Slashdot Mirror
Boies: Music Industry Could Lose Copyright
Nightspore writes: "David Boies, the lawyer recently seen cleaning Microsoft's clock for the DOJ is going to bat for Napster, and he is bringing a curious bit of law with him. It seems that if one uses enforcement of a copyright in an anti-competitive fashion -- which Napster says it has documents proving members of the RIAA cartel have done -- you lose your ability to legally enforce that copyright . Oops! More here." You can read the actual brief in pdf format as well. Boies lays out all his arguments on page three...
The same law now protecting Napster is the same one that protected Diamond Multimedia in 1992. But then why can't my Rio send the songs BACK to the computer? Because then it's considered a copyright violation, because the data is being reused.
Standard I/O Error. Incompetent/Operator.
Seconded. This 'Open Source Man' doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Let's see some proof.
Really, no shit.
-nme!
reason FF7A the DMCA is unconstitutional.
--
+&x
It's illegal in the EU as well: most recent judgements have involved car manufacturers restricting cross-border purchases
Mark Austin
---- For Whigs admit no force but argument
Interestingly, fairly professional movie equipment is becoming increasingly cheaper. I personally got a device called "Dazzle" for $200, that allows me to convert video to high quality MPEGs and edit them. The results are actually pretty good, so I would not be surprised if we soon saw more "home made" music videos and movies, just like we now SEE more of the home made music at MP3.com.
Computers are also getting more powerful, so special effects can also be created cheaply by "anyone". The bottom line here is that with a $10k budget (including purchase of all the equipment you need), you and your friends could actually make a really great film in your spare time.
Yes, I'm working on one.
WRT Matrix II: On the IMDB, they used to list the Eaton Centre in Toronto as a filming location. They took this out, even though large parts of the Eaton Centre has been closed while they are building something "new and exciting" for quite a while now. And yes, here and there, you can see the same thick cables you usually see around movie production trucks.
Speaking of movie production trucks, my room mate saw Keanu Reeves at the movie set at Bathurst and Bloor the other day. The trucks have been parked up along Bathurst for a couple of weeks now. And David Hasselhoff is filming something across the street from where my room mate works. Not many options on the 2000 releases at IMDB: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Hasselhoff,+David
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
What would be next? Movies? Certainly most of the major blockbusters that leave us ooohing and aaaahing would have a much more difficult time getting funded if protected distribution channels (yes, yes, for profit, no less) collapse? I want my Matrix sequels, goddammit!
Why would the digital home recording act, a law about audio, have anything to do with moves? Also, it isn't as apperant that Movie studios act in the same, well, evil, way that the members of the RIAA do twoard video recordings.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
2) CDs are not non-degradable. After 10-15 years, they will degrade. After usage, they will get scratched and skip.
You're off by an order of maginitude, CD's last 100 years, not 10. CD-Rs don't last as long if you don't keep them out of the sun.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
the RIAA is an association of Corporations. It doesn't seem unlikely that they would structure it's command system in a similar manner to their own.
We don't know how bad things are in north Korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/ci rc1.html
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. 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. In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40,Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.
I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and Gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it, that does not make sense. Why would a wookie, an eight foot tall wookie, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me, I'm a lawyer, defending a major internet corporation, and I'm talking about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the emancipation proclomation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit.
Precisely because of the weight of such a ruling.
If it happened, it would torpedo the business model of a multi-billion-dollar industry. Even if a judge did hand down such a revolutionary ruling, the industry would just buy a law that nullified it before it got through the appeals process.
The recording industry pimps are fighting for their lives and livelihood in a very real way; their very racket is based on this. Such a ruling would hit them as hard as the invention of nanoassemblers would hit De Beers' diamond prices.
i believe the RIAA is trying to get an amendment tacked on to the Copyright Act of 1979 stating that they, not the artists, own the copyrights.
That is totaly, and completly wrong. They got that done months ago.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
As frightening a possibility as it is, I take a certain level of comfort in knowing that if such a situation did arise (Napster becoming some kind of pay-per-play RIAA partner), damn near everyone would drop the service.
I don't use Napster (or any other distributed trading network), but almost everyone I know has already made the switch to gnutella. Call it rats leaving a sinking ship, but I think the only thing Napster has in its future is setting a legal precedent. It doesn't matter whether that precedent is in its favor or not. Either way it goes, I don't forsee Napster existing say, five years from now.
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Here in the United States the drug companies have to pay extortion to the FDA just to be allowed to market their products here. In Mexico there isn't a big building full of bureaucrats driving up the cost of marketing and developing drugs. The FDA is also the reason drugs take a year or more longer to be available in the US.
Sharply cut back the authority of the FDA, allow the private media to keep a close eye on what the drug companies do (to keep 'em honest) and drug prices will fall.
Of course, that isn't a very liberal thing for me to say. O0ps. Sorry.
On p. 23 of the brief, lines 14-15, it says that showing that the RIAA was bad with their copyrights is
It sounds like nothing actually happens to the copyright, but the RIAA would have no right to enforce it until they made nice again.
Greg
Wait until they have genome-based licensing enforcement. Then we might see cheaper Mexican-market drugs which only work for people whose genetic makeup is unlikely to be American, or dependent on markers in Mexican food/water, or neutralised by markers in American food/water, all in the name of profits...
That's chickenshit logic and everybody knows it.
People who want to share copyrighted files over Napster should be required to specific permission from the content owner for each and every single transfer of that content. That means every time you request a download, you have to get permission from the content owner first.
That's the same sort of logic that 'specific account, specific violation, delete account' games use.
I don't know if you could argue that the region coding is preventing competition since this is not preventing US competition, except perhaps by importers. Nevertheless, the copyright laws (At least I assume that the DMCA counts as a copyright law) are being used by the industry right now to stifle competition from the Open Source community.
Try setting max uploads to '0' and see what it says.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
If you want to go produce movies, go produce movies. There's nothing holding you back from it. Buy a camera. Write a script. Hire some actors. Shoot your movie. Edit it down. Post it on a website somewhere. Promote it. There's no way the MPAA is interfereing with you creating movies. They just have more money than you.
Same goes for music. If you want to start a band, go start a band. Buy some instruments. Write some songs. Rehearse. Play some shows. Record some CD's. Promote yourself.
You might be confronted by some label people... here's the trick that most people here seem to have forgotten. You don't need to sign the contract they put in front of you. There's no guns to your head. Fuck the RIAA, you say? Then go at it on your own... It's really that easy for you, and for any other band.
For all the complaints here, people forget that no one ever made the bands sign on with the major lables. They crawled over one another to sign the dotted line... They knew the consequences of their actions, yet they did it anyways....
And for some reason $15 a CD is too expensive... 10 years ago tapes were $8.00. So, adjusting for inflation, a higher quality, non-degradable recording, $15 seems about right.
Could this mean the end of parallel import bans on a permanent basis (corps are lobying for NZ to put them back in). Even though corps say (almost) only priated material comes in via parallel, they only want it so they can keep their exclusive import licensing deals (though I suspect this is more the importers than the exports: exporters would normally want as many importers as possible).
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
How can the Napster say that the RIAA is acting anti-competitively? The RIAA is attempting to enforce existing copyright laws, of course, but! it has no product of its own that Napster is encroaching on. This law seems to be totally irrelevant to the whole case.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
Hm, Is it just me or is anybody else offended/appaled/experiencing any random negative emotion at the suggestion unauthorized registry changes that stick even after a program is uninstalled (And, as far as i know, uninstallation at least partly voids the liscence) are a Good Thing or at the very least, legal?
IANAL, and i hadn't even read the liscence ( *gasp* ), but i'm still quite sure it's neither. After all, I do not think i've ever granted napster the right to commit any permanent action regarding my computer. Besides, this so-called protection scheme relies on napster users usually not being able to understand what exactly happened, partly due to Napster not notifying them that it changed their registry and, once they figured that out, to its sometimes rather cryptic nature (Just as MS intended it). I think this affair violates several of my rights, or perhaps even Microsoft's rights
And yes, perhaps I am beating a dead horse here, but something should be done about that as well. Recent discussions proved once again even organizations that benefit the community aren't immune to criticism (FSF), and perhaps even to harsher measures, may it be community pressure or legal action of some sort.
This is an EX-PARROT!
- they get the overwhelming bulk of the money from music sales
- they tend to not pay musicians money, but rather 'prepay' by bringing the musicians to hugely expensive and elaborate music studios and mastering houses and charging these services against royalties
- in so doing, they are able to throw a LOT of money into establishing a system where it appears that only major label acts are any good and the 'minor leaguers' don't seem worth listening to.
Of course, it sometimes shows, for instance when all the pop hits are glossy and really 'professional' but there's no substance there at all- but on the whole it is remarkably effective, and only a 'geek' information sharing approach will help overcome this. People use mp3s like crazy, both in an authorized and unauthorised fashion. That means that it's now possible to GET 'independent' music into people's hands. At this point the ability of the music industry to establish itself as the source for 'professional' quality music is challenged- because it is possible to produce music with a 'polished veneer' that rivals or betters what the industry puts out, even with the money they can throw at it. You simply have to be an audio geek- and to really do it in a serious way you need to literally rebuild consumer level equipment to replace inadequate parts or those which are compromised by design (for instance, capacitors large enough to pass authoritative bass can be five times the price of 'acceptable' ones. Which ones do you think are in your pro-sumer level mixer?)As for the profit margins- it's a bit shocking. I will refer you to Steve Albini's "Some Of Your Friends Are Probably Already This Fucked" for a look at typical band incomes assuming a _high_ level of CD sales and a successful tour, and another data point would be "Destroying The Artist's Right To Escape Contracts Through Bankruptcy" which is a news article exploring a recent trend of multiplatinum artists attempting to get out of brutally unfair contracts because they are literally left bankrupt and owing large amounts of money (for instance, owing their real landlords money, as the landlord doesn't take payments in label-purchased studio time- the landlord would be wanting actual money, and the multiplatinum major label star may not ever see any actual money).
