Slashdot Mirror
Seagram Declares War On Napster
GrokSoup writes: "Seagram Chairman Edward Bronfman declared war on online piracy in a speech in San Jose on Friday. While many of his arguments are hard to dispute -- Napster-like music-sharing services have turned a blind eye to theft -- he makes others that are tougher to support. For example, Bronfman said that anonymity isn't privacy, arguing that we have a right to the latter, but not the former: '[online anonymity] is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.'"Apparently some folks have a hard time figuring out that the stuff in quotes and italisced is a quote from the submittor. That's not me writing above - that's GrokSoup.
It sucks that napster is constantly being made the scapegoat for a much deeper and more imporant issue.
--
This guy, has chosen death.
I'd like to point out, though, that of all communications mediums, the internet is the one with the least anonymity
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
since when is putting on a ski mask illegal?
This article makes a lot more sense when you realize that Seagrams doesn't just make seltzer anymore. I don't know if that's common knowledge...
MSK
I declare war on Seagram's alcohol branch.
...
He can't argue when I say that alcoholism disrupts families, causes death, unemployment,
--
What does that Seagram company have to do with Napster anyway? This smells like an unknown company trying to get some visibility through controversial press releases. It worked for unkown artists like Dr. Dre, so why shouldn't it work for some company noone has ever heard of, eh? I wish they wouldn't get the visibility on /. at least.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
from the speech:
:) I'll go ahead and delete all my mp3s now, just for you.
I have moved those lawyers - or some of them - but I have done so, and will continue to do so - not to attack the Internet and its culture but for its benefit and to protect it. For its benefit.
Wow, see? Its really because he loves, and he only wants the best for us. Gee, I'm so happy to be loved by you
Did anyone else notice that he was giving this speech at Real? And when all know what champions of privacy they are.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
For some reason I feel like a mafia don is calling me a criminal.
Anonymous speech is usefule for speakout out without fear of retribution, such as reporting a crime or political dissent.
If the only logic these corporations have behind removing your privacy is "*pout*.. we're losing money... boo hoo!" then they can blow me. My personal privacy is more valuable than your corporate ledger any day, no matter how many thieves are out there.
The fact is, privacy won't stop people from stealing. How many people walk into a store and shoplift even though they know cameras are surrounding them? How many people speed even though they know there are patrol men potentially lurking around every corner? How many people cheat on their taxes? The truth is, the less privacy individuals have, the easier it is for Seagram's and others to steal from us. Easier to track where we go, what we do, what we buy, how much we make, what they can sell to us,when they can sell it, whether or not to give us health coverage...
Just to further prove my point, an AOL user recently complained to me because, unlike eBay, my auction site doesn't require people to send me a photocopy of their driver's license, their social security number and their credit card number.
I was floored. This person thought it was improper business practice (nevermind the fact that the site is not a business, but a FREE non profit-site) not to collect this extremely sensative data on every one of our 3,000 members.
If people expect that from the places they do business with, I'm afraid to know what the average person would sacrifice for the "sake of government" or the "sake of children" or the "sake of corporate pockets" or the "sake of jesus" or whatever else is this month's "for the sake of...".
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
What a joke. who's stupid enough to start a war with technology? Do these assholes actually expect to push it back for more than 2 minutes? When napster gets shut down by a stupid judge who doesn't understand the tech, that is when the technology people will move to products like metallicster and gnutella, where there is no single server, no IPO, no individuals to file suit against. I would love to see netPD track all fifty gazillion IP numbers that are plugged into napster servers at any given time. If they can (doubtful), they will get huge privacy invadement lawsuits and the next software that gets as popular as napster will have IP spoofing as a built in feature so when some stupid consulting firm like netpd tracks them they get the wrong people who get pissed cause they don't even have such software, much less MP3s. They'll probably track them to amish settlements.
So stop wasting your time trying to protect your freedom to use napster. Devote your time to anarchy and pissing off these companies.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Are we allowed to do that?
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all." -- Robert A. Heinlein ("Life-Line")
This is my observation, it is not my moral judgement on either side of the issue.
By design, the software promotes copyright violation, even without the knowledge of the user.
"Without their knowledge?", I heard you say. That's right--Napster by DEFAULT sets all the files in the directory that you download mp3's to shareable with the rest of the world. So if you once downloaded a Metallica single, now you're also giving it out to others, which is a matter of completely different magnitude.
--
Wearing a ski mask *is* illegal in Michigan.
-- CCGman "Violence isn't always the best approach, but it's often the most direct." ~ Anonymo
Are we going to blame everything on Napster? It seems like it. Soon we'll see "Rapist says Napster contributed to crime" on /.. Next time I rob a bank or something I'm going to blame Napster. That way I'll have the RIAA backing me with an army of lawyers in my case.
-Antipop
Erm, I actually meant to link here. Damn frames. I'm sure everyone figured it out anyway.
MSK
Napster is not just about getting the last songs for free. It's also about learning more about a group or music style, so you can decide well which CDs to buy and which ones not to. And what about old artists whose music is no longer available or is too hard to find? I am very happy to have found Isao Tomita's music using Napster; before using Napster, I had never found any Tomita CDs on stores; or if you find, it's very seldom. Record companies no longer support a lot of old artists, and Napster is an ideal way to keep their works alive. The solution I think is the best: If one artist or group, like Metallica, doesn't like it's music to be published, ok, Napster can filter the sharing of such music. But there are a hell lot of other artists who would never oppose to the sharing of their music. You can't make Napster dissapear, it's a great system to keep music culture alive.
This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
This is not the equivalent. In the real world you are allowed to wear a ski mask down the high street and be anonymous. You are also allowed to wear a ski mask while robbing a bank (the robbing the bank part is the illegal part). I can see what is wrong with piracy, however being anonymous while online is the ONLY way that people who don't usually surf the web will get on it. Having a unique ID in ALL you communication over the internet seems to be what this guy thinks, which is definately NOT a good thing.
This guy is outrageous. Here, use this link so that everyone will appear to be from an ANONYMOUS IP when they connect. Anonimity IS our right.
m .com/news/current-press/scl052600 b.html
http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/http://www.seagra
If i had moderator points on this guy I would have to bring him down to (Score:-5, Complete Idiot)
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Most of the civilized world knows the Seagrams Corp. and Dr. Dre, unless I just get out more than most.
--Brent
Uh...Let's see...
Redefined hip-hop TWICE-- first with NWA in the 80s and then with The Chronic in the 90s. He basically invented Gansta rap and the whole West Coast sound.
Discovered Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Warren G, nate dogg, etc etc... & produced most of their stuff.
Many consider "Nuthin' But A G-Thang" the best hip-hop song ever. (a local radio station anyway had it #1 out of 500 songs for their millenium countdown). And Dre's site says Spin Magazine voted it the #1 single of the 90s. (http://www.dre2001.com/)
Not that I agree with him on the Napster issue, but I'm just saying he's not an "unknown artist" looking for visibility.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you are.
...
One of the major attractions of the internet to some people is the prospect of anonymity - creating an online persona to experiment and discuss what you wouldn't normally in a public, non-anonymous forum. The whole idea of not knowing exactly who you're talking to is both a blessing and a curse (is that really a dog on the other end?), and it's what helps many people who are normally pretty introverted actually express themselves. Anonymity does not propagate stealing, it permits privacy and expression.
Here, we have already seen some major successes:
Another recent victory confirming the application of copyright law to cyberspace involved the unlawful dissemination of DVD anti-copy codes.
Since when was this case a victory??? It hasn't even come to trial yet!
In the appropriation of intellectual property, myMP3.com, Napster, and Gnutella (which has stolen from the breakfasts of 100 million European children even its name) are, in my opinion, the ringleaders, the exemplars of theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful appropriation of someone else's property.
ok... so an open source program is a ringleader of piracy? This guy's logic is amazing!
Those whose intellectual property is simply appropriated on the Internet or anywhere else, are forced to labor without choice or recompense, for the benefit of whoever might wish to take a piece of their hide.
If this is a principle of the New World, it is suspiciously like the Old World principle called slavery.
So... trading mp3s is equated with slavery!!!
Let this be our notice then to all those who hold fairness in contempt, who devalue and demean the labor and genius of others, that because we have considered our actions well and because we are followers without reticence of a clear and just principle, we will not retreat.
For in the end, this is not only a fight about the protection of music or movies, software code or video games. Nor is it a fight about technology's promise or its limitations. This is, at its core, quite simply about right and wrong.
Thank you for letting me speak from the heart.
And what a cold, misguided heart that is... This is not simply right and wrong. It is about freedom, and he is saying freedom is bad. This guy needs to be educated. I'm disgusted.
Let me now turn to my fifth point. We must restrict the anonymity behind which people hide to commit crimes.
Anonymity must not be equated with privacy. As citizens, we have a right to privacy. We have no such right to anonymity.
Privacy is getting your e-mail address taken off of "spam" mailing lists; privacy is making sure some hacker doesn't have access to your social security number or your mother's maiden name. On line, privacy is assuring that what you do, so long as it is legal, is your own business and may not be exploited by others.
Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you are. There is no such right. This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
Anonymity, disguised as privacy, is still anonymity, and it must not be used to strip others of their rights, including their right to privacy or their property rights. We need to create a standard that balances one's right to privacy with the need to restrict anonymity, which shelters illegal activity.
We cannot suggest that the ready and appropriate distinctions we make between privacy and anonymity in the physical world are irrelevant in the digital world. To do so would be to countenance anarchy. To do so would undermine the very basis of our civilized society.
In the appropriation of intellectual property, myMP3.com, Napster, and Gnutella (which has stolen from the breakfasts of 100 million European children even its name) are, in my opinion, the ringleaders, the exemplars of theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful appropriation of someone else's property.
What individuals might do unthinkingly for pleasure, in my view, they do with forethought for profit, justifying with weak and untenable rationale their theft of the labor and genius of others.
They rationalize what they do with a disingenuous appeal to utopianism: Everything on the Internet should be free.
Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which is free is free only because someone else has paid for it. What of the extraordinary gifts of software and whole operating systems of which we sometimes read?
They are rare, and sometimes they are loss leaders. Some of the donors may regret their generosity when later they are confronted with their children's college tuition and orthodontic bills, but yes, they have given, and they have given freely.
There is a difference, however, between giving and taking. Had those donors been compelled to do what they have done, it would be a tale not of generosity but of coercion, not of liberality but of servitude. Those whose intellectual property is simply appropriated on the Internet or anywhere else, are forced to labor without choice or recompense, for the benefit of whoever might wish to take a piece of their hide.
If this is a principle of the New World, it is suspiciously like the Old World principle called slavery.
It is against this that we have initiated legal action. It is not, and will not be, because we wish to suppress ingenious methods by which our products may be delivered, but because we wish to maintain rightful control and receive fair compensation.
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can devastate a musician who sells a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans in some small and little known community.
And these would only be the first casualties. The rest would follow as the very basis of the New Economy was undermined.
Undermined - by whom?
Well, not by most people, who have stated in overwhelming majorities time and again that they would be perfectly happy to pay a fair price for what they receive, but by a very small segment who would profit by cultivating and taking advantage of each person's least admirable qualities.
And while it is often true that ambiguity exists at the core of a controversy, here, however, is perhaps the clearest exception to date to that general rule of ambiguity, for the dangers are obvious, the issues familiar, the principles long established and for good reason.
To those who would abandon or subvert those principles, I say we are right with the Constitution, in which protection for intellectual property is founded; right with the common law; right with precedent and right with what is fair and just.
But being fair, or being just, in a battle for survival is often not enough.
World War II was won by the Allied forces, not only because we were right, but also because we had more men and women, more weaponry and more money, and that money in turn would train more men and women and build more weaponry.
But being fair, and being just, is what allowed our civilized society to survive and prosper, while that of our conquering ally, the Soviet Union, cracked, crumbled and collapsed because it attempted to perpetuate a society that was fundamentally unjust, and unfair.
And if the Internet should require an unjust and unfair paradigm in order to perpetuate itself, then it too will crack, crumble and collapse, and it won't take five decades of Cold War politics for it happen.
That is why it is in your interest to join our fight to protect and defend the property rights of creators everywhere. And that is why we are bringing our fight to the court of justice and to the court of public opinion.
We will fight our battle in the marketplace as well, by bringing our products to consumers with innovative, legal, consumer-preferred solutions. And we will work with the research laboratories of technology companies throughout the world, so that we may better protect our property and promote our purpose.
Let this be our notice then to all those who hold fairness in contempt, who devalue and demean the labor and genius of others, that because we have considered our actions well and because we are followers without reticence of a clear and just principle, we will not retreat.
For in the end, this is not only a fight about the protection of music or movies, software code or video games. Nor is it a fight about technology's promise or its limitations. This is, at its core, quite simply about right and wrong.
Thank you for letting me speak from the heart.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for profit desereve neither freedom nor profit.
___
When are they going to realize that crying is not going to stop Napster or Napster like devices. This is just sour grapes and if you can't keep up with technology and be part of what moves our society forward, deal with it and quit complaining and tying up the courts.
Sheesh, when will they learn that if they beat Napster, something else will be right behind it. They need to get our of the 1920's mentality and realize the digital age has new rules.
Funky! Check out their history . They started with wines and branched to owning DuPont, and bought up MCA (Universal Studio's) 4 years ago.
What of the extraordinary gifts of software and whole operating systems of which we sometimes read? They are rare, and sometimes they are loss leaders. Some of the donors may regret their generosity when later they are confronted with their children's college tuition and orthodontic bills,
I know lots you people who read this site have written free software. Do any of you regret it even a tiny bit? Be honest!
What all those people are missing is that Napster, Gnutella, Freenet et al are here to stay. Whether they like it or not. The music industry need to adpat, to find another business model. They have sufficiently ripped of the artists like that. It has became really too easy to exchange music this way ! and people will never ever back from it. As they say in french, it's like trying to stop the sea with it's hands.
Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come "tout le reste is litterature" or in plain english "Everyting else is litterature, or just cheap talk"
Did I miss something? Since when has the Seagrams Corporation been a voice or leader on Internet technologies? Stick with your own business and stay out of ours.
--Brent
This [online anonymity] is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
_When_ I rob a bank? When _I_ rob a bank? I prefer to use black BeOS T-shirts wrapped around my head ninja-style whenever _I_ rob banks, and frankly, I'm a little offended by this guy talking about me in such a familiar tone.
< tofuhead >
It is still the dark of night.
It may be that I'm just reading too much into it, but I don't really think that the Soviet Union crumbled because it was based on an unjust system.
If that is the level this guy thinks on, then obviously he's going to come up with screwy concepts regarding anonymity.
Do you think he would like to give me all his personal details, credit card numbers, license etc? You know, just so he ain't anonymous:)
Madness, I tell you, madness.
Anonymity on the Internet is like copyright on the Internet. It doesn't exist. Strange, how proponents of one always seem to be so deathly against the other.
You have no control over the data you own, but neither do you control the information about you.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I think what's at the heart of this issue is not that music is being widely distributed by Napster, but is that the MP3 format and the widespread acceptance of MP3 has the potential of destroying the record industry.
Record executives hate to admit that they essentially rape their artists. And I'm not talking about the Backstreet Boys and N Sync, who are no-talents and deserve to be raped, but real artists who produce great music and see most of the revenue from that music fall directly into the pockets of those execs that treat them like slaves.
The future, in executive minds is very clouded because they know that it's quite possible that some of their best, and most abused artists will up and leave them, starting up very profitable distribution channels via MP3.
They have some choices. Either they pay the artists more money, which they'll never do, lose their artists, and everything they would have otherwise earned from them, or attack Napster in a feeble attempt to discredit and destroy MP3 in general. Guess which one they've chosen?
I'm not defending Napster here. Any form of copyrightable material should be legally protected from theft. If the author says "you must pay for this, or you are in violation of our copyright" then that statement should be respected and adhered to. But I don't believe that napster is in any way hurting the record industry. It costs about ten cents to manufacture a CD and only a little more than that to distribute it. Most of the cost of a CD goes directly into the bank accounts of record executives and is never seen by the artists. Casette tapes never did and MP3s never will even come close to offsetting the amount of profit that is being made in the industry.
A lot of artists are already making pretty good livings off of MP3 distribution and the record industry has no control over them. I bet that scares the shit out of them.
From the speech:
"Well, not by most people, who have stated in overwhelming majorities time and again that they would be perfectly happy to pay a fair price for what they receive, but by a very small segment who would profit by cultivating and taking advantage of each person's least admirable qualities
This guy sounds like he's pretty much on the ball - except if he thinks that $22CDN for the average CD is a fair price. We should be using the net to communicate to Joe Average Consumer what a bunch of gouging, thieving bastards these record company executives are, instead of "appropriating" thier wares in a questionable manner.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Of course your right makes you earn pounds of money and make us buy CDs for absurd prices. (Why didn't Lars disclose how much goes to record company and how much they make per cd ?). Nobody voted for this guy to decide what is right and what is wrong, and no internet user asked this company to decide how Internet should be, thanks.
"Thank you for letting me speak from the heart."
Brewing ideas and speaking them out is not illegal. Not yet. I'm sure RIAA and the guys behind DMCA are already working to get around this. And was that your heart your wallet ?
The funny thing is, you act is if napster has done something good. Well, I mean good as in righteous.
Who else should they go after? Gnutella?
You have to set a precident. You have to prosecute one person, to show that everyone who pirates MP3s are doing something illegal. You have to take a stand, against what you belive is wrong. You can't just appeal to society as a whole and say "Pirating MP3's is bad". As much as I don't agree with some of Metallica's slipery slope of beliefs, I am compasionate of the fact that they actually stood up against the pirating of MP3s.
scapegoat
2 a : one that bears the blame for others b : one that is the object of irrational hostility
The hostility and blame towards them is not at all uncalled for.
--
Laine Walker-Avina
LaineW@technologist.com
"In
What he misses (among other things) is that those of us who are not presidents of multimational companies don't have the power to enforce our privacy, as does he. Thus remaining anonymous is the only means we have to prevent companies from abusing their knowledge of us.
josh sisk
I have some problems with what he said.
Sounds like they are going to make a probably encrypted, traceable, closed source music format. It will probably suck. They probably won't have Linux support, etc.
They want to keep track of everyone downloading music, and they want us to download from and pay only them.
