolve never to listen to that freak again, was I stealing?

kabloie

Lowpass.net to Napster: DIE!

[Gray]

Low Pass To Napster: Die!

These guys have the right idea.

Just think...

[greg_barton]

...if everyone decided to counter sue...

Re:Wow...

[rcooper]

I care that when you copy and distribute his mp3s, you are breaking the law and you are stealing his art.


You call Dr. DRE's music art? Heh. Dr. Dre you're an artist? Paint my house bitch!

Man, talk about an impossible task.

[kavi_3]

While I think that going after the people who are actually commiting piracy instead of Napster make much more sense (although Dr. Dre is going after them as well). Doing what he proposes sounds like an almost impossible task. There are just too many people to investigate, it would be like finding a needle in a stack of other needle.

Re:Ummm

[Zagadka]

OTOH, illegally copying copyrighted material (it's not stealing, and it's not property) violates copyright law. No license need be involved. In fact, if you reject the GPL, you're still allowed to use it - you're just bound by copyright law, which is more restrictive than the GPL is.

But if you reject copyright law (which you seem to, with your assertion that "it's not stealing, and it's not property"), and you reject the GPL, you can do things that GPL doesn't allow. Namely, take the software, modify it, and re-release without source.

Am I saying you should do this? No. But if you want people to respect the GPL, you'd better also respect copyright. If you go around selectively choosing which IP laws to respect, you shouldn't be surprised if others start violating ones you actually care about.

Re:Use a stenographic filesystem.

[Zagadka]

That's a steGANographics file system. A steno filesystem would be more like a secrary with shorthand writing down all of your files.

How appropriate. Today is Secretaries Day.

What revenue?

[Jack Greenbaum]

On the other hand, this does open up a new and exciting revenue stream for music superstars who just aren't making as much money selling albums any more *grin*.

What new revenue stream does Napster open?

Re:What revenue?

[AndyL]

He means winnings from lawsuits.

Re:What revenue?

[Skald]

On the other hand, this does open up a new and exciting revenue stream for music superstars who just aren't making as much money selling albums any more *grin*

What new revenue stream does Napster open?

The stream of revenue from lawsuits. It's a joke.

Re:A Great Defense...

[Stradivarius]

do you honestly think that the courts anyone with half a brain is going to forgive you after you decide to purchase the albums AFTER you got caught? Thats like stealing a car and then getting caught for it and saying "Well I'll buy it now!"

The point is that they have no way of knowing when you bought the CDs (assuming you pay cash, and aren't so dumb as to use a credit card or check which could be time-verified). So as soon as you're notified of the lawsuit, go to a music store and buy the affected CDs. Bring them home, and when it's time for evidence discovery, you have all the CDs. The suit would have to be dropped for lack of evidence.

As long as you don't allow the Napster client to share mp3s (and thus act as a server) you're totally fine.

Re:Dr. Dre is getting sued himself...

[skroz]

Hasn't it already been determined that you can't copyright/trademark a sound byte? If this is the case, lucas can go f*** himself. In fact, even if it _isn't_ true, Lucas can go f*** himself. In fact, under ANY circumstances, George Lucas and go f*** himself. That is, of course, unless he does ALL of the following things...
1> Release the Star Wars movies on DVD (Ep. 1 not required, as it is a piece of dog shit.)
2> Admit that he was being a pud over the whole DVD thing. You know why THX isn't supported on DVD? 'cause THX ain't that cool.
3> Remove sophomoric humor (ala Ep. 1) from Ep. 2. Fart and poop jokes just don't fit in star wars.
4> Kill Jar Jar. Painfully.

I don't much care for Dre, but if he's sticking it to Lucas, more power to him.

Re:You cannot be held responsible

[Zygo]

The gas is plain old air. Most hard drives actually have free flow of
air between the outside and inside, with very, _very_ tight filtering.

Without the breathing hole, the changes in gas pressure due to heat would
cause the drive casing to warp, throwing the geometry of the drive all
to hell. Gas is necessary inside the drive because the drive heads float
on a cushion of moving air, which keeps them exactly the right distance
away from the platters.

If you compromise the case, you can still recover most of the drive data
using the "usual" data recovery methods, the lowest-tech of which is to
simply power up the drive without a case in a relatively dust-free room.
Most hard drives will actually work for a few minutes under such
conditions, and even when they do fail, you only lose a megabyte or two
per dust particle, and there's lots of megabytes in a 20-gig disk.

Re:No way he can pull it of...

[Zygo]

AFAIK, since they own the copyright in their own music, they can legally
make whatever copies of it they like.

Whether they can legally use your equipment to do so is a separate
question.

Re:They are both HAS BEENS

[HP LoveJet]

Um. Actually, Snoop was on more than half of the tracks on The Chronic. Sorry.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[N1KO]

He probably listens to both kinds: western and country

Re:More 'great' defenses

[Simeon2000]

Seriously! Dre is a MAJOR hypocrite!

What's his songs?

Rape... murder... drugs... aren't all these things illegal? ILLEGAL? Doesn't that idolize doing ILLEGAL things?

Why, therefore, should he sue me for doing something that is illegal (in a VERY gray area), and listening to his "music"?

HYPOCRITE! I hate his music but I would d/l it just to protest. Sing to me about breaking the law and then sue me for doing it?

Yah, you're a real "gangsta". Sounds more like a suit.
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}

Re:forget about Dre

[dirty]

Unfortunately, my understanding of the DMCA is that making a mp3 of a CD you own is still illegal. Now I think the law is plain stupid and wrong, but until we fix it, it's still the law. I won't be deleting my mp3s anytime soon though.

How did this get moderated up to a 5???

[thinthief]

This is funny?

"Ha! Rap sux! They don't even, like, sing or nothing... I listen to Winger! Woohoo!"

You guys are fucking hillarious.

Re:Wow...

[Nima]

Livelihood? Please. I am sure mr. dre has earned plenty, plenty! In my opinion this is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. I was suprised because in a preious wired issue mr. dre bragged about he was on the side of MP3's . Dr. Dre is now just another boojie rapper. In any case I dont understand why musicians dont get it this is bigger then any of them. Its huge they have no chance in hell of stopping it. But they are so in love with themselves they think they can. idiots.

Re:A Great Defense...

[Sloppy]

Nope, for two reasons: DMCA outlaws making copies of stuff that you own, but doesn't cover having copies. And secondly, it only applies when there's copy protection to be circumvented (and audio CDs don't have that). No protection, no circumvention.

There's nothing illegal about MP3s, even with DMCA, provided you don't use them to violate copyright.

---

Re:Better the users than the tool...

[Sloppy]

You're a pirate. I hope they catch you.

---

copying books

[pal]

i have copied entire books. many people i know have. text books are way too expensive, especially the ones i care about. fortunately, such books are not too large, and my department has a photocopier that is free to graduate students.

of course, i sometimes buy the book, if i discover that i'll be using it for years to come.

- pal

Knowing better...

[Felinoid]

Mind you this makes no diffrence legally..
However the fact that he asked and was turnned down means he knew better...

Usually people who steal intelectual property don't know any better (it is a bit hard for some to grasp the idea of knowladge and data being owned) but there is a very good argument for recovering the costs and proffiting from the labor in generating the data to start with.

[X/Y/Z]Modem, BBSes, home computers, etc

[Felinoid]

In the late 1980s early 1990s some proclamed the only function of BBSes were to trade software and that the only software that existed was commertal software as such all BBSes should be made illegal.

Before that home computers existed only for cracking into government and corprate mainframes and should be make illegal as it has no practical value byond criminal acts.

Also over time computers, modems and BBSes have been accused of existing only to corrupt kids.

Basicly someone sees "A" BBS or "A" program being used for something that is illegal, "immoral" or simply dosn't conform to his/her tiny world view they condem a whole group for it...

Oddly enough had Napster not used the MP3 format people might not have jumpped to conclusions..
MP3 is such a big target of all music piracy some people have taken to calling all MP3s illegal...
However I find it easyer to find talk radio on MP3s than music (Talk radio IS what I am looking for in the first place so this isn't a problem)

Re:Ummm

[Felinoid]

> If it's ok to break *some* license agreements, how about we start with the GPL?

So we should go about suing anyone selling software tools used to violate the GPL?

I agree that you shouldn't violate someones Intelectial property..
But blame the theaf not the tool...

The Rapper

[wakko]

Wow, rappers going after napsters

--

I could just hear the judge now...

[eyeball]

Judge: "I'd like to call to the stand grubber_45, NYJuggaloY2K, 4nAngel, BiGWilly1289, funkxxx..."

Re:Dr. Dre is being sued for the same thing

[Slothy]

Beautiful hypocracy. Copyrights are therefore only applicable in the case of you owning them. Everyone ELSE's copyrights should obviously be ignored.

Dr. Dre should become the spokesperson for the "copyright is dead" movement, whether he likes it or not.

Don't forget "pain and suffering"

[Wntrmute]

This is the U.S. legal system after all, he can probably get a few million there easy...

-Wintermute

Re:Don't forget "pain and suffering"

[Karn]

I prefer to spill pipin' hot coffee all over crotch. McDonald's in an option any more, so I'm thinking of hitting some of the more obscure, less politically correct fast food chains.. It's so much easier than going after individuals.

Problem Five

[heinzkeinz]

I set up a bot that trades my music back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and ...

Sounds better than All Advantage to me!

B

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[heinzkeinz]

You're right when you say that the music industry is not going to be able to prevent piracy in the future. As technology progresses, it will surely become easier for the average Joe to get access to information. That has been the trend throughout history.

One might suggest that the notion of copyright is somehow flawed, as well. I believe that I have a right to protect the integrity of what I have said (ie, do not misquote me), but once I have said something, do I have a right to determine when and how it is used?

Isn't/shouldn't music be about expression, not about making money? By giving our artists millions upon millions of dollars, do we really promote art?

Can't Dr Dre make enough money from live shows to support his art? Other than pure greed, why would someone be worried about the dissemination of his music?

B

Further Obfuscate The Issue!

[wirefarm]

What if I decide to distribute a file filled with null-characters and name it:

Dr_Dre's_Latest_Piece_of_crap.mp3?

You'd have to make the file size about the same, but that could be done pretty easily, I guess.

Who's to say that it wasn't the file that you had downloaded?

Anyway, who is this Dr. Dre? Anyone know where he went to medical school? He should get his medical license revoked for being such a loser...

Jim in Tokyo

Re:Further Obfuscate The Issue!

[ravrazor]

actually, there's a quote from waaaaay back where dr. dre says that he's a doctor of african musicology.

No way he can pull it of...

[Knile]

So he & his lawyers are logging on to Napster (this means they have to download it first!) to look at users' lists? Surely you can't be serious.

They would have to repeatedly log on and search for his name & songs.

And then TARGETTING specific users?

Well, at least he's realizing that Napster the company doesn't have control over how their users "abuse" their software.

Good thing I "Forgot About Dre" when I last went on a Napster spree...

Re:No way he can pull it of...

[mindstrm]

Just because the song is listed doesn't mean the user actually has it or is actually allowing it to be shared. How many downloads don't work?
And if they download it themselves, aren't they breaking the law too?

He won't be sueing me anytime soon...

[Ominous the Forebodi]

Fortunately, I'm not a Dr. Dre fan, and haven't downloaded any of his "music", so I won't have to worry about this yet. Now, if someone with actual musical talent started sueing, I might have a problem on my hands, but, for now, I'm safe.

Honestly, though... shutting down Napster will not stop the spread of MP3s. The can has been opened, and the worms are out. The music industry needs to learn to distribute their bait in new ways, or get out of the fishing business.

bootleging/rapers

[sar-fu]

Rappers have traditionaly made a big issue of bootlegging. There have been several rap songs about the selling of bootleg tapes (now cds).

For alot of the less well known rappers it seems that more bootleg tapes and cds are sold that legal ones here in NYC. There was recently an article on the front page of the times about drug dealers converting their drug operations to bootleging operations, there are higher profit margins, it is much less competitive and the penalties if caught are much less. Corner tape/cd sellers operate within plain view of police here in manhattan, and there are always crowds five deep to get the newest cds and movies for 5 bucks.

Going after napster users is just the logical extension of the fight rappers have always fought against pirating.

Copyright infringment != Theft

[Dyelar]

Slight correction. Copyright infringment isn't really the same as theft. You aren't really stealing it so that someone else can use it, you just happen to be breaking IP law in the U.S. (Which is really screwed up at the moment, but that is a whole other issue. :)

Dyelar

Maybe this is a solution...

[lavaboy]

I just pulled a box full of around 500 old cassette-tapes out of my basement. Most of them are so old and so worn out that I don't want to listen to them any more as the sound quality really sucks. I was going to throw them out. Then it hit me. I already paid for all this music, that I can no longer listen to because the medium is worn out and/or obsolete. AFAIK, I can download all the songs on these tapes with Napster and claim fair use (archival backup), even if it is retroactive.

So, to get around the copyright infringment problem, everyone should run (not walk!) to the nearest fleamarket, garage sale or salvation army store and buy up those old 5-for-a-buck worn out cassettes and 8-tracks and LPs. Of course, this won't work quite as well for newer music, but, since most new music sucks anyway, who cares?

Re:the real issue is control of content distributi

[Ronin75]

It's sad to see that big name artists are doing this sort of thing. Dre and Metallica are quickly losing credibility by going after the people who enjoy their work the most.

Haha... no, the people who love them the most buy their albums. :)

Re:Gangsta Rap

[Ronin75]

Dr. Dre is a multi-millionaire because of the very fans that he is suing!

No, he's only suing the ones who steal his music.

Re:A Great Defense...

[Buttercup]

No, just set your maximum uploads to 0 (zero). It will start bugging you to re-enable uploads every time you startup Napster, but it works.

MJP

Re:Wow...

[Woolfie]

How many indie labels have you been talking to within the last two months?
I've been talking to about 50 withing the last two months.
The result of Napster is quite simple: now the smaller labels are calling for copy protection, too.
What do you "give back" to others? Something, you have stolen. You are giving back at someone elses cost. How generous.

Re:Wow...

[Woolfie]

the reason the industry is scared of napster is because it gives small unknown artists the power of distribution without having their work extorted by music industry gatekeepers

That's completely wrong. We are working with Indie Labels for a music on demand service and fact ist that many small labels are scared of putting anything on the internet because of Napster and Co.
They do really need the money for each record sale. And many of them won't release anything on the internet, because they know that their work is going to be stolen.
Many of these labels are operated by the artists themselves. These artists know that by playing gigs alone you'll never survive. (So much about the "earn-your-money-by-playing-gigs-bullshit).
I am getting pissed by these people who propagate their freedom on someone else's cost. I wonder how these people would react if someone else would propagate her/his freedom on THEIR cost.

Cheers
Wolfgang

Re:One of the best little ideas.

[SeanAhern]

Too bad it wouldn't work. You would still be charged with destroying evidence.

I'm also not sure that the platters wouldn't survive, giving services like DriveSavers something to work with.

-Sean

Re:You cannot be held responsible

[SeanAhern]

They would lock you away for operating the computer in such a way that when they went to get evidence, you destroy it. It would be equivalent to shredding documents that were specifically requested by a court subpoena. General-purpose obstruction of justice.

As for hard drive survival, it would depend on how you booby-trapped it. Drives have so many layers of protective metal around them nowadays that the actual platters might survive. The layers of metal might reflect and deflect enough energy to have the platters survive.

(Not like any of this makes a difference...)

-Sean

THX

[ajakk]

Dre is being sued by LucasArts for using the trademarked THX sound at the beginning of his latest album. He asked for permission and was denied, but he went ahead and used it.

Re:THX

[CdotZinger]

Don't get so happy to see the smackdown put back on some uppity nigra. Not that that's what's in your mind, personally, but posters here have been uncharacteristically cheerful about this particular bullshit IP suit. Dre'll win it unless the judge is bought (in principle if not in fact) or a racist prick. Dre didn't use the THX sound. He re-created it with a synth. The stupid THX swooshy-dingus takes any semi-competent musician who's ever heard a Yes record about nine seconds to get happening. Lucas has as much of a case against Dre as Kevin Shields has against me because a guitar part I recorded today between /. visits starts with variants of the same two chords that begin My Bloody Valentine's "I Only Said"--none.

Re:He doesn't have the Constitutional right.

[selectap]

Not that I agree with his lawsuit, but if a user has his album avaliable on his hd, it only takes two downloads to go over $20...in fact it can go much higher in a small amount of time.

Not that it matters anyway...I don't think that suit is going to go anywhere...

Not quite true

[DonkPunch]

As good as it is, MP3 is a lossy compression scheme. It is simply not as good as CD. Until the time comes we can download an entire uncompressed song (~30+ Megs), a lot of people will still be buying CDs.

Granted, we may be buying them online, though....

Re:Use a stenographic filesystem.

[paul r]

That's a steGANographics file system. A steno filesystem would be more like a secrary with shorthand writing down all of your files.

Napstar is commercial use

[DarkMan]

..in this instance.

When you go to a shop and take a CD copy of an dalbum, and give them money, is that a commercial transaction? (Answear: Yes)

If you paid them 'in kind' (i.e. with goods or services, instead of money) would that still be a commercial transaction? (Answear: Yes)

So why is paying for one MP3 file with another not a comercial transaction?

[Aside: Yes, a major difference with this may be that the person from whom you obtain your MP3 does not nessiscarily download one from your collection. However, your are _offering_ your MP3 collection in return for the MP3 (ie giveing a service), which probably counts]

I'm not a liscened lawyer in the USA. Nor, in fact in any other country. Any person taking what I say as legal advice needs to send me lots of money.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[nutsy]

On the other hand, do country music listeners even know what 'nturnet is?

Considering most listeners to what Brooks and his ilk try to pass of as "country" are bored desk-bound yuppies who decided to quit listening to the oldies station one day, I'd hazard a guess of yes.

Re:A Great Defense...

[helfire57]

Well the is alway Gnutella. And it doesn't have a centralized server to sue. Or be able to track to the software user. Especially if you have a dynamic IP address.

What is he Really gonna gain?

[Snoop]

So, I admit that I've downloaded a couple of Dr. Dre's mp3s. Since the artist gets about 1 dollar for each album sold, and theres on average 12 songs an album, does he want my 16.6 cents for the two songs I've downloaded? What else could he sue me for?

Re:What is he Really gonna gain?

[typhatix-]

The problem is he's not suing for the amount that was "stolen" from him...instead he's suing for 100,000 dollars per infringement. Kind of extreme, but this is to scare people....the odds of taking every (or even as high as 2%) of people who have downloaded his bad music into court and winning is remote in the extreme.

Then again, maybe these fees are to pay the bills after his pissed fanbase leaves him.

Re:What is he Really gonna gain?

[Coward, Anonymous]

does he want my 16.6 cents for the two songs I've downloaded? What else could he sue me for?

Depending on the state, he may be able to receive up to 5 times actual damages. You're looking at a possible judgement of 83 cents. Don't panic, you can probably settle the case for half a dollar.

Re:Better the users than the tool...

[Snoop]

I completely agree with your agrument.

What I don't understand is why Napster is the only company being sued? Is it because it's eaiser to use then an FTP client, or then searching the web for "mp3?

I'd really like to see someone sue AOL, or Micro$oft since they write programs that can be used to download copyrighted material, but I guess they're too big and would probally win, unlike Napster who's a start up and are allready being sued.

I'm waiting for WASP and Green Jell(y/o) to join the fight

Re:A Great Defense...

[ranton]

Couldn't they look at the serial number on the CD and track it so that they knew when it hit the shelves. As long as they wait a couple of weeks after they catch the person, it should be pretty easy to find that the person didnt buy the CD before hand.

I'm gonna sue Dr Dre

[Gen-GNU]

Actually, I'm gonna sue the entire music industry. Why? 3 reasons:

1. They have lots of money
2. They keep coming up with new 'data formats', (i.e. records, 8-tracks, cassets, cd's, dvs, minidisks, etc), so that I have to buy the same music over and over. They are scamming me into buying the same product multiple times.
3. They have lots of money.

Seriously, I don't think individual napster users will have much to fear from Dre or his lawyer. If there is one thing lawyers are good at it is knowing where the money is. Most end users of napster are not rich, and therefore the court costs outweigh the expected return. There may be a few 'token' cases, but this will result in little more that sabre-rattling on the part of the music industry, and their lawyers.

Sweet Irony!!!

[xeer0]

It is hilarious to see this sort of thing from a rapper. "Rap" isn't that the art form based on SAMPLING! Doh! So now you are going to sue me for dl'ing music that you sampled from somebody else. Too classic.

Use a stenographic filesystem.

[dmaxwell]

For those who don't know what they are, a stenographic filesystem is a partition full of apparently random noise. In reality, the partition contains one or more encrypted filesystems SCATTERED throughout the noise. However, if the partition is mounted using the correct passphrase then the corresponding steno filesystem can be accessed. What makes this super frustrating for the nice Federal agent is that there is no known way to tell how many or even if a filesystem exists in all of that noise.

The way to handle those annoying court orders is to have a honeypot full of crap that you don't care if the cops know about or not. Having the passphrase to the honeypot is of no help in accessing any other filesystem that MAY exist in the partition.

A steno filesystem for Linux can be found here:

http://www.linux-security.org/sfs/

Re:This is stealing

[Mr. Slippery]

people ARE stealing when they copy music they didn't buy.

No, they're not. Are you stealing if you memorize a song, thus copying it into your neurons? Hell no.

To steal something, I have to take it away from you. If I copy a song, you still have it, thus no theft.

Boycott them

[Potent]

I think we all need to compile a list of artists, starting with Dr. Dre, that threaten shit like this and just QUIT BUYING THEIR ALBUMS. The internet is their friend, and they fail to realize it. If the consumer really wants the music, they will buy it because even though they are cool, MP3s sound like shit. I have bought many albums (after first sampling them using Napster or MP3 sites) because I want to own them in their original HIGHER QUALITY form. Now, I refuse to listen to this asshole's music again for considering such a ridiculous action!

These goofball artists...

[AcidBurn]

These guys must actually think that they actually can sue ALL of Napster's users? How can you sue everyone, when not everyone has downloaded his music? And, I don't think you input any more personal information except for your username/password, so how is HE (Dr. Dre) going to sue us? Trace all the IP's that connect to the server? I don't think his fortune's that big, (but his ego is). I also used to have respect for Metallica, until they also hopped on the greed train and went after Napster. What is this world coming to!

Re:An unlikely solution?

[spencerogden]

You could have a seperate key which designates free songs with no owner.

Re:Time for a Boycott!

[spencerogden]

Wouldn't make sense to pirate all of their songs?

Money lost == 0

[Drath]

Look it's simple. If I download a mp3 and like the album it came from I'll usually buy the album (better sound quality). If I don't buy the album the mp3 came off of I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so their not loosing money I would have given them anyway. I feel that's more morally acceptable than artists who try to pass one hit and 12 other tracks of crap off as a decent album that I'm wasting my $15 on. If anything the Record industry has gained money from mp3 availability, Personally I've expanded my musical tastes into genre's and bands I would have never considered purchasing if I had never heard the music before I had to pay for it.

Re:A Great Defense...

[interiot]

Hrm. I think the record companies had hoped that the CD being a physical object would be sufficient copy protection. I don't know if that's a legal argument though.
--

Re:A Great Defense...

[interiot]

Or you can play tricks with your MP3 directory... so that the only directory that napster knows about is empty.
--

Re:A Great Defense...

[interiot]

The fact is that if you don't ever install Napster, run it, and allow it to search your hard drive for music, then all subsequent distribution of copyrighted material would never occur. That alone makes the serving computer break copyright law.

I don't see that point as a valid one. Without the copier, you couldn't copy the book, but the same with the library. A whole string of prerequisites has to occur before you can copy it. Same with Napster. Napster doesn't just copy MP3's from computer to computer on its own; a user has to purposely click on a song to download it.

Why can't the blame be put on the people who actually copy the files from your computer? Maybe this falls under something about "public broadcast", but other than that, it seems like... leaving a book on a table in the front yard. Should the owner of the book be held responsible if someone comes along, borrows the book for a few minutes, copies it, and puts it back?

I guess the Napster thing is closer to the owner puting up a sign that says "don't copy this book (nudge nudge wink wink)".

But this feels intuitively wrong, even in a legal sense. I'm sure I'm blissfully ignoring a law or three somewhere...
--

Re:One of the best little ideas.

[Weezul]

There is an easy way to do this without modifing a HD.. install StegFS (for Linux).

StegFS encrypts your drive with multiple levels (diffrent passwords). You give them the password to a level with no mp3s. They con not prove you have more levels which you are not releasing.

Now they can still watch you trade them on the internet, but that's a seperate problem.

Dr. Dre...

[caldroun]

I never downloaded his crap anyway..

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[GnrcMan]

How the fuck is using the word 'gay' or even the phrase 'gay as hell' supposed to make someone a homophobe?

Neither of those make someone a homophobe. You took them out of context. They were used in a derogatory fashon. Or would you like to argue that what the poster really meant was, "People who use the work lame, in my book, are cool as hell."

I don't think so.


