Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Claims Initial Legal Win vs. Napster
A number of people have written in with the initial news blurb that the RIAA [?] has won the initial battle against Napster. The US District Court in San Fransico has ruled that Napster is not just a "mere conduit" for files, but that it is actually liable for material transfered by the program. This comes on the heels of MP3.com's recent loss to the RIAA as well. Ouch.
I've got to question the defense's legal tactics of presenting no other witnesses or information besides a tape recording loop of Shawn Fanning screaming, "You can't stop the technology!" over and over.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
By this logic, just about anyone in the business is suspect. What about ftp transfers? What about email? Could an ISP be responsible for someone who emails an mp3 to a friend? The precedent that this sets is extrememly dangerous.
Napster told people where to find files. they didn't distribute any files, and responsible users wouldn't have broken any laws. Those people who did choose to break laws did so by their own actions, and are the ones soley responsible.
You can find mp3 files on any search engine or IRC client.... what's the difference besides efficiency?
very bad for everyone if this story is true. I don't care about mp3 files at all personally, but this kind of precedent is a very bad one for freedom of information in general.
________
1995: Microsoft - "Resistance is futile"
Is the judge a retard? They just ruled that an ISP is not liable for what passes through their networks and now they do this?. Our legal system is seriously fscked up.
The decision comes after Napster conceded last week that it was required to bar users who were proven to be infringing on copyrights.
Given that they already conceded that point -- does this latest bit mean that Napster is liable for the behavior of users that it has not yet noticed, even if it were not negligent?
That is, is the law demanding 100% prevention here? Or is some level of enforcement effort "enough"? If the former... unless they maintained a database of, say, MD5 sums of MP3s they had explicit permission to transfer, and they somehow prevented sharing of other files, then this might be impossible.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
This seems to be little more than a RIAA blurb press release to trumpet the news from Friday.... this is generically known as "spin." Other articles I read said that there were matters of fact to be determined by a jury... that means this case is going to progress.
(IANAL - I am now a lawyer - passed the bar exam on Saturday!)
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Who's next? The university of berkerly, for writing one of the first FTP programs, which allows you (among other things) to transfer mp3's? The IETF, for designing TCP/IP and FTP?
--
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
If people fall back to using FTP as a means of transferring MP3s, are the authors of all the FTP clients and servers ever written going to be held liable for that?
Free Hans!
at least we still got opennap... http://opennap.sourceforge.net/
So what do you people think about this recent streak of losses against the "Big Bad Corporations"?
Disclaimer: I am the Poll Mastah. I express my opinions in terms of poll suggestions.
Poll Mastah
He just denied napster's request for a summary judgement (napster's attempt to have RIAA laughed out of court). I doubt they really expected this to happen.
all your base may never have existed at all
No definitions found for "intial", perhaps you mean:
web1913: Inial Intail Initial
wn: initial intimal
The stupid thing about this, is unless they are going to go so far as to criminalize FTP, IRC and NNTP, this ruling is totally worthless. Fine if Napster loses, then another version will appear in its place. Welcome to fighting the hydra that is the Internet
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
IANAL, but isn't all that happened here is Napster not having the case dismissed for being meritless?
All the ruling seems to be is that the case should go to trial. It seems to me that there is a long way to go.
My UID is the product of 2 primes.
``Napster is about facilitating piracy, and trying to build a business on the backs of artists and copyright owners,'' Rosen of the RIAA said.
If only we could make that illegal, then we might actually have reasonably priced music where the artist actually made money from sales of recordings.
That said, this isn't really a full judgement. Napster was requesting a summary judgement. IANAL but I believe that means that we still have several months of court battles ahead to see what's up with Napster.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
OK, so they will probably crush Napster, the company will go down, end of case. I do sympathise with the developers there, but other than that I don't care much about its future, because of the original flaw in the design - centralized db. Once you have that, "they" have someone to sue, "they" have IP addresses to block, and so on. "They" will always win in such situation.
But there is something beautiful around the corner - gnutella and its open source clones. Yes, I know none of them work as well as napster, but it's just a matter of time and figuring out how to cache headers efficiently. Once the development is de-centralized and GPL-ed and file distribution is also de-centralized - what can "they" do?!
Sue everyone? They might, but it is much, much harder than suing just one company, especially taking into account that the end-users don't reap any direct financial benefits, unlike Napster.
While on the subject - what are the best open-source gnutella clones?
This makes perfect sense to me. %95 of Napsters files are illegal and all of the searches go through their servers and are run by their servers. Their business is supported by illegal MP3 trading. What can they expect? Unlike you average ISP their business is supported by illegal MP3 trading, not as they may claim supporting artists who want to bypass the record companies. (Something the RIAA wants to stop too, both sides are not blameless.)
In short I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Napster's getting what it deserved. And as expected velnerable technology, Napster's centralized servers, is in big trouble. Just like security through obscurity...
You shouldn't worry about this sort of action. You can get by it with Gnutella and FreeNet
This is kinda interesting. What is a mere conduit, what is a provider.
Okay, if I am an ISP, and people can automatically publish a website, everyone has a directory to store stuff in that is web accessable, I'm a conduit. I can't prevent people from putting stuff up. I can take it down if notified but prior restraints on speach in this case would be a nightmare.
If I run an IRC server, I'm a conduit, speach flows freely, files flow freely, and there is little that I can do.
However, Napster is more than a funky IRC server. They provide a search engine to find a song based on the title and artist. They automatically makes available on your machine and music in the directory that you download do. How is this a "mere" conduit.
I mean, if I provide a forum to publish files and tell people that I'll take down illegal ones, I'm argueably a conduit.
However, Napster does not GIVE people the opportunity to share files, it defaults to doing so. I've been ripping my CDs recently. Some are badly damaged, and I replace the missing songs with downloads from Napster. Am I doing anything illegal, no. In fact, I can arguably download music I don't own legally. Copyright refers to distribution, not use. I can borrow my friend's CD. If make a SINGLE copy of it for personal use, I am under fair use. If my friend makes me a copy of his CD and hands it to me, it is illegal, as he is distributing copyrighted works.
Now, Napster's default to share MP3s and make them searchable puts it into a grey area. The fact is, I, like most people, have a single directory of MP3s (subdirectories, but a single directory). Some of the songs are copies of music I bought a copy of, some are songs that I have not bought a copy of, and some are songs that are freely downloadable.
However, Napster makes NO effort to prevent me from sharing illegal to share files. So far, they are still, IMO, okay. Napster AUTOMATICALLY shares out all the songs in my directory that I download to. If I am downloading replacements for damaged tracks, it is legal for me to download them. HOWEVER, Napster will AUTOMATICALLY share those same tracks out. That to me makes Napster a publisher.
They are providing software that shares out my copyrighted songs. I DIDN'T choose to share them out, Napster did. Therefore, Napster is breaking the law.
Alex
So next I guess they're going to log onto that central gnutella server and start trying to figure out how to shut that one down too! Oh, wait....
What we need is a true file distribution system. Not limited to mp3's. All media types, all sorts of documentation, from plain text to Flash presentations.
More personalized too. Kind of a combination between ICQ, Napster and apt-get. At first you'd simply share files with friends and slowly you get to know more people...
The problem with Napster is that is was too obviously created to share (copyrighted) mp3's. File distribution is not illegal, nor is the mp3 format itself, but it is plain obvious what the purpose of Napster is. And judges don't like that.
Perhaps we should do some integration ourselves..
apt-get install britney spears
The problem is that Napster only has one use, transfering MP3 files. I think that this is why it can't hide behind a "We just tell them where to go" defence. A more general system such as gnutella does not have these kind of problems. The problem with gnutella is that it doesn't preserve anonymity.
It is actually possible to transfer data between two points and to stop each end knowing what is going where but protect against it being spied upon or changed while in transit. However this tends to involve very hairy discrete mathematics and codeing a good implementation is beyond the vast majority of people.
Lets face it whatever we do industry are going to turn round and say you might be infringing our copyright so we are going to sue you. This is a fight that I do not think that we can win.
-dp
why then is not ebay responsible for items on its site?
My understanding is that MP3.com violated copyright in assembling their mp3 database, but the principle of sending someone music that you know they own was not clearly indicted (though from the judges comments, they might go hand in hand). Is there any immediately obvious way to offer the mp3.com service without violating copyright via the database?
:-) to an audience? Mp3 is a lossy format, so Metallica's arguments that "you can't record high-quality masters off the radio" seem easily knocked down (and somewhat indicative of Metallica's lack of experience of the mp3 arena...).