I don't think (atleast I hope not) that people are upset because they think "We want to steal music all we want". If they do, they're wrong. People deserve _fair_ compensation for their music. However, we don't want large corporations coming around ruining what we all find as good on the internet:
1) Things like people starting up compaines based on open formats to disseminate desired information freely and easily. One of the great things about the internet is the empowerment of the non mega-corporations. This sounds like the first step of the large corporations seizing control of the internet. It bothers me that this sounds like "We need to control all music on the internet and squeeze out everyone else by suing the hell out of everyone and making a closed source music format".
2) Having privacy and anonymity is good. The same reason Lars says "Napster is wrong because of the scale and quality of piracy.", anti-anonymity arguments are wrong due to the degree and quality of the monitoring and privacy loss we can become subject to.
3) Protocols, formats, and technical info, etc. should be open and widely available. Encryption to prevent us from copying something is wrong. We should be allowed to make a fair number of copies for our own use, and all the other arguments that have been used for DVD.
Let me put it another way. I'M NOT PISSED BECAUSE I "CAN'T STEAL YOUR MUSIC". I'M PISSED BECAUSE YOUR'RE TRYING TO _FUCK EVERYTHING UP_!!! QUIT IT YOU CORPORATIST ASSHOLE!
Oh, and if you actually think that we buy the "I want to do it to help that poor artist who sells 2000 CDs a year.", you've _got_ to be kidding.
If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide. -Ghandi
Drivers license and ss#?? I've been selling and buying on ebay for quite some time...but i've never had to do anything to my driver's license or type my ss#.
What are you talking about?
I think people who wear ski masks while using Napster should be arrested. They should be made to write "When I download MP3s, I'm downloading communism" 1000 times. If they still do not understand the moral rectitude of our captialist society, they will be sold into slavery and forced to make music that will distributed over Napster. We'll see if they ever pirate music again!
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
Hey somebody tell Mr. Bronfman the ideas behind the wheel and house have been copyrighted and he's not allowed to have either....
It makes perfect sense that he's working with Real, one of the worst with respect to your privacy.
Arrrrgh...
The revolution will NOT be televised.
How about Seagram's, who in the appropriation of money has stolen mother's, fathers, brothers, sisters from the lives of tens or hundreds of millions of children with the willful distribution of an addictive and impairing 'drug'(alchohol)?
Of course, why fight for tougher drinking laws and greater penalties for crimes perpetrated while under intoxication instead of seeking tougher laws on privacy and anonymity, which effects the might-dollar you value so much?
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
So in other words, we're not allowed anonymity when robbing a bank??? That makes it a lot tougher...
Yelims
Just remember, the lack of anonymity leads to me knowing everyone.
I know that this entire speech is being ripped to shreads as we speak, but this left me dumbstruck!
Why not just say, "Napster, which has twisted my favorite activity, napping, into a multi-national conspiracy to destroy the foundation of the Unitied States' economy!
---
"It looks just like a Telefunken U47"
I honestly think this girl was drunk or on crack or something. Or maybe just the result of too many free AOL CD's. But the point still stands that some people expect to just have to hand out their personal information. Or even want to. It's rediculous. When so many people are so careless with their rights, it makes me fear for the respect mine will be given.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Nice analogy, Bronfman:
'[online anonymity] is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.'
Puh-lease. How about, "[online anonymity] is similar to going into a booth when you vote for your country."? Wow , it just doesn't sound so Bad anymore.
And what about "I'd like to focus on some critical issues that I believe to be central to the continued operation and expansion of the Internet." Hah! Don't worry, Bronfman, the Internet has been operating and expanding just fine whithout your war on copying! I think he meant, "I'd like to focus on some critical issues that I believe to be central to the continued operation and expansion of my wallet ".
First we were turning art into a commodity, and now we are threatening the Internet. It's like RMS said in his recent interview on /. (where he predicted such a war on copying), "Such drivel is normally laughable. But Metallica is presenting it as an excuse to attack our freedom, and that is no laughing matter." This is beyond funny... if there is to be a war, where shall we register?
Don't make the users out to be any more or less guilty of piracy.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
and then he gets really crazy.....
This discussion is so hopeless that we don't even have a word for what's being discussed.
Or perhaps we do have the word "copy", but it's hardly being used.
We're still using word from a physical world even in this virtual reality. Calling copying "theft" or "theft plain and simple" is objectively wrong. The difference from theft is that the owner doesn't lose his good if it gets copied, as he would if it gets stolen.
I don't mean to imply that copying is good, just that calling it "theft", "murder" or "speeding" does not help with a meaningful discussion. Using the same word for different things can only result in confusion.
I couldn't agree with you more.
The bottom line is, users have absolutly no protection from companies keeping a full digital biography and tracking data on every person in the world. If they keep a digital biography of me and they do it wrong, and sell it to other companies, and then to others I, as a common user, have absolutly no recourse under the law to stop seagrams from distributing this bad data for fun and profit.
This is why anonymity on public internetworking is not only prefered, but it's vital to an individual who values quality of life and a small amount of privacy.
___
'[online anonymity] is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.'
Seems to me it's more like walking around in public with a mask - any kind of mask - on. It might be awkward at times, but it's perfectly legal.
===
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Really, I don't understand why some people are so much ingrained into intellectual property rights. IP laws such as copyright allows the author to extend a *reasonable* amount of control to published works, providing them with an incentive, and avioding such real theft such as *plagarism*.
Copyright is not a god given right. It is not comparible to the right to live or the right to pursue substantial happiness. Most copyright violations are not theft. Please check the definition of theft and stealing before you come to conclusions. Copyright violations that truely deprive the original author of monetary or other gain can be termed theft, but the term piracy is totally inappropriate and mostly propoganda by the BSA.
What I find most annoying is that both sides try to rationize their arguements with falacies. People try to apply their own "morals" on what's right and what's wrong that they lost the objective view on what copyright really is.
Copyright is a law, governing the publication of information. It grants the author limited rights, and grants the user/reader/consumer a set of right ans reasponsibilities. That's all. It's not about the "ownership of information". It's about the rights of who produced the information and who uses it.
It is really silly getting into a loaded philiosophical debate on what's morally correct or not. When you publish information, you lose control over it. If you want to "own" information, you don't publish it. In order to encourage publishing of information, copyright was concieved for the author to preserve *some* control over the work.
Now after a few hundred years it is so ingrained in our society that it is a god given right? Do we need to burn people who violated copyright at the state? I hope not.
If copyright as it stands now does not promote what is was supposed to do, don't you think it's time adapting it to this era? If they is no feasible way to coerce into preventing copyright violations, maybe it's time to propose a new system that promotes progress.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Yea, and verily God Himself will strike down the heathen Napster users. They they shall burn in hell, tortured by their demon computers as punishment. Music on the Internet is the voice of Satan himself...
What's with that about "stealing the breakfasts of hundreds of million of European children"?? Are we about to see a ring of RIAA employes around Napster's offices singing "Tears are not Enough"?
I'm listening to "I'm Afraid of Americans" by Bowie/NIN at this moment. Highly appropriate. And yes dammit I own it. No wait, I don't *actually* own it, I am listening to it with the grace of the RIAA becuase I happen to posess a certain platter of glass. Go figure.
It is interesting how these big entertainment people always have the same kind of rant. Bast on two ideas I just don't agree with.
First - all property is property:
<I>You own a home. You own a car. They're yours - they belong to you. They are your property. Well, your ideas belong to you, too. And "intellectual property" is property, period.</I>
And I just happen to disagree. I think that an idea cannot be owned. Period.
Second - an idea will disappear if not owned:
<I>For the great ferment of works and ideas, including your own, if taken at will and without restraint, have no chance of surviving any better than did the buffalo.</I>
But nobody owns Debian GNU/Linux, Gnome or the new Linux-IA64 kernel. And they seem to survive very well.
I do agree that the internet and digital convergence are difficult concepts. And it is sometimes very difficult to make a living on an idea alone. But I don't think that the arguments the big entertainment industry makes are true. I have seen how the internet brings people together to freely create better processes, concepts, software code, procedures, designs, ideas and the very content that the big entertainment industry think they alone can create.
If they enact a bunch of laws, it certainly will be even _more_ impossible to transfer files!
Why, if they do both, I fear that we will never again be able to download an MP3, my friends!
Yes, indeed, the knowledge some human beings have about programming TCP/IP sockets code will summarily be erased from human consciousness if and when technology like Napster is outlawed.
(Get with it, corporate America.)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
It's not the same as putting on ski masks, I dont walk around with my ssn tatooed across my forehead. The reason why napster is having so many problems, I believe, is because it went mainstream and let any moron from any place get mp3's. Before it was just ftp sites and searches and on irc. When morons and idiots get ahold of powerful technology thats when companies (aghem RIAA) get scared. If napster had never been covered by the press none of this would have happened. You can see this by looking at the Lars interview.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
It seems to me that, ski mask or no, being able to walk into a grocery store or drug store or whatever and buy stuff without telling anyone who I am... that's a Good Thing, isn't it? I mean, if I buy stuff, and I'm not anonymous, how can my purchase be private?
-Erf C.
-Erf C.
Cthulu always calls collect...
unlicensed distribution.
___
The main challenge for my colleagues and me is really the same - for your interests and ours are not separate, they are closely, inextricably linked.
This statement alone emphasizes how ill-informed big executives are these days. When will they ever realize the obvious? Our interests are not the same as theirs.
They rationalize what they do with a disingenuous appeal to utopianism:
Everything on the Internet should be free.
Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which is free is free only because someone else has paid for it. What of the extraordinary gifts of software and whole operating systems of which we sometimes read?
Maybe I missed something here, but using Linux/FreeBSD/etc. and other free software didn't require that I pay for anything. There was labor involved with its creation, but it was a gift to the world. The only way you could consider it "paid" would be the satisfaction the creator(s) would receive seeing that the creation was benefitting society.
As a society, I strongly think we are slowly moving towards a "Star Trek" model these days. Everything is done to the benefit of everyone - where everyone works together with no central wealth. Everything wants to be free.
I have discovered a massive conduit for stolen intellectual material. They call it 'email', but beneath it's innocuous sounding name hides a great evil. As I write this, there are potentially gigs and gigs of illegal material flowing all around the world.. entire chapters of books, song lyrics, and the misuse of corporate trademarks are all taking place - but that's not the worst of it! Using a technology called "attachments" actual songs, TV shows, and stolen software can be exchanged along with the plain-text.
I have done a little research, and it appears that the major ring-leaders are a company going by the name of 'MicroSoft' with their 'hotmail' service (even in the name they are brazen about the 'hot' or 'stolen' nature of the contents!) and a company that goes by the name of 'Time/Warner/AOL' operating under the alias 'Netscape Webmail' (Which I assume relates to the web of lies and trickery that the service enables).. I have heard that there may be some other software that make use of this 'email' technology, but I think we have to go after the biggest most brazen CopyRight Theft Enablersto send a message to the internet community at large: 'Sharing is bad! Communication is Sharing!'.. We must get congress to ACT NOW and stop these 'ringleaders' while we can..
air and light and time and space
You mean most of the US? Perhaps your view (and that of the people who wrote more inflammatory responses I won't bother dealing with) is too US-centric. I certainly hadn't heard of Dr.Dre before the Napster incident and while I'm not a music freak, I even watch MTV occasionally. As for Seagram - OK, I was wrong in deducing from the bland look of their pages and the stupidity of their president that they're not important. But tell me, why should I have heard of them? Is there anything about that company that should matter to someone not involved with the film industry?
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I apologize not knowing Dr.Dre, but ... I don't feel too bad about it.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can devastate a musician who sells a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans in some small and little known community. This is an amazing bit of faulty logic. What struggling writer or musician, trying to get their cd picked up by a distributor (who uses computer inventory reports to predict sales of future books and albums off of past sales and are reluctant to carry new titles and artists with unproven track records) wouldn't love to know that instead of a few thousand listeners or readers, they have tens of thousands who will be willing to pitch out a few bucks for the next book/album? Seagrams is worried that they won't be able to control the next break out artist.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
I'm not terribly keen on giving any money to EMI, BMI, Polygram, Polymorph Self, or whateverthefuck music labels that family might be associated with.
(read Levy's "The Unicorn's Secret" for more on Einhorn...)
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
This sig intentionally left justified.
> And just because someone who steps into that bank might steal something doesn't give you the
> right to force them to hand over their photo ID, their social security card, their passport, their
> medical history, their address, their phone number, how many children they have, etc.
No, not for walking in. But to be an actual banking customer, to use the services of the bank, you need to supply some credentials that you are who you say you are. Your rattling off a huge list of absurd things that banks don't actually ask for doesn't hide the fact that you probably appreciate my not being able to waltz into your bank, say I'm you with no proof, and empty your account.
> unlike eBay, my auction site doesn't require people to send me a photocopy of their driver's
> license, their social security number and their credit card number.
Um, did you ever stop to check if this person was on crack or not? eBay requires no such thing. Either you're making the story up, or you're blithely taking at face value the word of this AOLer that you spend the rest of your missive trying to discredit.
Not that it matters, anecdotal evidence not being worth the paper it's printed on, to mix aphorisms.
The actual problem with your rant is that you freely interchange 'anonymity' and 'privacy' as synonymous, essentially begging the question that you're alleging to answer. So, in simple terms:
Anonymity is not having to supply any identifying information. This is a good thing in certain contexts, expressing unpopular opinions, for instance; it's very very bad in others, the above-mentioned banking being one of the best.
Privacy is a related but different issue. Given that complete anonymity is roughly impossible in a closely-knit society, privacy is the issue of to what degree people can expect their personal information to be kept secret by third parties that acquire it in the course of normal business. Almost always a good thing, although I'm sure we could all come up with a situational straw man or two where privacy could be considered harmful.
They really are two different things, there are situations where privacy should be expected but not anonymity, and that's as it should be, as best I can tell. Freely interchanging the two terms muddies the water of the privacy debate in a harmful way.
--
"Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you are. There is no such right. This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank."
Actually, you put a ski mask on BEFORE you rob the bank. Putting that ski mask on is legal. Walking into a bank with it on is probably legal (though perhaps not). Robbing them is illegal. Similarly, on the net, being anonymous is legal. Browsing someone's auction site while anonymous is legal.
Separating anonymity and privacy is naive. While it would be nice not to have to be anonymous to ensure privacy, history (and Realnetworks, among others) has shown us that the corporations we patronize do not respect our rights, so we must ensure our privacy the only way we can. The only way to ensure law-abiding citizens' privacy is to ensure their anonymity, and that of the criminals. This principle also exists in the physical world. Our legal system is based on the idea that it is better to let 100 criminals go free than to falsely imprision even 1 person wrongly.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
If they can go after Napster, they can and will do the same to MIME atachments as an "unlicensed distribution method for copyrighted materials".
___
Online anonymity is similar to paying cash instead of using a credit card - which is still prefectly legal I hope. Its also legal to wear a disguise. Why do corporations and governments get so upset at the online equivalent?
I say online privacy and anonymity are two sides of the same coin. Seagrams et al are just afraid they may not get the adverising bonanza they had hoped for by using personal data.
As long as privacy is still a right then anonymity should be as well.
This is the kind of attitude that will allow these huge corporations to get away with murder. You won't be yawning when you have to reach in your wallet and pay for every instance of cultural manifestation on a metered basis.
You could say that about ICQ as well - it makes it easy to transfer files between users, it just isn't too mp3-centric. You could say it about Usenet, which even provides an infrastructure for anyonymous trading of child pornography. You could say that the Internet promotes piracy because "it allows you to use Napster". But where do you draw the line?
The real issue is that copyrights can't be enforced efficiently on the Internet without limiting the users' ability to use mechanisms like Napster or Usenet for legal purposes. It's up to the interested parties to create a technology that makes the protection of copyrights possible, instead of demanding that personal freedom be restricted because they can't protect themselves otherwise.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Those laws do exist. We can argue as to whether they are worthwhile. But they do not make ideas into "property".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
For G-d's sake, don't give them any ideas...
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
"So am I warring against the culture of the Internet, threatening to depopulate Silicon Valley as I move a Roman legion or two of Wall Street lawyers to litigate in Bellevue and San Jose"
Here we are in the year 2000, and corporate CEOs feel nothing unusual about comparing themselves to Roman Emperors. I find this abominable. But in a certain sense, this guy is absolutely correct. Corporations can buy politicians with ease, can have 16-year-olds arrested in Scandinavia, and ensure that the mainstream press focuses on sports and Britney Spears rather than on our eroding individual rights. Our society is evolving into a corporatist police state at a rapidly increasing pace, where CEOs ARE the new Caesars. I'm only surprised that this guy from Seagrams actually had the temerity to explicity refer to himself as such.
I, for one, much prefer participating in the barbarian "culture of the Internet" than kowtowing to wannabe Caesars.
Unhappy? Kill your television.
-jpowers
-jpowers
"For all of us, "property" rights are well understood and universally accepted. You own a home. You own a car. They're yours - they belong to you. They are your property. Well, your ideas belong to you, too. And "intellectual property" is property, period.
But there are those who believe that because technology can access property and appropriate it, then somehow that which is yours is no longer yours -because technology has made it simple and easy for someone else to take it from you.
If intellectual property is not protected - across the board, in every case, with no exceptions and no sophistry about a changing world - what will happen? Intellectual property will suffer the fate of the buffalo."
HUH? Lets see, I hire an architect to design a house for me..or I 'PAY' him for one of his designs and I begin building said house. Excuse me...this plan, (Intellectual Property) IS now mine, is it not?
Now that I have purchased 'this intellectual property', I decide to build another house in another state just like the one I have already built.
So, I use the same plan, I have already purchased and have multiple copies made for the craftsmen and suppliers in the new state. NOW I AM STEALING?
I have purchased 'intellectual property' that I am only allowed to use, one time in one place?
Note, I don't 'DO' music on my computer, but I do not see how selling a product gives someone lifetime rights to how and when that sold commodity can be used.
Am I just dense, or am I missing some weird kind of logic here?
ah! the internet!! we may still screw up the world but NEVER again will we be able to claim IGNORANCE
Invalid argument.
Email is a communique between 2 or more people with a relationship of some sort.
Napster essentially provides an online flea market, where anyone with a modem can trade in the violation of copyrights. No email program in the world provides a builtin list of people to email warez/mp3s to (although I am sure someone will make an OpenSource one...all in the name of another jihad battle...)
This pussyfooting around and calling it a privacy issue is absurd.
Not a Christian? No problem. I'll bet that even your religion has morals of some sort. Morality is the key. Call your grandparents. Ask them if it is ok if you steal.
