Slashdot Mirror
House To Hold Hearing On Napster
ptbrown writes: "On Wednesday the House Small Business Committee will be holding a hearing on Internet music technologies. (That is, Napster.) Chuck D, of Public Enemy and Rapstation.com, will be testifying on behalf of the good-side of MP3. For the opposition, the Progressive Policy Institute has written a report that recommends extending the DMCA to explicitly outlaw technologies like Napster." Yeah, we should definitely ban peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet, and NFS pisses me off, too. And Web pages: Ban Port 80! Does anyone out there understand what they're saying?
So tell me why the small minority of independent artists distributing their music on napster have more important rights than the RIAA.
I assume you mean that the majority of the music you find on Napster is RIAA music and the minority of music is independent. This is absolutely true. The obvious reason is that more people own copies of RIAA material than independent artists' material. The RIAA is obviously the best at distributing music offline. You do realize, though, that the RIAA does not represent the majority of artists that are out there right? Now, independent artists make up the majority of artists that use the Internet to distribute their music.
If the choice is between trampling the RIAA's rights and trampling the rights of everyone else on the planet the wishes to distribute music, then I'm siding with the rest of the planet.
Napster is an extremely effective tool for distributing high-quality music online. Although it's still in its infancy it's already proven itself to be good for that. At one show this month one of the bands I record called me up on stage to introduce me. The first thing someone shouted out was "Hey, are you gonna put these guys on Napster?" I said, "Hell yeah...if Metallica and the major record labels don't shut them down first."
Really go and talk to and talk to as many independent musicians as you can. I bet you can't find a majority that say they don't want their music distributed on Napster. My experience so far is that the majority want it and those that don't want it or don't know what it is are the minority.
numb
Do you know of any superior Unix to Unix, or heck, GNU/Linux to GNU/Linux protocals, for this?
Look, individuals can vote, corporations can't. It's time we make that very clear to the politicians who have forgotten.
Excuse the cynicism, but yes they can, and a few thousand times more effective. It's called lobbying. How do you think we got the DMCA in the first place? Duh.
And another thing. Being an election year may not be that good either.. It really means that any popular issue (police brutality, medicare, whether or not ketchup is considered a fruit in school lunches, etc..) has the potential of being exploited to further a political platform.
I can already see the negative campaining... "The Clinton/Gore administration passed laws that limit your privacy..." paid for by the Bush campain. "Bush wants to take away artists' copyrights..." paid for by the Gore campain.. (Or maybe I have it backwards; it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary who's side is for what anyway.)
_______
2B1ASK1
But asking people to respect copyright laws isn't exactly on par with government sponsored genocide. It isn't even close. If you follow my logic, then my statement is much more akin to me complaining that the Gestapo are searching *my* attic because other people are hiding jews. But, as I said, I would not consider hiding jewish people from persecution the same thing as stealing music. But your "logic", in fact, hiding a nazi war criminal in your attic from the police is the same as hiding jewish people from the german government. Good analogy.
I wasn't rejecting any principles of causality or personal responsiblity. I simply stated that if lawmakers feels compelled to apply restrictions to how people use a service (ie the internet) because a number of people are openly flaunting the law, and stealing from others, then I would be pissed at the people breaking the law, not the government.
I suppose a few generations ago, your ancestors were complaining that the government was going to make stealing cars illegal because that might compel them to actually pay for one?
Dana
- Clear notice on every web site telling users what personal information may be collected by whom and how it will be used.
- Prohibitions on selling or sharing personally identifiable profiles with other companies or third parties.
- Clear and simple procedures to opt out of data collection.
- Stringent guidelines on the collection of sensitive personal data.
- Notification on updates to privacy policies.
- Prohibitions on the use of data collected under more stringent privacy policies.
That's my take on it, anyways. At least they tried, let's hope they're open to reviewing that proposal.Personally, I think that should already be mandatory. Accountability is a very important thing in this medium, given the ease with which information can be traded. There are currently no safeguards in place that allow a user to do the equivalent of a paper-chase to see who has what information on them. Such a lack of standards is, quite frankly, shameful.
You know what? This would never work. What seems to be forgotten in this section is the fact that this kind of information is exactly what marketers want. As a result, there is no way that there would be any use in attempting to make something like this stick.
Why not reverse this? Let's see some sites that make it clear and simple to opt into data collection. It would be very pleasant to see a website that explained that they would like to use your provided information in (hopefully) a constructive way. I can't remember the last time I saw something like that.
This item is almost acceptable. But, in my opinion, why make particular items 'more private' than others? Who sets these standards? The idea almost makes sense, but it far too vague to be of any use.
When someone registers with a website, they should be able to expect to be treated the same for their entire time with that website, regardless of policy changes. They should have the opportunity to opt into the changes, but those changes should not be forced upon them.
This item is almost good too, but again, the user is required to proactively confirm their removal from a policy change. Bad.
Alright, I've been reading through these threads for about an hour and a half, seeing a lot of circular arguing about 'The RIAA does this to the Artists so it's OK for us to do it.' and 'The only reason Napster exists is to illegally pirate Metallica songs.' and various other silliness. I'd like to weigh in on both sides and try to clarify this issue a bit.
First of all, anyone arguing that the Artist should have control over their work should be AGAINST the RIAA. As it stands now the RIAA can order a band NOT to distribute music that the band created. And they MUST comply or face legal action. This does NOT mean that it is ok for us to all download full CDs of their music. But it does mean that the RIAA needs to be adjusted or done away with.
Right now Artists make very little money from CD sales. They make 0 money from napster downloads. I suggest the following business model to make everyone happy.
A Napsterlike service which charges a fee of 20$ a month for unlimited downloads. The service keeps track of which bands get downloaded and how much and awards them accordingly with a percentage of the whole. Say the service retains 5% of all profit garnered from the business. The other 95% is divided amongst the contributing artists in proportion to the percentage of downloads they have recieved out of the whole. If Metallica got 28% of all downloads for the month they get 28% of all profit.
I specify profit because the system overhead will take up some of the income and that has to be adjusted for. But with 300,000 users paying 20$ a month That's a lot of cash, even divided among 1000+ bands.
There could even be incrimental accounts like 10$ a month for 100MB of downloads or something of the sort.
I realize that this is abusable by small bands that can redownload their own music 4 million times, but that can be solved technologically. The business model is still sound. And it leaves a place for the RIAA (promoting bands) and for CDs. It leaves room for a band to release 1 or 2 songs to the Napsterlike service as a promo for their CD, and many many things like that.
In fact... I probably shouldn't be posting this, I should be calling Napster and the RIAA and see how much I can get for the idea....
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I say we put the "digital" back in Digital Millenium Copyright Act: Everybody raise a finger!
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I'll be contacting my House representative to let them know they should not support any measure to restrict Napster like technologies, and you should too.
Fox
actually, nfs pisses everyone off.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Politics are far too important to be left to politicians. If we don't get involved we have no-one to blame but ourselves. Contact your congressman!
Now why the hell won't Metallica answer our questions?!?! Bastards. I think I'm gonna go burn my metallica CD now.
You mean you haven't already? I burnt them a year or two ago as soon as l3enc was done.
_______
2B1ASK1
I therefore propose, as a political position, that the non-commercial distribution of any material older than 23 years be legalized.
Oh great. That's just what I want is to have better access to "Freebird" and "Boogie Wonderland".
It's economically feasible; almost all profits from commercial content are extracted in the first few years, a decade at most
Yeah, tell that to the millionare that owns the rights to all the Beatles music (I don't think it's Michael Jackson anymore, is it?)
_______
2B1ASK1
aw, *bullshit*. Napster does NOT create an illegal market for copyrighted material. The market is there, it was there before (cassette tapes, prior to that, it was bootleg vinyl, and if you don't believe me, I have a bootleg - very poor quality, LP of a 1972 Pink Floyd concert.) Napster is an enabling technology. It's only a tool man. Napster does have legitimate uses. Who gives a rat's ass what it was intended to be used as. The same can be said about ANY tool.
/., that musicians actually get paid for their work. I think that 99.999% of the punk kids who downloaded Metallica's stuff and got banned would agree that they'd much rather give their money directly to Metallica. (the same is probably not true for pirateers of Brittney Spears).
And, I don't think it's unpopular here, on
It is the mass-rejection of the RIAA, record labels, radio stations, narrowly-focused promotion, low-artistic value, and high margins on CD sales that is the issue here. Read some of the other posts. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. And don't read that as an endorsement of piracy. This is civil disobedience. Along with all the nobility that the term implies.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Ralph Nader is a champion of the little guy
Dream on. Ralph Nader has extreme anti-corporation bias (similar to one exhibited on Slashdot in the ravings of Jon Katz) and a darling boy of class-action litigation lawyers.
Just because Nader hates corporations and makes a not so bad living out of kicking them in whatever the body part happens to be handy, does not mean that he is pro-individual (aka "champion of the little guy"). If anything, he is pro-government. If he had his way, you'll need eleven permits and three certified safety experts watching just to start your lawnmover. Provided you can own a lawnmover, that is -- after all, these are very dangerous devices.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
You're joking right? Legitimate MP3s are rarely ever distributed on Napster.
So you're saying if I was to get a Phish song off of Napster that would be worse that getting it off of the Phishing pole, or sugarmegs, or hell, even recording it off the Phishcast?
Napster is a *better* service.
Loads of indie bands (and signed bands for that matter) have MP3s available for download on their webpage, not to mention the legitimate webpages out there that distribute MP3s
Very true, and they should have some MP3s on their page. They could even call them *blessed* mp3s. Record live shows. It costs roughly $300 to record a live show and put it on the Net as MP3s. Even less to gain a worldwide promotion network (i.e. Napster)
Getting rid of Napster is not going to help the RIAA keep indie bands down.
Yet it helps tremendously to control access to a wide range of music. It removes the control they have worked so hard to create. Napster *replaces* the RIAA and their control mechanisms. The value they offer musicians is promotion. That's what Napster does, or at least that's what I use it for. Just because some other folks don't know a good thing when they see it doesn't mean that thing should be illegal. There are better ways to deal with technology than condemning it as evil and suing any company that tries to use it.
The way to solve this problem is not through draconian technical measures that will replace promotion as the most expensive part of music. The way to solve this problem is with sensible, enforcable, fair laws. As well as the idea, which I fully grasp and act upon, that you must support the music you like monetarily if you wish more of it to be created.
--
+&x
the major use of compact cassettes is copying CDs too. I suppose those should be outlawed too, in your view. Napster is nothing but a tool. The use of this tool is the user's responsibility.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
>It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.
it does sound a bit like 'I know pronography when I see it'. but I think there is a difference: it is indeed impossible to write a law that encompasses all future technology. (should we ever find a way of instantaneous transportation, this would most probably not be covered by current traffic and other laws). But part of the job of a judge is to outline the interpretation of the law, and establish this interpretation through jurisprudence. So in some way, a judge does recognise an illegal act when he looks at it. but he may have to look long and hard.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
a very good reason not to allow corporate sponsoring of political parties. I'm very glad that in a large part of the world ( the largest? I don't know..) this isn't allowed. No company can stop funding a political party cause they don't like their policies, which puts the power over politicians more on the side of the voter.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
suppose my kid spoke his/her first words and I taped them. convert to MP3 and send to family-members overseas. or just put the first words on napster. it's mp3, it's legit, it's legal. Or I put some MP3s of my own band on my drive to share. again, this is legal. trading mp3s in itself is not illegal. trading COPYRIGHTED mp3s (not copyrighted by you, and not free for distribution) is.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Do you know why the NRA is so powerful?