Why could mp3.com not re-brand itself as an internet radio station that plays music (music _requests_ to be more precise
What is the big legal difference between a radio station and an MP3 broadcaster? I believe that radio stations are _encouraged_ to broadcast music (free advertising), and that streaming internet radio stations have been stood up in court. Presumably there are streaming players that will play an MP3 as you download it?
Hmm..
In a way I almost feel sad for the RIAA.. They can shut down Napster, they can crush MP3.com, but this genie is never going back into the bottle. Things have changed.. It will be more and more difficult for the existing structure of music distribution to survive. Why would I pay for a company to print thousands of CD's, Physically ship them around the world, and store them on racks, when I can now listen to music directly from an artist on the other side of the world?
Short of shutting down the transfer of data, how can they avoid the inevitable? Who will they sue to shut down email?
-
air and light and time and space
OK, so is MS then responsible for the following scenario?
I once used Microsoft Media Player on my Microsoft Windows 98 machine to play some Metallica and Dr. Dre MP3s that I downloaded from a server running Microsoft Internet Information Server in my Microsoft Internet Explorer browser.
And what about the Cisco routers that didn't stop the illegal traffic as it passed through them?
When is the (US) legal system going to put the responsibility back on the individual?
I was thinking about this whole thing yesterday.
Future possiblilty, no money in the actualy sale of music. All revenues come from concerts and merchandising.
Try this for a scary scenario:
----------------------------------
Assumption: sombody will figure out how to make BIG money off of the music industry, don't ever doubt it. We have all seen the mass appeal of they annoying boy/girl-manufactured bands. The cash behind these can easily be seen as an marketing investment rather then a "production investment". The old model held that Artists' music was the "product" of their "labor" wether paid or not. When it was demonstrated that an artist had a good "product" that sold (I am assuming that an artist with real talent + marketing will usually outlast one that it just promoted by marketing only, e.g. spice girls, n'synch, BSboyz, etc...), money was made off that product (albeit most of the money going to the recording company). If a artist did not like dealing with the recording company, he or she could get out of the contract somehow and change companies or start their own based on the populatiry of their "product".
So imagine this, with the near impossibility of making money off of the music itself, the "product" has been stripped away from the artist, and there goes the artists leverage.
So what happens next? The recording industry has funds that no private artist (and few corporations that might be interrested in this industry) can match. They decide on a "new business model" as follows:
Put together a "project" (i.e. artist or group)that has mass appeal with a trademarked image, free kickass videos and movies, tons of pricey promotional items, trademarked image, with some snappy upbeat generic pop. Indundate the mass populus with it, upurchase tons of radio and TV airtime, and let it take off. By all means give the music away free, videos too (can't watch a video on a Diamond Rio eh?). Charge up the ying yang for concerts that are like 3 ring circuses + Disney extravangas! In effect make that group a brand name!
Basically its the same old business model, out market your competetors (other non-record industry affiliated artists, and believe me this is fair), get the image and trademark down, and copyright the hard goods, and let the bucks roll in.
Kinda scary huh?
Of course the RIAA was going to try stomp on Napster and win. You couldn't really expect the American government to uphold what is, in effect, blatant piracy. According to the letter of the law it's no more legal to copy and redistribute MP3s than it is to sell copied tapes or CDs out of the back of a truck.
We'll ignore the fact that the MP3 revolution may well have boosted sales of CDs since its inception and that nobody at Napster or MP3.com was benefiting from anything other than unrelated advertising and that MP3 gives people a chance to sample a much wider range of music than before etc etc (this has been said many many times already...)
What I reckon will happen now is that, while many will be discouraged from going to the trouble of finding anonymous MP3 servers without the guiding hand of Napster to cling onto, the true music lovers may well welcome this, since for a start it will clear out an awful lot of the substandard scratchy, tinny, scrambled shite put up on Napster by people with 33.6Ks claiming to be on T3s. I do like the idea of listening to any tune I can think of for free before I buy the CD, but I was never a fan of Napster.
MP3 will never quite be stomped out and let's just hope that the RIAA (which surely leads the way for most national music authorities) draws the line at this point, so that the few of us that remain can continue to help the sales of our favourite obscure artist.
The conclusion of your syllogism, I said lightly, is fallacious, being based on licensed premises
... the district court also ruled the UPS, FedEx, DHS, and the USPS are responsible for any pirated music or software they deliver to customers.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Although the judge ruled that Napster is not just a medium for the transfer of files, it does not put a nail in Napster's coffin yet (although it dosen't look good). I wish the article had said why the judge gave that ruling, especially with the recent ruling by another court limiting the liability an ISP has. Perhaps because Napster's servers are set up specifically to transfer MP3's, unlike an ISP where it strictly passed data without discrimination. Napster needs to set up it's servers to transfer all sorts of files, therefore limiting its liability. Thank god for gnutella and opennap. I think gnutella would stand a legal test of fire a little better because there are no central servers at all- just peer to peer.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
he folks, :))
just think of somebody sueing mircosoft for spreading our so-appreciated iloveyou-worm over their outlook -> i format my linux box and install windoze just to join the suit
cu, mephinet
Use the source, Luke!
It's been a while since I read the article, I would expect that it's less than 3 now. :)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Of course, if this judge wants to be on solid legal ground, he has to make a distinction stating just why Napster is responsible for the actions of its users and, say, Microsoft is not.
Trying to state what distinction is myself would require be to both be a lawyer and know a lot more than I do about the inner workings of Napster software. So I can only speculate.
It could be that since Napster promises to regulate the actions of its users in terms of whether they violate copyrights, when it fails to do so (which happens 1000 times a second or so), that could constitute negligence.
This could also have a lot to do with the mp3.com ruling: since they don't have a license / contract / whatever to distribute music, even if both parties own the cd, napster isn't allowed to let them exchange mp3's from it. So now, even the 'archival purposes' loophole goes out the window for Napster, and any time anything copyrighted goes up, Napster is violating the law. If that's the case, and the RIAA could be on pretty solid legal ground here, it might be the end of the road for Napster.
Of course, the judge might have made the ruling because he just doesn't understand the first thing about how napster works.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
A recording industry trade group, announced today that they will be expanding their lawsuit to include other software vendors including Microsoft Corp. A representative for the RIAA remarked that because of the resent victory against the hacker program Napster, they feel the path is open for closing all piracy havens.
The RIAA claims that Microsofts "Network Neighborhood", when combined with the search functionality of the suspiciously named "Find..." command, can be used to search for and copy copyrighted materials.
Microsoft rebutted saying that the "Network Neighborhood" is an innovative tool used to aid the flow of information between computers. They went on to say that this technology, which can be used legitimately, is already in jeapordy if the Justice Department breaks the company apart. "Without a central leadership, invention will cease in the Windows Operating system. A second lawsuit would make it difficult for Microsoft to compete against other insurgent companies and would stifle the global economy," said a Microsoft representative.
The RIAA rejects this argument as handwaving. They feel there is no economic guarantee for any company. Individual artists, on the other hand, deserve the fullest protection under the law in order to make a profit for their protecting trade group.
Napster, meanwhile, welcomes the opportunity to work with the software giant, Microsoft in its epic battle against the recording industry giant. A spokewoman for Napster said that their position in the lawsuit is comparable to the pebble David used to slay Goliath. She neglected to mention which company was Goliath.
U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel in San Frasisco mentioned that because of the magnitude of the case, millions and perhaps billions of U.S. government money might have to be spent in lawyers' fees during the case. "This case promises to create a larger commotion than Kennith Starr or Judge Ito every accomplished," she commented.
As anyone in the security biz knows, it's called a computer running RedHat Linux. Someone have files you want, and they're running RedHat? Not a problem. :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
There was an interview in Salon today with the Napster CEO. I dunno, Napster seems more and more like a bunch of profiteers all the time. Plus the CEO seems a little over-optimistic. Information only wants to be free until the servers get unplugged. I kinda hope that this victory for the RIAA pushes along development on Gnutella, and to a greater extent, Freenet. A much more ideal situation would be one where no matter what laws are passed, the system remains intact.
Hmmm... I think you'll like this. Take a look at Freenet.
.technomancer
.technomancer
Well, first we have the Motion Picture industry slowly prosecuting everyone who has ever been within ten feet of the DeCSS code, the MPAA give ratings to movies on an almost arbitrary basis, and now, networks are responsible for the content that flows through them. A few predictions: One, expect Hotline to be next. These guys have a great network system, but *gasp* they are responsible for illegal software being distrubuted! Two, Napster WILL NOT slow down anytime soon. The appeals process usually tkaes a while, so d/l those illegal songs while you can kids! Three, expect even more draconian rulings and laws to be passed down, as long as the judges are influenced by money and big business. It just don't look no better.
