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*
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;
"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."
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
Isn't David Boies placing himself in conflict of interest? *grin*
-------------------------
"After Careful Consideration, Bush Recommends Oil Drilling" - The Onion
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
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.
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 --
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
>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-
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