As for the last question ("How did the fans find out [about the music]"), by-and-large, the answer is that record companies pay radio stations and MTV to play their music when it first comes out. In effect, they plant a seed of interest in the minds of consumers. Then, after a while, the music companies stop paying for the music to be played, instead demanding payment when it is. But, at that point, the consumer interest is already there. Then, the music companies use their distribution systems to get the same music out to the stores.
This method of advertising and distribution has been next to impossible for unsigned acts to accomplish. However, the internet & MP3s change all that -- suddenly, you don't need a massive distribution network, because the king of networks (the internet) does it for you. And, in a environment where people are well-connected, word-of-mouth becomes a much more effective method of getting known.
So, you can see why the major labels are worried: their entire raison d'etre is being challenged by the internet: If you don't need a record company to do your advertising, and you don't need a record company to get your music to consumers, what's left for them to do?
Yeah I bought a cd burner for this reason, but I've not used it for 6 months. I switched from windows to linux and didn't even take the time to read the HOWTO about cd burning. I juste continue buying the CDs of artists I really like, just like I used to do
If the letters are from RIAA personnel, they're worthless. The RIAA doesn't hold any music copyrights.
Each recording label would have to stand on its own, and the collective 'letters' couldn't be used against all of them. Only the letters from agents of that particular label. I don't think this'll end up holding up. This is why associations like the RIAA and MPAA exist.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
It says that the use of devices covered by the ahra for noncommercial copying is legitimate.
The AHRA only applies to consumer electronics recording devices, and specifically exempts computers.
It does not say in any way that 'all noncommercial copying is legal'.
It simply says that the use of devices covered by the act for noncommercial purposes is completely legal.
No.
The primary reason for stopping export was because encryption software is classified as a MUNITIION. So you needed the same license to export strong crypto as you did to export a tank or a box of ammunition, or an f-18.
By contrast, I have mp3s (at mp3.com/ChrisJ). I could have them on my website but it would cost me too much to store hundreds of megs of mp3s :) the thing is, if someone sneakily goes and downloads one of them without paying me- well, actually they can't ;) because at the moment mp3.com essentially gives me a tiny cut of the ad revenue or something for each download, as an incentive. The actual formula is weird and strange and nobody knows quite how it's worked- I don't care ;) But the thing is, even if I didn't get paid anything at all for someone downloading mp3s (without paying), the mp3 is still there for other people to download it- AND is now in another person's hands to further redistribute, with another shot at being heard (which is life to music- it's useless unless it's being heard, it has no value when locked in a safe with a "$10,000" price of listening that nobody will pay. If the music is not in circulation being played and hummed and used, it is WORTHLESS...
So the end result is that the 'worth' of an informational 'good' that is capable of being copied without loss of the original copy, for a trivial expenditure of computer electricity, becomes more accurately what people will pay for it. If it is a very GOOD informational good it will cause other associated goods (the other songs, the 'convenience' physical media audio CD for 5.99, the T-Shirt) to show higher value. So far we can't replicate T-Shirts, and if you want a cup of tea you cannot simply download it- the water and dried leaves and milk squirted out of a cow are physical objects that are transported in trucks and consumed. But the same rules can't apply with the computer information that CAN be copied without loss of the original copy.
It breaks down into four basic categories in practice:
- raw information that's unmetered. I paid nobody for the use of the word 'unmetered'. There is no expectation that I make micropayments to the person who coined the term 'unmetered' in speech. This is a type of 'good' that is considered utterly beyond considerations of being limited artificially for economic gain.
- raw information that's unmetered by agreement. I write some software and GPL it. I give my own music away on mp3 and some people still reward that by buying 'convenience copies' of the CD- I brought some to my convention and sold almost every one for $10 (and you can buy them online for $5.99!) ALL because of convenience. People wanted some nice music for the ride home- $10 sounded great to them, in one case even without listening to the music at all, only hearing a description. At the same time, as copyrightholder it's my privilege to let people download the music, or copy and alter the software code, for nothing. At this level it starts becoming my business to make that decision- so far.
- raw information that is metered by agreement. Patents for ideas, digital audio, songs- there are many things that do not follow the rules for physical objects as far as reproduction and distribution goes, but are still being treated as physical objects by societal agreement.
- Physical objects- if you take it I don't have it, if I want it I have to go out and get it and drag it home and find a place to put it. I don't know many people arguing that you should be able to go and take a car or pile of bricks or pizza, and walk off with it without paying. All those things are the extensions of other physical objects altered and built with physical effort, and if you buy them the seller has to in turn go and buy more materials and make more.
I think it is very likely that in the future the second and third categories will merge- they already completely blur. It's my belief that only category 2 makes sense- 3 is a mistake because it is inequitable- it is basically demanding money for nothing, because the seller is not 'out' anything tangible, yet they are demanding something tangible in exchange. It would be more sensible for the seller to demand something else _intangible_ in exchange- for instance, if you download something like that for free, in exchange you must allow the seller to download one of _your_ downloadable things- or to use your download to persuade potential site-advertisers to buy ad space, or something. There will have to be a loosening of the current expectations- the expectation that there are only producers and consumers, and that the only thing the consumer has of value is money. Perhaps it might become popular to have the consumer offer OPINION in exchange for free downloads... That would be a marketplace of intangibles exchanged for intangibles, and would make a lot more sense than attempting to exchange intangibles for micropayments (tangible, but you're not supposed to notice until your bank account runs dry and you're bouncing checks).I don't think the Wachowski Brothers have anything to worry about. How much would you personally give them to do more Matrix sequels? Would you help get them set up with a Beowulf Cluster (tm) to do more EFX shots? Would you drop $50 on a "I Sponsored Matrix 2" t-shirt? Would you let them use the spare cycles of your Pentium MCXXIII in some future SETI-esque super distributed arrangement to render frames of the film? Would you _pay_ them so you could literally say "I helped _render_ that movie!" and one-up your geeky friends? ;)
People are always saying that the loss of IP would mean the obliteration of all big budget blockbuster media. I don't think that's a sensible conclusion. You'd end up with an awfully big vacuum waiting to be filled- and a lot of creators who'd be able to do it given the resources- and an awful lot of fluidity regarding how those people could get the resources.
When you download a file from someone else's computer with Napster, there is no expectation that you will return the favor and upload something back.
I disagree with this part. While there is no mechanism to prevent you from just taking songs, there is an implicit agreement that you are making your songs available. Most users consider it unfair and pointless to just take.
Sony v. Connectix and Nintendo v. Galoob are two cases where the especially weak sixth point is substantiated. In order to issue an injuction, the Plaintiff (RIAA) must show that they are being irreparably injured. Nintendo v. Galoob in particular puts more of a burden on the Plaintiff to receive an injuction.
Further adding weight to Napster's side, the last point especially, is the next paragraph. They refer to testimony by the RIAA's own expert witnesses that sales have increased since Napster's inception. Sound damning? It only dives weight to the last point only. I find your comment about the sixth point being weak with so much case history backing it up. Also, maybe you should check a law textbook: you might need to refresh your memory with the definition of an injunction.
For more info on point no. three, see pages 9-17. Basically, if there is only one possible legitimate use for a product, then it does not infringe on copyright law. This includes products which are advertised as having copyright circumvention capabilities.
The fifth point seems the weakest, prima facie. However, an understanding of the actual claim made by Napster, and not just the summary, would possibly illuminate you. They claim that the directory of MP3s is what is covered by the first amendment. See pages 29-29.
Note to Self: do not emulate TheGreek. Write original content in Slashdot posts. Read the actual documents before commenting on them.
PS: You wrote 492 charachters. The text you coppied verbatim came out at 1171 charachters. That's about 42% your content. I try to shoot for more like 97%+ original content.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
Have sales increased? Yes. However, that doesn't say much. Wether the increase of sales has increased (acceleration) is more interesting, and even that is not really showing much either. Numbers today are not numbers tomorrow. People relying on statistics instead of common sense shoot themselves and others in the foot.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
The only possible way that a new format can ever work is if it is superior, in the public's opinion, to the current format. At the moment this means MP3, because it gives good quality sound and good compression for storage. Most people don't want much more out of a music format than good quality and good compression, and until something comes out that can rival MP3 in this then it just won't last.
If it happens. But is it realy a good thing?
I think manufacturers of boats should be brought to justice and imprisoned for their blatant facilitation of piracy. Especially those who make speedboats.
There hardly goes one week where you cannot read stories in the newspaper about how pirates attack shipping around the world, especially in southeast Asia. Invariably they use fast speedboats to get to the ships, which they climb during the night, proceeding to rob, beat and murder the crew. They get away using the same speedboats.
Oh, the manufacturers claim that speedboats have legitimate uses. Ha! Dont believe them! Only pirates and drug smugglers use them. They should be outlawed!
Come to think of it, the pirates use guns too in their crimes. Outlaw guns! And peg legs. And eye patches...
Oh god... napster are going to get away with it aren't they? "Look at the monkey". "Chewbacca is a wookie!"
Hm. "Love". "Music". "Passion". "Black Ink".
Now sing along with me, could you?
One of these things just doesn't belong here, one of these things just isn't the same, cuz one of these things just doesn't belong here, now it's time to play our game...
But seriously...
I think that a system by which music is judged purely on merit can't be that bad. I don't begrudge those trying to make a buck from the market, I just don't see how losing the system would be detremental to music.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Isn't the RIAA an association, rather than a corporation? Or did you just make this all up?
Mmmm.. Donuts
Many will herald it as a major victory for freedom lovers everywhere if Napster is successful in its defense. But think for a moment. The music industry at present is fuelled by large amount of cash. Sure, much of it is corporate gluttony, but can you imagine what would happen to music as an industry if musical copyright went flying right out the window?
Not 'musical copyright.' Just the copyrights which are being abused, used in an 'anti-competitive' fashion. Copyright law was intended to protect the creator, not to bludgeon the competitors. Yes, the lives of certain people could theoretically (and perhaps even pragmatically) suck for awhile, since the recording studios typically yoink copyrights, and if those get blasted, the artist can get fucked. 'Course, people can play other people's music anyway (covers, anyone?), and people still pay to have stuff done by the original band... Personally, I think the RIAA needs a swift kick in the ass, and having their heavyhanded legalistic bullshit shoved down their throats strikes me as particularly appropriate.