--GnrcMan--

Re:Enforcing?

[_vapor]

He's got a new album out. I've never been a big fan of his, but the new one is actually decent. In one track, he explains how he's been battling his former label, so he probably just wants to make some green to pay his costs. He can't very well let his fans trade his music without paying him now can he? After all, he has legal fees to pay now. ;-)

Re:Dr. Dre is getting sued himself...

[conform]

Actually, I believe the suit is for trademark damages. Which is a whole 'nothercan of worms. It is allegedly the first trademark lawsuit involving a sound rather than an image, making it something of a landmark...

Prediction...

[rechsmjr]

...on the whole Napster debacle: one or two highly-publicized arrests of the very worst offenders, probably those who are sharing immense Metallica or Dr. Dre catalogues.

Effect: Inclusion of Napster restrictions in the acceptable use policies of most ISPs, Universities, and in the data security policy of all major corps: just as many currently forbid the exchange of copyrighted material.

Outcome: Sharing of illegal MP3s goes underground, and becomes primarily a warez kiddie application.

This is more or less how software piracy was gotten under (relative) control.

Re:Prediction...

[rechsmjr]

Oops -- I was off by 350k defendants.

Re:Wow...

[Spyky]

I care that when you copy and distribute his mp3s, you are breaking the law

And I bet you never ever speed right.

I don't have any compunction about downloading a song by some artist I don't know well, to listen to it, and decide if I want to buy the album. I rate this about the same as doing 45 in a 35 in good weather with light traffic. Sure its "against the law" but some of us have a higher morality that is not purely based on the "by the book" legality of an action. Instead I am capable of making a practical judgement that is in the best interest of myself, without harming the interest of others. I am offended that someone as wealthy as Dr. Dre and Metallica feels the need to sue college students (who are primarily poor) for enjoying the "artists" music. I am even more offended that they are suing Napster, which is simply providing a service, albiet one that can be missused for illegal purposes. If this has a valid legal precedent then why haven't gun companies been sued out of business by the families of people who have been killed by guns, which is undoubtably a *far far* more heinous crime.

The fact remains, that Metallica and Dr. Dre have far more to lose by paying for this lawsuit, and angering fans, then they will gain by winning, which i might add, seems at least somewhat unlikely.

Spyky

To Paraphrase Dr Dre...

[mochaone]

from his NWA days...

FUCK THE RAP STAR

Surely this raises some huge issues?

[ikekrull]

Dre, and many other artists' music clearly ENCOURAGES people to break the law - shooting people on the street, all that gangsta rap bullshit.

If its OK to sue napster over providing 'encouragement' to pirate music, surely its ok to prosecute Dre for murder since he 'encouraged' this kind of behaviour.

Personally, i don't think any true artist would want to prosecute somebody for listening to their music.

Take away all the recording contracts, the glitzy videos and the lawyers, and people will still be making great music.

But i guess Dr. Dre and Metallica wouldn't be among them because without the money to finance their coke habits, they'll be too strung out to even pick up an instrument.

Re:One of the best little ideas.

[Bilestoad]

>Or you could build a large electromagnet around your front door

If the feds suddenly found their guns stuck to the door on the way in, they might get suspicious.

I'd use a physical method of destruction, probably a large, sharp drill bit positioned above my drives. Big red panic switch on the front starts the drill, moving the bit down through all the platters. I don't think DriveSavers could do much with that. They may be able to clean mud off a platter but they can't put the oxide back on.

And of course I'd have to have a good reason for thinking I might need one of these to actually bother.

Re:Gangsta Rap

[MrEd]

Not to be totally anal but it goes:

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move they lips
just a bunch of gibberish,
and motha fuck is that
cause they forgot about DRE

Makes less sense but that's the way he sings it.

Yet another reason not to listen to...

[cfish]

Look, just stop listening to those artists that are going to sue you.

Like, Mozart.

Re:Wow...

[Ekapshi]

>You better watch out or
>he'll pop a cap in your ass

More like,

yo and yo bruddah's betta watch out cause Dr. Dre and his g's will pop yo mutha'fuckin white-ass...

-
Ekapshi.

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[DAVEO]

agreed. if one believes in the intellectual property (a creation, for the most part, to allow the already rich corporations to become even richer), one must think that this type of theft is wrong, and not be opposed to bans that sound wrong but are justified by the concept of intellectual property.

otoh, there are people who believe ideas and information cannot be owned and that the exchange of information if not theft.

Dre

[toup]

Maybe someone should make a paydre.com

Re:what if

[cwhicks]

If I had $10 million I'd be handing it out on street corners, let alone going after the people that made me rich to ask for more.
I'm not greedy so it wouldn't bother me much. Again it is not a loss, it is a lack of gain. No one is going into his bank account and taking $1000, its just that he gets a new check for $150,000 every week instead of $150,000.50 . You'll be hard pressed to find financial sympathy for millionaires.

Re:Wow...

[cwhicks]

Yeah, legally he has the right to sue, but do you think it is morally appropriate for a multi-millionaire to try and screw another $13.99 out of pimply faced teenagers that have to work at McDonalds saturday night, while Dre is getting wasted and screwing groupies? Legal is one thing, being a greedy whore is another. If it was someone stamping out 100,000 bootleg copies of his CD and selling it for $10, all over the country on ebay, I would feel a little more sympathy. These kids aren't making any money, they just want to hear the music. It's on the radio free to them, they can tape it there as well. Has everyone supporting Dre on this never had a friend make a compilation tape for them? Thats the same thing. Send Dre $3. I don't see the point except greed.

Re:I see

[cwhicks]

How much money is enough for Dre? 10 million, 50 million? How can you support a millionaire suing a bunch of 14 year olds $13? These are the people that made him a millionaire. Yeah it's illegal but so what. He has the right to sue them, but then I have the right to call him a greedy whore, which I am.

Re:Wow...

[cwhicks]

Search: Alternative, folk, whatever.
Read article, search under name in said article.
Search jackass-know-it-all, find you.

My guess is you don't have, and probably never used napster. Yeah, it is mostly used for illegal downloading, but it has other uses as well. Look in university areas and there are lots of local band stuff on there. I get tired of holier than thou (Metallica reference) people coming down from Jesus to spread His word and damn us to hell for copying music of people we've made millionaires. Boo-fucking-hoo. (Minor Threat reference)
I see this as sticking it to the man thats been charging us $14 for something that costs them to $.10 to make for the past 15 years.
The beauty of the web is moving the power from the center to the people. Dre can try and stop it and he's going to get steam rollered.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[cwhicks]

That is a very good idea.

Wanna bet no one bitches? A couple years ago Garth Brooks and some others were suing stores that sell used CD's because they didn't like not getting a cut on the RESALE of thier CD's.
They figured since you are getting CD quality music of theirs, they get to double, triple, ... dip on each sale.
Suggest your idea to the MPAA and see what kind of reponse you get.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[cwhicks]

You can hate us Americans, but we're just going to come back with twice as much love for you!
We love you!
Let's talk Joe, why not.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[cwhicks]

You know water is worth a lot to people. Why don't they charge $100 a gallon? And food. Does $2400 sound too much for a ham? I bet people would pay it if they had to, don't you?
Basic economics also teaches that leaks in the system, i.e. piracy here, come about because of a flaw in the market. There is a demand of some kind not being met. In this case my guess is that cost of the product and the delivery systems offered are below what consumers want. Before Napster et al, there was no option except to go down to Sam Goody and buy a CD. This huge explosion of software like Napster IS how economics works, its just that the powers that be, RIAA, don't like to be told how to do their business by consumers, whom they have ignored for many years. Now they are caught with their pants down, and are crying to daddy for help.

Re:Wow...

[cwhicks]

When I run Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, on my IP address, it is costing me. I am paying $150 a month for that IP and other people use it. It's called giving a little back to people that have given you something, which Metallica and Dre are unfamiliar with.
And you are wrong, he is right. Yeah the little indie labels aren't scared of Napster but the big ones are. Ask Chuck D. If artists could put out the music in the same quantities and make $3 off each sale instead of $.50 do you think they would do it and leave the big companies behind? There's no love lost there.

Re:Dr. Dre is getting sued himself...

[cwhicks]

hypocrisy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hypocrisies.

1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess;
falseness.
2.An act or instance of such falseness.

Re:Ease up on the misinfo

[cwhicks]

I'm not sure what I was blasting that didn't need blasting. In no way was I blasting Jesus or religious people. The phrase "coming down from Jesus" that I used is a figure of speach like "God bless you." Not literally.
I meant it in the sense that people presenting themselves as a Jesus like person who has the one and only correct answer about something like this.
I think I agree with you about Jesus' point of view on this. I think he would wonder why Dre is charging people less fortunate than himself for something that, once produced, costs him nothing.

Re:Wow...

[cwhicks]

You may be right. I only read the trade publications, and I haven't seen the little guys crying yet.
However, I suggest you tell your 50 indie label friends to start scrambling to get some technology going.
The Internet is not a new channel of selling. It is a paradigm shift and the middle man is a loser. Record companies are a middle man, like travel agents. Unless they can provide some other services to musicians or customers, they're in trouble. Right now they aren't.
If musicians can sell their stuff over the internet all over the world themselves and get $3 per unit, why the hell would they want to go to a record company and get =$.50? All they need is an advertising agencey they can hire for a flat fee. And possibly a loan agency for production costs.
And as for giving away stuff that I steal, you have somewhat of a point, however, almost everything I have on Napster is something I own, and want others to learn about and like. Minor Threat, Velocity Girl, Tangerine Dream, Jimmy Cliff, Lucsious Jackson, a few newer people.
You try going to Sam Goody and finding Minor Threat.
Plus, I could just download stuff and not run a server to share. It's a community thing. Just like open source software, that I also write. Yeah, it's still illegal, but check the response someone else gave above about speeding.
Yeah I speed, yeah it's illegal, yeah it slightly increases the threat to others on the road, but as an adult I can decide that 45 is safe in a low traffic, dry, 30 mph section of the road. I may also decide if it is snowy on the highway that I will drive below the minimun speed limit.
Basic economics teaches that leaks in the system, i.e. piracy here, come about because of a flaw in the market. There is a demand of some kind not being met. In this case my guess is that cost of the product and the delivery systems offered are below what consumers want. Before Napster et al, there was no option except to go down to Sam Goody and buy a CD. This huge explosion of software like Napster is how economics works, its just that the powers that be, RIAA, don't like to be told how to do their business by consumers, whom they have ignored for many years. Now they are caught with their pants down, and are crying to daddy for help.

DRE's a bitch

[cantherius]

So are all members of metallica. Here's my $.02: Dre is no longer popular. He will really have no fans now that he is suing them. He is a bitch, and deserves to lose money because he is violent and uncaring, or else he wouldnt distribute the music he does. He had it comin' to him since he became an "NWA"

Suing Napster as a form of file (MP3) distribution

[erpbridge]

I like a few quotes I saw on this discussion:

"Suing Napster is like suing Ford because a couple bank robbers used a Ford to get away"

AND

"If they're going to sue Napster because they allow people to transfer MP3's, then why don't they also sue the makers of every web browser, FTP program, and any other file transfer program out there?"

The latter has been a question I've had since the whole Napster thing began. Stopping the MP3 spread is impossible. It's like unleashing an airborne virus: once it's out, you can't stop it all, no matter how hard you try.

If you were serious about stoppng MP3, what you'd have to do is this: Sue every company on the planet to bankruptcy that produces anything having to do with file transers, from physical media like floppys, to Sony memory sticks, to Zip Disks and CD's, to electronic media like hard drives, routers, hubs, to software like FTP, Web, and other.

Even then you wouldn't be able to stop it. There would still be MP3's out there, because you just shut down the companies, not the actual stuff they've already made and sold. You would then have to go and destroy every single person's form of the above mentioned technologies. EMP wouldn't work, because CD's aren't susceptible to magnetic disturbance. You'd pretty much have to make a total apocalypse, up to and including destruction of the whole planet to eliminate the underground bunkers that the occasional geek has bought.

And if you've got that much money to spend on those courses of action, illegal MP3's of your music are the least of your worries.

SDMI was on the right track: if you can't beat them, join them. SDMI failed in one important fact though: people want to save money whenever possible, including MP3 copies of music. However, there is still no way the artists will make as much from music per listener as they used to. The artists will just have to get used to it.

Dr Dre = Just a ganster

[gabrieltss]

All Dre is, is nothing more than a gangster.

Instead of using a gun to do his enforcement he is using lawsuits. He is just a PUNK!

These mega-million $$$ artists have no legititmate gripe! MP3 is HELPING them sell albums. For those whose music SUCKS, there albums aren't selling. MP3 is THE perfect way to evaluate music. If you like it MOST people go out and buy the album(s). If you find an MP3 that sucks you know not to bother buying the album. MP3 is good for consumers, it helps them from wasting money on sh*ty music. The only ones that should probably be b*itching the most about MP3 are the artists who's albums are not selling because people don't like the MP3's they have heard.

Gabriel/TSS!

Re:Prove it.

[Sensi]

and uh, there is a law that says making mp3's even as backups, is illegal.

Re:A Great Defense...

[cgadd]

No, I haven't copied an entire book. But I have copied the one article I wanted out of a magazine.

Much like I've downloaded the one song off a CD that I wanted.

And the fact that I pay for the photocopy doesn't really count, since the library makes the money, not the copyright holder! That might be like Napster charging for the songs you download.

Re:Wow...

[cgadd]

No, actually, it's easy to look at other people's collections. I often see some unknown song, and start dl'ing it. I listen to the first 10-15 seconds of it. If I like it, I'll let the download finish. If I don't I'll stop the download. Works great for unknown artists. I've found some interesting stuff that way. But don't worry Dr. Dre, I haven't ever dl'd any of your stuff....

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[cgadd]

> you are paying for the MUSIC and that music happens to be on a CD.

Then why does a CD cost so much more than a tape? Same content, right? But they figure they can squeeze people for a few extra bucks....

Re:A Great Defense...

[cgadd]

>Libraries don't make copies of books. Copiers do.

>Napster, by combining the archival and copying functions into one easy-to-use package

Well, my local library has books, AND a copier! Yes, they have the little sign up about copyright. And so does napster every time you start it up!

Where's the difference?

Re:Sue, sue, sue

[cgadd]

> Once again demonstrating what we all already knew, namely that the labels are useless middlemen.

Doesn't Dr. Dre now own his own label? If so, is this lawsuit on behalf of the Dr. Dre the "Artist" (used loosely!), or Dr. Dre the useless middleman?

Re:This is stealing

[kvigor]

Boy, that's an impressive moral argument!

"Mom and dad probably won't catch me, so that makes it OK!"

At least it corresponds nicely with your username.

Re:Wow...

[gyc]

not really...

the way to search for napster is by artist name or song title and if you're an unknown artist, there's very little napster will do to promote you.

Re:Wow...

[gyc]

really... my university banned it a while back so my memory must be a bit hazy....

Re:Hypocrit!

[gyc]

I see no harm in losing fans who won't pay a cent for your music anyway.

using napster to promote poop!!

[ARColeslaw]

one benefit of napster is the fact that people assume that they are downloading the song indicated by the title. my friend and i wrote and recorded some silly songs about wearing women's underwear and poopsex last year. recently, we converted these songs to mp3 format and renamed them with popular artist titles, like britney spears, limp bizkit, etc. numerous unsuspecting napster users have downloaded these songs and to their amazement they surely found that they did not get what was anticipated. so if any of you slashdotters hear songs named "poopsex" or "i like to wear your underwear," you now know how napster was used to dupe users and promote silliness!! and if i have prodded your interest, go find the songs yourself! they are also on napster by the real titles, so if you want a good laugh, go have a listen!

READ THIS POST PLEASE!!!

[ARColeslaw]

come one people!! spread the poop!!

Disregard above post!! READ THE PARENT POST!!!

[ARColeslaw]

your ears and you health will thank you!!!

Re:A Great Defense...

[Cramer]

[Disclaimer: I'm the wrong kind of evil to be a lawyer.]

Technically, you cannot give them the MP3 even if they do own the CD -- you aren't licensed to distribute copyrighted material. Read the copyright notice closely; you might notice a ludicrous "lending" clause.

Let the artists starve.

[roamer]

Here is my proposal. Maybe we should let the artists starve a little. This may sound horrible, but read the rest of my comment before moderating me down as a flaming, ignorant troll. Right now, primarily the RIAA dictates who is popular. Becomming popular is an extremely competitive industry that has absolutely nothing to do with producing good music, and everything to do with kissing the middle man's ass, being attractive and all the other "networking" bull shit that you have to do. Good art has never been about "knowing the right people". Look at the best artists in history- Beethoven, Mozart, most of the other great composers- funny, similar to some of the best geeks I know, they were a bunch of freaks, socially inept outcasts, and weird people. If you look at the industry today, if you can't develop good image (aka, bigger breasts than brains etc) then you don't stand a chance. Well, the truth is, if your music isn't worth millions of dollars to people, then you aren't entitled to millions of dollars, and if you image is worth that to people, then go model, and quit polluting the music industry (because modelling is, and always has been about networking and sleeping with the right people) I don't want to hear the "well, they are making millions now, so they must be worth it" comments. They are making millions because pop culture and the dictators of it (RIAA and their ilk) currently rule people access- I say we see what happens when there control is totally gone. I know this sounds harsh, but how about we let the market purge itself of the shit. I listen to fairly obscure music performed by some of the best (from a technical standpoint) musicians in the world. They aren't in it for the money, although they make a decent living, not because they are so popular, but because they are among the best. They are in it to output music, because that is what they want to do. /.ers- listen to me- no matter how much you "steal" it, the market guarantees that music will not go away. So, here is my proposal- deregulate what you can do with the "intellectual property"- let people give it away. Tons of artists will no longer be able to support themselves with art, because people won't pay for it if they don't have to. I know for a fact though, that I will still be willing to pay for my music (directly to the artists) because I think they have a valuable product. If people suddenly think they can't make a living off music then maybe they won't do it for the money- is that such a bad thing? If that makes music more scarce, then people will be far more willing to pay for it, and only truly valuable musicians will be able to survive- that is how the market works, but music isn't going to go away. So, push the market through the strainer- I know my musicians are good enough to survive downsizing- are yours?

Re:Let the artists starve.

[roamer]

I am not suggesting that quit supporting artists. I am suggesting that you revoke legal ramifications for piracy. Then, the only support the artists will recieve, is support that the fans think they deserve. It is only through piracy that I have been able to find music that is truly valuable- listen to some progressive metal- it is not very popular in the mainstream field, but people who truly understand music, even those who don't have a taste for it, will give it credit for being truly excellent music. People don't support no-name bands for that reason- they have no name, and it isn't worth investing time and money to hear them something you don't know that probably won't be good. So, people go with the safe bet that they hear on the radio and which sounds pretty good and, granted, they don't get much, but at least they know what they are getting.
Of course, the industry determines what is on the radio, and therefore, they determine what you are exposed to. If piracy were legal, then the music would be freely passed around, the industry would die, and people would support the musicians they thought were good. The groups that are mainstream now would die off really quickly though, because no one would listen to their stuff and say "Hey, that was really good, so good in fact, I think I am going to send them a check". The stuff that is most popular right now just isn't good enough to warrant that. If you "open source" the music, then people will get a reputation for truly being good, and they won't starve. Initially, it might hurt everyone some, but eventually, people will realize that if you don't pay them, then the best art won't be made, and the market demand for music and performance will increase, and therefore, it will be worth more money. As it stands, the market is so saturated with bad product, that people really don't feel bad about not paying for it. The majority of mainstream music could just as well be replaced by completely different music and it wouldn't really affect anything- actually, in about 2 years time, it will be totally replaced. An evidence of good music is that it lasts beyond the time of the specific audience it was written for. People will be willing to pay for music like this, even if the law doesn't make them- why? Because they will want it to be around.
roamer

Ease up on the misinfo

[roamer]

I agree with you in principle in some ways. I am mostly writing to request that you not blast things that don't merit a blasting.

"I get tired of holier than thou (Metallica reference) people coming down from Jesus to spread His word and damn us to hell for copying music of people we've made millionaires. Boo-fucking-hoo. (Minor Threat reference)"

Ok, I understand if you have had a bad experience with the proponents of religiosity (the term I apply to those who think that the point of religion is to do and not do certain thing, and to find a more perfect list of things to do and not do, not because those things are right, but because that is what they were taught). No one who isn't a religicist likes it. Truth is Jesus was pretty radical in his throws against established religion. Try reading something he says, rather than listen to people who think they know what he says, because they are the same people who think they know what D&D is about, and we all know how right-on they are about that. You might find it interesting that the Bible is actually quite on the side of piracy- all the laws regarding stealing are enforced with restitution- i.e.- you pay someone back for the damage you have done to them. Piracy is not stealing, because it doens't make one entity not have something that they had before, therefore, there is nothing to "restitute".

Progress

[yetisalmon]

Sueing users directly will not solve any problem. A few users might be sued, but there will still be 100 more users ripping cd's and encoding them.

If technology progresses it is up to the Music Industry to answer. It is up to them to find a solution. However, it is a difficult situation. The film industry is fine. They rely on theaters for all their profit. Video copying is age old, and does not affect their industry..much.

Still, my point stands. If technology progresses, it is up to the music industry to answer, not sue; for progress never dies.

Re:this isn't so different than parts of IRC

[yetisalmon]

Hey! It's all computers faults! Sue the computers!

Hypocrit!

[jmccay]

ABCNEWS said the same thing about Dre being sued by LucasFilm for THXs use.

This will prove to be interesting. Granted if you don't have the CD already it's illegal, but to sue the students? Doesn't that seem like biting the hand that feeds you.

If you don't like this, just stop buying stuff that pertains to the artists that are sueing. Your only real voice is your money.

Re:Hypocrit!

[jmccay]

>ABCNEWS said the same thing about Dre being sued by LucasFilm for THXs use.

>Maybe he needs the money to pay what he owes Lucas?

Good point, but it still seems suicidal for a musician to sue their fans! That's one way to a quick retirement.

Re:Hypocrit!

[argoff]

• I have a growing suspicion that the growing rank of has-been musicians pressing Napster suits are being put up to it by their labels: "Want us to sign you for three more records that won't sell like the newer acts? No way...unless maybe you wanted to help us with this Napsta thing."

It may be that sales of their music are in decline, and they're just to egotastical to admit that their a has-been.

Re:Hypocrit!

[Black Parrot]

> ABCNEWS said the same thing about Dre being sued by LucasFilm for THXs use.

Maybe he needs the money to pay what he owes Lucas?

--

Re:Hypocrit!

[Black Parrot]

> Good point, but it still seems suicidal for a musician to sue their fans!

I have a growing suspicion that the growing rank of has-been musicians pressing Napster suits are being put up to it by their labels: "Want us to sign you for three more records that won't sell like the newer acts? No way...unless maybe you wanted to help us with this Napsta thing."

--

Re:Enforcing?

[MarkKomus]

Well since transfer of mp3s goes from person to person, and not through Napster eliminating easy log captures, it would be extremally hard to come up with grounds for a search to see if you did actually have the mp3s. If somehow a search warrent were obtained it would not be very hard to prove you had illegal mp3s, just look at your hard drive and ask you to produce the CD/tape/record that you could have created the mp3 off of. But I don't see how they could easily justify the search needed.

Re:One of the best little ideas.

[MarkKomus]

Then you'll probably just get charged with obstructing justice...

Taking Sides..

[_marshall]

It seems also, that Limp Bizkit and Cypress Hill are touring (a free as in beer) concert sponsored by Napster itself...Looks like we've got a dividing line amongst the different artists..
(Wish I had a link for this..)

~Marshall


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

sellout?

[phyruxus]

don't metallica and dr Dre represent musical genres where this kind of hting is called being a sellout?

"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire

limp bizkit

[bendawg]

I think this is kind of interesting. Limp Bizkit is about to start a tour sponsored by Napster where they will play all their shows for free. Dre has appeared in Limp Bizkit videos before (break stuff). While I am sure their connection is mostly business, since I believe they are both under Interscope's record label, and since Fred Durst is the president of Interscope, it is interesting to see them have such totally different viewpoints on this subject.

Re:This is stealing

[goldfish]

No

This is copyright violation, it is not theft.

Dr. Dre's attourney outright calls transmitting copyrighted materials theft, which leaves me of the opinion that Dr. Dre should seek a new attourney.

For a long time, the software and music industries have been working hard to associate copyright violations with theft; the very term "pirate" is suggestive of thievery. The problem is, legally, it cannot be considered theft, and would be punishable under copyright laws.

Or at least in Australia, and I presume America would not be too different.

--
goldfish

Re:this isn't so different than parts of IRC

[goldfish]

Saving that IRC was created primarily to facilitate chatting between users, and the ability to transfer files was added later, but napster was created primarily to facilitate transferring mp3 files.

It is possible that a lawsuit against Napster could successfully argue that the sole (or at least, primary) purpose of Napster is to create an environment that encourages illegal activity. I'm not sure what the law says about this, but it probably wouldn't be slapped on the wrist and told it's being naughty.