-------------------------------------------------
This is just stupid. My GOD, we should sue all people running news servers! They can be, and are, used for trafficking illegal data!
Let's sue the small aircraft makers. Those things are only used to traffic drugs anyway.
Why don't we sue those responsible for the TCP/IP protocol too? Without it, illegal data would be much harder to transfer. Hell, it is only used to transfer data anyway - they should be responsible if it is illegal.
Man, I am so fed up with all of this shit from the RIAA and now Metallica. I had originally only 100% legal MP3 files. But, even those are being attacked, I can't even get (legally) music that I rightfully own permissions to.
I have no more sympathy for the RIAA and Metallica can kiss my ass. I may still listen to the music, but I'll never buy another Metallica CD.
The music industry needs to wake up and quit raping the consumers. Until that happens, I will happily download any/all music I can.
Signed,
Music lover who's tired of being shit upon. (figuratively)
-- Windows security? Sure, which ONE would you like? -me
Now they are trying their best to stifle any attempts to connect artists with the buying public via any methods other than the old traditional method of going through a traditional label (which are members of RIAA).
(And don't give me the tired old excuse that CDs are "worth more" that cassettes due to their higher quality. If that logic held, then that new P3 that you bought to play online 3D first-person shooters should have cost you several million dollars (compared to an original Tandy TRS-80 4K computer with cassette tape drive, circa 1978...))
I agree with most of that, 'cept that i really don't think that pulling files from napster to replace damaged cd's is legal, you were not given a warenty on your CD that says that if you damage it you get a new copy for free. Tech. you probly have to buy a new CD. BUT thats really not my point here. The fact that napster by default shares the music you download, you can change that i believe, but its the default. I think thats a pretty compelling reason to think that the people at napster knew exactly what they were creating, and what it would be used for, that is the illegal copying of MP3's, they were hoping they could hide behind the counduit argument because they don't actualy store the files themselves. This makes them different than search engines that really are used for the most part for legal things. But napster was created to do illegal things, they knew what kind of monster they were creating, maybe not knowing how popular it would become, but when it became as big as it has, they should have shut down and saved their asses, but now they are going to lose and i wouldn't be suprised if at least one of them goes to jail.
I read an interview with what's-her-name, the president of RIAA. She openly admits that there will be change, and that they cannot contain the online community from sharing copyrighted music.
Of course, I'd like to see music opensourced. There are lots of good, free music available already. I've got friends who play in bands - good, unknown bands. However, there's not much hope for musicians devoting their lives to giving away music for free. There's practice, practice, concert, studio time, practice, practice, concert, studio time to take care of. Some of us code for free. All of us would rather code for pay. Some musicians might consider playing for free. All musicians would like to make some dollars from their endless hours invested into their bands. These are people who get into trouble with their loved ones over spending too much time humping their instruments.
Of course, most musicians today get raped by their labels. Stealing their work will not only liberate them from their chains, but with nowhere to go. We need to look into business models that will pay the artists for every download. While distributing files by gnutella and napster has its purpose, I still use it mostly for research and for getting those gems I cannot get elsewhere.
Ideally, we should stop downloading copyrighted material altogether. If we only downloaded free music, we would be able to establish an alternative. If a CD is really good, I'll buy it.
Stop the brainwash
I can borrow my friend's CD. If make a SINGLE copy of it for personal use, I am under fair use.
Not quite. He can make a copy for personal use, you cannot. And if he gives away a CD that he has made a copy of for persona use, then he is obligated to destroy the copy(s) that he made.
I suppose that it would be somewhat legal to make a copy for personal use (perfectly legit), then loan the CD for an indefinite time to someone else. That should be within the letter, but certainly not the spirit of the law.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
But while the win was significant for the RIAA, the real fight is still to come. "This was really a tune up for the main event," said [copyright attorney/talking head Whitney] Broussard. "The main event is going to be when Napster rolls out the Betamax defense, which will be very interesting."
So relax, people. <cliche'>It's only the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.</cliche'>
Carousel is a lie!
I don't know maybe I'm way off base here, but it used to be when you owned something and it broke, if you had no warranty you are responsible for buying another one. E.G. If my serpentine belt broke in my car, I couldn't just go take one off another car, and I am not entitled to any replacement that I don't buy myself(my car is too old and crappy for a warranty :P).
My point being, if you didn't back up your discs or tapes that got damaged in the first place then you are probably SOL.
-Marc
Given that the RIAA has stolen and gouged customers and musicians for decades, there is only one reasonable way to stop them -- use ONLY free music.
Here are some ideas:
1) Check out as many cd's as possible from local libraries. Reduce them to mp3 format and place them on your own server. If you do not have access to a server for the necessary amount of time, burn copies of CDs and distribute them to your friends.
2) If you must buy CDs, do so only from used music stores or thrift shops that do not carry new CDs and are not paying the corporate music machine. This cuts the revenue stream to the RIAA corporations.
3) Enjoy free music from the mp3.com independant bands, rather than RIAA supported corporate music.
4) Consider researching/finding a radio plugin card that works under your OS of choice. Set it up such that a simple tap of a key starts/stops recording. With a decent radio station (that doesn't voice over the start and finish of songs) this could be an excellent source of free music for distribution via CD or server.
5) Above all, ridicule 'tallica and dre whenever and however possible -- independence and freedom were great things when these musicians were hungry, but know that they've had a taste of corporate greed, there's no way back.
The only way to stop the machine once the legal system starts supporting it is direct noncompliance. Insure that on a daily basis, you act to reduce the RIAA member's revenue streams wherever possible.
Should reasonable alternatives raise their head (limp bizkit) don't shy from buying their stuff! these are the musicians with guts.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
On a happier note, Mp3.com has struck a deal with BMI to license it's music. While this isn't directly connected with the RIAA's lawsuit against MP3.com it will hopefully encourage the RIAA's member companies to strike their own deals with MP3.com as well thus allowing their BeamIt/my.mp3.com service to continue in full force.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Could someone please publish a classified ad, perhaps in the NY Times, which says: "I have some copies of Metallica tapes. Call me and I'll give/sell you one". Then sit back and watch the music industry lawyers duke it out w/ the NY Times lawyers.....
There are refridgeraters out there that don't retain fingerprints either. Who do you think they are for? - - -
Me a troll, me no gnome, me smash ye head and break ye bones.
If you don't want to allow other Napster users to download your files, set the max uploads to 0. Maybe their choice of a default is bad, but you are not forced to share, by any means.
--
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
It's hilarious yet infuriating... Here's the slashdot crowd jumping to defend a company who:
uses proprietary (MusicShare) technology which to transfer files compressed with a patented algorithm with no respect to the copyright owner,
and at the same time, they demand that other companies open the source code to their key products, adopt open standards, cry foul when a company extends any of those standards and jumps to attack any company which happens to "accidentally" use GPLed in a proprietary product, hence disrespecting the copyright owner.
Why is that? Because they give them what they want for free.
What clever kids we have around here.
There are the laws, on the one hand, and then there is what people DO. More and more, people are going to trade digital music, video, etc. The courts and companies will catch up once it's a fait acompli.
Maybe we'll have to switch to Gnutella for a while. Maybe Freenet. Maybe some stuff will be hard to find for a while. But we will continue to share electronic data.
While Napster's chances in the case are probably not good, Judge Patel is probably the most liberal federal judge in California (she was the one who briefly overturned the death penalty in California a couple of years ago). So if there is any judge who would rule in Napster's favor, it is probably her. She also has a college-aged son, so she may be more sympathetic toward mp3s than other judges would be.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
when you think about it, your average mp3 is about 1/50 the quality of cd music. that is the purpose of compression and the reason the format has become so prominent on the internet: it is an acceptably lossy format.
so all the RIAA's and Metallica's claims that mp3's threaten record sales and infringe on copyrights are even more ludicrous than they were before.
mp3's are like higher quality analog cassette tapes, but they are not a replacement for cds.
the only replacement for a cd is another cd. which begs the question: why arent the RIAA and Metallica suing the makers of CD-R and CD-RW drives? those (if any) are the real threats to replace commercially bought cds; you could get a scenario of one person buying a cd and making 15, 50, 100 copies for their friends. that is a real threat, because cd-to-cd is a lossless copy process. so where's the outrage on the part of the RIAA about this? nowhere. because sony, one of the members of the RIAA, is also one of the leading manufacturers of CD-R/RW drives. so what do they do instead? pick on the little guy.
strange things are afoot at the Circle K...
this was illegal from the beginning. Patent and copyright protection are important and necessary in capatalist economies. This is not like the rediculous patents given to Amazon. This comes down to whether a musician has the right to copyright his music. If Napster is legal, then copyrights are pointless, especially as internet use continues to grow.