There is no justification for taking the bread off someones plate and calling it your own, all in the name of 'sharing'.
If it's offered to you, THEN it is sharing.
Lose the rhetoric, lose the jihad, get a grip.
"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)
downloading is akin to distribution. Distribution of a copywritten work without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal.
get over it.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
When you have legions of lawyers to throw at anyone who says something you don't like, you can afford to say what pleases you without anonymity. When you have something to say, but fear those legions of lawyers, you can blurt it out and sign it and risk financial ruin, or say it anonymously, or just shut up.
When the system of justice, as it is in the present-day USA, makes it almost impossible for those without lots and lots of money to win a judgement, and even winning a case as a defendant can be financially ruinous; then anonymity is absolutely essential to maintain privacy as well as freedom of speech.
Bronfman and his ilk want nothing more than to see the situation emerge where they have the ability to gather and use all information about everybody, but to keep that information out of the hands of anyone who does not pay dearly for it. He says privacy is needed to stop spam and credit card theives. Privacy is also needed to shield our personal lives from those who would make of them nothing but commodities.
And the only thing that will provide us that shield us is the ability to behave anonymously.
Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation
Information is not Knowledge
..and you value your privacy as the Bronfmans do, then privacy!=anonymity. Because they have a small army of lawyers at their disposal to protect themselves, even the media does not have many pictures of these reclusive brothers. Most do not have that ability to shield our actions from "Big" or "Little Brothers". We *must* rely on anonymity to protect our privacy, because that is our *only* method we have.
He is not simply incorrect but also hypocritical to assume that anonymity's only purpose is to commit crimes.
Edgar Bronfman Junior's neice is Lauren Hoffman, a fantastically talented Charlottesville musician.
I encourage all of you to download some MP3s of her music and relish the irony.
-Waldo
The Bronfman family, one of the richest in North America, made his fortune in the 1920's during the prohibition, exporting Canadian Whisky to United State. Who is he to talk about ethics, fraud and crime?
Therefore, we had to burn the village in order to save it. The raping and pillaging was just an added bonus.
-jpowers
-jpowers
to defend legality. It is well known in Canada that the Bronfman family worked with organized crime in the States to bring alcohol into the US during Prohibition, and that many of the Bronfman owned hotels were really fronts for prostitution. Granted, these actions are several generations removed from the current leadership of Seagram, but his money is still tainted. Perhaps the granchildren of the Napster founders could act equally as outraged over illegal acts.
Nothing makes me happier than to hear this. Each and every day one more clueless CEO jumps on the bandwagon against Napster. Little do they know that MP3 was here long before Napster and it will be here long after. If they want to squander their resources defeating a service which, techinically, is legal, while more and more just like it grow in size, then I'm all for sacrificing Napster to further the cause...
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
-jpowers
-jpowers
Isn't there a law that says something that is designed for legal activities (the sharing of mp3's, which is not by raw nature illegal), cannot be made illegal on the part of someone using it for illegal (trading copyrighted/commercial music) purposes?
Scuse me? Hello?
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
-jpowers
-jpowers
As geeks, we have an easier time configuring things like Gnutella or Freenet. But what about the laypeople? What about John Q. Farmer, who can uses AOL, and had to spend an hour configuring Napster?
The problem with peer-to-peer is that it's just that; there's no one server (or one hundred eighty, or however many) that you can just connect to, you have to find some peers. This is far too much for our not-so-technical buddies.
Right now there are a lot of Gnutella IPs posted on the net. This is fine for now, I guess, but those will probably be the first IPs to be looked into. I mean, netPD looked up all those users, they can look up IPs. They can theoretically cross-reference with ISPs as per actual names and addresses, and then have a lawsuit targeting a bunch of people. This is a Bad Thing. I'm not so up on FreeNet, but from what I understand that solves most of the problems.
Pretty much, until peer-to-peer becomes easy to use, it won't gain a lot of people. The server/client model is extremely popular because it's easy to configure and centralized; it's high time for peer-to-peer to prove itself in the user friendly department.
Mike Greenberg, rambling about stuff he knows little/nothing about (flames will be unappreciated)
http://www.yourmothernaked.com
Am I just dense, or am I missing some weird kind of logic here?
Both. You're being dense by assuming that a piece of intellectual property is necessarily sold when you buy the material upon which it is recorded. It sounds weird to you, but that is not, in fact, necessarily the case.
Let's look at a piece of sheet music as a first example. If I buy that sheet music, I buy the right to use it for performance. I do not buy the right to make copies of it. If I want to make limited use of it -- say, by making a small number of copies which I distribute for an orchestra to practice from -- I may be able to claim fair use if I'm charged with infringement. Beyond that, however, I do not have the right to redistribute the sheet music.
That's how copyright is intended to work. I bought a piece of paper and some ink. The arrangment of the ink constitutes valuable information. I can sell the paper, and I can sell the ink -- but I can't copy that arrangment of ink on paper, or, by extension, the information carried by that arrangement.
In your example, if your architect had copyrighted the plans, and had retained the copyright, then, yes, in fact, you cannot copy those plans. Sorry. If the work of architecture was held to be a work for hire, and part of the contract said that owned the copyright on the plans, then, yes, you would be able to copy them -- because you own the copyright. Again, you can always sell the paper and the ink. You can't sell the information encoded thereon, though; that's what copyright protects.
From the American Heritage dictionary:
Privacy: 1.a. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others. b. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion.
Anonymity: 1. The quality or state of being unknown or unacknowledged.
In the context of the real and commonly used definitions of privacy and anonymity (not Bronfman's definition of anonymity as an instrument of crime), anonymity is nothing more than privacy of identity. If you have a right to privacy, then you also have a right to keep your identity private. What Bronfman suggests is that we should redefine 'anonymity' in such a way that it can only be used in the context of criminal behavior and use this redefinition as a justification for limiting privacy. Privacy is apparently alright, so long as it does not infringe upon corporate profits.
Technology exists that can trace every Internet download and tag every file. These tools make it possible to identify those who are using the Internet to improperly and illegally acquire music and other copyrighted information. While adhering to the principle of respect for individual privacy, we fully intend to exploit technology to protect the property which rightfully belongs to its owners.
I fail to see how tracing every download from the internet and tagging every file in existence (essentially tracking all online activity) is "adhering to the principle of respect for individual privacy." Perhaps he is using some newspeak definition of 'privacy' in addition to his newspeak 'anonymity.'
I bet nylons aren't.
His initiative one, 'secure' media downloads, combined with the third initiative, using technology to trace downloads, sounds like they could be planning to encode serial numbers of some such into the media. The player could be made to send off information about the user and the media file being played to the company, so that they can make sure that the user has the legal right to do so. Naturally, this isn't an invasion of privacy (re initiative five), they're just checking up on you to make sure you aren't doing anything wrong. Anyone who objects is obviously a thief trying to hide their identity and trying to take your privacy away.
Just what the world needs - music files that spy on us and report us to the authorities if we 'misbehave'... *sigh*
This is a such a cheap shot I had to single it out. Is this trying to make it sound that such programs -literally- steal food out of the mouths of millions of children.This whole speech in general sounds very much like something from Orwell's 1984. I see definate echoes when he talks about pirates essentially making slaves of creators of IP, or the bit about anonymity being a threat to privacy.
This man scares me, and it is people like this that will destroy the internet as we know and love it.
Phillip Morris, Nike, Microsoft..
For such crimes against humanity and depraved indifference
I game, therefore I am...
DIFFERENT SITUATION. VCR's don't make your Video tapes or cassettes available to 5 million people at once. Think "Scale".
If I worked in the Recording Industry, I'd definately be scared, because I used to have a sure-fire way to earn money, that's now greatly questioned. Personally, I would like to keep my job, if I liked it, for as long as possible =)
There is no alteritive at this time. I would think differently if legitimate mp3s could be easily bought.
Sadly the riaa will want a crufty encrypted audio format (thats propriatory). Oh well.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
That's why Michigan isn't in Scandinavia.
I declare peace, love and harmony with my Absolut Vodka. Pucker up with the bottle..
Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
Thank you very much.
It's quite nice down here.
Got me ISDN, a warm firepit and a bunch of comfy rocks.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I'd pay good money to see you eat your own shit. Or rather, I'd pirate a movie of someone else paying you good money to eat your own shit.
NO,NO,NO,No.
By design, the software promotes music file sharing, of the MP3 variety, with the full knowledge of the user.
How can you claim ignorance of the very method of sharing the program uses to operate?
How can you claim a program which swaps music files forces its users to neglect copyright?
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
I think the whole ski mask argument really scares me. If I want to walk in public and exercise my rights not to have my identity shared I should have that right. In fact I've tried to exercise that right more than once. When I show up to a protest to express my free speech rights my identity is a very contested issue. From London to Seattle and DC the cops use security cameras and photographers to try and record and identify who's protesting. Knowing this and not wanting to have a longer FBI file than I already had, I wore a face mask at a some of the protest in DC. In short I was demanding that I had the right to peaceably assemble anonymously. After leaving a permitted march where we walked on the sidewalk I was tracked down and harassed by the cops. When I asked them why they were demanding to know my name, address, place of work, friends names, etc... they said that 'detectives' had told them to track down and find out who I was. They didn't arrest me for trying to conceal my identity, but I was singled out because I attempted to remain anonymous. Some people are arrested for hiding their identify in a public space, 30 anarchists were arrested while sitting in a public park on May 1st in NYC at a gathering they actually had a permit for.
We need privacy and the ability to be anonymous in both the online and offline worlds. I'm fine with them demanding that I not take a gun in to the bank while wearing a mask, but I think we need to demand the right to privacy and anonymity. Corporations like Seagram doing give a fuck about your rights, they care about profit. If we are going to have secure rights, then we can't rely on CEO's and their vapid promises.
The power of technology is manifest in how it is applied within the social matrix.
He writes
Privacy is getting your e-mail address taken off of "spam" mailing lists; privacy is making sure some hacker doesn't have access to your social security number or your mother's maiden name. On line, privacy is assuring that what you do, so long as it is legal, is your own business and may not be exploited by others.
Perahaps, I mean just perhaps if companies did a better job of proecting people's privacy then we wouldn't end up with our email adress on those spamming list to begin with. Perhaps we also wouldn't have to worry as much that some cyber criminal doesn't end up with my social security number or mothers maiden name.
With out at east some anonymity there can be no privacy. And wouldn't you know its some large corporation trying to strip us of both.
"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 admit that I am guilty of piracy. I know that I am stealing. I have no lame excuse I made up to cover my ass. Now ask if I really care... the answer is no. My reason? I'm cheep.
You just made my day... for some reason the actual act of ripping someone off doesn't bug me nearly as much as the losers who try to rationalize it afterwards to protect their fragile sense of self-worth.
It seems that there are a hundred people out there spouting about how "information wants to be free" or "it's only a small amount of money from such a big corporation", for everybody who admits, "yeah, I'm stealing; I got free stuff and don't expect to get caught".
We do not live in a pure capitalist society today, simple by nature of the fact that true capitalism (this is Econ 101 here BTW) requires perfect information. Information is not free and is certainly not perfect. Many individuals have become exceedingly wealthy solely because of this fact.
I believe these individuals are not terribly happy (in fact they are shitting bricks) because technology is increasingly providing us information that 1) costs less, and 2) is more perfect. In a purely capitalistic society these individuals have a lot to lose, and therefore, they will fight tooth and nail to stop the growth of technology which makes perfect information more accessible to everyone. The content of the speech illustrates this point.
This is only the beginning, my friends.
The right to life Jefferson referred to was in reference to a citizen's relationship with other citizens and organizations. The ocean was not included, as, unlike Soylent Green, it is not made up of people.
Good question. At the time that document was written, philosophical thought pretty much revolved around Descartes: I think therefore I am. Not true, of course, as you don't really think yourself into existence. Your whole grasp of existence (the little circle inside the big one) comes from thinking, though, so it's most central to it, though no real center exists.
According to the though of the time, in the statement from the DoI you quoted,
Life = Existence of the Citizen (That thing that predicates thinking)
Liberty = Action based on the Citizen's Moral Reason (moral as in right!=wrong, not moral as in Bible). Accepts that the capability of moral thought implies the responsibility to use it. (The "think" in any philosophical statement implies moral thought)
Pursuit of Happiness = Basically in place to allow people to determine what is best -for themselves-, in cases where moral reason produces a tie (vanilla or chocolate?).
Thus the argument for natural right: The fact that a person has the natural ability to determine the difference between right and wrong implies that that person has a responsibility to use that reason. Since this is (to Descartes, under existentialism, it would be the basic part of our Essence, which is different) the basis of our existence, it precedes all other responsibilities.
It therefore follows that any entity which cannot lay claim to the same right also cannot weigh its own responsibility equally against that of a person's.
Skip to the modern day, and here's where we go wrong. An organization's existence is predicated on something other than Moral Reason, which is the sole realm of sentient individuals, maybe gods if you swing that way. Corporations, for example, have a primary responisibility to make a profit (except the kind I work for
However, thanks to a Supreme Court decision back during Reconstruction (late 1800s), Corporations have been granted those rights, despite having no responsibility to moral reason. Thus they get to participate in the political process, and we get to put up with the DMCA.
Just as a side note: all this is also the reason Campaign Finance Reform will never work, once political speech was granted to the Corps, nothing short of an Amendment will take it away.
-jpowers
-jpowers
Sir, I think I speak for everyone when I say, to hell with Seagram.
I simply can not believe that depths to which some people will lie. Perhaps Seagrams is just ignorant of this, but as a US Citizen you do have a right to be anonymous. To speak anonymously, to buy things anonymously and yes, to even walk around, all day if you want, with a ski mask on to remain anonymous. You do have a right to anonymity. My guess is that Seagrams is saying this as part of a larger straw man argument to equate anonymity with criminal activity and hence to be able to dismiss it out of hand. Whatever the case, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., is totally and completely wrong. However, its this kind of thinking that is not only incorrect but its dangerous for us as citizens to dismiss his argument out of hand. Alot of people think this way, and alot of those people, like Mr. Bronfman, have tremendous power to change the laws so that anonymity can be restricted and to try and take that right away.
Here are some references to back my assertions on anonymity:
McIntyre v. Ohio
Flood Control on the Information Ocean: Living With Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Databases
Talley v. California
--
Python
Python
Disclaimer: Please consult your physician before starting an exercise program.
IANAL = I Am Not A Liar
I think what you might be referring to is the fact that in the Universal v. Sony case IIRC Sony would have been liable for contributory infringement against Universal (i.e. use my Sony BetaMax to copy "Towering Inferno") ONLY if videotape recorders didn't have a signifcant non-infringing use. If we take that as our legal guideline, then yes, there is a "Dual Use" protection. But corporate slimeballs like Seagrams want to plug that loophole.
Edgar and his pals have been busy sucking cocks in Washington so that their secret weapon, the DMCA, would get passed. The DMCA does away with trivialities like fair use as seen in Universal v. Sony. It is no longer valid to say "Just because I can kill someone with a hammer doesn't mean I'm a criminal for possessing one, does it?". Under the DMCA, you are not allowed to own devices that can circumvent copy protection. It doesn't matter how many uses there are for your decoder, the mere possibility that it could be used to circumvent copy protection renders it illegal.
Who has ripped our money for years? First they said: "Buy a CD player and you will see, after a while the standard will have settled and CD will be cheaper than vinyl."
Forget it, at least at this side of the globe -Europe- nothing has changed. Audio CDs are still as expensive as they were in the starting days.
Come on Edward, tell them the truth about how much money you are still ripping from people, how the bunch of bandits you represent were lying in our face and how your earnings have not decreased a penny, if decreased at all.
One thing Mr Edward needs to bear in mind is that even if his gang succeeds in blocking Internet piracy thereby closing down the free access to it, there is still Russia, China and others where you can get any CD for 3 $ or less. And they will just become more popular if he continues to threaten, complain etc. He would better spend his time and efforts in working out new ways of attracting us to his products whereby attracting =/ threatening.
Shalom suckerz,
el Sachem
The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
as i recall from my history classes, wasn't seagrams the greatest bootlegger ever?
deep connections throughout organized crime?
gave rise to joe kennedy and the kennedy political dynasty?
who the hell is this to talk about crime and criminality? a huge portion of seagram's early fortunes were built on it.
when did i elect this ahole? who is he to say what me and my friends can do over our ip connections? why should he know what i do online?
why is this moron allowed to stand between the musicians, many of whom want me to have mp3s of their music, and end users?
truly, the record industry is panicing, losing control over the musicians they have raped for so long.
f*ck seagrams. hypocritcal losers.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Well, no, but you still can't wear a ski mask into a bank. Seriously. You can't even wear a ski-mask into a Circle-K, as I learned from a friend of mine who was employed at said fine establishment.
Anonymity isn't always a good thing. (just check out slashdot) I'm not saying it's always bad either, but anonymity does breed suspicion for good reason.
This guy claims that anything they own and put on the web they still own.
You know the problem here isn't the web, it's the companies that have moved on it it, and are trying to make money from it.
The WEB IS PUBLIC! It has always been so, if you don't want to SHARE then don't put anything on the web. It is stupid for them [companies] to keep doing this, and then calling people thieves when it takes place.
Take the EBay thing, that just went through court. If ebay doesn't want people using bots to scan their site, maybe they shouldn't make it public. Maybe, they should make it a members only site?
Also, the Microsoft Kerberos thing! If you tell people you are going to share information, and then you do so (esp. on the web!) you have NO right to claim copyright.
I say if they are not happy with the web, then they should go someplace else, make their own network and stop trying to fill their pockets.
Of course this won't matter soon as they can have the web, as we move on to Freenet!
VANBO
same status as normal property. But the way he makes the case is
tendentious. The differences between ordinary property and
intellectual property are enshrined in law, and I've never met a
lawyer who didn't think intellectual property was anything other than
messy.
Society would fall to bits without some way of apportioning our use
of material goods. The same isn't true of intellectual goods, and to
pretend otherwise smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
Then allow me to clear the waters and clarify the need for both.
Today, at least in the united states of america, there is no law preventing me from collecting and redistibuting a digital biography on any persons activity in the comunity. This data may consist of seemingly irrelevant facts about you and your daily life, but distrobution of this data, or tracking data, has value to the right person in the right market.
The cost of keeping, maintaining and distrubuting this data falls every year, and the laws to address this problem continue to be ignored. As tracking data continues to be collected without the expressed consent of the person being tracked, what is a person to do?