Of course, as with most law suits, it's missing the point, and trying to use force instead of reason. There must be some reason why people will continually copy music, some lack of incentive to purchase it. A far better solution than suing everyone you can would be to find a way to create more incentive for people to buy music.

Similarly with most other laws. ``Making an example'' doesn't work.

--
goldfish

Re:A Great Defense...

[fougasse]

Other people can downloaded MP3s from directories you've opened to Napster, yes, but you're in no way forced to use Napster or to put copyrighted files in your download directories. You are running a server which allows other people to download these files -- you're making them available.

Analogy: you have marijuana used for medical purposes. (This is the best example I could come up with of something that's legal for you to have but illegal for others.) If someone sneaks into your house and steals some, you've done nothing illegal. If, however, you keep it in a large bowl in front of your house beneath a sign that says "Take Some", then that is illegal.

So if someone accesses your MP3s via a security hole in your FTP client, you're fine, as you weren't deliberately making those available. If, however, you run a server which is designed to allow people to download MP3s from you, and you have the ability to not allow people to download your copyrighted MP3s but don't do so, then you're not find, as you are deliberately distributing something illegal.

Re:Artists...

[mbell]

It's assanine, MP3s aren't even of really great quality they are about as good as a decent cassette recording.

Umm, it's been pretty well proven that mp3s are better than 'decent' quality. I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and the original .wav. Yeah, there are some small artifacts at 128, but even then, they are still better than cassette tape.

-Mike Bell

Greed

[m0nkeyb0y]

Dr. Dre is a revolutionary in the field of rap and music in general. He created gangsta rap. He has money to wipe his ass with, and yet he feels so violated. This goes to show what some artists are really after: the money, not the music. And this seems appropriate for an artist in a genre that takes little or no skill to produce. Some rhymns and a computer beat generator and I could be a rapper. I'm not particularly scared though, once his smart lawyers educate him on how unphesable his idea his, he will back off.

Re:You cannot be held responsible

[Mike Connell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read that the casing is airtight and full of some gas, and if it's cracked the drive is ruined.

Don't believe the hype.

When I was a student I had one of my two drives die. I was quite resigned to the fact as it was 4 years old. Anyway, I'd always wanted to have a look inside and poke around, so I took the top off - had a look. Then I thought it'd be fun to see it spin up - so I plugged it in and booted, watched it stutter the drive arms (they seemed to be stuck). Then (you can see where this is heading ;) I though - "cool! I can play with the drive arms!" so for like the next few minutes I was pulling the drive arms back and forwards (often against the opposition of the drive ;). I pulled the heads up off the disk (they're on thin, really flexible struts), and bounced them back onto the platter...

Left it overnight. next day I boot up, still with the open drive connected, and it's working. I put the lid back on it. It's still working now, years later.

best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Time for a Boycott!

[Ozwald]

Why bother? They are doing a good job all by themselves.

Ozwald

Steal my warez pay for my services

[Rares Marian]

If ppl would stop suing the last brick in the wall and start watching what the market actually does, they'd make much more money adapting.

I'd like to see someone try to steal the act of programming, or the act of broadcasting.

Dr.Dre and other Rapsters Promote Theft?

[bman]

Now, listen to some of their lyrics and they rap about theft, killing, and various other criminal activities.

Oh, here is an interesting snippet from an article on http://www.maccentral.com/news/0004/26.napster.sht ml :

"In a strange twist, Dr. Dre is himself being sued for copyright infringement for using someone else's music. LucasFilm says Dr. Dre used the trademarked THX sound that appears before many movies, to open his most recent album, even after being denied permission."

Re:An unlikely solution?

[Borealis]

Unfortunatly, there are a number of other problems.

Napster doesn't just transfer music. It theoretically can be used to transfer any files. Digital sigs in the mp3s would be a new format, besides, what if you're dealing with mp3s from a garage band trying to give free samples?

More importantly, it would cut into the profit margins of the big record companies, thus it would never meet their approval.

The real solution is for record companies to stop charging $20 a pop for a CD. If a CD only cost $5, I'd be buying them in bushels, and they'd be making more money than they do now ($0).

As far as napster capitulating, why should they when they have done nothing wrong?

Re:Not bad for a man who beats up women

[Borealis]

While I won't attempt to defend Dre for his brutality, your argument is a classic example of the "two wrongs" fallacy. To commit a crime, even if it is against a criminal, is still a crime. Crimes are defined by behavior, not who they're a crime against.

If Dre weren't still suing Napster I'd actually applaud this particular decision. It's not napster that is making illegal copies, it's the users that use napster. Unfortunately in this case I suspect he's just doing this to try to get more cash in addition to his suit against napster.

bring it on!

[passion]

I'd love to see chuck D drop his gloves with Dr. Dre.

As the former IT Manager for Nettwerk Records...

[nettdata]

Hey there-

Up until recently I was the IT Manager for Nettwerk Records, Sarah McLachlan's record company, and the people that brought you such things as Lilith Fair and manage the Bare Naked Ladies. While I have gone on to do Oracle stuff for Internet banking sites, I still consult for EMI, Virgin, and other music companies when it comes to technology.

I can tell you right now that the big, legacy record companies have to get into a new (non-80's) headspace when it comes to the distribution and sales of music. With the advent of new encoding and distribution software and the rapidly increasing availablility of high bandwidth connections, they have to come to grips with the fact that consumers will no longer be dictated to or force fed crap. They have to, in effect, become Value Added Resellers of the music, and that music has to be better quality, for gone will be the days of the "filler track"... people will only buy the good ones.

How can a record company become a VAR? I'm thinking that it would be something like this: Buy Sarah's physical CD or digital download from us, or one of our retail partners, and we'll give you premium seating at the next concert as well as special access to her fan club site, electronic newsletters... that sort of thing.

Why, we'll even provide you with a free full MP3 download of songs from our Internet Radio Station Nettradio.com. Why? Lots of reasons: we've seen that a lot of people are tactile by nature and want things like liner notes to hold and read, and not everyone wants to lug their computer to school or own a Rio, and we've sold back catalog items on bands like Delerium and Skinny Puppy because people didn't know what they sounded like until they listened to the freely available MP3 and what do you know, they liked them and bought their stuff!

The companies that are really freaking out are the ones that make a SHITLOAD of money on their physical distribution systems, and they are just now starting to realize (almost too little too late) that those systems are going to get a little dusty.

Mind you, they won't totally disappear... yet.

I think a lot of things can be learned by bands like Phish, where they encourage the recording (audio and video) of their performances, and will even post the "bootlegs" on their web sites. It's called BRANDING, folks, and the more you do, the more money you'll make in the long run. So what if you sell 20% fewer CD's? You'll get more people showing up at the concert$, and more people buying your T-shirt$, bumper sticker$, hat$, etc. You'll even get people who will buy EVERYTHING you do just because you put it out.

Mind you, that's just my $0.02.


...jeff

PS: Please bear in mind that these opinions are mine, not those of my current or former employer...

Re:A Great Defense...

[Stephen VanDahm]

No, just set your maximum uploads to 0 (zero). It will start bugging you to re-enable uploads every time you startup Napster, but it works.

I had tried that, but it always said "You cannot set your Max Uploads 1!" So I upgraded to the newest client, and now it works just like you say it should.

Thanks,

Steve




========
Stephen C. VanDahm

Limp Bizkit supports Napster

[lobos]

While so many musicians are attacking MP3's and Napster, Limp Bizkit has decided to support them. In addition, "Napster, securing its reputation for supplying free music to fans, will fund Bizkit's month-long tour for $1.8 million. The band will play 24 free shows in 3,000 to 5,000 seat ampitheaters in 10 cities, including Boston, New York, and San Francisco." According to an article at wired, Fred Durst, told a news conference that Napster was a great way for fans to sample an album before buying it. "I would think the only people worried about that are people that are really worried about their bank accounts," he said. Isn't this cool?

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[jschauma]

Well, we also need Britney Spears!

By the way, that is an interesting article there in your sig...

Precendence won't suceed

[rapett0]

From the article: Andre Young, aka Dr. Dre, previously sent Napster a letter asking the company to remove his songs from its lists. Napster's software allows users to view and swap digital songs that are stored on other users' hard drives. "Their only response was (to say that) the songs aren't on their servers, and if (Young) will send a letter under penalty of perjury identifying specific songs and users that they would restrict those users," King said. "That was not a satisfactory response. That was a comical response." Its funny that while they think they can sue individual users, that its not so funny that when propsosed to talk to each one, they say Napster is crazy. Att. King (w/ Dre and Metallica) are going to lose a lot of fans over this issue, and will not win in the end. This is as frivilous as censoring the internet, to some its possible in their mind, but we all know its not going to happen. Ever.

Dre

[reactionary]

Eazy-E pointed out what a "studio gangsta" Dre was 7 or so years ago. Dre isn't hard core like us -- he isn't even from Compton.
It's just like Eazy-E said:

"now you think you're bigger, but to me you ain't nothing but a bitch ass nigger. Who ain't worth a food stamp, but at Death Row, I hear you're getting treated like bootcamp. Gotta follow your seargent's directions, or get yo ass pumped by a Smith and Wesson...."

Figure it out Dre, the slashdot community sides with our late boy Eazy. What's more, if this lawsuit doesn't stop -- my nutz will be firmly planted on your chin.
--

Re:Wow...

[Diesel Dave]

I care that when you copy and distribute his mp3s, you are breaking the law

I don't care about the law. Nor for any other instruments of the duelistic mind.

and you are stealing his art.

To steal you must take. A taking incurs a loss. There is no loss here.

Now you could argue (dumbly) that it is a loss because they would have made money had xxx person purchase this. But this shit only exists in the minds of sick fucks otherwise know as lawyers.

It's not a loss. It's lack of a gain.

This is why 'piracy' requires it's own set of laws, because the common law act of robbery (aka theft) does not apply.

Re:Wow...

[Diesel Dave]

You could just as well argue that taking incurs a gain. There is a gain here.

You could. Of course you could argue just about anything else of equal stupidity. (Try looking up 'take', 'receive', 'loss', and 'gain' at http://www.m-w.com/)

The point is the 'victim' in the case can show no loss. All they can show is the lack of a potientcial gain.

Re:Enforcing?

[atspink]

Um, actually they can't. This would be the same thing as violating the 5th admendment. The can't force you to incriminate yourself, at least in the US, and unencrypting incriminating evidence would certainly apply. Granted, you might have to go all the way to the supreme court.

I'm not "pirating"...

[Murmer]

I'm "sampling".

--

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[grumpy_geek]

I've allways wondered about the $3 CD complaint. What is the big deal if it only costs them a cent to make. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MEDIUM PEOPLE!!! Everything you own could probably be distilled down to an actual manufacturing cost of 1/30th what you paid for it, think about it $150 Nike's cost on $15 to make, how is that different than a CD? Also, you want to complain about getting crappy songs on the CD and "only one is good", then go buy a damn CD single.

What you are paying for is the data on the CD, it's as simple as that. It's just like a backup tape, a DLT 7000 tape may cost $100 but the data on that tape could be actually worth a million dollars if your entire business burns down to the ground and all you've got is that one tape. The tape in itself has very little value, you aren't paying for just a "CD" (heck I chould ship you a few AOL cd's, it that all you care about), you are paying for the MUSIC and that music happens to be on a CD.

If Napster actually did true trading (or giving away) instead of sharing, I would not have any problems with it at all. I buy a mp3, listen to it, and when I'm done with it I put it in a "to be given away folder", when you download it from me ,it gets removed from my machine, I don't have a copy of it anymore, win/win. There is still just the one paid for mp3, the music gets shared around, and nobody's bitchin.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[jadiel]

The way the music industry can still make money is to first of all lower CD prices. Your average CD costs what, $3? So sell them for $5 and people will buy more. They're in no danger because CD players are still cheaper and more common than those mini-discs ar mp3 players. And CD's have become such a standard that I think they'll hang around for a while yet. (My folks still have records and a record player that they use...and my dance studio used records until maybe five years ago)

Another idea is to charge more for concert tickets. Let the recordings go around cheap or free and make money off people who want to see it live. The same way you can get prints of, say, the Mona Lisa for under five bucks, but the real thing is under glass and in a room full of security guards at the Louvre. The live performances should be the important thing about a band. Or at least the valuable part. Give more people the opportunity to hear your music easily/cheaply, and you may end up with more rabid fans who'll actually pay for concert tickets.

--------------------------------------------------
They say I'm just an outcast, I shouldn't talk to You, / Still I see Your face and wonder, were You once an outcast too?
-Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Thanks for the Idea!

[Municipa]

I'm a novice musician, but a decent programmer. My band is doing ok, but we could do better. We could do a lot better if I designed a nifty tool which made it easy to distribute mp3s, specifically my band's mp3s. Then we could sue. My band is mostly comprised of people with highly technical backgrounds, so this is ideal for us. I'm gonna be a star!!

Re:Thanks for the Idea!

[radja]

nah.. you'll just be rich.

//rdj

P.S. You wouldn't happen to have Dre and Metallica's email-address would you? I'd be happy to send them some of your music so you canb sue them for illegal possession of music..

Napsters second use

[termite666]

With the lawsuit going on Metalica wont be releasing any new music,in fear of lost profits. This is a second and the best reason to have Napster. I can see the headlines now "Keep has been 80's rockers from making new cd's Buy Napster Now if we can only get Van Halen to sign on!!!

Re:Gangsta Rap

[daemonchild]

i thought it was

"the motherfsckers act like they
forgot about dre" ...

oh well .. i could be wrong

Re:A Great Defense...

[jesse.k]

Actually, you can always set up a firewall which would keep the napster users away, or move the files out of your shared directory as soon as they're done downloading or just set outgoing connections to "0" so no one can download from you.

Napster does support the last option, it even gives a "are you sure you want to do this" message saying that if that option is set, no one can download from you.

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[zeck]

I think more likely he's trying to make the point that when just about everyone is doing something, it ceases to seem wrong. Not to mention that he probably couldn't sue everyone who downloaded his music (would this be like a reverse class action suit?), or even track them down, so he'd have to single out individuals which wouldn't seem fair.

GOD BLESS PUNK

[netrat]

Boy am I glad to be a punker. None of the bands I listen to would ever sue ME- one of their loyal fans-for downloading their songs illegally!
HA! I laugh at Dr. Dre! He pretends to be such a big lawless bad-ass, and then he goes and SUES his OWN fucking fans for "stealing" from him.
HA! I laugh at anyone who listens to any of the corporately created, homogenized, CRAP music on MTV! It is all assembly line created, uninspired, unintelligent, bland [insert synonym for "crap" here]!
HA! I laugh at all these record companies pissing their pants over Mp3s! It's their own fault for creating all these one hit wonder acts. One "good" track on the CD, the rest- just a bunch of filler songs.

HA! I'm done!

----------------------------------

Users beware!!!!

[soulsteal]

Look out foo' or Dr. Dre will come buss a cap in yo ass! You keep pizz-eye-rating his songs and he'll show you what real thug love is all about. Peace out b*tches....

Re:Users beware!!!!

[ElectricE]

PuLEEEZE!!! I doubt the only thing Dre shoots off anymore is his mouth. Anyone who says otherwise needs to look at his pathetic attempts at saying he is still "gangsta". Last time I checked the only hood he new had the word Holly in front of it.

Re:An unlikely solution?

[soulsteal]

The only problem with a solution like this is that none of the mp3's actually pass through napster servers. The Napster servers are merely a forum for people to meet and hold client to client transfers. Kinda like a musical dating service, if you will. In order for your plan to work, Napster would have to modify the client to send info to the servers that then collect the info on what was being downloaded ( a simple text string of the file name could be analyzed by the same software that compiles the databases ) and that would raise a bunch of sh*t with people on privacy issues.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[cburley]

Hey, Garth Brooks is an okay guy. Yes, it's hard to admit this after his years-ago effort to eliminate sales of used CDs, but seeing his recent stints hosting Saturday Night Live (especially the earlier -- first? -- one in which he does a great parody of himself in a sketch showing three "real cowboys" sitting around a campfire discussing what things they miss from home or whatever), he seems to be able to poke fun at himself, his image, etc.

(No, I don't have any copies of his music, but when I've heard it, it hasn't exactly grated on my nerves or anything.)

Re:i hope dr. dre wins, actually

[voudras]

I _hate_ people like this. go back to cnn.com or something, troll.

Re:forget about Dre

[psxndc]

You say that dl'ing an mp3 of an album you have is not stealing but legally you're wrong. Making a tape of music you bought is legal as would be ripping an mp3 off of a CD you own. Distributing them, whether uploading or downloading them is purely, 100%, unless the artist/company specifies otherwise, ILLEGAL. (period) I asked my lawyer-to-be-roommate ( in his last semester at BC Law) about all this and he said distributing mp3's, tapes, anything that you didn't pay for and don't have an artist's consent to give away is illegal. Does that stop me? No. Artists get fat off of my $15 per CD since forever so dl'ing an mp3 here an there doesn't weigh on my conscience. However I also know it is in the eyes of the law, wrong.

Re:Wow...

[psxndc]

I don't know if I believe this. Yes, flashier acts that involve twenty dancers might lose money becaue they have to pay each dancer, but smaller acts (smaller at the time at least) like matchbox20 where it's just the band and roadies can't lose money on it. I worked on the concerts commission at school for 3 years ('95 - '98) and we paid each band around $35,000 for a performance. You can't tell me it costs $35,000 a day to perform. Electricity and Food are paid for by the venue (at least they were by us) so the only money sink is transportation, roadie and band member salary. You're telling me that given even if mb20 had 5 members and 30 roadies (they didn't) that they barely break even by making $1000 a day, and that's at a rinky-dink state college? I don't believe it.

I'm not surprised

[Nexeslad]

I'm listening to "Forgot about Dre" while I wrote this. I downloaded this from napster, I haven't bought any of his albums. After hearing about this, I plan on never buying any of his album or any one connected to him. Eminem, snoop, all of them. I will steal them all. I priated music before napster and I'll keep doing it till they find a way to stop me.

I may be stealing from the artist, I may be hurting the industry. I don't care. Why? I'm not some dumb script kiddie. The industry has been bosted becuase of napster. Thier single spread like wildfire and thier sells bost more then make up for the priates how don't buy thier cds.

If it were up to me, I'd have it so EVERYBODY could priate the music efforlessly. I would dance if the record industry collapsed. MTV, radio stations, gone. The world well be rid of one evil that needs killing. The industry now takes young girls, and pimps them turning them in to sex cymbles. First we had Britney Spear, 17. I first heard about her on a news report about her rolling stone shoot.

If those pictures shot buy some guy doing a web page, he'd be busted for making kiddie porn. The record industry sancond it so its all right.

Now that she's popular, they turn out an other 17 year old. The Jenie in a bottle. After they found out it was safe to have underage girls as sex symbals the took it a step furthers. Mandy More. 15, if you've ever seen hear video's or how MTV pimps here every chance they get, you know thier now going for sweet innocent puppy love here.

Sorry, I think I left the point a few hundred words ago. You see, I steal music HOPING I hurt the industry. I want it all to go out of bussness. I want the boy bands gone, I want the 15 year old sex symbles gone. I want the industry constant dick teasing of teenage guys and brainwashing of young girls that they half to look like plastic manicans to end. I fight them the only way I can, by being a parasite stealing from them. Call it passive resistance.

Re:Identification

[sredding]

Oh that would be rich... Just to make sure I have this scenario correctly imagined...

1. I purchase a CD and make a couple of MP3 files to play on my computer. (a legal act)
2. I run Napster (a legal act).
3. A law enforcement officer downloads a Metallica song from my hard drive. (possibly an illegal act)
4. I am charged with copyright violation and face punishment by the court.

Is that it?

Re:Dr. Dre is getting sued himself...

[sredding]

Okay... what exactly is the "THX sound effect"?

That arrogant son of a bitch

[mljames]

What a bastard...How many years have we--are we going to pay for overpriced cd's. If I remember my basic economic theory about competition, then the music industry should lower the price of CD's. I also have to point out that if napster is shut down i'll simply fire off gnutella, or scour.net or any of the other programs making the rounds..And if they start adding some kind of protection to the new mp3's (i'll make sure I make backups of my current software) what do we do will all the existing mp3's, burn them.. We'll have an old fashioned mp3 bon fire like the book burnings of the past...

Yoohoo! Dr. Dre! I use napster!!!

[Travoltus]

Come sue me so I can smack you up and make a gangster rap song out of it :)

I think I'll download a Dr Dre song on napster tonight.

BTW Dr Dre: has anyone ever been thoughtful enough to tell you that you behave like a one legged teletubby trying to do the moonwalk??
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,

Legal power?

[Rakarra]

It's a very interesting idea, and it makes sense, but is it really legal? I know Nintendo has railed over and over again that ROMS are completely illegal in any circumstance other from ripping it yourself. One is wrong, but Nintendo has more lawyers. :)

Re:Wow...

[wtmcgee]

i echo that, besides, if an artist is 'unknown' as the above post says, how would you go about finding said artist?

im getting sick and tired of people trying to justify napster by saying that its used by independent artists to become known.. sorry but its just not the case.

Re:Wow...

[rhyac]

Sucks to be him. Honestly, the guy has lots of money. The only people whining about this are the huge artists that already have millions of dollars. For -everyone- else, mp3 is a great thing, because it promotes the music and helps increase music sales. I mean, take the -entire- electronica genre for example. 90% of my disc collection is electronic music that I -never- would have bought had it not been for mp3s. Plastikman, Amon Tobin, Max Brennan ... All fairly obscure stuff that.. I found a track of theirs and was like 'hey, that rocks,' and bought the disc. Granted, that may not be the way other people work (I'm sure there are people who never buy CDs), but.. still.. I mean, more CDs are being sold now than ever. Until these people can actually prove that they're *losing* money, I say 'shut up and quit whining.'

Sue, sue, sue

[paulschreiber]

It seems the only people making money off music these days are the lawyers.

The artists get screwed over by the label.

Then the label spends its cash on attorneys.

Lovely!

Paul

Re:Sue, sue, sue

[burris]

Once again demonstrating what we all already knew, namely that the labels are useless middlemen.

While I don't necessarily support the status quo of the music industry, the labels aren't entirely useless middlemen.

Nice studios and their associated equipment cost a lot of money. While electronics are getting cheaper and you can produce an album with little more than a nice computer and some microphones (which are mostly mechanical and don't get cheaper), there's never going to be a substitute for a properly designed performance space and control room. Talented engineers and producers are scarce and command very large fees. While using a fancy studio with a hot shot producer and engineering team isn't the only way to make an album, it's always going to be one of the best ways because of the unlimited control over the process given to the artists/producer. Unfortunately, it costs a heck of a lot of money that artists don't have when they are starting out.

One of the things a label does is front a bunch of money to the artist to make an album. Labels also use millions of dollars of their own money to build some of the nicest studios around. In return for this they take a lot of the profits from the artists sales (much like venture capitalists in the computer industry).

Artists can't just go to the bank and get a loan to make an album because that's not the type of risk that banks can handle. That's been the labels territory for decades. Now that labels are becoming less and less necessary for distribution I expect to see venture capital groups to start funding promising artists albums, independent of labels. With this model the artist keeps the creative and distribution control, which is always the main thing artists hate about labels.

Burris

Re:Sue, sue, sue

[Black Parrot]

> The artists get screwed over by the label. Then the label spends its cash on attorneys.

Once again demonstrating what we all already knew, namely that the labels are useless middlemen.

I propose that we simplify the system, and modify Napster so that it transfers a nickle from you bank account to a lawyer's bank account for every tune you download.

--

Re:Sue, sue, sue

[Black Parrot]

> Artists can't just go to the bank and get a loan to make an album because that's not the type of risk that banks can handle.

Worse even than .coms ?

--

He doesn't have the Constitutional right.

[lifebouy]

In the Constitution, in order to sue, the dispute must be for more than $20. It's really plain and simple. He cannot sue for a CD that is worth $14.99(in HIS opinion), there is simply no legitimate provision for it, since every law in this country is based and judged from the Constituion, and the Constitution says dispute>=$20. Also keep in mind that that was $20.00 at the end of the 1700s. Inflation would say no disputes less than, what, $300 or $400? IMHO, small claims court should be abolished.

Re:He doesn't have the Constitutional right.

[Mr. Slippery]

In the Constitution, in order to sue, the dispute must be for more than $20.

No. It's just that you have the right to a jury trial for suits over $20:

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Way to stay objective

[Andrew Cady]

these users are committing theft

Gee, CmdrTaco, thanks for deciding the issue for us.

Dre is still the man

[klyX]

Wow, these are bold words. Sue napster users? Of course Dre would have to go after users to get his songs off of Napster, as Napster themselves actually has nothing to do with the distribution of specific mp3's.
Anybody know that Dre's lawyer is the same guy who represents Metallica? And we all know how they got Yale to shut down Napster service. Personally, as far as hip-hop goes I think Napster is just like mix tapes, no direct revenue to the musicians, but they get their stuff heard, and that can only be a good thing. Please read further into Dre's (and now Napster users) dilemma at Aka : here and here.


