Slashdot Mirror
Head U.S. Lawyer Against MS To Defend Napster
Tomcow2000 was one of many who wrote "David Boies, the lead attorney for the prosecution in the DOJ's lawsuit against Microsoft has been hired to defend Napster in its various legal battles. Check out the full story on ZDNet." This is an extremely important for win for Napster. I also think that Napster should change their slogan to: "Napster: If We Survive the Lawsuits, we're set." *grin*
The one or two sentences mentioned by Boies in the article were dead on; he understands the issue well, which is a good thing.
--ac
Then I downloaded some more. Realized I like Sheryl Crow,
Napster must be stopped NOW!
Yes, under present laws, distributing other peoples intellectual property is illegal. But over time, things change... whole industries rise and are destroyed in time.
In Canada, our fishstocks are dwindling, and there are still some hardcore fishermen looking for government handouts so that they can go back to fishing when the fish come back. Truth be told, the fish won't be back for a long long time, and no amount of "it's not fair" comments are going to change that.
I find it highly unlikely that the RIAA or even bands like Metallica can convince average Joe internet user that distributing IP over the net is a true MORAL wrongness. We all find some way to justify it, one way or another. We don't feel bad about it. It's like prohibition, and now, anyone can build their own still with no effort whatsoever in their basements. Ergo, by (at least this portion of) the society's standards, no immoral act is commited. If these people are in the majority, in a democratic society, a moral agreement amongst the majority of a society can lead to changes in the law.
Morality, right and wrong, are defined by an exsting culture. These values change over time. Hundreds of years ago, it was a right, moral thing to burn suspected witches. It was the will of God. You just did it, accepted it as part of life. Now, it's immoral to kill any human for any reason. When prohibition was in effect, was it IMMORAL to drink alcohol? Is it immoral today? We may in fact be entering an era that if you steal IP, but don't profit from it, it's not illegal. (For profit is another matter, but IMHO, of course).
There are frightening consequences that may go along with this. Certainly record sales might take a dive, but many have argued that this is irrelevant anyways in the long term. Innovation may be reduced, others say. Perhaps, but perhaps also there are other economic models for making profit from IP even if others have the right to distribute your ideas freely. Watch for new ideas on how to make profit with free IP to blossom when this becomes realistic.
We're all going to have to come to grips with the fact that if every American had access to Napster/Gnutella/equivelant, and a high speed 'net connection, they'd literally have to arrest everyone to stop it. And in a democratic society which perceives no moral wrongdoing, that's just not possible. I think IP is on the endangered species list....
Actually, that's not entirely true. Watch for this to be a test of the power of a democratic people versys the mega-corp. The time of it being an issue of "right and wrong" is over.
This news just reinforces my long-maintained opinion that copyrights are not only wrong, but they are also soon to be obsolete.
Why is it wrong to copy anything? Why should Metallica be allowed to do NOTHING and still receive money for past work? If I develop a new way of raking leaves (not a device...a method - a song, so to speak) or answering the telephone that works for lots of people, then I will be COPIED.
These moments of inspiration are what raise society to ever higher levels. Why are the "arts" protected from these same efficiencies? Why should EVERYONE be barred from using Metallica's art - unless they PAY Metallica to use it (Kid Rock).
The whole argument is about money. It is not about what is best for society (Napster).
If technology allows for something better (microwaves) we shouldn't be tied to the past by big companies (should we all still be using campfires for cooking because US Campfire Co. sues anyone for building on their technology or ideas?).
It's just wrong. If technology ALLOWS for ease of copying, then why should someone be able to charge for this service MORE than people would rationally be willing to pay? They would do this for additional value (lyrics, photos, etc.)
If Metallica wants to charge people "full price" for their music, then they must provide more value. This is good for society.
Ultimately, this is good for art and artists as well. They must create consistently good art.
We'll find alot of the crap going away in the upcoming years.
People WILL pay to see a band live. They WILL pay to see a movie in a theater. This has been proven. Once, however, you release your work to the general populace, it sucks to be you if you are counting on that additional money.
If you are providing NO additional service, then you deserve nothing. To prove the point, Napster is providing the network - which costs them money, and they are charging NOTHING. Let's see NOTHING vs. $16?
If it were nothing vs. $2-$4, I honestly think that there would be no argument here.
Um, I got the distinct impression that he meant "stealing" in the moral sense, not so much as in the legal sense. Yes, some people consider stealing to be morally wrong, regardless of the legality of it.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
According to Courtney Love's recent speech, it's usually not the artist's copyright; it's the record company's. So if the artist wants to share their music on Napster (as even Lars Ulrich says they should have the right to do), they don't legally have that right, because the RIAA is in control.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
But if you set up meetings for people for any purpose whatsoever and do this in a manner in which you don't even know the purpose of the meeting, then you certainly shouldn't be liable if people happen to use it for drug meets.
Even should someone running such a hypothetical situation be made aware that their service is being used for drug meets, I can't see it reasonable to ask them to do anything more than exclude the known dealers. If agreeing not to look at the content (ie. respect the privacy of those participating) is part of the service, after all, expecting the service to be stopped because some people abuse it is unreasonable.
Dunno 'bout that.
After all, USENET may be "where you get porn" (and generally not public-domain porn either), but I also do read comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine on occasion. Shutting down USENET over IP issues? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not gonna' happen.
Napster's music focus is kind of an issue for them. Still, I don't think they should be responsible for the illegal actions of their users, unless they provide features which specifically help with distribution of copyrighted music without the copyright owner's consent.
"Napster: tired of the w4r3z scene? Steal music instead!"
"At Napster, we don't break the law. We make breaking the law easier."
"Napster: Our protocol is proprietary, but music isn't."
"FTP is better, but your friends at school will think you're cooler if you use Napster."
"Napster: redefining lameness for the next generation of children."
Maybe it was worth it.. maybe not.. probably not since the only person that needed to read it was the person I was responding to. Still, you didn't explain why that makes me a fool. But I guess it's easy to toss baseless insults when you're posting as an AC.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You should read her article. Here's a link:
http://www.salon.com/t ech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
While artists aren't obligated to sign a contract with a record company, there's almost no other way to get your albums distributed. And since there's only a handful of record companies, they can easily make unreasonable demands of the artists, at least until the artist has gotten big and their contract runs out... then they might have some negotiating power. But by then they've already lost ownership of all the music they made up to that point. You can blame artists for signing contracts, but it's silly to think they do it because they don't read the contract or they don't understand the contract. They do, they just know that they don't really have a choice if they want to get distributed.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Read the damn article that he linked to, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I pretty much agree with this. I download tons of songs with Napster, but before I had it I'd only bought one CD, ever. If I didn't have Napster, it's not like I'd have bought those songs.
It's like Photoshop. Adobe could claim that they've lost however many hundreds of millions of dollars from pirating of PS, but it's BS. 99% of the people who pirate it wouldn't ever have paid $700 for it. And since they're not stealing a physical object, Adobe isn't losing anything, really.
I mean, legally, it's still theft, but I actually don't think it's that bad from an ethical POV. I'd say as long as you know, for yourself, that you'd never have paid for the product, so that the company didn't lose any money, it isn't so bad.
I mean, really, why is theft wrong in the first place? If I steal your car, that's wrong because now you won't get to use it any more. If I steal a car from a dealer, that's wrong because now the dealer will lose money. But let's think hypothetically: what if you were the last person left alive on Earth. Would it be wrong to "steal" a car? Even if the car didn't belong to you, is it really wrong to take it?
An example more grounded in reality might be this: a few years back, I wanted desperately to get the game Civilization. I'd played it on a friend's computer, and loved it. However, when I went to CompUSA, they said they didn't have it. I went on the Internet, and eventually found out that Microprose wasn't producing any more copies, so I couldn't buy it anywhere(this was for Mac, maybe they still sold it for Windows). So I went on IRC, begged around, and someone sent me a copy. I played it for hours on end, thoroughly enjoying it. Yet, technically, that would be stealing. Was it ethically wrong? IMO, not at all.
>If Napster wins, will they force Metallica to split up into two
>different bands?
You mean ones with *talent*?
Dude.. I just pulled down some John Zorn MP3s after I read your message. They're already deleted.. He's potentially the worst musician I've ever heard. OMG.. Thanks for the laugh! :)
I agree about the other bands, though.
Of course, as it happens the record companies are trying to have 99.44% of the works written by bands under contract to them retroactively converted to works for hire (through legislative means - not mutually acceptable contracts).
this would mean that virtually every artist who's recorded music for one of the big 5 would permanently lose their copyright, even if this had not been part of the contract to begin with.
and you're DEFENDING the companies?
-- 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.
One small correction: it is legal to distribute copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder PROVIDED that the copies of the material you're distributing was made with permission.
So you can sell an authorized CD, you can't sell an mp3 you ripped from the CD. This seems like common sense, but the big moneyed copyright holders are actively working to infringe on this right. (and they've tried before too)
It's not enough to win this fight; we must remain forever vigilant.