1. Because there are about 3.5 million members who are willing to give $25 per year each to the NRA to fight for them.
2. Because those 3.5 million NRA members are MUCH more likely to vote than the average American. Out of all Americans somewhere between 50 million and 60 million actually vote. If you're a politician who is running close to his opponent in the polls it's in your best interest NOT to piss them off.
And, yes I AM advocating the use of guns, ballots, dollars and every other legal means to affect positive change.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Actually, it does. That's why the US is in some =SERIOUS= privacy discussions with the EU. The EU has banned the exchange of personal information with ANY country with weaker privacy laws than the EU member state from which the information was sent.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The thing is, that it's all a game of mindshare. Do you think that the average "buy a CD this week with my allowance mommy gave me" teeney-bopper is going to want to keep track of the hundreds of obscure indie garage bands and their psychotically designed websites to download MP3's? At least a very large part of music enjoyment among many people is cultural conformance. Face it. That might not be what tickles the average slashdotter's musical tastes, but I'm talking about the bulk of the market the RIAA is targeting. This is why the music industry narrows the focus, because it's all about mindshare. Mindshare is limited by the mental capacity of the people in the market, and Napster is a tool that allows a person to INCREASE their ability to keep track of a wider variety of artists, what their music sounds like, how to find more of it, etc. Maybe the config file editing geek doesn't need that kind of help, but 300,000 Metallica fans CAN'T be wrong.
I argue that Napster DOES add a great deal of value to the promotion and distribution, not only for independent artists, but for the artists that are supposedly being harmed by the illegal copying.
True, a lot of the indie bands that allow free distribution aren't selling their music because, frankly, they can't, they suck. But that is not the reason they don't have big recording contracts with major labels. There are lots and lots of good unsigned bands out there. Who has time to listen to them all? Let's live by the RIAA's model and only listen to the 5 bands they are promoting this week. That's what you're saying.
I contend that if Napster pulled ALL illegal materials from their database, they would definately lose a large chunk of freeloaders. On the other hand, I think that a great indie scene would thrive there. Especially if these bands began to actively exploit it, instead of posting their stuff on their own Netscape-crashing web pages, and hoping people will stumble onto the URL's.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
First, you're either putting words into my mouth or making unjustified assumtions about who you think I am.
I agree that everyone deserves the same rights. And I did say, nor do I think, that anyone is unjustly privileged. They have those privileges because people allowed them to, and because people believe they do. That is not unjust, it is nature.
My point with this was that freedom is more important than greed. For everyone, not just a certain subset. I believe that artists and people in corporations have the same rights I do. As a matter of fact, I both work for an entertainment corporation and own part of a recording studio, so I would be cutting my own throat not to think that.
My point with anonyimity is that people DO have the same rights. So who they are when applying those rights is irrelevant. Applying rights differently based on who someone is, or is not, is the problem with requiring lack of anonymity.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
The first amendment gives you the right to express, or not express, anything you wish. This includes your identity, as expressing your identity is simply another form of expression.
You may also state your ideas without stating your identity. Otherwise, the freedom to state one thing would obligate you to state something else. Freedom of speech is a right. It is not granted by anyone. Rights can never be granted, only taken away. Taking it away, and offering to give it back with conditions of identity, is putting preconditions on rights, which turns them into privileges. Privileges are not rights.
Now, you may state "In order to use this service, you must agree to give up the following rights:" But congress may not pass a law requiring it, because that would be a violation of free speech.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
The Face -= o_O
-.Shaun.-
For the opposition, the Progressive Policy Institute has written a report that recommends extending the DMCA to explicitly outlaw technologies like Napster.
From the PPI site:
PPI proposes the following changes to the DMCA:
- Give judges the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers whose services are substantially used for copyright infringement. It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.
From what's currently on the PPI site I cannot see how this is supposed to be outlawing technologies like Napster. Instead it seems to me like PPI has found the perfect median position in the Napster vs. RIAA debate. Let me explain how I came to this realization.1.) Napster wanted to claim that it is a common carrier under current law and thus should not be held responsible for the actions of it's users. What Napster has forgotten is that all common carriers (e.g. phone companies and ISPs) have personal information about their users so that if they are involved in illegal activities the users can be prosecuted. The PPI's first point is simply that if a company or service wants to claim innocence as a common carrier then it should be ready to cough up user info if the users participate in criminal endeavors through their service. After in the U.S. obscene phone callers and people who host illegal material on their ISP pages can be dealt with through their service providers, so why should Napster be different?
2.) What's wrong with a reasonable time frame for cease and desist? I see nothing wrong with a law that explicitly states how long service providers can give users to remove illegal material (especially since it would take 5 minutes in front of a computer to do this) as long as the time frame is suitable.
3.) Agreed. Make the law general enough so that it evolves with technology instead of creating a specific law to handle Napster, then another one to handle digital movies when bandwidth becomes ubiqitous and another to handle whatever else the future brings. This is very logical, after all the U.S. constitution is over 200 years old and has mainly survived due to it's general nature while countries with constitutions containing massive specificity and minutae seem to be in constant turmoil and have to deal with constantly changing laws and environments.
Basically, I can't see much wrong with PPI's recommendations and it certainly is a whole lot better for everyone than Napster's proposals (leave us alone, so our users can keep ripping artists off) or the RIAA's (explixitly ban anything that affects our bottom line) plus if implemented properly will also be able to deal with whatever other disruptive technologies that may appear in the future.
Of course, it might get you even more pissed off, since they propose:
Require service providers, as a condition to qualifying for the liability limitation under the DMCA, to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users.
which as someone noted above, is far more sinister. What are they going to do - require my Social Insurace Number or credit card number to access file-sharing services?
You also have to question these people's grasp on reality when they base their arguments on statements such as:
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a music industry trade group, estimates that piracy of physical music products, cassettes, and compact discs costs the industry nearly $5 billion in sales worldwide every year.
which we all know is crap.
This PPI group seems to have more suggestions that will just jam a few fingers in the dyke while water will continue to pour through. If they are successful, all they will do is further harm privacy on the internet along the way.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
I dunno, that doesn't seem so strange to me. I'm a pretty big P.E. fan and found Public Enemy and Chuck D to be my ally back in high school. On a specific level, they rap about the injustices and hardships facing the African-American community, but on a general level, anyone who has ever felt that an injustice has been done to them, or who is part of a persecuted minority can relate to the sentiment of their music on some level. And when Chuck D stands up for Napster, he's standing up against a product with legitimate uses being taken away from everyone due to the actions of those who abuse it.
I don't disagree with the idea of what Metallica is doing (though I disagree that you can always tell what's in a file based on a file name) in an attempt to "protect their work", nor do I disagree with Napster for complying and removing users freely distributing copyrighted material (what this should be doing is making the government look long and hard at the outdated copyright law, not at 600k+ people who are branded criminals because of it) because regardless of the fact that the current law is incapable of dealing with today's technology sensibly, it is the law. But I disagree strongly with taking a tool away from everyone when Napster is perfectly willing to block users who violate the law. Because Napster is today's tape trading. Metallica probably figures it doesn't need new fans and so doesn't want people getting its music without paying for it. But Johnny's Whupass Garage Band and such need exposure. Napster can give that to them, and should be allowed to continue if for no other reason than that. If a band does not want its music traded freely on Napster, it should be able to opt-out and not have it there (difficult for Napster to enforce, I realize). But if a band does want its music traded on Napster, Napster should be there for the band to have that choice.
"So many ways to skin a cat, and still everyone uses a great big knife."
Why wouldn't the government be looking into Napster? It is facilitating the transfer of illegal goods! You can talk all you want about how the 'Genie is out of the bottle' and all, but Napster is all about the transfer of illegal music. People are going to complain about the government trying to tighten up the DCMA, there will probably be a Jon Katz article about it, but they wouldn't be revising the law if Napster wasn't breaking it.
Sure, a few artists have said they don't mind if people transfer their music over Napster, but many haven't. If a band says it is okay, then fine, but if a group doesn't want their music on Napster, it shouldn't be.
If the US gov decides to try to ban peer-to-peer file transfers or force ISPs to store detailed info on what their customers use their bandwidth for, it will be Napster's (and it's user's) fault! They aren't the good guys.
Dana
I always have to laugh when people become vehemently offended and surprised at government and business attempts to reduce the level of anonymity on the 'net and actually glean some useful personal data on the people out there using it. The reality is that anonymity has, until the Internet, been essentially a mythical thing. The "real world" certainly doesn't have any anonymity at all, and I always find it at least peculiar, if not downright weird, that the Internet generation feels that it's somehow your RIGHT to be anonymous in this world; because it isn't, and it never has been. Don't get me wrong; I think it may become that way and, more importantly, I HOPE it becomes that way. But don't get up in arms because they're thinking of taking away something you never really had in the first place. Anonymity on the Internet was through obscurity alone; well, we got our wish; the Internet's no longer obscure.
As a staff member working on Capitol Hill, let me remind you of the hierarchy of response to constituents (highest to lowest).
1. US Mail
2. Fax
3. Telephone calls
4. Email
NB: Most congressional offices don't put the priority on email communcation that this community does.
In your correspondance, refer to any personal contact you've had with your Member of Congress. Such notes usually get pushed to the top of the pile by staff.
You can click here to look up your Representative from a US zip code.
Moderate this guy up. He seems to be the only one to have read the article before spewing ignorant hyperbole
Yeah, he spewed his ignorant hyperbole AFTER reading the article!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I pronounce 'about' and 'router' too correctly to pass myself off as a Canuck.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
> service providers whose services mean serious risk of copyright
> infringement (i.e. Napster) should be required to get solid
> identifying information for users, should have to respond to
Yes, such a thing would apply to napster. It could also apply to, oh, I don't know, maybe AN ANONYMOUS NFS SHARE. This, the slightest moment's thought makes clear, was exactly CmdrTaco's point. According to your description ("providers whose services mean serious risk of copyright infringement should be required to get solid identifying information on users"), there could be no more ACs on Slashdot, and no more anonymous write access to public file systems.
-------
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
While we're on the subject of grass(digital?)roots involvement in politics, I'd like to remind my U.S. compatriots that this is an election year. Many of you will have the opportunity to hear candidates for various political offices speak. Find out when they will be speaking, or contact their campaign headquarters and ask them what their position on the DMCA is, what their position is on the Internet as regards defending the rights of the individual versus corporate intrusion. Ask for a written statement, or ask for an interview, if you can't ask a question at a speech or political rally. Tell them you work for the online media outlet called Slashdot, and post a report of what they said here.
Keeping the Internet free (as in speech) is very important. The death of the Internet as an open medium will start with the banning of Napster because some folks use it to do illegal things. If the law is worded poorly, then any type of peer to peer data sharing could become illegal. What's next? Requiring a special license to have a web site? Soon the large corporations will wrangle it so that linking will become illegal.