/me unshares all his Dr. Dre mp3's



---
How long have you been listening to the world's famous?
'Bout six weeks.
Six weeks!

Re:An unlikely solution?

[arichar4]

it would never work -- the record company would demand a cut and the artist would not get anything or very little and how much is someone going to pay for an ad with a song that's been downloaded 100,000 times??

The suit is vs. "John Doe" universities

[phossie]

Since Dre can't go after all the users who are actually movin' his music about, he's going after ten (big?) universities that haven't tried to shut down Napster on their networks.

It does make more sense to go after the users from a logical standpoint, but that's both unrealistic and less profitable. I expect the suit against the universities will involve some sort of 'neglect' charge.

Re:Enforcing?

[phossie]

That's what he's doing... universities are being attacked for this. Please reread the article.

Is he suing individuals?

[phossie]

The new suit lists 10 "John Doe" defendants that King said could be later identified as "universities that have not blocked Napster or students engaged in copyright violation." -from the article

Which is more likely to work? Which will happen, and which will simply be threatened? This is a relatively straightforward legal issue and a horrendous practical one. The simpler the enforcement, the more likely it is to work; in addition, universities tend to have more money than students.

ert.

Please do not mod this up "Informative," as it is technically redundant. Thank you.

Re:Gangsta Rap

[bad-badtz-maru]

The Limp Bizkit scenario is odd, Fred Durst is the VP of Interscope, which is the same label Dre is on.

Re:Better the users than the tool...

[jabkie]

remember, though, that it's not illegal to download mp3s that you own in some other format... and, it's been said before (and IANAL), but me offering copyrighted material for download from my hard drive is not illegal--it's people downloading copies of music they don't own that's illegal.. i just assume that you own the music you're downloading from me...
--

Re:An unlikely solution?

[burris]

What about public domain music? Copyright isn't forever, you know. There's lots of music that is no longer protected by copyright because the authors explicitly placed it in the public domain or they have been dead for 70 years. It should be tradeable with Napster.

How about bands that allow their fans to record and trade their concerts? People are permitted to trade their recordings of concerts by Dave Matthews, Grateful Dead, Pearl Jam, Phish, and even METALLICA! It's not reasonable to ask these bands to go around signing every single recording their fans have made.

As always, the tools are neutral. Only people are good or evil.

Burris

Once the snowball gets rolling...

[SnakeEyes]

What scares me so much about all of this is that *if* napster loses these suits, how long before "artists" (read: money hungry corporate sellouts) start sueing other internet utilities like ICQ (I know i've traded hundreds of mp3's over icq) and IRC.
We've got to stop this nonsense now before it gets really out of hand!

How cool!!!

[pmodz]

This is a great idea! I'm sure Kenny G and Michael Bolton will be jumping on this bandwagon soon enough.

Media Figures Starting to Line Up Against Napster

[__aapbgd5977]

First Lars. Now Dre.

My Monday paper also contained an attack on Napster, from "Komputer Klinic" Kolumnist Kim Komando. Now, she may not have the star power of Lars, but in certain circles, especially newer users of computers, she does have a following. She has a talk radio show, and runs a nationally syndicated column in papers like the Los Angeles Times . She attacked Napster pretty brutally in her column this week, intending to scare new users away.

Someone needs to get out and hit back against these folks and the RIAA....
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."

Get it from Napster :-)

[yerricde]

what exactly is the "THX sound effect"?

Go on Napster and look for song title: THX
I would have included a URL but Napster doesn't have a TCP/IP Service Name; otherwise, it'd be napster:thx

Dr. Dre Might Sue Napster Users?

[Clifton Mars]

As it says here :
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,35848,00 .html
this is not costing them money, it's making them money.
When web music is paying $100 million to $ 1 billion plus per year into the hands of the performers, these arguments will seem quaint.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[MrSparkle]

Hmm...another way to make money? How about going on tour and earning a living by doing concerts. I work every day and won't make as much in a year as most artists spend on drugs in a year. I really feel guilty that I've downloaded music made by a man whose message is to "fuck the police", "smoke weed", "bitches aint shit". And what about Metallica? Were big bad ass rockers, who wine like little bitches when their fans (who made the no talent fags who they are) try and listen to their music. Way to bite the hand that feeds you. Another thing, I love how all Americans have basically accepted the notion of copyrights. Copying music is NOT stealing! The original is still their. That's why copying machines aren't called "stealing machinges". If we could copy food, would you do it? Besides, Napster music isn't free! Price of computer over $1500, cost of broadband $50/month. Cost of stereo equipment in home and car $God-only-knows. Fuck America! and Fuck You Echelon! PS. You know what??? I think I forgot about Dre.

Re:Dr. Dre can bite my shiny metal ass!

[MrSparkle]

You're not an artisit! True artists are about beauty and sharing, NOT MONEY! If you don't want to share your work don't release it to the public. Keep it under your bed with your porno mags. I write code. I give away my code. I make a living by writing custom code for companies and supporting that code. I don't believe in writing one program and then kicking back, getting high, and finding lawyers to sue the poor saps who have it worse than me. Putting someone in jail for COPYING is fucking retarded. Half my high school class would be in jail write now for copying my work if I had a bunch of greed high priced lawyers to do my dirty work. Love, peace, and sharing... Fuck money!

A bet this dudes a LLW!

[MrSparkle]

I bet you're the type of guy that drives 5 miles under the speed limit in the far left lane and doesn't move over no matter how much traffic he backs up. I hate Left-Lane-Whores!!! PS. Generation...speneration, our species will be extint by 2030 anyway. Copyrights and patents are small potatoes compared to nuclear war, self replicating machines, artificial intelligence, genetics, etc...

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[MrSparkle]

I'm all for supporting artists (real artists that is). That's why I give into paying often times ridiculous ticket prices to see concerts. Also, I have no problem supporting the artists I like. In fact I wish someone would just set up a web site where you could donate money to your favorite artists. (no min's no maxes, pure donation and the money should go directly to the artists, not some cheesy no talent middle man), then we could see who the real artists are. In fact I registered my copy of Winamp (way back when it was shareware/donationware) even though the software wasn't crippled in anyway, because I loved the software and wanted to see it get better. I think real artists and a lot of anti-IP people, basically want the same thing. They just don't understand or trust each other enough to make logical compromises. Alot of anti-IP people are good at heart, they just don't like corporate America's practice of extorsion when it comes to things like CD sales. Also the topic is a bigger powder keg then abortion since it deals with money (becasue we've proved, time and time agian, money is more important than human life) so its not very easy to have civil discussion about change. PS I hate the idea that when I buy one artists CD, some of that money may be going into the production of the next boy bands album... yuck!

Re:Dr. Dre can bite my shiny metal ass!

[MrSparkle]

Word!

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[MrSparkle]

Here's my response to a different post. (And leave my paper route out of this;)

I'm all for supporting artists (real artists that is). That's why I give into paying often times ridiculous ticket prices to see concerts.

Also, I have no problem supporting the artists I like. In fact I wish someone would just set up a web site where you could donate money to your favorite artists. (no min's no maxes, pure donation and the money should go directly to the artists, not some cheesy no talent middle man), then we could see who the real artists are. In fact I registered my copy of Winamp (way back when it was shareware/donationware) even though the software wasn't crippled in anyway, because I loved the software and wanted to see it get better.

I think real artists and a lot of anti-IP people, basically want the same thing. They just don't understand or trust each other enough to make logical compromises. Alot of anti-IP people are good at heart, they just don't like corporate America's practice of extorsion when it comes to things like CD sales. Also the topic is a bigger powder keg then abortion since it deals with money (becasue we've proved, time and time agian, money is more important than human life) so its not very easy to have civil discussion about change.

PS I hate the idea that when I buy one artists CD, some of that money may be going into the production of the next boy bands album... yuck!

it might not be illegal.

[small_dick]

radio and tv blast stuff to your house all the time. you can make recordings, watch them later, give the tapes to your friends so they can watch them, too.

i'm pretty sure all this stuff was settled back in the early days of rock and roll and in the early vhs era.

the tv and radio stations broadcast this stuff to thousands of listeners, who tune in to their stations for the material.

no money changes hands between the listener and the artist, except in the quasi-cash form of advertising and retail. your buying advertised products is absolutely optional.

i hope whatever defense lawyers get these cases just keep pounding the above into the ground. this is a freedom of speech and communication issue.

indeed, as of the ridiculous metallica suit, i have stopped purchasing cd's, with a couple exceptions. i whore them from my friends whenever i can.

all of you should do the same. fuck the artists like dre and metallica. they need to recognize that a huge technology shift is occuring, and they have to adapt to it, not hide behind fear and anger.

the faster the shift occurs, the less impact the suits will have. download napster/gnutella now, put ALL your cd's on it, put an end to this issue.

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[_Bean_]

There also was a "performance artist" who's art work was masterbaition.

How?

[Quidam]

This seems far too complex to pursue...
He would be fighting a losing battle. I do not disagree with buying an album to support the musicians, but I'll be damned before I spend 17 dollars to buy a CD, when I only like 1 song on the album. Artists are no longer in the industry for the music, and that's disappointing. Since we live in a Capitalistic society, of course there must be profit, but this doesn't seem like a valid point to argue...It just sounds like he's whining. Go on...Sue your listeners, and show them what an ass you are. It's all about the RIAA and the pompous-assed bands that are miffed because they're not making as much money. Poor guys. I'm disgusted by this whole little rant.

Pay your friends at ThinkGeek a visit and get your Anti-RIAA stickers. *shameless plug* -Q

Dr. Dre is lucky

[_underSCORE]

The way I see it, Dr. Dre is one of the lucky artists, because once the music industry crumbles because of Napster, he still has his medical practice to fall back on.

The one I really feel for is Old Dirty Bastard. What's this guy going to do?

Something to think about

[elgonzzo]

Klansmen intent on maintaining the status quo of segregation would often say "that's just the way it is." Those of you who say that mp3s are here to stay are probably right, but does that change the fairness of what you are doing? Who cares about lawsuits, what are you doing, are you doing what is right, are you doing what is fair. If not, you're part of the problem with this world.

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[porky_pig_jr]

How do Dr. Dre's recordings qualify as 'intellectual property?'. Well I remember there was one 'performing artist' in Boston who's only talent was to take a shit on a stage. I guess they both qualify at about the same level.

Limp Bizkit

[Townshend]

On the upside, Limp Bizkit is going to do a months worth of free concerts, and support MP3's, saying that if their fans like downloading MP3's, then that's what they like and they support it. I have a lot of respect for them because of that.

Open Source Bands

[Malefious]

Dr. Dre and Metallica are losing touch. They don't seem to understand the concept of an open source band. Let's take a look at 3 great bands: Pearl Jam, The Greatful Dead, and Phish. There are many many many PJ/Dead/Phish-heads out there online trading live shows and bsides. They allow taping at ALL of their shows, and encourage people to trade them, as long as they don't make money from it. And you know what? Every person that is a fan of these bands owns just about every single piece of recorded music distributed by the labels. I became a huge PJ fan after listening to a live concert, and I now own every cd that has a song by PJ or Eddie Vedder on it. I also own ~30 discs of live concerts that I got by trading with other fans. But I didn't own but 1 PJ disc when I started....so free music boosts sales! Now granted, live Dr. Dre is probably worse than recording studio Dr. Dre, but Metallica has no excuse! I used to be a minor fan of Metallica, but after this stupidity, I can guarantee I will never buy another of their albums.

Do the Evolution

what if

[ArchieBunker]

the tables were turned? How would you feel about losing your money? Its a capitalist society. He doesn't set the prices on cd's. In fact he probably gets around 50 cents from each one.

I see

[ArchieBunker]

Just because he has money, he doesn't deserve to continue making it? Great logic.

Economics and Incentive

[Randseed]

The argument that these artists are losing money is about like an argument from NBA players if they were to be told that instead of making $10 million each this year (for example) they would only make $1 million.

Some fields have a high barrier to entry. As groups like Hansen and artists like Britney Spears prove, the barrier to entry in the music industry isn't any kind of musical skill level, but rather marketting. The simple fact of the matter is that even if these people were only making $5 million per year instead of $20 million per year, they would still be doing what they're doing. Why? Because it's what they like to do, it's what they're successful at, and people (generally) appreciate their work (or they wouldn't be making anything anyway).

The music industry would like us all to believe that this music ``piracy'' will drive people out of the music business, or somehow rob the artists of massive quantities of legitimate earnings. However, the artists would still live pretty well (still better than, say, your average doctor, who has 26 or so years of education after kindergarden, has a life-or-death critical job, and has tons of liability), and the incentive for entry into the field isn't gone. If anything, the music industry will just improve because most of the crappy artists will leave.

I don't buy CDs much at all. When I do buy them, it's usually when I've heard almost every song on the CD. Otherwise, I'm not going to buy the CD anyway. If later I happen to get a few MP3s of songs which are on that CD -- listen here ---

The artist loses NOTHING.

The artist loses nothing because I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. If anything, the artist benefits because if I decide that I really like his or her music, I might buy the next CD as soon as it is released, without hearing every song first.

This policy is the direct result of getting ripped off on way too many crappy CDs. The return policies suck, so after you pay $18 for an overpriced CD which sucks, you're stuck with it and out $18.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[res0]

People who use the work lame, in my book, are gay as hell.

And people who don't spell things correctly because they're too lazy to preview their comment are even worse.

Not to mention the fact that AC just doesn't do much for your image.

Re:An unlikely solution?

[Wraithlyn]

If MP3's were encoded with some sort of artist/song identifier, all you'd have to send to Napster is this identifier upon completion of a transfer.. you wouldn't need any user info since the users aren't even paying. You WOULD need an ad server with some bitchin' broadband to keep up though. :)

After that, it's simple. Napster calculates what it needs to pay out to artists based on the identifiers it receives. The ad server knows what it has dished out, (it doesn't even have to pay attention to where it sends them) so Napster bills the advertisers enough to pay off the artists. A pooled reimbursement scheme like this is simple and fair, which means it will NEVER see actual practice.

Instead of futiley and greedily trying to prevent the copying of data across the internet (which they will never stop) the industry should figure out a way to make some money out of this, or they will soon be extinct.

Re:You cannot be held responsible

[Wraithlyn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read that the casing is airtight and full of some gas, and if it's cracked the drive is ruined.

Wait a second...

[Coolhand-10]

I know what Dr. Dre is really trying to do! He is trying to get call attention to himself so that we all download his music so he can sue us all and then we say "Uh-oh we had better buy his cd so we can't be sued" thereby driving his rather dismal sales through the roof. Those rappers....

well since Napster promotes lawlessness.....

[bitchazz]

by enabling piracy or whatever....perhaps "Doctor Dre" should be held accountable for what his "art" *cough* promotes....

slapping bitches(domestic violence), doing drivebys(murder), selling drugs(hey not a problem for me but still illegal), racial violence, etc....

I mean come on where are the good Dr's ethics? "people who have big hard drives and collect MP3s are stealing"

For Fuqs Sake!! Get your head outta your ass "Dre" I think I can find a few shark...I mean bottom-feed...I'm sorry I meant lawyers to put together a nice multi-million dollar lawsuit...

Re:A Great Defense...

[Jett]

The problem with your argument is that you are still distributing copyrighted music. You can have an mp3 of the music if you've bought the CD, but you can't give that mp3 to someone who doesn't own the CD.

What I want to know is how exactly are Dre's lawyers going to hunt down all of these people? It seems like it would be extremely difficult.

Dr. Dre is a hippocrite - mixtapes...

[Ragin'Cajun]

There seem to be quite a few similarities between the MP3s and mixtapes.

A bit of background: back in the '80s, hiphop was getting almost no commercial airplay. So there was no way for an artist to become known. An aspiring musician would get caught in a catch-22, where he wouldn't get invited to play at a club because he was unknown, and he couldn't get known without performing in clubs.

So what ended up happening was this artist would give a couple of tracks to a DJ who spun at a club. It would help the DJ, because he would be getting cool music to play, furthering his own reputation, and it would also help the artist by getting him more recognition.

Many DJs also made mixtapes on the side, to supplement their income. An unknown artist would have relatively little problem with being put on a tape, because it would get his material out to a wider audience, but DJs tended to put better-known artists on tapes as well, in order to have some big names on the tape so that people would recognize the artists on it and therefore buy it. The mixtape industry was, and to a lesser degree, continues to be, the method of choice for distributing new music to the core listening audience in a particular city, although nowadays, hiphop gets a lot more mainstream radio airplay than it used to.

Thus, an entire industry was built on mixtapes. The electronic music scene (house, drum&bass, breaks, etc.) evolved in a similar way, where the original artist would not be paid for the music.
There is still a booming industry of largely illegal mixtapes. Sometimes the cops crack down on them, but mostly, the artists leave it alone, in recognition that they would not be where they are today if it were not for mixtapes.

MP3s can work in a similar way, as others have commented. A hard core MP3 collector will get all kinds of music, often experimenting with material he might not know yet, and he will show his technically-challenged friends particularly interesting tracks. The only difference here is that the middleman, the DJ, is cut out of the loop. Dre is just a moneygrubbing bastard who, unlike other artists (Chuck D. comes to mind), cannot see far enough past his fat belly to recognize the potential of this new medium.

Point of contention

[geekoid]

I would just like to add that MP3's are not illegal, but rather, distributing copyright material is illegal. I have several mp3's of my son laughing, I don't think that a crime. yet. :)
Yes I relize this is nit picking, but imagine if some legislator that doesn't grok this technology passes a law outlawing mp3's? suddenly I'm a criminal, even if I have never circulated copywritten material illegally.on the other hand, we will see a rise in mp4's!

A lot of people are missing the point

[ca1v1n]

It is illegal to keep mp3s in any kind of publically accessible directory, even if you own the CD. Having the CD, or even going out and buying it after receiving a lawsuit, will not protect you. It doesn't matter whether it's napster, ftp, fserve, etc.

I am well aware that napster can be a great marketing tool. Well, the obvious answer to this is to let the program remain in distribution, and let the artists and their labels decide which ones to authorize for distribution. Nobody has the right to make up their minds for them. They have every right to sue someone who does.

It is true that pirating has been around for ages. In many cases, it would be things like mix tapes, tapes from the radio, or tape copies of CDs. These were (and still are) usually distributed face to face. This is an inherently limited form of transaction, with very little risk of getting caught, and little damage to the artist, since these have a very high rate of turning into purchases. Napster distribution is different, however. It does not have this morally mitigating factor. Napster is blind. Napster allows anyone to go online and download just that one hit they want, and never buy the album. They don't have to ask a friend for a recommendation, or have to discuss it in the way people often do when trading tapes or mp3s on an individual basis. It's a pure and simple rip-off.

Two Faced Foo

[Steel Chicken]

According the hackernews.com

and i quote:

"Rap artists Dr. Dre has filed suit against five universities and students for violating copyright laws by using Napster. the lawsuit did not specifically name any students or schools it left them open to be named later. The lawsuit seeks $100,000 per illegally copied work. In an unrelated story Dr. Dre has been sued by LucasFilm
or using the trademark THX sound at the beginning of his album, even after being denied permission. (I guess it is Ok to steal other peoples work as long as they don't steal yours.) "

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[Lowther]

Your average CD costs what, $3? So sell them for $5 and people will buy more

What do we value here, the medium, or the talent of the artist.

There is a position which is tenable for artist and listener here. Most people are prepared to pay for music, so long as the money goes to the artist. The artists are cool with this too.

The problem is the intermediaries. The record producers, 'talent management', other miscellaneous hangers-on, distribution, packaging, inventory management, profit of resellers and all the other crap which goes with a CD. For an artists talent to reach my front room, it passes through the hands of a lot of intermediaries. Of the £15 I pay for my CD, the artist gets a few pennies.

The great thing is, the internet can ultimately create a communication channel between artist and listener, bypassing the intermediaries, resulting in cheaper music for the listener, and better reward for the artist, and indeed for more artists. In this respect, Napster has an opportunity to position itself as the enabler in this revolution.

The only losers are ther intermediaries. Tough. The artist doesn't need them, neither do we. But they have money, taken from people like us paying to listen to artists we want to support, and access to lawyers. They have the RIAA, so they are organised. They will fight tooth and nail to retain their stranglehold, and it will be a bloody battle. But they will lose. It will be in my lifetime as well.

To win this battle, we need a business model which distributes the music to the paying customer, with a bit creamed off for technology costs, but the rest going back to the artist, and we need to keep the artists on-side.

Rather than being far sighted, Dr Dre and the RIAA are defending their outmoded hegemony to the last. They are dinosaurs, doomed to extinction. What we are hearing is the frightened bellows of a soon to be extinct species, who are watching the sky, waiting for the meteorite.

Re:Slightly More Sensible...

[Lowther]

"If it turns out that there are people who have huge hard drives and actually are downloading copyrighted materials and transmitting (them) on the Internet, we may very well go after them because they are engaged in theft," said Dr. Dre attorney Howard King. The suit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, follows a similar suit by heavy-metal group Metallica. Both suits were filed by King.

He wouldn't be related to boxing promoter Don King by any chance, would he ? That would explain everything .........

i ain't done anything illegal before

[edthemonkey]

Poor guy, i'm sure he needs more money. Seems to me that's what he's in it for. All of the artists, they keep bringing up the fact that downloading copyrighted material is illegal and that they lose money. If that's the only illegal thing kids are doing these days, it's probably not all that bad. My guess is that a guy like Dre and the members of Metallica are perfect angels and have never done anything illegal in their lifetimes. Dre raps about smoking blunts, pimpin and shooting people, good thing he stands against crimes like downloading mp3s. There are people out there who would never have gone out and bought a Dre album or a Metallica album if it had not been for mp3s. They search around and say, hmm Metallica sure why not? They listen to a few tracks and go man i really like this, I'll support em and go out and by the album. Maybe if artists didnt curn out so much crap. Go beyond the two or three good songs on a cd and make the entire thing worth going out and buying. Maybe include some other incentive on the cd that makes us want to buy it.

i say : burn your dr. dre mp3s!

[zenzizi]

i mean, technically they are right.
but that's not a constructive way of solving things! so to hell with him!
he proves he got no soul!

i still got love for tha street? yeah right!

my opinion has always been that
if there was a way for the artists
to charge less then cd's
but make as much if not more money
(after all, THEY are the soul we are buying)
so to hell with distributors.

burn the intermediaires! :)

Re:Enforcing?

[DrgnDancer]

Encryption won't work against a warrant or other court order (I don't think they are called warrants in civil cases). They will instruct you to unencrypt the data or face additional (criminal) charges.

This is getting out of hand

[austinij]

This is way out of hand, don't cha think? The MPAA and the artists just need to accept MP3 as thier new technology. We went thorugh this with CD's and cassette tapes. MP3 will win just like the old formats did.

Re:What one should bear in mind is that . . .

[Pihkal]

Uh, actually, use of a sample in another artistic work does not, to my knowledge, fall under fair use. Examples:

BizMarkey had his ass sued off for sampling a James Brown riff for one album, had to pay all the money he made off it, and then called his next album "All Samples Cleared!"

Vanilla Ice never attributed the main riff of "Ice, Ice, Baby" to Queen and David Bowie for "Under Pressure", and ended up paying them millions.

Generally, if a sample is recognizable, you are legally obligated to pay for it. Personally, I think that if you're work is different enough from the original, you should not be required to pay, but that if you are obviously using it as the bulk of your track, then you should pay out the nose for being a talentless hack. I wouldn't mind people using samples of my work to create their own works, as long as it did not appear that they were presenting my work as their own. Giving credit where due is a must.

FUCK DR. DRE & Metallica too!

[Sonicboom]

Greedy ass cocksuckin bastards!

Maybe stop charging $20 for a cd, and $30+ for a concert ticket!

Maybe they'll be able to stop people from making casette tapes and trading them... oh wait! They've already tried that!

*grumble*
They're all assholes!

Re:this isn't so different than parts of IRC

[aTRaTiCa]

File transfers on IRC have no servers, they are established through DCC, Direct Client Connetcion, they don't go through the IRC server, enjoy trying to find logs for those.

Yes, but most ircd's (I think) report to you the filename before it's sent. Say you send something to johndoe on irc.madeup.net. Your irc client will send the initilization quest to irc.madeup.net and irc.madeup.net will send the request to JohnDoe. If JohnDoe accepts, then the Direct Client to Client connection is made...

Anyways, I tihnk it would be a waste to log it anyway... I'm a musician, I'd hate to have my work pirated, but hell... atleast then I'd have SOME fans :)

Ahhh... torn emotions

[argoff]

should I hate them because they're trying to take away my liberties, or should I love them because they will certainly make fools out of themselves trying to do it. Ahhh, decisions decisions ......

leaping into litagation

[flatrabbit]

I love that fact that these artists who's album sales aren't what they used to be jump to sue. Why don't they try something different? I'm sure there must be some other avenue that could be used.

Any suggestions?
mabye they(metallica,Dr.Dre, Etc.) can do one of those "the more you know.." commercials.
I can just see it Lars and Dre staring intently into the camera

"When you download our music using Napster you are stealing our property and that makes us sad."