IANALEorM (I am not a lawyer, economist, or musician)
Anyone know how napster's business is profitting from their service??? Seems like they have alot more to lose than to gain...
Until recently, I've shared your belief that distributed solutions like Gnutella are essentially lawsuit-proof. How can hey (whether the MPAA, RIAA or whomever) sue everyone?
Well, they don't have to. Let's take a look at Gnutella. I run a client and lo and behold, a whole bunch of IP addresses. If I want to take the time, I can trace some, lets say 100. Some portion of these will be traceable to universities, some from businesses, and some from home users.
Take each one of those addresses, and contact the appropriate administrative person that owns that block of addresses. Shake your saber, and say, "we have a documented case of copyright infringement. if you do not banish and punish the user responsible, we will crush you."
Some percentage of these people will be non-responsive, but most will try to comply. This will mean altering the terms of service, or more agressively monitoring usage, or firing employees or expelling students. Very quickly, the lawyers for lots of institutions say "Don't forget to take measures to prevent copyright infringement."
Even without %100 compliance, the effect will drastically reduce the user base for these services. Nobody but nerds will be capable enough to use them. And this will be a tolerable situation for the RIAA and MPAA. They don't care about the outliers, they just want to make sure the mainstream plays by their rules. I'll repeat this, in bold.
The RIAA and MPAA only really care about the mainstream.
Unfortunately, although it is a bit hypocritical of me, considering what I use Napster for - downloading MP3's (mostly illegal ones) I suppose that I would have to agree with the judge on this one. You know it, I know it, and unfortunately the judge knows it. Were Napster to just support generic file transports, rather than merely MP3's, the grey area would be a bit larger. Unfortunately, the only file format that Napster will transfer (without such tools as Wrapster) is MP3. And, as we all know...most of them, probably about 90% or more of these are illegal. I'm not saying that I don't love Napster for it's ease of use and plethora of features...but they certainly knew what its primary use should be, and I'll have to side with the judge. Of course, I still say piracy is a nonissue....if I download it, I doubt I would have bought it in the first place. Oh well. Don't flame too much.
This isn't really a problem for Napster, it just indicates that the judge notices that there are issues being disputed, and he needs a full hearing on them.
4) Consider researching/finding a radio plugin card that works under your OS of choice. Set it up such that a simple tap of a key starts/stops recording. With a decent radio station (that doesn't voice over the start and finish of songs) this could be an excellent source of free music for distribution via CD or server.
,35079,00.html
.. stopping this abuse is up to us individuals.. currently i don't rip (no time) but when i start, i'll definately pay lars (it's the ethical thing to do.)
moderate above UP! Listen, it won't be long before $50 buys a credit card sized drive holds 4 *years* of *.mp3 recordings.. Gnapster and freenet plus exploding bandwidth will make a milennia of *.mp3 available for sharing.. deal with it!
http://www.techweb.com/wire/stor y/TWB19990824S0011
http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294
anyway, i'm dying to record direct from radio.. does anyone know of a TiVO like device for grabbing broadcast radio signals and converting 'em to *.mp3?
(btw - yes, artists are getting royally screwed between corporations and "pirates".. it is a very bad thing
ridicule 'tallica
Metallica have always encouraged piracy of their live albums and concerts. They just don't want you sharing studio productions.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Ordinarily, that would make sense, but the Powers-That-Be in the realm of commercial intellectual property have been trying for years to separate the material you use from its physical shadow in the real world.
For instance, although you have bought a physical CD, the RIAA insists that you have merely purchased a license to listen to the songs, and they have repeatedly fought the used CD market on those grounds. It would be hypocritical (albeit unsurprising) for them to do an about-face and suddenly argue that you really are purchasing the physical manifestation of the songs, with all rights and risks that implies.
The problem is that Napster only has one use, transfering MP3 files. ... A more general system such as gnutella does not have these kind of problems.
But with the Wrapster archiver, an MP3 file need not contain an MPEG audio layer 3 stream to be sent using the Napster software. Wrapster is your typical tar(1)-like archiver, but it makes archives (*.wrapster.mp3) that Napster can shoot over the Internet. To put it another way: <whore>you can use Wrapster and Napster to distribute the latest version of a certain OS kernel so that the official servers don't get slashdotted when 2.4 is released</whore>, especially if you napigate to an opennap server.
Will I retire or break 10K?
i can see where y'all are up and arms about all of this, but as a songwriter ya gotta see our perspective. we need to get paid for our work, labels need to get paid to distribute the work etc, cuz life in these united states costs money!! if people no longer get paid music gets a lot harder to do. i work as a techie as well (for now) and hope to get paid in the music biz so i don't have to live like an insane maniac working gazillions of hours all the time with day gig/ night gig. if i choose to post somehting free as an mp3 that's my choice (which i will do with some stuff), but i still want to live off my work (or some of it). and from the label perspective, the music biz is not an easy business to make $ in. there's a lot of competition, they lose lots of money on most records and only make money on a few, so this is serious. i'm all for distributing my stuff w/out a label, but how can i get everyone to pay for it (whether it's me or metallica)? these are years of work for many folks, please don't forget that. and a lot of the groups that people think are really rich or somehting just cuz they have some publicity really aren't. a lot of people gotta get paid off of that cd (although i could do without haveing to spend the portion that is due to printing up cd's and sending them around the country as well). don't kill the goose!!!!
If you gonna stop something, don't just half-ass it. Just to show what a bunch of fuckos they are, their only targeting the mp3 file format. What about *.wav, *.aif, or even *.xm. Some people just don't understand technology I guess. Hasn't the wav file format been around longer than mp3. So what's the difference of us posting zipped wav files on our servers to download instead of mp3 files? While their at it, how about shutting down all radio stations across the country. I can't imagine how people constantly record free music off the radio. The "Baby Boomer" generation needs to stop running this country. Vote their ass out of office.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
All of this is IMHO: I have witnessed the battle between those who claim to protect individual freedoms and those who claim to champion the rights of patent and copyright holders as it has unfolded over the last twenty-some years and more, and I have come to two conclusions: 1. As in most battles, more effort is being expended in arguing the causes of the problem than in finding possible solutions, and 2. A large number of these people are full of grade-A male bovine digestive byproduct, and aren't truly interested in the moral issues they claim to support, but rather in what their side gets for them regardless of the expense, in rights or dollars, to others. I'm about to point a few fingers. I want everyone to realize up front that I do not do this to suggest that these people are "evil" or the culprits in all that has gone wrong, but only to clarify our current situation so that we may move forward to a possible solution that will make the most people happy and that will be honorable. As I see it, we have five kinds of people, some of which overlap, involved in this debate: 1. The Champions of Freedom - these are the very few people whom actually argue against the new laws and the corporate lawyers on the basis that individual freedoms are being violated. They believe, and rightly so, that once a cycle of limiting the rights of individuals for the sake of "public convenience" is begun, that it will be very difficult to stop. For the most part, I believe that we should be proud of these people. The exception to this pride is when they are forced through circumstances to make their stand with: 2. The Hackers, Code-crackers, Slackers - this is the VAST majority of people who are "fighting for their individual liberties". The "liberties" they fight for, in truth, is the ability to continue their quest to rob people of property that is at least lawfully theirs. (More on this later.) I know, I know - the (software, music, movie, publishing, etc.) industry charges an unfair amount for goods that the public "needs", so members of that public have the right to go outside of that system to correct for this grave injustice, right? No. Think about it individually for a moment: I have made a little pot out of clay, and put some amateurish art designs that I came up with onto it. I KNOW, and you know, that the little pot probably isn't really worth more than about $10, and that's being generous. But I decide to sell it, and I decide that my selling price will be $10,000. At this point, you (the consumer) have three courses of action: you can buy the pot (boy, are YOU stupid!), you can walk away and deal with another potmaker who isn't as big an a$$hole as I am (which I may be proving by writing this post), or you can steal it, at which point you are a THIEF. In this country, I have the right to be an a$$hole, but that doesn't give you the right to leave me without a pot to pee in. ;-) 3. Joe (or Jolene) Public - this is the largest group, period. These are the people who have yet to realize they are involved with any of this. This is the most telling group, in my opinion. These are the people who steal cable, who copy video cassettes, who download MP3s but haven't become involved with it enough yet for it to be a concern for them. And they are the people who don't do any of that and haven't given much thought to the matter. If you ask most of them about what they're doing, they will tell you that they know it is a bit wrong, but they don't know where to draw the line of right and wrong in these matters anymore. So they go with what gets them what they want and try not to think about it too much, because if they do, they will become one of the other categories, and life will become a headache. 4. Senator Palpatines - these are the industry lawyers and the money grubbing executives and the vast majority of those who are "fighting to protect the rights of patent and copyright holders". These people aren't fighting for any rights other than their own right to make money and gain power, regardless of the morality involved. In many cases, these people will also be found in group 2, as long as it is related to a different industry than the one they are making money in. They don't mind at all making total suckers out of: 5. The Champions of Entrepreneurism - these are people who truly believe, and perhaps rightly so, that it is the right of the originator of a good idea to be the primary benefactor of profits from that idea. That commerce and prosperity cannot exist in a nation that allows thieves to continue unimpeded. And that artists should have the right to insure that their creations are presented in the spirit and with the qualities that they were originally intended to have. They don't necessarily like the exact way that our nations' laws are set up to protect those ideals, but they are willing to work within the system, and they will use those laws to their fullest potential in the pursuit of their cause. Now, as you may have been able to tell, I don't have much respect for types 2 or 4, and I don't think any "right-thinking" person would. But I'm not quick to try to place individual people into any of these stereotypes - as I said, they overlap. The Problem, in almost ALL of these cases, as I see it, goes back to Thomas Edison. Or maybe it was King James. Or maybe it.....well, nevermind exactly who. What both of the people I just mentioned had in common was that they both put their names on other people's work and ideas and were way ahead of their times in the field of "intellectual property". The $10,000,000 question is - Can, and should, information be OWNED? Information is difficult to control. I come up with a joke or a method for keeping bread fresh and tell it to one person, and if its any good it will soon belong to the world. And the argument, perfectly valid, of the Champions of Freedom is that this is good for society, because it encourages innovation. Maybe someone will come up with a better version of my joke that is funnier. On the other hand, I think most people will agree that an artist, whether practicing fine arts or being scientifically creative, should have the right to preserve the integrity of his work. And before you argue against this to serve your own purposes, think about how you felt about what Vanilla Ice did to "Under Pressure" by Queen, and you'll know I'm right. And this right would have to include controlling presentation, which they can't do if unauthorized people are presenting it (i.e. poor quality MP3s). Also, an artist has to eat and has the right to pursue happiness, and so has the right to be compensated for his or her work. What is the solution? Oh, you thought I was going to tell you? I wish I knew. I wrote this post to hopefully clarify the problem to get people thinking ABOUT the overall solution, rather than simply worrying about the morality of downloading any given MP3. (But I'd be willing to wager the answer will be best expressed in a sentence with 42 letters in it. Maybe we should pose THIS to Douglas Adams. ;-) Surak Prime out. My .sig is taken from "Spock's World" by Diane Duane, without permission, but also without intent to infringe. Think about it.
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
And in other news, following their glowing success in their suits against MP3 dot Com and Napstar dot Com RIAA has decided to "let it ride!", filling suits against Washington University, Necmer Soft, Inc.,The Apache Group, Netscape, and Microsoft. Only Microsoft was available for comment saying, "... this is no different than STAC...", making reference to the buyout and dissolution of STAC by Microsoft a number of years ago.
Gez. Fuck it! Let's sue the whole damned country. (*whisper*) Oh, Metallica is already doing that...
[And people say Communism and Socialism are Evil (tm).]
Get your facts straight. Last week, in Lunney vs. Prodigy Services Co., 99-1430, the Supreme Court DENIED CERT in the case that said that ISP's weren't liable for their users email. The highest court in New York said that, and by denying cert, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case at all. In the big scheme of things, denials of cert have ZERO precedence, and generally don't mean anything.
The Napster decision we're talking about is from a Federal District Court judge ruling on a motion for summary judgment. The case isn't over by a long shot.
Sometimes I wonder. It seems as though the US is ruled by corporations now. Otherwise how could such an injustice as this occur?
Napster was never intended for illegal acts. They do absolutely everything they can legally and fairly do to prevent piracy; granted this isn't much (a copyright warning in the splash screen is all you can do), but they do everything they can. Simply because something can be used illegally is not grounds to criminalize it. Take acetylene torches. I can use such a torch to help me build or service machinery; this is totally legal. I can also use it to kill someone or burn a building to the ground; this is clearly illegal. Furthermore, this tool lets me carry out these illegal acts in a far more efficient manner then, say, a match or a cigarette lighter. The manufacturers of the torch do everything they can reasonably do to prevent illegal use (which, again, amounts to essentially just a warning label). But they can't control their users. Does this mean acetylene torches should be made illegal? Of course not. Why, then, with Napster, a program made with purely benign intentions even if it does have the potential for abuse?
Now, there is one critical flaw with Napster: it only shares MP3's. If it shared all types of files, RIAA's ludicrous argument would have been much weaker. But it is still nothing but a conduit. Rather like the Internet. I can still get MP3's in myriad other ways; should the Net be made illegal because of this? Again, no. That would be stupid. And so is this.
We've been trading cd-quality live music online for almost two years now. The best part is that what we do is acually sanctioned by the bands, most of which have big-time record deals (namely Phish and the Grateful Dead). They've given the RIAA the finger and so have we.
CowboyNeal, I'm surprised I haven't seen you on the mailing list yet...
While what RIAA members do is certainly unfair and despicable, is it really against the law?
What you'll need to show is that RIAA members keep non-members from being able to enter the market, sort of the way that Microsoft suppressed competing operating systems and applications. Microsoft could have charged $5000 per copy of Windows (or whatever the market would bear) but that wouldn't have necessarily gotten them in trouble if they hadn't been ruled a monopoly.
And I have to say that I think RIAA is definately not a monopoly, especially these days when musicians really do have a viable alternative to using the RIAA member record companies: The Internet, and also a ton of indy labels.
If you really want to get CD prices down, lobby the musicians. Convince them that they will make more money if they don't sign their souls over to the industry. Of course, you'll also have to put your money ehere your mouth is, when the time comes.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Perhaps this has already been expressed by another member but thought I would throw my two cents in.
1. Having an MP3 of a song from a CD you own is not illegal.
2. Downloading an MP3 of a song from a CD you own is not illegal.
It is just that simple. End of story. Anyone using napster to 'steal' the music they download by not having or buying the CD if they keep the music is in the wrong but that is on each individual and Napster should not give even an inch because they have not broken ANY laws.
I wonder how the judge was bribed to rule against napster so quickly?? It just seems that there should be alot more taken into consideration before making a ruling like that. Assuming that the story is true.
--- Hey!? Where did freedom go?
The only way you can change anything is to pay attention when (if) you vote. Write to your Rep's. Write to your Senators. Write to your mom. By the way, how is napster different from FTP GET NFS or SMB Shares? It's easier to use, but moving data is moving data......
.sig here...
Paste your
RIAA insists that you have merely purchased a license to listen to the songs
You must be thinking of computer software. I hear this over and over again and it's becoming something of a pet peeve. There is no licensing involved and no license law when you buy a music CD! None!
(btw - yes, artists are getting royally screwed between corporations and "pirates".. it is a very bad thing .. stopping this abuse is up to us individuals.. currently i don't rip (no time) but when i start, i'll definately pay lars (it's the ethical thing to do.)
I pay musicians with the time, effort, and bandwidth it takes to promote their music, just like the record companies. But I don't and won't SELL it. That's for them to do. If we can establish the idea that it is o.k. to share, but that selling is the stealing, we'll be fine. By creating a social contract where you agree to only buy from the copyright holder we can stop any real pirates dead, and let those of us that want to share be happy. That's what being GNUML is all about.
oh, and about Paylars. I think it's a joke. Regardless, I've already learned that whining children should NOT get what they want as a general rule. Judge me accordingly.
--
+&x
Does this mean that soon we'll see big companies going after Undernet, DALnet, Mirabilis (for ICQ), AOL for (AIM), or other such companies? Napster might be the easiest way to share MP3s, but it's definately not the only, nor the first. (Remember plain old FTP warez accounts back in the early 90s?) It would be pretty interesting to see the RIAA and AOL fight it out in court.
I really like how mp3.com handles playlists, having links everywhere to stream mp3s from lots of different artists. And their stations are nice too. If mp3.com is shut down, where else can we listen to new artists?
I suppose I'm putting out a fire with acetone, but...
So, how long before they start targeting MP3 search engines? [3pm MP3]
http://www.electic.com/Reviews/D-L ink_USB_Radio/
Just saw this the other day. Dont know about linux compatibility, but its just what you asked for =)
Wait, I think the RIAA just filed a lawsuit against D-Link...
but it used to be when you owned something and it broke, if you had no warranty you are responsible for buying another one.
This raises an interesting issue about MP3s (and why I'll most likely never BUY them) that came up last week when the RIAA said ILOVEYOU to everyone (read the link below if you didn't hear that side of the story). Digital files are incredibly fragile. A whacked disk, a crazy magnet, a disgruntled 20-something in Singapore, or some interstellar EMP can make them all disappear in the blink of a virtual eye. They won't ever be a replacement for CDs, or any other phyiscal medium for that matter.
--
+&x
If you get beyond the actual technologies involved for a second, and look at it from a product driven point of view...
Napster is popular.
Napster is a company.
Napster's popularity could transalte into $$$ for napster.
Napster drives it's popularity from it's ability to assist users in sharing mp3.
Napster knows damn well that it is popular because it helps people find pirated music. Without the pirated music, napster would be nothing. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE.
Now, I don't debate that mp3 is legal, that there is lots of good, freely available legal music as well.. just that Napster drives it's popularity from helping people do something illegal.
If FTP was just like naspter, why isn't it being sued? Hey.. why isn't gnutella being sued? Simple. Napster is a company that is profiting from piracy. Period.
WRONG!!! Look in your prefs. You can specify what does and doesn't get shared.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Who'd they get to preside over this case? Judge Judy?
So posting a notice saying that you prohibit illegal use of your service is not enough any more?
Youre now responsible for the way your service is used.
Should this case succeed it is a confirmation by the US legal system that corporations are indeed responsible for your actions as a citizen.
Hence, they own you, and should be allowed to control your actions to maximize their shareholder value and minimize their liability.
Fuck your constitution, you do what the man with the most money tells you to do.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
oh, and about Paylars. I think it's a joke.
you mean "the artist" known as Lars? 8).. you're right, paylars is a baaaad example.. but there's somehow we gotta renegotiate to find compromise between the two sides currently screwing artists..
The problem with pay direct to "copyright owners" is the wealth of interminable copyrights owned by minnie mouse and all who hold and share her..
If you're above accepting credit for promoting art you love, then a solution may be harder to find, IMO..
I'd love for someone to parse the articles, and find out just how many people who are supporting Napster in this case, are the same people who screamed so loudly at those GPL violations last month. I mean hey, it's all copyright.
If IBM forked a binary-only Linux modification, would it be okay so long as they only distributed it over Gnutella?
Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.
Charles Miller
--
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
DMCA
If an ISP said "We are not responsible for spam. Our mail and newsservers are merely a conduit for our users", how would the net.community react?
What if they set up an open server, called it "Spam 'R' Us"? Would they still be held unaccountable by the net community because they're just a server, and it's the users doing the damage?
What if they promised they'd ban every spammer within a few working days of having their names reported?
Why does Napster have a different standard of care?
Charles Miller
--
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
"Group we loves looses free-speech/privacy/fair-use case. This sucks..."
Of course, what this leaves out is that these types of cases eventually make their way to the supreme court, and that all the prior decisions are 100% unimportant. Only that last trial counts. Everything else is just there to convince the court that the case is important enough to take. Now don't take me wrong, the Napster case itself may not make the grade, but eventually a test case will come before the court.
Now, the court hates to reverse itself. That means that their decision will be based on other similar cases, such as the VCR. And we all know that the decision on VCRs was that if it had a single legal use, it was legal. And since the court almost certaily won't reverse itself, Napster is safe as can be. Don't let the RIAA news blurbs fool you!
And I have to say that I think RIAA is definately not amonopoly, especially these days when musicians really do have a viablealternative to using the RIAA member record companies: The Internet, and also a ton of indy labels.
Don't forget about distribution!
There are a handful of major record labels and a handful of distrbutors and they pretty much work in exclusive partnerships. Often the label owns the distributor oughtright. I've never heard of an indie label working with a major distributor. Major retail outlets are rarely willing to deal with anyone but the major distributors (caroline, is the only 'indie' distributor of significant size).
So, you can't access the retailers w/out the distributor and you can't access the distributor without the record company. If it were one record company and one distributor it would clearly be a case of abuse of monopoly power. But because it is a small group of comanies, algededly acting in collusion, it's a bit harder to procecute.
The movies are kinda similar, indie films often collect dust after filming and editing because they can't get a distribution deal.
You have choices, but not if you want to sell a million albums. Granted, you'd make more money selling in the ten's/hundred's of thousands with a small label, but you can't do millions w/o paying the major labels their 95-98%. I hope that as more people work outside of the established system, equitable, open channels will develop. If the indie market gets strong enough it would limit the ablility of the MPAA to play format-switch. I'd hate spending my old age stuck w/ nothing but the britney-bot-5000 because I can't get a player for any of my lp's, cd's or mp3's.
- bridgette
Now, don't get me wrong. The idea behind Napster/Gnutella/etc is a good one. Setting up a network (easily) for sharing of data, whatever that data might be, is great. However, I don't think that it would have been unreasonable for Napster to build in some sort of technology that would ensure that only free, unlicensed music could be transmitted with their software. I'm not sure if that means registering your band with Napster or what, but it would at least provide a way to finger people putting up pirated music.
Lastly, I agree that we need to find a way to combat over priced music. However, blindly and blatently stealing it isn't going to do us any good. Court costs for drek like this is going to come right back to us in CD prices. Plus, as long as we have these battles, nobody is going to be listening to the other side, without that, there will *never* be a resolution, that much is certain. (Not that one is likely anyway, but at least with people on both sides listening and thinking there's a slim chance.) I think the RIAA needs to wake up and take a good look around the digital realm that is quickly leaving them behind, but I also think that we need to move toward a common center too.
Bleh.
-ben
-shogusumi
$email =~ s/(mon|key)//g;
Computer geeks are the ultimate recyclers... especially those of us on AC
The upshot is that Napster may have hung itself by its failure to police users of its system but a more careful service provider might survive a similar lawsuit and Napster may yet prevail.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years
If you're above accepting credit for promoting art you love, then a solution may be harder to find, IMO..
Credit, kickbacks, whatever. The promoters will get paid (I think CDNow has a good plan, but I haven't tried it). It's the same deal as we have now, but currently the RIAA wants to control the whole ball of wax, but it's melting, and their lawsuit-cooling plan is doomed to failure.
IP/Copyright laws need a serious workingthrough (word?) before they will have a chance of meaning much now. The DMCA was an attempt, but it got hijacked by the greedy. I think we need to go straight to the Constitution. (to keep this U.S. focused for the moment)
--
+&x
Some other thoughts to keep in mind.
When CD's were introduced, the labels "promised" that they would come down in price, as the technology matured. While they certainly haven't in absolute terms, they have on an inflation adjusted basis. Granted, that's a small consolation, but it's something at least.
And typically the price of something is based on something called supply and demand. Everyone that focus's on CD/Tape pricing, is ignoring that. Nowadays in the market, demand has shifted almost entirely to CD's. There is limited demand for tape. Tape's may be kept artificially lower in price, to keep them in the market at all. If tapes had risen in price, with inflation, so that they were up around $15, would anyone buy the damn things? The labels don't have a compelling reason to drop the format. The possibility of people buying 2 copies, is enough to warrant keeping the format available.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Ok, this is confusing to me. Wasn't there once an outcry over the existence of the VCR, or dual-deck audiotape recorders, because they might be used to copy copyrighted information?
What the hell is the inherent different here?
We encrypt the data stream to/ from the client software. We LICENSE this to those parties we wish to support. (Macster? Rapster, etc..)
We refuse to license to any parties we feel like. (NetPD). We Sue NetPD in the event they produce another user list on the scale of the previous one. (No way to obtain it without violating the COPYRIGHT laws designed to protect organizations like MPAA). Now, If we Win the DVD case then Napster could lose such a lawsuit, but, if MPAA wins then Napster would win a suit against NetPD.
(What would be copyright would be the search results as processed by Napster.)
I'm an electronic musician, and i would be stoked to see my own tracks show up on a Napster search. means someone liked it enough to share, and a wider audience would hear it. from a 'big money' perspective, the amount of money 'lost' by even a big name artist is negligible compared to how much they are making, and more importantly how much the record company is making _off_ them.
I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S DECISION -- TECHNOLOGY (NAPSTER, WRAPSTER, GNUTELLA) ISN'T THE FOCUS-- THE CONCEPT OF "STEALING" MUSIC FROM DEVELOPERS AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FREE OF CHARGE IS UNETHICAL -- MAYBE THE RECORD & CD COMPANIES SHOULD SET-UP A DATABASE TO TRACK ALL USERS OF THESE PRODUCTS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME --
DEVO-X
The industry has been experiencing strong growth during the time of the rise of MP3 -- and its not a big stretch to say that MP3 has spurred some of that growth. Listening to Naptster's CEO in a Solon interview, cooperation between Napster and RIAA is expected, possible, and ultimately the best route to solving the impasse. Futile attempts to engineer some backlash against RIAA are both hopeless and counter productive.
A subtle but important point. Although the article suggested that:
The US District Court in San Fransico has ruled that Napster is not just a "mere conduit" for files, but that it is actually liable for material transfered by the program.
the truth is rather more interesting. The actual opinion makes clear that the ruling made no determination of liability at all.
This opinion merely denied the defendant's motion for Summary Judgment -- it granted no decision in favor of the plaintiffs, who must still prove up and prevail in their case of infringement. Summary Judgment is a means by which a party can short-cut a trial on an issue for which there is no genuine question of material fact. By deciding that the question of liability must go to trial (over the DMCA issue), the judge most certainly did not make a finding of liability. In fact, S.J. motions are rarely granted.
More important, it is significant to note that the issue here was not liability itself, but rather whether the defendant fell under a safe harbor (get out of jail free card) set forth in a bill intended to protect ISPs. The fact that the safe harbor doesn't apply still means that the plaintiff must prove his case, get past the common law "Netcom" standard, and then the Supreme Court "Sony Betamax" case.
Without having reviewed the opinion carefully, this much is certain -- the opinion did not make any finding that the defendant's are liable. Only that the game remains afoot.
i was just using them as an example. some people like 'em.
as far as #1 being theft, i'm not so sure. i know the law is against the idea, but radios and libraries give away music all the time, and that is legal.
in my opinion, and i know it's probably against the law, as long as i don't profit from giving away music, even someone else's, or claim the product to be my own, it's legal.
that is my moral position. just as someone drives down the street blasting music out of their convertible, just as radio stations blast music to millions of listeners (and get charged a small fee while earning their revenue via advertising), just as libraries loan out CDs for no cost, i firmly have the belief i can distribute copywrited material from my personal server for other's personal use -- as long as there is no profit motive.
Websites serve copywrited material all the time. it travels through all kinds of devices and eventually resides on my machine. i do not claim to "own" it, by my machine may cache it (think squid) for others.
when my neihbors have a block party, they roll out the Altecs and crank up the Yamaha. i've never had to pay for that music.
well, in this case, i think a rousing chorus of "F*CK THE MAN" is in order. these are our machines, our servers, and bandwidth we paid for. as long as i don't claim to "own" the copyright, or profit from the distribution, or sell the CDs, i honestly thing the man can go f*ck himself.
why does a library, someone driving a car down the street, or (to a certain extent) a radio station have more "rights" than an computer-owning individual? they don't, they shouldn't and the b*llshit stops now.
i have already stopped buying new CDs of any kind. i plan on *carefully* buying CDs again at some point in the future, when i can verify that the RIAA does not have their hooks in it.
one reason i'm so hot on all this (and this is off-topic, i know) is the ongoing debate on legalizing drugs, particularly marijuana. seriously, i am convinced that there is a lot of money in enforcing these laws against non-violent/non-criminal users -- and to deny a mentally (or terminally) ill person marijuana is absolutely ludicrous. this is just another form of the same class of stupidity. it's control of your personal life for a profit motive.
the horrendous cost of all the police, lawyers, prisons, lost productivity due to the criminalization of drugs, not to mention the black market violence that it supports -- really, i'm starting to think orgs like "netPD" could make the net go the same way.
this has to stop! somehow, people need to consider how to stop this from steamrolling into (what could be) another drug war. some judge, or maybe the ACLU, has to step in soon and demand that personal, not-for-profit intermachine communication is STRICTLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH under the constitution. that means NO EAVESDROPPING without a court order, and NO CRIME unless there is money changing hands or a false claim of ownership.
phew!
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
If you review the opinion, you will find that Judge Patel, in order to twist the safe harbor statute out of bounds, was forced to arrive at the following conclusion:
In other words, Judge P found that the safe harbor didn't apply only because Napster did not itself reproduce, distribute or make derivative works! In other words, Napster did not ITSELF DIRECTLY infringe any copyrights, although it very likely provided the means by which others may do so. (the ones whose systems do provide connections).
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs in this case, however, the Supreme Court has already determined the conditions under which a party may be derivatively liable for a direct infirngement by another. In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), the Supreme Court clearly stated that there can be no infringement because
In other words, since Napster is "merely [] capable of substantial noninfringing uses," there cannot be indirect infringement. This, taken with Judge Patel's finding that there was no direct infringement (or she must revisit her determination that the safe harbor did not apply), leads to an ugly Hobson's choice for the Plaintiff's. There is no question that they must lose, just an ambiguity as to how they must lose.
That being said, I am hardly a scholar of the facts of this case, and these conclusions may not be applicable at the end of the day. Nothing I have written here should be taken as legal advice. Still, I think there is quite a glimmer of light in the particular findings Judge Patel issued in her Opinion.
This is an USA centric post, so just disregard if you are not interested in it.
/. everyone seems against it.
Okie, over 200 years ago, our fore fathers dumped English tea into Boston Harbor to protest the high taxes on tea. Maybe it is time for us to do the same regarding MP3's. Would mass sending of MP3's to our Congressmen/Representatives have an effect? What about to the exec's at the RIAA? Would they even notice? I say they would. Since this judge has decided that Napster is not a conduit, and therefore not subject to the law, shall we make email work the same way? It seems to me that the RIAA/Metallica/Dr. Dre attack on Napster is about one of the most negative things I've ever read about on
Is it not time to take action?
break the law even more. I hate to bring this up but making an mp3 is illegal if you don't own the cd. You're just kicking a hornets nest. The RIAA is a multi billion dollar industry that can hire hundreds of high priced lawyers that will win. If you really supported bands and their music, you would buy their cd so they get the lousy 50 cents.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Radio stations can transmit music because they pay for each and every song they transmit . License fees go to ASCAP and BMI, who in turn apportion some quantity of them to the record labels and, presumably, the artists. They do this in order to get people to listen to them, so that companies will be inclined to pay them money to advertise. This advertising money offsets the cost of licensing the songs and, if they're lucky, gives them a profit.
There's no licensing process involved for Napster. There's nobody to pay a license fee, nor is there any easy way to keep track of what songs get transmitted to whom without it being an invasion of privacy.
On the other hand, My MP3.com could very well make license arrangements (and according to a news blurb I saw recently, has licensed with BMI) to continue using their music in their CD streaming program.
Anyway...it all comes down to this. If you want to download MP3s via Napster & Gnutella, go for it. Heck, if you want to make them available, do that too. But bear in mind that, even though it's unlikely they'll go after you for breaking the law, they would be perfectly within their rights if they wanted to do so...and whether you think the law is right or not, you'd still have to answer to it.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Dave Blau
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Now lets see what's the last program I used to get myself an MP3 of the almost legal variety?
Ummm. It would have been Gozilla.
Oh hang on. No it wasn't. Damn I used Internet Exploder 5.0..whatever and it's stupid FTP view.
Oh my gawd! Does this mean that Microsoft is liable for me using their ftp program to downloaded almost legal MP3's?
There could be a few problems here and everywhere.
Looks like it's time that Napster added tunneling protocols or PGP encryption to their streams.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
And is the status quo all that bad? What would those artists do with all that extra money? Look what they do with the cut they're getting now. Most of them go backrupt within a couple of years of their last big hit, blowing it all on God knows what, or killing themselves. Most of those artists should be on prozac anyway. I think the RIAA should set up a mandatory proazac clause in their standard contract. Yeah...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I've been thinking a lot about the recent MP3 mess since I wrote a post about it on our website (http://www.gamersangst.com/views/index.cfm#231).
A lot of people make the distinction that its about the dinosaurs of the music industry vs. the new technology of the Internet. To me its not about that at all. Its about the mediocrity of music vs. its current high cost.
Dr. Dre and Metallica have become real watered down lately. Their only hope at sustained money making popularity is to protect their vested interest in their earlier, better music and insuring it does not get freely pirated. If it does the amount of fans buying their older, better stuff dwindles and the amount of people buying their "comfortable" new stuff is already low.
Likewise the RIAA realizes that music is overpriced, bands are overpayed, and fans are restless. *Their* only hope to sustain their royalty and membership fees is to pressure alternative avenues of music distribution to become a part of their fee organization in order to sustain their revenue growth.
Along comes napster. Suddenly here I am, sitting at my desk wondering "I wonder what ever happened to that Slade song I used to like in 7th grade?" Hop on naptser and 5 minutes later I'm listening to said song.
Its not about dinosaurs vs. new technology. Its not even really about greed in its most simplistic sense. Its simply about people trying to protect a system that has gathered them both money and power. Which is an age old human situation that we end up creating for ourselves.
To the RIAA: I for one would pay a reasonable price for mp3 music. Get off your fucking ass and provide it instead of sueing people answering a need you are too greedy to agknowledge.
S.
http://www.stepto.com
I guess it shouldn't be that hard to design your own with those cheap radio shack programmable cards. Someone with enough time (and knowledge) on their hands could implement one and release the driver source for all platforms.
Fuck Ajit Pai
Now every network card and router between me and the other guy's server is a conduit for illegal material and therefore liable.
"My apologies due to an unfortunate listing in my router table you are now the subject of a lawsuit. "
And again.... since when are mp3's illegal?
Mp3's are a file format... nothing more, nothing less...
The only smart thing that Napster facilitates is the linking up of one person with a sought after file, with another who has the file. Apart from that, the file transfers have been around for decades.
What would happen if Napster (the application) was just a dynamic list and relied on the user to ftp the files from one place to another. Would it still be classed as conduit by just maintaining a list of song titles?
M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
"She neglected to mention which company was Goliath"
Hah! I loved that part. Preach on, uh, person!
Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
No one seems to be mention a few basic common sense observations of this whole thing.
1) The latest "New World Order" (NWO was originally coined 50 plus years ago) is collapsing at a geometric rate, at least in terms of control over information and "intellectual property".
2) The legal system (like the political system) is pathalogically controlled by big business.
3) Control over information when it has already passed into the realm of electrons is rather futile. "Hey Bob, here's a new protocol that will solve this problem." "Frank, let's see if we can tunnel this in that." "Hey Jim, fuck them, we'll reinvent the system from scratch." BUT, this doesn't mean the existing empire won't execute a few heretics before Rome burns.
4) Until, "Soviet-style" tactics are capable of being enforced everywhere simultaneously (which ofcourse, they never will), human beings are going to generally do what they feel is morally and ethically sanctioned. (Pass the pliers, I think I've got a tooth-ache)
5) Most people feel that music is more "art" than "commodity" and therefore sharing art with ones fellow human beings is morally acceptable, even more so when it is easily accomplished, technically speaking. (Rip the Mona Lisa in two and send me a piece when you get a chance) Some people even believe that software is more "art" than "commodity", god forbid!
6) Since when does Meta11ica deserve this much free publicity, they've been crap since I was in highschool (a long time ago). Ratbastard$. Hypocrite$.
7) Given that the powerful corporations that have money and influence will continue to try to put a plug in all the holes in this stuck pig, we better brace ourselves for more and more 1984-style attempts at conforming the behaviour of the average technologically adept human being into a moral and ethical mold set out by organizations like the RI@@ and MP@@.
Their viewpoints as echoed by the emerging legal arguments seem to me to be more like:
You'd all be buying this crappy music if we could outlaw Radio, Internet, Tapes, CDRWs, cover bands and humming, you know you would. So stop stealing from us. You're killing pre-copulation babies!8) Prepare for the Int3l white paper(s) to come true and for attempts at $Corporate$America$-sanctioned IP rights-controlling CPU and hardware to become the standard (adopted through the backdoor ofcourse).
9) I guess the average commercial software houses out there (read N@pster) haven't figured out what the Internet is all about. Single point of failures are exactly that.
And the most important point of all. All those people out there who are up in arms about this MP3/D3CSS/N@pster issue but who are not contributing actively to the Free Software Movement are helping seal their own fates. We all need to fight together to keep software and hardware doing what we want it to do, whether or not $Corporate$America$ feels that it is "right".
Those bastards developing are probably the same corporate bastard$ that are going to restrict your freedoms first, not last.
And you can never be quite sure if those Open$ource friends of yours might be interested in selling out provided the technological solution to our (their) own demise is elegance, efficient and well coded.
Okay, so maybe that was more than a few simple observations. You get what you pay for...
PS. It's much more effective if the sheep have internalized the fox's belief system and feel that the external coercion is in fact their own belief system. In the best case, they'll slaughter themselves. In the worst case, they'll probably just bitch about it on Slashdot.
-ILM, Like The Rest
Problem is when the authors consider it theft. Anti-copright? Alright. Support free music? Okay. Explain how you're doing people a *favor* by stealing their work against their wishes? Hah. You're morality is just fine, as long as you don't start telling me that's how I have to do things when it comes to works I create.
I suppose one day I might roto-till your lawn as my way of saying thanks for the great post, but I imagine you might not feel quite as happy about my "generosity".
"Regardless, I've already learned that whining children should NOT get what they want as a general rule"
No kidding - especially when they're all crying for free beer.
If a band becomes popular from a purely free music background, that may actually cause large waves. Sitting around with napster running while trading britney spears is doing very little to change the status quo. So if you must spend time promoting bands, support the unknowns who are giving their music away for free.There's a billion out there - some of them really good. Not many on Napster of course.
All hail gnutella!
There's absolutely NOTHING illegal about sharing MP3 files. For the first, MP3 is just a file-format, not the content. For the second, friends may borrow your CD, that's legal (according to my common sense). However, that should also mean it's legal to borrow a copyrighted MP3 file, as long as you don't archive a copy of it afterwards..
The reason it's hard to shut down gun manufacturers is that noone in the government is working on it. The right to bear arms is written in the American Constitution methinks (I'm not American).
What's illegal tomorrow is impossible to say though, glad I'm not American.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Check out this item on eBay! $10,000,000 already. I wonder what the SlashDot users could drive this up to?
SQLTeam.com - For SQL Server developers and Administrators
how very right you'd be! just think of all the other people (ISPs) whos services allowed the passing of the infection... maybe we should be willing to show that we arent going to take people passing things like this around and close this horrible thing called the INTERNET once and for all... I for one dont believe that anyone in the US nor the WORLD should tolerate such blatant actions as their ISPs being blame free for their part in passing viruses to their customers!!!
wink,wink,nudge,nudge
"if i had it all to do over again i'd just get myself drunk and jump right back in" --jimmy buffett "Landfal
Anti-copright? Alright. Support free music? Okay. Explain how you're doing people a *favor* by stealing their work against their wishes? Hah.
Read some of my comments, or the upcoming Rebuttal part duex for answers to some of these questions.
?No kidding - especially when they're all crying for free beer.
No kidding, Who do you mean by "they"?
If a band becomes popular from a purely free music background, that may actually cause large waves.
Which brings us to my next point (and what I was doing last night)
BIG HOLLOW endorses Free Music! Surprising nobody.
hehe
Or if you've ever heard of a band called Phish, as an example. There are a number of others, but you won't hear about them on CNN or the Radio...yet...
--
+&x
Exactly! Or even more similar, sueing Microsoft, Netscape, AltaVista, or the maker of your favorite ftp client/daemon for creating the means for someone to get warez, or mp3 files.
Netscape Navigator - Guilty
wu-ftpd - Guilty
MSIE - Guilty
AltaVista - Guilty
ncftp - Guilty
RIAA - Well, they do provide the licensing agreements which people can brake to make illegal copies... So... GUILTY!!!
--
Marques Johansson
displague@linuxfan.com
Marques Johansson
Also, some of the Hauppauge WinTV cards have AM/FM stereo support, in addition to the TV. So with them not only can you rip the Britney Spears your local pop station is broadcasting to MP3, but you can also get the Matrix from HBO into a .mpeg file. ;)
I know I have had luck recording live webcasts, etc. with my SBLive in Windows, since it supports "what you hear" as a recording source, it records everything coming out of it instead of a single analog source like most cards.
-Smitty
± 29 dB