Opt out. Remain anonymous when possible. This is the only tool a person has against keeping bad information from proliforating without his or her consent. There is no legal recourse for an individual whos tracking data is incorrect, incomplete, or patently false. There is also no legal recourse for an individual to try and stop the distrobution of this data. One's only hope is to keep it to a minimum.
I favor laws asking companies to ask the consent of the user before collecting and redistributing tracking data. I favor laws giving the user an oportunity to view and dispute the data being collected about her. When these laws are in place, I'll gladly use my GUID with confedence that I have legal recourse to protect my digital biography. Intill then, anonymity is the only tool.
___
http://www.seagram.com/financials/annual_reports/s eagram99-AR68.html
This corporation is MASSIVE!
List of Musicians (over 1M records sold) under contract:
Aqua
98 Degress
ABBA
Andrea Bocelli
The Cranberries
Sheryl Crow
Bee Gees
Boyzone
The Brian Setzer Orchestra
The Cardigans
Vince Gill
Dru Hill
Enrique Iglesias
Elton John
É o Tchan
ERA (Eric Levi)
Florent Pagny
Jay-Z
Kirk Franklin
George Strait
André Rieu
Shania Twain
U2
Caetano Veloso
Rob Zombie
List of Record Company Subsidiaries:
A&M Records
Blue Thumb Records
Decca Record Company
Def Jam Recordings
Deutsche Grammophon
Geffen Records
GRP Records
Impulse! Records
Interscope Records
Island Records
MCA Records
MCA Nashville
Mercury Records
Mercury Nashville
Motown Record Company
Philips
Polydor
Universal Records
Verve Records
Common products:
Universal Studios
Universal Music
Chivas Regal
Captain Morgan Rum
Absolut Vodka
Steinlager Beer
Grolsch Beer
Mumm wines
Tessera Wines
Sterling Vinyards
Perrier-Jouet Champagne
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Everyone wants something for nothing. Gambling exists because of it. Napster, Gnutella, etc... will continue to thrive because of it. Royalties are something-for-nothing.
I'm no economist but legalized monopolies on public information (books,music,movies) *feels* economically flawed. Once information is created (book written, music recorded, movie filmed) and made available to the public to experience, it's gone, man.
The cost of making each copy approaches zero almost instantaneously. Yet we have "copyright" to artificially inflate the price of experiencing the information. (Note: I say "experience" because nothing is "consumed".)
The economic justification for copyright (and patent) is that people won't think up cool stuff if they don't think they can profit from it. I think this is true for some people, but the most brilliant people would do it anyway. "Patent clerk yields theory of relativity" - ya know? Sure, maybe some raving genius won't have a chance to invent cold-fusion because s/he was out toiling in the field. Oh well.
I can easily imagine a world minus the genius of Metallica. But I'm sure there are plenty of wankers out there who love creating music for music's sake and would continue to do so even if they never thought they could make a living at it. This is especially true for those I consider "artists". Art happens without copyright. And with the internet, there's also a large audience for it.
Tossing out copyright runs against the way things are set up now. So there's turmoil as the lawyers do their thing. Maybe the few people living off of royalties will have to get day jobs. And the corporations that peddle their wares (and are the primary recipients of your media dollar) will need to fold up shop. So what?
I think what makes many of us giddy is that we can already see the death of enforceable copyright as inevitable. You don't have to be an anarchist. It doesn't matter whether you think it's right or wrong. It's going to happen.
No individual or corporation can assign a value to any THING unless they have a monopoly. Once the monopoly is broken, the market environment in which the THING exists decides what something's worth. Right now, for digital information, the market is saying "It's worth the time to download it." And maybe that's all it's really worth.
might be fun and easy to kill buffalo with a gun, but i'd love to see you try to take one down without your pussboy weapons helping you.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Seagrams Company Portfolio
UNIVERSAL MUSIC (Record labels)
A&M Records
Blue Thumb Records
Decca Record Company
Def Jam Recordings
->King Recordings
->Murder Inc.
->Roc-A-Fella
->Violator
->Def Soul Records
->Island Records
->Capricorn Records
->Rounder Records
->Mercury Records
->countless `artist' owned labels
Deutsche Grammophon
Farm Club
Geffen Records
->Dreamworks
->E Pluribus Unum Recordings
->Outpost Recordings
->Zombie A-GO-GO
GRP Records
Impulse! Records
Interscope Records
->TVT
->WaxTrax
->Almo Sounds
->Coolsville Records
->Flip Records
->Jake Records
->Nothing Records
Island Records
MCA Records
->Curb Records
->Jersey Records
->Radioactive Records
->Twisted Records
MCA Nashville
Mercury Records
Mercury Nashville
Motown Record Company
Philips
Polydor
Universal Records
Verve Records
->Blue Thumb Records
->Chess
->Commodore
->Decca Jazz
->GRP
->Impulse!
->Priceless Jazz
->Swingsation
->Verve
Other businesses:
GetMusic.com
UM3
Universal Music Enterprises
->(Record Label)Hip-O Records
Universal Music Publishing Group
Global E-Commerce & Advanced Technology
Universal Music International
Universal Music & Video Distribution
Universal Manufacturing & Logistics
Ah, but what about the Playstation hacks that allow you to play copied discs? That's a hardware hack. Seems to me something similar would happen.
While I am a firm in the belief that intellectual property rights must be protected to encourage and reward those whose labors result in expression, idea or other creation (in reality the only new things under the sun) because to do otherwise would greatly impoverish our society, I also think that Mr. Bronfman is wrong-headed in his approach towards the protection of these rights.
Privacy is the perhaps the greatest concern of the modern citizen. We already have the spectre of the social security number being used as a national id code, despite the original intent that it not be used as such. There are hearings before congress in progress as we sit considering the problem, and possible legislation that will control the way these numbers are used.
It seems that the greatest failing of the founding fathers was to anticipate the need for privacy in a modern society. But how could they have envisioned the computerized database. Clearly we need an 11th member of the bill of rights to solidify supreme court rulings that have merely given us an imputed right to privacy - one who's strength waxes and wanes depending on the composition of the court.
Without such Citizens have their privacy eroded by technological advances, and as such lose the privacy that the founders intended when they forbid government activities such as unreasonable search and seizure.
There is no more important political issue before us today.
Sometimes laws change. Technology changes. Empires rise and fall. The same thing is happening in the world of intellectual property law. You said
Each new technological advance inevitably requires new behaviors
and then cited examples that purport to show copyright "adapting" to these technological changes:
When tape recorders came along we grappled with the distinctions to be made between taping things for your own enjoyment and selling the tapes. When photocopiers came along, we had to deal with how much of something could be copied and under what circumstances without constituting theft.
Why do you choose to see this as adapting rather than grasping at straws? Copyright is finished. People can go back to treating ideas and language as a commons. No one ever needed a financial incentive to say something important or to tell a story or to sing a song. Those artists who need such an incentive shouldn't be encouraged by granting them perpetual (or nearly so) property rights in their work. With copyright gone, we'll be able to say the things that really matter without being coerced or seduced into filling up dead air with bullshit.
I think the very fact that you are called upon to DEFEND intellectual property rights is evidence that the whole castle-in-the-sky is crumbling. You don't hear top executives making desperate pleas in defense of tangible property rights, do you? That's because no one doubts the validity of real property ownership. No one contests its importance to democratic tradition. The same cannot be said for intellectual property rights.
Inherited wealth, whether it be a business empire, or ideas always gives the beneficiaries an inflated sense of entitlement. Only one who comes by his riches easily would have the audacity to dismiss the creation and the cosmos by saying
Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which is free is free only because someone else has paid for it.
What hubris! I would think that someone such as yourself with his roots firmly in the Judeo-Christian tradition would have more humility. What IS there besides "the gifts of God and Nature"? If you see all of creation as your birthright, it is not surprising that you think of artists as being the Authors of their own Genius, entitled to every penny they can squeeze out of us lesser beings.
This is all an attack ad hominem which I regret, but it had to be pointed out.
He's right. Anonymity does not equal privacy. But privacy implies anonymity, for without anonymity you can't do anything and have it be truly private.
Therefore anonymity is necessary, for to take it away is to also take away privacy, thus violating what he himself says is a right.
Would he prefer to do away with cash as well? Think about it: cash has no identifying features, except possibly fingerprints left on the money (and this can be dealt with as well). I can buy things with cash to make anonymous real-world transactions. Is this the same as wearing a ski mask while robbing a bank? I don't think so; in fact they're as close to opposites as I can think of.
For that matter, is wearing a ski mask equal to anonymity? Again, hardly. You can still get clues as to size, gender, race (ski masks don't hide all a person's skin, even on the face), and that's only visual cues. You also can get clues to a person's personality and education level through tone of voice and word choice. You can also get an idea of where the person comes from by voice, just by listening to regional accents (some can mask this more easily than others, though). Smell gives you general hygeine (does the person stink?) You can even get ideas as to recent and even not-so-recent injuries just from the way the person moves.
It takes a lot more than a ski mask to become anonymous. That's why anonymity is so precious; it's hard to obtain, and once earned it's something you've got to fight for. Corporations hate it, because it makes their sole goal in life (making money) that much harder; they have to resort to "inefficient" mass marketing rather than invading our privacy to use direct-marketing methods. Law enforcement hates it because it means they have to use fair, lawful means to apprehend criminals. Governments hate it because people you don't know about are harder to control; islands of chaos to an organization that is all about order.
All of those are reasons why we have to fight for our anonymity. Seagrams wants to declare war on the Internet (which, by attackng anonymity, is exactly what he is doing), that's fine. I say it's time to declare war on Seagrams, in the form of a complete boycott (don't even pirate their stuff; especially don't pirate their stuff). They say piracy's costing them billions, let's see what they see when they get a whiff of what really costs them money: unethical behavior.
"And the repercussions of this current technological revolution will dwarf the changes that were brought about by previous advances. We now live in an era in which a few clicks of your mouse will make it possible for you to summon every book ever written in any language, every movie ever made,every television show ever produced, and every piece of music ever recorded." And I guess the books can only be read by, the television shows and movies can only be seen by and the music can only be heard by those with money. Napster can be seen as a medium like a radio station, where you have the ability to hear a song and what you do with it is as you choose. I can easily record a song from the radio and I can just as easily download a song from napster. It seems like the only way to achieve luxuries such as education and entertainment is through corporate ways.
Mr. Bronfman seems to think that the only people who will provide us with content are people who are after money, and without that incentive there will BE no content. Without corporate content creators, the internet would be "a valueless collection of silent machines with gray screens."
The internet was here before you could make money off it. It would be here without that money. The thing that's killing it is not violation of IP, it's massive quantities of lawyers sending cease-and-desist letters to web page creators as fast as they can type. Without intellectual property protection, those people would be free to create; whether they were doing it themselves or taking from others or whatever. And the internet would NOT be a "collection of silent machines".
The issue here is not stealing. You haven't "stolen" something if the owner still has it. He keeps talking about people "taking" intellectual property from you as if you no longer had it when you were done. It's not like stealing your car, which he tries to make an analogy to.
The thing that is being lost is not the property, it's the control of access to that property. Well, guess what, Mr. Bronfman? You've been taking that from the consumers of the world for years, every time you buy and sell our personal information! That to me is far more important "intellectual property" than the latest Metallica album!! We don't have the right to control who trades our info, why should you have the rights over who trades your music??
I live in fear of what will happen if these wackos think they've been cornered. However, I see no way of avoiding it. They simply cannot afford to let their shareholders see them slacking off in the war to fight piracy, and given that they're going to start losing to the on-line indie artists who will eventually form their own web-based studios, they will have to respond in a way that saves them from the brunt of the inevitable shareholder lawsuits.
Buckle in, this is going to be a bumpy one....
[Y]our ideas belong to you, too. And "intellectual property" is property, period.--Edgar Bronfman, Jr., San Jose, California, May 26, 2000. (from the article cited).
Let us unpack this and compare it to authoritative statements from the interpretation of the congressional power to grant copyrights and patents, or of the principles underlying that power:
1. "Your ideas belong to you"
"It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, received instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813.
2. "And 'intellectual property' is property, period."
"In copyright property has reached a more abstract expression. The right to exclude is not directed to an object in possession or owned, but it is in vacuo, so to speak. It restrains the spontaneity of men where, but for it, there would be nothing of any kind to hinder their doing as they saw fit. It is a prohibition of conduct remote from the persons or tangibles of the party having the right...It is a right which could not be recognized or endured for more than a limited time." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. 209 U.S. 1., 19, (1908).
I prefer anarchy, but only under a strong & wise anarch
: That's just an legal construct they
: made up so they could make money off us.
Welcome to capitalism! What other reason would you try to sell something in a capitalistic society? You should be beat in the head with a clue.
But I would differentiate between GOOD legal constructs and BAD legal constructs. Since any kind of property right restricts our freedom, we ought to include in the concept of property only what we really need to survive. Intellectual artifacts, it can be argued, don't need to be protected property laws in order for a civil society to exist. Laws that are unnecessary are BAD laws because they restrict freedom without providing a benefit. Capitalism (or at least trade and commerce) existed long, long before intellectual property law. Intellectual property law may be just as much a drag on the market as it is a stimulant, since it is an artificial monopoly. Just to say "That's Capitalism, dude" is to miss the point.
That fellow is no better than Escobar's grandson.
--
Here's my mirror
wow... that is really some of the worst singing I've ever downloaded. I guess that's why she feels safe from the MP3-grabbing pirates...
you are just a moron
The guy said that annyonimity is only a tool of criminals.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
First, this guy doesn't understand the internet. He assumes the standards and laws of America apply everywhere, and restricting the internet in America would stop piracy. Second, every country has different laws and views on copyright. Third, I've yet to see a copy protection scheme that actually worked, they just make life more complicated. Fourth, intellectual property rights are not as simple as he makes it seem. There are scores of patent and copyright lawyers who can prove this. And finally, there are several conceiveable reasons that the internet can be involved in fair use.
Now, on to the speech:
And "intellectual property" is property, period.
This must be why patents have a limited period of time before they must be renewed. It is property, but it's different than your car.
But there are those who believe that because technology can access property and appropriate it, then somehow that which is yours is no longer yours -because technology has made it simple and easy for someone else to take it from you.
Is he advocating gun control now?
For the great ferment of works and ideas, including your own, if taken at will and without restraint, have no chance of surviving any better than did the buffalo.
My favorite, the buffalo is doing fine now. Might have tried the Dodo.
What would the Internet be without "content?" It would be a valueless collection of silent machines with gray screens. It would be the electronic equivalent of a marine desert - lovely elements, nice colors, no life. It would be nothing.
My biggest problem with this. The Internet is simply a communications network. He doesn't differentiate between the Internet and the Web, or the great uses for communication that doesn't directly involve sales. What about culture and art? Are we to just whore our culture to profit?
First, we are focused on creating and launching a consumer-preferred and legal system for consumers to access the media they desire - beginning with music.
Then just give me the friggin' mp3. It can be converted no matter what you do.
Technology exists that can trace every Internet download and tag every file. These tools make it possible to identify those who are using the Internet to improperly and illegally acquire music and other copyrighted information. While adhering to the principle of respect for individual privacy, we fully intend to exploit technology to protect the property which rightfully belongs to its owners.
This will also allow them to track every access to every web site - health, politics, personal, and everything else. Is my privacy that cheap? Furthermore, do we have to rewrite the TCP protocols to log everyting to the FBI?
Another recent victory confirming the application of copyright law to cyberspace involved the unlawful dissemination of DVD anti-copy codes.
I'm pretty sure he made this one up. This trial is going to be very interesting. I hope the supreme court tears the MPAA a new one.
Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you are. There is no such right. This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
No, anonymity means I decide what personal information you get from me. Last I checked, Americans were not required to carry around identification papers and show them to everyone. What's next, Stars of David? Can you put a video camera in my house to make sure I don't copy and distribute a CD I buy at BestBuy?
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book.
Uh, this has been possible for a long time. For some reason people still like prepackaged paper. And will for a long time. Oh, and should we outlaw libraries?
hackers and spies, pirates and pedophiles.
I love being grouped with these people. Do we link Segrams with Al Capone because they sell alchol?
So, in review, this guy doesn't have a clue about the Internet, and his view of it makes it a corporate sales machine, instead of the widespread communications network that it really is. The real reason these people are scared is because they realize they can no longer control the way we communicate.
Alright alright, we've heard how record sales are up and how people believe napster users are supposedly buying more music because they get to try it out with mp3's first. However, has anyone thought that if the record labels pushed ahead with legislation and 'watermark encryption'of mp3's that they might be shooting themselves in the foot? Recently, in a conference concerning digital music, Courtney Love lambasted record labels and portrayed them as the culprits who stole their work while defending napster. Love also seems to be embracing the mp3 revolution and has plans to distribute her music through her website while severing ties with her current label , Geffen. What i'm trying to say is, if the record labels and technology firms are able to come up with a way in order to watermark digital music in order to stop piracy and create music formats that enable people to download music but not distribute it, what use would artists have for record labels? In Love's case, she would be able to sell and promote her music easily on her on through the web if this revolution really takes off. Sure, unknown artists still might need the the marketing power of the record companies, but if you've already made it as rock star, why not embrace the technology instead?
How does it feel to be the mouthpiece of the ruling class?
g
Don't ignore someone telling you to your face that he is going to send in the "Roman legions" and fight you as World War II was fought, with "more men and women, more weaponry and more money, and [the] money in turn [to] train more men and women and build more weaponry" than you have. This man is very, very powerful and has many strong associates. He has already told you that "being fair, or being just, in a battle for survival is often not enough." Don't doubt that the RIAA heads see this very much as a battle for survival, and keep in mind, as a previous poster has mentioned, that this person, as the head of a company that came to prominence exactly because of bootlegging, is perfectly prepared to be hypocritical without blushing.
This is an astonishing, impressive speech. This is the sort of speech that rallies the troops. These people are not joking around; if you feel that there is a different, better world just around the corner, understand that these people are moving full tilt to extend the wall.
I'm no orator to match with this kind of display, but I hope that in combination with the passions that many of us will feel just reading Edgar Bronfman Jr.'s words, this post can help to clarify to people that we are actually going to have to fight, very strenuously, for the things that we know are right. It's time to actively organize, join and support freedom-loving associations, and take personal responsibility to inform everyone we know about the opportunities and dangers that lie ahead for our societies.
I'm just going to close by restating some of Ed's own words, along with a little bit of dialogue that should clarify this small portion of his deception.