"Don't use Napster, people. We need our 10,000+ sq ft homes and 5+ cars."

"How would you feel if you had become immensely rich and when you began to fade people downloaded you music electronicly, and without even paying for it!"

(start corny music) "the more you know..." (end corny music)


flatrabbit,
peripheral visionary

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[JudgePagLIVR]

Actually, I've downloaded plenty of country mp3's (I own the originals as well).

"Now some people say that you shouldn't tempt fate,
and for them I cannot disagree
but I've never learned nothin' from playin' it safe
I say fate should not tempt me."
- Mary Chapin Carpenter

Re:Dr. Dre must have forgotten the purpose of Hip

[canny]

Since when is Dr. Dre hip-hop?

Crazy lawyers..

[stuckpixel]

I agree with much of what has been said here, I agree that it is technically a crime for people to be transmitting copyrighted mp3s, but there is no viable way to stop it. I think that the lawyers are taking a step in the right direction on actually targeting the users, but why are they still sueing Napster? Napster did what they could, they said they would ban users who were illegally transmitting those files, but they are still being sued? Napster is a method of transporting files, just as HTTP and FTP. If they are to ban Napster, or sue the creator because it is a helping hand to criminals, does that mean that the creators of HTTP and FTP will soon be sued or banned as well?

-stuckpixel-

Re:Wow...

[jeillah]

MP3 and Napster do not hurt artist. It helps to get their music (or whatever) out to people who may not have otherwise been exposed to it. If someone likes an artist, they will go out and buy the CD for other value added, go to their shows, watch their videos on MTV, whatever, if they can afford it. If not, the artist should be glad that people who otherwise would not have been exposed to their material get to experience it and become fans. 'Course if the artist sucks then they should worry because people won't have to buy a whole CD to find out that only the song that they play all day on the radio is any good and the rest sucks...

Identification

[DeepPurple]

I wonder how DRE is planning on identifying napster users? I imagine placing random taps on ethernet sockets in colleges and regions that have cable modems would have civil liberties implications.

If napster is supid enough to keep logs of it users then they and napster deserve to have there ass sued off.

So are they planning on conducting dawn raids on any room with a computer?

I think that this is little more than a show suit designed to raise publicise his cause and scare few people.

-dp

What a bunch of crap...

[destiney]

I'm beginning to see the big picture now. And it's hilarious!

A bunch of uneducated musicians (from an internet point of view) and a bunch of money grubbing lawyers think they can control media on the net. What a laugh! Sure, sue napster, have their application banned worldwide. Tommorrow, a different software group will release the same software under a different name.

It's quite funny to read things like "remove mp3 files from napster's servers" which shows their total lack of internet knowledge and research into how things work.

Music piracy has been going on for years. I couldn't tell you how many times I and my friends dubbed our favorite heavy metal tapes back in the late 80's. Same concept, different decade...

The lawsuits against the dual tape deck lost way back then, and I predict a similar outcome with the napster lawsuits.

Musicians and lawyers alike need to wake up and realize, media control on the internet is futile... It will be assimilated...

Napster Rearranged by Limp Bizkit

[creep]

See, I like Limp Bizkit lead singer Fred Durst's view on the matter. Looks like Napster is underwriting the cost of a free Limp Bizkit concert tour of the U.S. The article on Yahoo! is here.

In the article, Durst is quoted saying, "`I would think the only people worried about that are people that are really worried about their bank accounts." He proceeded to say that it is a great way for fans and potential listeners to taste an album before buying it.

Well said, master Fred!

------------------

Re:A Great Defense...

[JosephA]

Or just take the files you share in that folder and continually move them to another folder on the hard drive. Napster thinks you've got very little to share and hardly anybody uploads from you.

Think, man!

Solution

[nkanwar]

Whats the solution you say? A: Don't listen to Dr. Dre anymore. His music is terrible anyways. It really shouldn't be called music, just the rants of some guy is what it is. Maybe the Doctors should sue him for using the "Dr." title and George Lucas should force him to hand over all profits made from stealing a THX sound.

Re:They are both HAS BEENS

[tiefling]

Let me think...Hank Williams is dead! not much room for a fan club there. And Every single Metallica album that will ever be made will go at least Platinum if not double.

Bow wow wow yippee o yippee yay...

[AntiNorm]

Bow wow wow yippee o yippee yay Dre's gonna sue all day every day Bow wow wow yippee o yippee yay The Napsta muthaf**kas are goin' to pay Bow wow wow yippee o yippee yay Dre can't rap but he sure can sue Bow wow wow yippee o yippee yay I'd be really really careful if I was you


=================================

Re:A Great Defense...

[DgtlGhost]

Ah, But, if it is leagal for me to own a copy of the offending title by way of an album purchase, BUT, I don't have a MP3 ripping program, is it wrong for you to give me an MP3? If not, then all you are doing is expecting people to be as responcable as you are, and doing them a favor. It's like bumming a smoke to someone, as long a they are of age, you can't get in trouble, but how do you card over then 'net?
Just a thought...

-Earthman

Re:What exactly...

[cheekymonkey_68]

Nah its not a doctorate
It really stands for Drive-by Rapper

Re:Dre and others should quit whining

[batmn42]

www.imesh.com
www.hotlinehq.com
there are plenty of ways to trade all kinds of files. this means:
-stopping napster (and its users, if dre is willing to go that far) won't do anything
-music/files will ALWAYS be traded for free-- encryptions will be broken, people will always go for the free stuff if they can avoid paying as you say, mp3 is now effectively ineradicable
Sony just introduced a new method of distribution for music on the internet.. it doesn't say it in that article, but in Billboard magazine they quoted a price of about $2.95 per song, to be distributed in conjunction with CD Now. Who in their right mind would pay three bucks for a song they can get free? The internet is changing all kinds of media, and the only thing we know for certain about where it's going is that record companies are being FORCED to stop overcharging for music, copyrights or not.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[natet]

>snip<
Now eventually when everyone and their mother has broadband and has access to cheap MP3 players (or other digital sound dplayers), where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck.
>snip<

I disagree. I think the music industry would be right back where they started, where it is all about the music and the message. The majority of the music industry has left those early ideals behind. The movie Jerry McGuire screamed out their mantra (and societies in general), "SHOW ME THE MONEY."

In the early days of the music industry, the recording studios exploited the artists. Then they figured out that they wouldn't get many artists with them that way, so they turned to exploiting the fans. Now the fans have a way to show the music industry they won't get much money that way. I agree, that perhaps they should charge more for concerts, or perhaps hold more concerts in more venues. I know a lot of people (myself included) who have never attended a concert because they couldn't see travelling 4 hours to see some band play. But if they played a city a little closer they might have gone and payed the $60 to get in the door.

Further, I think it is rediculous to try and make up money for the video in cd sales. When I buy a cd, I am not buying a freaking video, and I don't expect to pay for it!!!! The video should pay for itself through other means, leasing it to the music video tv stations or something like that.

Another option that the recording industry should look at is creating their own mp3 dowload program similar to napster, and use advertising to subsidize it. If they could get as big a fan base as napster now has, they could charge a premium price for ad banners on their program!! They just need a little imagination.

Re:One of the best little ideas.

[suss]

Operate a computer with a nice little deadman's switch connected to a detonator with a can of thermite on the hard drive. When they try to take your computer away the computer's internal hd dies and all the supposed "evidence" goes with it.
I think a windows 98 install will have about the same desired effect after a while.

Re:Wow...

[Izubachi]

I download mp3s off napster constantly. Not only do I admit this illegal, I also admit this in direct copywrite violation and I also admit that it's stealing. However, artists such as Dr. Dre make money off their concerts, not their CDs, so I simply can't think of it as stealing from artist themselves. I'm stealing from the record companies, and frankly, I have absolutely no moral qualms whatsoever with stealing from the mafia (they are equivelent, in my eyes, legit buisness practices or not). Maybe I have a screwed up morality, but in any case, I will continue to download mp3s and enjoy them until I get sued or arrested.

It's all about the music

[laddy]

Remember back when all these guys didn't have a penny, and were just trying to get recognition... "It's all about the music," you'd hear them say, and as a matter of fact, if you ask them now, they'll still say the same thing.

"It's not about how you dress, or how you cut your hair, it's about the music..."
Well, perhaps for some it is, but don't you dare make them lose a penny in profits, or they'll sue your ass off. :)

But to get a bit more serious here, am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense what-so-ever? I mean, they're actually hunting down the people who like their music. If these "artists" keep this up, they might just end up losing a heck of a lot more money than what they've lost already, simply because people will stop buying their records. Just how much slapping in the face can the fans take?

Re:but how do they prove it?

[laddy]

By that same logic, you could argue it was the kid's cat who launched those DDoS attacks.

Re:Wow...

[za,am]

I agree with you entirely. I'm a thief. I'm a criminal. No doubt about it. If Dre put me to trial, I'd have no case - I'd plead guilty: "Yes, your honour, I stole music." Its rather frightening that other people are having difficulties realizing that this is blatant theft and go on to try and defend it. I don't. I'm a criminal.

Re:Wow...

[za,am]

To steal you must take. A taking incurs a loss. There is no loss here.

You could just as well argue that taking incurs a gain. There is a gain here.

Re:Wow...

[za,am]

What if I take away your stock options? You haven't lost anything.. but you have lost a *potential* gain ..in this case the potential is higher but the reasoning is the same. I'm sure that you'd feel that some sort of loss was incurred, wouldn't you?

Re:bullshit

[joshsisk]

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, is FORCING you to buy any album multiple times. YOU do it because YOU want to.

Hmm. Let's see. I have a sizable 8 track collection. My 8 track player/record player combo breaks. I cannot be without the lovely sounds of Foghat and the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, so I go to Circuit City. WHAT! No 8 track players? Well, how about a record player then, so at least I can listen to my CCR. WHAT! No record players?

Seriously, it's almost getting hard to find a cassette tape player these days, unless its part of a jambox stereo. It's true that no one makes people buy multiple copies of music, but it's certainly make it hard not to, if you have been listening to music for a long while.

Digital media might spell the end of that... It'll would be nice, when cd's go out of style, to be able to put them on my mp3/digital music player along with all my records and not be forced to buy the next wave of physical media music.

That's really the record industry's problem. For the first time, the people have chosen a medium they want their music in, as opposed to having been presented with one, then forced to switch to it. They need to create a system thats workable, where people can get what they want the way they want it, for a reasonable price. Then Napster and mp3 "piracy" will be a thing of 1337 chat rooms and warez sites. Of course, such a plan would cut into their profits, since you wounldn't be forced to buy a album of filler for just one song, nor would they be able to charge as much for packaged cds. So it'll probably never happen

Josh Sisk

MP3 is not going away.

[chowda]

He can sue until he's blue but, thats not going to stop people from trading this stuff. What he should be doing instead is finding a way to roll with the punches and make something good from it. He could make a few "just for MP3" songs and give them out, or something.

I personally have a rather extensive collection of MP3's (no Dr. Dre, I'm proud to say). I have been trading them for about 3 years. In this same 3 year period I have bought 5 CD's, before this 3 year period I owned a total of 2 CD's. MP3's have made me an avid music fan.

I appologize for the rhymes....

------
www.chowda.net
------

Dr. Dre must have forgotten the purpose of Hip Hop

[Ace905]

On ZDNet's Talkback, one user said, "I think Napster has a point here in that they can't be considered solely responsible for people using their software to trade and distribute copyrighted material.".

Another user mentioned that he can burn any cd he wishes, as can anyone who owns a CD burner. CD Burners sell for as little as $60CDN (Though, those burners are horrible).

Does Dr. Dre have the right to sue HP for the Cd writers they create, or Compaq for simply including CD Writers in there low-end systems?

What about using a Tape recorder? I believe this so-called lawyer contacted as many artists as he could and convinced them legal action was necessary & profitable. Hey it's worth a few bucks for the sellouts.

I'm white, so I obviously don't know, but I thought Hip Hop was about cutting out the industry and generating a life for the poor artists that are dedicated to it.

If it weren't for the people that actually want to listen to his music, Dr. Dre would be nowhere. Especially considering the industries profits increase as these little kids get music they like and run out for the CD to sponsor there image.

Maybe he's just angry people hear his stuff and decide they'd rather buy something else.

MTV is psychic

[benthecat]

So this is what that show WebRiot is all about... I get it now!

Re:it's not a copy of YOUR cd, though

[Ars-Fartsica]

However, just because you own a CD doesn't necessarily mean you can store a copy of the same song made from someone else's CD.

Effectively it does as there is no meaningful way to determine the source of the recording.

They are both HAS BEENS

[Ars-Fartsica]

Metallica - no one listens to that shit anymore. As if anyone is using Napster to trade in their shit. More people are probably trading Jim fucking Nabors songs than their shit. Hank Williams Sr. has a bigger fan club than these dicks.

As for Dre, he's just a joke. If it wasn't for Snoop Dog and Eminem, no one would give a flying fuck about this knob. Oh I forgot, I'm supposed to be afraid of him since he's a "gangsta".

Who is Suing?

[tringstad]

I find it interesting that both Metallica's and Dr Dre's lawsuits are stemming from the same attorney, Howard King. Especially when there seems to be no other connections between the artists.

I also find it interesting that the same attorney has led artists into similar grey area IP fights before, such as the Temptations suit against one of their own vocalists use of the Temptations name.

Is it more likely that the artists are seeking out King for his expertise in such matters, or that he is selling artists on the idea of suing for what they perceive themselves to be entitled to?

------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."

Re:Prove it.

[sig226]

This isn't a criminal case, its a civil one,
different rules, yes you have to prove that
you did buy the CD.

"Music software to come to genome aid?"

[edp]

A recent issue of Nature 404, 13 April 2000, page 694, has an article, "Music software to come to genome aid?" "When Lincoln Stein, a bioinformaticist at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, heard about Napster, he was struck by the parallels with his own work on writing software for the human genome." Stein thinks Napster would be useful for sharing gene-sequence data, and peer-to-peer sharing with open-source like "debugging" of the annotations of the data has advantages over alternatives like gene banks that restrict modifications to submitters.

Rightly or wrongly, Napster has entangled the issue of sharing with the issue of copying protected intellectual property. The concept of sharing should not fall victim to fears about such copying. Uses of Napster or Napster-like software for clearly legitimate and universally beneficial uses, such as Stein contemplates, would help separate the issues and strengthen and stabilize the acceptance and use of sharing software independently of intellectual property issues.

DR.? dre

[magnum32]

Ok...I guess Andre Young should be by every doctor for using "Dr" despite his obvious lack of a phd.

Re:Um....what?

[muldrake]

"Their only response was (to say that) the songs aren't on their servers, and if (Young) will send a letter under penalty of perjury identifying specific songs and users that they would restrict those users," King said. "That was not a satisfactory response. That was a comical response." This supposed lawyer is an idiot. Under the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a company with a registered agent is protected from copyright infringement suits if they abide by the notification provisions of the law. One of these provisions is that those who complain of copyright infringement (or their agents) are supposed to provide a statement (under penalty of perjury) as to the specific infringing works and enough detail that the company contacted can reasonably be expected to be able to find the infringing material. That moron lawyer is apparently ignorant and his lawsuit will be thrown out under DMCA provisions, if his ignorant comment is any indication as to the legal notice he provided Napster.

DMCA and Napster suit

[muldrake]

From what I can tell, this lawsuit is utterly bogus and is precluded by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

http://www.napster.com/dmca.html is the DMCA required statement which indicates Napster's registered DMCA agent, and requires that copyright infringement complaints comply with the provisions for a copyright infringement notice required by the DMCA.

"Their only response was (to say that) the songs aren't on their servers, and if (Young) will send a letter under penalty of perjury identifying specific songs and users that they would restrict those users," King said.

"That was not a satisfactory response. That was a comical response."

King's comment is utterly moronic and demonstrates a complete ignorance of the DMCA provisions relating to infringement. A notice saying "Quit infringing my copyrights you bad man" is insufficient. What is required is a signed statement, sworn under penalty of perjury. Napster's response was completely appropriate, if King's ignorant comment is any indication of what he included in his cease and desist letter.

If that cease and desist letter did not include such a statement sworn under penalty of perjury, it is entirely without weight and Napster is immune to prosecution.

Which is worse as a Napster user...

[anon7864]

...not setting your maximum file transfer per user to zero(thus preventing anyone from downloading MP3s from you), or actually downloading MP3s from another user? Napster enables downloads to be possible by default.

Which is the worse offense: copying MP3s or making available MP3s?

Can making them available even be considered an offense? It seems that it would be, since you are in essence a "server" when you use Napster.

It seems to me that not setting your max downloads to zero would get you in more trouble than copying.

Re:Dr. Dre can bite my shiny metal ass!

[pheraydor]

>Fuck Redhat. Fuck Debian. Those greedy bastards. >Why should they charge $70-$100 for software I
>should get for free? I'm gonna get it for free.

Yeah! Show those greedy distro folks what for! Download their software for free from their own official website!

Red Hat survives in this paradigm, and I can't help but think that the music industry can work something out.

Bizarre Idea:
Really snazzy website. No programs to fool with.
Reliable search engine.
Download site that might actually be up.
Banner ads out the wazoo.
Maybe even charge a bit per download.
Make extra money through physical (hence, uncopyable) merchandise.
Sell CDs for those who don't want to bother with the above.

Okay, so I'm hopelessly naive. But the (sad?) fact is that MP3s are here, and the choice is not between "MP3 or no MP3", but "Make money from MP3s or don't make money from MP3s."

jesus.. whats this world coming to?

[krappie]

its just a free exchange of information between people. they have been selling 25 cent cds for over $15 way before napster came along. People need to be less greedy.

Re:This is stealing

[ikarma]

Suing will only make him loose a lot of fans. But I don't think he really cares. "one more platinum track and f*** rap, you can have it back!" His own words.

forget about Dre

[commodoresloat]

I agree with the other respondent - these millionaires should shut up and quit their fscking whining. Who is "stealing" what Dre sells? Taping an album is not a crime. And it's not a crime to download the mp3 of a song if you own the album or the CD or the tape. I am not defending "theft" or "piracy" here at all, but it is silly to assume that just because people download mp3s that they are thieves and pirates. In any case, Dre has no legal argument if he cannot show that his record label is losing $ by "piracy," which is why I mentioned the fact that CD sales are up anyway.

At least Chuck D, Limp Bizkit, Cypress Hill, and Offspring "get it." This is about technology and the freedom to use it to promote your art. Sure it raises piracy questions but so has every recording medium since the fscking player piano.

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[commodoresloat]

Actually he's released an album that has gone quadruple platinum which is more than Eminem's (triple platinum).

gee, that's great. so much for the negative effect napster had on his ability to sell records. And my original point was not that he didn't sell any records recently; just that his recent album sucked, IMHO. You don't have to agree.

If it isn't about piracy what is it about? Up until the arrival of MP3s there was very little way for the average Joe to get digital copies of original copies without considerable cost. The report you link to is a red herring (it is from before MP3s when copying meant burning CDs or dubbing tapes and even then in 1989 it was inconclusive).

It's a red herring how? Copying is copying. So what if it's easier now? That's what technology is all about. If Mr. Fuck tha Police can't deal with it, nobody's making him stay in the music industry. The music industry is changing. And technology is one of the forces changing it. Look, Dre was way ahead of his time technologically back in the 80s; there is no question that he pioneered important new directions in hip-hop. But this kind of lawsuit just shows he doesn't grok the Internet and the revolution in information distribution it represents. (And how was the report inconclusive?)

Dr. Dre, the RIAA and Metallica have shown themselves to be more technologically savvy and able to spot trends than most of the people posting to this thread. In a few years broadband will be ubiqituos and devices that play/record digital music will be cheap. Already my roomate and I who are music fans and probably own a combined total of 200 CDs, have almost stopped purchasing CDs.

Hmm, let me get this straight - you support lawsuits against napster users because you yourself are a notorious pirate? You flagrantly violate the copyright laws you cherish, and don't even bother to give back to the music industry, and you think Dre's lawsuit will somehow rid you of your addiction to behavior you consider immoral and illegal? Perhaps you should volunteer to be one of the "as yet unnamed" defendants in the suit.

There will always be leeches who take and don't give back, but that won't bankrupt the music industry. What will bankrupt the music industry - or at least its currently leading crop of robber barons - is a refusal to grow with the times. The internet is a radical medium of information exchange that people are only beginning to understand. One thing it greatly facilitates is sharing information freely. There is no way around that, and those that prosper in the digital age are those who embrace that change as a source of strength rather than run in fear because it forces them to reinvent their business strategies.

where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck. I have thought about different ways that the music industry can thrive in a digital world and none come to mind

The music industry as it currently exists shouldn't live in the digital world then. What do you want to do, outlaw the digit?

Dr. Dre

[Pu22L3R]

This is so stupid, if everyone wasn't so GREEDY!!! Maybe all that "Chronic" Dre's been smokin' has finally caught up with him.

Napster/MP3 can be effective for poplular artists

[TheRackit]

Anyone who has ever seen the way that the music industry works (just watch Behind the Music enough times and you'll get the idea) knows that artists make little money through record sales (percentage-wise compared to the other places that they make their money)- They make their money through merchandising. So, I guess it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for a band like Limp Biskit to promote napster because in doing so many people would be exposed to thier music, go to their shows, buy t-shirts, stickers, etc. Most of the time it is just the record label, not the artist, that suffers from the loss of pirated music and because Dre runs his own label, that's probably why he's pissed. I think that I agree with Chuck-D when he mentioned that with Digital Music becoming so readily availible and relatively easy to make, that the record companies are scared that they are not going to be able to PROFIT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S ART (insert irony here). They will not be able to pimp the bands on the street, because now the bands can pimp themselves. Racket

Re:No, don't pull the weed by the root..Just trim

[an_mo]

If Dr. Dre went after everyone that downloaded his music it would really make no sense

They don't have to go after everyone. They just need to go after a few of them and this will scare everyone off.
That's the power of incentives. For each copyright violation you're liable up to $20,000. If you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of getting caught, your expected fine is $20 (per song). That is more than the cost of a cd.

I have bought CDs because of Napster...

[The Evil Beaver]

With all this nonsense, all these money hungry artists better pray I never get to power, for they will be the first against the wall.

The mumblings of rebellion begin...
Time to bring the machine down.
The hate thats in the air...
It's gonna bring the reckoning.
Bloodshed in the streets...
We fight for our rights.
War is here, it is our time...
To replace the sinners.


When the pack animals stampede, it's time to soak the ground with blood to save the world. We fight, we die, we break our cursed bonds.

warez trading on irc isnt J. Oikarinen's fault

[The Evil Beaver]

neither is it Napster's fault, nor the fault of the format's creator, that people abuse the two by trading copyrighted music by mp3. anyways, because it's almost impossible to get an entire album via Napster (I tried, decided to spend the $30 or so for the two different CDs), people will still be buying CDs. There's also a giant rom market out there... is Nintendo, Sega, or Sony doing anything about it? No, even though they know about it. i have a band, and when we finally get around to making an album, we will probably release half of the songs as mp3s. without any encryption bullshit.


When the pack animals stampede, it's time to soak the ground with blood to save the world. We fight, we die, we break our cursed bonds.

change of attitude needed?

[predator42]

I think that the whole mp3 is a bit overblown, and all these cases have mainly been cooked up by a bunch of lawyers. But then again, without all these cases simmering, all the lawyers would go away, your economy would collapse and your country would fall into anarchy :-)

Seriously though, you can understand how they are running scared, if everybody had broadband (which will happen within the next 5 years) the process of pirating (or copying) a cd becomes so much easier. Its has never been (and will never be) possible to stop people copying something electronic for their friends. I suppose that by doing a few test cases, and convincing a few people to change the law, by the time the technology is readily available to everybody some laws might be in place to curtail the problems faced.

I think some of the focus needs to be shifted towards changing peoples attitudes, rather than this "you are stealing, you are breaking the law, you could go to jail" tactics by the RIAA. Advertising needs to be focused on persuading people to go buy the real thing - nobody really likes a tight ass and essentially that is what people are by not spending a few bucks on a CD. Personally, I tend to try a few things I might otherwise not hear on radio via mp3 (easy with a 5 station duopoly in Australia and only ½ of a station worth listening to), download a few tracks and then go out and buy it if I like it enough. Sure, I don't always do it and have my share of copied cds, but a lot of the time I do, and that is extra money for the record companies that they would not otherwise have. The other focus needs to be a shifting away from persecuting college/young people - they are the majority of ones that pirate but mostly because they can't afford it. As I get older (reaching mid-20's) I find that I am copying things less and less and going out and buying them. I think it's a natural progression, as you have more money you go out and buy things you might otherwise have just copied because you had no, or very little money.

Re:A Great Defense...

[G Neric]

how exactly are Dre's lawyers going to hunt down all of these people?

One at a time? After the first few hundred, others might take notice.

But the genie is out of the bottle. People have had a taste of free software, and they'll just quit using Napster and switch to private networks. I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just saying that I don't see it stopping. Think back to before MP3s: I'm sure that Dr Dre never made a cassette recording of anything copyrighted, but people of his integrity are quite rare. (I wonder if he'd swear to that under oath?)