But, as I find myself saying increasingly often, "maybe I'm just an asshole." In this case, I don't think so, somehow.
However, people like me who don't trade are still fine. I grab my friends mp3s, they grab mine... some of my friends don't give me any, some are the reverse (though those are rare).
---
END OF LINE
The region coding might be anti-competitive, not fair to those living abroad wanting their native language on their anime DVD, not fair to people in general who could buy their DVD overseas etc etc.
But what's even worse is the inability to make a copy of your DVD's which is IMHO against the law (the dutch law at least) that states that you are allowed to make a backup copy of the media you buy in case of loss, corruption, destruction etc. But only for own use of course. I don't understand why this issue isn't used in court-cases.
maybe he broke it? Bignum becomes 0? Is this happening to anyone else's UInfo? Check Kaminsky... No, effugas is showing 41... weird... unimportant, moving on...
Intolerant people should be shot.
I was at a Dave & Busters restaurant last Thursday in Providence, RI, and the waitress told me that they had just cleared a few tables for Metallica and Eve 6.. Eve 6 had just played an outdoor concert that night, and Metallica was in town. By the time we left, they still hadn't arrived.
I don't know what would have been funnier -- seeing Metallica ride up an escalator randomly in a mall, or seeing the looks on their faces after asking for their autographs... on a CD-R labeled Metallica MP3's.
--------------------------
"S'cuse me, Lars, could you sign this please?"
[HACK][COUGH]"WHAT THE.."[CHOKE]
Mob rule and disregard for the law is NOT what civil disobedience is about. Expediently commiting illegal acts for ones own personal benefit is NOT civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a public refusal to comply with laws that you feel are unjust. Basically, if you illegaly copy MS Office and then turn yourself into the Microsoft piracy hotline, that is civil disobedience.
The truth is that the warez crowd are anything but public. Rather, they are anonymous and secretive.
I wonder if David Boies' new-found fame is allowing him to start taking higher-profile cases? It certainly stands to reason.
It reminds me of Jonnie Cochran (of O.J. fame), though this time the guy is on the side of "good".
(1) Using a copyright to achieve an anti-competitive goal causes you to lose the copyright.
(2) DVD region coding is anti-competitive.
(3) Therefore, all DVDs with region coding have, by using it, relinquished their copyrights to those movies.
Cool!
It seems that while the third, fifth, and sixth points are pretty weak (the fifth and sixth ones especially), the first, second, and fourth (two of which mention legal precedents) are especially damning.
This is one of the few legal briefs that I have read that have actually made me smile and chuckle with delight. Nice work, Boies. :)
This spurs me to a question regarding a post I made awhile back regarding copyright and Universal Records which contacted me and wanted me to remove an auction in which one of my users were apparently selling bootlegged material of GodSmack.
The question is, where would my responsibility fall as this legal precedent stands now? Where would it fall after it is upheld or denied? Furthermore, what responsibility befalls me (and others in my position) with a mix of the DMCA binding and this law? They seem to lend to contradiction of one another.
Any ideas would be welcomed. Thanks.
---
seumas.com
Unfortunately, I'd already tried both of those things before I posted. It won't let me set max uploads below 1, and it always includes the downloads directory whether or not I want it to.
Perhaps there's a new version of the client?
I think a lot of people use napster like that... Let's hear the music, then buy the CD. It's a lot better than going to your favourite CD-store across town only to find out only that 1 track is great.
And $12 is a very nice price for a CD. Unlike the Netherlands where you pay about $20 for that same CD. That takes a bigger effort to part from your hard-earned money. Especially when you know that across the ocean it's much cheaper.
That might be another reason in some countries for use of napster. These discs are to expensive there for the college-attending youngsters. If there's a way to get them cheaper or in this case free (as in beer) you can't really blame them, though it's still illegal.
The ubiquitous impact of copyright as opposed to other forms of property law allows an IP holder to levarage licensing terms to impose draconian restrictions on the licensee (c.f. buyer) which would be impossible with physical property. GM cannot legally prevent you from lifting the hood on your car, but software vendors can require you not to look at their object code.
IIRC, the way that Sony retains monopoly distribution of Playstation games is that the firmware in the console checks the CD for a bitmap of the Sony corporate logo (a copyrighted rendering of a trademarked image) and refuses to run them if it is not present. Since the image is so well protected by IP law, no-one else can distribute comaptible games other than by licensing the logo and complying with whatever terms Sony sees fit to impose.
The only way this would go bang on them is the same as how it happened to Microsoft - if Playstation became the single dominant console on the market and they created a de facto monopoly, which will upset them not one bit. As the founder of a US software company said to me recently, "I look forward to testifying at a DoJ trial".
Could similar legal theory be used to unseat these kinds of monoplistic lockouts?
Maybe instead of removing copyright on music, it could be put back into the hands of the composers, lyricists and performers. These are the people who should hold the copyright, not the distributors.
There's a difference between knowing of a general tendancy for your product to be used for illegal activity and knowing x user is doing y illegal act with it. Otherwise, gun manufacturers wouldn't be able to make 'semi-automatic' assault weapons that are bought almost exclusively by criminals who know how easy it is to file off the 'semi' bit of the design.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Boies' brief is an impressive tour de force of legal advocacy. The legal crux of his argument is NOT copyright misuse (whether because of antitrust or generic equitable bases), which is legally a longshot, or even the claim that the ARHA permits private copying. It is the following, prosaic legal argument, mentioned several times in past threads on the subject:
(1) Napster doesn't copy anything itself directly, so it is not guilty of copyright infringement.
(2) The Napster architecture is capable of substantial noninfringing uses, and thus under the Supreme Court Sony Betamax case, there can be no contributory infringement, to wit:
(a) consumers can use napster to "space-shift" (apparently the relativistic equivalent of Sony's time-shifting) works for which they have already purchased copies (supported by ARHA on policy grounds as fair use, even if not a direct defense);
(b) consumers can use napster to "try-before-you-buy," another variant of time-shifting; and
(c) individuals can use napster to obtain access to works of artists who consent to the distribution, including big guys sick of dealing with "standard" record terms and little guys who can't get a record deal.
Since these guys don't infringe, Napster can't be guilty of contributing to their infringement. Since a substantial number are doing (1), (2) or (3) [At least 10-20%, even if you take RIAA's expert surveys], the Supreme Court says no infringement.
Judgment for the Defendants, Plaintiffs take nothing and go without day.
The crux of this is that it is an unattractive argument -- very legalistic, and inviting factual distinctions from Sony. Boies recognized that this intellectually solid legal argument doesn't "move" an impartial or unconvinced party.
Thus, the thrust of the brief is to talk about POLICY. The beauty of the argument is that it shifts the moral high ground -- turning the "Evil Pirate against Poor Artists" argument into one of "Big Bad Business beats up on its Own Consumers, screwing the Artists as it goes, and threatening the Internet and the First Amendment along the way."
For that Boies scores high marks. He makes the legal case, and goes on to point out the nastiness and contradictory conduct of RIAA to date. But at the heart and sole of this is the legal peg for the judge to hang her hat once she "sees the policy"
I have read lots of briefs. This is a beautiful piece of work. It is a subtle one that hides the strategy even as it executes it with precision. Note how it states beautifully the case we made in this very forum, but without the histrionics, and therefore with much greater power and persuasive force.
It's a beautiful piece of work that made me regret a bit, for the first time in months, that I gave up computer law in favor of actually building software.
In Jamaica we have copyright laws. These laws are generally ignored with respect to music. Stalls on the street openly peddle bootleg casets and CDs.
This is Jamaica I'm talking about. We put more songs on the US charts than any other foreign country. We have more music producers and recording studios per square mile than anywhere else on earth. The all-time most prolific artist was a Jamaican ( Denis Brown with approximately 128 unique albums and no complete count of singles. He died last year and was buried in hero's circle. Even he never had a complete collection of his recordings. That's hard when you started singing before Bob Marley released as many as 4 albums a year. )
Ohh and speaking of Bob. Album of the Century ( Legend ), Anthem of the Century ( One Love ) and Recording Artist of the century.
Before you even take size into consideration we produce more music than any other country except maybe the US and the jury is still out on that one.
Piracy is a scapegoat held up to confuse young artists who aren't seeing any money from all the hard work.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Apologies. The Church and governments (often the same thing in those days) in Catholic countries put into effect a licensing system for all printing presses, and issued strict guidelines on what works could and couldn't be reprinted using the movable-type press. As a result, Protestant countries, particularly the liberal Netherlands, became the hubs for most publishing ventures early on, since they had the fewest restrictions and the lightest regulation.
The effect was similar. The most "valuable" documents to the pre-Gutenberg producers of books were precisely those books for which the Church had enjoyed a monopoly on the distribution.
"...on a music sharing service..." Are we talking something like Napster, or something like MP3.com? The way Napster is set up (simple search for filename), the chances of finding a song you don't know by a band you don't know is virtually zero. What do you search for?
Lovely. An organization that promotes the taking away of our freedom as a consumer to reject them (as suppliers of our grossly overpriced CD's) is now losing a battle against the right to choose.
Poor communists.
Next thing you know they'll be putting up billboards that say "got money? We don't" with a picture of a poor boy in some third world country pulling at his pockets trying to find some change. Looking really emotional so the stupid consumer buys another CD to make them another 10 bucks richer.
As has been said before on slashdot, consumers are not entirely stupid to corporate tactics. Rip people off with inflated prices on cd's and cassetes and 45's (for 20 years, I might add) and they will change their supplier of music in a heartbeat when they find out there is an alternative. Don't think they aren't ripping you off. The other day at best buy I see a tupac cd for 20 bucks. A 2cd compilation. $2> for the case, $2> for the two cds, and 18 that goes to the company that makes them. None, I repeat NONE of the money goes to 2pac. He's dead. Duh.