Musician: Hey, did you just copy one of my songs for your friend over the internet?Fan: Yeah.
Musician: But how am I supposed to make money from that?
Fan: Well, I love your music, but this money issue is not really my problem. Of course, I'm happy to support you in various ways, but you really can't stop me from doing this.
Musician: But that's an appropriation of my intellectual property. You're coercing me into writing music for your friend.
Fan: Hey, I didn't force you to record the song.
Musician: Well, there are laws about this sort of thing. I'm going to make sure that you comply with them.
Fan: Um... that's going to require putting together a police state. How can you tell whether or not I share information with my friends without verifying all information that passes between us? Won't you have to allow the police blanket rights to search my possessions for violating material? Are you going to outlaw the internet? I don't think that you want this.
Musician: Oh... I didn't realize... I hadn't thought about that... no, okay, I guess that I really don't want that.
============================
Musician: I'd like to make some new music and release it as MP3s.
RIAA: I'm sorry; no. Read your contract.
"It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded ... like a commodity rather than the art that it is." - Lars Ulrich, Metallica
This should be wake-up call for folks. This war has been coming for a while. And the folks rolling it out are probably quite happy with it. But in this article, you also get some idea of the battle plan.
Attacking annonymity is one part.
Using the language of "morality" is another weapon in the fight. But this morality is among other things, a mask for massive self-interest. The distinction made between privacy and annonymity is a good example of the insincerity of the "morality" argument. Basically, for Bronfman, privacy is hiding from criminals and annonymity is hiding from the authorities. There are many examples of abuses of police power - as many examples other types of abuse I could recon. The framers of the US constitution knew, at least, that any freedom must as much freedom authorities as freedom from "bad guys" - otherwise it is nothing - which is exactly what "privacy" he offers is.
Also, they are going to be dividing up all the spoils.
It is important to see here how there is less and less of distinction between free software and "abuse of intellectual property." Draconian patent laws and the DMCA are the worst things at present. The massive corporate interests involved here could quite possibly come up with worse. A while ago, a company patented a pointer display method - XORing - a patent on the mouse. While this particular approach hasn't gone anywhere, larger and larger vultures are gathering at this kind of trough.
There was an article attacking the "morality" of free software featured by slashdot a few days ago. And if you are noticing language, these days those that "violate morality" may feel some jack boots soon.
"What if" whoever owns what's left of the Unix liscense were to suddenly try to "repossess" Linux? Absurd? Think about it.
Basically, "intellectual property" ultimatlely has no set boundaries. Even defining EXACTLY what ownership is in the physical realm is tricky. In the virtual realm, it is virtually impossible. But repression can be defined and practiced. Be prepared for much more of this.
And build freenet now.
Hahaha since when has it been illegal to copy somebody's breakfast?! (Assuming you don't regard file transfer and toast toppings to be in the same market, that is).
This guy's just talking with blind fury.
How much is ESR worth? How much could RMS earn in a week if he wanted to? Or any of the other "big names" for that matter? He's just trying to trick us into believing that Gnutella will ruin our kids' teeth! (<rant>besides what kind of civilised society penalises my children's health and education for the fact that I am a financial failure?</rant>)
Ok, say what you like about RMS's view on the word "piracy". But calling it "slavery" is just bloody ridiculous.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Ok but say "usenet" instead. Still MS and AOL would be "ringleaders" in a slavery^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpiracy ring.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
ski masks have more purpose than for disguising people while robbing banks. the way he words it makes it sound like we are all robbing banks at all times. i can use a ski mask to keep my face warm, or i can wear it to look cool and play friday the thirteenth with my friends(if i were younger), the possibilities are endless. it bugs me how the "big IP people" always shrug off analogies like this then make their own that are even less accurate. what motivates individuals inside a company to think up stupid shit like this...
Moderators: Cut'n'pasting text from a site the story links to isn't "Redundant", it's "Informative", and even "Helpful", since it alleviates the Slashdot Effect. However copying *some* sites might be illegal... so judge accordingly. It also cuts down on bandwidth usage and mental context switching... since I don't have to divert attention to some other site for the while.
the real at&t mix
Perhaps in another few decades the 'modern' world will give way to a new order with the core values being 'life, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and a free exchange of ideas'.. but until then we geeks must continue to don our digital ski masks and fight the power.
From what I've seen of the world, we are much more likely to end up with 'life, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and IP', and I don't mean internet protocol
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This thing is picking up speed. Best form up now. As the man said: Choose your killing ground, and bring the enemy to it.
Think Seegrams will lose a few sales this Memorial Day weekend?
"The Internet is made of cats."
Yep - that is the problem with the DMCA. Even if the "circumvention" is for playing a legally owned copy of the movie on a platform un-improved by the MPA - say Linux.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Le nom "putin" - Est-ce qu'il est si similar (a une oreille francais) du mot "putain" qu'il porte un air stupid, ou est-ce que on doit croire d'observer la ressemblance?
Merci!
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Likewise, most of the people who pirate MP3 would not go into Tower and hold the place up for CD's (the moral equivalent).
Its more like slipping a few CDs in your overcoat (if even that). You arn't holding a gun in anyones face when you download an MP3 (holding a gun at someone is assult). To say that napster is the moral equivalent of a gun is ludicrous.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Mr.Seagrams man can take his anti-american words and shove them up his ass.
He's canadian. Infact, his company made a pretty penny bootlegging alchol down here in the prohibition years...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I'm not familiar with the gnutella thing...
Anyway, the point is that you have taken food off the tables of the creator of the work. Even if you 'delete' it or go buy the CD later, you have interceded in the way the way of the world works.
You work, you produce, you sell/trade, you spend, you start all over.
Now, before I get flamed too bad, I will say that yes, I have several hundred mp3s. Mostly archived on CDs.
The difference between me and you (in general) is that I don't justify it. I know I am in the wrong, and some nights, I lie awake thinking about whether or not it is a serious enough 'sin' (for lack of a better word) for me to burn the CDs. Morality sucks, in its ebb and flow...but it is a powerful force, and should not be toyed with by semantics.
"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)
Specifically, combating the dangerous and misguided notion that property is not property if it's on the Web, and the piracy that that notion perpetuates.
I don't think that most of us have any such illusions. We do have certain other issues that probably contribute to the "piracy" that he is warring against.
In addition, I want to discuss the very real difference between privacy and anonymity. In the blurred vision of speed and innovation, those two quite separate values have become indistinct, and that lack of distinction is currently having - and will continue to have - a deleterious effect on our culture, our society and the long-term growth of the Internet.
Translation: "If we can't find you, we can't prosecute you. If we can't prosecute you, we can't scare everyone into believing that we actually 'own' the 'intellectual property' out there, just as we own our cars, homes, etc."
Music is on the leading edge of this revolution, and because of that, it has become the first product to illuminate the central - and I believe the most critical - challenge for this technological revolution: The protection of "intellectual property rights."
As we'll see, he isn't talking about the "protection" of these rights. He's talking about the extension of corporate ownership and control.
For all of us, "property" rights are well understood and universally accepted. You own a home. You own a car. They're yours - they belong to you. They are your property. Well, your ideas belong to you, too. And "intellectual property" is property, period.
Here's where he really goes out on a limb. Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. Never has been. Hopefully never will be, although it seems to be getting closer every day thanks to the lobbying by corporations such as Seagram.
If intellectual property is not protected - across the board, in every case, with no exceptions and no sophistry about a changing world - what will happen? Intellectual property will suffer the fate of the buffalo.
What does he mean by "protected?" In every case? With no exceptions? What is he trying to pull here? Then there's his remark about the changing world argument being a sophistry. He says this in the same article in which he claims that the technological revolution will probably change the world much more than the industrial revolution did, and a few other similar remarks about the huge changes that will take place. Then he does nothing to explain why he believes it to be a sophistry. Sounds like he's just trying to use a big word to gloss over something he doesn't want to discuss.
For the great ferment of works and ideas, including your own, if taken at will and without restraint, have no chance of surviving any better than did the buffalo.
Actually, the ideas will survive much more easily when nobody can control who has access to them. I think what he means here is that they won't be able to make as much money off of these ideas if they can't control them. He should just say what he means.
And why is this important? Because you, like we in the entertainment business, are thoroughly dependent on patents and copyright. You need them no less than we do, to protect your processes, your conceptions, your software code, your procedures, your designs, your ideas.
Actually, many programmers are quite set against patents on software. Or at least they are against the system as it exists today. But then they're just the creators, they often create for purposes other than profit. Corporations, on the other hand, exist to make a profit, so I guess I can see why he thinks this way. Copyright is a mockery of what it was supposed to be. It no longer serves just to encourage the creation of new "content", but to enforce the ownership of ideas for as long a time as possible, and the time grows longer every time these corporations go back to Congress to lobby for lifespan to be increased.
I have moved those lawyers - or some of them - but I have done so, and will continue to do so - not to attack the Internet and its culture but for its benefit and to protect it. For its benefit.
Oh, ok then. He's doing this for our own good , so that we'll continue to have an Internet. Thanks dad, but why don't you let us decide what's for our own good. I don't need this self-serving, disingenuous crap.
First, we are focused on creating and launching a consumer-preferred and legal system for consumers to access the media they desire - beginning with music.
"Consumer-preffered?" What makes it consumer-prefferred anyway? It doesn't exist yet. I think he means the creation of an "one-true-way." Anything else will be deemed illegal.
We are providing artists with a broader canvas on which to express themselves, and we are creating a far richer experience for the consumer. For example, consumers will have access to album art, lyrics, production notes and photos of the artists, links to other sites and, eventually, music videos. We'll also offer the chance for them to chat on line with artists.
We can already get all this stuff. Where's the innovation? Where's the broader canvas for artists? What are we getting from all this?
And because of the security our product will offer, consumers' privacy will also benefit because their files and their systems won't be corrupted.
Is that it? That's our incentive? He's going to have to do a lot better than that. I've downloaded over a gig of MP3s and have never had any of my files corrupted. This is just some crap he threw in so that it looks like consumers might see some benefit from his plan.
Second, we know that going into a record store and removing a CD is wrong. It is stealing. It is thievery.
Well, if you don't pay for it when you remove it, then yes.
We will re-emphasize this truth and articulate this message in an educational effort, with our industry allies, targeted to the great majority of people who want to do the right thing - yet, may not fully comprehend that accessing copyrighted material without proper payment or permission in the digital world, is as wrong as it is in the physical world.
Seems to me that the majority would like to support the artists without having to take it in the rear from the recording industry. I'm not sure what he considers proper payment. That concerns me. If I purchase a DVD, I should be allowed to access the copyrighted material that I paid for, but the MPAA (via the DMCA) would have you believe otherwise. They want to control the methods by which you can access the material you purchased. There's definitely a lot of changes coming up, but they are NOT going to benefit the consumer, or even the artist. They will benefit the middlemen.
The Internet world is a brave new world. But make no mistake, it could only have been created and it will only survive, in the context of our civilized world, which has taken humanity centuries to construct.
I wonder what he even knows about the creation of the net. This is just more BS and fear-mongering.
Whether it is better and more robust methods of security, or tools to track down those who ignore right from wrong, technology will offer the owners of property at least as much comfort as it may currently offer to hackers and spies, pirates and pedophiles.
This really ticked me off. He's rolling hackers and "pirates" into the same category of criminal as pedophiles. This is why using terms such as "pirate" to mean "copyright infringer" was a great propaganda move for these corporations. The term "pirate" comes with all sorts of negative cannotations attached to it. It's hard for someone to stand up and defend "piracy." And "pirates" can convieniently be equated with all sorts of other criminals, even violent ones. "Hacking" isn't even a crime, but hackers get rolled in as criminals. I know a lot of people here claim that it's ok to use these terms this way and that language changes all the time, but this is not just changing language, this is manipulation of public opinion by using loaded words, and twisting the meanings of existing words.
Technology exists that can trace every Internet download and tag every file. These tools make it possible to identify those who are using the Internet to improperly and illegally acquire music and other copyrighted information. While adhering to the principle of respect for individual privacy, we fully intend to exploit technology to protect the property which rightfully belongs to its owners.
Technology also exists to prevent such things from being done, which is why their technology will have to be accompanied by legislation. There are more "DMCAs" on the horizon. Besides, corporations almost never respect individual privacy if the potential profits outweigh the risk of a consumer backlash, unless they are forced to do so. Why should we believe this guy?
Another recent victory confirming the application of copyright law to cyberspace involved the unlawful dissemination of DVD anti-copy codes.
Excuse me? What victory? A preliminary injunction that, in all likelyhood, will soon be lifted? That case is far from over.
We will fight for our rights and those of our artists, whose work, whose creations, whose property are being stolen and exploited.
Damn straight. Only corporations such as his should be allowed to exploit artists' work. He says the artists' property is being stolen, but neglects to say that in many, if not most, cases, the corporation owns the work, not the artist. I firmly believe that artists deserve to be able to profit from their work. The problem is that corporations such as Seagram have not dealt with us in good faith. They buy extensions every so often to make sure that copyright doesn't fulfill it's original purpose of expanding the amount of artistic and creative works in the public domain, but instead is twisted to become a tool of corporations to maintain indefinite control over our culture by retaining ownership of the creative works and information that defines it.
What individuals might do unthinkingly for pleasure, in my view, they do with forethought for profit, justifying with weak and untenable rationale their theft of the labor and genius of others.
Here he is talking about Napster, myMP3.com, and Gnutella. If I'm not mistaken, Gnutella doesn't profit from the service that people obtain through using the program. I think myMP3.com was also fairly ethically correct, in that they at least verified that you posess the cd that you want to access from their servers. Napster is on more shaky ground, at least now that the "common carrier" defense has apparently failed, or at least needs to be backed up and argued a lot better than it has been.
Some of the donors may regret their generosity when later they are confronted with their children's college tuition and orthodontic bills, but yes, they have given, and they have given freely.
Cheap shot. He obviously doesn't like the idea of people giving their creations away freely. Cuts into his profits. Also shows that he's not really interested in what the artists want. He's just interested in his company's profits. Kinda sheds some light on his other statements.
Those whose intellectual property is simply appropriated on the Internet or anywhere else, are forced to labor without choice or recompense, for the benefit of whoever might wish to take a piece of their hide.
I agree that the creators should be able to be compensated for their creations. I simply don't think that this guy gives a damn about those who create the works that he wants to profit from. There is a big difference between giving the artist a means to earn a living from his work, just as the rest of us want to do, and giving corporations a means to own, control, and profit indefinitely from the work of these creators.
If this is a principle of the New World, it is suspiciously like the Old World principle called slavery.
That's a pretty over-the-top statement. Copyright infringement bears no resemeblance to slavery. This guy needs to tone down the rhetoric.
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can devastate a musician who sells a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans in some small and little known community.
More fearmongering, hardly deserving of a comment, but I'll do it anyway :). As he has stated, and as I've said, most people want to support the artists. The problem is the corporations who keep trying to increase their control and length of ownership. They are the one's causing the problem. They are the one's who control the pricing. They are trying to pull off a coup against consumers that will give them complete and utter control over the content that we wish to access. Think Divx was bad? We ain't seen nothin yet. Wait until such schemes are not left to live or die in the market, but are enforced by legislation. He says they are working on a "consumer-preffered" system. We've already seen how much consumers preferred Divx. What do you want to bet that his system ends up being "legally-mandated" system instead?
And these would only be the first casualties. The rest would follow as the very basis of the New Economy was undermined.
More fearmongering. As I said, this is a ploy to scare people into supporting the granting of draconian levels of control over copyrighted works to corporations. This has the potential to turn into another "war on drugs." We've already seen how "hackers" are treated by the government. Next we'll have 15 year-olds serving 20 year sentences for downloading Britney Spears' new song. (I'll leave the jokes about that being a fitting sentence to you guys :) The point is that these things are already getting out of control and people's lives are being seriously and irreversibly harmed due to minor infractions, just as what has happened with the "war on drugs." I'm not trying to do any fear-mongering of my own here. I'm trying to point out what is already happening and that what this guy is leading up to, if past and present events are any idicator, has great potential for turning into a system of terrible injustice.
To those who would abandon or subvert those principles, I say we are right with the Constitution, in which protection for intellectual property is founded; right with the common law; right with precedent and right with what is fair and just.
He needs to check the Constitution again. They've managed to pervert the whole principle of copyright and that's what has us in this mess to begin with. I have absolutely no sympathy for his situation.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Seagrams is trying to pull a publicity stunt.
It's obviously working.. *sigh*
I really don't see the big deal here at all. I mean I can turn on MVT and hear the song, I turn on the Radio, I hear the song. I play an MP3 file of the song, I hear the song. It's not like the common MP3 collector is using the songs to do anything more then listen to them. Were is the harm in that? Artists should make money from concerts, product endorsements and licensing the music for Ad's and Movies not royalities. You are telling me that people hearing the Songs from a place other then ten places I hear it everyday is hurting your bottom line ? Get real, go cry to your millionaire buddies because most pay check to pay check people don't give a rat ass about you losing out on another million. Most Artist, like people to hear their music, I would hope that is why they got in to business. But, "The Music Industry" has nothing to do with Art or Talent, it is all Marketing and Exploitation, and It alway has been. The World will be a better place when They are gone or have no one left to exploit. A reality that I am sure they see, understand and are scared to death of.
>Then allow me to clear the waters and clarify the need for both.
Totally agreed; I wasn't trying to make the case that either is unneccesary or worthless. I just think it's important to keep clear on what we mean. If our only tool for privacy is currently anonymity, as you suggest, then by all means those wishing privacy should investigate and use various options for anonymity.
But they're not innately the same thing; that's my only point.
--
These entreched media-biz execs sabotage their own arguments when they try to impose unreasonable limitations on all paying customers in order to protect themselves from a minority of abusers. They deserve to lose money to "pirates", because they're trying to fight fire with fire, forgetting that they still have to convince customers to buy their stuff. If their customers become innocent victims in the piracy wars, the media companies will suffer the consequences, one way or another.
A real life example of karma in action...
We will fight for our rights and those of our artists, whose work, whose creations, whose property are being stolen and exploited. We will take our fight to every territory, in every court in every venue, wherever our fundamental rights are being assaulted and attacked.
"our artists"?
ever seen a recording deal contract? the artist becomes an employee of the corporation, assigning the copyrights they create as "works done for hire".. So the corporations look at the artists themselves (not just their ideas) as property..
Just had to say it, by golly.
sine puella vita suget
When you pirate copyrighted material, you remove the chance (or some of the chance) for a company to sell it to you.