Re:Wow...

[punkrider]

Fuck yeah.

Minor Threat rules.

rap is music?

[punkrider]

The biggest lie the world has yet to uncover is that "rap is music" ...

Corporate America has never been interested in anything but money. There are plenty of bands that get along fine with minimal revenue. Look at all the Punk / Hardcore bands that haven't sold out, yet have a huge following! Slogans on their CD's such as, "Pay no more than $5 for this!" are common, and $10 for a show is pretty expensive. My favorite bands keep putting out CD's and are constantly on tour, but do you know why they are coming out?

TO MEET THEIR FANS

There is nothing better to them, than to play a show where the fans get to come up on stage and sing along...the mosh pit is going crazy...and everyone walks away feeling a little bit better about themselves.

FUCK THE CORPORATE MUSIC INDUSTRY

All they care about is whether you go out and buy their next CD or not. Why? Because this is how they can keep up with their $$$$ lifestyles.

I say we open their eyes a little wider, and if it takes Napster or Gnutella or something similar to do it, then GREAT! Besides, wouldn't it be fun to see Dr. Dre trying to live off $20,000 a year! HAHAHA, oh my. He would probably kill himself.

Limp Bizkit/Cyrpess Hill tour

[dark_panda]

Word on the street that the Napster-supported LP/CH tour is still looking for a third band/artist to put on the bill. Apparently (as per the rumors), the band will be voted for by Bizkit and Cypress fans.

Let's all vote for Dr. Dre and Metallica.

J

Re:Limp Bizkit/Cyrpess Hill tour

[dark_panda]

Damn my idiocy. I take it you can't specifiy a target in URLs. (Take it easy on me, I'm new.)

Metallica still reeks.

J

Re:the real issue is control of content distributi

[dark_panda]

Metallica is really going off the deep end -- just recently, they've forced several Metallica fan sites to take down guitar tabs of their songs.

They probably just want to suck more money out of their fans by making them buy official tabulature books, authorized by Lars himself.

J

Allright Dre

[slamouritz]

I really dont get the average slashdot reader, everbody seems to think this is a bad thing. I dont, instead of going after Napster. Who really have no control over how the kiddies are using thier software. I should be the users whom gets the legal hassel, they are the ones stealing. I find it very disturbing to read the comments here. Most of seems to be discusted over the fact that it isnt legal to steal music..

Re: You�re right, but then again..

[slamouritz]

it really arent legal to tape off the air eighter :o)
And isnt it a bit naive to think that napser users buy more music, because of it? I think the reason sales is up. Has more to do with lower prices and a booming (ok, not @ nasdaq) ecommomy. I mean car-theifs dont have eight vericles @ home eighter.
And about "This isn't about piracy at all - it's about an industry that is afraid to change with the times." - sorry, but this is incorrect. Theres no doubt that the music industry fear for its life hood.. And its understandable, how much global bandwith is it napster got.. Isnt gaing very quick on HTTP?

And that IS a problem :o)
Daniel "i like commodores 2" Mouritsen

How is this even possible

[Khrysdam]

If no one is making a profit of his music, is it even worth sueing for? Sure he's loosing money, but he's an artist right? I thought artists don't care about fame and money, they care about expressing themselves. And 100x as many people will hear what he has to say becouse of napster.

Re:This is stealing

[Qalat]

Personally, I have 2 issues with Napster: 1) Distributing copyrighted material w/out permission is piracy, but that generally isn't a big deal on a small scale (yeah, I've shared MP3's and other such stuff with my friends). Napster, on the other hand, is a LARGE scale operation, equivocable to a quickly growing music store chain that does nothing but pirate. Sure, they don't actually make people pay for this stuff, per se, but that doesn't change things much. 2) Napster eats up bandwidth like an obese draft horse on steroids and pot.

Re:Wow...

[iv]

This is ridiculous. Dr. Dre probably can't even spell "MP3".

Re:bullshit

[ElectricE]

Ok, how about you go and try and log on to the internet using that old 8088 comp you got stuck in the basement? You have to keep up with the times in any tech environment or you miss out on the new stuff being produced. Try and find the chemical brothers on 8 track.

Name

[DreIsGay]

How does he get a name/address to sue? If nap gives it out its violation of privacy, no?

Re:The RIAA would argu[e] otherwise

[Eighteen Rabbit]

That argument is unsound, thus invalid.

The useful part of the device is the medium it uses. "Digital" implies the recording of 1's and 0's. If a harddrive that a computer uses is not considered a "digital" medium, then vinal should not be classified as "analog".

This is an argument which ignores definition.

Internet copyright idea

[hyphz]

I think that the recent furore over Napster is indicative of a basic conflict over copyright law. The real problem is that copyright law is, basically, a fair principle, and it's one that we do need to have in order that people can do things properly in society. (And although I like free software as much as the next chap, that doesn't mean you can do without copyright: if there was no intellectual property provision, anyone could grab Linux, rip it apart and sell it at a profit, and nobody could stop them because the authors and similar would have no rights; the GPL couldn't exist, since there would be nothing to license)
But recently copyright law has been very much seen by many people as the enemy, because it stops them doing things, and many people don't feel they are being protected by it themselves. Hence, people don't respect it, and companies and legislators are forced into heavy-handed manuevers (like distrustful hardware and the DMCA) to attempt to force it on people. This means it is seen even more as an enemy, and the cycle continues.
This is what we need to change. The only people who do not get the protection of copyright are people who don't produce any original work, but I can't imagine that ANYONE doesn't produce any original *intellectual* work ever in their lives.
So, my thought is as follows: firstly, abolish the parallel development provision. Parallel development normally states that you don't violate copyright by producing an idea that's the same as someone else's as long as you didn't actually copy it. Although it sounds reasonable, it causes a problem: a person who is famous and/or rich or similar can take an idea they've had and make it so ambient in society (having it played on the radio or TV, broadcast in shops, etc.) that nobody can claim parallel development, whereas an average citizen who has an idea and isn't famous or whatever, or is perhaps just *meek* and doesn't consider it worthwhile to put their ideas forward for evaluation, cannot do this and hence any rights they might claim to the idea become wholly ineffectual since any other person can use it and claim parallel development. This violates the idea of intellectual property, which is after all meant to be *intellectual*; the value of an idea shouldn't change based on your ability to broadcast it. Ideally, we should have it that if you think of a good tune, you should be able to copyright it even if you can't write music or play a musical instrument, or indeed if you're completely crippled - you still did the *intellectual* bit, after all. Of course, this can't be implemented because we tend to need proof that the work was written.
The second idea is to use the internet to make copyright friendly. Instead of warring against the internet, open the copyright libraries onto the internet for free upload. If you have an idea: sketch it and scan it, type it, hum it and sample it, whatever, then head over to http://itsmyidea.gov/, hit the upload button, and presto - you own the copyright (assuming it's not somebody else's idea already, which would have to be checked). Internet cafes could provide equivalents for people who don't have access to the necessary multimedia hardware. A quality scale of copyright would need to be set up, so that submitting a hummed tune would be as good as a full orchestral arrangement (otherwise, again, you're valuing physical production values over intellectual value).
Hopefully when all people have an equal state in intellectual property, and even the average man on the street can recieve a copyright payment, then the law will be more respected and the horrible technological attitudes will be relaxed.

Yo betta recognize...

[Dr.Dre]

.... that I got all you bitches now that have stolen my beats
and I am gonna sue your motherfuckin' ass,
and then when I have won,
I'm going looking for the dopeman.




Smoke weed everyday

??

[j#j]

hello

What is CmdrTaco saying?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is CmdrTaco saying that the people stealing Dr. Dre's intellectual property shouldn't be sued because there are a lot of them? Does that even make sense?

Re:What is CmdrTaco saying?

[msm1th]

I think a better question is: How do Dr. Dre's recordings qualify as "intellectual" property? :)

Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that:
-G's in da hood do not have Napster
-G's in da hood do not have the internet
-G's in da hood do not have computers

Therefore:

His core audience are not G's in da hood.

Again, I'm guessing that:
-Teenaged white males from prominent middle class families use Napster

Through inductive logic, I can infer that:
-Dr Dre writes music for teenaged white males
-Dr Dre likes teenaged white males
-Dr Dre will eventually open up an amusement park for young white males, resulting in one or more lawsuits alleging that he sexually molested them
-Dr Dre will lose all of his money as a result of his lawsuit against Napster

Thank You.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't really mean they are far-seeing, just that they see that people are ripping them off and want to get money for it.

The software industry couldn't stop piracy, and the music industry probably won't either. Only difference is that the music industry doesn't really seem to care about the law or human rights, just itself.

It can't sue Napster because Napster is only a tool, it can't go after the users because there are too many. They can't do anything and although it sounds wrong, they shouldn't be able to. Next thing you know they'll get a law passed so that software/hardware has to be installed monitoring for illegal music. Never mind the privacy or rights of people, all that matters is that they aren't getting the short end of the stick.

Instead they should be trying to find ways to cooperate with the consumer, and take away most of the incentive for piracy. You know there are people out there PAYING others $5+ for burned CDs. The RIAA could still make the as much, if not more money by lowering their prices.

In the past, the consumer hasn't had any such power over the music industry. The RIAA has basically had the ability to kick music fans around and do whatever it wants. Raise CD prices? Why not? Make CDs with one or two good songs and the rest with filler? Hey more money for us.

Theft is bad, but hey, the RIAA should learn to accept the facts, and play by the rules, even if others aren't. Sure they'll probably never beat the deal that piracy offers, but they can try. They have to understand that people buying CDs are music fans, not just money bags.

If the copyright holders are abusing the fans' love of music then they deserve to get a lesson. Problem is, it was never possible, until now. Of course, the RIAA fails to see that and thinks bullying people around and caging movements will bring music fans back to the happy, money dishing insignificants they were before.

Dammit.

[Chris Johnson]

Not again? As if Metallica wasn't enough. You know, I love and hate these stories...

I love them because I am _smack_ in the middle of the topic: I'm a musician, working hard and putting out a lot of innovative, professional, well-produced music, all on mp3 and in fact on mp3.com.

I hate them because no matter how strident I get, no matter how I rant and make people sick of hearing from me like a guitar toting RMS ( ;) ) there is always another person sounding off the same old lines: "mp3 is illegal because", "mp3 hurts artists", and now there's some "it won't last because eventually they'll just make mp3 illegal" and people are giving up on it, saying "we'll just use mp4 or something!"

No no nooooo! It may not be all that great a format, but the reason we have digital music so ubitiquously is that CD audio (also not that great a format) proliferated and was not constantly being 'upgraded'! Data formats are not _fashion_. There's an archival value to them and the last thing you want is to be churning them like fscking Excel binaryformats. Yes, CD Audio is lame, yes mp3 is lamer and lossy, but it's all relative- many Philips cassettes are lamer still, and those were an accepted format! mp3 needs to look forward to a life as long as CD audio. It's right at the quality point where it's a good general purpose format- and we've not even begun to see its potential. I have a fancy JPEG plugin I use on images- cost me a fair bit but it optimises Huffman coding and does other tricky hacks and the quality of its output rivals the average JPEG encoder at _half_ the file size. It's that good- and the same thing can be done with mp3, I'm sure of it. 128K will end up sounding a lot like 256K in a couple years... if the format is not killed through neglect.

I'm going to ask something from my fellow slashdotters (yah, you knew this was coming, hear me out): please go grab all the songs of mine that you can, at www.mp3.com/ChrisJ , and put them on Napster. OK? Please, as many of you as possible, do this. I do get a few nano-cents from each download but they do not charge _you_, and of course I get nothing from napster exchanges. But I have the capacity as the copyright holder and owner of my songs _and_ the mechanical recordings of them, to _permit_ such exchanges- and I think this is important, because all this noise is how mp3s and napster are all illegal and piracy and theft and a lot of bullshit like that, and I would really like to be able to prove beyond a doubt that the format and even Napster serve _some_ valid purpose, and again I OWN my music and I AM ALLOWED to permit people to trade it on napster! Dammit, it makes me angry to see corporate whores 'protecting my interests as an artist' by stomping on MY listeners or potential listeners and also cutting off MY access to media! It just really makes me angry, OK? They are NOT helping me by doing this, don't be confused about that. I am outright saying I _want_ my music distributed freely over the net and Napster, that I _want_ it to be like instant radio which is entirely promotional in nature and has no relation to micropayments and 'security' and crap like that, that I see tremendous utility in this and that I also have personal feelings of wanting to be ALLOWED to give my music to a person I haven't even met who happens to not have money for it right at the moment (I can sympathise- I myself am living on ramen and spaghettios this week), and... I don't have a RIGHT to take that position?

It's my damn music, not theirs. They have no right to restrict what I may do with it! _I_ am the creator here and owe them nothing.

I don't appreciate this 'to protect the artists' slant, especially when people unwittingly buy into it... the fact is, I am dead serious about trying to build a music/sound engineering career based on these new modes of distribution. I have done my homework, huge amounts of it, and frankly the existing industry is the most horribly harmful thing you could imagine- pretend it's like all software companies are divisions of Microsoft, and they control all commercial software of all types so you can't program unless you cut a deal with them on their terms. They own basically everything and have controlling interest in everything else and are very prone to stuff like looking at your work and then cutting you dead and paying somebody to knock off your program and saying 'see you in court'. It's like a music version of that, and keeps getting worse, until if you don't know the score you wouldn't believe it. I just can't go along with this at all- and it is these people who are trying to kill the new distribution model that _I_ could use to not need them!

Links:
Steve Albini: Some Of Your Friends Are Probably Already This Fucked
Bobby S. Fred: How The Game Works (Scam Indies)

This is serious.

So... when I say go grab all the songs at www.mp3.com/ChrisJ and put them on napster, when I point at the CDs I have up there (which are produced via some neat press-to-order tech mp3.com's invented) and beg people to buy them in support of what I am trying to do here... that is coming from someone who feels, very deeply, that all that could be TAKEN AWAY. Maybe sooner than you think! And maybe you won't give a rat's ass about some bozo musician in Vermont no longer having access to a format (mp3) and a dotcom (mp3.com) that will print up his CDs on an as-needed basis for only nonexclusive rights to the music... but I have to take it more seriously. If this was happening to programmers, slashdot would be up in arms- why does it seem debatable if it happens to musicians? It's the equivalent of programmers having to go to say Microsoft to be 'authorised' to practice their craft professionally. "Oh, you must not be a _real_ programmer, otherwise Microsoft would want to hire you, so therefore it's OK to get rid of gzip- only criminals use it and I heard there are viruses that are transported in gzipped form! Better get rid of tar too while we're at it. Then we can license RPM so that only authorised people are allowed to use it..."

furrfu, another huge rant. I'm sorry :) I swear, I meant to only write a bit. Please, while I still have an mp3.com that will press up CDs for me and give me half, BUY one- please, while I still have an mp3 format that I'm allowed to distribute my own music over the net with, USE it and listen to my stuff and (I hope!) enjoy it and share it with your friends? If that doesn't seem like enough you are _free_ to go buy another CD of mine to make up for the napsterring, I wouldn't dream of stopping you. But I simply cannot go along with coercion, so the end result might be that I am just plain silenced, the format I use stifled or co-opted, the site I distribute from killed through lawsuits (some of which are arguably valid- but they have every right to redistribute _my_ music and in fact they pay me small amounts to do so).

Please? Help me out. www.mp3.com/ChrisJ

Okay, there's REALLY no graceful way to do this

[dougman]

Altough I realize I'm about to get flamed halfway to Mars, I simply have to point out that I've been covering this story for a week at The Swindle. Several pretty pointed editorial/stories are up for your review/consideration.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[Danse]

That much I know, but happy != corny, and neither does joyful. Most of us remember the song from the Flintstones, "...we'll have a gay old time." In that context, the British meaning of gay makes sense. Still doesn't shed any light on the earlier poster's use of the word though.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[Danse]

gay == corny ???

Learn something new every day I guess.

There is some irony here....

[V.]

Ok, Dr. Dre. I'll pay up the money I "owe" *you* when you pay James Brown for all of those samples.

ATTN lawyers:
I don't actually listen to Dr. Dre...no CDs, no MP3's...so put that pen down and go chase an ambulance or something.

Users are the right ones to prosecute

[slim]

If Napster users are using Napster to break laws, then I'm all for seeing them prosecuted -- and not Napster themselves.

So, this is a strike for common sense. How refreshing.
--

Yaright

[cpt kangarooski]

It's highly unlikely that this will ever happen - certainly on any kind of large scale. Lawyers don't usually care too much for tort cases in which there is not the potential for a big payback.

So while Dr. Dre might make an example of a few people in an attempt to scare the others (which is pretty similar to how the govt. prosecutes hackers/crackers) but most of these people could never pay the damages. So why bother?

So everyone can keep on goin' like they're goin' and the odds are on their side. 'Course, I'd still much rather have the law on my side, and we should continue to work on that.

Re:Ummm

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, copyrights generally only kick in once something is published. If you spend 20 years writing the great Antarctian novel it only starts getting copyrighted once you publish it. I'm unaware of the protections that exist while something is actively under development, though this really isn't of any concern to me. Publishing is basically widescale distribution, so it's not really possible to skirt around the start date by claiming that despite selling copies of your work to the public you hadn't published yet.

But right now we have arbitrary dates. And any date other than 0 and forever is going to be arbitrary. It's merely important to decide (in the US anyway, where copyrights are totally artificial and exist for a specific purpose) what the least amount of time the copyright can exist which will still serve to motivate people to create stuff.

Notice that it has to be the LEAST amount of time. This is because the purpose (here in the US at least - copyrights vary in details as well as principle in various countries, when they even exist) is to get stuff into the public domain.

Copyrights, and the possibility of making money from your exclusive ability to distribute copies of the material* is the carrot. But it's not the point. It would be disasterous if all material were perpetually copyrighted. It would be impossible to stand on the shoulders of the people who came before you. Which is essential for progress in the arts and sciences. Just imagine if physicists couldn't discuss e=mc^2 without having to pay Einstein or his heirs. Clearly this would be bad.

* of course, copyrights to not extend to redistribution of the copies that were distributed by the copyright holder. So I can sell a used, copyrighted book. But I can't sell copies that I make of someone else's copyrighted book, even if the first copy was legal.

As for being unable to find a suitable use for some material until after the copyright expires, well, too bad. How would you determine when a suitable use has been found? How would you determine when to expire the copyright? There has to be one rule. I'm very sorry if your work isn't appreciated until after your death or whatever, but I can't see any other solution that wouldn't cause chaos.

No, you'r not depriving them of the material. You are, however, (for all practical purposes) depriving them of the ability to get compensation for work they did that you're benefitting from.

That's true. But as far as I can determine from looking through definitions (and the occassional jury instruction) on the net, theft includes depriving the owner of the property, which isn't the case. I agree that it should probably still be illegal, it's just not strictly theft. It's something similar.

But I sincerely doubt that we have copy protection because of this.

99.44% of the copy protection schemes _I've_ seen are aimed at casual people who don't realize that most copy protection infringes on the rights and fair use infringements that they have by virtue of owning a copy of a work. They tend to be ineffectual against anyone who's serious about copying it no matter what. Yet those are the sorts of people who ought to be stopped. The former group is, in my experience, rather sympathetic to the creator. However that doesn't mean that they should be unable to sell their copy of a work, or make a backup, or time/space-shift it, or other perfectly legal uses.

No, I think that many copyright holders who would engage in this sort of thing in this day and age are simply greedy. They're willing to take everything they can get, even if it is illegal &| unethical &| against the intent of copyright laws in the first place.

Please explain to me how exactly, without DeCSS, I am supposed to be able to access CSS-encrypted public domain materials? Yet many people who don't have any copyright at all still act as if they do. This sort of behavior is why we need a fundemental reformation of copyright law - so that legal users are not assaulted by overbearing copyright holders and illegal users can still be prosecuted.

You lose everything when you die. Does that mean you have no property at all?

Nope, it just means that you can't take it with you. With copyrights there's no practical way for someone to hold exclusive control over the material. Just the distribution of copies. As opposed to real property, where you control the thing, and can't lose control unless you lose the thing too. Unreal property is not exclusive.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't care about the US Constitution, if only because both my argument and the argument of the other side, in the US, are founded on the Constitution. There would not be copyrights or patents here without the power to grant them being in that document. And all laws which exercise that power (as very few specifics are mentioned in the Constitution - par for the course) must comply with it. If they don't, they're invalid, fair or not.

So it's really not possible to create a copyright law that's suitable for everyone. It's not widely recognized, AFAIK as a fundemental human right. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. Throughout most of history works were created in the absence of copyright. The idea was absurd that you couldn't sing a song you heard someone else sing, just because they said so. Really, it still is - only when coupled with the incentive to create more material (this again is straight from the Constitution) is it at all justified. European laws are different from US laws, Taiwan has no such laws at all (and gets by okay) and I'm sure that they're different from laws in African countries or South American ones. YMMV.

As for fairness, I don't mind that someone wants to be able to reap the rewards of having created some new work. What I don't like is:

• That if they can reap these rewards exclusively for a long time, there is little incentive to create anything new
  
• That the creator thinks that his new work is more important than the great mass of public domain works, upon which his work is founded. You can't create art in a vacuum. It will inevitably refer to _something_. So the artist has taken advantage of unowned works. It's EXTREMELY fair, as well as the natural state of things, that eventually his work too shall be the foundation for the next generation of art, and that everyone shall be able to use and enjoy it.

In the US at any rate, copyrights and patents are pretty dissimiliar. And I know the differences between them. But you're missing the point I was making. Copyrights are not (here) constitutionally permitted to be granted to any trivial novelty. They're reserved only for those works that promote 'the progress of the useful arts and sciences.' This is why the phone book is not copyrighted. (though there have been efforts to change this recently - the sort of thing I am opposed to)

I merely proposed that we abandon the foolish law we currently have, in which everything is copyrighted automatically, and for a *very* long time, and return to the more sensible method of only permitting copyrights for those works which pay to have it registered. Clearly this money could be spent both to increase the efficiency of the Copyright Office and, if the government was not being typically boneheaded, used to commission works that would go immediately into the public domain (where they benefit everyone)

So generally, I'd at least like to return (more or less) to the state of affairs that we had in the US prior to the Copyright Act of 1976.

Still, to get back to patents for a moment - why is it that you don't object to the rather short lifespan of patents? Wouldn't you consider that to be unfair? Someone could spend years developing something only to have the patent run out in less time than it took to create. Well, given as how it's better in general (including for the inventor, who surely is relying on the past inventions of others and the disclosure required by the patent office) for patents to be quite short, I say it's plenty fair. I'd just like to apply similar principles to copyrights.

If you're looking for a real boondoggle, that would be trademarks. That's just a nightmare.

Re:Enforcing?

[cpt kangarooski]

But the password is stored only within your noggin. You'd have to reveal what it is. This is *much* more like testimony (particularly if your password is something like 'I killed Col. Mustard in the conservatory with the candlestick' ;) than a physical form of compulsion, like fingerprints or breath tests, or biometrics.

Of course, the police can only force you to talk in ways that don't comprimise yourself. AFAIK this is basically Name, Rank and Serial Number kind of stuff, and has a lot to do with determining other stuff (like are you drunk and slurring your speech) than it does testimony. Personally, if I end up getting arrested I'm smart enough to clam up until my lawyer arrives. When you're the suspect the cops are NEVER on your side.

Yes, another argument against relying totally on biometric passwords, folks.

I think I mentioned this, but Kevin Mitnick, everyone's favorite hacker, is currently in just this kind of situation right now. Though he's served his time, the government would like nothing more than to put him BACK in prision. So they're refusing to release the evidence they confiscated (hard disks in this case) until he tells them how to decrypt it so that they can look through it and try to get him again. Mitnick obviously isn't telling, he's stuck with the same judge that wouldn't let him use a telephone for fears that he could cause World War III, and it's a stalemate. Hopefully it'll go to the Supremes who will, one hopes, side with Mitnick on this one.

(I am well aware that Mitnick is scum - but he has a very valid point in this situation so I'm on his side)

Re:A Great Defense...

[drix]

I doubt if that would stand up in court. The act of installing Napster on your computer, and even moreso, telling it where to find the MP3s on your computer, would most certainly be considered distribution. If not, they would fix that quickly.

There used to be a loophole along these same lines for narcotics. Drug dealers would carry a cell phone, make a deal, and then just go leave the drugs inside their unlocked car in the parking lot. Even if the cops found the knew about the deal and found the car/drugs, they couldn't bring charges against the dealer for anything more than posession, which is a way smaller offense than trafficking (a felony). I gather they patched that hole pretty quickly too.

--

Re:A Great Defense...