-- 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.
...he's a cross-examination specialist.
The deposition he took from Bill Gates was like taking candy from a baby. He admits it himself. He told Charlie Rose Gates was completely unprepared, no challenge at all as long as the lawyer cross-examining him was prepared with a working knowledge of the computer industry.
Westmoreland was one of the toughest cases ever: Snot-nosed kid lawyer hot-shot up against a icon of patriotism, wronged by unpopular media about a war which many in the jury were sure to have supported. He had to convince the jury he really respected the general and that he was just trying to clarify what Westmoreland was saying. Then he had to show him documents which seemed to contradict his testimony and let the general tear his own credibility to shreds.
Reading the transcripts of this testimony should be required in any cross-examination class. Jack Valenti will show up in court well prepared, bet on it. (I know, I know. He says "I don't know" a lot. That's what guys who listen to their lawyers say. Only incompetents like Bill Gates volunteer information which the examiner might have contradictory emails on.) This is the guy Napster needs - a courtroom specialist.
This probably means Napster thinks it's going to be in court.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
And before anyone tries it, I don't care about "But I use it to preview music for my next CD purchase" arguments... all evidence I've seen is biased and anecdotal. What someone says and what they do are often two different worlds.
A difficult thing to poll, don't you think?
I use Napster a lot, but you know what? It's STILL not as useful as the binaries newsgroups. Why? Because the demographics of Napster are much more limited. Everybody has the same songs.
I do pull down music, and some I keep without buying. But it's important to understand I *hate* corporate, commercialized crap. Of the CD's I *do* buy, they are INFLUENCED by Napster and the Newsgroups. Here are some examples I bought based on Napster traffic:
King Missile (yes, they have more than one song), FrontLine assembly, some old Devo, Slade, Front 242, Atari Teenage Riot, and John Zorn (!!). Great stuff that would never pass the corporate filters on the FM...
Some artists don't mind being "not tipped", if they can overthrow their RIAA pimps and gain access to the audience at the same time. Perhaps lost sales will be recovered in new fans? See Courney's article at Salon.
After reading her article, I have newfound respect for artists who buck the system. Most of them are treated as badly as immigrant housekeepers in Southern California, and can die just as poor even if they generate "hits".
This is rather interesting, because I almost think Boies' talents will go to waste here. I can't stress what an incredible lawyer Boies is a genius in the courtroom. He has recieved legal award after award, to say nothing of basically winning the DOJ case against Microsoft by catching executive after executive in doublespeak / lies.
HOWEVER, Napster is not a case to be won on courtroom theatrics or impressive displays of mental agility. The facts of the Napster case are well known - nothing new is going to come out as in the MS trial. I don't really see the point in hiring Boies, who is renowned for his ability to tarnish witnesses, when much of the courtroom discussion will be about theoretical intellectual property doctrine. Anyone else see what I'm saying?
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
--
Napster is an enabling technology that allows its users to break the law. It is generally legal in the U.S. to sell things to people even when the purpose of the things is to break the law. Selling radar detectors is legal in most states, even though the only possible purpose of a radar detector is to help its owner break the law. Are radar detector manufacturers liable for contributing to millions of cases of speeding? If not, why should Napster be liable for millions of cases of copyright infringement?
-Graham
This is one of the ongoing socioeconomic debates of our generation. The recording industry tried to stop user-recordable casette tapes back in the 60s and failed. The broadcasting industry tried to stop VCRs in the early '80s and failed. In the early '90s the recording industry actually won the fight against DAT - only to lose to CD-R a few years later. Who knows who will win the Napster case or the DVD/DeCSS case, or the inevitable Gnutella case (however it comes down), or whatever comes next.
The point is this. Laws do not exist as an institution unto themselves. Laws exist as a codification of what behaviors a society considers (un)acceptable and what punishments or remedial actions a society considers appropriate.
It should be clear by now that the majority of adults do not consider copying a recorded work of music to be "wrong." This is reflected in the way the Napster scene doesn't feel like the warez scene. Dilbert's mom would refuse to be part of a warez channel on ethical grounds, but she's on Napster every day of the week.
In the face of persistent and universal disregard and opposition by the populace, laws that contravene the social understanding cannot stand. Napster isn't the problem - the problem is the millions of people who trade music with each other and fail to regard the act as sinful. Get rid of Napster or anything similar and these people will trade by some other means, through e-mail if necessary. The only thing you can do that has a chance to stop this is to make an excruciating example of a few people, hoping to scare the rest - but even this is likely to backfire if you face sufficient popular opposition.
Personally, the only thing that concerns me is to make sure the artists themselves are still compensated adequately. But thankfully, recording industry margins are so high that it won't take much to maintain current artist incomes...
-Graham
Maybe there would be -- but I bet that you'd lose all except the most "economically viable" musicians.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't really follow. The problem is that the "cassette sales" may well not be a viable business proposition in a vacuum. However, given the existence of a CD sales operation, where you have already paid the marketting $$, the marginal cost of adding cassettes could be below the marginal revenue obtained from cassette sales.
A CD in the quantities that record companies produce probably costs WELL less than a buck in packaging. The artist I've heard gets around a buck. The rest of $14 goes to distributors, retailers, and marketing folk?
for f*ck's sake, do some research before whining about how CDs "cost too much". These companies are public and detailed financial info is widely available.
Clue 1 -- Markup is compounded exponentially -- one middleman marks up (X) %, the next middleman marks up another (X) %, etc etc. Sales taxes and/or import duties can also add another (Y)% to the price. The result is that the retail price could be much higher than the cost at which distributors attain the CD for.
Clue 2 -- It takes a lot of work to distribute those CDs. The artist just makes the album and then that's it, the job's done. The artist doesn't need to perform their job on a per-CD basis, the record distributors do. Sure, there's a lot of money "going to the rest of those people", because "the rest of those people" vastly outnumber the artist.
In conclusion, you have not shown that anything's overpriced. All you've shown us is that you want something for nothing, which is hardly surprising given the prevailing mentality here.
Another raw communist who wants something for nothing. Why should all music be played live ? It's not always practical or feasible. For example, I might write some orchestral piece and record it on a decent synthesizer because I simply don't have the resources to hire a whole orchestra. Or I might write some music that uses so much sampling that it really is essentially studio music. I don't see why you desire to effectively destroy such music, and I don't see why producing creative work is not valuable in itself.
And that's a pretty decent living too. Remeber what a consert ticket usually costs? And the number of people at a consert with a good band playing.
SOunds like you're trying really hard to come up with a good reason why you should get something for nothing. Nice try.
Yeah it is. The fact that you paid for your computer does not absolve you of your obligation to pay for other things you use. One might as well argue that riding the train without paying is not "freeloading" because you paid for your computer. A better example still would be theft of cable services. You paid for the TV, right ? And it was an expensive TV ?
This "civil disobedience" argument is a crock, and it's a crock because civil disobedience is about public protest, it is not about expediently redistributing resources ( whether they be tangible or other ) in ones own direction. Most of the people who are doing this are not expressing "civil disobedience", they are not public about their actions. They are simply making a quick grab at something that they are arguably not entitled to.
There is not such a clear distinction nowadays between instrumentalists and composers. Usually, the same person composes and performs the music. Often, live performance is nor practical ( for example, the same guy records half the tracks on the album )
Both can make good money if they are good at it.
Yes, thanks to copyrights.
I have no personal ambition to destroy, in my opinion, bad music. I mearly don't listen to it. Rather, it's destroying itself right now. Call it survial of the fittest if you want.
You can't have it both ways. Do you want everything for free, or do you want the artists to be paid ? Or do you just want other people to pay the artists so that you can freeload ?
I do think you realize that the value of something is defined by what other people are prepared to pay for it. What is the value of an mp3 song, you tell me?
You are confusing the value of a copy of a song with the value of the song itself. There is no such thing as an "MP3" song. MP3 is a medium of distribution, the song is just a song. The value of the song is the amount that the public is prepared to pay to get the song written. In other words, how much the public are prepared to hear the song. All that copyright does is enable a distributed payment system. The distributed payment system works quite well for the most part. It discourages freeloading, and each listener pays an equal share.
Perhapes I should state the obvious: I don't see the mp3 revolution as a way of getting things for free.
Well, thanks for stating it. No, it was not obvious. For a lot of people, the "MP3 revolution" really is about getting something for nothing. Hence the "raw communist" reference -- this term describes the forced redistribution of resources that takes place in the early phase of a communist revolution. Communsits don't really like "raw communism" either, rather it's seen as a necessary evil while capitalists would see it as an unnecessary evil.
And that's what scaring the major record companies. No, what's scaring the major record companies is the Rodney-King-rioters that are using this as an opportunity to freeload. I'd be scared too if I the same mob had their hands in my pockets.