This goes a long with the idea of 'opportunity cost' in economics. Of course, the problem with that word, or phrase, is that branless morons would equate probablity theft with real theft.
I don't really see what the problem is with 'copyright infringement', I mean, that's what you get charged with if you were to break the law.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
cam-corder
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Actually, I've worn a ski mask while using an ATM machine a few times in the past, with no protest from the bank. It gets quite cold at times where I used to live, and the machine is located outside where users have little protection from the weather.
"Opting out" of anonymity is a joke. "Identify yourself and we'll let you be anonymous"? Garbage.
CSS was a bad idea because it went beyond simple copy(right) protection. It was used to control the distribution of DVD material as well and it took away the consumers' right to purchase films wherever they wanted, and consequently in some cases, to play a movie they legally owned on a player the also owned, just because the industry wanted it that way. They didn't respect the consumers' rights, so many people thought that their rights didn't deserve respect either.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Destroys any prospect for large scale distributed search engines and caching in consumer-to-consumer applications that do not use centralized servers. I doubt many people would find it acceptable to pass along their identities and personal information as part of such algorithms.
Despite the rhetoric in the speech, Internet privacy without anonymity is a bad joke. It can't be enforced, and depends on the good will of people and corporations who have already amply demonstrated they can't be trusted with the information they collect, or trusted to protect that information from others.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The first clue about his credibility should
come from his station in life.Get a clue,he's trying to create a sparkling fascade to cover the
fact that he's just a slimeball responsible for
millions of lost and ruined lives.The website is full of "fun"links and buzzwords for the consumer.
Dont forget his social(ist)responsibility link,after all its all about the kids,right?
He can look down from his ivory-sided tower and declare anything "politically correct"he wants.
Kinda like cigarette companies dolling up their images right before the lawsuits.
No point in getting worked up over anything
a man of his calibre has to say.Just be sure to
sneer when he or his opinions surface.I dont care
if he fed half the world,I dont care if he sounds
like your favorite uncle.The man is beneath contempt and deserves a paint stripper enema.
Seagrams is overpriced CRAP anyway.
Who the fuck invited him to judge,I bet it was
his connections to REAL.Yeah I bet those sorry
assholes dont like Napster,Mp3s or anything that
competes with their glitchy dull-sounding media.
Yeah,they've already shit and fell back in it one too many times.Delete their snoopy fuckin'software.Encourage others to do the same.
Notice there was no way to respond to the
cirroses-dealing prick anyway.Now I ask you,based
on real-world observations,is this punk credible?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
This guy has a heart? He could fooled me...
Seagram certainly isn't particularly visible here either. The big players in chemicals over here are Bayer and BASF. Some of the brands in this list look familiar though.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I love the way he defines property: if you own a car, home, or the copyright on music, thats your property. However, if you shell out 25 bucks on a dvd, universal/seagram still wants to control where/how you watch it, and even tries to prevent you from watching the film digitally. Like many coporations they are hypocites: they complain about market freedom, intellectual property and the like, but try their hardest to restrict consumer freedom and choice (see microsoft,recent riaa colusion finding etc...)
-brian
Anyone know where I can get a summer-weight ski mask? I don't mean merely wearing your girlfriend's nylons over your face - just something more comfortable than a paper bag that doesn't give you severe hat-head.
...
I'm interested in just wearing one around for the fuck of it - just to prove the point of having the right to wear one.
Funny thing is this - I used to live in an apartment complex where a substantial segment of the population wore garb that concealed their face entirely - with th eexception of a small slit to see through. My quote then was "that's cause they're all terrorists".
Well, even without citizenship, they were allowed to dress in such a fashion with risk of being harrased for concealing their identity.
enough - bored with my own post
for I have dined on honeydew and drank the milk of paradise
.
Edweird Boozman Jr. is also responsible for
supplying grainjuice to Alcohollica,mebbe that
explains his support of the losers view of Napster.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
It is true enough that the technology involved means that the RIAA and all the big companies involved are going to lose this fight. But what the fight is really about is getting value for your consumer dollar. Books are even more eminently suited to being pirated over the internet. So why hasn't the book industry been ravaged? Because there is still nothing to replace the experience of "curling up with a book". Can't do that in front of your computer. Of course that's NOT true when it comes to music. As long as there is no appreciable difference between the experience of downloading music from the internet and buying it in the store people are going to only buy the albums that they REALLY HAVE TO OWN. For people running big companies they sure seem to know very little about economics (supply, demand, that whole bit).
So the music industry needs to either
1) lower their CD prices into the $4-5 price range
or
2) include something with the CD's to raise their "value"
Unless one of those things happens people are NOT going to buy CD's regardless of whether napster and mp3's exist or not.
Thankfully, because of the technology, this is one fight that is going to be one. You can't fight fate!
Linus Landed a pritty spiffy job based on his software.
It's akin to a time when you submitted a program for a job application.
Only now your submitting the program to the world let the public (not some simple minded computer illitrate manager) determin the value of your code and let people fight over who gets to hire you.
"Hello I graduated from Hope Collage" Cool you get a job on Technical support... the tech version of janitorial.
"Hello I wrote a program people use every day. BastardMail" Cool you get a job on our programming staff.
"Hello I made Slashdot" We'll run your servers pay you to run your site and we'll rank in on your banner ads.
"Hello I graduated from Hope collage" Wow thats cool but we allready have someone on tech support...
"Hello I wrote xmodem..." Xmodem? "Yeah the first standard file transfer protocal.. I made it public domain" Oh wow hay could you "No no thanks anyway.. I'm retired..."
Ohh yeah... open source programmers are crying allright....
In the mean time...
I guess Guinnis is the offical beer of open source and now Seagrams is the offical alcahol of closed source...
Slavery as in Ale...
I don't actually exist.
are you attempting to bring the concept of "MORALS" into this thread? EGADS!
>"and that many of the Bronfman owned hotels were really fronts for prostitution"
the idea or concept of privacy has nothing to do with value judgements like whether prostitution is right or wrong.
Unless someone has manged to secure a patent on "Services Rendered in Exchange for Compensation Whereby the Renumerator Experiences Pleasure Provided by the Compensated Party" - prostitution is handled by local (state) laws, and not involved in the entire DeCSS/DMCA/Napster issue. At least a prostitute (probably) doesn't care who you are, nor wants to track you for 'stickyness' - sorry - I couldn't resist that one - I mean repeat business.
.
- Set your maximum simultaneous uploads to zero.
That's it. On the remote end, all attempts to download will be "remotely queued".Will I retire or break 10K?
No, I'm not talking about my conversation with my shrink. I'm talking about this guy's speech.
:)
;) as it sounds like the typical public rousing that a lot of speeches are ended with.
6 00b.html
I won't go as far as many slashdot commentors as saying that he was on crack. I do agree with many though, that he has some flaws in his arguments. Although his speech wasn't just Mrs. Rosen picking FUD out of her teeth with her lawyers, it still really struck some nerves with me.
First of all, his entire argument about how intellectual property may soon be destroyed. I cite the classic evidence of the period before modern-esque "intellectual property". To put it short, the world has lived without IP laws and such, and it can still. Although I do agree with the notion of a founder/artist/etc to have some sort of compensation for his/her time and efforts, keep in mind it won't always happen. Remember the entire story how "Otto Titslinger" had his invention (the modern 'bra') stolen by DeBrasiere (sp) (thats where 'bra' comes from ya know..) ?
So people will get screwed, I just don't think that people will just "stop" creating art as he implies.
Secondly, his views on allowing individuals/groups to be anonymous. Yes, we should be more responsible for our actions, but I do not think that 'outlawing anoniminity' will solve this. He implied this when he equated being anonymous as potentially being a "pirate" or theive of some sort. He's really intent on keeping the general status-quo, refer to a quote a previous slashdotter posted (moderated quite high).
To sum up, I can agree with some of his points, but some of the major ones that he expresses are quite troubling. His closing sounds like it'd be in tune of Pink Floyd's, "When the Tigers Broke Free" (minus the lyrics, which are kinda incompatible
"Nor is it a fight about technology's promise or its limitations. This is, at its core, quite simply about right and wrong."
-http://www.seagram.com/news/current-press/scl052
Ouch, trying to mix up legality and ethics. Not _always_ a good combination.
One can temporarily possess; one can temporarily use. One cannot own.
The defining proof of this: Everyone dies. And that which was possessed or used is passed back to the world at large, to be temporarily possessed or used by another.
Maybe as more people understand this simple concept, we will see a tendency toward creating out of the love for the creative process itself, and as a gift to oneself, rather than for the temporal rewards of selfish ownership, control, power, and financial reward.
However, while the self-satisfaction gained in a creative endeavor should, idealy, be sufficient, also being credited as the original author of a work is not an overvalued reward, in itself.
While I don't think the world is ready to enter this level of self-contentment just yet (I know I'm not, my world still requires money), and I don't mean to come off as an unrealistic idealist or elitist, I do see this as the solution toward which the path of advancing technology will ultimately lead us.The current path, followed by many wealthy individuals and corporations, who would divide the creative efforts of all the world among themselves while not even being the original authors of that creativity, is littered with the victims of intellectual theft at the hands of those who follow it, and leads only to a dead end.
This second path is the one which points in the direction of a virtual cessation of creativity, as that land will have already been parceled out.If one artist or group, like Meta11ica, doesn't 1ike it's music to be pub1ished, ok, Napster can fi1ter the sharing of such music.
I changed the quote to contain no 1owercase 1etter L's. Did you notice? Users wou1d rename the fi1es to "M3ta11ic4", which contains six 1etters that can be written as 133tspeak or not.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I can have a car to. I can have an idea to.
I can have a car similer to yours. I can have an idea similer to yours.
I can have a car exactly like yours. I can have an idea exactly like yours.
I can't steal you car. I can't steal your idea.
Well, that may sound like it supports that guy. But really, it dosn't. Cause it means then, that if I wanted to steal someones idea, I'd have to access their brain, take those thought out of their brain, and put them in mine. As far as I know, this is not possable with todays technology.
There you go. I have just proved that every single copyright, patant, trademark law is redundant.
Intellectual property rights may make sence in 20 years time... but not today.
What happend to people rasing their kids with good morel values? That would solve most of todays problems.
The fact that it is possible to use a technology for things which are wrong does not mean that that technology should be banned. MP3 is a fantastic format, that has so many potential uses. Even the DeCSS program has valuable uses - in particular, it allows people to view the DVDs that they've legally bought under Linux.
Sure, MP3s make it possible to trade music illegaly. DeCSS may allow people to trade films illegaly online when bandwidth increases. But does that mean that the technology itself is in some sense "illegal?" I, for one, certainly hope not. These programs/file formats have valuable applications as well as illegal ones, but it is the users who decide how to use them.
One major technology that allowed a previously restricted comodity to be brought to a mass market faster, cheaper, and better than before was the printing press. Who, in hindsight, would argue that the printing press was a bad innovation? It totally changed the availability and quality of information available at the time, and the internet offers us the same opportunities. Potentially, as he says, you could access any book, any film, any piece of music ever produced, instantly. Hopefully, however, we'll be able to use this idea to reward artists, and cut out parasites like him.
I don't agree with what Napster is doing - the ability to share files with people is fantastic, but the people who are loosing out at the moment are the artists. What we really want to do is screw people like Edgar Bronfmanm - the people who currently make a killing out of the work of others. They're the ones who stand to loose out of this new information age, and rightly so.
It irritates me that when I purchase a CD, the artist will be gaining a tiny share out of the money I spend. What I'd like to achieve is a situation where it is worthwhile for artists to produce good art, and for them to be justly rewarded for it. What I want to avoid is the internet being run by fat-cat tycoons, and people who make their entire living off the backs of others.
The internet is not a Communist state, it's a Democratic state, where people are entitled to their own views and ideas. People who provide vaulable services on the internet become well known. Those who try to sell on the work of others get ignored. That is what scares him about the internet.
Facts:
Identity means that physical objects will always be "scarce" - physical matter is only in one place at a time, take it away and it's no longer there.
However, patterns or forms (data) are not scarce, they can be duplicated and still remain in the original. Data cannot be moved or "taken away", only copied or deleted.
Data is always dependent on physical things, it cannot exist on ts own. This is because it's not a primary existent, it's the interpretation of a pattern in existents.
Rights do not conflict. If something conflicts with a right, it isn't a right.
The justification for physical private property is that it's the material expression of the right to free thought, that it's required for human life but is "scarce", and that a creator is the rightful beneficiary of his own creation.
Private property means the absolute right to do what I wish with my own property, unless I use it to commit force or fraud against someone else.
Intellectual property (IP) means treating data as private property.
Assumptions:
Technology increase will continue indefinately. We will likely reach the point where we have workable nanotech wihin this century.
Technology will eventually make arbitrary manipulation and copying of arbitrary data easy to the point of triviality. Computers do this already with digitized information; nanotech will extend it to physical form.
Conclusions:
IP necessarily violates physical property. It means that I don't have the right to arrange my property into the pattern you "own", even despite the fact that I'm doing so openly (no fraud) and with measurements I obtained fairly (no force).
IP meets none of the justifications of private property. Data you "own" is not necessarily expressed in your material property, so the first justification is irrelevant. Data is not scarce, so the second justification is irrelevant. No-one is forcing you to reveal data unprotected into the public domain, so the third justification is irrelevant.
Enforcing IP will get increasingly hard as the level of tech available to the general public rises. Assuming nanotech plus universal fast-networked computers, there is no practical way to enforce any IP short of having a policeman peering over your shoulder all day, or else banning public access to technology.
Therefore IP is not a right and it's enforcement violates rights.
"Information wants so be free" is a law of nature just like "trade wants to be free" - given a situation of choices, people will route around any restrictions except those that protect their own rights.
Therefore IP is as impossible, long term, as "a mixed economy" or any other such restriction-set.
Counter-arguments rebutted:
"Creators have a right to profit from their ideas"
Yes, they do, but not at the expense of my rights. Besides, they can still profit; consensual-contract law allows binding of arbitrary restrictions to released data.
"Contract law is too weak, what if some third party copies it"
It is (or should be) plenty strong enough; if the contract binds you not to release the data except under its own terms, then if some third party copies it they're "recieving stolen property" (since you broke contract by letting them) which is already illegal.
"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Likewise your right to use your property stops when it violates my rights"
True, but IP is, as I have shown, not a right. Also, you are not likely even involved in an "IP violation" - it could be me and a third party trading a copy of data from some physical property I already legitimately own.
"If information wants to be free, why will contracts work?"
People want contracts enforced because contracts are in effect a protection from the fraud of promising one thing in a trade and then doing another.
Can we agree that this would be a good thing? Does anyone think it wouldn't? I want to make sure we all agree on this.
Finally, an MP3/Napster opponent who leads off his argument by saying that intellectual property rights are the most important issue. Most of them jump straight to talking about theft and how much money they think they're losing.
Let me get this straight. If ideas are freely available, if they are given, taken, disseminated, distributed, shared, WITHOUT restraint, then they will die out. But if we restrain ideas, and make sure we control how they get distributed, then they can survive and prosper. Right.
No I don't. I don't think up ideas for personal gain, I think them up -- not to sound too self-important here -- for the betterment of humanity, for *everyone's* sake. They don't need to be registered in my name to do their job. If Thomas Edison hadn't patented the lightbulb, that wouldn't have stopped anyone from using it. In fact, had it not been for the patent system, Edison would not have been able to steal thousands of ideas, concepts and tools from other inventors and patent them as his own.
He uses the word "civilized" a lot. I don't think it means what he thinks it means. Look it up. Know what word is conspicuously absent from the definitions? "Law". Also "property", "business", "consumer", and "money".
It seems to me that if this were true, it would be self-evident, and he wouldn't need to repeat himself in an effort to drive the point home.
It will be interesting to see what measures this format will take to ensure that once one person downloads something, s/he can't share it with the rest of us.
Yeah, you know, my biggest complaint about Napster has always been that it keeps corrupting my files and my systems. Please.
Oh, if only Napster users *understood* that downloading copyrighted material they don't own was illegal! I bet they'd stop doing it then.
More demonizing of the term "hacker". That's productive.
And soon, tools will exist that allow those people to circumvent these file-tagging and criminal-identifying technologies.
Privacy is being able to close the door when you go into a public toilet. Anonymity is not being required to write your name and address on the door before you do so. Understand how these are important to each other?
Here at Slashdot, we call anonymous people "cowards". But we don't deprive them of the ability to post.
Which is the crime: putting on the ski mask, or robbing the bank? If knowing people's identities is all that prevents us from total anarchy, the problem lies with those citizens who care so little for their fellow people that they would freely commit crimes against them. We need to stop perpetuating a society that creates so many heartless citizens. But we don't need to blame the ski masks.
He has got to be kidding. Are we supposed to picture those 100 million European children crying disconsolately just because a piece of software made a pun on the name of their breakfast food? Are even puns going to be outlawed now? He says "stolen" as if the Gnutella developers were maliciously appropriating the name, like the pirates they really are. You know, when humor is outlawed, only outlaws will be funny, except for people who are unintentionally funny, like Seagram's chairmen.
These are pretty strong words from someone whose company makes most of its money by selling a drug (i.e. alcohol). If he wants to criticize MP3.com/Napster/Gnutella for enabling copyright infringement and theft of intellectual property, let's first talk about how many automobile accidents Crown Royal enables each year. Let's talk about the abusive fathers who hold a belt in one hand and a bottle of Chivas Regal in the other. Let's talk about Captain Morgan's contribution to date rape, or the casino patrons who are served free drinks so they'll waste more money, or the lives, bank accounts, and relationships destroyed by alcohol addiction. Frankly, I don't think Ed Bronfman is in much of a position to be moralizing about a crime as relatively trivial as music piracy.
I don't know, I'd say Gnutella was a pretty ingenious piece of work itself. And I'd be remiss were I not to point out that its developers aren't earning a single cent from it.
Oh, no! Anything but that! You know, it's typical that such a hardcore capitalist can't understand that some people really mean it when they say something should be free.
You hear that, Linus? What a fool you are, for giving away your operating system. Think of your children's college tuition! Forget the thousands of users! Forget the superior operating system, forget the challenge to the Microsoft empire! What will these things matter when it comes time to pay your children's orthodonist bills? Do you think you can derive some kind of *happiness* out of what you've done? Do you mean to take some sick sort of satisfaction from a job well done? What are you, some goddamned altruistic commie bastard? See where your generosity will get you! Hah!