And they suddenly scratch their heads when the consumer finds out about MP3's and napster and goes berzerk finding the best songs out there and they download them. And not having to pay for them.
Piracy, yes.
But most people are only interested in one song from a CD. And go to any music store you find the single (usually the big hit) to be only 1 or 2 dollars less than the full cd. Why waste your money when all you want is one song? Why pay $8-10 for a single song when you get 12 on a full cd for 14? And thats the appeal in napster. Mixing playlists, get the single song for free, all the benefits of digital music.
Does it hurt the artist? Depends on the artist. Lars ulrich would drive up with his gold plated ferrari (and mexican houseboy, I might add*) and convince you that he has to get all his food scraps out of a mcdonalds dumpster. Limp bizkit endorses napster. Limp bizkit is cooler than lars ulrich. Limp bizkit realizes that people who oppose technology are fools. Nevertheless, that's why I just ordered a limp bizkit cd to add to my mp3 collection. Limp supports technology, I support limp. Lars hates technology, I don't give lars jack shit. No wonder all my friends (who previously were kicked off napster) have all since bought limp CD's. Lars doesn't understand that the people who had his MP3's off napster weren't inhuman assholes who had his MP3's just because they wanted to spite and/or rip him off.
They are people who like his music!
Or previously liked, as the case may be.
If lars needs that much more money to spend on sportscars then he should do more concerts. Sell more merchandise. Sign more autographs. Things that fans want and are willing to pay for. Don't let him convince you that selling music is his sole income. Because it's not. And for most artists it will never be.
"One who opposes technology is a fool. But he who tries to stop technology (lars ulrich) is an even greater fool"
And so ends my post. Decide which side you support on your own. Be a free thinker. But be aware that the RIAA is trying to pit artists versus napster, and that isn't the way it should be. Napster is for people who love music. The RIAA should be.
*Campchaos.com, for those who aren't in the know.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Would the same apply to stupid patents (like one-click shopping, etc)? I know patents are not exactly copyright, but it is obviously anti-competitive...
Do your best, hope for the best, suspect the worst.
If you walk into a record store and purchase a CD with cash, they will know what was purchased and from where, but not who bought it. How are they going to track the fact that the person who just purchased CD X is the same person who purchased Y & Z last week and A two weeks before that?
> I don't have a problem parting with $12.
Neither do I, but that's not really the problem.
I have a problem with parting with $120 if all I want are 10 songs that would fit on a $12 CD if someone just thought to sell them together without all the stupid filler.
As for Steely Dan, I've never heard of him. If I am prevented from listening to it without buying it, I'll never listen to it and some record company just lost one potential sale. And I don't care about it enough to get off my duff and find it at the CD store just to sample it, either.
Just think... I might really like Steely Dan's music and never know it.
Donny
"While its obvious that napster is aiding the piracy of music, it seems that most people JUST DON'T CARE."
Yup.
Case in point : My Mother who is now pushing 40 was rather critical of napster when she first heard of it. "The artists should get paid for their work" she proclaimed. "Nobody should have to work for free!".....that is until she started using it of course. Now she loves it. Uses it everyday.....and at this point is totally oblivious to any copyright issues. Note - my mother sells insurance and has never stolen so much as a nickle in her life.
Ive heard this same story from many of my friends when they showed theyr parents napster. I see it everyday at work too-at least one idiot a day will come in wanting to know how to burn those mp3 files he got from napster to a cd - most of them very straight business men or housewives.
It may be illegal...it may not be....but one things for sure: it doesnt matter either way 'cause its not going anywher. ppl just like it too damn much.
What's the difference between the Sony (Betamax) case and the DeCSS case? They can both be used to infringe copyright, but they both have substantial non-infringing uses. Even more important:
Again, isn't this exactly the case with DeCSS?
Just as there were legal moves made to ban use of the movable-type printing press early on to protect the interests of scribes, here we're seeing the record industry try to use courts to artificially preserve a business and distribution model that flourished because the means of easy one-to-one distribution of music was inconvenient, expensive and difficult.
The broadband internet in general, and specialized peer-to-peer sharing tools like Napster are an incremental innovation, but a crucial one, just as the addition of movable type to the printing press was.
The notion of sales and replay royalties for recorded music is a relatively new one, dating back only to the piano roll and the gramophone in the second half of the 19th century. Before that, composers were paid lump sums for writing a new piece on commission, for performing, and in a few cases, for sales of sheet music. And this is what it will revert to: not a pay-per-download model, not a micropayment model, but no payment at all for recorded material. Not because people are selfish and have no respect for musicians and composers, but because the old means of enforecement--the inconvenience and high cost of copying--are vanishing.
The question is not whether the argument Boies is making here on behalf of Napster is going to win out, but when it will win out. The courts and the world's governments may try to preserve the status quo by law, but it's an unnatural state of affairs and will prove unenforceable within a matter of years.
Next to fall this way will be video as the price of bandwitdth and storage of peer-to-peer distributed video continues to drop. And finally, with the advent of personal binding technology and near-paper-quality flat screens and other display technology, we'll also see the end of enforceable copyright on print materials. The latter has had a respectable run of nearly 400 years, but this has only been because the quality of duplicates has been poor and the cost has been high. Once that's no longer the case--and it's just a few years away--so will go the last vestiges of the current print, sound and video revenue models.
that if the recording studios loose thier copyrights that anyone can copyright thier music, movies, ect...
I got dibbs on Metallica!
"Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
Not so sorry to say I don't care about music as an industry. I feel about it exactly as I do about the current US Federal laws requiring some percentage (1%? 3%?) of a federal project's budget be devoted to art. Art springs from artists not to industry.
The demise of the music industry leaves me in rapture. Corporate art, art industry, all the same, a huge bloated oxymoron of no relevance to art.
--
Infuriate left and right
For example.... it is specified that internet broadcasters cannot 'play a piece of music at a time requested by a user or within one hour of receving such a request' - this leads me to a cunning plan.
If everyone on /. requests all the tracks they don't like - e.g. everythign by the backstreet boys and britney spears. And spams every mail address at internet stations with these requests then they *won't* be able to play any of these. Leaving their broadcasting time free for good music like 'The Who' or this Fine selection of dance music which I've put together.
Plus there's the album sequencing rules which can tend to stifle creativity.... all this ends up doing is forcing people to change the names in their advertised playlists and no longer giving the real artists credit..
But if you want real proof the these rules are a load of bollocks - go on napster and search for 'Essential Mix' - you'll probably get a load of radio shows recorded from good old FM radio. Why bother recording from low quality, encrypted streams when it's jst as easy to get someone in the UK to record it for you....
I think DVDs would probably fall under the movie category, though the article was a little vague. Maybe someone more legally minded could tell us why. Anyway, I don't know if the movie companies have been pulling the same kind of stuff as the record companies. I think we tend to sort of lump the whole corporate world into one big evil pile, but there are different levels of nastiness, and from what I've heard the record companies can be particularly vile.
For those of us old enough to recall the days before CD's, and when MTV actually played music, I have zero pity for the RIAA. Do you remember how much LP's were back when CD's were introduced? right around 6 bucks. CD's initially came out at around $12 with the supposed promise that this price would come down.
Over 10 years later that price has done nothing but go up, despite significant decreases in manufacturing costs. These people have been gouging us all for far too long.
If these means the end of recording publishers being the only channel of music to the masses so be it. As Courtney Love pointed out so nicely, if copyright is used for music it should be the artists that own it, not the marketing department.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
"According to a survey by a Wharton School of Business professor, 70 percent of Napster members polled reported they've used the service to sample music before buying it, the brief added. "
I find these numbers exceedingly hard to belive on their own. I smell one hell of a bias... lots of people who would otherwise grab all the MP3s they could will turn around and give the "oh, I buy lots of CDs anyway, I'm just SAMPLING the music before I buy" arguement in the right circumstance.
-DrPsycho - Coping with reality since 1975
http://slashdot.org/comm ents.pl?sid=00/06/14/1336234&cid=7
"Oh dear God, can you imagine the anticompetitive, anticonsumer, antirecording, pro government manipulation("go bribe that senator with a junket") style messages that fly around the RIAA?"
Looks like I'm about to find out, eh?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Reality Check
1. Musicians that have been around long enough to sell more then 5000 albums receive a significant portion of thier income from CD sales (asuming they have avoided a major label). For a solo artist, even selling 1000 CDs can mean some income because the recording expenses can be much lower than for a band.
2. Most musicians lose money for 10 or more years before they break even. They have to support thier craft with day jobs (or wedding gigs, which amount to the same thing). If they are lucky, they get a label contract which is basically a short cut on that 10 year building process, but they don't get paid much until the contract runs out. If they do get a label contract, they probably don't get anything beyond the advance, but that is still a whole lot better than the support they would have gotten from MacDonald's....
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Don't know about Fugazi, but Ani DiFranco is selling well over 100,000 CDs a year and she owns the record company (http://www.anidifranco.net/history.html); so, she is definitely making a good bit of her income from CD sales. Very roughly, that would be be grossing at least $500,000 a year.
Touring only pays big bucks on weekends; so, she can probably do at most 100 dates a year (tops -- she more likely takes some time off while recording). Her currently posted 5 month schedule extraplates to 90 gigs a year. If she does weekday concerts at all, they probably pay about 1/5th of what a weekend concert does. I suspect the concert fees vary quite a bit, but probably run between $5,000 to $20,000 depending on size of venue (I would guess that Ani is the kind of person who would take care of people who supported her in the past; so, some of those concerts are probably done at lower rates for old supporters). At any rate, that would say that more income comes from concerts, but that both are very significant.
This is also born out by the fact that she has 8 people in the home office (who would probably be handling the label stuff) and 10 people in her touring crew (at least according to her web site).
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
This guy is good. After reading that brief that's all I can say. That's all that can be said. End of story.
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
Nope. That's the way our legal system works.
You mean : "Yes, it is, but that's the way our legal system works."
People who want to share copyrighted files over Napster should be required to specific permission from the content owner for each and every single transfer of that content.