Look, individuals can vote, corporations can't. It's time we make that very clear to the politicians who have forgotten.
If you want a reaction from your elected representative, do the things above, and write a letter, with a pen on paper, longhand. Trust me, that will have more of an impact that something typed or printed off of a computer, because you took the time to sit down and write something original. If it was laser printed, how does your representative know that it isn't some form letter. (I also recommend unlined paper.)
Time for some political activism, folks!
If you want a true internet candidate, I'll be eligible to run for U.S. President in 2008. So, get up off your ass and vote!
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
I am man enough to state that "I use Napster to pirate music. I am fully aware of the legal and moral implications of my actions, and I don't give a damn."
The level of hypocrisy here on slashdot is unbeleivable -- If I were to develop a program called "GPL'ster" that provide a way to distribute binaries without any source code or GPL mannifesto docs, I would get CRUCIFIED.
For the record, I do believe that extending the DCMA to cover *technologies* like Napster would be a bad thing, because these technologies are part of a system of checks and balances that the consumer requires in order to keep software and music publishers honest (or at least less dishonest than they'd like to be).
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
The recording industry has never been seriously hurt by piracy. Neither has the commercial software industry. The people that ARE hurt are the people trying to make their media affordable -- the cheap/free artists.
Consider the current cost of CDs -- $15-$20 a pop. There are two groups of people: (a) those who are willing to pay that price and (b) those who aren't. Group (a) gives the recording industry their profits. Group (b) usually resorts to piracy.
If the recording industry came up with the theoretical "perfect" copy protection, and completely destroyed the pirate market, group (b) would lose their current supply of music, and would have to seek other options. They could join group (a) (not likely), or they could turn to artists who distribute cheaper music, or even free music.
Pirated music is the biggest competition that the cheap/free music makers face.
Software works the same way. MS Office is the de facto standard, but not because everyone is willing to pay $500+ for the software. It's the standard because just about anyone can get it. If you couldn't get it without paying $500, you'd probably be a LOT more willing to try something like StarOffice, even if it were an inferior product.
- Rob Cottrell
Actually, you don't know that. Constitutionally it shouldn't be outlawed. It does not violate anyone's right to life liberty or pursuit of happiness and therefore it would be unconstitutional. What people use it for however can do those things. You can ban the tool, but people are just going to make another one.
To be honest napster should simply be a wake-up call to the recording industry. We live in a capitalist society (supposedly anyhow...) where the economy is supposed to be consumer driven. If you method of doing anything with a product or if the product falls behind the times then guess what...you lose. The recording industry would make alot more money if they would sells whole CDs and single downloadable tracks...there are manybands/albums i only like one song off of and don't wish to waste $15 for one song! However $1.50 billed to my credit or debit card...sure thing...set me up a user name and account so that if my HD crashes or whatever i dont have to pay again. That alone would generate a whole lot of $$$.
Again, you don't ban the tool, you ban the trade and the trade has been banned.
Derek Greene
Sure, many ISPs do. Mine does. But there's a world of difference between many ISPs collecting data and making it illegal for them not to do so.
--
Wage Slave Journal
Since the former is clearly implied by the latter, and much shorter, it is more effective for purposes of thumbnail summary.
(If you wish to question the assertion that the former is, in fact, implied by the latter, begin by explaining the practical, real-world difference between giving judges "broad powers to grant injunctions against" X and simply prohibiting X. For extra credit, explain why the established legal doctrine of "chilling effect" has no real validity.)
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work, but a lot of people need to get a clue. Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. All the rationalizations in the world ("Hey, I already own the material, man!") don't change the fact that Napster only exists by a loophole in the law.
The first sentence there is such obvious flamebait that I don't think there's much value to responding. So I'll move on to the rest of this quote.
First of all, the purpose of Napster is not to create an illegal market for copyrighted material. The purpose is to create an online music community where people can share music easily. Indeed, it is extremely sad that it is already so cluttered with crap that the RIAA holds copyrights on. This is a consequence of the RIAA selling billions of CD's over the years.
Perhaps you enjoy Metallica and/or Britney Speers (sp?) but there are many people who enjoy music that you've never heard. Music that you can't buy in your country, or anywhere except for a few select local music stores (these guys are getting shoved out of business too by the way--how convenient for the RIAA when distribution channels for independent artists go down the tube.) It's the people that make independent music and listen to independent music that are truly getting screwed out of this whole deal.
If Napster really were only useful for distributing copyrighted material I really wouldn't care if they were crushed. I don't know why you insist that it's intent is piracy. You can say it is as much as you want but it won't make it a reality.
You have seen Napster, right? They have chat rooms to discuss music (or do you believe that chat rooms exist soley for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material and kiddie porn?) It is a tool that can be used to build a great online community and help a lot of struggling artists. And you think Slashdot readers should cry for the super-rich RIAA when our lives are already over-saturated with their music? I for one would be thrilled if the RIAA could remove all their music from Napster. If they could though, I bet they wouldn't.
numb
Thomas Edison invents electric light bulb... Candlemaker's Guild cries foul.
--
--
A PC without windows is like chocolate cake with no mustard.
Bono probably couldn't give music away cheaper or free if he wanted. The record companies wouldn't stand for it. I seem to remember that the Beastie Boys and/or Tom Petty tried offering free mp3s on their web sites, which were quickly yanked by the labels. Fugazi makes sure that all of their CDs are available for 8 or 9 bucks, but they have been doing that for years outside of the mainstream system, thus removing them from any chance of radio play or mainstream popularity.
-B
It is a stupid law. It stops the good people doing their thing, and the bad people will find another way around it. It restricts the freedom of the innocent, whilst doing nothing against the guilty.
Of course, music piracy is bad. But music gets played over the airwaves all the time and the radio stations don't get sued - the radio stations pay a small royalty each time a piece of music is played.
Each user of Napster could have a stache of Beenz. When they download some music, those Beenz get transferred to the relevant artist (not music publishing house). The artist can choose how many beenz they want for a download. Alternatively, the Agent (e.g., Napster) could pay the charge per tune, but put advertising into the content that is transferred to cover the cost. Unfortunately, advertising on the Internet doesn't work!
If the user likes the music, they can then order the real Album/Single via the Agent (e.g., Napster) and get a discount on the album for e.g., double the amount of beenz that they payed for the tracks they previously downloaded from that album.
Remember, piracy is piracy, but is it bad when it allows people to listen before they buy?
As subject says, let's find out. If /. can interview (sic!) "Me"-tellicer, what about Chuck D. Perhaps he's curious about _his_ bedfellas too.
Now think about this. It's been what, 2 maybe 3 weeks since the crap hit the fan and there are already new bills being drawn up? Obviously there is some pushing from an unforseen force. Record industry maybe? I can see this getting pushed through quickly and halfassed. I'll admit it, I used Napster to get songs I wanted. It was great, when I couldn't find the song in the stores, or I only wanted ONE song, I didn't have to blow $15 on a CD, I just downloaded the ONE song I wanted. I have already contacted my rep and expressed my concern over these proposed laws. Some may joke, but look at how the world is today. You can have someone break into your house and if you hit them, or shoot them, they can legally sue you. If these pass, where will it end? It won't. That's the answer. I would think dearly before bringing a child into today's world.
"So who do you think is going to win, Corporation or Government?"
Neither, currently there is an open source effort to create something superior to napster: gnutella. Unlike napster, gnutella does not require a central server and thus needs no big corporations providing such servers. And above all, it is very hard to monitor gnutella users. The current version of gnutella is already pretty usefull (I use it all the time). The government focussing on Napster is a good thing since that allows gnutella to develop further. Unlike napster, it will be very hard to stop gnutella or derivatives.
Jilles
or shut down your services. It applies to hotmail, geocities, slashdot... a huge chunk of the Internet as we know it.
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
No, Napster is NOT just for pirating music.
I never said it wasn't.
Your ignorance isn't your fault. But what IS your fault is the line of thinking that is going to destroy this new way of doing things, as well as some of our freedoms.
I love it. Whenever you are wrong, it must only be that I don't understand your position completely.
If Napster wanted to be a legal service, i.e., one that only allowed trading of music with public trading copyrights, that would be one thing. But that is not what Napster is about, and all the rationalizations on your part doesn't change that reality.
If Napster, Inc. tomorrow made it their mission to proactively stop the trade of all copyrighted material, then you would be right. But they don't. And they won't. Because then nobody would want the service!! And we can't have that, because their Venture Capital funding would dry up.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I suppose copying the other party's product and giving it away for free is 'competition', but I'm not really sure.
.sig
You are making the assumption that an MP3 and a physical CD are the same product, they aren't. This is also a serious flaw in all the RIAA's argument. Unless of course, you got hit by the LoveBug and it erased all your CD's, then your argument would hold.
So then you'll say, "Oh, but it's IP." And I'll say yup, it is, and the only way to fully control IP is with thought police.
The largest part of the cost and price of CD's is promotion. Check the RIAA's "Cost of a CD" for a clue source. This is the "value" that the RIAA is trying to protect. Now whether or not you judge the value of the music you listen to by how much you like it, or how much you are told you like it, is an exercise best left for the reader, err, listener.
If you want an honest suggestion on how to resolve parts of this situation, check the link from my
--
+&x
Here's a sample scenario to throw dust in your eye and that of all the other Napster apologists. Let's say Napster expands it's service to include all file types and the same time that a very efficient file compressing algorithm is discovered that can compress files to a 20th of their regular size no matter what type. Now what happens if I start sharing stolen copies of MSFT Win2K, MSFT Windows ME (before it is released), Quake 3, Star Office, Transmeta's patented code morphing software source code etc. With Napster's current argument (and yours) all the affected companies are S.O.L. unless Napster feels like banning my account (which they don't have to by law) in which case I can get another in 2 minutes and start sharing stolen/pirated material once more. Clearly a solution is needed and PPI's is a rather good one.
- Judges should be able to decide whether to give an injunction after hearing both sides of the story instead of trying to write laws for specific instances of copyright violations because there is no way the laws will keep up with technology
Frankly I feel these are all good suggestions and are much better than the copyrights be damned attitude of both Napster and a majority of slashdot users. I plan to work for a software company in the future and I'll be damned if it is deemed OK for people to rip me off simply because it's convenient, thus I support artists in their stand against copyright violation after all it should be their choice how their music gets distributed.Seems to me that the proposed changes would HURT multi-nationals and international trade -far- more than it would hurt Gnutella or Napster, in reality. And it would also make it effectively a criminal act to not provide multi-point connections.
All in all, it seems to me that if Internet folk played their cards right, this could spell doom to corporate megaliths and -impose- greater freedoms than currently exist.