[drix]

Have you ever copied and entire book at the library? Of course not. Maybe my analogy sucked too - the point is that Napster makes it far, far easier to copy entire works in seconds. I just downloaded Chronic 2001 - the WHOLE thing - in like 2 minutes. As far as I'm concerned, if you've got the panache to actually go make 400+ photocopies of an entire book, well then you're entitled to it. Aside from the fact that at a nickel a pop you'd have paid for it anyways. Look, as much as I hate to say this, I Am Not A Lawyer (C)(TM)(R). I'm not well versed in copyright law. Just from my personal experience, it seems that exceptions to copyright law have always been made where there is no real financial threat to the bearer. That's the litmus test. AHRA allows us to make degraded, but full and fast copies, of copyrighted audio, on the premise that if we liked it enough we would get annoyed by the quality and go buy it. DAT & Minidisc have SCMS built in to ensure that we would only make copies for personal use, thereby not costing artists a cent in lost sales when we go copy it for 50 other people. The networks got injunctions for copyright violation against DirecTV on the grounds that rebroadcasting a national signal outside of its local area was costing them money. AFAICT it always goes back to money. I don't think I need to tell anyone here that MP3s stand to cost a lot of people a lot of money. Ripping off library books has never been a problem as stated above. If it were, I'm sure something would be done.

I'm sure the fact that the artists & labels have a massive, rich, tempestuous, greedy, and very vocal trade group can't help either :) Hadn't heard of one of those for books.

--

Re:A Great Defense...

[drix]

No one knows. That particular scenario falls in a really, really gray area of the law; there's not much precedent for it. We will find out pretty soon though since this is exactly what my.mp3.com does and exactly what RIAA is suing them for. The case will have its day in court, and the decision can either stifle a lot of progress on the internet or open the floodgates for an entire new paradigm of artistic enjoyment. I'm praying, of course, that this is legal.

--

Re:A Great Defense...

[drix]

Libraries don't make copies of books. Copiers do. This is why you see copyright notices posted over many copiers - that's where copyright law is physically broken. The act of checking out a book and reading it is no different than listening to a CD. But the act of copying that book does violate copywright, much like the act of copying music on Napster does.

Napster, by combining the archival and copying functions into one easy-to-use package, certainly makes its users (not Napster, Inc., though) libel for copyright damages. The fact is that if you don't ever install Napster, run it, and allow it to search your hard drive for music, then all subsequent distribution of copyrighted material would never occur. That alone makes the serving computer break copyright law.

--

Re:A Great Defense...

[drix]

All valid points. Personally I think the whole argument is moot considering the idiot government would just go after both parties involved and get it over with :)

--

Statutory damages

[troyboy]

With statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. section 504(c), Dr. Dre can get a minimum of $500 from you for each of his copyrighted works that you copy. The maximum goes up to $100,000 if you willfully violated the copyright. The actual damages will be set by what the judge considers "just." That could be anything, but it will be a lot more than 16.6 cents!!

This is stealing

[ZeroLogic]

Whether the Dr. Dre needs the money or not, people ARE stealing when they copy music they didn't buy.

But even so I don't see how suing is really going to work unless it instills fear in the vast majority of the users.

/ZL

good luck finding out who I am

[mr_burns]

Good thing I signed up under a pseudonym (not gonna say which one...that'd be stupid). Go ahead and try to prove I was ever on napster. Then try to prove that I did anything illegal. Then try to find me. Then try to find ALL of us.

This is all pretty stupid. Napster is a marketer's wet dream. Free promotion...massively parallel word-of-mouth memetic delivery system. If music industry marketing was a virus, Napster would be e-bola. One can easily break the MTV barier to entry in the relevant market through Napster chat. I've bought CD's because I heard some of the songs on them on Napster. The end users never reliably get whole ablums, and if so, it can take weeks or months (if that's the case, then buying the cd is much more convenient).

It's all acedemic anyway. Gnutella and Freenet will become hydras of free speech and information sharing. When faced with a tsunami, it's better to surf it than to stand against it.

Artists...

[Graymalkin]

supposedly complain about people pirating their albums but I don't think they really know where the money comes from. Selling so many albums doesn't make the artist very much money compared to their other cash cows. The licensing fees for putting their name/logo on t-shirts and underwear and selling out concert venues is the real money maker. The record companies are really pissed because they think mp3s will keep someone's album from making the top100 chart and therefore not give them any free advertising. If you go after napster for giving the ability to share files then you'll also have to go after NFS, Microsoft, Winamp, Xing and a host of others. Napster lets you share mp3s but then so does Microsoft's file and print sharing or an NFS server. It's assanine, MP3s aren't even of really great quality they are about as good as a decent cassette recording. If I want quality I'll buy a CD, if I want a convienient way to listen to songs I'll use mp3s.

bullshit

[Pope]

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, is FORCING you to buy any album multiple times. YOU do it because YOU want to.

Pope

Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!

Is it serving or downloading that's illegal?

[Frog]

these users are committing theft by distributing MP3s
Stupid question: is there anything wrong with having a lot of legally ripped MP3s (for own personal use) happen to appear on a server?
Isn't it the people who download them that are committing theft?
Suppose I want to share my entire hard disk (something I often do on the LAN at work, for convenience). Am I breaking the law if this allows people to make pirate copies of whatever software or music I legally have on my disk? That is, am I responsible for taking active steps to protect the stuff I own/have a license to use? What if I "don't realize" I'm sharing them?

Re:RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters.

[platypus]

You're completely right in your rambling agains copyright violation and your view of the hippocracy (sp?) on slashdot about that, but I think you ask the wrong question:

Now eventually when everyone and their mother has broadband and has access to cheap MP3 players (or other digital sound dplayers), where will the music industry as it currently exists be?

You take existing copyright law, show how it can easily be circumvented by using digital media and argue that this is bad because it will destroy the music industry.
Let's not talk about changing the current situation by suing and enforcing current law or even tightening existing law in order to set legality against possibilty and social reality. Let's not bitch about the possible death of an industry which would become obsolet by technological advances.
Let's ask ourself: Why should I care for the record industry? What advantages/disadvanteges may we face without them?
Nobody of the "bookwriters guild" thought about suing Gutenberg, nobody considered to put the makers of the early automobiles into jail because otherwise the coach industry would get out of business.
I am aware that my examples lack the fact that Gutenberg/automobile makers didn't violate existing laws (AFAIK), but also nobody thought about proposing laws making their business illegal.
OTOH there are many examples in every country about laws being changed/abandoned because they just didn't fit the social reality anymore (women rights come to mind, the whole recent radio hubbub in the US).

So just because a business is at risk I don't see why it's mandatory to keep the status quo at all costs.

That's why they go after the software and ISPs.

[Black Parrot]

The crime (when there is a crime) is on the part of people who use the software improperly, not the people that write it or provide an infrastructure where you can run it.

Unfortunately for the RIAA, MPAA, etc., the costs of prosecuting the actual lawbreakers would be exhorbitant, and in any case much more expensive per trip to court than the cost of the goods pirated by a single individual, if they did go after individuals.

They may sue or press charges against a few individuals to set an example, but for the most part they will continue to try to criminalize the code and the infrastructure, so they can get everything shut down with just a few lawsuits. If they squash some legitimate uses and/or undercut your freedom of speech on the internet as a side effect, well, tough shit.

--

Prove it.

[mindstrm]

Prove I never bought the CD. If you can't prove that, there is no case. The onus is not on me to prove that I did. The onus is on you to prove I didn't. I am not required to keep around receipts. What if My mp3's are my 'backup copies', and my originals were destroyed or stolen?

I know why!

[mindstrm]

It's simple. Rap is dying.. so the industry is using washed up rap stars to sue people, just in case they lose. That way, the artist looks bad 'boo hoo' and not the industry.

A thought.

[mindstrm]

I am certainly not a lawyer, nor an expert. But if we forget for a moment about the common assumptions of what is illegal and not, it would appear that the home recording act EXPRESSLY ALLOWS for individuals to make as many copies as they want, and do whatever they want with, music, so long as it's in a non-commercial fashion.

Re:A Great Defense...

[Kaa]

It's legal to have the MP3's if you own the album, right?

Actually, I believe one of our more recent "loves" (DMCA) will tell you otherwise.

Actually, no, you're wrong. The standard CDs are not encrypted in any way and so do not fall under DMCA. Under the "fair use" provisions it's completely legal to make copies for your personal use, including in different formats such as MP3. It's only the distribution that's illegal.

Kaa

Re:A Great Defense...

[Ralph Wiggam]

I have never "given" an mp3 file to anyone. When I search Napster for non-copyrighted songs (such as Home On The Range and other public domain classics) other users have the ability to TAKE files off my hard drive. It is legal for me to have those files on my hard drive because I own the CD, but may be illegal for someone else to have them. I don't know that SuP3rFr3ak doesn't own The Chronic when he downloads "Nothin but a G Thing" off my computer. Am I resposible for enforcing copyright laws? I hope not.

-B

Re:A Great Defense...

[tweder]

>> One at a time? After the first few hundred, others might take notice.

There are a few hundred Dr. Dre fans?!

the real issue is control of content distribution.

[morris57]

It's sad to see that big name artists are doing this sort of thing. Dre and Metallica are quickly losing credibility by going after the people who enjoy their work the most.

On the one hand, I can see how they want credit (and compensation) for their work. But, when music becomes only about the money, it loses integrity as a form of art. We have had the technology to make popular art (music, music videos, films, cartoons, etc..) available on demand for years now. Constantly we are bombarded by hype telling us that in the future, we can just push a button and be able to watch or listen to whatever we want. I'm telling you that the technology to do that is available right now, but you're not going to see it go mainstream any time soon. Why? Because music or video on demand would allow people to easily capture the song or show or video or whatever and redistribute it without the original artist getting credit or royalties.

Imagine if MTV puts online all of their videos, in their entirity. Then, puts ads on the page that the videos are on to make money at providing the videos. As soon as they do that, I can save whatever video I want, and email it to my friends or put it on my web site or put it on napster. Then, no one has any reason to go to MTV.com to see the video, and the revenue is lost. Since companies can't control the distribution (like they do through conventional media) they simply refuse to go on-line and sue anyone who they feel puts them on-line illegally.

So, I'm highly skeptical of any artist who tries to sue anyone because their stuff is put on-line. It blurs the line between art and strictly business. I know what a copyright is, and I believe in their proper use. But, just because something is the law, doesn't make it right.

more advertising than theft

[seanb]

I think that the artist sueing are looking at mp3s the wrong way. mp3 is more akin to radio than CD.

Do people who listen to mp3s buy less CDs? I have yet to see any studies that say so. If anything, my music-related spending habits have increased since I became interested in mp3.

mp3 is a cheap, effective way to share music in a medium-quality format. They have three major uses for me

1. I can listen to my music at work without bringing my CDs with me - instead I simply log in to my home machine via ftp and get the songs I want. THis is just for my convenience, nobody looses any money (unless the RIAA claims I should buy a second copy of the CD for at work - something I wouldn't put past them).
2. Access to things never released on CD - I find most of the mp3s I download fit in this category. Since nobody is offering to sell this to me, nobody is loosing my money.
3. When I consider buying a CD, I download most of the tracks off of it to try out. Admitted, this is legally questionable, but it is very useful (and much more comfortable to me than "listening stations" at the store). To me, this is the role of mp3 that parallells radio: avertising/try-before-you-buy. True, based on this test I have avoided becoming a dissatisfied customer a few times (maybe some crapy bands lost out), but overall I think I have bought more CDs than I have otherwise.

This lawyer (Howard King) seems to have convinced Metallica and Dr. Dre that people are exchanging mp3s to get free musing and avoiding the purchase of CDs. He may even believe this himself. I have yet to see any study either way, but my life experience indicates that this is definitely not the case. The only people who lost out in the above scenarios are musicians whse work I considered, but did not find worth the money.

Re:Gangsta Rap

[extrasolar]

Everbody nowadays got something to say,
But all that comes out when they open their lips,
is a bunch gibberish,
what the motha fuck is that,
they forgot about Dre.

Re:Slightly More Sensible...

[Wah]

at least he's showing no sense at all by sueing his fans. There will be only one winner in all of this, see if you can pick his name from this quote...

"If it turns out that there are people who have huge hard drives and actually are downloading copyrighted materials and transmitting (them) on the Internet, we may very well go after them because they are engaged in theft," said Dr. Dre attorney Howard King.

The suit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, follows a similar suit by heavy-metal group Metallica. Both suits were filed by King.


--

Dr. Dre is being sued for the same thing

[D3]

Check out HNN for some other info on this. Turns out Dr. Dre is being sued by Lucas over use of the THX sound at the start of his latest work even though he was explicitly NOT given permission to.

Re:Dr. Dre is getting sued himself...

[Snoop]

"Lucas is suing him for using the THX sound effect on his album. He apparently *asked* to use it, but was denied (and used it anyway)."

After Lucas told him no, did he go and download it off of Napster?

Re:this isn't so different than parts of IRC

[iCEBaLM]

Have you ever actually been on an mp3 channel on irc?

Yes.

Just have someone join one, and log the client activity. Most of the fileservers nowadays announce to the channel the files that they are transferring to whom...

Most actually don't, they however do report what mp3 the server's machine is currently playing. SpR I know does, and reports only on timeout what mp3 it was sending to a user, or if that user was the last user finished downloading. I haven't seen sdfind release any info like that, or that borg script.

This would all change overnight if there were even threats of this happening.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:this isn't so different than parts of IRC

[iCEBaLM]

Yes, but most ircd's (I think) report to you the filename before it's sent. Say you send something to johndoe on irc.madeup.net. Your irc client will send the initilization quest to irc.madeup.net and irc.madeup.net will send the request to JohnDoe. If JohnDoe accepts, then the Direct Client to Client connection is made...

1. This is true, however the ircd doesn't log it
2. The status of the connection (whether the file was actually transfered) is not sent through the irc server through CTCP.

Anyways, I tihnk it would be a waste to log it anyway... I'm a musician, I'd hate to have my work pirated, but hell... atleast then I'd have SOME fans :)

Then remove the economic incentive to pirate your music, sell them as mp3's for $0.50 a pop on your website, then get free advertizing by submitting an article to slashdot about it. :P

-- iCEBaLM

Re:this isn't so different than parts of IRC

[iCEBaLM]

should Adobe and Microsoft and all those other companies try to shut down Internet Relay Chat? Should they sue the companies and individuals that make IRC clients? NO. They should go after the people distributing the copyrighted material. And yes, I'm sure it would be quite easy for lawyers to come in and shutdown the larger purveyors of the mp3's. I'll be there are server logs somewhere... hell, traceroute.

Last time I checked, the ircd's didn't log the actuall chat/ctcp traffic going through the servers, it would be a huge waste of disk space anyways. File transfers on IRC have no servers, they are established through DCC, Direct Client Connetcion, they don't go through the IRC server, enjoy trying to find logs for those.

It's totally impossible to do, really.

-- iCEBaLM

What exactly...

[ShoeHead]

is his doctorate in again?

Lets watch them play wack the mole

[thogard]

For thouse of us that are tring to nail spamers we know just how hard this can be sometimes. I suspect their attys will find a suspect or two and try to make a an example of them.

Re:Gangsta Rap

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm not a huge fan of Limp Bizkit, but they're supporting Napster...What a concept, putting your fans before the possibility of profit.

Well, you don't have much possibility of profit without fans. It's just becoming the case that the way for those fans to support you may no longer be the sale of recordings.

Make stuff that people like, and they'll find a way to support you so you can make more of it.

Re:One of the best little ideas.

[Mr. Slippery]

You would still be charged with destroying evidence.

What evidence? I value my privacy and had the thing rigged to blow in case of theft, so the thief couldn't read my old love letters. How was I, innocent law-abiding citizen (snicker snicker) that I am, to know that my computer would be seized by black-clad stormtroopers of the Copyright Office, apparently acting on bad information?

Re:Copyright is dead!

[Mr. Slippery]

Cool! I can ignore the GPL now! I'm going to make changes to fetchmail and sell it WITHOUT SOURCE.

Post-copyright, what reasonable motivation would you have to do so? The only reason to keep your source secret is so you can sell binaries - those who are giving away sourceless binaries today (e.g., Be) still have for-sale binaries based on the code base.

But post-copyright, selling binaries makes no sense. One guy gets your modified fetchmail, and it's available for free to the world from his FTP server an hour later. Your monetary gain: $0.

People who understand free software (which, we hope, will soon be everyone) are pissed at you, and wonder what dastardly code you're hiding. Your reputation gain: mucho minus.

The purpose of the GPL is to protect our ability to use, distribute, and modify software. The only threats to the first two are the copyright laws themselves, so removing them doesn't harm the GPL in that way. Social pressure and market forces will suffice to preserve the third.

(IMHO, of course; RMS may disagree.)

Re:Copyright is dead!

[Mr. Slippery]

Without copyright, everybody is selling my binary-only modifications. Ok, what's my incentive to make better software?

Old school: you want better software yourself. Scratch the itch; then you might as well share your work and get recognition and respect.

People have, and always will, write programs (and songs, and stories, and poems) without getting paid to do so.

New-school: in addition to the above, you could be hired to write an open-source application, or you could write a custom job on contract. See CoSource or SourceExchange for two models of how you can get paid to write free software.

Many large and interesting software projects being written today could be open sourced without much economic impact, because they're custom-made. For example, my current contract is hacking for TRW on EDOS, a NASA project. Giving NASA the source wouldn't really make a difference, since they're expected to be the only user. (Heck, they might be getting it now - I'm just the hired help, I don't know the details.)

There are also secondary ways to make a buck. You can sell support, manuals, and the like; and I think that in the future we'll actually see mechandizing and endorsements start to play a role. Hell, if Microsoft can sell a "Windows 95" blend of coffee (I'm not making this up), why not "Jolt: Official Cola of Red Hat Linux"?

Bringing the issue back to music -- suppose I write a great song, Warner Brothers tapes it and has their flavor-of-the-month artist record her own version. I stayed up late many nights working on that song, but WB can afford to package it and make more money when their artist tours. They get income from concerts, t-shirts, and nicely-packaged CDs. I get ZERO.

Which is why I've been saying that while making and giving away copies should be unrestricted, selling copies or other profit-making off a work might require that a royalty be paid to the author. I think that song performance royalties are a good model to start from - I can perform any song anywhere (as if anyone could stop me), but if I'm getting paid I (really the venue owner, usually) owe the artist a cut via BMI or ASCAP.

But strictly, that's not a copyright issue, since anyone would still have the right to make copies of the work. We're talking about something new, a "salesright" if you will, which is more practical and more ethically palatable.

Re:A Great Defense...

[interiot]

I doubt if that would stand up in court. The act of installing Napster on your computer, and even moreso, telling it where to find the MP3s on your computer, would most certainly be considered distribution. If not, they would fix that quickly.

Libraries store thousands of books worth of copyrighted material. Worse yet, they advertise themselves as a library to the public, telling people where to find copyrighted books. This allows the general public to visit, borrow books, and make complete copies if they wish...
--

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[GnrcMan]

Okay:
1. Don't be a homophobe
2. You are lame as hell
3. Don't post as an AC without good reason
4. You are an asshole

--GnrcMan--

Um....what?

[CrayDrygu]

Andre Young, aka Dr. Dre, previously sent Napster a letter asking the company to remove his songs from its lists. [...]

"Their only response was (to say that) the songs aren't on their servers, and if (Young) will send a letter under penalty of perjury identifying specific songs and users that they would restrict those users," King said.

"That was not a satisfactory response. That was a comical response."

WTF? No, that was a comical response.

You'd think that, if these people were getting into a lawsuit, they'd at least know what they're suing.

Don't kill jarjar!!

[radja]

No! don't kill jarjar! Just maim him.. and have him make regular appearances in ep. 2 with lines like:
- AARRggHH!!
- Not the face!
- nnnnnngggghhh, these ropes are cutting into my wrists
- but without a tongue I can't tal...AAAAAArr*bubble*

//rdj

Re:What I want to know...

[radja]

It just means you're paying for content you're not allowed to have. If I buy a simple compact cassette, I am also paying for the music that's not on it. so I borrow a friend's cd, and copy the music that I already payed for. I now have music, I payed for it, and I can change the medium by recording it to my HD. Pretty sure the RIAA will object to this, but that's not my problem. All recordcompanies are full of shit. When the cd was introduced in the Netherlands, the recordcompanies said they'd lower the price of cd's to about fl 25. This never happened, ofcourse.. cd's are still at fl 40. To add insult to injury grey import is not allowed any more. grey import allowed recordstores to buy their cd's in foreign countries, where cd's are cheaper. The artists had their cut, since these were official cd's. the only one NOT benefitting was the recordcompanies. bunch of moneygrabbing bastards...

//rdj

Re:Wow...

[vyesue]

I don't care if there is now a new route for people to get into the music arena without having to bow down to the music giants.

I don't care if people who steal mp3s are more likely to buy records.

I don't care if dre hasnt done anything since the chronic.

I care that when you copy and distribute his mp3s, you are breaking the law and you are stealing his art. when napster complains that they aren't directly breaking the law and /. sides with napster, yeah, I guess I can sort of see some logic there. but when dre sues users who are _stealing_ what he sells and you people complain, I really have to wonder. would you like it if I stole your livelihood? I doubt it.

Re:Wow...

[vyesue]

No, artists such as Dr. Dre tour to promote an album. The tour is, in almost all cases, a break-even AT BEST. People don't make money off tours except in ridiculous cases like maybe Michael Jackson or Floyd or something. Ever notice that bands tour whn they release a new disc? Did you think that was conincidence?

whether or not you have moral qualms is really none of anyone's business. the topic at hand isnt whether napster users are going to hell, its about whether they're goign to court. f your morality, you still have to deal with the laws in applicable situations.

Will high-bandwidth users leave napster now?

[jesser]

I don't use napster because I've been worrying that something like this might happen, but instead of me getting sued, my cable modem service would be terminated. There's only one cable modem service in my area, and I might even be stuck with a useless modem that I would have to pay for.

This lawsuit seems to support my fear. If this story makes the front page of newspapers tomorrow, will high-bandwidth users and others with limited choice of internet providers (college students?) stop using napster?

--

How is this comical?

[Lxy]

"Their only response was (to say that) the songs aren't on their servers, and if (Young) will send a letter under penalty of perjury identifying specific songs and users that they would restrict those users," King said.

What's so comical about that? It's Napster explaining how their program works. I'm sorry you find it so funny Dr. Dre that you were completely off base on how you thought Napster works, but the truth is you can't go after Napster for something they're not responsible for. They even provided a solution to ban the users who are pirating his MP3's.


<signature>
"No food or beverage in computer lab". Hmm. I think they mean to say "Don't Spill".

Re:A Great Defense...

[scumdamn]

This is the point I made both times I submitted this story. Of course, the story was declined both times.
By the way, that would only work if you just downloaded the song and never let anyone else download it.

Slightly More Sensible...

[GeekLife.com]

At least he's showing a slight bit more sense by realizing who's committing the crime (rather than merely insisting that his songs be removed from Napster's "servers"...).

Whether or not going after the individual users is doable in any sort of (economically intelligent) way is a different matter.
-----

My Defense of Napster

[Neuronix]

Alright, I'm tired of hearing the same old arguement over and over again, so here's the reasons I use Napster now instead of buying CDs (I own several hundred CDs btw).

First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc...

Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA...

Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise.

Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase.

The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews.

I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on.

Re:A Great Defense...

[Stephen VanDahm]

The problem with Napster is that your download directory is always open to other Napster users, regardless of anything. The only way to keep people from downloading stuff from your machine is to be sure to notice people trying to connect and disconnect them before they DL anything. This is very difficult to do, and it's the reason I don't use Napster for anything.

Take care,

Steve


========
Stephen C. VanDahm

it's not a copy of YOUR cd, though

[SEAL]

Fair use says you can copy a song from a CD you own, and store it in another format.

However, just because you own a CD doesn't necessarily mean you can store a copy of the same song made from someone else's CD.

This will get shaken out if the RIAA vs. MP3.com thing doesn't get settled out of court.

Best regards,

SEAL

Re:Dr. Dre is getting sued himself...

[ecampbel]

And your point is?

Just because he is ACCUSED of committing copyright infringement of a Lucas sound effect does not mean that he should ignore people stealing and distributing his copyrighted music. Though its ironic that both suits were filed on the same day, one suit does not invalidate the other.

Hypothetical example: If the Free Software Foundation was being sued by someone for copyright infringement (perhaps they accidentally included code that they shouldn't have in a distribution), would it be hypocritical for them to sue a company like Microsoft it they believed that Microsoft was using copyrighted free software code in a closed source product?

Not bad for a man who beats up women

[briancarnell]

Hmmm...Dre has gone from beating the crap out of women he doesn't like to suing Napster and it users. I'm sorry but since Dre doesn't seem to see anything wrong with hitting women, I really don't see anything wrong with pirating his music.

What one should bear in mind is that . . .

[Savage Henry Matisse]

The film studios are real bastards about copyright-- specifically, they frequently try and stop people from using their material even though the use in question falls cleanly within Fair Use. (IANAL, but my understanding, in a nutshell, is that if you quote/sample someone else's (c) material, but the piece you create is itself a significant artisitc departure from the original piece, then that quoting/sampling is legal, and their is no neccesity fo ryou to pay licensing fees are get express permission from the original (c)-holder. Additionally, it is always legal for an artistic work to be quoted/referenced for the purpose of scholarly analysis or education.)