Wrong, and just plain stupid. That's like saying that everyone who tapes a tv show must request and receive permission first.
Er..I don't know about the States, but here in the UK that's exactly the case. Nobody ever does, but it's still the law. Still plain stupid though.
What I am am say in both cases here is just because something is stupid has no effect on it's legality. The law is an ass!
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
The brief makes it clear that non-commercial copying of music for friends, even if it might prevent a purchase by that friend, is explicitly authorized by the Home Recording Act. You can make tapes and give them away; that is non-commercial and explicitly authorized.
It is NOT piracy.
--
Infuriate left and right
....or a fun way to spend a weekend ;)
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
I was just thinking of that- the PDF talks about how 'copyrught misuse may be found based on attempts to use legal proceedings to extend a copyright improperly'...
Would this apply to:
An action that tries to impede fair use?
An attempt to enforce a provision in a shrink/click wrap license which is unenforceable? (w/o ucita) For anti-reverse engineering clauses such as with decss?
The MS Kerberos extensions specificatins file.
How far would the copyright misuse defense reach? If MegaCorp was suing me for infringement, can I show misuse on an unrelated copyright as part of my defense, of would it need to be on the specific copyright on which the suit is being filed?
More on topic,
If Napster prevails on the misuse front, do the RIAA copyrights fall into public domain? When they fix their misuse, do they revert to the copyright? What, then, of copies made during the frenzy that will certianly ensue?
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
Maybe.
Napster, for example, can get themselves out of hot water if they win this round with that defense, even if the misuse ends at a later date, because of double jeopardy. If they haul your ass to court for copyright infringement while misuse is going on, and you win (for that reason or another), then they can't try to get you again for the same thing when they get the right to enforce their copyright back.
But if you copy now (while misuse occurs), but then they only try to enforce when they have the right to do so, then you don't really have a leg to stand on.
IANAL and all that, of course...
True, but making your files available to be downloaded is not trading. When I use Napster, 99% of the time I don't download from the people who download from me, and vice versa. Due to the sheer number of users there, this is standard.
"It's interesting that copyright could be used in a way totally contrary to it's original intentions."
I hope you understand that this is actually copyright being RETURNED to its original intentions; giving a SHORT time of exclusivity to the creator of a work, so that more works may be brought into the PUBLIC domain, not be stuck in licensing limbo for 90+ years!
Lets say Hole sells 1.5 million CDs. Lets say that the record company samples a demographicly diverse cross section of 1% of the album buying public and finds that the overwhelming majority of Hole fans are girls 12 to 15. It can then be infered that girls age 12 to 15 bought 1.5 million CDs. This, of course, is a thin explanation. Billboard uses many varied sources including radio play, request, MTV/VH1 rotations, etc.
___
Bullshit.
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
A) Hire someone.
B) Do it yourself.
C) Forbid a teenager from doing it.
The more the RIAA whimpers and moans, the more free PR and name recognition Napster gets.
___
It is illegal to price by region, but only within the United States. I don't see how pricing schemes outside of the US could be controlled by US law (aside from tariffs, etc.)
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
I don't have a problem parting with $12.
I don't either. The problem comes in when you listen to an alternative style of music from what they play on the radio. The radio stations here are horrible. We have 5 stations that play only teeny bopper pop. No rock, no metal, and sure as hell no techno or anything else that qualifies as good music, IMHO. Yeah, sure, I can go down to the local CD shop that carries stuff I like and buy a few CDs, but the truth is that prices are so bad I can't afford to.
It sickens me to walk past the pop Britney Spears, Nsync, etc. CDs that are $12 and then to browse through the techno section and see nothing under $25. I don't know why they're marked up so much, but it is totally unreasonable for me to pay that much for an artist I have never heard. The only way for me to find new music is to download MP3s off Napster. Do I buy all the CDs I download off Napster? No. Do I buy CDs that I wouldn't have if I hadn't heard the MP3s first? Yes. Is the RIAA getting more money from me because I download MP3s? Yes, most definitely.
What really scares me is the kids at school. Everyone who has a computer has Napster, and most of them burners. Remember, these are the kids who are flunking out of the "Computer Literacy" class that teaches what a mouse, hard drive, and floppy is. These kids don't give a damn thing about the artist getting money. Most of the kids will get the latest pop CD off Napster, burn a few copies and sell them to the kids at school for $5. The parents encourage them (!) and the kids use the money to buy more blank CDRs to make more CDs to sell, and it goes on and on.
When I point out that what they're doing is illegal, they don't believe me. They really don't believe me. They don't see anything wrong with downloading MP3s and selling someone elses work. Would Napster have become as popular as it has if the RIAA had put commercials on MTV telling kids that downloading MP3s was illegal? Maybe not.
The funny thing was when 3/4ths the kids at school got banned from Napster by Metallica or Dr. Dre. Then it was my turn to make some money and sell registry patches that got them back on =).
-Antipop
In that deal with the FTC, the big 5 were allowed to change their policies with regards to MAPs (Minimum Advertised Prices) and eschew any admission of wrongdoing. Therefore, despite the great PR the FTC has been splooging all over, it would not be admissable in court. The usual IANAL applies, this is my understanding of it.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
It is very unlikly that this will effect the ability of artists to hold the copyright of there own works, or even there record companies for that matter. This law specificly targets entities that use there copyrights in an anticompetive manor. i.e. massive cartels like the RIAA and the motion picture association that for all intents and purposes were only formed to provide an inroad for massive price fixing. Its any copyrights that they hold that would be invalidated.
If this is won it is quite likly that this will spill over into any future cases brought again companies such as microsoft, etc. as well
--
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
-John Gilmore
What, exactly, are the chances that Napster or anyone is going to turn agressively against their users and say... drag thousands of people to trial who illegally copied some music? I don't mean just a few tolken cases, I'm wondering if they could spend their whole war chest to prosecute people just to be spiteful, even if they lose money doing it.
Using your argument Napster could say that since the RIAA "has no product of its own that Napster is encroaching on" there is nothing to sue for, no damages and no liability - case dismissed.
The fact is: the RIAA is acting on behalf of its members, who are record companies that claim to be loosing revenue due to Napster's facilitation of copyright infringement.
They aren't saying that the RIAA is acting anti-competitively, if you read that anywhere it is a inaccurate attempt to paraphrase the legal argument.
They are saying that certain *members* of the RIAA were acting anti-cometitivly and it seems that the US Federal Trade Commission would agree with them on that since they recently settled with 5 major record companies on charges of price fixing.
If the major record labels have used their copyrights to violate anti-trust law, then they loose the right to enforce those copyrights and so Napster can't be held libel for losses due to violation of those copyrights. If the copyright holder has no enforcement right, then any organization acting on thier behalf (RIAA) looses enforcement rights as well.
So the RIAA could continue to sue, but if this argument is accepted by the court, thier damages wouldn't incude any of the 5 major labels copyrights.
This law doesn't addresss 2 major areas:
1) anyone other that the 5 major labels (i.e. indies)
2) Anything the "Big 5" copyrighted after they settled with the FTC - assuming that they are using the CD pricefixing issue as the antitrust activity (I'd guess that one could find other examples of anti-trust violations in the major labels - but IANAL).
- bridgette
In generale totally right. But if each record company gives the RIAA power of attorney in some matter then they would all be responsible for the RIAA's behavoir in that matter.
So if each record company agreed to let the RIAA negotiate advertising subsidies with record stores, then RIAA staff communication on that matter could have been used in the FTC case.
If you hire someone to negotiate for you and they threaten to break the other guy's kneecaps, it would be a good idea to get a lawer.
But Napster might have evidence from each major label.
Since the RIAA has to comunicate with each of it's members, it's possible that a search if the RIAA offices would turn up letters recieved form it's members, records of what the RIAA sent to these members and possibly minutes of meetings between the members.
They might even demonstrate that the RIAA is used for some sort of anti-trust collusion? How is it that 5 different companies all arrived at the same CD price fixing scheme? There are a lot of possibilities, but since they are all RIAA members, perhaps they all discussed it at an RIAA meeting?
- bridgette
I've never been a big fan of the corporate music machine, and I'm glad to finally see somebody sticking it to them.
h tml
Here's a suprising good, albeit somewhat rambling tirade on the current system by everyone's least favorite rock-starlet:
http://www.downward-spiral.com/music/columns/243.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
After reading the brief, I can see where the RIAA will try to discredit Boies' assertions:
Boies claims that the RIAA is afraid that technology like Napster will open the channel to independent artists who are not signed with the big labels. He says that the RIAA is using their limited monopoly, granted by the copyright, to guarantee control over the music market.
If what he says is truen, then this would be contrary to the purpose of the copyright to protect and proliferate art, music and literature for the benefit of society. Thus, the copyrights would be nullified. So far, this is correct.
However, Boies' difficulty will be in convincing the court of the RIAA's intent. His claim is mostly speculation, and he will need solid evidence to make it fly.
The RIAA only has to show the statistics: virtually no unsigned artists are benefitting from Napster. At least, not in comparison to the huge volume of commercial music distributed by the major labels. And Boies himself claims that only 2% of artists are signed. Therefore, by the RIAA's stats, his particular assertion about controlling the means of distribution is unfounded.
These statistics, the RIAA will suggest, indicate that most people are in fact taking advantage of Napster for getting published music without paying for it. If the statistics are big enough, they might find it easy to claim significant damages. Even Boies admits that this would be one circumstance in which Napster would find itself liable as a 3rd party, even though it isn't in direct violation of copyright.
I doubt that the "radio" arguments that I sometimes read will hold up in court; probably they won't even be attempted. Recording tunes off the radio does not even come close to the choice, convenience, quality, and completeness that Napster provides when sharing MP3s.
If those 98% of all musicians out there even made a dint in the Napster traffic, then maybe Boies' would have a good argument. Otherwise, it just looks like the primary use for Napster is not as a medium for small artists to push their stuff, but rather as a way for people to acquire quality music of their choice from the big label artists for free. Too bad for the little guys, because Napster might have really made a difference.