Trading MP3s == enslaving the musicians. Got it.
Very stereotypically American tactic: bring World War II, the war that made the U.S. the superpower it is today, into the argument whenever you want to get the red-blooded American patriots on your side. Unfortunately, it has little to do with the issue at hand.
As someone else has already pointed out in this thread, the Soviet Union most likely "cracked" because its leaders were greedy and self-serving, not because it was based on an unjust system.
It's a scary world in which we have to thank people for the "privilege" of being able to speak from our hearts.
In closing, just remember, kids: don't get your philosophy from the same place you get your ginger ale.
[We Have No Product] [The Swindle
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Well, that was a disturbing ramble.
First of all, its disgustingly grandiose, and tinks to me of the "i'm gonna save the world and take a stand because it'll make me look cool" mentality. Somethow the article didn't make me feel any safer, and made me feel a lot more threatened.
Secondly, anonymity is sometime necessary. He doesn't seem to complain about witness protection programs, voting, and other places where there's anonymity, and the idea anonymity is automatically like equipping for crime is misleading and insulting.
Third, again, we see people assuming INFORMATION is equal to PHYSICAL PROPERTY. Now all questions about copyright (and there are legitimate ones), information may be stored in, but is not physical property. In general, it is easier to duplicate information. Thus, you really have to treat information differently.
Fourth, some shared/open information is good - should languages be copyrighted? Religions? Medical knowledge?
Fifth, his "gifts of God and nature" are free really falls apart - if my brain is a gift of God/nature, what if I use it to create something . . .
In short, grandiose, insulting, ignorant, and annoying. If this is what corporate leaders are thinking of the internet and copyright, we have a problem.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
It's ironic that the descendant of bootleggers would cry for the destruction of anonymity in the nane of intellectual property. The American Revolution was fomented by smugglers, and the Industrial Revolution in this country was made possible by the deliberate abrogation of British patents.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Hemos
You said that must of us can agree with most of what Bronfman said. I can't understand where your coming from.
The premise of Bronfman's argument is:
For all of us, "Property rights are well understood and universally accepted. You own your home. Ypu own a car. They're yours - they belong to you. They are your property. Well, your ideas belong to you too. And "intellectual property" is property - period.
Well - Bronfman evidentely doesn't consider the Founding Fathers as part of this universe, because clearly, as Rich Stallman has documented, and as the law stands, and as common sense would tell you, your thoughts are NOT your property. In this has been the basic thrust of misinformation which the powers in the information industry is trying to impose on the American public. The the fact is that legally, morally and historically, your thoughts are owned, lock stock and two smoking barrels, by the public and civilization for properity.
Legally, our founding fathers thought about giving authers of works ownership of their works. But Hamilton, Madison etc., rightfully rejected this because it is a bad idea which would threaten civilization. Instead, our founding fathers gave Congress the power to limit the natural right of proptery and freedon of speach of owners of copies, and to restrict those rights through the vehicle of a limited copyright for the public good.
Part of the Human condition is that we live in this shared abstraction called a society and a civilization. It is essential for the health of civilization and society that inforamation can be freely distributed. The Human mind itself requires civilization and society for context for the creation of new thoughts and ideas. If we are honest, we would see that humans don't ever create ANYTHING without borrowing from others thoughts as they were transposed to them.
The Declaration of Independence was based on the work of John Locke. The music of Metalica is based on the work of Jimi Hendrix, etc etc.
So all of our thoughts and ideas spawn from previous ideas and thoughts. And therefor, the fundemental theory that Human ideas can be turned into personal property is legally, morally, and intellectually incorrect.
After Bronfman's foundation premise is dismissed as being legally, intellectually, and morally wrong, everything that extrapulates from this falsehood is FURTHER FALSE.
What is bothering me, Hemos, is that you give lip service to this disinfomation campain by conceeding the first point in your opening remarks. If you think any part of the Bronfman speach is correct and justified, then your as big of a threat our civilization as Bronfman is.
Ruben
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
I was wondering the same thing but I just figured it out.
Nutella is the name of a fudgy peanut-buttery spread you put on toast or whatever.
That must be what they are referring to. I've heard of it before, but for some reason it's rare in the US.
'course the way I'd pronounce Gnutella (guhNEW-tell-uh, pronouncing the G like in GNU or GNOME) makes it sound nothing like Nutella.. I'm wondering how a British person would pronounce it.
I grant that I'm only two weeks into /. so forgive me I step over my bounds, but if y'all will bear with a newbie and his interjecting thoughts. (This is all IMHO, subjective for the most part, so forgive me.)
Personally, I find the very thought of anyone (even this company Seagram, of which I am unfamiliar) attacking anonymity to be discouraging, mainly because of the inherent loss of security. My friends call me paranoid, but I prefer the term "security conscious." I don't want to go surfing the net and having corporate America (of the global economy at large) knowing who I am and where I am going. (Not that my life is THAT important to any government, but it's the point.) But corporate America seems to be trying to destroy what privacy we have. They *want* to know, just like the government, who were are, where we are, what we do, our habits, our interests... And people wonder why I use PGP...
(And of course, it's needless to say, but if we allow big corporations an inch to move, soon they won't just be stepping on our toes, they will be using as a living room rug in their CEO's big mansion.)
But is in not possible for privacy to be maintained without anonymity?
Consider that FTP services allow for anonymous logins, but most ask that you enter your full E-Mail address as the password. Even then, it's not really anonymous, because the FTP server still tracks your IP address and other information, so if they *really* wanted to, they could track you. The go for the IP, contact the provider of that IP, who goes through their logs, and bingo... You're caught. Almost every server connected to the Internet tracks IP addresses that I know of.
We've been losing our rights to privacy for years; we have no privacy anymore in real life. And the same battles are being waged and won by corporate America in the digital age. I vaguely remember a few years ago a fairly popular anonymous E-Mail system that was shut down because it refused to store personal information on its users, which angered its local country's government. (I forget the name of that system, even though I used it...)
To maintain my privacy, I use PGP. And call me paranoid if you prefer, but I have a 4096-bit key with 8 4096-bit subkeys. And now that the Eurpean Union has relaxes their export laws, I'm hoping for a 32K-bit key soon. =) Of course, I expect that if PGP becomes as well used as Napster, corporate America will then DEMAND to have all our secret keys as well...
In a perfect world, I could be an encrypted anonymous user. Maybe someday, but not while our legal systems spit in our eyes and shake hands with corporations.
Sorry for ranting and raving...
Seth Anderson BTW, I'm not 23 anymore -- I am TexasCowboy26 now. =)
Editorial Commentary
Between Lars' contention that Metallica's main dispute with Napster was that Napster allowed distribution of Metallica material without the consent of Metallica, and Mr Bronfman's frontal assault on anonymity in general and anonymity for internet users in particular, I find a disturbing picture emerging.
The music industry is setting the stage to co-opt Napster technology for their own use. They will no doubt use filtered Napster-type servers much like radio stations. Payola schemes will determine whose music is distributed and whose is not. The status quo marches on. The rich get richer, the band and the audience gets shit. As Bronfman states, they will move quickly to expand into "mutimedia" (movies).
The man is asking for war. Given the fact of the music industry's close ties to organized crime and the drug cartels, it is a virtual certainty that blood will be shed over these issues, if it hasn't been already. Start keeping track of your friends.
The most sickening part of the Bronfman's entire rant, to me was that he is trying to do all this for the good of the internet. I am so goddam sick and tired of idiots trying to legislate and litigate their moronic ideas for my own good... I am left speechless.
Bronfman and his ilk must be stopped. Unless we intend to allow them to usurp the legacy we would leave to future generations; unless we would allow them to make the internet over in the image of the non-virtual corporate world as we have known it for the last 40 years, their powerbase must be destroyed. No quarter.
For now, boycott. This thing is already in motion. No doubt legal venues have already been selected, and the outcomes of the cases predetermined. Expect will see the first anti-anonymity cases made quite soon.
Mr. Bronfman has declared war on the internet, not just Napster.
Suggestions for a Boycott
- Don't buy any Seagrams branded product. Remember to contructively engage anyone wearing or using any Seagrams branded products as well. Talk to your local bartenders and tavern owners. Note that Seagram owns film and cable t.v. outlets.
- Download the Seagram portfolio of brands (PDF), print it, and distribute to stores, resteraunts, clubs, etc, with the notation "We won't buy these". The list is partial, but contains a list of artists, t.v. shows, and cable networks associated with Seagram. Contact these people and let them know that their association with Seagram is poison.
- Be sure to boycott any live performance by bands associated with the CMG labels. Let the performers know why, but don't buy the tickets or the merchandise.
- Contact the Hillel organization on your campus. Protest Bronfman's behavior and ask that he be removed as Chairman. Explain why. You can join Hillel online if you'd like to pursue this course as a member of the organization.
- If you're in New York City, drop in on Mr Bronfman. Explain to him why you value anonymity on the net, and why you don't believe he has the right to deny you that anonymity. Ask him to lunch, and offer to help arrange for the net community to accept Seagram's unconditional surrender to end this war they cannot win.
- Get this into the newspapers. Get the facts about what is going on into the public awareness. The corps that are trying to paint us, the internet community, as criminal are drug pushers, thieves, and murderers many times over. These facts are already widely known, and should be the first relevent information that comes to peoples' minds when they hear news about these issues.
- Probe the members of the board for schism within the corp. There may be some there who would not agree that Seagram's entire corporate weight should be thrown into the erradication of the internet as we know it.
- Buy Seagram stock. Don't give a proxy. Got to the shareholders meetings and raise hell.
- Flyers and broadsides posted in public locations remain a viable way of reaching masses of people.
- A couple of cases of Chivas tossed into the harbour might help get the point across, as well.
"Fire when you can see the whites of their eyes.""The Internet is made of cats."
Edgar Bronfman, Jr is basicly living a pipe dream.
/dev/audio
People have stolen music IP compleatly ignorent of what they were doing and the music industry has basicly turnned a blind eye to it all.
He dosn't know whats happening in the real world let alone the Internet.
He thinks the challange is to eliminate the tools for IP theft. Those tools exist and allways will exist. All you can do is censore the public.
He has become aware of a world where IP law is ignored what is is not aware of is that world is called EARTH not "The Web" and that world has exested for longer than I have been alive. It did not spring up overnight with Napster.
He dose not know what is happening byond his own little world. We have no idea what pressures he faces on a day to day basis be he presumes we do. We do not learn IP law in grade school.
So he is shocked and amazed that people are ignorent of his tiny little world.
It was his job to inform the public of IP theft he did not. Those before him failled in the same way.
Now he can see what has been happening for years becouse he dosn't have to leave his office to see it. It is delivered right to him. Sits in his face and says "Hello I am Piracy... Ignore me"
He can no longer pretend it dosn't exist but he can pretend it's new...
They did not know what was happening outside there own office. In schools some teachers think fair use includes educational use. In homes people record tapes and give them to friends.
Bill Gates has many defects but here is where he did not fall down. He knew there was an ignorence of IP law and set out to corect it.
I may not totally aprove of his tactics but he knew the problem and set out a solution.
The music industry ignored it's own artists. Many of whom knew this problem existed. Some set out to educate the public on there own. The could only aim at there own fans. So be it they did what they had to do to survive becouse the music industry leaders would not.
Now they set to go on the Internet but find Napster and realise this is a tool used by people who don't know better.
Napster can netscast conserts and do all the wonderful things Seagrams plans to do.
But they want a secure protocal. Napster learnned early on no such thing exists.
You deliver a digital data stream. Incryption will only prevent IP theft by a non-target. A target can save the music instead of send it to his sound card.
Hay maybe I don't have a sound card. Where dose my music go? To a sound file.. named
Insert Windows sound saver driver in place of sound card.
Thats presumming a closed source client that never gets reverse engeneared.
If someone modifys the clinet (and some people can modify ANYTHING) there is no hope of preventing piracy.
He wants to believe the music industry is the first to enter the Internet entertainment...
He is wrong...
On-line commics were here long before Edgar Bronfman, Jr ever heard of the Internet.
Dilbert and Dr Fun were around for a very long time.
Dilbert was delivered on usenet.
They knew the real challanges of IP theft.
They handled it correctly.
No one on-line has the silly notion that it's ok to copy commic strips.
Thats becouse commic strip artists work hard to educate. They don't treat fans like children.
They don't cry for security blankets.
Scott Adams knows people photocopy Dilbert. He dosn't get snotty about it...
On-line commics have worked out pritty well.
Some premote the full commic books with the same carricters by the same artist and some sell compleate books of all the on-line strips. Some sell t-shirts and coffie mugs. I own a DustPuppy Statue.
This is the lead of internet entertainment.
At some level you are just going to have to turst the fans to not break the laws.
The fans after all want to emulate the artsist to some degree.
I must say... it's hard to take some artists sereously when they talk against alcaholism while on contract with Seagrams... a company known more for ale than music...
I don't actually exist.
Well, the future I like to imagine. A band or individual scrapes enough money together to be able to record their work in a high quality digital format. This isn't a lot nowadays. The work is made available for download with some genius' solution to balancing consumer rights and protecting artists income bundled into the format. Purchase price around $5, which goes straight to the artists and is more than they make off a CD sale. See Steve Albini's The Problem with Music
If the music is any good, the internet will ensure everybody knows about it and wants it. If it isn't then it will most likely be forgotten. This is what happens in the great ferment of works and ideas, Mr Bronfman. For evidence that this doesn't happen right now look no further than the Back Street Boys.
What I like about this is that the review system ensures that Record Industry $$$ can't buy album sales with promotional campaigns, and the ugly humans in suits are cut right out of the picture. This is ultimately what they're scared of. They know they're almost past their use-by dates. I don't believe you or anyone else in your industry is dedicated to delivering entertainment to consumers everywhere. Thanks anyway, but I've already got some.
:wq
That sounded like his pocket book speaking. Of course those are probably one and the same for someone in his position.
Under the DMCA, you are not allowed to own devices that can circumvent copy protection. It doesn't matter how many uses there are for your decoder, the mere possibility that it could be used to circumvent copy protection renders it illegal.
NOT true, according to a lawyer from Morrison and Foerster, a genuinely kickass intellectual property firm that likes to be called MoFo. I love that!
"To facilitate enforcement of the copyright owner's right to control access to his copyrighted work, the DMCA also prohibits manufacturing or making available technologies, products and services used to defeat technological measures controlling access. Similarly, the DMCA prohibits the manufacture and distribution of the means of circumventing technological measures protecting the rights of a copyright owner, e.g., measures which prevent reproduction. But to ensure that legitimate multipurpose devices can continue to be made and sold, the prohibition applies only to those devices that:
Quoted from THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, Jonathan Band, Morrision & Foerster LLP Washington, D.C. jband@mofo.com
Full article here.
Incidentally, the Mighty MoFo were the pro bono defense lawyers for Dennis Erlich in his litigation with Scientology.
Guns can not be used to violate copyright. Please try to stay on topic.
Guns can, however, be used to shoot copyright litigants.
Um, what's the NET Act, and why is it significant?
HAHAHA! And YOU thought the DMCA was bad!
Here is a summary.
"As we have previously advised, website developers and operators should be careful to avoid using copyrighted material without prior approval. Civil penalties for copyright violation, unchanged by the NET Act, reach up to $100,000 per occurrence. Under the NET Act, criminal penalties could now include up to $250,000 and five years in prison for "willful" infringement."
Welcome to Amerika! Welcome to JAIL!
Napster is a prominent symbol of a blatant abuse of the current law, hence the constant attention paid toward it.
Like calling a frisbe a frisbe vs. a disc.
RIAA will win in the end because everyone focuses on how ridiculous RIAA's actions are, rather than the LAW which empowers RIAA to do what they do. I am not an attorney, and I do not play one on TV; but it apppears to me that there are some big problems with current copyright law that need to be debated here.
Forget about RIAA, they are simply acting to protect interests granted to them by the government. The law is what we should be looking at.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
But do you notice that the bulleted items are connected by OR's? It would still be a fairly wide net to be casting, don't you think? It certainly is a much broader prohibition than the Universal v. Sony decision.
They were bootleggers, now they want to have a system to distribute music and such legally.
Solution:
Distribute it for BEER
chortle...I kill me
^-----from The Jargon File v4.2.0
sorry if someone made this joke already...it just seemed to fit so well
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Feel the blast from the chocolate bomber:
Infrared aimed at your head like your name was Sarah Connor.
Decapitation, I ain't hesitatin' to put you in a funeral home
With a bullet in your dome.
Gosh, he's just so BLACK with all this "niggaz" and "muthafuckaz" shit. OK, smoke crack, steal cars, shoot people. That's great for Dr. Dre and his homeyz. Then he suddenly gets all WHITE. "But don't infringe copyrights. That's baaaaaaaaaad."
Fucking corporate house nigger!
Within a few years, unencrypted file formats for media such as music and movies will be criminalised. It will be illegal to distribute software for encoding or decoding these formats.
The framework for criminalising MP3 encoders/players already exists in the DMCA. As soon as SDMI exists, the RIAA will be able to threaten lawsuits against ISPs which host things like xmms and LAME, much as the MPAA did against DeCSS. Companies which do not phase out MP3 playback/encoding in time with the SDMI timetable will also open themselves to prosecution.
This will also restore the RIAA's position and its control of the means of music distribution; it will be impossible to author SDMI-compliant music without it being signed (and probably hosted on a special serialising server) by a distribution authority. Chances are the authorities will be run by our old friends Seagram, Bertelsmann, AOL Time Warner and Sony.
Well, that's probably what the RIAA is hoping will happen; hopefully they won't succeed in it; though they have literally billions to spend on making this a reality, and billions to lose if they fail.
And if I have a good idea, mention it to someone and they implement it, have they stolen food from me? I put work into it - I thought about it. There's as much production as another copyrightable work, if I wrote it down. It's not my precise work, but if it's based on mine, couldn't it be derivative?
Thank god, the courts don't yet agree.
Neither do I. People do not have an inherent right to produce things AND PREVENT OTHER PEOPLE FROM COPYING THEM. There are zero, count 'em, zero natural rights for that. In fact, it's clearly opposed to the freedom of speech/press, which lets people say or write any damn fool thing they want.
We have copyrights NOT to give artists a revenue source, but INSTEAD to encourage them to create more stuff, with the POINT being for those works to enter the public domain as quickly as possible while still encouraging the creation of new works, because only when p.d. can they be enjoyed by all, and can everyone fully exercise the rights which God has seen fit to bestow upon us as human beings.