One thing you have to remember, it's NOT the words that count. It's who can twist them the more convincingly, first.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Let's be honest, this country is controlled not by the internet - not by the media, not by even the government but the megacorporations that control everything else. MacAddict had a really good article on this the other day, but corporations such as this tell all their smaller companies what they must think - thus something becomes culturally wrong. Think about it: how often does some issues such as oh... gun control take hold as soon as the media endorses it? Following that thread - MP3 is ABSOLUTELY no different than simple audio tapes, except it is digital and slightly less complicated to copy. Honestly my mother used to copy songs off the radio that she liked and then mix them into a tape (we had good reception at our house ;>) -- however MP3 is higher quality ... more portable. Anything that disturbs how "the company" works generally doesn't fly - and MP3 is something that they would like to combat as a whole. Truthfully napster has issues with the method of distribution - however let's be honest. How many of us have had our CD collections burst out? Since napster came into play I spend sooooooooooo much money on CDs.. and MP3 makes it so easy to keep them w/ me. I just whip up grip and they are in my homedir waiting for me - get on my iBook, copy them over and all I have to do is listen on a trip, or whatever. If we, the consumer to these corporation would write THEM and our respective offices of government then we would DEFINATELY see some action.
We will see what comes..
Well, if the report actually said that, you could be right. But the web site that was linked to in the article says nothing of the kind, and actually describes the report more than once as explicitly encouraging changes that will cut down on piracy without banning legitamate uses of the same technologies. That's the real WTF.
Did anyone actually follow the link before posting this story? The report appears to give recommendations that would change the way Napster does business but they go out of their way to say that they aren't attacking the programs themselves. If you read the article on the linked site, its kinda hard to miss. So why exactly did /. flat out lie about what their "opponents" are suggesting? Is it so hard to argue with a reasonable opponent that you have to strawman them?
I suggest following the link and reading for yourself what the group is suggesting. From the synopsis, it looks fairly reasonable to me. YMMV.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I notice (after posting this myself) that Badgerman earlier had picked up on that and some other good points back here.
--
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
there is a reasonable use for mp3's. that is to rip songs from cd's that you own, and be able to listen to them on your computer or on your own devices. that's acceptable.
/. is saying that every user should have the right to trade these files on the open, but while this is great for the user, nobody has given an agenda that would appease the opposition to this plan. So instead of yelling about how wrong it is for artists and recording companies to ban napster, propose some brilliant solution so that everyone can be happy.
I can understand why people are getting upset on the side of the people selling cd's, the artists, etc. because by users pirating (and that's exactly what is happening with programs such as napster) they are losing revenue.
now, everyone in
the music on a cd is still the intellectual property or copyrighted material of the artist and the recording company. it is illegal, in all senses of the word, to reproduce this material in a way and method intended for users who did not pay for the material.
yes, we should all stand up and say that the actions everyone is taking right now is wrong, but instead of flaming your local congressman, why not propose a solution?
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
What loophole is that? Why can tape manufacturors and claim "we're just a medium" but Napster can't?
Why can I trade tapes between my friends, but I can't set up a factory to mass produce tapes of copyrighted material?
Yes, it's a question of scale, and it's a question of commercialism. Napster can be used to trade legal material, but it's unstated intention is to trade illegal material.
Put it this way -- how long would Napster last if they proactively blocked all copyrighted material from listing on their servers? How long would their V.C. money last?
The service would collapse overnight because nobody would use it. That's the test that proves that Napster is nothing more than a virtual "back alley".
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yesterday we used the Slashdot Effect to bring down the potato server, today, let's use our power for Good(TM)! There is a phone number attached to the report, (202) 547-0001. I called that number and actually got to speak to the author of the document. I told him that I was an independant musician, who used Napster to freely distribute my music, and that it would be a large mistake to try to stiffle Napster-like technology in its infancy, as, although, yes, today it's being used for piracy, tommorow it will be used for so much more...
My point is this: Read the highly moderated posts, and then call this person, and give him the best arguments we've come up with in a very level headed manor. He's a very easy person to talk to, so be nice to him =)
As a side note, at the end of the conversation, he asked where I heard of his proposal, and I told him "Slashdot.org". He then said, "Oh, isn't that the hacker website?". I responded with "Heh, yeah, but we aren't the evil kind of hackers. We care about open source software, and, above all else, freedom."
--------------------- PeaceLoveUnityRespect ---------------------
> They are not talking about banning file sharing.
Of course. That's exactly the thing they're talking about.
Just because Napster made the decision to only support searching for mp3s (which I quite frankly, dont understand) doesnt make it anything but file sharing.
While I may agree with you that Napster is currently mainly used to trade copyrighted work it'd be dangerous to support banning them. Because if you look at it you really can never be sure that "the internet" isnt mainly used to trade copyrighted material... and pr0n... and copyrighted pr0n...
So you start prosecuting services that index mp3 files. What would you recommend next? I personally have a problem with gif files and think that altavista should be sued for making it easier for people to share them...
Seriously though, I would contact my congressman, if I had one.
But perhaps there's a better middle ground that we can find here, like "every time a song is downloaded, the RIAA gives $0.25 to the artist" and I pay $0.50. I can go for that.
If it's anything like the blank media tax, it's going to be a scam. Blank tapes and CDRs with the "audio" barcode on them attract a levy for "compensating artists". In truth, the levy goes only to the RIAA's Big Four record labels. Small labels never see a cent of it; they don't matter.
Aside from it being intrinsically unfair (why should the Big Four put a tax on the demo tape your garage band records?), it reinforces the oligopolistic paradigm that the only legitimate recording companies are BMG, Universal, Warner/EMI and Sony. Should these entities wield control over file swapping as well?
It's obvious you hate to insert reason into the argument...because you haven't.
Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material
Napster exists for only one reason, for people to share music. The RIAA hates Napster because it raises competition to an unheard of level. One they can't deal with and that will consistently eat into their profits (You mean there are artists that don't get played on the radio or MTV?!?!?). Competition is bad for the bottom line.
I've seen you speak up a lot lately, but have yet to hear a cogent argument. Go wink at yourself, I use Napster to find good music.
--
+&x
Some artists do in fact want to give their work away, for promotional reason or just cause they're great people. Not all file trading is illegal, nor will that ever be the case. In fact, the successful artists of the future will be those that embrace the new model.
So what you're saying is that artists should not have the right to choose whether they want to embrace this wonderful new model you're advocating. You have decided for them that it's for their own good that their material be freely traded against their wishes?
You know, I've been having some trouble making a few career decisions myself. Since you are so adept at deciding what's best for other people, maybe you could help me out as well.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
> It's not a generic service that is used for anything the customer desires.
Well, what is then?
Is it not generic because it restricts searches to files ending with ".mp3"? Would they be protected if they just put every kind of file in their indices and let you specify the extension? At which point do search engines as a whole become "generic" enough to be protected from prosecution?
Unfortunately, advertising on the Internet doesn't work!
... and advertising on the radio does? Most people just change the station.
or what about TV? Only lately have the commercials started to get interesting... before these, the commercials were an excuse to get up and get food... or go to the bathroom or whatever.
The ad companies don't realize that clickthroughs DON'T MATTER. The purpose of advertising is to get your name known, or convince people to buy something you provide... but not expect them to do it right away!
If you were watching TV and a commercial came on, and it pretty much gave 1 sentence and the name of the company, and told you to change to channel 294 for more information, NO ONE WOULD DO IT. The ad people are nuts for expecting people to do the equivalent of that on their comps.
errr... sorry for the rant.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
It is designed explicitly as a music exchange service
Actually, it's a music indexing service, much like a search engine is a web-page indexing service.
This makes a difference. Under the proposed law, someone could search Google for "microsoft warez", then turn around and sue Google, because under the new law, Google would not be allowed to add pages to their index, or allow people to search their index, without first having "identifying information" on file. In short, the proposal strikes right at the heart of the one thing that makes the web useful -- search engines.
Why is the House Small Business Committee holding the hearing? Which small businesses are involved?
Seems to me that this issue is only really important to some of the biggest businesses on the planet...
Now why the hell won't Metallica answer our questions?!?! Bastards. I think I'm gonna go burn my metallica CD now.
--Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
DOJ vs. Microsoft - Part II
REDMOND - Microsoft today announced that pursuent to DOJ recommendations, they are removing the File and Print Sharing protocols from their Windows OS. This comes because of DMCA, a law that they lobbied to pass. Among the other list of programs affected are Novell Netware, Napster, Apache, FTP clients and servers, IE, Netscape and all NIC drivers.
kwsNI
That means that ISPs will be liable for copyright infringement unless they collect identifying data on you. It will be their burden to make sure their users don't violate copyright laws, and their asses if they don't.
The threat to privacy is clear. If this were to become law, ISPs that try to protect your privacy would actually be doing so illegally.
--
Wage Slave Journal
From PPI's Napster proposal:
"It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it."
Um ... is this anything like "we can't define pornography but we'll know it when we see it."
This idea that judges will be able to just tell, upon seeing it, that something is illegal (in terms of the DMCA) frightens me. Government makes the laws, the police enforce them, the judicial system passes down judgement based on them. This sounds like an expansion of the judge's roll that allows the judge to decide what needs policing, in terms of the DMCA.
--
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
That sure is a cute and trendy thing for Bono to say. Does he remember a band named "Negativland"?
And don't even think about sending that email with an attachment. In fact, don't even think about sending that email at all. It may be possible to re-arrange that message into a binary file that actually contains the first second of an a commercial MP3!
I mean, honestly, where would the modern internet be if we suddenly started allowing people to send data to each other?! Won't somebody think of the children!
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Now the whole issue will get so bogged down in bureaucratic gridlock that it will be years before the government passes a law attempting to restrict technology that, by that time, people will have moved well beyond.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
PPI is aware of Gnutella and Freenet, this tidbit also came from the PPI report.
Of course, an amendment will not guarantee an end to online piracy. Cyberlibertarians are hard at work creating new software protocols for completely decentralized file swapping networks, such as Gnutella and Freenet, that connect computer users to each other directly and anonymously without going through a Napster-like searchable database. These protocols would render the DMCA moot because there is no company to sue and no central server to shut down. Because Gnutella and Freenet have no profit potential and no incentive to create user-friendly software, this new technology will probably be limited to a relatively small community of highly-skilled computer operators. If these decentralized software protocols do ever gain widespread popularity, Congress will have to revisit this issue. However, the mere threat of a future problem does not justify forestalling action to stop Napster-like services today.
---------
Interesting, here's hoping these systems don't stay only among "highly-skilled computer operators." Perhaps we need to consider advertising and more publicity for gnutella?
that way you'll properly be able to pay for Gore's Internet and the government can properly watch its citizens. this is for everyone's good.
if you start using illegal protocols (ones on the internic-banned list), you'll have to Pay The Man come april 15.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"Of course, an amendment will not guarantee an end to online piracy. Cyberlibertarians are hard at work creating new software protocols for completely decentralized file swapping networks, such as Gnutella and Freenet, that connect computer users to each other directly and anonymously without going through a Napster-like searchable database. These protocols would render the DMCA moot because there is no company to sue and no central server to shut down. Because Gnutella and Freenet have no profit potential and no incentive to create user-friendly software, this new technology will probably be limited to a relatively small community of highly-skilled computer operators. If these decentralized software protocols do ever gain widespread popularity, Congress will have to revisit this issue. However, the mere threat of a future problem does not justify forestalling action to stop Napster-like services today."