Australian's love the underdog, and we love to see the little guy making good against the big guys who just want to destroy all the opposition... I understand the RIAA's need to try and protect the profit margin of their members, but can they really say that this is what they are doing when CD sales are actually up? All this suggests to me is someone else trying to control a market to the exclusion of all others... is the RIAA going to go after radio stations next because people can record songs off the radio, and dont have to actually go out and buy the CD... kind of defeats the purpose of the whole deal doesnt it... All I therefore have to say is, Go Napster
"Minds are like parachutes: most people use them only as a last resort."
The vast majority of money that musicianss receive now is through live performances and merchandise sales. The only reason they're stuck with the RIAA is that it's hard to go on tour when no one's heard your music. If the RIAA's role in marketing music is removed, they no longer exist. Remember, even without copyright protection, the RIAA has inertia on its side. All the record companies and middlemen aren't going to disappear overnight; they'll be replaced gradually by whatever successful model emerges.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Napster/Boies PDF
Because I'm already subsidizing the RIAA for pirating, does that mean its justified?
The date printed at the top of the motion is July 26. Uhhh have I missed some time because I'm thinking it's only July the 3rd now. Maybe I slep to long.
Three cheers for anyone can turn the law back on those that are trying to protect their entrenched business models at the expense of innovation and paradyn shifting!
18" models of Stonehenge on stage
Oh, that would be so cute! but you gotta wonder who would see them.
:-P
DISC IANAL,BMGIALS
Okay... IANAL we know... I'm guessing BMGIALS is "But My Girlfriend Is A Legal [Student|Secretary]".
So, did she have any input, or are you claiming legal knowledge works through osmosis? :)
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
civil disobedience (svl ds-bd-ns) n. Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.
civil disobedience n : a group's refusal to obey orders in protest against discrimination
Notice that both definitions emphasise public protest. Sorry, you warez guys aren't about "civil disobedience", you're just an expedient, selfish mob. At least fess up and admit it !
> I usually think of civil disobedience whenever
> people are willing to risk being beaten,
> imprisoned, burned at the stake, etc. for
> cherished religious and political liberties.
Right, and the fact that you *can* be beaten etc. implies a lack of anonymity. If you want to stand up for your rights, you have to take responsibility for your actions.
With Napster, you've got people claiming that they're fighting the man and his Unjust Laws while at the same time not wanting anyone to know who they are. Maybe it's a form of protest, I don't know, but it's *not* civil disobedience. Whether the copyright laws are really unjust are not...we'll find out soon enough.
--mulch
--mulch
--mulch
The
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. Most bands hope to get their major record deal through word of mouth, and constantly play nightclubs and such trying to do so. The people who actually get signed, however, send demo tapes to various record labels, hoping that one of them will sign them on.
Don't get me wrong, occasionally groups do get signed thanks to word of mouth, but my impression is that the majority don't.
At least, this has been the impression I've gotten from various musician interviews.
But DMCA is Digital Millenium Copyright Act. If the copyright on the DVD is invalid, can you invoke DMCA?
Call it what it is -- freeloading, selectively ignoring the law for personal gain, expediently distributing intangible goods in ones own direction, or whatever. Don't lie and pretend that there's anything noble aboput freeloading.
Region 0 DVD discs are discs that can be played on any DVD working player, regardless of region or modifications.
They do exist. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. There are lists around, but I forget where. Sometimes there is no region listed on the box or the disc and it ends up being R0 (also no region listed but turns out locked to one of them). Sometimes there _IS_ a region stated, but it turns out to be R0, or at least supports more regions than stated. Sometimes they have a globe with an ALL written in them, that means R0.
The region coding is controlled by bits on the disc somewhere.
The best part about that is in Canada we have a little surcharge on every recordable CD. That money goes to the RIAA (or whatever the Canadian branch of it is), just in case you use that CD to pirate their music.
They have issued a indefinite lenght moratory on the issue, because they could not prove that blank CD's were solely used for pirating music. I for one run nightly backups on CDR's, and never (honest.) burned music on a blank. Quality is shitty anyways.
They also once tried to pull this stunt on VHS blanks and audio tapes. Keeps failing.
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
It's interesting that the porno industry apparently works very much like the independent music business described above. Female porn stars use 'movies' to promote their own 'tours' to clubs, where the make the majority of their money. Perhaps all movies will be that way one of these days.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
That's chickenshit logic and everybody knows it.
Nope. That's the way our legal system works.
People who want to share copyrighted files over Napster should be required to specific permission from the content owner for each and every single transfer of that content.
Wrong, and just plain stupid. That's like saying that everyone who tapes a tv show must request and receive permission first. Like saying that I must ask before I can make a copy of a cd that i own so that I can keep it in my car and it won't be a great loss if it gets all scratched up.
We have "fair use" for a reason. It's because copyright holders were never meant to have absolute control over the works that they've copyrighted. That's where the music industry has screwed up. They've been trying to expand their power and control for years. It would be nice to see them finally get stepped on.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
your comment seems to reinforce the claim of abuse of monopoly power; that the method used by the big recording companies specifically stifles and prevents competition from an independent artist. Much like a big company selling undercost to drive out competition in one area, and selling at markup where they're market is controlled; the record companies are loosing a lot on advertising in order to make a lot on physical sales of media. I'm not sure what my point is tho. Maybe that the better advertising system of word of mouth on the internet plus the ease of delivery is driving them out of business like the factories drove the guilds out of business?
---
Not 'musical copyright.' Just the copyrights which are being abused, used in an 'anti-competitive' fashion. Copyright law was intended to protect the creator, not to bludgeon the competitors.
IIRC both copyright (and patents) were intended to protect creators of art, literature and inventions so that they would be willing to share their creations with others. WIth out fear of being "ripped off".
Double jeopardy does not apply to civil trials. So the RIAA is free to sue napster again for copyright infringment even if the first suit is thrown out because of the misuse clause.
The only real change over the years has been the recording technology. Each successive generation has had access to more and more user-freindly media and equipment, making the practice of private trading accessible to more and more people. And the people who make the most profit from commercial distribution have screamed bloody murder at the introduction of each new enabling technology.
Same old $hit, different platform.
I can see the fnords!
Fine. How does someone even know who the copyright holder even is for something? How would they go about proving it to Napster? How about something that's in the public domain (and how does one prove it)? And what about something covered by, say, the GPL?
The burden of proof is on the copyright holder to determine that a violation occurred (in the US, at any rate). Period.
Why not just use www.anonymizor.com for stuff thats blocked? =)
... wherever it damn well pleases.
i don't really see this as making any difference in the music industry, because the RIAA is a 2000 pound gorilla, and it is choosing to sit on Napster. As long as we have idiots like Lars Ulrich who believe that they work for a living, the vast majority of the Technically Illiterate will say "well, i think it's wrong because that intelligent drummer from metallica said so."
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
Even Courtney comes to the conclusion that a new way is needed. She doesn't think the record companies are going to go away anytime soon, and they are still needed in some ways, but perhaps something will come along to give the artist some more power instead of them having to sign over the rights to their creations forever in return for some chance of making a living at what they do (but more likely just earning them a lot of debt). (and don't give me any BS about them not *having* to sign anything... if they aren't already huge and they want to get their album distributed, then they don't get a choice.)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Umm, it isn't "near-political", the RIAA as a whole is extremelly political. Do some digging on opensecrets.org for a certain Hilary B. Rosen which, if you didn't know, is the CEO of the RIAA. Before she got the job as CEO she was clearing almost 700k/yr. I'll bet that number is higher now. But the kicker is how much she spends of her personal money on PAC contributions. Let me give you a hint: it's more than some nerd in Redmond.
It's a troll.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
very few people noticed it in the broader hoo-ha.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
I hope they use this hammer well.
In the brick and morter distribution model there is millions spent each year to track who buys what CD when, where, and why. Big money (read:Billboard) is made from knowing about the distribution of music in the conventional model. This very same tracking data is hurting the RIAAs argument that CD sales have fallen.
Indy artists do benifit from napster, it's just that nobody knows about it.
Only recently has there been a means to track who downloads what and when on file sharing networks. If an independant artist can prove that they distributed just 10 MP3s a month, it would help Boies and his case considerably.
___
um, wouldn't the slashdot staff say something in their defense? the criticism has been fast and fierce. I doubt they'd just sit there and take it. Unless they are in on the joke? pheiopfph!
I imagine Microsoft has crossed the same line in their various nefarious persuits.
I know this is a weak possibility, so maybe someone more familiar with microsoft history and/or the law could comment?
:)Fudboy
:)Fudboy
I guess I'm only a Fudboy, looking for that real Transmeta
Many thanks to David Boies for taking this case... he seems to have his act together.
-moibus http://moibus.jfm.net/
And is she a woman yet? Last i looked she was a little girl ;-)
Anyway - you can use this same technique to request everyone except britney spears and force a radio station to go all britney
Many fields of endevour only have a few players, which can be as bad as only one company. The airline situation in Australia is far worse than the software industry in America, yet it has two big players.
At the least, Microsoft would be equivalent to trying to get into the MP3 market too vigorously, rather than trying to kill off MP3s.
And if you wanted to delve deeper, what about the competing OSs? The copyright holder of one OS holds the copyright of a lot of the software that runs on the OS, and another OS dominates (at least until recently) the hardware markets the OS runs on (and owns some other software as well).
People may ask how much M$ is paying me to say this. Let me tell you: nothing.
I get options instead.
My shallow understanding is that if you use copyright enforcement to violate anti-trust law then you'd loose all rights to defend that copyright in any way forever-and-ever. If that's the case then Napster only has to show that anti-trust law was broken at some point in the past. They wouldn't have to show the current suit against Napster is anti-competative (which would be really had to do).
... Kittie got a writeup recently for using mp3.com to get on the billbard charts.
But maybe I'm missing something?
BTW
- bridgette
And how was the RIAA formed? How did the RIAA find out about that musicians music? How did the fans find out about them?
Answer: Word of mouth.
What's the single best technology ever invented for rapid peer-to-peer communication (word of mouth), as evidenced by the hundreds of e-mails with the letters FW: or FWD: in the subject line?