Now I am perfectly happy with copyrights *IN GENERAL*. But modern copyright law is unconstitutional. And there's no other basis. Works of art are not property so far as the information is concerned - only the medium through which it is transmitted. You might own a statue, but you cannot own the shape. You can own a CD but not the music. The definitions of property and of ownership don't permit it.
At best you can prevent other people from copying it if they're going to let other people have the copies while still keeping their own copy, and then only in certain circumstances.
I am an artist. I routinely create art. It's what I do. And I would like nothing more than to see copyrights be shortened to about 10 years, with only the most minimal of extensions possible, with no foolishness like 'access control.' Building in some money from copyright registration (it wouldn't be automatic - it would require the work be published and trivially accessable) to go to supporting public domain art would be good too.
But there's nothing *moral* about copyright. Don't fool yourself.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
very good,
i think that you have hit the nail on the head by saying that
"Napster essentially provides an online flea market, where anyone with a modem can trade in the violation of copyrights"
Napster only provides the arena it by no means distributes these Mp3's which are the source of nightmares for the "gaggers" out there.
Rather than loosing the rhetoric, lets loose the metaphors. It is hardly stealing bread from the plates of others.
The main argument put forward by your beloved metallica is that the only songs that are downloaded are popular ones, hence made by popular bands. In the music industry popularity = profit there is no grey area, so if I take something from someone that is needy then yes it is cause for concern, but if i replicate a product of a gluttonous corporate miasma whos only concern is fistfucking every last cent out of the naive marketplace then its not something that I will loose sleep over.
I Eat (Ctrl+V)
Yes, there is a problem with preserving Intellectual Property once you let it onto the internet where copying is so easy.
But there is no justification for Bronfman's silly rant about buffalo's, Nazi Germany or the USSR, nor for his shortsighted greedy crackdown on anonymity, which is essential to protect us all from a future police-state government.
But there should be a technical solution to a large part of the problem. Just distribute copyrighted material only in a strictly identifiable digital form, every copy unique. With the sale/resale, transfer this unique 'ID' to the buyer. If you use/publish a pirated copy, with someone else owning it's 'ID', it will be very clear and can't be denied. The credit to this 'ID' should be on a bank account (this is new of course). The bank protects it's customers identity, and it protects the unique-ness of the 'ID' for the IP-owner (just like banks cannot make money just by 'duplication' of the accounts balance). Oops -- should I keep this idea of mine (hmm, surely, I'm not the first) a secret...? Nay, let's all profit from it.
Bart Meerdink
i'm not even saying that this would have worked but that's one approach off the top of my head. what pisses me off about these companies is that none of them are fighting this off with CREATIVITY. none of them are trying to create incentives to buy the "real thing". there are plenty and none of these companies are even emphasizing them. they just want to fight a corporate war over their own consumers like they do against other companies. this will spell their doom. mp3 is the recording industry's vietnam.
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!
--
And Justice for None
Anonmity is something our country has not historically supported, at least not by and large.
Fucking moron. Plus you post it as Anonymous Coward and then can't even spell it when it's already on the screen. Yeah, spelling flames are lame but this one is just too pathetic to pass up. Quoting the Supreme Court, you HAVE heard of that, right?
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious [362 U.S. 60, 65] to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes."
TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
Thanks for the correction. I should have looked at the act before I opened my mouth.
Not that it's that much of a mistake. Regardless of what the law actually SAYS, expensive legal firms are being hired to sue anyway, since it's new law, meaning expensive to litigate.
And so far, with the DeCSS case and a terminally clueless judge, it's working.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Didn't he mean to say, a valueless collection of silent machines with blue screens? Does Universal own Pinochio? Oh, yes, different studio, different puppet.
This seems to be the ranting of a man who has lost all control and doesn't know what's to blame. I suggest Seagram shareholders, if any, panic Monday morning.
Isn't Edward Bronfman the same guy involved in filtering tons of dollars to the US through a tax loophole so he didn't have to pay taxes on his millions of dollars? Isn't this the same guy now partially under investigation for this questionable loophole? Ya that's a guy I'm gonna listen to in issues like this *BAH!* Maybe he should work on paying his fair share back to the people before he goes on some moral rampage.
*When you gotta go...*
Downloading an mp3 made from commercial music IS THEFT. Just because YOU think the recording companies are charging too much doesn't make the theft legal. Napster itself is just a tool, it's users are the ones who choose to break the law and steal music from record companies, and it's not just the record companies these people are stealing from, it's also the 'artists'.
Mostly on slashdot I see a lot of imbecelic juvenilist going on about 'open source', 'mp3's good', 'record labels bad', etc... ad nauseum. There are a few voices of sanity, but it does seem the majority are from the college and high school crowd who still haven't been introduced to the realities of life and wallow in the idealism of youth to their own detriment.
NOW, as for privacy, Seagrams is also going off the deep end with the juveniles. There are times when privacy depends heavily on anonymity, and more often then not on the net it's that way.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
First Amendment: You register a copy of your typewriter/printer output with the government so they can figure out who wrote something, but they only investigate if a crime is committed. Honest....
Second Amendment: You register your guns, but you have a right to keep and bear them. Nope, no prelude no confiscation, really....
Fourth Amendment: You let the police install WebCams in your house, but they aren't allowed to use them without a warrant. Cross their hearts and hope to die....
Obviously, the Seagrams-head's notion is as unacceptable as any of the above
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The ideology of Free Software states that programs can be free since the stimulus to write them is (for real programers) the satisfaction brought by creative activity, but not only money, right? (Ethical point of that ideology as I understand it is that programs also should be free)
Being both computer programer and (kind of) musician, I can say that those activities (programing and music) bring me comparable satisfaction. In fact, I take no one dime from my music and never will.
Principles of Free Software are applicable to any type of creative activity which need not expensive matherials and/or accesories. I can imagine free books, free music. There are some free sculptures created from literally a garbage (personally I don't like them, but somebody else may enjoy them, right?) Of cource, you can not build a structure for free, but you can share your project with other people for free!
Returning to music, for in-home composition you need not more than a cheap PC (my friend uses a 286!), simple electronic devices and maybe some not very expensive instruments.
My humble opinion is that musicians have ability to establish something like GPL for their artwork to allow anybody share them freely.
Maybe, something like this exists already?
i'm not sure. someone tell me what they really do?
why am i here?
I'd really like to know where Seagram thinks all those black Americans are coming from...
you don't know what freedom is, do you? this takes away as many freedoms as the copyright does, and is the basis for a communist/socialist society
1984 -> 1 + 9 + 8 + 4 = 22 -> 2 + 2 = 4 = 1 + 3 -> 1 '2' + 3 '0's -> 2000 QED
[lameness filters suck]
Indeed. What an apt analogy for the intellectual and political horizon of Mr. Bronfman and his peers. A vision of technology harnessed to preserve the privileges of a small elite class, while eliminating choice and squashing any true individual initiative for the many. I would say also, with a touch of 1984 thrown in, via the doublespeak and invasion of privacy.
Strawman argument. No one (that I know of) asserts such a thing. The real issue is much more complicated. If I took for my own use a physical book, without permission, it would be stealing. But if I copied a book for my own use, again without permission, it is not exactly theft pure and simple, because the item still exists, is still in the possession of the original holder, and can still be used by others. Once computerized data has been produced, the cost of reproduction approaches zero, and reproduction does not hinder the original owner or user. Granted, there is an ethical question of compensation, but digital copying cannot be simply equated with theft.
This is backwards. The usefulness of an idea increases if shared with others.
Passing over the paragraph where he is warring against the culture of the Internet for its own good...
Not much. But I suspect he means corporately produced and controlled content. The Internet would be fine without that, thankyouverymuch. Many of us would see it as an improvement.
Doublespeak. Hands up, everyone who has been begging the multinational conglomerates to raise their prices, block access to materials already purchased, and invade our privacy in the bargain.
You mean like the way Real associates file types with itself so that after I uninstalled RealJukebox (never wanted, never used), the computer no longer knows how to play audio CDs?
Ad hominem, at best. Basically, this is the tired argument that you don't need privacy if you're not doing anything wrong.
What about that little thing in the U.S. Constitution about unreasonable search and seizure? As other have pointed out, if I walk into a retail store and pay cash for a CD, I am under no legal or moral obligation to tell them my name, address, date of birth, credit card number, or any other personal information.
He must not realize whom he's addressing. Real are notorious spammers. They have invaded privacy before by grabbing identifying numbers on users' computers--without notification, let alone permission. RealJukebox reported on tracks. And it wasn't so long ago that the cover was blown on their Download Daemon's recording of transactions, again without permission.
This is over the top. Anonymity means that I should not be forced to give my name or other identifying information which can be tied to me personally. The Net is not as anonymous as many think, but without some level of anonymity there is no privacy.
At first I thought he was talking about corporate philanthropy, but evidently he is laughing at idealists. Well, Mr. Multinational Corporation, if you are true to your principles, you should get off the Internet immediately. You are stealing food and college tuition from the prgrammers who wrote the IP protocol and in particular from Tim Berners-Lee, who invented http and HTML. Oftentimes you are also stealing from programmers who wrote or use the gcc. Your concern is touching, but I don't think that TBL, Linus Torvalds, or RMS are starving in the streets, nor do I think that they will, older and wiser, be converted to the religion of the Almighty Dollar and regret their past generosity and inventiveness.
All in all, Mr. Bronfman offers a bleak vision of unprecedented corporate control, unfettered by silly little things like civil rights or moral principles. May it never come to pass.
They used to own Tropicana, but they sold it to Pepsi over a year ago.
Don't give Descartes a Solipsist position. He was refuting the Solipsists, and did an effective job of it.
Balderdash. Descartes' path from doubt to certainty only works if you agree with him on a number of contentinus claims (such as, there must exist a benevloent and omnipotent God). Anyone convinced by Descartes couldn't take solipsism very seriously to begin with.
"advanced users who dual boot into LINUX regularily"
oh, so that's what passes for an advanced user now. go home you windows lamer.
Don't be mean or my friend Oog will smash your head
Damn. I guess so.
So, what made us think we needed rich recording artists? I look at the radio-dominated years, when quality music had to be paid for, and think of how much I missed. Your great-grandparents got their music for free, and most of them knew the musicians personally. Read here for a description of how much we lost when industrialized music dsitribution came into being. To summarize:
- Music was distributed from one person to the next (by word of mouth), completely uncontrolled and decentralized.
- Everyone heard LIVE performances several times a month for free.
- Rich performing artists were virtually nonexistent.
Sounds like the MP3-future, right? But that was THEN.
We all know what the recording industry brought us -- popular classical supplanted folk, and then many other even more technically elaborate musical styles ensued (ragtime, jazz, etc. right up to today's techno and conscious hip hop). Most people today believe that more and better music was available to Americans in the 1970's than in the 1870's. But they lost their folk art too, and live performance became a very rare treat. Music became something you had to pay for, or endure the voiceover chatter and advertisements of the radio.
So what? Well, think about it -- if things keep going the way they are, we'll return to an economy in which massively rich artists are very rare or nonexistent. Music will once again be passed along from one person to the next. It's really closer to our roots as a human race, if you think about it. The best creative musicians will be those who, like Mozart and Beethoven, live and die for their art and nothing else. And of course, we'll retain the technological convenience of not having to perform music ourselves. Beyond that -- imagine a personal DJ that takes your requests and automatically figures out what you'd most like to hear next.
Sounds pretty good to me.
Lawyers: The Other White Trash.
Mr. Edward probably does not realize that the Internet existed long before any commercial applications were brought to it. There was no Amazon, CNN or EBay on the Internet only 5 years ago. The Internet attacted all of the above by providing a new market opportunity, this in its turn created more market - more people are using the Internet every day. BUT this was not the case only 5-10 years ago. I remember using the Internet for communication purposes at that time and there was no commercial content on the web and it was just fine - less ads, less spam, less assholes telling the Internet folks what to do. I understand that the tone of my voice maybe a little harsh but, Mr. Edward, with all due respect - go to hell with your commercial applications. No one here gives a fuck about you or your private property, if you don't like it you can go to hell or to court, there will be lots of stuff for you to do in both places and you still can not stop the nature of the Internet as of a sharing tool. A tool that people who are connected and were connected way before you came with your content.
Now, talking about thievery that goes on here, you mentioned writers and other copyright holders who will go hungry without the people of the net paying for their work but then you also contradicted yourself by saying that only a small part of the population actually uses the web to download copyrighted material in order to use it, well which one is it? Is the Internet really so big and important that your copyright holders will not be able to feed their families because of it, or is the web data sharing just a small part of the big picture, where most people actually pay to get their content? Before you answer that, ask yourself - are you bull shitting everyone when you are saying that you care about small time copyright holders? What you are really doing is building the legal grounds for your fucked up company to win some legal cases? Again - go to hell with your commercial material, go fuck yourself and the others too off the web, no one gives a fuck. Let's see how will every commercial entity out there go off line and stay alive? You are saying that we are lawless but what you don't seem to understand is that you don't come into people's homes with your own laws, the Internet is above your fucking laws. You are quoting the Constitution of the USA? Well HA, fuck you, bitch, USA is not the only fucking country on this fucked up planet. The Internet is our new home and our new community and if we decide to share stuff here, it's like sharing what you have with your family members, you can not deny one to share his stuff with his/her family members can you?
And another thing, you can stick a dog up your ass but don't fucking dare talking like that about Free Source Movement or Open Source Software, you fucking little bitch. You don't know what you are talking about, motherfucker.
Thank you, thank you very much.
You can't handle the truth.
And while this activity has not yet resulted in a down-side to the recording industry's income, it is only a matter of time. Right now, Napster/Gnutella has simply replaced the tape as the music traders' preferred medium of piracy. The recording industry hasn't really lost anything because these people were going to trade this music anyway. But as this activity becomes more widespread and enters mainstream use, make no mistake about it there will be consequences to the industry's bottom line.
Having said all that, I also think the record companies are deluding themselves if they think they can stop this without some MAJOR re-structuring. Peer-to-peer technologies like Napster and Gnutella extend trading activity to a much bigger and more efficient arena than tapes ever did. Making the problem much worse is that this technology is, quite simply, un-stoppable. You can plug as many fingers as you want into all those little holes but this dike is going to crumble.
And it seems that one of those holes is getting a *lot* of attention. Napster has become the lightning rod for the industry's wrath. I think that it has also become a sacrificial lamb; the first-born son offered to the music gods for their appeasement. A knife almost assuredly will be plunged into Napster's not-so-innocent black little heart, but on-line music trading will continue to flourish despite the god's best efforts to smite us upside the head.
IMO there is only one way the record companies can prevent this activity from decimating the industry: Offer CD quality recordings for reasonable prices on a per-song rather than per-album basis. I'd be more than happy to pay $1/song for high fidelity versions of the songs I really like. And I should have the option of either downloading these songs from a web site or building a custom CD at a CD store. (Maybe the store-bought version could offer even higher quality sound for a small premium.) I'm sure that a large majority of people out there would agree to pay for music on this basis.
Mr. Bronfman, this is the only way the recording industry will survive. Of course this won't stop music piracy, put most people are honest (as long as the price is right) and these honest people would constitute a very large market. If music was available this way, I believe that the on-line trading of songs would again be limited to the ever-present music traders who would pirate songs even if they were sold for a penny (but you never made money off these people anyway). And of course you can still count on associated merchandising to provide a very nice line item on your income statement.
I'm afraid that you'll have to forget those halcyon days of obscene pricing and become a real business that operates within a reasonable profit margin but hey, welcome to the real world. In the meantime, all of these legal shenanigans are nothing but a mass of white noise. Napster's isn't the problem, it's just the symptom; your business model is the problem. While you had an iron-clad grip on music distribution, yes you could charge whatever you wanted. Welcome to the backlash. Technology has pried your grubby little hands off the reins Mr. Bronfman and your business model has become a liability. Go tell your friends.
Why does the president of Seagrams care. Piracy on the net is like gravity. Work with it or...
It's a new kind of Hytsteria
I'm beginning to think it was fortuitous to learn about Numbers stations on the same day. Maybe we should have a numbers web that creates secretly coded IP servers and file name locations so we can't be traced [1/2 :)]
is here
The First paragraph reads:
he Seagram Company Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (collectively "Seagram" ) respect the privacy concerns of the users of its sites. As a general policy, no personal information (i.e. name, address, telephone number, e-mail address) is automatically collected from users of these sites. Certain non-personal information about users is recorded by the standard operation of Seagram's Internet servers. Examples of this type of information include the type of browser being used, its operating system, and the domain names (not e-mail addresses, where possible) of the users.
I can see a conflict, can you?
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
here
in which he says:
For us at Universal Music Group, the Internet is about the opportunity to get more music to more people in more places. But the Internet is not simply an additional distribution channel. Its attributes expand the market for recorded music in many ways.
He must have been talking to a more moderate audience in this speech.
It seems obvious to me that this man is willing to represent himself and Seagram as whatever his audience wants to hear. I hope that good journalism (in the face of a new media force) will help to expose this two-facedness to all of Mr Edgar Bronfman, Jr.'s audiences.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
There was a defamation judgment in about 1993 in the West Australian Supreme Court that held that calling a copyright infringer a "thief" or a "pirate" was defamatory. Damages were around AU$25,000 from memory. Given that Australian defamation law depends on the place in which the publication is received, I would exercise a little more caution in using those terms on a site that is received by a number of Australians. Of course you have to refer to a particular infringer as a "pirate" or "thief" in order to defame them ;-) except of course for criminal defamation :-( more details )
http://isoc-ny.org
This speach appears to be a well thought out look at the "threat" of mp3. They must have had a great source for all of that information. (End of sarcasm)
Anonymity
1. The quality or state of being unknown or unacknowledged.
2. One that is unknown or unacknowledged.
Whatever source of information that was used for this speach seems to remain anonymous as it is unacknowledged in the speach. This leaves you with 2 possibilities for the nature of this speach. Either it is hypocritical using anonymous sources in a speach speaking out against anonymity, or it is a speach that has been fabricated in order to paint a false picture of the truth. In either case, this speach nullifies itself with it's content.
-----
God! You are an arrogant POTTYMOUTH! I understand your (emotionally obscured) point, and I agree with it too, however; do you have to be so noisy about it? Most people who post have better etiquette than to say F*ck and "blow me" manners, PLEASE! "Where are we going?" "PLANET 10" "When?" "REAL SOON!"
Last post!
Sorry, couldn't resist...