I would like to hear how PPI would propose to regulate decentralized protocols. I suppose TCP/IP would qualify as a decentralized anonymous protocol which should be regulated, according to the PPI.
I heard one of the best quotes on MP3 this weekend from U2's Bono on VH1's "Behind the Music:1999". He said that in the '70's, the Recording industry was saying that home tape recording was killing the record industry. When, actually, crappy music was killing the industry.
He went on to say something to the effect of "And who cares if I lose money? I'm overpaid as it is."
+-- (Score:-1, Moderator on Power Trip)
This states that napster is about to be given a large whack of cash ($15million) by the Venture Capital firm Hummer Winblad. So who do you think is going to win, Corporation or Government?
BTW, 'PPI defines Third Way proposals in Napster debate', no, I don't like the sound of that one bit.
It's not an ISP.
ISP == Internet service provider. Napster does provide an Internet service (Napster Protocol servers and downloadable Napster clients). Who said that an ISP has to be an Internet uplink?
It's not a generic service that is used for anything the customer desires. It is designed explicitly as a music exchange service.
The Napster system can be used to exchange any type of file (latest Linux kernel, latest Mozilla milestone, the MS-Kerberos spec, w4r3z, pr0n, etc.) especially when standard (ftp/http) methods can be easily slashdotted. Just use the Wrapster archiver after zipping the files.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The proposed "tightening" is merely clarifying the ISP exemption.
The probable INTENT behind the safe harbor provision is that ISPs have no practical means of monitoring all the traffic that their customers generate, since all the ISP provides is the infrastructure. Hence, most ISPs will be at worst innocent bystanders.
Napster is different.
It's not an ISP.
It's not a generic service that is used for anything the customer desires.
It is designed explicitly as a music exchange service. Therefore, logically it does NOT fall under that provision -- except that legally, we must adhere to the letter of the law, and it has not codified that exact intent. Therefore, they request that the law be changed, since under Napster's interpretation, they could advertise a "W4r3z N3tW0rK" searchable by publisher and title and claim safe-harbor.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Freenet, Gnutella -- no centralized server on which to shut things down. Freenet even intentionally hides users' identity. Throw 'em all in jail.
Anonymous NFS -- It's file sharing. 'Nuff said. Throw 'em all in jail.
Anonymous FTP -- More file sharing. Is the scheme of 'enter email address as password' good enough? Nope. Close all the anon FTP sites, they might be used for piracy.
Anonymous PVCS -- Oh, you want to distribute your source code freely so that everyone can look at and modify it? Sorry, you can be required to collect information on each and every would-be OSS developer that looks at your code. After all, they might try to slip a Metallica lyric into a comment line somewhere. Throw 'em all in jail.
Open news/mail servers -- Not a lot of these exist anymore because of security concerns, but there's a few still out there. Can't use them anymore unless they know who you are, sorry.
IRC -- Your handle on IRC can be easily spoofed, there's no central information server (files are DCC'ed between individuals). IRC will only survive if servers A.) Remove DCC capability, and B.) Require lengthy identification surveys when you connect to the system. This is where piracy used to be (and still is) carried out, remember...they'll go after those IRC kiddies if they get a chance. Throw 'em all in jail.
Anonymous Remailers -- anon.penet.fi is gone (and sorely missed), but there's still a few remailers out there that allow people to mail and post anonymously when they feel they have to. It's a vital service; if you don't believe that, then read alt.abuse.recovery sometime. Sorry, the government doesn't recognize that sometimes a person is too scared or shamed to speak publically. They've got to unmask, or we'll throw 'em all in jail.
The DMCA provision for common carrier applies to all ISPs and services on which traffic passes through the net. Forcing all carriers to have information on every message they handle is insane; it will destroy any hope of anonymity and privacy, and make illegal a lot of innocent software. Don't frame this as a Napster issue. Napster is a small part of the big picture to which this debate belongs. Although Napster may be suicidally reckless, the remedies proposed to discipline them may have horrifying effects on the rest of the internet unless we educate our legislature NOW.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
>So by that logic, it's OK to walk into Borders
>and steal "I, Robot" by Asimov if you then go
>out and purchase other Asimov books?
I'll rephrase it in Neal Stephenson terms...
Wheras if you stole "Snow Crash" (or, in metallica CD terms, an album, say... master of puppets), for example, and liked it so much that you went back and bought "Cryptonomicon" (the black album) that WOULD be wrong.
OTOH, The analogy in the first post is more like: You downloaded and read the first few chapters (enter sandman) of "Cryptonomicon" for free over at cryptomonicon.com, and you liked them so much that you went to the bookstore and bought the whole book (the black album).
And you know what? You may delude yourself into denying that it happens, but I HAVE discovered and purchased albums that I otherwise would not have bought in this way. And I know plenty of others who have made their music purchaseing decisions on the "try before you buy" model as well.
Simple fact is, any MP3 thats worth listening to, is worth buying the CD. Because, while you may not be able to tell the difference in quality on the crappy speakers on a computer, when you compare the MP3 to the CD on a REAL stereo, the MP3 (or a red book CD burned from MP3s) sounds like crap compared to the real thing. So any MP3 that's not worth buying the CD, is not really worth listening to anyway and gets deleted in short order.
Is is, as I said, a "try before you buy" purchaseing model. After all, you expect to test drive a car before you buy it. You expect to try out a computer in the store before you commit your funding.
So why should you expect to rush blindly into a music purchase without knowing what you're getting?
john
Imagine all the people...
Write your representative and tell them we dont want to move to Canada, but we will if we have to.
Devil Ducky
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
Actually, no it hasn't. It recommends changing the DMCA such that if a service provider wants to claim protection under the DMCA's safe harbor provisions, they have to be able to track users (no more anonymous access), and that there must be a fixed timeframe in which they must respond to a request to remove infringing material once notified (much like we already have in the UK).
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
how is this different from Bongs being sold as tobbacco prodcuts?
It aint. Surely you don't expect to hold up the war on drugs as a shining example of government controll at it's best, do you?
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Does the ban they're looking for apply only to MP3's?
If so, then can I ZIP or TAR up my files and send them that way?
If it doesn't, then how does this make sense (obviously does not)? What if I made such a program sole for the distribution of background images? How is that wrong? Their case just doesn't seem to me to stand a chance, there cannot be such a ban on peer to peer file sharing, and even if they did, where do you draw the line? If I ICQ or LICQ my files to someone else, does that count as illegal? What if I wrote a plugin to ICQ and LICQ that people can share files automatically in a napster like way, using ICQ and LICQ's file transfer protocol, does that count as infringement of this law?
There needs to be a definitive line drawn here, and there are only gray areas between no file sharing and unrestricted file sharing. The line must be drawn on either side, but there cannot be a middle ground, the middle ground is infinite in size.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Hmmm. You would think so, no? Perhaps this was true back in the '80s, but these days colleges are a huge corporate-rock bastion. Except for college radio geeks, the student body has been corrupted by the cultural maggotry of Generic Lite Beer/Generic Lite Rock. Spring Break! Par-tay!
Bring me the head of Dave Matthews. On a fucking stick.
Colleges rock about as hard as nursing homes these days.
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
It's not a generic service that is used for anything the customer desires.
Hmm... what if they modified it to be more than just a music exchange program? What if they kept all the stuff that they had now, but added the ability to transfer any type of file? I imagine that it would make it MUCH harder to 'squash' because it would open up many many more legit uses for the program.
any thoughts on this?
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
I therefore propose, as a political position, that the non-commercial distribution of any material older than 23 years be legalized.
Key points:
Anyone involved in Napster-related legislative activities should put this into the mix.
Yes, I think we should also extend this to real file sharing. I mean, we all KNOW that sharing files is just a front for piracy. I mean, just the other day I photocopied Webster's Dictionary and sold copies out of my garage. Once I even read a second-hand newspaper (yes, I admit it) that I didn't even buy myself! And just think of all the awful violations flea markets are promoting. We should just ban all trading in general. But wait a second...I'm trading electrons with the slashdot servers right now! Oh no...and these bits will be reproduced and distributed worldwide without a penny coming to me! I have to call my lawyer...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
service providers whose services mean serious risk of copyright infringement (i.e. Napster) should be required to get solid identifying information for users
The problem with this is, that not allowing anonymity is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. You are supposed to have the same rights and priveleges as a nobody as you are a somebody. That way, you can use anonymity to avoid persecution.
If you take this idea away, the effects on freedom would be immense. What we are looking at here is sacrificing the freedom of many for the greed of a few.
A note: If you don't want to give your e-mail address to Napster, it automatically accepts "anon@napster.com" as a valid entry. Neat feature.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
The RIAA is going after Superpimp, authors of pan.
We organize a grassroots level campaign...
Hmmm...
My lobbying group is "grassroots populism" and your lobbying group is "scumsucking special interest lobbyists". Right.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Hmm, I'm not sure how to respond to this extremely cynical post, other than to say that some of us (living in the Gibson novel) see the laws of the land, and the people making them, and know that they have no idea about what the laws they are writing mean or how they will effect our society as a whole.
/. is a place for like (and unlike) minds to gather and discuss some possibilities. The debates here have solidified and enforced my stance immeasurably. Don't attribute the logic of some pissed fourteen year-old to the rest of the people here, each has their own opinions.
The important thing is to fight for what you believe, and believe what you fight for.
--
+&x
CmdrTaco sez, "Yeah, we should definitely ban peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet, and NFS pisses me off, too. And Web pages: Ban Port 80! Does anyone out there understand what they're saying?"
Frankly, Rob, you don't understand what they're saying. How about cranking down the shrillness 5 notches and apply logical reasoning?
They are not talking about banning file sharing. If anything, it would be a narrow ban restricting companies from aiding criminals who move around copyrighted material. Right now there is a gray area in the law where a service provider can claim they are only providing a service, and it's the users who are breaking the law (Napster, of course, is appalled that anyone would use their service to break the law, *wink* *wink*).
I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work, but a lot of people need to get a clue. Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. All the rationalizations in the world ("Hey, I already own the material, man!") don't change the fact that Napster only exists by a loophole in the law.
P.S. Gnutella is not an argument that technologies like Napster should be allowed to aid criminals.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Washington DC - The house held hearings monday on the contraversial technology of conversation. Leading companies have objected to so called "bad publicity" which has been costing them millions of dollars a year. "My company went bankrupt after people started spreading rumors that my product was unsafe" said Mike Lorig, former owner of the now defunct Child Bags Inc. which manufactured plastic bag helmets in many different styles for children. Other key speakers included Bill Gates who demanded "an end to public opinion". Gates testified, "Microsoft lost millions when people heard what kinda crap MS Bob was. People shouldn't be able to give opinions on products without the producer's opinion! It violates everything this country was founded on!"
Click here to read too much about my personal life
It's not yet gotten quite as dramatic as the drug war. AFAIK, nobody has yet banned the MP3 file format, or threatened confiscation of computers.
Some fundamental questions here are --
* How responsible must Napster be for attempting to prevent copyright infractions? Would, say, disallowing a file from being shared if it's MD5 signature matches that on a prohibited list count? Is it necessary?