Oh, and speaking of which, next time you're near a library, stop in and ask for the audio/video department. Look at all the music and movies they offer for anyone on the street to listen to for free.
I wasn't aware of that - shows you how long it's been since I've been in a library. Just a thought: it's a nobrainer to extend this to computer software. Is this happening? Probably not, because Microsoft would have a bird, wouldn't they. But Linus and RMS wouldn't. Libraries could start doing this right now, today, if they haven't already. Wouldn't it be great to be able to pick up the latest distros from your local library? Not to say I wouldn't buy the boxed set too, just to get the stuffed penguin, the printed manual and the CDs for backup without the hassle of copying and labeling. In fact, I'd be *more* likely to buy the boxed set after checking out the goods.
Wish I had moderator points right now to mark you up.
Your comment on fame as a commodity is +1 insightful too. I'd like to add to this the observation that what the RIAA really has is a monopoly on fame. What the internet is doing is dismantling that monopoly, and this is what really terrifies the RIAA. That's just too bad. I hate monopolies.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Last time I checked, "Napster Bad" was a Flash animation, not Shockwave. This is vitally important, because there is a Flash plugin for Linux Netscape, but there is currently no Shockwave plugin.
In fact, I don't feel there's anything wrong with downloading unlicensed music; I just don't want such music replacing buying.
First off, the music pubslishers and artists screams heard today must be very similar to those of book publishers and authors decades ago when public libraries first started appearing. "What? Let people read our books for free? Thats stealing!!!" Oh, and speaking of which, next time you're near a library, stop in and ask for the audio/video department. Look at all the music and movies they offer for anyone on the street to listen to for free. It's stealing too, isn't it? Shame on those librarians!
Secondly, everyone (on both sides of the piracy/freedom argument) needs to chill take a step back to look at exactly what the record companies are producing and what people are buying/downloading. Fame. Most people (especially teens) have an incredible need to belong to a group, whether it's a gang, slashdot, a newsgroup, golf group, a D&D club, etc.. Music just happens to be the most flexible, effecient, and (relatively) inexpensive way to *passively* belong to a group. All it takes is the proper clothes and a handful of braincells to index a few bands, albums, and members. Instant group access.
Now, the record companies aren't stupid. They know all this since they spend millions and millions on marketing research, cultural analysis, and trend watching. They know very well that most pop culture consumers want to be a part of a group of people that listen to the same music. Ans *this* is the need they fill as their business obligations to their stockholders.
The popularity life-force of a band is born when they sign their record contract. The record label instantly goes to work promoting them in the demographic they were signed to fill (You don't *really* believe they were signed because the were talented, did you?) A record is produced, promos are sent out to radio stations, record co. sales people start pestering retail store buyers to stock a bunch, mtv gets a video, magazines are paid to run articles, etc... Eventually the band's populatity reaches a critical mass, at which point the fans begin doing the promotion for the label. T-shirts are bought, web sites are put up, etc..
This is what the record company produces, this is what they're charging $16 per CD for, and this is what people are downloading on napster, gnutella, irc, etc.. The record label pumps a lot of time and effort into shoving a band so far down our throat that we feel like outcasts if we don't buy them.. Of course with napster and gnutella, you now have a way to feel like a part of the crowd for free.. hell, these file sharing tools even offer the ultimate way to make you feel like you're part of a herd: as people download songs from your collection, you can just lean back and (even more passively than even the most sedate couch potato) watch the groups you belong to grow bigger and bigger.
I'll leave you with a thought: Would Metallica's songs be downloaded so much if the record companies hadn't been spamming us with Lars and co. for the last 10-15 years? If the band were still playing in sleezy clubs in Cali, would people even download them if they heard them once? Maybe for a very few people who actually like the way they sound. For most people however, they'd only download a song from that unknown band Metallica if a whole buunch of others were also.
_______
2B1ASK1
Let me tell you why you're wrong:
Freeing information is not stealing. Kevin Mitnick copying source code from big companies is not stealing. Copying music and software from an official copy and giving it away is not stealing.
Why not, you ask? Because by doing any of the above, you have not deprived anyone of anything.
Stealing means taking something from someone else -- depriving them of their property. The reason it is wrong is that the original owner has a right to their property (notice that the law generally doesn't care whether you keep the property, destroy it, or sell it for drug money -- it only cares how much you have deprived the original owner). One after-effect of theft in meat-space is that someone gets something for nothing. But the reverse is not true: getting something for nothing does not mean that someone else has to be deprived of their property. In the digital realm, copies can be made almost infinitely without ever depriving anyone of anything (limited only by media, bandwidth, machine time, etc.).
But wait, you say, what about copyright, patents, and intellectual property? Not relevant. Read the Constitution some time. All intellectual property (just speaking for the U.S. here, don't know about other govts) is a hack to encourage innovation. You have no right, per se, to keep your information from others, but the government has granted you that privilege to encourage you to do research, create art, etc.
So please people, let's stop talking about theft, piracy, and all the rest. Setting information free harms no one, it just (in some cases) slightly decreases the value of an artifical monopoly granted by the Constitution. It doesn't violate anyone's natural rights. It doesn't deprive them of property. It is not theft.
-Esme
An article in ZDNet says that people DO use Napster to prieview music before buying. A while ago I downloaded a Sheryl Crow song I liked. Then I downloaded some more. Realized I like Sheryl Crow, not just a few of her songs. Bought the CD.
IP laws have to be dismantled? Why? Sorry. I invent something, I want control of it. If I choose to diseminate it I will. And I can do so, by explicitly allowing it. Removing IP protection forces my hand to do what you want.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Just like the post-Rodney King rampagers/looters?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Your use of the 'arguably' in parentheses is the kicker here. Yup. It's illegal. And don't tell me the vast majority of those on Napster who have thousands of mp3's, (only a portion of which are entire cds), own them all. It's called snowballing, or the slippery slope. Looters out in the streets thought they would take advantage of the uncertainty, and what everyone else was doing...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Okay, this was ambiguous on my part... I presumed 'write' would be taken to be synonymous with 'create'.
Frankly I don't see how your wanting anything is an argument for what ought to be legal. I want to be Prime Minister of Canada, so I ought to be Prime Minister of Canada. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Any more than your wanting IP to be rescinded?
By dissemination, I meant more in terms of distribution, rather than trade-secret legislation... i.e., a licence like GPL/BSD/etc/et al which allows copying etc... i.e. in agreement with your Anti IP stance. Also note that I live in Australia, with slightly different laws to the US (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse).
In summary (because although I think our points of view are opposed, we can probably come to some agreement!), I think something needs to be done about IP, particularly patenting (though I'm still sick of /. posting ad nauseaum stories on it!), but I'm pretty sure IP rescindment is not the answer. :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
God damn you're stupid
Thank you
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I've done this too. There is a better selection on Napster than most independent and certainly mass market record stores and radio stations.
Either way, it's good to see Boise on board. It's shaping up to be a pretty big battle.
--
+&x
Yeah right on brother. This here crack house sure ain't illegal, cause, like, we never sell or use crack ourselves. Some thing with the hideyhole in the back where we stuff the wanted murderers. We ain't doin' nuttin' wrong. Just mindin' our own bizness and not sayin' nuttin'.
This is not informative at all. It's just wrong. The DOJ has not done shit. An attorney who worked for the DOJ got hired. Woop-dee-doo.
Like that's some kind of "win"... (as stated in the lead in.)
Umm. He's an attorney. Napster has money. Napster needs an attorney. QED.
For every relatively honest person like yourself there are probably 150-15000 dishonest people who never buy the CD.
First nobody said that there was a music lover who never has and never will buy a CD. I said that there are a lot of people who are perfectly content to download a song off napster and never buy the CD. It doesn't even phase them that they are depriving an artist of the deserved rewards for their work. They don't care that they are not doing their "part" in a free market economy.
There needs to be a system where you can leave a tip. That way the 15 year olds can have their mp3s, and when they grow up, they can support their bands with actual money.
-jpowers
-jpowers
It's cheaper to produce a CD than a tape. But they can charge what they want, because they manipulate the demand and control the supply. The only thing wrong with any of this is that no one (not the bands, not the listeners) are given a choice. There is no alternate, competing method of music distribution. Every time someone tries to build one, the RIAA will step on them. They're right to go after Napster USERS this time, but the idea behind the software will pop up in another service, and another, etc. until one hits the right formula of broad distribution/renumeration.
The record companies try now and again, but charge too much. The Napsters charge too little. A Napster-like service with and optional tipping system and links to merchandising (T-shirts, Posters) with a chunk of the profits going back to the band would be just about right.
Of course, initially, only indie bands would sign up. But if the licensing was perpetual (The bands gets 80% of all the online revenue in return for licensing those rights to the service for the length of the copyrights (is it up to 10000 years yet?) on all future work, then the record labels would have to leave those rights out of their contracts (if they don't, it's collusion, a nasty charge in court). A few of the indie bands would hit, and you'd have a viable service.