I rest my case, your honor.
They must be talking about a different Napster. The one we all know and love forces me to share at least the contents of my download directory, and it always uploads the list of files, without even asking.
Invalidating the copyrights on the music will screw the artists more than the industry. A percentage of sales goes to the American Federation of Muscians and is used to promote free live concerts (to schools and such) and to compensate the sidemen on the records.
It's small, but many muscians depend on that little check. Don't forget the side men!
-coyo
--------------------------------------------------
What portion of Napster users have modems? I dare you to try to download a whole CD's worth of MP3 files over a modem using Napster. Go ahead, try it. Let me know how much hair you tear out during this process.
Until we all get broadband access, Napster is and will remain primarily a sampling service. (What happens after that is a different universe.)
would people opt out of paying their taxes for the same reason. They'd all start filing the 1040EZ saying they made $15K, while the rest of their income is hidden by anonymous digital cash transactions.
Interesting. But, have you read www.paynoincometax.com yet?
Perhaps the government would have to go to a sales tax
They are ethically obligated to do this anyway. Regardless of the questionable legality of an income tax, it's morally repulsive. I should not have to report my income to Big Brother. They have no business knowing what I'm doing, or how much I'm paid for it, as long as I'm not hurting anyone.
nt
As I read the article, I just kept thinking this all applies to DVDs and DeCSS. Expect an entrenched war with entire corporations literally on the line. There's too much money at risk for this to fade away.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
I didn't pick up on anything like that. I think he was simply pointing out that the internet itself is a distribution medium which the RIAA is currently unable to control, hence providing a low-cost to no-cost option for independents.
Sweet. If this goes through then there may be hopes for open source DVD.
DISC IANAL,BMGIALS
...an affirmative defense that bars the copyright holder from enforcing its copyright unless and until its misuse is cured.
Which sounds to me like there would be an infringement grace period.
Say I m infringing, and I win a suit against me on misuse.... After the misuse is cured, they can't sue me again, right?
I understand the affirmative defence concept- like pleading guilt by temporary insanity or He Needed Killin'... But if a court ruled that misuse was going on, and I'm not related to the case in which that was shown, can't I then infringe freely with the knowledge that the (C) can't be enforced?
chris
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
>Car thieves have proved that if you use your car >in an anti-competitive fashion (or some other >legal mombo jumbo) you can loose the title. You mean like policemen seizing cars because they found a roach in the ashtray? Welcome to zero tolerance, friend. Coming soon to your computer. If Napster shuts down we'll be on Nipster, Nopster, and Nupster day after tomorrow. The only way to take these MP3s off our computer is to come to our houses and do it personally. We will see copyright law end or martial law begin.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
If the copyright on the DVD is invalid, can you invoke DMCA?
IANAL, but the phrase the DMCA uses is "a work protected under this title", i.e. Title 17, the Title of United States code that concerns copyright. So I doubt an invalid copyright could have any kind of protection under DMCA.
My question is about another interesting bit in the DMCA:
The sentence preceding this is the prohibition on circumventing access protection mechanisms. When was the two-year mark passed, exactly?
...especially where the lawyer points out the previous case involving Betamax VCRs. Napster has many, perfectly legal uses. Uses that even involve copyrighted music. Napster should not be held responsible for the actions of its users any more than ISP's should be held responsible for theirs!
--o You're just jealous cause the voices talk to me and not to you! o--
Unfourtunately, I don't think that this will help DeCSS at all. The case against DeCSS (and it's inventor) has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but instead is filed under the DMCA, which states that breaking encryption is a crime (regardless of whether or not it has any repercussions, ie aiding piracy.)
This is the first bit of news in a long time that is positive for napster. Looks like money well spent in the lawyer department
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
(Score:0, Redundant)
Bloody serves you right.
--
Whom does Larry Wall quote in
This is because you have not explored the configuration options of napster. Simply set the download directory to be different from your upload directory and you will no longer have this problem. In fact, you can set the number of simultaneous uploads to zero and you won't have to worry about people downloading from you at all. Use your brain.
"My religion is to live --and die-- without regret." -- Milarepa
Can you think of any software publishers who have used copyright for anti-competitive purposes? ;-)
sigs are a waste of space
It can still be civil disobeience when people will not be going to jail. It's a much more relaxed form of civil disobedeance which says "these are unjust laws, so lets make it people's habit to break the law, then they wil change the law."
i.e. The people writing Gnutella, Freenet, and maybe Napster could be to be engaging in civil disobedeance. The users who encurage their friends to use these programs or put up lots of stuf so that people will like the programs may be engaging in civil disobedeance, but they guy who just logs on to Napster to DL a file is not really ngaging in civil disobedeance.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
When individuals are trade music privately, and on a one-to-one basis, it (legally) is not piracy.
Napster doesn't facilitate trading. In fact, it doesn't even provide for the functionality. It facilitates duplication since the original file remains after the file is downloaded. Change this, and the act clearly becomes legal.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Many will herald it as a major victory for freedom lovers everywhere if Napster is successful in its defense. But think for a moment. The music industry at present is fuelled by large amount of cash. Sure, much of it is corporate gluttony, but can you imagine what would happen to music as an industry if musical copyright went flying right out the window?
It's forseeable that one can put together decent quality musical recordings on a slim budget. But what about promotions, tours, music videos, movie soundtracks, and everything else that makes the music industry hum while sating consumer appetites? Will any appreciable portion of the music we know and love continue on without the "protection" of copyright?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the music industry generates billions of dollars a year. That means that people are willing to pay a lot of money to obtain musical recordings, see concerts, buy T-shirts, etc. In a free market economy, if you have a lot of people willing to pay a lot of money for a service that a lot of other people are willing to render, someone will find a way to make it happen. In fact, if you took the record industry out of the picture, it would free up a lot of cash that could be used to buy even more music.
I can't believe that people believe that, without copyright, the music and movie industries would die. Please remember, people, that Ron Popeil can make tons of money selling all kinds of crap. Someone got rich selling hair in a can! I can't believe that, somehow, making money selling movies and music--things people attach very high values to--copyright or no, is somehow harder than making people shell out $19.95 for a can of spray-on hai
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
The new Rios have support for SMDI, but also support non-crippled MP3z. Let's be real though... Who is going to load a SMDI MP3 onto their player when they could get a regular MP3 easier than buying an SMDI from some online company.
WURD!!
Many will herald it as a major victory for freedom lovers everywhere if Napster is successful in its defense. But think for a moment. The music industry at present is fuelled by large amount of cash. Sure, much of it is corporate gluttony, but can you imagine what would happen to music as an industry if musical copyright went flying right out the window?
It's forseeable that one can put together decent quality musical recordings on a slim budget. But what about promotions, tours, music videos, movie soundtracks, and everything else that makes the music industry hum while sating consumer appetites? Will any appreciable portion of the music we know and love continue on without the "protection" of copyright?
What would be next? Movies? Certainly most of the major blockbusters that leave us ooohing and aaaahing would have a much more difficult time getting funded if protected distribution channels (yes, yes, for profit, no less) collapse? I want my Matrix sequels, goddammit!
I strongly doubt anyone would revoke musical copyright en masse, via. these legal chicken scratchings or otherwise. But it does throw a nice monkey wrench into things. Perhaps this will force both sides to be more reasonable with regard to their near-political stance on the issue.
-DrPsycho - Coping with reality since 1975
I think the real issue in this case is fair use, which is essentially the problem with all of Boies' arguments. He argues that other court cases allow copying of music, but he doesn't address how fair use in those cases can apply to napster.
For instance, it is clearly fair use to make a copy for yourself that you can put on your Rio and take jogging. BUT, for Boies to cite this case and say that it is therefore OK to make available copies for hundreds or thousands of other people is a stretch.
As an analogy, imagine you go to the public library, copy an article from a magazine so you can refer to it while writing a research paper. This is clearly covered by fair use. If, however, you are the professor of a class and hand out copies to all your 100 students, you are starting to walk a fine line. If you scanned it in and posted it on the Internet, no court in the US would uphold that as fair use.
Basically, fair use is decided in part based on the amount you copy as well as the extent to which you distribute the copied materials. In the case of Napster, their users are often copying large amounts of material and making them available for wide distribution.
NOW, this doesn't make Napster any more legally responsible than say Xerox would be for the magazine article example, but the fact of the matter is that a large number of Napster users are infringing copyright without falling under fair use.
So what does all of this have to do with copyrights? Well, by having such a strong hold on musical distribution, promotion, and sales, they have willfully discouraged competition in the music business. A musician has little choice but to go to a corperate giant to have his/her music ever see widespread distribution. Because of this tremendous power, and in effors to keep CD prices high, they allow very little to ever make it to market. Not to say that everyone who submits a demo to a label should be signed, but by limiting to such a great extend who gets exposure, they limit comsumer choice. By limiting consumer choice, they can keep prices high. After all, what else are you going to buy? This brings us back to the case against Napster. Like the article stated, if Napster can prove that the labels have "abused their market power to block alternative channels of music distribution, along with an obscure antitrust law, the attorney says the labels have lost the legal ability to enforce their copyrights.", then they could loose rights to almost all of their profitible artists. And so the entire lawsuit will backfire in their faces. Eat your heart out MTV, the musical revolution begins NOW!
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
The RIAA's been such a bunch of fucking assholes lately that I think just about everyone would love to see them get their clock cleaned in this fashion. I hope Boies can pull it off. I bet this news is making a few assholes clench over in RIAA land.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
no no no you've got it backward.
The monkey is "piracy".
The idea behind an SP-style "chewbacca defense" is to locate something that easily appeals without a lot of thinking. Something that can be easily grasped, and that makes you happy to think about because it lets you easily look at the problems in terms of right/wrong. Take a complex, multifaceted issue, and insert one simple word: PIRACY. suddenly The DeCSS Hackers Are Wrong. The MPAA Is Right. Simple, Black and White, not a painful, important decision. It's not a difficult, painful issue with many sides, it's about Copyright Piracy, and Piracy is simple, and Piracy is something that they have seen on the news and that can be easily morally justified and that the plaintiff has repeated over and over often enough the jury can believe it's true.
