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?
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)
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!
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
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.
> 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.
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
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.
The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. The Court ruled in Talley v. California (1960), and reiterated in McIntyre v. Ohio (1995), that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymity. I think that the first ruling was well in advance of the "Internet generation".
Thomas Edison invents electric light bulb... Candlemaker's Guild cries foul.
--
--
A PC without windows is like chocolate cake with no mustard.
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?
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)
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!"
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
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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".