Call it "Tipster" or some such
-jpowers
-jpowers
It should be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork next. Perhaps the re-ascension of psychadelic rock? That would certainly make some bands I know of happy, but it'll need a champion....
The point isn't whether or not you feel sorry for them, it's whether the RIAA or the musician has control of their music. You can say the RIAA is evil, the musicians are stupid, or make unrelated statements about unpopular bands, but the point is that even if every musician in america decided tomorrow to say "Okay, you can all trade MP3's of my music all you want", the RIAA could still sue you, me, napster, etc to their heart's content.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
David Boies is one of the finest trial lawyers now living -- a lawyer who has prosecuted and defended some of the most complex. most difficult cases in History (U.S. v. Microsoft, U.S. v. IBM). His capacity for calling bullshit bullshit, and for making the other side bleed from the eyes for overreaching and missteps will bring RIAA back "down to earth" on the merits, or bring them down entirely.
This is the single best way to expose the emptiness of the RIAA arguments on the merits there is. Few lawyers have as instant credibility walking into a courtroom as Mr. Boies.
His patient, incisive capacity to expose a bad or mediocre argument, has a way of keeping opponents honest -- they quickly realize that a single misstep can destroy the opponent's credibility irreparably.
While the cost of this kind of representation will be enormous, it is money well spent. I know of no one with a greater capacity for making hard cases simple. (And simple cases hard!)
He is one of my personal heroes, and I would work with him on this (or any) case for free.
Telephones hook up drug deals, and even help put "hits" on people. UPS and USPS deliver boxes that might contain illegal stuff. Should AT&T be charged with murder? Should UPS and USPS be charged with drug trafficing, selling porn to minors, credit card fraud? I know i'm just ranting, but i'm trying to make the REAL LIFE connection.
At the moment, the government does not have anything against Napster. Napster is a civil trial between Napster and the RIAA and some recording artists.
Also, Boise is not a government attorney. The DOJ hired him to present the case. He also took a hell of a cut in pay to represent the government. According to the law, he was classified as a GS-13 (I think) and was only paid $25 an hour.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Hmm.. So if the Napster people add in the ability to choose which mp3s to share or not to share at installation, then they have a better chance of winning the lawsuit?
Seems simple enough. Probably wouldn't really affect the overall number of shared mp3s either.
Daniel
daniel@splink.net
It was noted today in the Houston Chronicle (dead tree version only as far as I can tell) that during an interview yesterday Republican presidential hopeful Geo. W. Bush, while unaware of several sigificant issues in the state where he currently holds the office of governor, was quite aware that Mr. Boise was to be defending "that company that lets people steal music"... He has his finger on our pulse...
morturii
Does this mean we're going to break up the RIAA while we're at it?
--
http://www.aikiweb.com - AikiWeb Aikido Information
In the 19th century. It was legal to own slaves. It was MORAL to own slaves. The people (their definition) of the time considered it a perfectly reasonable thing for honest decent people to partake in.
Some people disagreed with this. Some people tried to help free the slaves. This was against the law. The people who were caught were punished. The society as a whole (or at least those in power) considered this the morally just thing to do.
Then the public opinion and then the leadership changed. It was legal to own slaves, but morally wrong. Eventually attitudes changed and the vast majority of Americans think that slavery is wrong, and this is now reflected in their laws.
Now there's no chance in hell am I comparing the struggle of freedom of an enslaved race to the "information wants to be free" call to arms. Rather I'm trying to point out that the morality of a society can change based on the opinions of the majority of the people.
One hundred years from now, our ancestors may be wondering why we clung so adamntly to our outdated notions of a completely unenforcable intellectual property. It is too late to argue that the change is right or wrong.
At best, we can steer what direction we want this to proceed with the minimum of damage. The best case scenario is for Napster and it's ilk to slowly destroy the recording industry. The worst case scenario is for it to be destroyed overnight with technology even more powerful than Napster that the RIAA has no hope of controlling... I don't think there is a reasonable scenario that leads to the record industry surviving in it's present form without implementing China's version of the Internet.
When you start up Napster, does it ask which mp3s to share and which not to share? No. Does it even ask if you want to share or not? No. Kind of strange for a program that claims to just connect users.
And yes, I do realize that I can turn off the mp3 directory sharing, but the mere fact that it does share mp3s by default builds a legal argument against it.
And no, designing it outside the US would not have changed the legality of Napster within US borders one whit. You're confusing encryption technology for file distribution technology. And even your encryption info is out-of-date, as the US government has significantly laxed its export laws.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There is an inherent difference between lending your friend your copy and making a different and separate copy of someone else's music over Napster.
You would have a stronger case if Napster did not copy, but copied and then deleted files. Then you could correctly label it "borrowing".
You would also have a stronger case if Napster, as someone pointed out a few months ago, did not share all MP3s on your hard drive by default. One of Napster's arguments is that it is simply acting as a mediator between music lovers. If that's so, then why does it not ask me at startup which files I wish to share and which not to?
Your friend asked to borrow your copy of the CD. Did you ask the artists if you had the right to make a separate copy of his/her music? Didn't think so.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
ur lame.
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
Even if you, like me, don't listen to much music. Even if you, like me, don't bother to pirate and have qualms about using a work against the wishes of its creator. Even if you, like me, think that sometimes people seem to enjoy the persecution and the notoriety more than the actual freedoms they claim to defend; even then you should love Napster.
The reason is that Napster has hit the public, and these lawsuits have hit the news. It has tapped at the door of consciousness for probably hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who generally wouldn't give a second thought to issues like intellectual property and who have never before really felt themselves to be on the wrong side of massively sucessful corporations. It's created conflict, and it's made people start to think about the way things are and possibly about the way they ought to be.
Napster expands the horizons of the debate! All right!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Interestingly, perhaps, is the fact that David Boies, who helped smack Microsoft around is the brother of Stephen Boies, a bigwig researcher at IBM Research... Thanks, bro.
---
Ever notice how at trade shows Microsoft is always the one giving away stress balls...
> let music be free, and let musicians make money playing music
that's all fine and dandy, but maybe there are musicians that can't do that. For example, maybe the band hired a huge symphony orchestra as backup and can't afford to take ~100 members on tour. Maybe the musicians have terrible stage fright or other psychological problems playing in front of thousands of people and make their living thru recordings only. Would you want to drive them out of business even though they might be really great musicians?
And this is an example of the protectors being rewarded by the protectees.
The guy who prosecuted IBM 30 years ago became IBM's chief counsel, I believe.
lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
At my local library (Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County), you can check out software in the same way you would with books.
Of course, they don't have quake or anything, but they have a lot of good (and stupid) educational titles and even some non-violent games like Myst or AEGIS cruiser (off the top of my head).
nuclear cia fbi spy password code encrypt president bomb
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
This is an extremely important for win for Napster
-----------------
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool. -Crowe
FWIW link here
--
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
Regardless which laywer Napster brings, I'm unsure how Napster could even begin to defend themselves when they even admit to this on their web page....
Imagine...an application that takes the hassle out of searching for MP3s. No more broken links, no more slow downloads, and no more busy, disorganized FTP sites. With Napster, you can locate and download your favorite music in MP3 format from one convenient, easy-to-use interface.
So Napster wants to be responsible for helping its users to distribute MP3, but then doesn't want to be responsible for helping its user to distribute MP3? How does that logic work? How will Boise or his team defend Napster when they show some real questionable logic that is difficult to defend legally?
- Pirating music is often compared to shoplifting. This is an invalid comparison because shoplifting takes something away from someone, and copying music does not. When I download an MP3 from you, you still have the MP3, the record store still has the CD, the record label still has the copyright, and the artist is still recognized as the creator of the music. You can't argue that somebody just lost $15 because I downloaded an mp3 instead of buying a CD, because you don't know if I was going to buy the CD or not. In fact, I may download the mp3, decide I like it, and then go by the CD.
- Music has been around for as long as people have, and intellectual property law is a very recent 'advance'. Before IP law there were still plenty of musicians. Some of the best music ever written was created before any IP law existed. Musicians don't need a financial incentive to create music.
- There are still plenty of ways for musicians to get paid. CDs will still sell, people will still pay to see live performances.
- In my opinion copyright law should protect the creator of something in a way that prevents someone else from 1) claiming it to be theirs and/or 2) making a profit from distributing it. It should not give the creator the right to otherwise control its distribution or use. (Hmm, kinda sounds like open source...)
- Napster is a revolution. Napster is not about making money. It is not about ripping off artists or record companies. It is about changing the recording industry and changing the way we get music.
- Napster will die. Whether or not Napster wins this case, they will eventually go away. They have zero revenue. ZERO. They've managed to raise some money to finance operations and lawyers, but this will eventually run out and they will have to shut down. Maybe when that happens they will open it up so that people can run their own Napster servers, decentralizing it. (Kinda sounds like Gnutella...)