I have a friend who was editing a scholalry journal at a major midwestern University. Universal Studios attempted to bar them from even printing the name of one of their films and its characters, despite the fact that the journal made clear that 1) it was a non-profit, scholarly journal and 2) the article itself was a critical piece. Despite the fact that the usage was clearly within the throw of Fair Use, Universal made a big we-can-afford-to-drag-you-into-litigation-that-wil l-bankcrupt-you stink. The little journal had to actually drag in lawyers (luckily some relatives were willing to do a little pro bono) in order to be permitted to do something which was well within their rights.

Although I can't speak for this particular case (I've never listened to this album), I do knwo that it's common for those with deep pockets to attempt to trample on the artistic freedoms of sample artists (see, for example, the way U2 tore Negativeland a new asshole several years back)

(PS, if my understanding of Fair Use is totally FUBAR, please step forward and straighten me out-- e-mail or post below or post here. Thanks.)

Fast times, Slow change

[jamesl]

Technology has rendered the entire distribution system for recorded music unnecessary. Unfortunately, disassembling it will be painful for all involved -- lost jobs, lost revenue, obsolete equipment. These legal skirmishes are part of the change mechanism. Some slowing change, some promoting it. In five years we'll all be saying "Remember ..."

but how do they prove it?

[DrEldarion]

Allright. How do they know that it was *ME* that downloaded the song? It could have been my sister, my dad, my grandma, my friend using my computer, my puppy who was playing with the mouse, etc. They can't prove that *I* downloaded a thing... So how will they pin the blame on actual people rather than just IP addy's?

-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.

very slightly offtopic...

[DrEldarion]

Does anyone else find it kind of ironic how as more and more people make a big fuss about Napster, the more exposure to the public it gets? The people suing are kind of kicking themselves in the ass with this...

I was sitting around at school the other day and happened to overhear a conversation between a couple students where one had first heard about Napster through the news of it getting sued... They're getting some free advertising ;)

-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.

Dre and others should quit whining

[evil_deceiver]

It would be interesting to see how this would be a completely different issue if Napster allowed for trading of any kind of file, period. Sure, 99% of the byte traffic would still be MP3s, but technically, Napster would just be promoting the free exchange of information . . . and making it easier.

Going after individual users is probably the right thing for Dre to do, much as I hate to say it. Napster should not be getting sued over this; neither should universities who simply didn't prevent students from engaging in activity they already knew was illegal. If I get injured in a car crash, I'm not going to sue the construction crew who paved the highway. It's not their fault the guy was driving drunk, any more than it's the universities' fault their students are violating copyright law -- or, to be perfectly honest, Napster's fault that people are using their software. Trading MP3s is illegal; everyone knows that. It's not less illegal to trade MP3s via Napster, the same way it's not less illegal to mug someone if you use a gun. And yet we don't stop companies from manufacturing guns. So, the users know what they're getting themselves into.

Their best defense, which isn't really a defense, is that there are a f*cking lot of them, and suing them all is terribly impractical, if not impossible. (I think this is what Rob meant to say when he posted the article.)

Not that taking down Napster will be a tremendous blow to the software piracy industry. There was a pretty lively trade in MP3s before Napster, and it'll continue when they're gone. Personally, I just deny anonymous access to my FTP server, and give accounts out to people I know and trust. There could be a pretty healthy trade in any sort of illegal software if a whole bunch of people set up a network of such servers. Remember BBSes?

I suspect that the real tragedy for Dre is not that people are using Napster to listen to his music without paying for it -- radio? burned CDs? cassette tapes? retail theft? -- but the discovery that so many people don't like his songs enough to pay nearly 20 bucks for them. Again, speaking for myself, I still buy CDs if I really like the song, and I have quite a few tracks both on CD and in MP3 format. I spend more money on music now than I did before MP3, probably because now I can listen to a few tracks of my own choosing before I buy the album.

In any case, none of this is the real issue, and lawsuits like this are pathetic attempts to postpone the inevitable. For better or for worse, ethical or unethical, Napster or no Napster, MP3 is now effectively ineradicable. Dre and Metallica should get over it and start adapting. The rest of the industry is busy doing just that.

What's next...

[Raunchola]

...suing Iomega because their Zip disks and Zip drives help facilitate MP3 trading?

Bunch o' clueless dumbfucks...


raunchola (at) hushmail (dot) com

Re:Gangsta Rap

[kwsNI]

God, I love the new, corporate mentality in America. I don't think many people really realizes that they are in the position that they are in because of others. Dr. Dre is a multi-millionaire because of the very fans that he is suing!

I'm not a huge fan of Limp Bizkit, but they're supporting Napster (well, Napster is sponsering their summer tour). What a concept, putting your fans before the possibility of profit.

kwsNI

No, don't pull the weed by the root..Just trim it!

[TheInsaneSicilian]

If Dr. Dre went after everyone that downloaded his music it would really make no sense. It's like snipping off an inch or two of a weed instead of pulling it out of the ground completely. If he wants to go after anyone it should the distributors of the mp3s. Then again, that's Napster... and countless web sites, FTP sites, and "private" underground distributions that none of us have knowledge of. MP3s are here to stay... unless some sort of huge filter was added into the Internet backbone that deleted them. Mmm.. imagine the lag. That would certainly clear up the problem, though. Well, not really. Two hours after being implemented everyone would figure out what happened and rename their mp3s to something else. It's like prohibition. I say it again. MP3s are here to stay! Give in, artists, or be left in the dust! Sorta how when the Patterns industry went from human cutters to robotics arms... The companies that didn't convert and didn't "endorse computers" are no longer. Smarten up, stupid. -Tom

What else can this lead to?

[Splitzy]

Ok, so how is Dr. Dre going to do this? After lighting up a "phat chronic blunt", is he going to go on napster, type in the name of each of his songs, write down all of the users, and then do extensive reserch to track down all of the nicks to real people?

Sounds like a lot of work for a little gain to me.

And if he does succed, can this eventualy lead to game companies searching peoples homes for CD-Rs of thier product? Now while I can't stand software piracy, invasion of privacy dosen't sound good for those people that have a few copies of their buds games. (you know who you are, you pirating bastards...just making games more expensive for the rest of us)

------------------

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo

Mixed blessing

[www.sorehands.com]

It's good that they are going after the actual law breaker. They should. The practical problem is three fold. 1. The cost to go after an individual. 2. The collectibility of a judgment. 3. The risk of an adverse judgment.

The risk of an adverse judgment is that if there is a ruling against the label or artist, it can be used against them later.

In reading the source article, they still threaten the universities if they allow access to napster. Maybe Napster should sue these people for intentional interference.

Re:Let's make it a hat trick

[JudgePagLIVR]

Well, categorizing her as anything is iffy. She makes her own style, that's why I like her.

On the other hand, i's a little circular to say that country is bad, because all the good stuff isn't really country, because country is bad.

When I say country, I do include Mary Chapin, and james taylor, and Kathea Mattea, and all the other great poet-singers.

Re:A Great Defense...

[d0m1n10n]

It's legal to have the MP3's if you own the album, right?

Actually, I believe one of our more recent "loves" (DMCA) will tell you otherwise.

Gangsta Rap

[Pinball Wizard]

>> Dr. Dre, following his suit against Napster, may go after users directly

Hmm, I've seen some of his videos. I'd like to say right now that I'd rather not be a victim of a drive-by for downloading his music.

What has money got to do with it?

[Jouni]

Most of these discussions and comments seem to end up in financial issues; how expensive it is to purchase CDs, how much profit the music corporations are grabbing, how much gold the artist is wearing, so forth and so forth.

The fundamental issue here is not about money, it's about intellectual property rights. While Napster has some sound ideas behind the concept, it's also a very effective tool for raping these IP rights.

Artists have all the justification in the world to be pissed about the situation, but because they are fighting a network here. What makes it even harder on them, this network has adopted a damaging model of behavior (distributing unauthorized content without permission) and there is no alternative healthy model provided (distributing authorized content with permission). There is no easy way for people to do the Right Thing with MP3's because the music industry has largely tried to sweep the whole thing under the carpet, fearing the consequences.

This is a war that isn't lost or won on arguments based on finance. This is a war of ethics, that's why Metallica and other "opinion leaders" in the music industry are making a valid point: Violating intellectual property rights is wrong. Stealing is bad. Don't steal, ok?

We want to do business with the music industry. We want to support the artists. We want our MP3s and we want the innovation and inspiration to be rewarded.

The music industry must find a model for digital media distribution that works, a model that provides similar conveniences with all the financial and ethical bits in the right places. The way to beat Napster is to make a better Napster, and make it serve the industry that we all want to continue to do business with.

If the music industry continues to ignore the Internet and digital media, to fight it instead of working with it, they have already lost.

Any Warner-AOL/BMG/Sony guys out there? Here's a clue: HIRE the Napster guys.

--
Jouni Mannonen
3D Evangelist

More 'great' defenses

[gad_zuki!]

How's this: I only wanted 2 Dr. Dre songs but his monopolistic recording company bundled these other songs with the pacakge and is forcing consumers to pay extra for something they don't want.

Or, I'm protesting his illegal use of Lucasfilm's THX deep note by downloading and listening to his songs, though I would never buy his albums he believes I'm huring him. This may be illegal but it is a crime of protest and passion, if you find me guilty 10,000 angry Star Wars fans will tear this courthouse down and string Dre like the hypocrite he is.

You should be paying mefor MY services! I'm giving the record industry a free wake up call. Their ancient CD format and pricing schemes will not be tolerated any longer. Viva compressed formats, rewritable digital media, and cheap music.

Screw Dre, he probably realized what Lucas is gonna take from him and is gonna make it back by suing you and me. Exactly what part of the gangsta-rap tradition involves copyright protection when the whole genre evolved from ripping off hooks and melodies of other artists and *talking* over it.

Re:Rat-a-tat-tat

[Sam Williams]

Where's Suge Knight when Dre really needs him?

An unlikely solution?

[DeepDarkSky]

Here's an idea that I just got, I know it's got its problems, but tell me what you think:

1. Napster put advertising into their program.
2. Allow only MP3s that have a certain signature that can be used to positively identify the artist.
3. Allow MP3s to be freely traded. Each time a particular MP3 file is downloaded to completion, the transaction is recorded, and advertising revenue from #1 is used to pay the artist.

So the idea is that Napster than can be used to trade music freely, the artists get paid, the users don't pay anything. It's sponsored music trading. 4. Possibly restrict the MP3s to be under a certain bit-rate.

Problems: 1. How to do the advertising.
2. Must modify all MP3s to add "signature".
3. Omnipresent user profiling possibilities.
4. How much do the artists get paid?

If Napster just capitulates a little bit and allow something like this, or partially so, then maybe, just maybe, there wouldn't be all these people suing. Then we wouldn't have a site to Pay Lars.

Wow...

[Wakko Warner]

...guess he was afraid people might Forget About Dre.

- A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:Wow...

[commodoresloat]

Forget him then. The only decent thing he's done recently is sign Eminem. Read my coverage of this on nofuncharlie here and here. This is not about "piracy" at all in my mind. Sure there are plenty people downloading copyrighted music out there, but there are also plenty of people taping stuff off the radio. CD sales are up despite napster and despite CD-R availability, and studies have shown that the people who copy music are also more likely the people buying more records. They also spread the news of new music to their friends who also buy more records. And mp3 may be better quality than tape but it ain't that great. This isn't about piracy at all - it's about an industry that is afraid to change with the times. Get over yourself, Dre, and take a hint from your buddy Chuck D: the reason the industry is scared of napster is because it gives small unknown artists the power of distribution without having their work extorted by music industry gatekeepers!

What I want to know...

[Danse]

If they're getting a cut from every digital recording device sold in order to compensate for losses due to copyright infringement, why isn't it legal to distribute copies? After all, you're compensating them for it. That recording device tax is one of the shadier things I've heard of them doing. There's gotta be some way to invalidate it. It just seems completely illogical.

Re:Ummm

[Zagadka]

Well, as for me, I'd like to see copyrights expire (with no grandfather clauses, preferably) after 10 years, and no future extensions of copyright law permitted to apply retroactively.

While I do agree that copyrights shouldn't last forever, I think that arbitrary timeouts (in programming, or in life) are a Bad Thing. What if someone spends 20 years developing something? What if someone spends some time developing some content, but isn't able to find a suitable use for it until 15 years later? I'm not sure how best to resolve this, but I don't think an arbitrary time limit is the right answer.

As for not stealing, it's not. You are absolutely not depriving someone else of the copyrighted material. What you're doing is copying it. Think about why copyright should have that name. It's the right to copy (specifically the right to distribute copies)

No, you'r not depriving them of the material. You are, however, (for all practical purposes) depriving them of the ability to get compensation for work they did that you're benefitting from.

And it's not property either. Property is tangible. It's a thing. Copyrighted material is not, although some particular expression of it - like _your_ copy of a book might be property, though the information in the book is not.

Funny, my dictionary explicitly mentions "intangible property". Anyway, while copyright infringement is "theft" in a sense, it isn't theft of the data. It's theft of the creator's right to profit from their work.

If someone creates some "content", they should be able to ask whatever price they want for it. If you want it, pay the price. If you don't like the price, go elsewhere. Your rights aren't being infringed any more than they would be if the person hadn't come up with the content in the first place. Obtaining a copy of the content without the (explicit or implicit) consent of the creator hurts content creators because it sginificantly reduces their chance to get a return on their investment. It's partly because of people who think it's okay to violate copyright that we have to put up with crap like copy protection, SDMI, and DMCA.

Copyrights are simply a limited-duration monopoly on the distribution of copies of that information. You obviously don't own it. You just control the distribution of copies of it. And that monopoly ends after a certain amount of time, which means that you lose your control. If it were property, none of this would be the case. And yet, it is the case.

You lose everything when you die. Does that mean you have no property at all?

I don't reject the _idea_ of copyrights per se. I do think that modern copyright law is blatantly unconstitutional and is in serious need of being reformed. IIRC the framers of the constitution came very close to never implementing copyright law at all, because of their fears of the sort of situation we have today. (in which they are perpetually and tight-fistedly held)

To be honest, I could care less what is or isn't "Constitutional". I'm not an American. What I do care about is what is fair. Is it fair that someone spends a great deal of effort developing something in the hopes that they can make a living off of it, and instead they get nothing while others benefit from their work? I don't think so.

And of course, copyrights are being granted to all kinds of things that don't promote the arts or useful sciences. They shouldn't be automatic - if you want a copyright, I think you ought to have to justify it, rather like how patents work, when examiners don't give them out willy-nilly either.

Copyrights are very different from patents. If someone has a copyright on some content, you're not deprived of anything. If you don't want to pay to use their content, you can freely develop your own. Your rights are the same as if the content was never created in the first place.

With patents it's different. If someone patents something, and you independently develop the same thing, you're in trouble. So when a patent is granted, the "rights" of non-patent holders have been reduced. If you have a patent on "Kangarooskicizers", I am no longer allowed to develop one, even if I don't look at your design. With copyrights it's different. If you copyright a piece of software called "Kangarooski Office", I can make a virtually identical piece of software, as long as I don't actually copy your code.

So in the case of copyrights, the things I can do if I don't want to license from you are the same as if you'd never developed the thing in the first place. In the case of patents, I actually lose my right to develop a "kangarooskicizer", even if I don't know that you've already developed such a thing.

If

Well, as for me, I'd like to see copyrights expire (with no grandfather clauses, preferably) after 10 years, and no future extensions of copyright law permitted to apply retroactively.

While I do agree that copyrights shouldn't last forever, I think that arbitrary timeouts (in programming, or in life) are a Bad Thing. What if someone spends 20 years developing something? What if someone spends some time developing some content, but isn't able to find a suitable use for it until 15 years later? I'm not sure how best to resolve this, but I don't think an arbitrary time limit is the right answer.

As for not stealing, it's not. You are absolutely not depriving someone else of the copyrighted material. What you're doing is copying it. Think about why copyright should have that name. It's the right to copy (specifically the right to distribute copies)

No, you'r not depriving them of the material. You are, however, (for all practical purposes) depriving them of the ability to get compensation for work they did that you're benefitting from.

And it's not property either. Property is tangible. It's a thing. Copyrighted material is not, although some particular expression of it - like _your_ copy of a book might be property, though the information in the book is not.

Funny, my dictionary explicitly mentions "intangible property". Anyway, while copyright infringement is "theft" in a sense, it isn't theft of the data. It's theft of the creator's right to profit from their work.

If someone creates some "content", they should be able to ask whatever price they want for it. If you want it, pay the price. If you don't like the price, go elsewhere. Your rights aren't being infringed any more than they would be if the person hadn't come up with the content in the first place. Obtaining a copy of the content without the (explicit or implicit) consent of the creator hurts content creators because it sginificantly reduces their chance to get a return on their investment. It's partly because of people who think it's okay to violate copyright that we have to put up with crap like copy protection, SDMI, and DMCA.

Copyrights are simply a limited-duration monopoly on the distribution of copies of that information. You obviously don't own it. You just control the distribution of copies of it. And that monopoly ends after a certain amount of time, which means that you lose your control. If it were property, none of this would be the case. And yet, it is the case.

You lose everything when you die. Does that mean you have no property at all?

I don't reject the _idea_ of copyrights per se. I do think that modern copyright law is blatantly unconstitutional and is in serious need of being reformed. IIRC the framers of the constitution came very close to never implementing copyright law at all, because of their fears of the sort of situation we have today. (in which they are perpetually and tight-fistedly held)

To be honest, I could care less what is or isn't "Constitutional". I'm not an American. What I do care about is what is fair. Is it fair that someone spends a great deal of effort developing something in the hopes that they can make a living off of it, and instead they get nothing while others benefit from their work? I don't think so.

And of course, copyrights are being granted to all kinds of things that don't promote the arts or useful sciences. They shouldn't be automatic - if you want a copyright, I think you ought to have to justify it, rather like how patents work, when examiners don't give them out willy-nilly either.

Copyrights are very different from patents. If someone has a copyright on some content, you're not deprived of anything. If you don't want to pay to use their content, you can freely develop your own. Your rights are the same as if the content was never created in the first place.

With patents it's different. If someone patents something, and you independently develop the same thing, you're in trouble. So when a patent is granted, the "rights" of non-patent holders have been reduced. If you have a patent on "Kangarooskicizers", I am no longer allowed to develop one, even if I don't look at your design. With copyrights it's different. If you copyright a piece of software called "Kangarooski Office", I can make a virtually identical piece of software, as long as I don't actually copy your code.

So in the case of copyrights, the things I can do if I don't want to license from you are the same as if you'd never developed the thing in the first place. In the case of patents, I actually lose my right to develop a "kangarooskicizer", even if I don't know that you've already developed such a thing.

The RIAA would argu otherwise

[Greyfox]

The RIAA claims that copying music digitally to your computer is illegal.

Their argument is that they get a cut from each digital recording device sold to address piracy, and computers don't count as digital recording devices. Thus, since they don't get money when you buy a computer, it's illegal to copy digital music to your computer.

*shrug* I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

Time for a Boycott!

[hypergeek]

I'm going to boycott both Dr. Dre and Metallica.

Yep, that's right. This is the last time I ever pirate one of their songs!

Better the users than the tool...

[Booker]

I keep arguing this point with my wife. :) There is nothing illegal about Napster. It trades files across the net. That's not illegal.

However, 99.9% of said files are copyrighted material. Trading these files is illegal. Makes perfect sense to me - go after the (ab)users, not the tool.

"Napster doesn't pirate music, people pirate music." :-)

---

Dr. Dre is getting sued himself...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

...for copyright infringement!

According to this C|NET article (last paragraph), Lucas is suing him for using the THX sound effect on his album. He apparently *asked* to use it, but was denied (and used it anyway).

Hypocrite!

Let's make it a hat trick

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

Now we just need to get Garth Brooks to sue Napster. Then we'll have the 3 lamest "forms of music" all lined up like idiots trying to stuff a genie back in his bottle.

On the other hand, do country music listeners even know what 'nturnet is?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

A Great Defense...

[dalamar]

If he actually decides to sue you, would it not be just as easy to go out and buy whatever albums have the offending songs on them? It's legal to have the MP3's if you own the album, right? Then they would have to somehow prove that you didn't own the album at the time of download...

this isn't so different than parts of IRC

[kootch]

everyone that's gotten warez off of an IRC channel, raise your hand!

now, is that the fault of IRC, the IRC client you happen to be using, or the explicit fault of the users that happen to be pirating copyrighted software?

should Adobe and Microsoft and all those other companies try to shut down Internet Relay Chat? Should they sue the companies and individuals that make IRC clients? NO. They should go after the people distributing the copyrighted material. And yes, I'm sure it would be quite easy for lawyers to come in and shutdown the larger purveyors of the mp3's. I'll be there are server logs somewhere... hell, traceroute.

anyway, this is clearly illegal, but showing how idiotic lawyers, media, Dr. Dre, and the RIAA are, they're going after the wrong problem, and they're going after the symptom. This won't SOLVE anything. People will just find another way to get around paying $18 for a cd where you only really want 1 or 2 of the songs and the rest are crap. Until the music industry get's it's collective head out of its @ss, more applications are going to be created, more secret (or not so secret) trading grounds will pop up, and burners will become more and more popular.

RIAA and Dre more far seeing than slashdotters..

[Carnage4Life]

Forget him then. The only decent thing he's done recently is sign Eminem.

Actually he's released an album that has gone quadruple platinum which is more than Eminem's (triple platinum).

This is not about "piracy" at all in my mind. Sure there are plenty people downloading copyrighted music out there, but there are also plenty of people taping stuff off the radio. CD sales are up despite napster and despite CD-R availability, and studies have shown that the people who copy music are also more likely the people buying more records.

If it isn't about piracy what is it about? Up until the arrival of MP3s there was very little way for the average Joe to get digital copies of original copies without considerable cost. The report you link to is a red herring (it is from before MP3s when copying meant burning CDs or dubbing tapes and even then in 1989 it was inconclusive).

Dr. Dre, the RIAA and Metallica have shown themselves to be more technologically savvy and able to spot trends than most of the people posting to this thread. In a few years broadband will be ubiqituos and devices that play/record digital music will be cheap. Already my roomate and I who are music fans and probably own a combined total of 200 CDs, have almost stopped purchasing CDs. Between his portable MiniDisc player, my computer that always has Napster open, our entertainment center and my car Minidisc player we have myriad ways to listen to digital quality music we downloaded off Napster for free. This weekend, every song we saw on MTV or heard at the club on Saturday has been downloaded of Napster and is enjoyed by myself and my roomate in digital surround sound at no cost. In a few years, once DSL-like access is as common as 56k modem dialup and Minidisc players cost as much as Walkmans(sp?), the average person (not the music fanatic who MUST have that perfect digital sound) will see no reason to pay for music.

Now I am against paying $18 for a CD that contains only 1 or 2 songs I'll like as much as the next person but even I realize where this will eventually lead. I recently downloaded "Living la vida loca" which from an MTV special I saw cost $900,000 in production costs to create a video for. The reason I downloaded the song was because of the rather cool video. Now eventually when everyone and their mother has broadband and has access to cheap MP3 players (or other digital sound dplayers), where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck. I have thought about different ways that the music industry can thrive in a digital world and none come to mind because no matter what the music industry comes up with it

• cannot be easier to use than Napster, Gnutella or whatever comes after them.

• cannot compete with them cost wise because the songs on them are free

• cannot prevent people from simple taking their content and giving it away for free like people do with Napster (just for fun once I tagged a music file with my initials to see how many people would copy it after having it up on Napster for a month, currently I get at least 50 hits anytime I search for it).

cannot use encryption as a panacea because it will broken.

Given the above reasons, even if the music industry was going to embrace digital distribution just as they did CDs, it will take the elimination of competition that seeks to commoditize product that is expensive to promote, produce and market.

What I would really like to see on slashdot instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates (of which I admit to being) who feel it is their right to disrespect the rights of copyright holders to save themselves a buck (of course, these same people would scream copyright violation if MSFT used GPL code in the next edition of Windows without open sourcing windows or if slashdot puts insignificant snippets of their rants and ravings in a book to help enlighten people). Instead I would like to see proposals for how the music industry can still make money in a digital. After all the music industry is in a life threatening situation and thus all their actions are understandable when placed in that light.

This isn't about piracy at all - it's about an industry that is afraid to change with the times. Get over yourself, Dre, and take a hint from your buddy Chuck D: the reason the industry is scared of napster is because it gives small unknown artists the power of distribution without having their work extorted by music industry gatekeepers!

What is that supposed to mean? How have is Napster giving artists the power of distribution. When last I checked Metallica and Dr. Dre were artists and they seem to be suing Napster for taking that right of distribution from them and giving it to cheapskates like me who will probably never contribute to the welfare of Dr. Dre, Metallica or any other artists whose music I steal and redistribute.

PS: Why doesn't slashdot talk about the artists that support Napster? Such as the fact that Napster will be sponsoring Limp Bizkit's next tour which by the way will be free.