* Can Napster allow anonymous usage (only relatively useless data like IPs, which should by bypassable via proxies I'd think), or must it require verifiable data like the PPI desires? The latter would allow for banning users permanently, but raises the issue of when such data would be released (court order, but with how strong evidence?).
* Once notified of possible infractions, what actions, if any, must Napster take -- and how strong must the evidence be? Must a user be suspended if somebody simply makes the accusation, or must there actually be a verified transfer of copyrighted material? And must the user be identified to a plaintiff, if such information is kept?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The report recommends that the digital copyright law be amended "to hold Napster, its users, and similar services accountable for copyright violations while maintaining protections from liability for service providers that are innocent bystanders to digital piracy."
Yoiks! So, they're trying to define 'service provider' in such a way that includes anyone who provides access to copyrighted material. I think Taco's comparison to nfs and port 80 is, (surprise!) uselessly inflammatory, but the change in the law could lead to a UK-ish sort of 'fear of liability' in service providers.
Interestingly, it seems weighted toward punishing companies, and does not mention person-to-person file transfers..
Short-sighted and useless.. I say, let them pass it, then use it as fuel to repeal the entire morass of crap that is the DMCA.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Anonymouse hosts an anonymous Internet proxy that can be used for web, mail, and news.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Napster has been banned on many college campuses. College campuses are traditionally the place where independent music flourishes. Thus the RIAA has managed to shut down a distribution channel for the independent artists.
Yes, some universities block Napster. But it's not the copyright; it's the bandwidth. Web surfing and FTP downloads tend to be twice as fast on a non-Napster campus than on a Napster campus, especially when some schools only have two T1s going to the Internet. And the admissions department would just hate to have a slow-loading, easily-slashdottable homepage to turn off potential students.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Imagine the changes!
Got Rhinos?
I think this is where the problem in perception is. Let's take a hypothetical situation:
I have a computer. I have Napster. I look on Napster, and I see a song that I sort-of like.
I don't like it enough to buy a whole CD - as I may not like all the songs on it, and I don't want to pay for things I don't want.
Let's say it's not a "popular" song from that particular CD, so it's not available on single.
So, having little other choice in how to acquire the song, I download it from Napster.
Immediately, the RIAA brands me as a criminal, saying exactly what you said - that they lost a sale. Bull. I already said that I wasn't going to pay for the entire CD. I never had any intention of paying for the entire CD. Without Napster I wouldn't have the song to begin with, unless I did something else "illegal" and taped it off the radio.
Bottom line: The RIAA lost NO money from my use of Napster - they would not have gotten my money anyway
Now - the solution could simply be one of allowing the end-user to acquire ANY song they want (and only that song, not the entire cd, not only the songs some company decides will be "popular" enough to release as singles) for a reasonable price.
By "reasonable", I mean $1-$1.50 or so. Since there's no actual MEDIA being used (no CD, tape, vinyl, etc...) there's little in the way of material costs to cover. In fact, since the transaction itself is being handled by a web app, and the download is across the 'net, there's little in the way of "shipping/handling" to be incurred.
I'd be even more amenable to this if I knew the artist was getting a decent ammount of that $1-$1.50, rather than the tiny ammounts they get from the sale of a CD today.
Think about it. Chuck D says, "MP3s are good!" Slashdot says, "Hey, Chuck D like's MP3s! Lets go out and buy his CDs so that we can show everyone that a band that supports MP3s makes lots of money!"
;)
Chuck D gets rich, and says, "haha! Gotcha, suckers!"
Okay, I admit that this is pretty unrealistic, but hey
-- Dr. Eldarion, wearing his "I want my MP3" shirt --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
Though Dr. Dre wasn't specifically mentioned in this story, the reference to rappers involved in the Napster discussion makes this at least partially on-topic.
Has anyone considered writing Dre and informing him that he's a downright cheat himself? As far as I'm concerned, Dre's done nothing original himself, he's just laid tracks over top of Parliment Funkadelic time and time again. Unless things have changed since, I saw an interview a while back with George Clinton where he acknowledged that they just sample his ass off. The interview also implied that there weren't any royalties paid.
Now, if rappers want to sample the efforts of others and consider it "their" music, that's their own decision. I don't necessarily agree with the practice, and don't really even like how it sounds most of the time. However, for a genre that blatantly duplicates the a bass line from The Police, The backbeat of P-Funk, or even a riff from Mellencamp ("Jack and Diane", for goodness' sake!), I feel it's pretty shady for them to go on the record as being against apparent 'piracy'.
I applaud Chuck D. He's always been on top of the game.
That's what technolust is all about. No matter what they do, we'll always be free because we're always one step ahead of them.
Got Rhinos?
So what you're saying is that artists should not have the right to choose whether they want to embrace this wonderful new model you're advocating.
That's exactly the point! They should be able to participate instead of being limited to business models that work for the RIAA. You do realize that most artists are independent artists and need these distribution channels to spread their music, right? You can't honestly believe that the RIAA represents the bulk of musicians out there. You do realize that there are a lot more artists that want to be able to distribute their music online than those that don't, right?
numb
Jeeezus, when are Slashdot's editors going to actually fact-check before posting these crap stories?
I don't agree with the PPI's position, but i at least *read* it. They aren't saying modify the DMCA to ban Napster and peer-to-peer file sharing. What they're saying, if Slashdot's editors and the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd would bother to read for content, is that service providers whose services mean serious risk of copyright infringement (i.e. Napster) should be required to get solid identifying information for users, should have to respond to challenges in a timely manner, and that judges should have broad powers to grant injunctions against them - and that THOSE things should be written into DMCA.
The problem with this approach, which PPI fails to understand (and Slashdot doesn't dig deep enough to understand) is that peer-to-peer data sharing doesn't require a company to centralize the information. Gnutella and Freenet technologies, as well as whatever comes next, allow such sharing with no central control. That sort of thing is pretty much impossible to regulate by law without stepping on the First Amendment in the US (depends on local laws in other countries), and is practically impossible to regulate *regardless* of laws, short of unplugging the 'net.
Napster will probably die. And as far as i'm concerned, they *should* die, because they really are attempting to make money on piracy. But the technology that spawned them will not and should not die, and the PPI (and probably Congress) can't understand this.
--
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
I think you're a little off-base with that comparison. I think if you went to a site, and downloaded a chapter, or partial segment of "I, Robot", and then went out and bought it, along with all Asimov's other works, then you'd have a better analogy. Napster users rarely download whole albums (Unless they're taking money from burning fake CD's, in which case they're hardcore pirates, a minority that has plagued the industry since taping and CD duplication was possible. Losing Napster won't stop them).
Those Napster users I know who download copyrighted works only do it either for archival purposes, when the recording is of something they already own, or to try new music before they buy, because they can't really afford to purchase a CD they won't play more than once (remember, a CD in the UK is roughly double the price of the equivalent US product. Tell me how that's fair!).
I will defend artist rights to the death, being a musician myself, but what irks me is the probable fact that it isn't the artists who have come down on Napster. Most smaller-time musicians I know love the fact that their stuff can whizz around the globe unconstrained by a physical format. What I suspect is that Metallica/Dre's shtick is nothing to do with the smaller, struggling musicians and bands. They're basically being hired goons for RIAA. I highly doubt they actually knew about MP3, much less Napster, until their attorney (read: RIAA affiliate) clued them in on it. On top of this, they're generating more publicity than they've managed to over the last three years in the last month. RIAA wins, MetalliDre gets new publicity, and the attorney walks away with a fat pay cheque.
Anyway, that's largely irrelevant. What irks me is the fact that whether the piracy possibilities of Napster were considered when it was written or not, Napster is an invaluable tool for aspiring musicians to swap demos freely. To destroy Napster could destroy one of the most significant leaps forward for the little guy in music. You record a demo for a few hundred (insert relevant currency). You hawk it on Napster, and people can hear it. Then (if you're good, and reasonably clued in to the beast that is the record industry), you have proof to give to record companies that there is a market for what you're playing, and that is a ground to fund you to record more. That, I believe, is strong grounds for Napster to be considered a useful piece of software.
OK, sensible part over, it's conspiracy theory time. As I said earlier, very few download whole albums from Napster. The bread and butter of the RIAA's sales though, is pop pap like Britney, Billie, 5ive, N-Sync et al, who are not what are termed 'album-oriented' artists. The bulk of the millions they earn the suits comes from CD single sales. To download a Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, or (and I include them as a reference) a Metallica album, even with a broadband connection, would probably take upwards of an hour. The latest Britney single, however, can be down in a few minutes. They've lost a significant sale there, probably to those who they consider the 'spotty girlfriend-less nerds' they thought targeted with Britney's gyrations on MTV. They changed their sales strategy a few years back. Before, a record would move up the charts before moving back down. Now, with in-your-face marketing, records generally crash in at the top, only to be gone in a couple of weeks. This works great if CD singles are your only source for a Britney-fix, but Napster can circumvent singles sales. It's therefore a problem that they created with their manipulation and greed, as much as those who brought Napster to the fore.
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
In brief,
PPI proposes the following changes to the DMCA:
Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users. Napster currently allows its users to sign on anonymously, making it impossible for rights holders to track down the infringers.
Establish a time frame for the "notice and take down" process for removal of infringing material. The law as currently written has no set time table, consequently service providers with a vested interest in the infringing activity of their subscribers, like Napster, have no incentive to act in a timely fashion.
Give judges the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers whose services are substantially used for copyright infringement. It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.
Let this be a warning to all who think that Democrats (and PPI is centrist, "New" Democratic think tank) are better (or noticeably different) than Republicans or other politicians.
Major problems with these proposals, such as privacy implications, are left as the exercise for the reader.
And was it just me who found the argument "we don't know what we want to criminalize, so let the judge put into jail everybody he doesn't like" to be particularly pathetic?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I'm not sure I like it, but it seems at least more rational.
Contrary to claims made by some people that music does not fit the open source model, a visit to a local bluegrass festival has left me convinced that it does.
A group named "Spontaneous Combustion" is essentially a novelty act, performing bluegrass versions mainly of Beatles songs and of other rock & roll standards. But while the first time you hear a rock song done as bluegrass it may seem to be a radical innovation, listening to a concert set of them quickly shows how old the joke can get.
These songs are copyright, fixed-interpretation songs, and they don't adapt to different formats well.
Listening to the wealth of musical invention and co-operation happening around the rest of the festival, you hear songs that have been passed on by ear for hundreds of years. Connie Dover performs versions of ancient Celtic songs, then segues into the Appalachan versions. These songs are truely alive, being modified and interpreted, adapted to the modern ear by each performer.
Even more vibrant and creative are the jam sessions, where artists who have never played together before play musical games of follow-the-leader, and call-and-response. True inovation happens here.
By contrast, the world of studio recorded, copyright protected CD music is dead as a doornail.
Napster, however, allows this dead music to form a fertile ground for new innovation. One can think of a song heard years ago, and have a listenable copy in fifteen minutes. A single song covered by a dozen artists over the years can quickly be collected and compared.
The RIAA has no clue what's reall happening on-line. Two thirds of the music I've "pirated" would never be found in a music store, even an on-line one. Untill I can go into a store and get a copy of any recording ever made, on any lable, at any time, Napster and it's decendants will continue to be a completely different world, one they'll never catch on to.