Microsoft should have known what it was in for as soon as it heard Boies was representing the government. After all, he had successfully fended off the government for IBM during its antitrust trial, so he knew all the moves.
Isn't David Boies placing himself in conflict of interest? *grin*
-------------------------
"After Careful Consideration, Bush Recommends Oil Drilling" - The Onion
Today in the National Post there was an interesting interview with Courtney Love on the economics of the music industry, particularly with reference to Napster's and Gnutella's impact.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
RMS & Linus Torvalds & David Boies & the Gej (of DivX fame) & Anonymous Coward vs. Bill Gates & Jack Valenti & Hillary Rosen & Jon Katz & Steve Jobs
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
Your missing the point. While that may be all true it doesn't change the fact that Napster is NOT doing anything wrong. All it is doing is routing packets without ever knowing if it is legal or not. If they get the axe then what happens to the thousands of routers out there which do the exact same thing, or any other server/protocol for that matter.
Napster is NOT only used to transfer copyrighted material. It is also a valuable informational and promotional tool. Much like the world wide web. Yet I don't see the W3C being sued...
i have misplaced my signature.
Regardless of what it was created to do, it doesn't do anything illegal. Shoutcast was created to stream the Loveline from one city to another a task undoubtedly illegal. Now it has many many legal uses. The fact remains that no copyrighted material goes through the napster servers.
i have misplaced my signature.
Actually AOL would be sued :)
First Microsoft then AOL... life would be great.
i have misplaced my signature.
. .a Microsurf is reading this thinking, "Fine, break us up, but just SAVE NAPSTER !
___
DavidBoies2000.org
___
<sing>Times, they are-a changin.</sing>
Eventually, dialup will die, and the populous will be blessed with connexions such as cable.
When this happens, will you still be tooting your same horn on this issue?
Technology is obviously excelling faster than traditional corporations care to cope with. They insist on resorting to the same laws they have always resorted to, regardless of how obsolete they have become.
(joepeg now hands the mic to RMS who gives a dissertation on the flaws in our system of copyright)
*applaud/hiss*
Although it may sound hearty to state "you shouldn't 'pirate' mp3's," it is futile.
The overwhelming masses of Napster users and the likes are now the dominating force. A cancer too large to suppress. They are not the ones who need to change....
ZEN is a prime number in base-36
I dunno, I haven't really liked David Boies since his Ziggy Stardust days.
His music just doesn't translate anymore. It's 70's and 80's. I don't see how this can help Napster at all.Just because it's an MP3 doesn't mean that it's illegal. That's like saying that sharing cassette tapes is illegal. It isn't, mp3 is only a medium. Content CAN make it illegal, and I will agree that often it is used for illegal purposes, but the format and sharing files of that format are not inherently illegal.
That said, I'm now going to listen to an mp3 of Liquido - Narcotic which I acquired through Napster. I otherwise wouldn't be able to listen to the song because I forgot the CD (which I do own) at a friend's in Germany. This is fair use, mind you.
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
please don't kill me?
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Looking at the MP3 phenomenon from a pragmatic standpoint, nobody can say it's going to kill the record industry. It is very inconveniant to have all of your music on a computer unless you spend most of your time in a dorm room, and even with the plummeting prices on burners, everyone who's played mp3's on real speakers knows that the encoding pretty much kills the treble and the bass.
Even with that in mind, for reasons that are apparently beyond rational explanation, some people just have to have the CD. The major demographic i'm exposed to most now - screaming teenage girls - are particularly insistent. If they were the only consumers in the market, the music industry could probably still pull a profit - just look at MTV's TRL. They're as surely obsessive as the guy who washes his hands eighty times an hour. From what I can summize, those who are too cheap to buy a $20 music cd when a $1 CDR is almost as good, are few and far between.
And, much to the music industry's benefit, Napster operates as a try before you buy service. How do people decide to buy music? They hear it on the radio, or listen to a friend's copy, and can now download it, possibly turning them on to something which they may not previously have bought. The lineup on MTV and most radio stations is about as homogenus as algae plants (biology humor); it's exasperating at times, and I don't know what i'll do if they engineer another hit boy band.
EvilSoloman
Ummm...That's if you sign a contract, and a poorly written one at that. If an artist signs away the rights to his/her music, then that's their own fault. Don't go saying the RIAA is evil, noone is forced to sign a contract.
If an artist signs away their copyright that is their fault. There are not many artists that sign the copyright of their music over "for perpituity". If it is for the length of their contract, so what? That's their decision, their choice. They want the Record Company to throw money at them, they have to give something up. But is the RIAA any less valid of an owner? NO. They hold the copyright, respect that much.
What Courteny forgot to mention was all the bands that get that money spent on them and don't sell any albums. Those bands don't have to recoup. They can't. Plus the fact that the *poor band* Keeps all money from touring after recoupment, sure they got a 1 mil advance, but a Stadium touring band (who is getting that kind of advance) is charging 25-40 dollars a ticket. Say 5000 people attend per city (That's a low estimate) and a band plays 100 dates, That's 12,500,000. Not counting Mechandise, which at most shows Shirts are 15-30$. So the band spends an additional 5 or 6 million on expenses (Roadies, equipment managerss, etc.) They wracked up several mil after that. Sorry but I don't feel bad for Courtney or any other Big band. Signing away the rights to your music is a choice that is made on the idea that you will get a VERY large return.
Not so.
He has successfully litigated a number of high profile First Amendment cases, the most famous of which probably is Gen. William Westmoreland's libel suit against CBS.
Besides, you gotta love a guy who can afford whatever he wants, but who wears off-the-rack Sears suits, sometimes wears sneaks to court, is dyslexic and never passes up an opportunity to play Craps.
For a very long time, he was a partner in Cravath, Swaine & Moore, the bluest of blue-blood NYC firms. He left on a matter of principle when he didn't have to, and one of his stated reasons was so that he could take on cases he found personally challenging, which he could not handle in that firm because of conflicts or other issues.
He has the pick of whatever he wants, and he does not pick cases he is likely to lose. That's no guarantee of sucess here, but you can be sure he did his homework before signing on.
Interesting indeed.
Okay, the guy did a wonderful job in the anti-trust case against Microsoft. He also did a good job against IBM in their anti-trust case.
This guy is an anti-trust specialist, not a copyright lawyer. I hope Napster didn't hire the wrong guy.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
But if only a couple of the songs you downloaded had been good - not enough to warrant buying the CD, would you have kept the songs anyway?
On the other hand, it is almost like blaming the Yellow Pages for criminal acts committed with the knives advertised within.
I don't like that metaphor. For one thing, the yellow pages is a lot further removed from knife crime than Napster is from copyright violation. After all, it's not a crime to buy a knife, just to kill someone with it. Maybe if the yellow pages listed crack dealers they could be tied to drug sales.
Also, Napster has very little practical use outside of trading illegal MP3s. Maybe if the yellow pages were exclusively advertisements for drug dealers it would be closer. After all, some of the clientele are bound to want legal prescriptions, just not most of them.
Another thing you failed to consider is that Napster doesn't just own the servers, they also created the protocol and wrote (some of) the clients.
So it's OK because the artist isn't "loosing" (sic.) any money. That's an easy argument to hide behind, but the fact remains that you are listening to and enjoying music without in any way compensating the artist for her work.
First of all, I do have cable. It is a shared family connection (through a Linux masq server) and my brother does use Napster. I, however, think that is right to sample music. Even to share it, as RMS would say.
However, I think that it is shared just as I lend my CD to a friend of mine --- nonpermanently. If he likes that CD, he can buy it. If he likes only one song and doesn't want to buy it, he can form a boycott of the RIAA's horrible distribution medium. But there is no ethical justification for him to rip it and keep it.
|/usr/games/fortune
No.
From the trademark site on the USPTO, "A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name."
Whereas, Copyright (from the Library of Congress):
"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
- To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
- To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
- To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
- In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
Sorry, but no.
|/usr/games/fortune
Even though people who know me might think I'm quite anti-piracy, I think there's nothing inherently wrong with Napster. Thus, it should be legal.
In fact, I don't feel there's anything wrong with downloading unlicensed music; I just don't want such music replacing buying. For some people I know, that has happened, especially those with cable modems.
Copyrighted music and its downloading is a touchy issue, but I feel that it simply is "fair use" to download music to sample. However, it is both wrong and illegal to keep it on your Hard Disk (or a CD-RW, or a Zip disk) and not buy it. Sampling is okay, but piracy isn't.
Thoughts, anyone?
|/usr/games/fortune
This has been said one million times already, but apparently no one notices those posts. So I'll repeat it.
People do use Napster to download music they don't own and don't plan to buy. THERE IS NO LOSS INVOLVED IN THIS THOUGH. These people wouldn't buy the CD in the first place, so there is no sale for the record companies to lose! Then there are the (admittedly few) people who buy music they heard from a download off of Napster. This would MAKE the record companies money. So, we have no losses, but a slight gain in revenue.