Or, if you want a far, far more powerful word for your monkey: Children. Imply that Children are being "hurt" by one side or the other, and no matter how rediculous your justification for claiming this, no matter how tenuous your support for yuour side, no matter how valid the other side may be.. the other side is GONE. See Also "columbine".
Monopolistic tendancies of huge labels harming independant, little artists and enabling the labels to rape and screw over even signed artists do NOT make a good monkey. (try looking up sometime that essay by the guy who produced the Pixies [i think?] on how most apparently successful artists are actually deep, deep in debt to the record companies because of contract complications, and the whole Letter of Intent thing..) They can't be that easily grasped, they force you to actually (*gasp*) re-evaluate some of your assumptions about those bands you're hearing on the radio, and they may even force you to look at your mighty god 104.1 KRBE, Today's Modern Hits! as something that maybe doesn't, at heart, care that much about music.
Most importantly, thinking about the true nature of the music industry as a parasite on an art form requires, well, THINKING, which defeats the entire purpose of the monkey in the first place. The point of the chewbacca defence is to keep the jury from thinking; give them something nice and happy to distract them, like The MPAA Is Stopping Piracy or The Christian Right Is Protecting Children, so that they don't actually think about the issue deeply enough to realize it's something with more than one side, something in which the side with the more valid concerns may actually not be the most obvious one.. Making the jury think is counterproductive, and besides, people don't like to think.
Basically, in this case it's easier to think about the music companies' monkey than Boies' monkey. And while the music companies' monkey may be a bit more relevant, Boies' monkey is far, far more valid.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Hey, It couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people... And yes, I do have the Anti-RIAA sticker from Thinkgeek.com
http://www.linkdj.net/
After doing something many posters have not--READING SOME OF THE ARTICLE, I learned a new fact:
When individuals are trade music privately, and on a one-to-one basis, it (legally) is not piracy.
This makes the case much more intersting for armchair layers like myself. (It's like chess, but sometimes with teams, and opponents must do research.)
Napster obviously facilitates trading of copyrighted material. The question is, can the interaction be considered private, as it occurs with public listings? And is it considered non-profit after Napster began advertising for profit?
It could be that Napster the corporation may be found liable. But if that happens, individuals will continue to legally trade music online in private, one-to-one transactions. They may do it on _free_ FTP, (screw you allAdvantage whores,) or on a decentralized napster clone. But they will do it.
In fact, maybe "Napter guilty" won't be a bad verdict. Since it has been established that individual trading is lawfull, let us legally encourage _distributed_ information sharing, and another step of evolution in the information age.
Why bother even following the links anymore? First Posters never do, and everything ends up being regurgitated here anyway. At least add some commentary . . .
And then there are the moderators who don't bother following links anyway, see info--or worse, see any info that looks correct, and then gives it +1, Something.
At least say how this "Strikes a Blow Against Evil Corporations" or make an obligatory comparison to the MS case . . .
--
Never trust anyone over 90000.
Ok... maybe some rock fans may think that 'Sandstorm' is just noise and drum machines...
But this record got a distrubter in teh UK and it managed to get to number 2 after it was found on a music sharing service...
Of course - the record industry don';t like club culture - they can't control what records will be huge.
The powers that be got this language in to stop people that were actively trading music but not selling it. If you give someone a recording in expectation that they will send you a different one in return, then that is now considered commercial gain.
This may or may not affect Napster. When you download a file from someone else's computer with Napster, there is no expectation that you will return the favor and upload something back. In fact, you can't do that at all. The protocol is one-way.
Just something to think about.
Burris
Now why is it that I emailed you earlier today, telling you that it was a troll (on the off-chance that you were a sucker instead of a troll yourself), and the email didn't bounce, and yet here you are, still trolling the same old line? Can it be that you're a troll yourself? With an email address like natalie_portman@evilemail.com? Heavens.
It's a troll, people. Nothing to see here, move along.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Hmm...Microsoft attempting to use the copyright on the spec of its Kerberos extension to control competition in the form of alternative implementations of said spec?
This was specifically aimed at traders.
Burris
I especially like the rebuke to Metallica in footnote 23 on page 23 of the document.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
It's interesting that copyright could be used in a way totally contrary to it's original intentions.
Personally, I think a loss of all of their current copyrights would force them to actually be *creative* in their choice of works to publish (and bring some material into the public domain, which hasn't happened except by willing release for the past who knows how many years). Maybe this will give them that kick in the pants they need to stop shoveling us this crap they have been.
It'll be interesting to watch. They should sell courtside tickets.
--
I have a certification! It's called Insanity(tm)!
If I play this right I can make up for my loss durring the Elian Gonzo thingy.. bwuahaha :)
If this gets moderated up, I'm never comming here again
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
After reading through the brief, it seems Boies has some good points. Let's hope Napster comes out of all this all right - if it doesn't, it could be shut down, or even worse - it could become a pay-per-play service in conjuction with the RIAA, using some dogshit proprietary format (cough, cough, Windows Media Audio .wma files). The copying and redistribution by users would be attacked,rather than facilitated, and Napster would become a whore for the RIAA - a vendor, making higher profit margins for them even more than the already outreagous rate is for CDs.
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
CD's last 100 years
This is just plain wrong. Some of the first CD's I bought back in the 1980's are showing signs of degredation. The aluminium reflective layer is starting to oxidize at the outer edge, and causing the plastic layers to delaminate. These CD's will be useless by 2010. Note: I have never owned a car with a CD player. They've never been stored in the sun.
Perhaps CD's of more recent manufacture have better storage characteristics, but the first generation CD's are terrible.
Temkin
If this is true... unban my Napster account!
Man, that's a slap and a half. If it works out. In any case, it's a huge gun to pull out and should help redefine exactly where everyone stands on the ol' power meter.
I'm glad the law exists, really. When you think about it, copyright should never be used the way the RIAA is using it. They aren't trying to protect the rights of the artists, they're trying to protect their market share, and that's just not what the law is for.
Just a reality check on the scope here. Is it civil disobedience? Or just selectively ignoring the law?
I usually think of civil disobedience whenever people are willing to risk being beaten, imprisoned, burned at the stake, etc. for cherished religious and political liberties.
Now while there are really important free-speech issues involved in the case, the 'right' to sample music before purchasing doesn't really fall into the same category as what Gandhi and M.L.King were fighting for. I seriously doubt most Napster users are prepared to go to jail over this.
Corollary to Moore's Law: The IQ of new computer owners is declining.
Proof?
You are pulling this out of ... the air. I say this as one who has academic degrees both in printing and in church history.
I would not have responded if you had not brought it up again.
Please, can't you make your case without bogus historical claims?
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Car thieves have proved that if you use your car in an anti-competitive fashion (or some other legal mombo jumbo) you can loose the title.
Yes, but then they *still* lose the copyright protection!
I've bought the worldwide rights to a TV-show. But it took almost all my money. So now that I'm going to put out a DVD of this series, I can only make one version. Regional coding prohibits me from competing on several markets with my DVD, since they only work for one region.
A very real problem if you consider DVDs for a series, which could amount to a lot of DVDs and a high cost for the maker.
Could this not be considered a hindrance to my ability to compete? (just an example)
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." - Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
The truly great (and, sadly, late) guitarist Howard Roberts once observed, "People don't know what they like-- they like what they know." That's why RIAA-controlled acts overwhelmingly dominate Napster traffic; obviously, people are sharing what's popular.
And why is it popular? Because the RIAA's member companies fund the "independent" promotion which buys that popularity. Reread Courtney Love does the math and Steve Albini's The Problem With Music . In that sense, the RIAA already controls Napster, just as it controls the longer-established distribution channels-- illegally, immorally, and (at least to this point) untouchably. Whether Boies can establish this in court is another matter.
As an unsigned artist, I've considered making my music available on Napster, but what good would it do me? Even if all mention of RIAA-controlled acts vanished from Napster servers overnight, how would a Napster user find me tomorrow? How would s/he know what search terms to use?
Sadly, about the only promotion method available to unknown, unsigned artists like myself is shameless, if subtle, spamming, such as this.
--
syrynx
syrynx
Just because they don't call it a beta doesn't mean it isn't one.
Aren't the new Rios modified to close this loophole? Supposedly that's part of the "SDMI compliant" tag they wear.
tryin to troll a troll of a troll? or is it troll a troll trolling a troll's troll? I give up.
free osm!!
Think about it, if RIAA were split up into two organizations, they'd spend most of their time suing one another as opposed to everyone/everything else....heh I know it's bullshit but it makes sense :)
You can't take the sky from me.
After lengthy papers by the likes of RMS against Metallica, the necessity of freedom by Thomas Jefferson, and a little addition drafted by some guy named James Madison to a seemingly unimportant document, Good may actually come of this :)
Perhaps we haven't thrown out this document yet? This brings back images of Teddy nearly a century ago.
And its nice to see that the community is actually benifting, not money grubbing corporations. After all, this is for the community, and not just commodities, right Metallica?
--
Never trust anyone over 90000.
Imagine a world without the RIAA. Artists could release music straight to the net. CDs, Tapes, etc. could be obsolete. People would just download the music. Completely possible. That would eliminate a lot of the music industry, right? So the RIAA is just protecting themselves (No, I am not pro-RIAA, just a devil's advocate). Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the profit margins are for tapes and CDs? The only people that should be profitting are the musicians, but there are so many layers between the musicians and the consumers and everyone has to have their profits...
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
CD-R and CD-Rewriteable is very good for backing up your linux system (if you don't have a tape drive). There are many other reasons you might want to make your own CDs (like a cheap, nigh-unhackable webserver).
This could wind up going to the supreme court, as it goes to the very nature of what laws fall under "[promoting] the progress of science and useful arts." Unfortunately, what is more likely is that the RIAA will get scared that they will lose their copyright completely, and will settle out of court.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Could someone mirror the .pdf for those who can't get to napster.com? My uni blocked them a while back due to a doubled bandwidth bill...