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;
--
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
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.
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
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.
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.
(AP) Evidently feeling the stress of numerous copyright infringement lawsuits from Metallica and other popular bands, today Napster took the unusual move of filing suit against itself for copyright infringement and libel. "Napster has gone too far this time," said an unidentified Napster spokesperson, or at least some guy in front of Napster headquarters who claimed to be a spokesperson. "Napster has been using the Napster logo and selling Napster merchandise without the permission of Napster. We think this lawbreaking has to be put to an end and we are prepared to go to total war to prevent this blatant piracy." Napster legal counsel David Boies replied to Napster's allegations, saying "Whatever." Contacted for his input into the situation, Lars Ulrich of Metallica commented: "I don't think too much of this, I don't worry about it. Bowie hasn't done anything decent since Ziggy Stardust anyway." (C)2000 Associated Pundits
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