Oh, and about the bandwidth thing... I believe Napster recently released a utility to limit the bandwidth that could go towards Napster.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
I think one fundamental issue that we are all too willing to ignore on the napster/piracy issue is that there is some massive assumption that every person who downloads music was planning on buying the CD in the first place. Stated another way: mp3 downloading is not necessarily stopping somebody from buying a cd: if mp3s did not exist, people would not start snatching up cds in droves so that they could hear their favorite journey track or commodores cover. They would go without it.
especially when all the homework assigned for a class has to be researched via the web, then discussed over the web, having your bandwidth sucked away truly sucks.
Enough with the "information wants to be free" crap, I just want to do my homework so I can pass, graduate, get a decent job, and buy my own cds.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
I believe they already have such a warning.
Part of their MOTD states, after a somewhat lengthy disclaimer: "Compliance with copyright law remains your responsibility."
-- Fester
-- Fester
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
I still see a fair number of "free for personal, educational, or government use" licenses. I wonder whether some companies couldn't make more money with that, writing off the home market and pricing explicitly for business. MS and Adobe are pretty far in that direction already.
I don't see why the government is against cocaine trafficers, they don't sell cocaine, they just offer a method of transporting it.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
umm. . . i think what hemos meant is that Boies is the lead prosecuting attorney against micro$oft, not napster.
;-)
Use the Preview Button!
I think Napster would be hard pressed to find a better man to defend them. Boise's record is incredible, and he has beat the odds on several occations. Regaurdless of your opinon of Napster, you cannot argue with their ability to attract good people.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
What if people start distributing MP3s through ICQ en masse
you mean their not already?? I do, all the time with friends.
"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
While that may be all true it doesn't change the fact that Napster is NOT doing anything wrong
napster helps people find copyrighted material to download. I think its called aiding and abedding (sp)??
All it is doing is routing packets without ever knowing if it is legal or no
And winnuke only sending out packets so whats the big deal?
If they get the axe then what happens to the thousands of routers out there which do the exact same thing, or any other server/protocol for that matter
They would go about their day without the added workload of all those copyrighted MP3's flying around that napster helped people find.
Napster is NOT only used to transfer copyrighted material
But it is MOSTLY used to trasnfer copyrighted material. When was the last time you downlaoded a song with napster that wasn't copyrighted material?
It is also a valuable informational and promotional tool. Much like the world wide web.
Yes, just yesterday I used napster to look up some information on the former Austrian Archduke Metternich. Then i typed in "show me new artist that need to be promoted" and it fucking gave me a list man.
You started off your post with the words "you're missing the point". To be honest I think you do get the point, you're just too busy hiding behind excuses. Again i have to ask, "when was the last time you downloaded a song that WASN'T copyrighted?"
"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 just think that the laws are simply wrong. If I download music from the internet, it's not stealing, it's making a political statement. It's civil disobedience. It's a peaceful form of protest. Don't I have the right to protest?
Yes you do have that right so long as you are willing to take the penalty that comes with that protest. I beleive it was Martin Luther King Jr. yousaid "let's fill the jails."
on a side note-- What exactly are you protesting?
Look at me, im downlaoding a song, Im a protester just like MLK
give me a break. Your downloading songs because its chaep (ok, free), and its easy. At least admit it. I'd have more respect for you that way.
br
"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 meant all the idiots who are yelling in support of napster.
Another victory for napster, or another defeat for common sense?
Of course, I don't support the RIAA either, the music they publish is just as crappy as the music that is pirated over napster, it being the same music and all.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
You would have to be gratefull that he is on our side. He clearly has a great track record and the ability to get the focus on the issues that are important. All in all, _yeah_!
If Napster wins, will they force Metallica to split up into two different bands?
-={(.Y.)}=-
Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
I sincerely doubt that there is any music lover out there who has never in their life bought a CD, and never will.
Erm.. they do. They even have a click-thru eula that says as much.
It doesn't phase most consumers that the record company slurps the lion's share of the profits of any artist's work. Even Lars pointed that out, artists do not make money from CD's, They make money from tours.
To be honest, just about everyone I know uses Napster to download MP3's. And they all buy CD's, have been all their lives. They will continue to do so because there is quality in a good CD. The sound is better, it is not cut off, and you get pretty posters and liner notes and stuff.
The RIAA makes out like Napster is costing artists money. But in reality if CD sales went down it would not be the artists who would suffer so much as the record labels. They are the only one's making money off CD sales.
That was suprisingly relevant. Too bad you'll get slapped down soon...
An analysis of "The Software Industry"'s claims about Chinese software piracy boil down to a similar result. What frustrates me is that no one, on either side of the debate, has any meaningful data to confirm or deny the "try before you buy" concept. So who wins? The folks with the most money.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Bring on this shit, after all it is what the internet SHOULD be all about!
You say that legally they DO have to pay, and I agree that's true. I just think that the laws are simply wrong. If I download music from the internet, it's not stealing, it's making a political statement. It's civil disobedience. It's a peaceful form of protest. Don't I have the right to protest?
Protesting what? The fact that CD's cost $15+? On the social scale of important things to protest, that ranks right around there with "The garbage man should collect on Tuesdays instead of Wednesdays".
We're not talking about being denied the right to vote, or racial discrimination here people. We're talking about the purchase/theft of a luxury item. You don't like the price of CD's? Don't buy them! Listen to the radio!
You would answer that no, I don't have the right to protest if by doing so I harm the creator of the music. My response would be that I haven't harmed the creator of the music. I have complimented him or her. I enjoyed their music. That doesn't mean I necessarily must pay for it.
Um, yes it does. By releasing music on a CD through a record company, an artist is saying, "Here are some songs I wrote and performed. They are the property of myself and my record company. If you wish to have a copy of this music, you must pay X amount of dollars for this tape/CD/record/MP3/etc." If you circumvent this in some way, well then you've broken copyright laws.
I see your point about not blindly following laws just because they are laws. It's this form of "moral lawlessness" that started America to begin with, and helped draw attention to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movements. I do think, however, that your stretching it a bit to justify the theft of piece of entertainment media by calling it "protesting".
Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
What goal do you want to achieve by granting property rights in information?
Ideally, you want to reward someone for creating a unique and useful piece of information, whether that be a song, software, book, etc. In our society, reward=monetary gain. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be money, but remove money from the equation, and you remove a major incentive more most people to create the information.
Is the goal a worthy one?
If so, is the granting of patents and copyrights the only way to achieve that goal?
If not, what other means could we use to achieve it?
Protecting intellectual property is a worthy goal, IMHO, insomuch as it keeps those who create said information motivated to create more of it. As to whether patents and copyrights are the only way to achieve this goal, right now I think yes.
What other method would work? You could release music "shareware-style" (Here it is for free, if you like it pay me), but I don't think much money is going to be made doing that. You could release a part of the music (1 minute of a song, 2 songs off a CD), and offer the rest after they pay, but again, what happens when full copies start floating around in Warez sites? You could copy protect the music, have built-in encryption after 30 days, they have to pay to unlock, but copy protections are easy enough to crack, a lesson the software industry has already learned.
It seems to me that you are envisioning a future where all information (books, music, software, etc) is free, both in a philisophical and monetary sense. This idea works with software, where software creators can release their wares to the public, then make money on such things as training and support, since software is usually quite complicated. With music, however, there is no support: you get the song, you listen to it, you have a copy, the artist is now out of the loop. This would be fine if the artist is willing to give away his creation, or his work is subsidized in some other way. For those that want to make money, however, free music will drive them out of the music business.
Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
In the same vein as Courtney's post, I'd like to point out Steve Albini had some nice things to say about this topic in 1995. It's a classic article from the Baffler.
It all comes down to control. The artist should be in control because it's their copyright.
But right now, it's not the artist's copyright. It's the record label's. Now, an artist is considered a 'work for hire' and the record label owns all of the rights to all of the songs that were recorded while the artist is under contract, for perpetuity. For more on this, see Courtney Love's article on Salon.com.
Just a thought: it's a nobrainer to extend this to computer software. Is this happening? Probably not, because Microsoft would have a bird, wouldn't they.
Actually, yes. I got Myst, Simcity 2000 and several other nifty things. (this was a while back when these titles were still current). Checkout periods were short, I think only like 3 days, and the waiting list was really long, but it was worth it. (I think the idea was you were supposed to play the game for 3 days and give it up, but we always did full installs. STEALING!!! CALL THE COPS!!!) I never saw any MS software, but I never checked either.
Actually, now that I think of it my family ended up buying both SimCity 2000 and Myst once they reached the bargain bin, and those were the only specific ones I remember getting offhand. So WTF are the big fuckers complaining about piracy?
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
The W3C and the WWW were not created to share music, the vast majority of which is copyrighted. While Napster may not know what it's doing the humans who created it and maintain it do.
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
I think you must be the 200th person who has answered an argument about the legality of x with the answer that x is illegal.
