Slashdot Mirror
Senate Judiciary Committee On Digital Music
An unnamed correspondent writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the future of digital music at [this link]. Real Video's available from [The Washington Post] or on CSPAN. (I'd recommend using the CSPAN link, it appears to work better). Witnesses include Lars Ulrich of Metallica; Roger McGuinn of The Byrds; Hank Berry, CEO of Napster; Michael Robertson, Chairman and CEO of MP3.com; Fred Ehrlich, President of New Technology, Sony Music Entertainment; Gene Hoffman, Jr., Founder, CEO and President, Emusic.com; Gene Kan, Gnutella developer and Infrasearch founder; Jim Griffin, Founder and CEO, Cherry Lane Music. (A hard copy of their planned statements can be found at [the U.S. Senate Web site]." Of course, whether this is an issue that ought to be handled politically rather than in the marketplace is a question I hope the witnesses get around to in their spare moments.
Speaking as a person who was sued by the RIAA, spent 6 months of her life in fear, and lost tens of thousands of dollars in cash because of sharing MP3s files--a system which only a few people participated, hardly the level at which many music-swappers operate--I feel compelled to speak about this matter.
The [record companies] v. Napster lawsuit has finally brought to light the significance of digital music to Congress. Billions of dollars are at stake here--a figure big enough to catch Congress' attention--and an entire sector of the economy will be impacted in ways that will shape the landscape of intellectual property policy for decades.
You must get involved NOW while you still can, to push the tide of the law on our side rather than on the record companies'.
If you value your freedom--freedom to link and freedom to copy music for noncommercial purposes--now is the time to write your senators and demand that any legal issues regarding non-commercial copying of music be settled once and for all. We continue to live in a legal grey area in which recording company lawyers, backed by tremendous wads of cash, have the ability to coerce people to concede to their demands to stop all activity involving music that does not involve paying them $16+ for a brand new CD or tying the listening of digital music to our fingerprints.
While there is little doubt that linking should be made unequivocably legal, Congress could seriously limit our ability to share music--or even make backup copies--if we don't make clear our desires while their ears are open. Fight now, and fight hard! Make your opinions known, through phone call, letter or FAX.
Don't let the RIAA run away with our rights!
Napster stands for nothing that Slashdot does, but because they give music away free (as in beer, but not in speech) everyone loves them. Anyone care to explain?
.mp3 files around from user to user. There are pleanty of .mp3 files out there that are NOT copywrited, or are public domain. Yes, Napster can be used as a tool for piracy, but as has often been pointed out, nearly ANYTHING could be used as a tool for something bad. Telnet can be used to hack systems. Compilers can be used to write viruses. Ecetera, ad nausium. The point is, you can't (well, shouldn't, in my mind) outlaw something, because it MIGHT be used by someone bad to do something bad.
I'll take a stab at explaining... Or at least why *I* would rather see Napster win than RIAA:
Part of it, of course, is my [probably over simplistic] ideology as a programmer. The guys at napster and gnutella each came up with a neat idea, and translated it into program code. It was never originally intended to be malicious, or to cause harm to anyone or any individual. IMHO, acts of creativity that are not inherrantly malicious should not be made illegal.
And as for the point that Napster is a corperate entity, and profits from people using it, my general reaction is "so what?". So they've managed to find a way to offer a service for free, and profit themselves in the process. So has Yahoo, along with most search engines. So have a lot of websites. (Slashdot included, I believe). The fact that someone profits from something does not, in my mind, immedietly make it evil.
I hope Napster wins this one, because if it doesn't, it will set what is in my mind a VERY dangerous precedent. Consider: Napster is not specifically designed to pirate, it is simply designed to move
If RIAA wins and shuts down Napster, then all they will have done is cured a symptom, not a disease. The problem is the people. If they want to pirate things, they will. Using whatever tools they find most convienent. Napster is under fire because at the moment, it is an extremely convienent tool. If you remove Napster, then all that you will accomplish is to remove one outlet, and force people to move to a different one. And if you continue the precedent of outlawing anything that could be used in a criminal activity, then before too long, we'll all end up living in a world of Nerf, programming in BASIC.
Funny bit is, he did the same thing we've all been doing. Finding a group you wouldn't normally listen to a hearing what they sound like.
In a sad way he proved what some of us have been saying but didn't even notice it.
Malk-a-mite
Back in 1997, Metallica had a chat on MSN. There, someone asked the band what their thoughts were on the fact that their songs were being distributed on the Internet. According to Kirk Hammett, "We don't give a fuck!"
You know, I honestly wonder why Metallica is going against MP3s now...[ insert conspiracy theory here ]
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
Copying work without permission is illegal and wrong in many cases -- but there are certain legitimate types of fair-use copying such as archival backup, translation of purchased work to another data format, sampling for review, study, and parody, etc.
The law should enforce access to these particular exceptions every bit as strongly as it enforces copyright; and the penalties for cutting off the former should be no less severe than the penalties for infringing upon the latter. The purpose of legitimate law is to protect the rights of all concerned parties -- when someone is made an outlaw in the traditional sense (a person excluded from the protection of the law), he has every reason to become an outlaw in the modern colloquial sense (someone who regards the law with contempt and commits crimes whenever he thinks he can profit from it and get away with it).
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Whenever I hear one of these discussions, I cannot help but remember this quote.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all." -- Robert A. Heinlein ("Life-Line")
What was more interesting is that the artists have organized. This gives the Courtney Loves and Sheryl Crows (and yes, the Metallicas) a group to work with that isn't the RIAA.
Essentially, to this point it's been:
- RIAA to Napster: Die!
- Napster to RIAA, in response: No, you die!
Now the artists fly in from off the turnbuckle and scream "You both die!"I think the artists are probably the most level-headed people in this whole debate, and certainly have a lot to add. I'm glad they're organized now.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
They are selectively choosing the copyright holders and corporate web entities for their discussions.
What they missed were people who've done research on the history and meaning of copyright law in the US. People like RMS writing or Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig. It is critical that the Congress hear from people who actually consider the intent of copyright law (hint - it is not only about making money from one's authorship).
Copyright is intended to pass into public domain after a limited period of monopolism of SOME rights. It is entirely unclear that we SHOULD or CAN enforce draconian copyright laws in cyberspace.
Oh well, it could be worse. At least we don't have actors from Hollywood getting involved like they do in everything else. "I once played a musician in a movie and am thus qualified to provide professional commentary to this committee on the subject at hand."
Once it hits congress, it's all down hill from here.
---
seumas.com
"We traced the source of this leak to a corporation called Napster." - Lars
Want to try that again there little drummer boy?
I believe the leak would be traced back to someone who had access to the demo tapes!
Unless the claim is that the employee's of Napster were sneaking in at night to your studio and stealing the tapes while you slept.
Malk-a-mite