Hmmm. You would think so, no? Perhaps this was true back in the '80s, but these days colleges are a huge corporate-rock bastion. Except for college radio geeks, the student body has been corrupted by the cultural maggotry of Generic Lite Beer/Generic Lite Rock. Spring Break! Par-tay!
To be honest I haven't really hung out on a campus in 4 or 5 years. Damn I'm starting to feel old. Some bands that I heard first on college stations in the 90's: Alice in Chains, Janes Addiction, Camper van Beethoven (now known as Cracker), to name a few. And I heard them years before I heard them on the radio or MTV.
I'm assuming that you are correct and that times have changed--all the more reason to keep distribution channels open. If not for the artists, do it for the children. Don't want them going to college and being stuck listening to DMB.
numb
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
I see nothing wrong with a law that explicitly states how long service providers can give users to remove illegal material (especially since it would take 5 minutes in front of a computer to do this) as long as the time frame is suitable.
I once got a cease and desist for a TV show fanpage I was doing (corporate "remove this infringing material within 5 days" bullying like what happened to aolsucks.org) back when I wasn't checking my email daily. Those five days passed while I was away from the Internet. I did take the stuff down immediately next time I logged on though.
Will I retire or break 10K?
How about sending the house a well written piece showing the opinion of the slashdot community? It should at least make all of us heard out there, and they should start taking notice... slashdot is no longer an obscure web site.
My recommendation: Get all the higher moderated posts, thread them into a coherent paper, and ask for slashdot community approval before sending it.
That ought to get them to think twice about what they are REALLY trying to do.
Maybe we should get presidential candidates for a /. interview!
Got Rhinos?
The most important point that needs to be made is that there is no way for the RIAA to control online distribution of music without taking away the freedom of independent artists to distribute music.
Think of this: Napster has been banned on many college campuses. College campuses are traditionally the place where independent music flourishes. Thus the RIAA has managed to shut down a distribution channel for the independent artists. I can't say that it was intentional, but it certainly will be a nice side-effect for the major labels. Of course, the RIAA says that "piracy" is the problem, costing them billions of dollars a year, yet at the same time they brag to their stockholders about record earnings this year.
I'll say it once more just to make sure: The RIAA can not completely control the distribution of music online without controlling the distribution of ALL music online.
Anything that allows the RIAA more control over online distribution takes away from the freedom of independent artists to distribute online.
It's time to start thinking about the original intent of copyright law and work from that. The intention of copyright law has been to foster the arts, not to guarantee revenue for entertainment cartels.
numb
--
Dave Aiello
-- Dave Aiello
If anyone is interested, the actual lyrics to the song can be found here.
Anyway, my interpretation of the lyrics is that Chuck D is sick of industry moguls in general making huge profits through unfair recording contracts with black musicians.
The Anti-Defamation Leagues's press release detailing their concerns can be found here.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Ok, we have a west coast rapper on our side, and they have....a Government Policy Institute.
I think we're okay.
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Because a free society must go out of its way to protect the "small minority", since the majority will otherwise ride roughshod over it without regard to right or wrong?
Because the RIAA's tactics lead to chilling effects, stifling, legislation-through-litigation, and a throttling of creativity?
Because copyright exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", not to secure the bottom line of certain cartels?
Because First Amendment trumps just about anything? (And should!)
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The DMCA passed in, what, 1998, under figurative cover of darkness before anyone quite knew what was going on. (I think. My history is shaky here.) A lot of people are suddenly getting bitten by it and are surprised to see it applied in the way it has been. But, alas, it's a done deal ... changing the law would involve deflecting a lot of momentum.
Now we have industry-friendly groups calling for revising the DMCA. Oh, sure, they want to tighten it up. But who cares what they want? The key thing is, they've made it a possible topic of debate again and this time, we are not asleep at the switch. Suddenly, it's not completely "out there" to talk about copyright and DMCA and so on.
Used properly, this might be a tremendous do-over. Maybe we can do it right this time around.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
This is a direct quote from PPI's report at http://www.dlcppi.org/texts/tech/naps ter1.htm.
The whole point of MP3's is that they eliminate the middle-men. In this case, the middle-men are the RECORD LABLES and the record stores. Two tiers in this industry are being ripped away (no pun intended.. really!!). That's what the RIAA is so afraid of. No more records, no more RECORDING. MP3's allow a direct channel (crap, another pun) from the artist to the end user. There is NO NEED for a record company in this model, except for artist promotion. None. Zip. No need.
The second paragraph turns right around and contradicts this. Sure, the artists need some kind of protection. But the record companies? They're loosing their jobs. There's no longer a need for them. Their place in society is deteriorating.
Where was congress to protect the Blacksmiths and Wheelrights and Saddlemakers when Henry Ford started selling cars? Entire industries died as a result of the invention of the car. Horse-drawn buggies were no longer needed. Horses were no longer needed. Horseshoes, no more. Did congress step in and say, "But what about the rights of the people in the horse industry??" No! It was considered progress, and a large bunch of horse people had to find new jobs as the years eliminated the need for them.
What Congress needs to understand is that by voting for this, they are STOPPING progress. The record companies are fighting not for a few dollars lost (and that question is up for debate) but for their very lives. If laws like these are put into place, the lables will keep themselves a niche, just another 75% stack of profit on top of an intangible item you buy. Right now, they give you a CD for that profit, and a nice store to buy it in. In the future, what would you get for that markup? Nothing. Personally, I don't want them in that position. If I'm going to pay for a song in MP3 format, I want the majority of the profit to go to the artist, not a middleman who is providing no added value to me, the end user.
I also noticed the footnote on this report, in the first page, where it talks about all the money the poor record companies are loosing. The footnote says they don't have any hard figures. Feh. All the recording industry figures I've seen have said their earnings increased 6% last year. I still say music piracy PROMOTES CD sales. I sure know I've bought more CDs (and enjoyed them more because I liked what I bought) since I started downloading MP3s.
Oh yeah, and one more thing! (hehe) Billions of dollars in damages?? $100,000 per song per infringement? That's looney! Their losses aren't that much -- they don't even make that much!! Damages in any suit like this should be a SMALL percentage of the industry's money, not a LARGE percentage. To say as much money is being "stolen" as is spent on the entire industry in a year is beyond reason.
ummm... I realy fail to understand this question, unless you don't actually know who Chuck D is, or maybe you haven't followed the whole Chuck D/Public Enemy endorsement of mp3 and their very enlightened statements about how the music industry is just so scared because mp3 will take out all the peripheral businesses making money out of musicians and allow them to freely self publish? Apart from that, whenever I've read or heard his attitudes and opinions about things he comes across as someone very intelligent, literate and openmided who is much better informed about technology or the political or social effects of such things as music or music technology than the average politician who makes decisions about these things. So, yes - I have thought for a long time that at the very least, I would trust his politics a lot more than many of the more "conventional" alternatives!
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom" -William Blake.
Yeah, and on top of that superpimp.org got $8.37 in 29th round of funding. With all that money, and with the help of Andover.net's lawyers, they'll be able to crush the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft altogether!
What this boils down to is this: the Progressive Policy Institute, is a lobby group, and gets its money from big business. The amendment to the DMCA is nothing more than the RIAA pumping funds at a bunch of lobbyists to protect itself from what it missed the first time through the legislative process.
Law is being written more and more by the corporate entities that are more worried about the bottom line than anything else. In the long run, this will lead to stagnation as change costs money, and that decreases the bottom line.
Let's face it. There's nothing we can do to slow down these lobbyists. These are the same people who lobby against alternative fuel sources in automobiles -- they don't give two shits about the long-term. As long as their profits continue to grow they have nothing to worry about. They just keep buying votes in Congress to ensure that their desires are enacted.
When did shit like this become acceptable? Sixty or seventy years ago, a Congressman that let his vote be swayed by money would have served his last term in Congress. Now, it's pretty much a given that anyone on the Hill is in the pocket of special interest groups.
So what will it take to end this? Ideally, it would be easy -- just put a legal end to campaign contributions (in ANY form), crush the bejesus out of lobbying groups, and slap term limits on Congressmen and Senators.
Will that ever happen? Not likely. What it will take is an all-out rebellion by the people. I'm not talking guns and bombs or violent uprisings.
What I propose is this: VoteGeek! We organize a grassroots level campaign to put people in the government at EVERY level that have NO previous experience in government, and no connection to big money. Generations X and Y have a lot more voting leverage than any other group, when you look at the numbers.
This is our future that the Baby Boomers and Big Money are fucking with. What are we waiting for?
blog |
how is this different from Bongs being sold as tobbacco prodcuts?
Probably not that much. Unfortunately, where I live the anti-'paraphernalia' laws are so vague and broadly worded that technically even old-man tobacco pipes and zig-zag papers are illegal. Of course, in typical government fashion, the law is not applied evenly. Walgreens (huge drug store chain) openly sells 'tobacco accessories' including pipes and rolling papers. They never get bothered by the police. A small locally owned shop which sells posters, t-shirts, etc., on the other hand has been repeatedly busted for selling 'paraphernalia' like the exact same zig-zag papers that Walgreens sells.
It used to be that something wasn't 'paraphernalia' unless it had 'residue' on it. Now just about anything that could possibly be used for drugs is illegal if the police choose to say it is.
BTW, for all the 'liberals' out there, the local city and county governments are almost completely controlled by good-ol-boy Democrats.
Maybe a better question to ask would be :
Why go for one way of distributing our material rather than two?
You can download a song from a band's web page, *and* the band can release it to Napster. Seems to me that you'd get a much wider audience that way. Remeber also that the Web is a primarily visual medium at the moment. You can advertise on the Web. The guy or girl who sees the ad is going to go to the site, maybe the site is bogged down, but if you tell them that it has been released to Napster, then there's another way they can get your stuff. Say (if you're lucky) they like it a lot. Remember also, that the 'net is a very vocal environment, so they post to newsgroups, and e-mail their friends, telling them you're great musicians, and not just that, but that 'They released it to Napster! They're 'net junkies just like us!'. They share the songs, their friends share the songs, and before you know it, you've got a little community that likes your stuff. Good music should be about inspiring a community spirit between people using music as the bond. Personally, I can't think of a better way to do it. For years now, music made by those that like music for whatever reason has been cast aside by the industry (who find it cheaper to mass-produce 'pop stars' and pay them as employees. Hell, they're even trying to create 'virtual' pop stars where they don't have to pay them anything!), and they brushed it aside with 'That music has no appreciable market'. Now, here's the clincher. With Napster, you can log on and SHOW them that there are multiple copies of your song floating around all the time. You can show them the website logs. You can PROVE to them that there is a market for what you do, and that you created it without having to spend millions of dollars on marketing. They will see you as a lot more committed as a result. They may not sign you, but they will *respect* you, (And *may* pass you onto a little indie subsidiary that their friend runs). Before passing sentence on Napster, it may be an idea to at least acknowledge that it can be used for as much good as bad. Metallica, Dre and even Britney, for that matter, don't need any extra money, and if you look at my earlier post, I explain that it probably doesn't do much harm to non-manufactured artists. I don't know how you could, or if you should, enforce proper use (There will *always* be troublemakers), but think of what you're shutting the door on before you shut it.