If x is illegal, then it's illegal. Whether it's ethical is another matter. I happen to believe it's immoral, but my beliefs and the law have no common roots.
I think it's very important to distinguish between personal information and public information.
Definitely. There also needs to be a distinction between public information and art.
I think that corporate secrets are fair game because the information concerned is not of a personal nature.
Legally, corporations are people. But the spirit of the law is extremely abused. They should NOT be able to hold patents, because artificial people can't think... you may have noticed :)
You would answer that no, I don't have the right to protest if by doing so I harm the creator of the music.
That would be logical. If we are trying to destroy the RIAA, we should boycott CDs and attend concerts, which would benefit the artist and not their overlords.
Finally, some more food for thought: What if it was your music? Or your Web graphics? Is my freedom your slavery?
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
This is a category error.
No, it's a worldview error. I'm looking at the current world, and you're looking at one without IP.
These organizations are only problematic insofar as they are symptoms of something larger that needs to be addressed.
Let's address it One Microsoft Way.
Er, the problem is that too few are in control of the source, because that is the end result of capitalism. But I haven't found a solution.
What I was ultimately trying to get at here (aside from the 1984 paraphrasing, which was purely emotional) was this: if someone enjoys IP enough, they'll want to make a donation. If my Web graphics are copied without credit, there is no way for anyone to get that donation to me. Napster is copying with credit, but it establishes a dangerous precedent. Web graphics are harder to match to the artist than, say, "The Unforgiven II". And who knows how to donate to "The Sapphire Cat" (of which there are many) if they happen to like the Heartstone image?
Musicians want paid for their music, since it is their life (think Metallica, not Pixies.) Simple love of the music won't put food on their plates, nor will the blood, sweat, and tears behind the songs. I believe that they should be paid, and that's that. I guess I'm finished with the rational arguments.
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
I'm beginning to get tired of Napster. Some of the universities are shutting it down not only because of the piracy liability, but because of the bandwidth that N MP3's can consume. At one place, as reported in Network Magazine, Napster traffic saturated a 34 Mbps connection.
And then there are free speech advocates. "Information wants to be free," they chant, over and over, conveniently ignoring the fact that freeing information can be stealing. If I want to share my information, I should be allowed to do that, and it should be my choice. Isn't that the idea behind online privacy complaints? If I choose tomerely share, and someone flings it far and wide, without returning anything to me, that is wrong.
And before anyone tries it, I don't care about "But I use it to preview music for my next CD purchase" arguments... all evidence I've seen is biased and anecdotal. What someone says and what they do are often two different worlds. If someone could give me real numbers from a survey of Napster users, I might reconsider. As for me, I can't afford CDs, so the RIAA is right: I would be a pirate. But stealing it in protest isn't ethical; a high-profile mass boycott would have an impact, just as the Montgomery bus boycott.
It all comes down to control. The artist should be in control because it's their copyright. The masses shouldn't be in control, and neither should the RIAA. Linus Torvalds was right when he said, "Go, Metallica. Die, RIAA."
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
Deadline is looming
Yet I read silly haikus
Time slipping away
My life is sucking
Glad for laugh at 2 AM
Thank God for Slashdot
Back to work I go
Will my code even compile?
If not, more Slashdot
Ultimately, the argument about whether or not Napster will be allowed to survive in its current form is going to come down to whether or not it is illegal for them to facilitate the transfer of copyrighted materials.
This is a pointless argument. Napster simply facilitates file sharing. The fact that some people use this facility to share certain files illegally doesn't make any difference. If it isn't Napster, it's going to be Gnutella, or Hotline, or Usenet or the Web...
The funniest thing is hearing these tech-dullards talking about "Napster ought to take Metallica's songs off their system" without, apparently, the ability to grasp that those songs aren't *on* "Napster's system."
Peer-to-peer file sharing can scarcely be shut down...any decentralized system which facilitates this sharing (Gnutella...) renders Napster obsolete and Metallica ostensibly impoverished...
The "music industry" would do well to take a long, hard look at they way it does business and realize that if it has a problem, it lies in its inability to prevent the creation of digital copies of music in the first place. Since the chances of that situation changing is zilch, it desparately needs to investigate a new business model.
It strikes me that alienating its customer base is counter-productive, at a minimum...the backlash against Metallica is already hideous, as I understand it.
P.
just like there's nothing illegal for companies like Xerox to manufacture photocopying machines. It's the user who's got the legal responsibility. Posting a warning on possible copyright infringement upon login should be sufficient to put Napster out of any liability
I really don't see what the government can have against Napster. THEY don't actually distribute MP3s, they just connect users, much like ICQ. What if people start distributing MP3s through ICQ en masse, will Mirabilis be sued? The most I could really see happening is a strange type of accessory to the fact. In summary, I don't see that the Napster people actually did anything illegal, it's the users connected to their servers passing files illegally between each other.
They should have designed it outside of the US then no one would be suing anyone! They'd be scotch-free! =P
While that may be all true it doesn't change the fact that Napster is NOT doing anything wrong
:)
napster helps people find copyrighted material to download. I think its called aiding and abedding (sp)??
Napster helps people find material to download. If the material people are looking up is copyrighted, the most Napster can do is kick the people from the service. Which they do, however ineffective.
All it is doing is routing packets without ever knowing if it is legal or no
And winnuke only sending out packets so whats the big deal?
WinNuke is maliciously sending out packets. Napster isn't only used to distribute copyrighted material, only mostly.
If they get the axe then what happens to the thousands of routers out there which do the exact same thing, or any other server/protocol for that matter
They would go about their day without the added workload of all those copyrighted MP3's flying around that napster helped people find.
No, they would be illegal, because illegal material could, and often does, travel over them. I think that was the point trying to be made.
Napster is NOT only used to transfer copyrighted material
But it is MOSTLY used to trasnfer copyrighted material. When was the last time you downlaoded a song with napster that wasn't copyrighted material?
Yeah, and the internet is MOSTLY used to download pornography and warez. You might use it to do that, but many people don't. Napster is essentially a bare-bones, centralized internet, without the HTML-based interface.
It is also a valuable informational and promotional tool. Much like the world wide web.
Yes, just yesterday I used napster to look up some information on the former Austrian Archduke Metternich.
Hey, it could happen
Then i typed in "show me new artist that need to be promoted" and it fucking gave me a list man.
You started off your post with the words "you're missing the point". To be honest I think you do get the point, you're just too busy hiding behind excuses. Again i have to ask, "when was the last time you downloaded a song that WASN'T copyrighted?"
Just because a service is mostly used to do something doesn't mean that the service is created to do that. Napster is a huge public FTP directory, essentially. Just because people use it illegally doesn't mean that Napster itself is evil. Napster does all it can to kick those people that do bad things on it.
Not for those of us using Windows.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
For an extremely funny take on the situation, check out the awesome Shockwave animation with Metallica against Napster.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Thanks, I knew someone would prove me correct.
I wish I were out of touch with the music kids are listening to these days. Unfortunately, I have a television set and sometimes watch the LimpBizkit show where Regis Philbin asks people about obscure "Youth Oriented Rock" groups. Every question features the same video clue: that clip of Blink182 with their dicks hanging out. Regis makes a couple of jokes and then the contestant usually farts a couple of times.
What's your point? Do you think that being young makes you an expert? Being young doesn't make you anything except young. You are apparently just as clueless as me, or you would have said something relevant.
Why do I have to be "in touch" with the "new music scene" in order to make an informed statement about the music industry? I listen *exclusively* to college radio in fact, and I can't think of anything I've heard that would have influenced what I said. I listen to college radio stations but I don't base my opinions on whatever today's 3 second long trend happens to be.
Thank you for the stylistic advice. I'll try to tone it down a bit. I'm definitely not intending to troll. I'm dead serious.
I'm not saying people have to stop using technology. Far from it. I think it's great to incorporate all the sequenced stuff, distortions, morphing, phasing, sampling and so on. My only objection is to selling music in little plastic cases and calling that music. Whatever you can do in a recording studio, you can do live one way or another. It won't always be easy, but then nothing worth doing every is. There's also nothing in what I suggest that would prevent you from giving an entirely prerecorded concert, if that's what turns your crank. I imagine if you rent a big screen video projector you could do your own Floyd-esque show.
The best solution, of course, is to stop buying recorded music and either support live music or learn to play a musical instrument. Music isn't a commodity. Songs are for people to sing, not machines. I know that I will be drawn and quartered for expressing luddite views in this forum, but that's ok -- I needed to lose a little weight.
"Microsoft is computer stuff. Napster is computer stuff. Could it be any more obvious?"
...
Got Warez?
I really don't see what the government can have against Napster. THEY don't actually distribute MP3s, they just connect users, much like ICQ. What if people start distributing MP3s through ICQ en masse, will Mirabilis be sued? The most I could really see happening is a strange type of accessory to the fact. In summary, I don't see that the Napster people actually did anything illegal, it's the users connected to their servers passing files illegally between each other.
I hope Napster wins this case because I think they're easily right on all sorts of technicalities. If Napster doesn't win, it could be really bad for other projects. But I'm also getting really sick of Napster's attitude to the whole thing.
Napster runs it's business and makes money from a system that was obviously only ever going to work by encouraging piracy and spreading other poeple's work illegally without their permission. Once Napster wins (assuming it does), people a few years from now will be looking back at it seeing the weak but technically correct whinging excuse of "it wasn't our fault - it's the 99.9% of users who are breaking the law."
Doesn't anyone else think that the open source community is disadvantaging its own reputation when so many of us openly support what Napster does? (Yes I'm aware that not everyone does, and I'm one of the people who doesn't like it.)
From everything I understood until this came along, the open source attitude was that if something's not free, then make a new one that is free. The Napster attitude is that if it's not free, we'll just take it anyway without anyone's permission and argue that it should be free because it's so easy to get away with it.
Imagine the SAMBA team breaking into Microsoft HQ and stealing the Windows source code. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. (No I'm not sugguesting any sane person would want to steal Windows source code.)
"Liberating information" in this way just doesn't strike me as anything to do with the open source concept. All it's ever going to do is turn the ignorant non-differentiating world against people who use completely legal methods such as reverse engineering to accomplish what we're doing so well.
Already three quarters of the developed world probably don't know the difference between Napster piracy and decss reverse engineering case. The decss case strikes me as something much more critical to open source in the future.
Napster on the other hand is just a system that's trying to change the law by encouraging other people to break it. It abuses legal technicalities that might eventually be closed, blocking off other people who could have used them with much more honest intent.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." - Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
Hey, if there was an easy way to compensate the artist for those 2 times i listen to their song, I would, but there isn't. I would gladly pay them the $1 for that one song. (By the way, I'm a recording artist myself.) Until the artists get rid of the gigantic monkey riding their backs (the record companies) and start selling their music on-line, I will continue the way I have. By selling on-line I mean directly, with no CD as intermediary, the way one can buy music on www.mp3.com for example.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." - Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
None of you are right -
This fake-signal 11 post is to make a point...
Look at the moderation it got! Two moderators marked it as informative! The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has about as much to do the the MP3 controversy as the RIAA has to to with DeCSS. Only one moderator recognized this as a troll, two others modded it up because it looked like a sig11 informative post!
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-
>David Boies, the lead attorney for the prosecution in the DOJ's lawsuit against Napster
I just want to be the first to point out that the DOJ has not brought suit against Napster, but the MPAA.
(suggested moderation, +5 Informative)
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-
/*
It should be clear by now that the majority of adults do not consider copying a recorded work of music to be "wrong." This is reflected in the way the Napster scene doesn't feel like the warez scene. Dilbert's mom would refuse to be part of a warez channel on ethical grounds, but she's on Napster every day of the week.
*/
I'll take Dilbert's mom as a moral guide as strongly as the next geek, but she's made a category mistake here. Warez and MP3z are _exactly_ the same deal, except a couple orders of magnitude in bandwidth. The difference is that Napster nicely encapsulated that *part* of the warez scene and now you can make one commonly available D/L and get your songz through a cute little UI. You don't need contacts, or to be 31337; they've taken the "scene" out of MP3s.
"Scene" is probably the one thing that keeps warez from being the exact same problem - people have to put up with porn banners and talking to haxors and everything to get their warez, and they think to themselves "this isn't my scene". They leave. If someone wrote Gamester or whatever where it was all about warez-sharing, you'd see Dilbert's mom on it, because it's away from that whole scene-ism. You're not a geek if you're just pointing and clicking to get your warez from a nice sterile environment... even jocks could do that without status-qualms.
And for a lesson on what to do about MP3, the RIAA should look at the games industry. Those guys aren't starving to death, and warez have been commonplace (well, to me) since the 80s.
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
I feel pretty dirty using Napster... they're really trying to play two games:
Game 1 - civil disobedience:
Help distribute [illegal] copies of overpriced stuff. People aren't supposed to be doing this and they know it. They're basically a warez-only search engine.
Game 2 - corporate existence:
PRoprietary protocols, EULAs, trademarks, copyrighted material, court dates w/ the Offspring (who are trying to help out, fer fsck's sakes!) and libel suits.
This is hypocracy, pure and simple. Napster's existence as some legal entity is invalid, it exists expressly for aiding and abetting lawbreakers - by and large trivial lawbreakers, but lawbreakers none the less. On those grounds, I do hope they lose... they're providing serious assistance to a class of criminals, and I don't want to see the assistance of criminality for profit become so corporatized. We would be left with the hypocritical situation of being enticed to do things that are still punishable by law. Laws should reflect practice (IMO) or practice reflect law.
The more I think about it the more this comes down to "get rid of Napster" vs "seriously bend existing law". I hope the laws change, but if they don't, I hope Napster goes down hard.
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
But about the whole mp3 issue. I think it's a sound movement. It seems nature had a way of eventually fixing things that are screwed up.
What I mean it this. If you like music, nothing can compare to actually see and hear your favourite band live. And that was music is all about, musicians playing music and a crowd that enjoys their stuff listening. If the musicians can't play, they hardly can be called musicians can they? And of course they should complain about not being able to make a living then.
That would be like a dentist complaing about not beeing able to to earn any money because he can't fix any teeth.
So, let music be free, and let musicians make money playing music . And that means live. Just about any screw up can be made to sound ok in a studio. But only good musicians can make a good live consert.
And that's a pretty decent living too. Remeber what a consert ticket usually costs? And the number of people at a consert with a good band playing.
Why then is bands like Metallica complaining. It's simple, they've been the lazy dentists who could make a whole buch of money without fixing any teeth. Now though, they are afraid they'll have to do "the dirty work" (in their opinion obviously) in order to make money.
--
Slashdot signature: 'Laugh assist to nerd'
Guess you are looking for a flame war, nothing else. I will reply to this one, though I will not lower myself to personal attacks.
Why should all music be played live? For example, I might write some orchestral piece and record it on a decent synthesizer because I simply don't have the resources to hire a whole orchestra.
I didn't say that. I merly said that musicians play music. Likewise, composers compose music. Both can make good money if they are good at it. Take a look at who have written most songs that are popular today. Britney Spear, Bon Jovi, etc. It's a small group of composers that right now seem to have a good feel for what "the crowd" wants. And admittedly they are pretty good at it. They make a damn good living selling those songs to the musicians who aren't gifted with that feel.
I don't see why you desire to effectively destroy such music,and I don't see why producing creative work is not valuable in itself.
As I take it that you are not a communist, I do think you realize that the value of something is defined by what other people are prepared to pay for it. What is the value of an mp3 song, you tell me? If you do come up with a figure, compare it what you think a studio single with that same song on it is worth. That's why I think you missed my point. I have no personal ambition to destroy, in my opinion, bad music. I mearly don't listen to it. Rather, it's destroying itself right now. Call it survial of the fittest if you want. And that's good in my opinion. But as merly facts may be proven true,I cannot, ever how hard I wanted to, argue my opinion to be "true".
SOunds like you're trying really hard to come up with a good reason why you should get something for nothing. Nice try.
I wasn't trying anything. I was merly stating facts. I do pay for what I want, and I do not pay for things I have no ambition to get. When I go to a big concert I end up paying about $350 for that experience. That includes hotel, plane tickets and the actual concert ticket. And, obviously, I think it's worth it... My favourite bands are good musicians.
Perhapes I should state the obvious: I don't see the mp3 revolution as a way of getting things for free. Rather it's an evolution that eventually will bring forth (in my opinion again) better music and musicians.
And that's what scaring the major record companies. They know they, right now, have a whole bunch of artists that sells CDs. But they don't have as many good musicians. And that was what I meant when I said that the mp3 movement is sound.
--
Slashdot signature: 'Laugh assist to nerd'
hrm...hard to comment on this one i guess. I think it is real interesting. Napster does have a case, considering it really doesn't contain any files on their drives. But ya know...since when does that stop a egocentric, hypcrytical, sell out, over the hill band from suing them?
Maybe people should get with the times are stop using Cds and realize that people will no longer pay the absurd fees that can go upwards of 50$ (imports, etc.) for a single song on an album that has nothing on it but dooty. Look at the Chris DeBurgh album. He did the song Lady In Red. I bought the album thinking that I MIGHT have a good chance of getting through the whole album wihout turning it off. Chris DeBurgh, if you are reading this, I want my money back you one hit wonder. I think that if you charge per song that will be more of an incentive to put out higher callibre songs. Is Napster going to sell out like Metallica did or Dimension Music? (whom i knew personally at the time) Of course...but only because they will have to.
Napster was an underground program gone big. And when it went big, so did the problems. But I am glad that they have a nice defence team on their side. Because they are going to need it
The anti-slashdot comment