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
Thanks for the response Otter, loved you in the "Funniest college movie before Road Trip!" ;)
/. collective) are advocating (which I dare you to pin down, there's a lot of people screaming around here ;)
.sig for a bit more extended defense of my theory.
A few things...(quotes from the link you gave me, or your own reply)
Richard doesn't believe in ownership of intellectual property.
I do believe in intellectual property, but only when it crosses into the real world. That is, I believe in the protection of the implementation rather than the idea itself. There is also a fundamental difference between what I, personally, am advocating, and what *we* (the
One must also keep the conversation in the correct context, that is "Cyberspace", where, as a fundamental point of my argument, scarcity does not exist.
The important part is finding the right balance between the rights of the copyright holder and the good of the general public.
Which, in all of the cases we are discussing, is between *we* the people of the U.S.(i.e. general public) and "they" (the copyright holders, the RIAA/MPAA, in the current situation). I think this balance of rights, given our current context, is way out of whack. So I think we should whack it back. With a big cluestick. (the clue being that we are, in fact, people out here and we do, in fact, have opinions on how your business is run, and yes, we can tell the whole world about it from the comfort of our bedrooms.)
Many of us percieve the corrupt nature of the music industry: they do have a lock on the business of distributing music, and the artist is often taken advantage of by the mega-corporation.
But the Internet will solve this problem, because it lets the artists distribute directly to their patrons. Those artists still need to be able to be compensated for their work. Widespread bootlegging deprives them of that compensation, whether or not the mega-corporations of the music industry are involved.
I disagree with Bruce here. I think widespread "bootlegging" or "sharing" as I prefer, will replace what the RIAA sees as the most expensive, and thereforce valuable, part of the music industry....marketing. I feel quite strongly about this. Read the link from my
Bruce goes on to talk about a 1984(ish) scenario that I can see too. But unlike him, I think the battle has already been joined. Raising awarness of these issues NOW, is the biggest concern. Getting people online to research before making an opinion has been my biggest goal, it's what I tell people on the street (if the subject comes up). Once enough people know and DO SOMETHING about it. the danger may be averted. Either that or in 10 years $19 of the $20 a CD costs will be to make sure they still cost that much.
And from the Free Software/Free Music angle. I think they are different forms of IP and should be treated as such. But that is a whole 'nuther discussion.
And think before you believe!
I'm a big believer in thinking. And logic. Unless I get some new sources of information that totally contradict pretty much everything I think I know now, my position won't change. And yes, I am the(a) cynical one.:)
--
+&x
I'm also trying out Freenet, which at the moment is very much incomplete - but we all know that. I had to try 5 keys before I finally could retrieve something, and that something was porn .. *sigh* I must also voice the doubt that Freenet won't be Freenet, since they readily admit that you will give your IP away to the first node you connect to. It _will_ be possible (but hard) to track people down even on Freenet.
Gnutella ... there's just something about it that I don't like. Dunno what it is, but I got the feeling after reading their webpage.
Napster. Like it. Too bad the recording industry actually lost a few quids there. I had plans buying an album I've seen the commercial before, but after downloading it with Napster and listening to it, I decided not to.
It sucked.
it's in my head
so according to current government thought a gun is a morally neutral "tool" but; a distributed file sharing system has inherent criminal intent. conclusion : napster should hire the NRA as their lobbyist.
Here is a contact form.
Also, there is an email: smbiz@mail.house.gov.
Dear Sir or Madam:
As a citizen of the United States of America, I am concerned at the short notice given to the internet community of the "Internet Music" hearing to be held this Wednesday, May 24th. I only heard about the hearing today, via the following website (http://www.slashdot.org)
I am also concerned at the small number of participants invited to speak at this hearing, especially as the topic and proposals are in no way restricted to small business or the music industry.
I am requesting that before any hearing be held on this matter, the following two organizations be contacted and allowed time to present their points of view on freedom and the internet : The Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org) and the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org).
I am not of the opinion that restrictions on the internet affect only the music industry. To me, such a view is dangerously shortsighted.
Your cooperation is this matter is appreciated.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Err, so you can't fill a cup completely full unless you fill the cup ALL the way up?
Sorry, that statement was just too incredibly inane and stupid for me to pass up.
Heh. Are you refering to your own argument? Do you know of any software that can distinguish between music that the copyright holder wants distributed and music that the copyright holder doesn't want to distribute? If you have a method of getting rid of the stuff the RIAA owns without preventing independent artists and their fans from using the software then I'd love to hear it.
numb
I'll answer that one actually. 1) You can determine the IP of the server and the IP of the receiver using Napster. Usenet can be completely anonymous. 2) You don't have to sift through 50,000 "live goat porn" images to find what you want on napster.
The only way to stop the trade of MP3 files on the Internet would be to shut down the Internet and outlaw computer to computer communications completely. I think we should stop beating around the bush and face that fact head on.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Instead of dealing with copyright violations in a responsible way, the tech community basically took the view that it's too cool and modern to have to live by everyone else's rules. And you know what? In the real world, it doesn't matter. No matter how many posts declare "Let them make money from T-shirts!", no matter how much karma people here give each other for shouting the party line, now matter how many words Jon Katz can drag out of a topic, none of that's going to do any good in front of a judge. Napster is going to be toast, and now we're going to get legislation that's going to interfere with legitimate network use.
Personally, I don't care about Napster either way. What does concern me is the same approach being taken about web filterware. Again, no matter how many +4's I read saying "When I have kids, I'm going to let them look at all the porn they want!", however many sneering articles Jamie and Michael write every time a software package blocks something they think it shouldn't, none of that's going to affect the real world. In the real world, libraries and homes are either going to have filters or have no net access at all. Once again, the tech community is going to have itself to blame when lousy filters are in universal use. But, hey, the important thing is to act like you're living in a William Gibson novel, right?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Napster is a music-sharing service. It could be used for good (distributing MP3s of artists who recognize the validity of that distribution service) or for ill (violating copyright). I will set aside any issues involving the highway robbery scheme that is referred to as CD pricing and the ethics of music piracy.
If these extensions to the DMCA are passed, it will be the moral equivalent of banning paper clips because they can be used to pick locks, or banning cars because you can run from the police in one. Legislation against Napster and similar software with dual use is not the correct solution.
The government (and, by extension, large corporations in general and the recording industry in particular) knows that music piracy is a large-scale phenomenon, with hundreds of thousands or millions of people involved in it every day. To pursue legal action against these violators on an individual basis would call for a massive restriction of what we recognize as civil rights today.
Therefore, under the guise of convenience, the government and the recording industry lobbyists seek to restrict the tool, not the criminal. These restrictions, as they become more common and far-reaching, will slowly be crafted into a set of fetters and blinders for every citizen of the United States, a way to keep the populace under control at all times in the name of "freedom" and "protection." If they have their way, then the entire human race will one day be in these shackles, not just the unfortunate 280 million who live in the United States.
www.alarmist.org
just posting here a letter I sent Rob. feel free to flame as you see fit.
1 4&mode=flat
2 14&cid=507
1 333214&cid=514
--------------------------------------
hiya rob,
I am reading through the story on the House proposal to hold hearings on Napster
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/22/13332
And wanted to write to you with a possible Idea that you are free to run with as you see fit. Now I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the best way to fight something like this is by making sure that congress hears all the voices. Despite what people think, most congressmen still want to protect the rights of the people. The problem is that when there is a dispute over right, they don't always agree on whose rights are more important. The solution is, of course, to make them aware. Now, to that end, I am proposing is that you chooose the best 20-30 posts on this story and submit them to members of congress. The goal is to choose enough to make the variosu points while not choosing so many that it never gets read. Now by best posts, I of course refere to the ones that point out things like the following.
1) The overagressive nature of the DMCA.
2) The way the RIAAI has been suing everyone in site that they percieved to be a threat.
3) The fact that the previous two points only make for a more closed internet which is a direct contradiction to the point of the internet.
4) The value of napster in letting people hear music so they can judge it before they buy it.
one great sample post is here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/22/1333
I think this really sums up myself and most other napster users I know.
You may choose to make other points, or leave some of these out. But, the fact is this is an issue that is only going to get worse until congress and the courts finally realize that people had had enough of large business taking away their rights so they can simply charge more money. I have said for a long time now that the threat to privacy isnt the government but business. Well, I leave this in your hands, and Im not going to give you a lecture about how you have to do it. You don't. But I am asking because the simultanious submission of several voices can cary far more wieght than any one voice.
Well, have fun what ever you do.
-Blast
ps
any thoughts to this http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/22/
"I mean, All you can definately say about a fellow who thinks he's a poached egg, is; He's in the minority." James Burke
I can't say I find this very persuasive, a pragmatic politician will realize that corporate "donations" produce the means to get visibility, slick campaigns, talented writers, and paid-for party favors.
Even if you find a politician who takes on the Napster battle, the second it becomes econmicaly unfeasible to do so it will be dropped. Sorry, but politicians look after #1 first.
And it will become unfeasible, he'll be pissing off a very powerful group, these are the guys who put a corporate tax on blank tapes because everyone who buys one is a guilty pirate who must pay a fee, screw due process.
The most likely outcome is that with systems like Gnutella in existence, ISPs will be required by law to keep detailed records, there will be sting operations, and people will get identified through their IP addresses.
The next stage of retreat is to go to something like AT&T's Crowds system, but most likely, if you participate in that kind of system at all, you'll simply be considered guilty by default. Ditto for Freenet.
Compared to on-the-air broadcasting and interactions in the real world, just about anything on the Internet can be tracked, logged, and analyzed with exquisite accuracy.
There are only limited things users can do. You can exchange information with people you know through cryptographic channels (arguably, fair use), and steganography will provide some way for some information to get out. But widespread anonymous file sharing ala Napster and Gnutella will likely be a transient phenomenon.
Why does this make me think of Dee Snider at the PMRC hearings? Ah well, at least it's not Flavah Flav.
I have to say it: "Get up a get-get-get down. RIAA is a joke in your town..."
_______
2B1ASK1
So exactly what "protection" does a "traditional copyrighted work" -- book, artwork, or musical composition -- use to protect itself from copying? None. Because that's not what "traditional copyright protection" does.
We must not let them confuse these terms! Unlike the great debate over the usage of 'hacker' , the "protections of copyright" are spelled out explicitly in legislation and case law. Those protections are primarily: 1) the right to litigate and collect damages for violations; and 2) the right to apply for pre-emptive relief (by court-order) to stop on-going violations before more damage is done (if you can convince a judge)
We often let the software industry use the term 'copyright protection' when they really mean 'copy protection', but we cannot allow this confusion to be codified into law or fossilized as a centerpiece of the larger intellectual property debate.
Copyright protection means The Law allows the copyright owner to control their own works (or work they have purchased the copyrights to). Copy protection simply blocks any non-revenue access without regard to whether it is legal or not.
'Copyright protection' specifically allows 'fair use'; 'copy protection' intends to prevent 'fair use' -- or any use, other than the 'minimal intended use' (e.g. viewing DVDs on MS platforms)
_____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime