Slashdot Mirror
Napster Shut Down Until Trial
tealover noted thatMSNBC has headline saying that Napster has been shut down by the judge. As of this writing, its still up, and the Napster MOTD is telling us to expect an announcement in a couple of hours. More when we got it.
here is a zdnet story. I've attached the MOTD below.
Update: 07/27 12:40 AM by CT : this washington post story reports that the injunction will go in effect PM friday. Boycotts against the RIAA are being discussed.
This is the motd you get when you connect to napster as of 8:02 eastern:
You have probably heard in the news about the recording industry's lawsuit against Napster. The RIAA has asked a federal judge to shut Napster down, and an important hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. PDT Wednesday, July 26 at the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. PDT we will give the Napster community a brief update of what happened in the courtroom via a live webcast that you can view at www.napster.com.
Your analogy is so poor (like moste analogies on legal cases on Slashdot), it's a bit like that elephant I once met, who had trouble cooking pasta because he could'nt get into the shop to buy the water to boil. "You don't need to buy the water!" I told him, "Just get it from the tap", tapping him in the back. "The problem is," he replied, "my paws are too big, I can't operate the tap. As a matter of fact, I can't even get into my own appartment, so I have to sleep in the lobby".
First off, I've seen many good points pointed out by many people about the current Napster situation, but for some reason, there's always some annoying joe that has to argue some small insiginificant point just to waste time.
Here's The facts:
1.Napvigator/openNap, etc. has the same content or more than the standard Napster servers.
2. Napster and Napster's service is LEGAL. i.e. technically, they are completely legitamite. What is trying to be proved by the RIAA is that the current legalese that protects Napster(i.e. no illegal links on the Napster server) is killing the music industry.
Napster may be shut down. Grr...
3.Most people, if offered something they want for free, will take it. If you're morally against this, go join the FBI to do internet crackdowns, but sorry, you can't get in because a. YOU DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL b. YOU THINK YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE LAW CUZ YOU READ NEWSWEEK c. YOU'RE JUST A COMMUNITY COLLEGE REJECT/LIBERAL ARTS (that failed to do well on the LSAT) MAJOR!
4. Coders will always react faster than lawyers and old senators like Orin Hatch who thought IP address meant Intellectual Property Address (in which the the president of Napster politely corrected him)
5. There are smart people that happen to be fast coders that love free music that will share music via encryption, if it comes down to it, and they don't care about your AOL-this-is-wrong-go-to-Church opinion.
6. People's demands for free music cannot be stopped, once they've tasted Napster, do you think they're just going to give up? hell no.
For now, there are alt-Napsters.
If necessary, there will be encrypt-Napsters.
There will be enhanced Gnutellas.
Information or media of any kind can NEVER be contained. Information WANTS to be free. It lives on without us, because it is the power of ideas, content, or music (that inspires ideas, feelings, etc.) that pushes each new generation to latch on without anyone pushing them.
To all the moral preachers: Shut-up, no one really cares about your opinion, you DONT count, sorry.
To all the complainers: There's nothing to worry about. They can't control the net.
To all the uber-coders (im not talking about your city college breed..): Code on and shut everyone up...
The one who coded Napster made everyone stop for a while, then everyone talks about it... Dont just talk about it, code it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.... go. code!
Alright... here goes. Now, IANAL, nor anything else that would grant me instant credibility... but...I do have a few thoughts on this whole thing that may be worth glancing at. Sorry it's sort of a formless rant.
What does a win for the RIAA mean? They shut down Napster, do they? There's other servers out there. It's maybe a one month delay before virtually every napster user out there migrates to some open server, without logging, or perhaps even one of the alternatives without any of the file filters. This doesn't mean much except that pirating becomes more and more common. The RIAA probably wouldn't even see much of a spike in record sales, if any at all.
If they win the case, a hell of a lot of people hate the RIAA for destroying something of the free spirit of the internet (I don't care that it isn't really in the spirit of freeness, or really what exactly the spirit of the internet really is (I've always thought of it as defined by popular opinion)). It really doesn't sound like the RIAA has too much to gain from this. They're not gonna push any legislation through, because it takes too long. They can't keep sueing every person who puts up a Napster like server, because in a short while, there will be no centralization. They have better uses for their money. So why are they suing?
Might the RIAA want to *lose* this whole thing? I know it's a totally ludicrous idea, but this would be perhaps one of the greatest acts of free publicity that the RIAA could ever pull... I don't see any direct gain for them... but just about everything has it's hidden ups and downs... I have a feeling that a loss for the RIAA might not be as bad for them as we all think. Supposing the RIAA sought out good AND technically oriented lawyers? I wonder if perhaps they would expect said lawyers to perform at something less than the best of their abilities, as most of you out there would, were you confronted by the RIAA and saw, with that mind that sees the broader picture of effects (or maybe even the simple, "I want my free music" Joe Schmoes as well). Let me reiterate everyone else out there... this is NOT the end of music on the internet... if code is going to be recognized as a form of expression, then there will always be some form of filesharing out there... as time passes, things will simply before more complex and, despite that, I think that it will become more common.
You know, I bet that the RIAA execs use Napster. I bet their lawyers use Napster. I bet their kids use Napster. If use could be traced back to them... and publicized... I think they'd never hear the end of it.
You all aware of the whole Seven Degrees of Separation thing? You (yes, you, every one of you) knows everyone else (well, almost anyone, excluding very secluded villages) on the planet. Through your connections. You know a guy who knows a gal, who's father is an agent who knows Meg Ryan. You know how it works, right? That's the basis for Gnutella. Use those connections, people, if you would do your fellow man, women, child, or even a scrawny little computer nerd sitting in a darkened room. You know the lawyers, the execs, the janitor who didn't do so great a job of destroying those RIAA contract drafts, whether you know it or not... use them. Maybe even have a word or two with the guys. All those movements (open source, free music... whatever) that come through slashdot have a viewpoint that needs to be spread through the public. A law is only as good as it's enforced... give em hell where pirating music is concerned, but, whether you yourself mean to or not,also spread the word that this all calms down and purchases resume at higher levels once A) record prices go down. B)the RIAA starts shaping up. C)another form of distribution solidifies.
--Just some guy who heard something from someone who's fairly close to someone who DOES know some of the questions we probably should be asking but haven't
Actually, that isn't about the internet distribution. His analogy about the bottle taxes is equivalent to the taxes on blank CDs and cassettes, which are not for I-Net distribution.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Are you 18 or over and a US citizen? Then register to vote!
Not in this day and age. Vote with you're dollar. It's a little more affective. Don't like the RIAA? Don't buy their shit.
Yeah, I know.. "Oh, but what about the artists.." Boo hoo. Let's say there are 1000 popular RIAA musicians and 1,000,000 non-RIAA musicians out there. Who decides which artist gets rewarded for their blood sweat and tears -- you don't really think *you* do, huh? It's certainly not talent. The record company's job is to make their bands popular, regardless of artistic talent. Radio play, TV and movie product placement, MTV.. it's all there to make you want the band. When you buy a major label piece of music, you're not rewarding the artist, you're rewarding the record company!
If you really care about supporting an artist, give some money to a non-RIAA musician.
Or in other words, let's make Metallica and all the others actually work for a living, instead of riding on record-company hype induced popularity.
_______
2B1ASK1
Well, I can think of a few extra reasons why people is so interested in Napster. For instance, think for a moment about the Latin American market (or European, whatever). The other day I went to MixUp, which is like the largest record store in Mexico City, to get myself the Prodigy's DirtChamber Ssessions. They wanted me to pay more than $30 US dollars for the CD. WTF? I downloaded it entirely using Napster. So, it's not that I don't WANT to pay for the music but that I CAN'T even if I wanted to, and when I can the price is just absurd. There was just one copy of Moby's Play, and the latest by Lo-Fidelity All Stars, William Orbit or Fatboy Slim just wasn't there. And this store is supposed to be the most avant-garde, we-have-it-all-we're-better-than-Tower-Records record store. Come on! Using Napster the last six months, I've known so many artists that you wouldn't even imagine. So, I've read a lot of complaints like Where are micropayments? Why can't I buy just the songs I like? etc etc. But in the rest of the world outside the US, the problem is different and bigger: where are the fabulous distribution mechanism that the record industry puts in place in exchange for the money we pay for CDs? It's a joke, it doesn't exist! Oh, and before you say, dude, stop moaning you can get that on Amazon (or whatever) and have them send it to your home, try explaining that to the guys at customs that charged me almost 45% of the cost of 4 CDs I ordered the other day.
Well, that was just my extra reason for using Napster.
"All the things one has forgotten scream for help in dreams". Elias Canetti
I downloaded one of your songs just now (rain dragon or something like that) and think its pretty cool. I got it off MP3.com and will probably buy your oh-so-inexpensive CDs because its a much better use of my money than say... wasting the bandwidth to download a bad song written by some idiots illegally. Just thought you might want to know, in case you mention yourself to Napster&Co.
-Elendale (and IMHO they need to know!)Karma burn coming
As i meta-troll again
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
by some freak chance? Napster's lawyer pointed out a statement made by the RIAA, that the sharing of copyrighted music was permitted so long as it was not done commercially. i.e. you can share music as much as you like as long as you don't make money out of it or try to claim any money for it to cover any costs involved.
Two observations:
...
...
Firstly
Whether or not the recording industry shuts down Napster, it has already lost - Gnutella, OpenNAP and a lot of other software is already out there; and is unstoppable. If they are closed down, someone will write something new. If that's closed down, then cryptography will come into play. It'll continue to be an arms race for both sides - what a waste of time and energy when that time and energy could be concentrated in the real issue: the music!
Shouldn't it be assumed from now on that the technologies exist to allow just about any material to be made available and unremovable on the net - music, software, etc ? Just look at Gnutella, Freedom and other technologies. In previous 'undergrounds', there were always problems of anonymity, being connected and other issues that the internet has 'solved' - the small, fragmented free information trade in the real world has now become a major force of activity in the connected digital world.
As for SDMI initiatives ? Who is going to buy SDMI players when they can buy MP3/open players ? And surely the market is open enough so that it is impossible to neutralise MP3/open players ?
Secondly
This seems like a repeat of the past. Remember microcomputer software ? You could always buy games and other titles off the shelves - but there was always an underground trade. No matter what technical protection the industry could come up with, the underground could remove it; and there was always an underground network to distribute cracked wares. Now with music, the underground network is actually a mass global pool of connected individuals across the net. The internet has made the fragmented underground into a mass movement. And I don't mean underground in a negative sense.
There will always be the technologically illiterate or those disconnected from the underground that cannot access underground distribution; and perhaps they may have to buy off the shelf. So is the music industry going to try and prop itself up on the small minority ? How do the artists feel knowing that they are being supported by sucking off a minority of their fans ?
The music and software industries have always had to factor in piracy as an everpresent activity - their choice is whether to reject it, or to try and accept it and turn it to their benefit by altering their business models and means of distribution.
Perhaps they should embrace some sort of model for free distribution of music, but -- as John Perry Barlow writes -- make their money off the live performances and events. In global world where travel is cheap and easy, the popular acts could easy command performances around the world.
Free distribution would be like an open market - it would just 'be there', and communities would form, and acts would become popular, and then the popular acts can move into live performances, or they mercandise, or whatever else is the standard norm in this age of 'leverage your core'.
Like we already know: the internet destroys the middle man, and the music industry is the middle man. The new middle man is the internet, and is increasingy the technologies and communities around which the producers and consumers rotate. The middle man is technology, not people.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
well I don't know about you but I kind of like movies.
How we know is more important than what we know.
> Remember that it doesn't prove anything. Napster has a central server, but not everyone is on that central server.
Actually, you just proved something very important that this judge is obviously not getting. ITS NOT NAPSTER THAT IS listing illegal copyright material but the USERS !!!! Go after the users, but don't shut down the tool !!! This is absurd !
- sigs are for wimps.
Yes, some copyright laws are a good thing. The kind of copyright laws which shutdown companies for distributing a work without the artists permission. This is why copyright laws were created. These laws were not created to alow the companies to tel fans what they can do with copies of the music.
I suspect that Thoreau would agree that individuals are a totally diffrent story. Individuals should be able to do what they damn well please under "fair use."
Actually, I would carry this individual vs. company distinction so far as to prevent artists which use a lot of samples from incorperating or selling their work to a label, i.e. the label of their company could be sued, but the artist could not be sued.
This may sound like a strange interpretation of the law, but it's the interpretation which will protect atists and fan, i.e. the importent people.
Anywho, the current laws a very bad, so we should break them without directly doing physical harm to another person (i.e. copying their shit is fine).. I think it's pretty safe to say Thoreau would agree with that statment.
BTW> Americans realy do not put enough force behind their breaking of the laws. Thoreau really accomplished things during his day by breaking the law. It would be nice to see more Thoreau type activism today, i.e. a million people giving away pot in D.C. once a year to protest the War on Drugs, people writing easy to use crypto to fuck up the NSA, people writing manefestos about how it's immoral to not pirate all your music, etc.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
This just HAD to happen days before i get a 10Mbit connection!
If you don't want to buy a CD, then don't. From my perspective, some of my CDs have given me so much joy that (retrospectively) they're worth 10 times what I paid for them. Others I could happily live without. But that's a risk I take buying a CD. In the UK I'm paying up to £16 in the shops. If I don't want to take that risk then I wait for it to go on sale.
But I'm not being exploited. I think there are many many more people in the world being exploited than music fans, and music artists for that matter. They now have the means to make music and distribute themselves given the web (see the Marillion web site and their initiative for their next album.
On the subject of giving away software, I do that. But the stuff I give away has been stuff that I've built as a consequence of doing other work. I don't buy music that's been generated as an aside.
hmmm.... first moody blues troll?
should i bother to get the username...?
nah
i didn't troll that above, BTW, i just like the moody blues.
.sig
Fellowship 9/11
I live in Montana. In Montana if Jesus ran as democrat he would lose. For the last eight years the Republicans have controlled the state legislature and the governorship. In the same eight years the economy of Montana has nosedived along with wages, employment, capital etc. while the the rest of the states boomed. In addition to that there have been several well published debacles regarding privatization and deregulation of state controlled function all of which cost the taxpayers of Montana a TON of money.
In this election the clueless, idiot, voters of Montana will once again re-elect the same bunch of incompetent know nothing ranchers, farmers and real estate salesmen to the legislature.
This represents for me a real chance to vote my conciense and go for Ralph Nader (the only candidate even aware of the implications of the IP stuggle).
War is necrophilia.
HOW doth the Napster maketh it's millions of dollars, pray tell?
The most money it could make is if the RIAA loses the case, they get $5 million.
.sig
Fellowship 9/11
Do you know how often the l33t hax0rs exploit File/Print sharing as a means to gain access to a persons computer? And this is when someone accidently has this enabled. Now you want to suggest to millions of semi-computer literate users to enable it on purpose?
I abused my default +1. Eh. Whatever.
lol..............
same here... i dont plan to buy CD's anymore
i dont care about the artists income, or their suffering, or 'stealing'. im an internet thief. 20 million of us are. lol.... RIAA is pissing in their pants.
Perhaps you should reconsider the idea that 'we' are a single coherant group. Many of us have differing opinions, and are capable of thinking for ourselves rather than jumping on whichever trendy boycott is en vogue any given month.
Slashdot: Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Socialists, Atheists, Christians, etc. We are diverse - don't pigeonhole people into holes they don't fit in.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Does this mean I have to stop using NFS to share files -and- disable the find command?
Hmmmm.... $5 million? That sounds like a lot more money than Napster has made in its entire existence. I smell a silver lining for napster...smells like....sniff....a RAT.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
Burn CD's, don't _burn_ CD's!
Freedom: "I won't!"
Good point. But I never ripped a CD myself, so I view it (possibly incorrectly) as an unnessesary burden.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
The transcript follows. The only thing that I've edited out is a couple of uhms and ahs.
Sean:
Hank Berry: Sean: Thanks.Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I hate the RIAA and loathe their actions as much as the next guy, but seriously...are they even worth spending energy on? Waging wars and protests against them is like fighting the retarded kid in the corner because he keeps calling you names. Best leave them to their own ignorance and move on. We all know the free trade of .mp3 will continue via any number of non-centralized solutions. It grows bigger, better, and more diverse every day. I myself spent thousands of dollars purchasing LPs in the day, then thousands more on cassettes, and finally god knows how much accumulating 3000 or so CDs, so do I feel guilty that I've downloaded a thousand or so CDs free of charge in the last year? not a bit. I sincerely doubt that anyone has gone hungry with that temporary lack of revenue. But I do feel the need to support the artists I truly enjoy so that they may continue to make the music I love. What I do is this--say I've downloaded and burned a CD from artist X, and let's say I listen to it all of the time and get much enjoyment from it. I simply get on the web, find a mailing address for the band/artist via a fan club or something (NOT their record label address!)...make out a check for $5, or however much I feel is right and send it away. Included is a form letter stating that I received their CD via .mp3 trading and just want to show my appreciation. I also encourage them to disassociate themselves from the recording labels and the RIAA, who practice monopolistic tactics and secure one-sided contracts that only the harshest pimps would be proud of. With this case the RIAA has begun the process of alienting the fan base, us. It's not about Napster, it's about us finding a way to cut them out of the deal altogether. They are primarily distributors of music and their distribution is no longer needed. The old method has become wasteful and obsolete. So let's find ways to keep the artists alive and happy, so that they not need to ever sign a 'contract'. Without signed artists there are no labels, and hence no RIAA. We started this so-called 'music revolution' and now we must show that we have the intelligence to see it through. thanks.
Ahh no your incorrect, you can get cd quaility from encoding songs at 320 kpbs 128 allmost sounds like cd quaility, FM quaility sound is a bit over the top.
Actually - the recording industry is helping to destroy itself.
Napster is based on a flawed centralised model, whereas Gnutella is based on a more advanced distributed model. Napster contains more of the old world ideal than the new world ideal, compared to Gnutella.
This means that by shutting down Napster, the industry helping to destroy the old world and forcing users to move to something like Gnutella which is more aligned with the new world. If everyone stayed with Napster, then they would stay with a kind of flawed implementation of the future.
Am I right or wrong ?
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
No offence but that sounds very naief to me. Face it; most people don't know or don't even give a damn about this. For them its just an easy and cheap way to grab some music. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is the same thing that happens to anything that goes from "underground" to "pop" it starts sucking bigtime.
I don't agree with that. Take for example a small vial of chemical(s) that is sold at adult bookstores. It's labelled "head cleaner". It is *never* used for this purpose, it's inhaled during sex. Does a good job at wiping out brain cells too, now that I mention it.
The point being is if the item has a significant, legitimate use (such as allowing unsigned bands to release their work), then it falls under the category of legal.
At least that's my understanding of it. Anyone with a law degree want to dive in on this?
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Really good point, i too wonder, why the recording industry continues to handle this case so inexpertly. Instead of setting their lawyers too it they could have made much better use of the money by buying into napster and seeing this as an investment into music distribution over the internet, a thing that will come anyway. Why break something that already works and then create it anew. The threat of legal action would have been a good bargaining chip and i think napsters management would have prefered to come to some status quo with the music industry on peaceful terms.
By dragging napster to the court the music industry can only loose, even if they win their case and shut down napster they will have won over a (then) worthless business, a business they will want to enter themselves in the near future but are not ready to (the 'association' in RIAA says it all, after they shut down napster they'll need at least two years to reinvent it on their own terms so nobody feels shortchanged).
The music industry could have had some good PR (hey look, we're giving away [rights for] music for free) and would have got into control to the point where they could choose which music is swappable and which isn't and begin to install themselves as the major partner for fileswapping slowly changing the bazaar into a shopfront with some leased space for free goodies in front of it to attract more customers and apart from that they'd had a new tool to promote new music.
What they're doing at the moment is in stark contrast to their own longterm interests: they're blocking napster, thereby making the people switch to more and different services, especially decentralized services which will be much harder to track down. If i have a problem i prefer it in plain view in one place rather than hidden and scattered literally all over the globe. To stress the aforementined bazaar-analogy a little more, they did a police raid on it and made the people carry the trade to their own homes.
What i don't understand is, why the music industry, that occupies so many PR people and marketdroids to create their own spin of trends, didn't ask some of them how to handle this best. Maybe they would have had to accept a new player on the market, but now they're just setting back their prospects of ever getting a grip on the situation, meanwhile making bad PR for themselves.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
No they're not, they should lobby for a new law where everybody gets the obligation to buy 2 CD's per calendar month. If you can't find a nice CD, you should still pay the fee.
Fear GNUtella!
Bizar technology?
When will government figure it out? With the dawning of the internet, everything changed. They do not own us anymore.
We can't be influenced by reagon's propagandhists showing us pictures of nukes in the morning while we eat our pre-school cheerios waiting for the bus.
We can't be influenced by bush's attacking of some 2 bit dictator in a 1 bit sandpit in hopes of raising oil prices making fat texans fatter and drumming up patriotism.
And they can't take our freedoms away. They just think they can. Shut down napster, in a week half of the mp3s on napster will be on freent or gnutella, nto to mention the XXX terabytes of mp3s available on webpages via search engines.. think they can sue us all? We'll just rip more, put them on floppies and throw them at the riaa people's faces.
I say it's time for physical action. Anybody with me? BOMB THE MPAA. BOMB ALL LARGE RECORD LABEL HEADQUARTERS. RAPE AND PLUNDER METALLICA. Why? Well Why not, it's fun! Wheeeeee
"And how can this be? For he is the
Well, one reason Napster focuses on a single specific file type is that it can thereby provide some extremely handy information that doesn't necessarily apply to generic content--length and bit rate in particular. When I get several dozens hits on a song, I generally sort first by length, which lets me determine which range of lengths is appropriate for the version I'm looking for (excluding incomplete files, live versions, remixes, and so on). Then I sort again by ping time, and finally pick the file with the lowest ping time that's also in the right length range and bit rate. As a result, I rarely end up with the wrong file. With gnutella, I'm flying more or less blind.
:-) files would still be a reasonable proposition.
Of course, Napster could have been designed so that it could be "trained" to extract length and bit-rate information for different types of audio (and maybe even video) files. I'd like to see a system that would take advantage of that possibility, while enforcing a reasonably strict (though expandable) set of file types so that searching for just MP3s or just DivX
Instead of suing the company, they could go after the actual people responsible.
Correct me if I'm wrong
Better and more eclectic content anyways...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
As much as I'd like to believe everything will be okay, this is a real loss for fair use. Hopefully they will win on appeal.
[ home ]
Now maybe it will encourage others to use better options (see earlier /. post on Napster)...
Doh!
Sorry, man. The geek in me couldn't resis.
$ Napster has made: 0
$ user's paid: 0
$ user's made: 0
0 * 0 = 0
0^0 = *1*
1 + 20 = 21
Once again, i'm sorry, and i think an AC already mentioned this, but i'm one of those pricks who thinks everything needs explaining.
-Superb0wl
-Superb0wl
It's not that I'm lazy....it's that I just don't care.
it would be one thing if the artists owned the copyrights. they don't. record companies wont sign anyone unless that person agrees to give up the copyright protection they are legally entitled to into the corporations hands.
I don't mean CD's I burn myself ... I mean CD's I purchased in stores, and now my tastes in music have changed ?
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
- and you won't see the MPAA say MPGs (or DivX
;-)) is illegal.
Well, I was reading Time the other day and they had an article about DivX_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
Just wanted to tell you that. Never thought I would discover new music on /. Yeah, I like Zappa too.... :-)
That said, I think Napster is a bad channel for artists to break through. Most of the time I spend on Napster (very little time) I search for hard-to-find stuff like Einsturzende Neubauten's Hamletmaschine, which is hard to find there (but then it's also impossible to find in the local stores), most of my friends search for things they've heard - spelling mistakes aside, I don't think anybody searches for music they never heard about.
"Mr. Valenti, aren't you the person who compared owning a VCR with being the Boston Strangler?"
If they just did that, what would happen to public perception of the MP3 issue?
My mantra for life these days is "don't reward stupidity". It's getting to the point where I believe that the best response to some of the more idiotic things being said should be met with a couple seconds of silence, then an outburst of hearty laughter, as if the person were making a joke. Part of the reason that these things get as far as they do is that we've become so worried about offending idiots that we permit the outflow to seep in.
I'm not saying that Valenti can't make a point, or that there can't be any merit in what the RIAA has claimed (although personally, I side with Napster - let the RIAA go after the *individuals* misusing the service), but if they want people to take them seriously, they should find a better mouthpiece and they should think about what they want to say before they say it.
Then again, if you look how the media is relating the sequence of events, I think it proves my point entirely... :-)
It's very easy. They just sue the programmers who wrote the code.
Even better, if those programmer assigned their copyright to the FSF, the they just sue the FSF.
Lawyers can find targets far more easily than a snipper!
They will find a target and the appropriate ammunitions to achieve their goals.
Aren't the *Nap servers dependant on user verification from the 'real' Napster servers? I mean since I log in to all the *Nap networks with the same user/pass as I use to get to Napster servers my guess would be that they use Napsters userdatabase. I hope I'm wrong tho. Anybody knows this?
Thank you.
//Frisco
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
I would like to encourage all /.ers to sign the boycott of the RIAA showing your support for Napster. Right now the site doesn't have very many sigs, but if it had enough it could potentially have an impact on the RIAA.
Some food for thought.
Refuse a product, right, enough undereducated/uniterested people who just go to the shops and buy a CD/DVD.
I'm quite pessimistic on this. Power monopolies/oligopolies exist by 'channels' and 'networks' inherited or build on personal contact, usually in distribution of the product or manufacturer of the product. These channels get power and decide what people like, like it or not, the alternatives can be hard to find.
The internet breaks down the barriers of distribution, channels and networks get hurt. Now it's the RIAA and MPAA thing, next there is the physical distribution of products, these channels and networks are now attacked by broker-websites. Where I'm from, it doesn't exist that long, but lot's of people are very pissed already.
Bizar technology?
Where do you draw the line? The site was shut down because the judge thought that a majority of Napster traffic was of steping on the toes of the 5 big recording lables, and that was the intent of the site. Majority is a sloppy term, and intent is difficult to prove. Can this be used to shut down ISPs? After all, they let you set up an ftp server and the majority of stuff that I hear about being passed around on such things is not original content. Do I shut down search engines that catalog ftp sites? Yeah, bullshit, this line of logic eventually becomes a prohibition on publishing except by authorized publishing houses.
This is bad for musicians that don't want to fall under the RIAA rackettering system. It's also futile.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Some manner of reverse class action? Big evil corporate type sues multitudes?
Intolerant people should be shot.
On the other hand, there should be laws against the RIAA giants charging $18 for a damn CD......
hmmmm.... seen this link lately? seems the RIAA agrees with you somewhat in that respect, they believe they should be allowed to charge, using the average retail price of $12.75 in 1996 as a basis (what the hell? I never paid that little for a new CD ever... damn, where they getting their numbers from... anyways... to get back on point...)
THe RIAA believes that they should be allowed to charge $33.86 for a CD (and this is in funds from 4 years ago, so allow for inflation, and just generally wanting to f*ck over the customer when coming up with a new price)
Hmmmm.... can anyone say "Out of touch"? How about "Clueless", "Greedy", or "Getting what they deserve"? Good.... I knew that you could
-GreenHell
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
But then again, most don't actually *listen* to music these days. They hear it, often as background, nothing more.
As the editor of Folk Roots put it recently, MP3 is for those with cloth ears.
Easily said but this heavily depends on the side that you are on. The legal system did manage to put a stop to the illegal copying of all the music circulating. So for the record companies the system is working quite well.
Vote for whom? I haven't seen any candidates around my teeny state (Delaware) standing out for Napster, nor do I expect anyone I can vote for to make a stand on crucial technology issues.
The only way to vote would be Libertarian. But hey, who wants to vote for a party nobody else votes for.
Even so, if a lot of college kids vote in this year's election, it will just be for whoever put the most money into the campaign... as usual. What do you think MTV's Rock the Vote is all about anyways?
Any lawyers want to jump in on this one?
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
correct URL: http://www.proboards.com/napster
Thanx for that link, I didnt know their was a service out thier like that, ill be using it.
This is the single argument that the Boies and co. should have hammered home, and perhaps did. Unfortunately, non-technical participants such as Judge Patel and my own dear Senator Feinstein (whose thoroughly ignorant pro-industry comments at the recent Judiciary Committee hearing very nearly made me ill) simply may not be qualified to recognize the larger implications of ignoring such an argument.
It has long been acknowledged that our politicians and judges don't exactly tend to be on the technological bleeding edge. (Remember how long it took them just to get Congress wired for email?) Unfortunately, bad laws and bad verdicts are the direct results. I don't see this changing any time soon. Even Senator Hatch, who somehow ended up on the right side of an issue for perhaps the first time in his life, made it implicitly clear during his tongue-lashing of the RIAA that he was more worried about the prospect of pissing off tens of thousands of young voters than he was concerned about the technical ramifications of the discussion.
Our only saving grace is the fact that the Internet, at least in this case, is inherently unregulatable. I suppose the lesson is that we should just let the powers that be (or that think they be) enjoy their delusions of regulatory potency, smirk quietly to ourselves as the Internet routes effortlessly around them, and extend our condolences and our support to those poor unfortunates who, like the employees of Napster, Inc., find themselves caught up in the in(s)anity.
I'll go back to the top on this one. While everyone is expressing their personal opinions on what "the Law" might be, re. copying music etc., it might be worth pointing out that laws are different in different countries in any case. In Germany for example (where I live) there is no question that you are allowed to make "a reasonable number" (typical legal opinion puts this at around 8) of copies of music you own, for distribution among friends and family, or for your personal use. Taxes are raised on sales of sound cassettes, for example, to reimburse the copyright holders to some degree.
Although there are numerous gray areas within even this legislation, making your music collection available online for others to copy, via Napster or whatever other means is definitely not covered by it. This is a different issue in any case. Since several people have mentioned "personal responsibilty", where does it actually reside? If Napster (for example) is not responsible for providing the contact, the people who put collections online are also not responsible that someone then makes a copy of it. That's the responsibility of the guy making the download, right? And they're not responsible either, since they didn't make the original (illegal?) copy. Hm. I just put my stuff online so I can access it myself wherever I happen to be in the world. I used Napster since it's a neat bit of software. And I never ever access all that other stuff. Believe me, guys.
The more publicity it gets, the worse the problem is going to become. For the RIAA to sue Napster is like a grieving family suing Ferrari just because they made a car that can exceed the speed limit, and someone killed themselves going very fast and lost control. If thats hard to understand, by design, its not napster's problem the people who utilize their program have pirated MP3 music. Just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean that you *should* do something (like going 190 MPH in a ferrari) This suit is akin to the tobacco lawsuits that have been rewarding billions of dollars to the families of sick or dead smokers. Personal responsibility is dead. If a company manufactures a product (i.e. cigarettes) that someone can potentially do damage (i.e. contract lung cancer) then the company is deemed responsible for causing the problem. Judges and juries nowadays don't seem to think the end-user has much to do with anything. Just find the companies at fault for marketing a potentially harmful product, and ream them in the ass. Blah.
Lars, I just wanted you to know I found myself humming Master of Puppets in the shower, how much do I owe you?
Pulling Napster out of the picture this late in the game is not going to have the effect they want. The river will merely find a new path, and this time the path won't be a single set of servers, or one company that people are dependant upon for MP3s. This time the water will flow in many directions, over many very distributed and varying forms of trading that we've been building all this time. Ayup. We'll go back to 40 million different channels of distribution. IRC; unreliable, spammy, cable-modem crushing gnutella; local bbs's, baby, because you know how cool zmodem and procomm are. Face it, pal, Napster had *75 million* users. Do you think they got them because those users all COULD learn how to use mirc, dcc, and read how to download a file through the massive spam from #mp3cafe? Or do you think its because its mp3's for dummies? Last weekend I helped my friend's brother download some music with Napster. He could hardly figure IT out--he wasnt going to get the songs that stopped at "Getting info...", because hey, they were getting the info for 2 hours. Is this person going to learn how to use irc? Have these kinds of people ever heard of gnutella? Do you think the vast majority of those 75 million users, all just too pissed off at those evil RIAA bastards (the geeks all say so), all sit down, spend 30 hours learning how to efficiently find mp3's on the other alternatives? Or are they going to say "15 bucks for a CD is worth less to me than the time I will spend learning how to do this mp3 bullshit." Face it man, breaking up Napster doesnt let online music hit the masses, it just sends it back to the internet-educated elite, the few who can take the time to scour 45 ftp servers with too many users logged on, to sit on IRC and wait for queue slot #423,232,887,133 to come up for the latest from N'Sync. Know what? Most people just dont care enough. Why do you want this "river" (What's up with that analogy, anyway? INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE LIKE WATER!) to be split into 40 streams anyway? A centralized server was A GOOD THING. A simple, easy to use, interface, with everyone's mp3's in one, single pool. A single point of failure, because you know the mission-critical mp3 downloads will be really screwed then. I dont want to go boating down 40 streams before I find the species of trout I want to fish for, I want to get on the big river and fish for it. Paddle back up your mp3 river into reality.
SO making music is only worth doing if you're young? If you're old and can't tour don't bother, because you don't deserve to get paid, because you're old???
The Beatles can't tour any more since Lennon is dead, but surely the other three deserve money for the recordings? How will these be funded?
you DO realize that the beatles are some of the richest men in the UK don't you. Your argument here is moot because you assume that the remaining Beatles deserve money for work they did 30 years ago. I do not.
Okay, what about a band like the Monks? They made one album in the 60s that sold basically no copies. Then, just recently they have been rediscovered and their music is being bought and used in commercials. Do they deserve any money? Or because the music didn't sell immediately, they're just screwed?
Maybe i write a really good shell script for my company. Maybe i code a bit of C that is still being used by my company. 20 years from now does my company owe me a royalty if they're still using that script?
If you retain copyrights on the script, then yes. If you retain copyright on it, you can sell it to a different company and make more money off of it. If the company retains copyright on the script, then they can still sell it and make money from it. OR they can use it for free, because they own it. When you give away or sell your rights to something, then no, you don't get anything else for it. The person who owns it gets to make money from it. I don't really see how this has anything to do with anything, but hey, I answered it anyway.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
"Musicians, who are professionally competent in composing music, performing music, and producing music, should ditch their real skills, and go into the t-shirt business?"
It's rather disingenuous of you to quote the original poster out of context so you can build a straw man out of him. You missed the two most important words of his sentence -- "or something".
These are creative individuals, are they not? And by building a following, they are cultivating a lucrative resource -- an audience. Or, put another way, a market. Suggesting that the only way they can exploit that market is to deal through middle men who take 90% of their profits is absurd. Suggesting that the only way to profit from that market is by selling their music per-unit is as absurd as suggesting they are only allowed to sell t-shirts.
One example: a musician named Momus didn't have enough money to produce a CD, so he offered to write a song about anyone who sent him $1000. 35 people took him up on it, enough for him to publish his CD.
Now take the CD out of the equation -- suppose he just asked $1000 a song, and distributed the music online at virtually no cost to him. He's just made $35,000; not the kind of money Metallica is used to, apparently, but enough to live on, and that's with just one revenue stream.
What if he toured, and was constantly putting live recordings on his website for download at micropayment prices? It's more convenient to get them there, because there's always new stuff that collectors don't have yet, and an insignificant price-tag -- say, .25 -- is unnoticeable. But if 100 people download the song, he's made $25 personally, just for rolling tape at a concert. (For which he was paid to perform, BTW.)
Oh, yeah, and if he wanted, he could sell t-shirts, too.
Classical musicians don't have this option; then again, with a minute handful of exceptions, they aren't living directly off recording revenue anyway; they're getting paid for live performances, and indirectly through recording revenue. (The symphonies and such are, however, analogous to artists from a branding standpoint, and can be treated similarly. Perhaps the Boston Symphony needs to release its next Mahler symphony performance direct to the public, online, for five dollars. Perhaps live audio of performances can be had for two bucks a stream.)
I hope this whets your imagination -- the 20th-century masters of marketing (the RIAA among them) have shown us that if you have the attention of a lot of people, you can make money off it. The artists don't need the record companies to exploit that market anymore, and it is in the best interests of all but the very richest -- the carrot-bands that the labels dangle in front of others' eyes to keep them in line -- to cultivate that audience/market directly, and make a decent living off it.
phil
VAXman, since I can't email you, I'll just have to say, "Well done old chap". That was a very cohesive argument.
Wah!
I think the RIAA's argument here is the "mostly 100% legal" part. In the case of Napster, 99% of the people are trading nukes, and the other 1% are trading perfectly legal things.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
However, each radio can only receive a limited number of channels, depending on what is broadcast in your area. Each of these channels has a format, and limited amount of time it can broadcast, and with the same song being broadcast multiple times, it's a very competative market for songs to find broadcast time.
Contrast this to the internet, where there is no competition for making songs available. If you have created a mp3, then you can get an account on mp3.com and upload it. No-one will say "that's no good", no-one will say "We don't play punk", no-one, except the potential listener, will play the latest Britany Spears song instead of yours.
Video rental stores succeed because they give the customer the choice. Radio does not, the Internet does.
Napster doesn't give a damn about you, if they can't have copies of RIAA music on their service they will just close up shop. There is no money in it if they can't. Big names are all they are interested in, thats what gets 95% of the users onto their system. I really like how the judge said "what lures them is the infringing use." Its not the ability to download new artists that brings people to napster. Does anyone really think that napster would have ever been as poplular or ever will be as popular when/if it comes back up with no RIAA music allowed? Nope, it won't, everyone will have moved to Gnutella where they can still get their fav. metallica songs. Because thats what everyone wants, to get all their popular music for free. They feel no guilt because its so easy, they think its anonymous, that no one knows who they are so nothing bad can happen to them, and they are right,for the most part, thats exactly the system napster has set up. But it screws over those people who put their music out in the open expecting to get paid for it.
I would pay up to 25 cents US per MP3. I think that's totally fair... IF and *only* if the over 50% of the money went to the artist and NOT to the money grubbing record labels that currently keep 90% of the profit from OTHER peoples hard work. I'm sorry... but I'm on the RIAAs side on this one. Napster must be stopped and a paying alternative must be used in it's place, but one where the Artist instead of the big pocketed record cartels get the money. I would gladly pay $2.00 to download 8 (or more!) of my favorite songs in MP3 format. Long live MP3s. Dirk
Actually, if you have an agreement with Napster to help distribute your music, I don't think the court order applies to you. If you hold the copyright to music you want to be available via Napster, make sure to email them so you don't get shut off.
There are many old books which are out of print. The publisher has no intention of reprinting them, but they will be in copyright for decades to come. If a second company thought that it could make money by scanning these books and created e-books, they could not do this under copyright law, even if the original company had no intention of doing it. I think it's obvious that it would be good if the second company would be allowd to write to the publisher, and the publisher would have to either have to do the same thing that the e-publisher was intending to do, or grant a royalty free license for the intended use.
Yes, but the tape is cheap : the RIAA wouldn't try to argue that the cost of a CD is related to it's manufacturing cost.
Therefore, if the claim is that the purchase was a licence to listen, you should be able to replace the media without paying the licence fee part again. If you have a scratched recording on vinyl or a worn-out tape, you could have a replacement CD for the $1 it costs to make, or a digital copy for the fractional cost of maintaining the server and internet connection.
The car is different : Ford don't argue that you bought a licence to use it, you actually bought the car and can do what you like with it (including building another just like it - they know that would cost you far more than another Ford).
The case you're looking for, I think, is New York Times v. U.S., which IIRC really laid the smack down against any form of prior restraint. The "clear and present danger" principle was articulated in Schenk v. U.S., and applies to the government's power to punish for political speech. Again, here we're dealing with allegations of theft (or accessory to theft), so I don't think it directly applies.
Also, I really really think Napster should avoid any such claims, because that would imply that they're publishing these songs, which directly contradicts the core of their argument: that they're not publishing/offering anything directly, but rather simply providing a conduit, and it's the users who may be negaging in illegal activity. Once they argue that they're the publishers, they're screwed.
Did I mention that IANAL?
-brennan
I'm going on a couple of presumptions here:
- Most artists don't make much money off of records. With the exception of a few really lucky bands, they make most of their money off of touring -- which is supported by record sales (more accurately -- by having their music distributed)
- I'm going to accept Napster's claim that people who download music are ultimately going to buy more than those who don't. If true, then this means that disallowing RIAA music on Napster will ultimately hurt the RIAA companies in the long run.
- If bands can become well known without the confines of RIAA contracts they will probably be happy to do so.
- Note of history: about 10 years ago some big label(s) (Polygram comes to mind) attempted to force radio stations to pay them for every play of their music. (I know that this occurred in Canada, I'm not sure if the US was involved as well). Campus radio stations balked, and responded by simply refusing to play anything from the offending labels,
Technical boycott: Get a list from RIAA of all of their music titles and artists. Build filters that deny users the ability to share RIAA music listed in the database. Make sure to get both famous and non-famous RIAA artists. Be agressive about it.The labels first tried to say that they'd allow free play of small (up and coming) bands, and then finally buckled. Despite their attempts to suck radio stations dry, they needed the airplay that they were asking to get paid for.
It would be best if the list were PD.
This will leave small artists with two choices: RIAA distribution or Napster distribution. My expectation is that this will start to bleed the RIAA companies of their 'farm' bands. If things go well, these companies will see the writing on the wall and start some serious negotiations on this matter.
The hard part in this is that the list would need to be controlled by Napster and should also cut off small RIAA bands. It'll be bad. It'll hurt for a while, but I think that -- in the end -- it would do us all some good.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I honestly think that if napster made a good faith effort to keep RIAA music off they systems the RIAA would leave them alone. But napster won't even try to do that. They say that there is nothing wrong with allowing RIAA music on their system. So the people to blame for shutting out independent lables are napster. They didn't even try to get along. Napster will say there is no way to keep RIAA music off their system, well then maybe they should shut their system down untill they find a way. This isn't a fight between the big lables and the independent lables, that will happen later, this is just the RIAA trying to keep control of the copyrights it already has. After that it will start trying t osquash TRUE independent muisic outlets.
You mean like the CD format? :P Seriously, I'd love to have MP3s onthe CDs I buy, I garuntee I would buy more, and appreciate them more. You may not realize this, but some of us don't have the clock cycles to spare to make our own MP3s.
Personally, my primary computer is a Pentium 200. It takes ten-fifteen minutes to rip a good MP3 from a CD at that speed. I also have a DSL connection. It takes 45-60 seconds to download someone else's ripped MP3 off of Napster.
Anyhow, people still collect vinyl, not to mention 8-tracks, cassette tapes, etc... there really isn't any such thing as an outdated encoding format.
Dude, I seriously love this one, it cracks me up. Legal advice straight from the offices of the prestigious (bubble-pipe smoking) lawyer Nelson Muntz, Esq. It's as if, what, there's some sort of Heisenberg uncertainty principle embodied in copyright law? I wonder what maroon on what BBS originally came up with this.
"Five second rule. That cookie just touched the ground. That cookie is still good!"
Napster Inc has just released the following news: In order to resolve the problems and issues of mp3 file sharing and copyright violation, napster has decided that the best move is.. to move to Sealand! Said the spokesman of the soon to be founded Data Haven, "It's good to see such a high profile company taking advantage of our no holds barred data network that we will be providing on [insert date here]." Napster founder Fanning has been heard to say, "Heheheh, just gotta keep us out of jail until this baby flys, and were outa here, so long suckers!" Napster is also rumored to be considering supplying its own "official" merchandise at the same time with the logo imblazoned on the front and the words "Fuck metallica, fuck The Offspring, and Fuck You!" on the back. Projected sales figures are not yet currently available. Why do they say road works when it doesn't?
Lemure, wtf! Don't you mean Lemur?
that's bullshit. Do you think my sister got a degree in vocal performance because that's where the money is? Hell no. She did it for the same reasons that, when i go home, i pick up my guitar and play. Sometimes they're songs i wrote, sometimes they're not, it doesn't matter. My sister and i both play/sing because it's in our hearts. Musical creation is a part of us, without it, we are incomplete. I don't have the illusion that i will ever become famous, or make a single dollar off of anything that i have written. And if you ask any REAL musician whether or not they'd still be playing if all music were free...and they'd give you a resounding "hell yeah!"
The good ones don't play to make money, they play to play. Music is not a means to an end. It is an end unto itself.
So what your saying is that if you want to make a living doing what you love (ie music) then your not a "REAL" msuician? Ask your sister if she would have gotten a degree in vocal performance if it was guaranteed that she would not be able to make money doing it. Chances are she would have gotten a degree in something and did music as a hobby. People wouldn't stop creating music completely if they couldn't make money doing it, but they wouldn't be able to put as much time and effort into it, because they need money to live. People can make a decent amounf of their living performing and recording right now (even if they are a small band who barely gets by). But if music is free, they can't spend as music time performing and recording, because that is time that they make no money at all. Music will never go away completely, but it insane tot hink it will stay the same no matter what happens.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
how exactly is making an inconclusive statement riddled with poorly stated sarcasm considered Ironic?
I guess I just misunderstood all those years of english class, and their definition of irony.
Nice try.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
Can you imagine how the publishing companies would respond if we had never had libraries before and some suggested that we accumulate these huge repositories of copyrighted material in convenient locations throughout the country where everyone could come and read whatever book or magazine they wanted? For free? As often as they like? With no compensation to the publishing company for additional readings?
Why they'd respond pretty much like the RIAA is now don'tcha think? Of course we've had public libraries for 7 decades now and we all see that they encourage the public good. People really, really forget that we live in a democracy. We don't live in 'capitalism'. We can pass whatever law we want. If we decide that local governments should buy one copy of every new album and put them all in the libraries, and that the record companies can only charge $.12 for those library cds then you know what? The record companies have no recourse. If we declare it illegal to buy copyrights from the artist to be held by a corporation then you know what? The record companies are out of luck. It doesn't matter what the law of today is. If we don't like it and don't think it adequately protects our rights we can change it. I'd like to see it become a campaign issue actually. Can you see the result if any of the major candidates promised to spend all their time pushing for new laws protecting napster? I think if nader announced he would do that (since he's the only one i believe at all) he could add a good 10 million voters to his side. Of course that would force the hands of the other candidates. See where I'm going? It is election time. There are 20 million angry, motivated people who will vote as a bloc on a single issue. We might even have more influence than the seniors.....
> I open dozens of data attachments from people I've never heard of (.doc attachments etc).
.exe files if you are doing this on windows because .doc files can contain executable content in the form of a macro virus.
I hate to sound condicending but in that case you are no better off than those who run
How do you propose a program tells if a file is legal or illegal?
Someone can program anything you can write an algorythm for, but until you have that algorythm, it's not going to be written.
The Government really thinks this will accomplish something? Well It's time to adapt the OpenNapster Server and clients to use SSL. And it's up to the operator of the authorization engine to let you in. Perhaps we can configure Authorization Clusters since many of us have cable modems now. The government can't take the internet away from us. It's up to us to evolve this code, sharing MP3 files is here to stay. I just bought a CD player that plays a CD full of MP3 files (@ 120 3 minute songs). I'm not going to let the government put an end to Napster trading now.
Sheep are good. We need sheep. (Especially the willing ones!) But I do have to say, as a public-service to this forum, and after subjecting myself to the incessant profanity, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, apathy, cynicism, selfishness, and sheer mind-boggling lack of clue that characterizes the typical Napster Alternative channel...
If you value your positive outlook on humanity and sense of hope for our future as a species, stay away. Very far away.
National Public Radio's show Morning Edition has been following the trial in a series of articles. The account has been reasonably balanced and fairly thorough. If you want to point your non-geek relatives to a site that will give them the background on this, these stories are a good place to start. The first one, aired yesterday, can be found here (Napster Legal Dispute). Another one was aired this morning and has not been put on their web site yet.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Well, there's OpenNap...
Now, what we need is an OpenNap metaserver so we can find the OpenNap servers - anybody know if such a beast exists?
--
Hell hath no fury like a pissed-off Glaswegian.
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
http://www.linuxgod.net/ and http://ws.linuxgod.net/ DeCSS WILL stay around.
Actually, OpenNap is the name of an open source Napster Protocol *Server*
Many (all?) of these servers run OpenNap, and some of them have opennap in the name like opennap.cx and opennap.squidcafe.com
bitchx.dimension6.com seems to be one of the bigger ones
If you run Helix Gnome like me, you already have gnapster installed, and can choose from a number of OpenNap servers.
Some of these servers are just as large as the official napster servers.
If I'm not mistaken, Napster is not like an IRC network: the servers are not interlinked.
If you are on one you don't see mp3s from those connected to a different server. There are many official napster servers that the client connects to.
What does all this mean you say?
It means that if you have a program that will let you access other servers, you should be able to get as diverse a collection of music as before, as well as the ability to try another server when you don't see what you are looking for.
If I find somebody on Napster that has quite a few songs that I'm searching for, I'll go and get the whole list of songs from that person and see if I like any of the other artists they like. I have found quite a few garage bands that I like this way.
If you want someone, anyone, to pay attention to your opinions, you have to express them to the decision makers. Not just on Slashdot, not just in conversations with your buddies. Express your opinions to the people that make decisions, or to outlets where the people that make decisions on your behalf will be exposed to them.
Our political system, while not perfect, relies on activism, not apathy. If people expressed their opinions to newspapers and Congressmen with the same vehemence and persuasiveness that they do on /., things would indeed be different. But instead we're satisfied to keep it to ourselves for some reason.
If you want to actually make a difference, here's what to do:
- Think about your argument.
- Write an outline.
- Flesh our your outline with prepositions, adjectives, etc. Turn it into a letter.
- Print it out. Put it down.
- The next day, look at it, make revisions.
- Mail it to anyone who has anything to do with the issue that has you so worked up.
Until you do that, you have no right to complain. Because all you're complaining about is that the government can't read your mind._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
It is by spending ourselves that we become rich.
How many people here would forgo considering other issues and be willing to vote as part of a bloc on this one issue? Napster had what... 20 million users?
Let's see with our usual rate of voter turnout that's probably enough people to guarantee a win for any candidate. I mean the gov't doesn't really have much impact on my daily life. Napster does. So if a candidate made a promised executive order restoring napster a part of his platform.....would you vote for him?
Can you imagine how the publishing companies would respond if we had never had libraries before and some one suggested that we accumulate these huge repositories of copyrighted material in convenient locations throughout the country where everyone could come and read whatever book or magazine they wanted? For free? As often as they like? With no compensation to the publishing company for additional readings?
Why they'd respond pretty much like the RIAA is now don'tcha think? Of course we've had public libraries for 7 decades now and we all see that they encourage the public good. But what happens when libraries catch up to the times and put everything on a hard drive? If they copy those few, random, crummy tapes they usually have and make them available as mp3s will the libraries get sued by the riaa?
Does anyone think this has a chance? I'll tell you right now i'll forget about my normal party affiliation and vote for anyone who promises to restore napster. Bush? Aren't you trying to make yourself look tech friendly? I'll even vote for satan himself (still talking about bush...) if he makes digital rights and fair use part of his platform. Anyone else?
You know ... I bet Lars is so happy he's pissing on himself right now
-If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
I have to agree - and that is exactly the sort of thing which makes it impossible for me to sympathize with the industry even when they are technically in the right. They have continually operated in an unethical manner that is contrary to the spirit of copyright law solely for their material gain, rather than really thinking of the purchaser of their works or even of their own artists. At this point I really can't work up too much disapproval for the people who are screwin' 'em right back.
BTW, I like "DeHavilland Mosquito" - I'll have to listen to a couple more of yours today.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
But every day napster is shut down they lose users to all the alternative services. If they're closed for a week, they can recover. But if it takes a month for them to get a judgement, and they win, and they re-open, they will then be totally dead. No one will use them, b/c everyone will have been forced to learn how tu use gnutella or opennap etc. So the injunction does cause immediate, direct harm. Their only value comes in market share. Cost them that and you trash any hopes of them ever making money.
Let's see...alchohol is illegal, no one drinks, no one beats their kids, no one unwinds. The gov can only do so much before society get's it's way. We want mp3? We want to download only the songs we like, not some shitty 4th release album from some one hit wonder band? We'll get it. Lighten up folks, this is just the start of something beautiful ;) You'll see...
Before you start blaming the RIAA for ozone depletion, note that the judge said the following:
Napster is enjoined from copying or assisting or enabling or contributing to the copy or duplication of all copyrighted songs and musical compositions of which the plaintiffs [i.e. the RIAA] hold rights"
The fact that Napster would rather shudown completely than just remove RIAA points to how much they "promote" independent music.
George Lee
You nicely listed all the Napster clones but there are the pre-Napster software like IRC, newsgroups, Hotline, ftp sites, websites, and then we have CuteMX. You can even get in a big ol' chatroom and trade each others ICQ or AIM handle and transfer files that way. "The Man" might be after one avenue of trading software that increases revenue for the RIAA but He can't shut them all down. If you squash one voice, ten more will rise in its place.
I would love to be the person who has to try and explain to the lawyers, judge, etc why even after the Napster servers go down people are still using Napster. =)
Love live OpenNap!
I think the day when it changed was when AOL went on the internet in 1994. The net was much less commercial before then and we still downloaded files from ftp sites and nobody gave a toss about copyright back then.
I spend huge amounts of time making music. And you know what i do with it? I give it away for free. Or even worse i burn it onto cds i pay for and give it out to my friends. This is what anyone who actually cares about music does.
If you know how to play guitar you like to play to amuse your friends right? This is the purpose of music. <br><br>
"What sickens me are the people who justify their actions by rationalizations like "music should be about the art, not about money." Well, to those people I say that it's nice of you to make the decision for the artist."<br>
It's a value judgement. I make it. Making music is fun. People have made music for 10,000 years without any guarantee of compensation. Money has nothing to do with music. You have no right to make money from recorded music. Can you tell me where this right comes from? I've studied a lot of philosophy, a lot of writings on what rights are and how they are justified. You know, i don't see anywhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights the right to make money from recorded music. <b>IT IS NOT A RIGHT!!!</b> It is the way things work under our current, outdated, legal system. If we don't like it we can change it. One of the ways to change it is massive non-compliance. Why did prohibition fail? Because everyone drank. Why will banning the trading of mp3s fail? Because everyone will trade them. Social forces decide what is acceptable. <br><br>
A major point is this - there used to be folk music. Songs that didn't belong to anyone, that were sung by everyone. They were a part of our culture. They no longer exist except as scrtchy recordings in anthropologists basements. We have no more free music culture. The recording industry spent billions making sure it was eradicated. I'm sorry, but you can't change human nature. When i hum a madonna song, am i infringing her copyrights? well sorry, but it is a part of my culture and i will insist on owning it the way music used to owned by the people.
<br>
<br>
Man. If I could figure out how to inspire the kind of activism for my pet political causes that folks are willing to expend when their access to free tunes is threatened...well, let's just say the drug war would be over tomorrow...
but Napster doesn't allow searches by genre or "show me more bands like these". Yes, you can "hot list" someones Napster directory and browse all their mp3s, but the files still have no description or genre info.
Which is a better way for Chris Johnson to share his music: post his songs to a lonely Napster directory or post about his songs on some community web site for like-minded techno fans and musicians? Geeks read Slashdot as fanatically as music fans read their community sites!
cpeterso
So many disillusioned Gen-Xers complain almost non-stop that they refuse to vote because the "system" doesn't work. They believe, in their naivite, that their non-voting is protest agaisnt said system.
Umm... I hate to break it to you, but that's exactly the opposite of truth and fact. The system ONLY works if people vote. Why doesn't the "system" work? Because people don't vote. The entire concept of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" only works with a well-educated, involved populace who take an active participatory role in the governmental process. Boiled down, that means simply this: VOTE.
No, one vote often does not make a difference. That's not the point. Our governmental system would REALLY be a mess if it relied on unanimity. The point is that not only do YOU have to vote, others have to vote as well. Mass numbers is the ticket. So get out and vote, and having done so, convince everyone you know who can vote to do so.
The really sad part is that most idealistic young people, the ones who complain their views aren't heeded, don't bother to voice their views in ways that are effective (i.e.: voting, letters to congressmen, letters to editors, etc.). It is not until people become older, have more to be personally concerned with - more jaded, perhaps - that they take the time and effort to vote. And so the entire populace is represented by the voices of the old and jaded. This disillusions the younger would-be voters even more... continuing in a vicious circle.
Money is a powerful voice as well. I'm not saying not to boycott RIAA products. That will have some effect. But again, if only one person does it, it won't make that much of a difference. Do both, or anything else constructive towards the changes you want made.
The bottom line is this: Don't like the system? Change it! You have a voice, both in the polls and on the soapbox. Vote, and convince more people to vote, and the democratic system will work again.
----------
----------
I'm sick and tired of being responsible for the preservation of the universe and its outlying suburbs.
Yep.
Let's get rid of AIM. It'll be faster still.
And Quake. Definately has to go. And Gnutella, and FTP and IRC (only pirates use those things...). Hurray! My internet connection has never been this fast.
'Course, now all I can do is shop online....
Some people might think this is a stupid question, because it ignores the obvious, but here goes... Isn't this America? Why do we - The People - allow OUR government to (try) to shutdown Napster? SCREW THEM, we are Americans and we are the voters, we are supposed to have the power to change things. The whole MP3 debate is a non-issue, if 20Million Americans want it, we should have it! But here's the obvious - We don't have any power over our own government, they are simply going against the people's wishes for the benefit of the big corporations, once again.
Freenet, or a system much like it, is the only acceptable longterm answer to such attacks on the rights of us, the user community. Fair use. Fair Use. Repeat that over and over again. Fair use is being attacked - the correct response is for us to use technology to enshrine Fair use as a basic right.
--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
So....
Is anyone sharing this mp3 on Napster so I can download it? ;-)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Ok, so dig this: one company...Clear Channel now owns most radio stations and most music venues in the americas. They are the largest financial contributer to the RIAA legal slush fund. http://www.salon.com/business/feature/2000/07/25/s fx/index.html What does that tell us? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? What that tells us is that one very large company with it's eye on monopoly is able to use it's whore (RIAA) to force those companies who present a threat to it's capital growth to shut down. What options have we? Quit buying CD's. Any group who is signed by an agency with the RIAA, ie, sony, etc., just quit buying. Fuck em. Listen to the radio. If you have net access and can't live without new music, pick a station on broadcast.com, but quit giving the soul-suckers money. It's not about the music. The music pushed by ClearChannel and the RIAA is reprosessed pablum and nobody wants that anyway. Cool bands with thoughful lyrics and a guitar riff that exceeds C,C,D,A,C repeat, aren't going to get record deals anyway. Why? Cause they're not prefab boy bands or jailbait in a tank top with a puff daddy fetish. Quit buying music. It's the only way to show them we're serious. Vote with your dollars. Don't give it to the RIAA. See shows locally, trade tapes with friends, but dont, don't don't pay the RIAA whores. The morning after isn't worth the trip.
----I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.--
>Sorry if that offends leftists, but profit is why we are where we are today.
A corporate-run police state..
I guess what disturbs me is that someone actually moderated this up. Go to austria and join Haider or something.. please.. sorry, I just can't stand right-wing extremists.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Napigator contains the aureate spyware. Since there isn't a linux version of that, I doubt they'll be porting to linux, eh?
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
That is generally a really bad idea. What a judge says doesn't in practice work like the rest of the law. One generally doesn't want to try to find loop holes in what he says. IANAL, but my understanding is if a judge feels someone is trying to get around something he told them to do intentionally he will bring them into court and slam them down hard.
If one wants to win a case pissing off the judge is not the way to go about it.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
Even if they did, they wouldn't find them. I just did a search for his name, several of his song titles and a couple of the album titles. Found nothing of his.
However, search for 'Chris Johnson' on Google and his stuff is the fifth thing in the list. What do you suppose is a better marketing tool?
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Precedent? Try Disney's DVD splash screen, which goes further than any other studio's in claiming "Duplication in whole or in part of this DVD is prohibited." Well... I never agreed to such terms when I bought the disc, and there is nothing in even the DMCA (which still provides for fair use) that enforces such terms inherently. It's pure rubbish. They know it. We should know it, but practically everyone I know thought (until I explained otherwise) that I'd be breaking the law by taping a personal copy of a movie that I paid for.
(If a Betamax case falls in the forest and there are no consumers there to hear it, did it truly happen?)
If the RIAA insists that I agreed to their terms WRT ripping audio for personal use when that piece of plastic and aluminum passed into my possession, then I will indeed see them in court. The only thing I signed was the credit slip.
Actually, the problem is mostly with people who post as "Anonymous Coward." Set your threshold to a higher value, and the problem diminishes.
- AC
It's not on the US District Court's home page yet, although I expect it will be sometime (but when?): http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Simply I can see both sides of the argument. I am not worried about Metallica and I doubt Metallica is worried about the money they are losing as much as they are worried about the state it will create for music in general. My brother has about 1800 mp3s, all downloaded from the net. The last CD I personally bought was Pearl Jam 10 in about '95. I have downloaded 600+ mp3s since then and have NOT bought any music and see little point in doing so. I always like to think Ill buy the CDs but I NEVER do. What will happen is music will become fully corporate and we'll be listening to n'sync level stuff for all eternity. See folks, good music is usually listened to by people like us who are capable of using the net. Our beloved musicians need to get compensated properly so they can get stoned and piss the money down the drain! Anyway, I think musicians deserve to have a system in place where they can actually somehow be compensated for their work. Lets not kid ourselves, this is theft and we are all guilty. In me and my brother's case astonishingly guilty of mass theft. Peace, Kurt
Excuse me, but have you ever heard of Vincent Van Gogh? The man sold one painting in his entire life. He begged money from his family to buy art materials. HE WAS NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY! A financial incentive is not necessary, and is in fact actively destructive. If the only people who make music are people who enjoy doing it for the personal pleasure they derive from it - THEN WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER 'NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK' 'BACKSTREET BOYS' 'N'SYNC' OR BRITNEY SPEARS! Those are the types of people attracted by the money. Do you really think that even if he wasn't making any money from it that Carlos Santana would stop playing guitar?
Even though there are a lot of people saying that Gnutella is not vulnerable to being shut down, like Napster is, they (the RIAA) could still use a program to find out everyones IP address. If they did so, they would probably post a warning saying to not use it anymore, and just sue the people who still use it.
A friend of mine is really into Dave Matthews Band. DMB has a very friendly taping policy. They let anyone tape anything. They do not, however let people get hookups to the sound system, where they could get near recording-studio quality.
Anyway, my friend's cousin knew the proprieter of a venue that DMB visited on tour once. My friend's cousin talked the proprieter into letting him plug his commercial-quality minidisc recorder into the sound-system hookup. Got the whole concert, digitally from the time it hit the microphones.
Now, this isn't the source of any of those illegal bootlegs. There are three copies of that concert in existence. The three people who have copies get a real kick out of having the only copies of a DMB concert, so they aren't spreading it around. But suppose DMB had done a new song on that visit. Or suppose that instead of a concert, it was the tech at the recording studio making a copy. Or DMB visited a radio station, played their new song on the air, and the station kept a copy. And suppose that the people who got the copy wanted to make a quick buck.
You don't have to be a high-up to get access to near recording-studio quality copies of an artists song in an 'unofficial' manner. All it takes is some decent recording equipment and a Y-jack in the right place.
I don't know, is this "shocking" amount of shelf space equal to more or less than the amount of shelf space dedicated to all the Kid Rock, Britney Spears, and other music CDs? The Best Buy here has a huge music space, and one can only assume it moves. And media goes for plenty of other purposes than pirating music -- I have a CD writer and plenty of CDRs - I use it for backups. I've only burned one audio CD on it so far, and that's a mix of stuff I already own.
I find this Napster issue very interesting but I might not have the same views as most of you. I apologize if I don't have all the facts straight as I have a limited knowledge on the subject.
My question to you slashdotters is:
How different from software piracy is MP3 trading? Would you support Napster if it served as a "service" to share executables or software programs? Why not? Isn't it the same thing?
I see some people complaining they don't want to but a $15-$20 CD that only has two "good" songs on them. They wish to have the liberty to select what they want on the CD. Although I have to admit that sometimes that would be a good idea, I say it's the Artist's (or Rec Company's) choice to do what they want with it. Why? Because it's their "Product".
Would you consider getting a pirated copy of simply for the fact that you do not want to pay $50 for a game that only has 3 good levels? Just don't get the game if it sucks that bad. It is not a valid reason.
In fact, there is no excuse to pirating ANY type of media, it simply makes it easier for the person's subconscience to accept. In fact, they are stealing, no matter what they say.
Simply saying "I wouldn't even have bought the CD anyways, so they're not making any money no matter what I do, therefore it's OK." WHAT??? Man, that's a lame thing to say. If you're not planning on buying it, the artist doesn't want you to have it. That doesn't mean they're selfish assholes, it's just the way they decided to make a living. They can't go around bending the rules for anyone because their carreers depend on the revenue from their CDs.
Now for those saying that Napster is not doing anything illegal, I've got mixed feelings about that... They are not the people doing the illegal deed but they are helping it and profitting from it. That is what I think is not right. If they want to be totally legitamate, I think they should be responsable to make sure nothing illegal is being traded on their service. But that brings up other issues... Is what they do condidered "linking" as in what Yahoo! does? Should Yahoo! be responsable for it's content? Maybe... (IMO, it would get rid of the crap I find when searching the web). You could even compare Napster to a Post Office where it is the midpoint in the delivery of an item from one end to the other. So should the post office be responsable for any illegal products shipped through them? It's such a big debate that I cannot go into details. But my point of view stays that something should be done to prevent all the Napsters out there to profit from their semi-illegal service.
(Boy, I'll get flamed for this...)
$3-4 per SONG? What about the $30-70 we pay for a concert? Music wants to be free. Concerts we should have to pay for.
------------------------ LordLobo - Because I can
Is it?
~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Google == search engine
Napster == pirate MP3s
With Napster gone, there will not be as much of an organized "enemy" to fight. It will just be a giant game of Whack-A-Mole for the RIAA. Gnutella et. al. are far more frightening to them, and there is nothing they can do to stop them.
It's only this arrogant geek-centric view of the world that makes us think that "getting the technology" is so important. You can explain the relevant points of information in five minutes, and even that isn't the fundamental issue.
One side believes that if you buy a Britney Spears CD, you should be able to make copies of it and put it up on Napster. The other side does not. That is the issue, quit obscuring it with whining about "you don't understand the technology."
-cwk.
This link has probably appeared on /. before, but if you missed it, it's worth a read. Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16. She stands up for artists while ripping the big recording companies to shreds.
Is Macster held by the same injunction? When i signed on at 5:00 eastern time i got no message and everything seemed to be working alright? Is there a loophole where Macster isn't effected by any of this?
It's the blind leading the blond. ~U2
i almost never searched by artists name. i searched for words like techno, mix, remix, rare, b side, live, etc. Searching for any of those could turn up a match for the songs i had on there.
Really? Name a couple. Let's see if we can find them by searching for them by name.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
I /love/ movies.
I used to go to the movie theater 2-3 times a week.
But I patently refuse to give them money which is being used to harass and smash people like me, which some day may be used to harass and smash me.
(Ok, I'm not that cool. But you get the point.)
I won't even rent movies from the vidio store until they are off the "new release" wall - because if I rent them, the movie rental store may have to purchase more to cover the demand, which is more money to the MPAA.
My point is, I like movies. I used to give the MPAA members a reasonable chunk of money (from my perspective, not theirs - it takes a large number of individuals to influence their bottom line).
I don't anymore, because I think they suck. A lot of people said they wouldn't anymore, because they suck. How many are carrying through with this?
All operating systems suck. Some just suck less than others. (and some are virtual black holes)
Get him recalled.
Don't vote for him in the next election.
Write him a letter and express these concerns.
Next election, write the candidates and express your distaste for these tactics. Ask them directly what their thoughts are on these same issues.
Additionally, just because a representative indicates he is for or against something does not mean that's the stance he will continue to take throughout his term. If his constituents voted him into office, that doesn't mean that the constituents, as a whole, agree with 100% of what the representative supports. A good congressmen also listens to what his constituents want. Sometimes that may mean he has to go against his own desires.
I believe music artists should only force money from people with their live performances, and let it be the choice of the consumer if he wants to pay a good deal of money for a cheaply mass produced item or download it via mp3. If the music band/artist is any good even just doing live performances will earn them enough money to support them selves and buy that block on mars and support there own family line for the next 20 generations.
I believe if people like Jimi Hendrix saw the music industry today he would be disgusted at the lack of quality music and just the scene of money is most important. Which is probably why legends like him haven't come around again. When Hendrix recorded Electric LadyLand (Arguably of of the greatest albums ever) he wasted most of the time in the studio just inviting people he just met and jamming. People around him described it as fun but a very expensive way to have fun. Its lost times and attitudes like these from real music legends that will probably never return with the current way music is sold.
I feel if napster had been let to grow for a few more years then been shut down it would of reached so many people that "feel" it's a good thing that it would start protests rallies maybe like protests that started the Los Angeles riots because the Rodney king beating, then again maybe its already on its way. But in the end you can only screw people for so long before something gives way.
1. No one knows the name of your unknown garage band. Therefore, no one will search for your songs on Napster.
That's odd. I found Chris's music by accident while searching for random artists that I'd not heard of on Napster. Did a search for "fire techno" and found one of his songs. I have since paid for a good number of songs on MP3.com by Chris (I highly recommend that you check out his tunes). Think about how a search works for god's sake.
2. The lawsuit against Napster does not prevent you from publishing your band's songs on your own web site. Your band's web site is arguably a better way to publish your mp3s than Napster.
A very arguable point. The best way to get people interested in your music is by getting them to listen to the music. This is one thing Napster was great at. No jerking around with ugly web pages or FTP sites, odd formats, pay for play schemes, etc. You find a song, you know you can listen to it (frequently minus the first and last 10 seconds, but close enough).
A web page is great after a person knows of your band, but not a way to gain new fans, unless you want the easily impressed superficial "KEWL T-SHIRT" people. No, Napster will be a great loss to those of us musicians who used it to disseminate our music.
NO!!!!!!!!! You are narrow minded. Napster is the equivilant of listening to a radio station.. except now we pick what we want. a 44Khz 196k bit /sec sample does NOT sound as good as a CD!!!!!!!! we are not doing 44khz 512k/sec samples! Do you have a clue??? If we like the tune enough we buy the CD. This is merely the same as recording a tune off the radio. Instead of FM modulation through the airwaves we are using TC/IP over the net. BIG DEAL. The recording industry and the Courts just don't get it. what's stopping the napster servers from moving overseas??? Nothing. I'd move the napster servers overseas and call them something else before I give up. I'd encourage all to go underground too. And to the RIAA... get a life. Napster and all other sites like it open a new door for New bands. I play the tenor sax. Rock and blues style. And in the recording industry it's either who you know or ... Anyway.. There's many talented bands that don't get airplay. Now the playing field is getting leveled a bit.
IRC is still centralized to a point. Let's say I started up an IRC network specifically devoted to music swapping. Sure, people could chat and such, but 99% of the traffic would just be requests and file transfers. If I got 20 million users and the public mindshare of Napster, you bet your ass I would be shut down.
Now as for IRC channels, there's little the RIAA could do. They could get an injunction to stop #mp3z on IRC network X, but there's nothing to stop the displaced traders from moving to #!!!!!!!riaasucks-downloadmp3z on network X or #mp3z on network Y.
For more information, click here.
Actually i use linux so I'm safe.
.doc is deplorable. Microsoft coders obviously do not have much computer experience. Don't they realise that this could be used for viruses?
But thank you for telling me about that, I was not aware of it. The fact that Microsoft could put executable code in
This is why their users have so many problems with email I think.
Someday geeks will snap out of it and realize that new hacks to old (!) technologies like Opennap is to Napster are just temp fixes. They're patches so that we can satasify our free music fix. Simply falling back on this is not what we need right now.
What we need right now is no more patches or hacking the old stuff. What we need is a new version - rewritten and streamlined rules of operation the music business that solve those nasty 1.0 bugs of $15 CDs with one good song, anti-promotion and Britney Spears' unprecidented success.
This isn't easy. Hell, it's a revolution; I don't think they're supposed to be easy. But if we want to solve our problem and make things better for good, this is the way to go.
I'm also neglecting to mention that if the RIAA does sink their teeth into Napster, and we leap off it like rats from a sinking ship, they'll eventually nab one of us for breaking the current rules and tear that poor rat fella a new arce. Imagine the RIAA winning and being able to slap individual users for all the MP3s they've traded on Napster - one person with millions of dollars to be paid in damages. That's something I really don't want to think about.
So, for short, don't think about the quick fix. Send letters and faxes to your congressmen. Ask questions to presidential canidates! This issue will only get bigger in the next 4 years and it would prove one hell of a boost if the person in the big chair ends up being on our side.
--
First, we had "The Untouchables," now we have "The Unstopables"...
It's like the Neverending Story. What, is RIAA going to actually try to go after all file sharing programs out there? Geez... NFS will be illegal soon enough. Networking will be illegal. Plugging your computer into a phone jack will be illegal...
Hmmm... Maybe, RIAA, we should just scrap computers and technology altogether, EXCEPT for CDs and CD-ROM drives. Would you like that? *petting heads of RIAA powers that be* Of course y'all would. If you could illegalize technology, especially NFS, you could charge $50 per CD. Why not? Y'all have already been slapped across the board for fixing CD prices in the first place.
I believe the phrase I want is "Long live the revolution!"
Far be it from me to break copyright laws, not that I really care. I grant. That's one law I don't give a flying [four-letter expletive deleted] about. Why? Because it is, at its very heart, a stupidity made by incompetent lawmakers. And this new digital millennium copyright act... I am still laughing over that one.
Why do I think copyright protection is stupid? Well, in truth, I don't totally. I wouldn't want someone stealing my works and claiming it to be theirs. But I also firmly believe in the GPL. I figure that as long as credit is given where due, anything should go. That's what copyright protection is all about: protecting your rights to claim credit. (Allow me to scream out: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE AMERICANS *STOLEN* CREDIT FOR SOMETHING THAT WASN'T OURS? Ask the Canadians, the French, the English, the Japanese... Americans are notorious for theft and NOT giving credit where due...) (And for the record, I am American, United States flavour.)
We've been down this road before, thankx to Sony and the "Betamax Decision" years ago. The Court found that it is not wrong to copy videotapes for personal use SO long as you didn't gain financial resources in the process. Fine. Thank God for the Supreme Court; they generally keep their act together.
But you know why it's legal to copy a movie you rent? Because you are exchanging financial resources in order to get the movie in the first place. Napster doesn't charge you a thing for their NFS... You gain a right to copy a movie that you've rented because you've paid SOMETHING for it. Maybe Napster needs to charge $0.001 cents for every song downloaded and then send that to RIAA. Let them think they are getting something out of Napster.
This is the same thing that happened to Lyrics.ch, the International Lyrics Server. RIAA went after them for copyright infringments as well... And they've never been the same since. In fact, half of the lyrics I want to read, I can't get anymore. I would love to get the lyrics for Billie Myers "Am I Here Yet (Return to Sender)"... (A song I gladly downloaded from Napster *AND* Scour!) Oh well, maybe next millennium...
Even if RIAA successfully destroys Napster and Scour (and the others), they will NOT be able to stop the underground without taking out networking and NFS... (I can hear them under their breath through their teeth at me: "Damn you, bastard!")
This might be far from over, but let me end with this... The Supreme Court has more often than not, sided on the side of technology and technological progress. So, I for one, am not all that worried.
Seth Anderson BTW, I'm not 23 anymore -- I am TexasCowboy26 now. =)
Napster might be shut down, it might be gone forever. The others might follow it as well. But has everyone forgotten IRC is still out there? No matter how big napster gets or any of the others, IRC will still be there with MP3s and anything else people could want.
Does this mean that the industry will take on IRC and try to shut them down as well? For some reason I think that would be suicide for the industry. Maybe because there are a few people on there who would get upset.
So the point is, no matter if Napster and all the other mp3 clients fall away, IRC will still always be there no matter what they do. IRC is probably one of the best places to get all this stuff, and yet no lawsuits or battles are being fought against it. Maybe the industry is somewhat smart in picking it's wars.
%blow
%blow: No such job
^how did the sex change go?
Modifier failed
well, let's just say the drug war would be over tomorrow...
if you could trade pot over the internet, it would be.
--
+&x
nobody ofcourse would consider that. but this is not about shoplifting. What the RIAA is trying to do is outlaw shopping bags, cos research shows that a large number of shoplifters use shopping bags for their 'shopping'
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Macster is cool, and probably still the best Mac clone overall (though it still crashes on my G3 every hour or so under heavy use). But it does insist on going through the query server and won't connect manually, which is gonna become a fatal flaw in under 48 hours. :) For a Mac clone with Napigator-like functionality, try Rapster.
There's an interesting story on wired.com about all this. Talks about the ill-fated percolator. There's a quote from the percolator guys: "There's got to be a way to take care of musicians and their fans." I've heard this before. Like maybe have all music be free for download but you get choaked with ads or you pay monthly or some bullcrap. Sounds like a fine happy little plan but there is one little thing in the way... The billion dollar record companies that would like all this internet hooplah to go away. And last I checked, if you have a billion dollars, you don't loose in court very often. A billion dollars does wonders in influencing folks. So now that napster is smoked (it was just a matter of when), I'll just go back to anonymous ftp sites, on-line friends, and (now)gnutella and the big business can go back to ripping people off and tainting true expression.
FUNK!
No, I would rather have 90%+ of people get the best health care in the world, than 100% get poor, crappy health care while waiting six months for a non-life-threatening surgery.
If so many people already get "the best health care in the world", would giving the rest of them really degrade the health care system that much? Especially if it's such a trivial number! You make it seem like the people who are not getting health care are such a trivial percentage that they don't even matter. Why does the health care system all of a sudden become poor and crappy just because everyone has it? If it would indeed do that, then that would indicate to me that there are serious problems beyond the scope of this discussion.
Through no fault of her own??? Unless she has been totally disabled and unable to work, she could have bought health insurance. You know, there is no law against buying your own insurance, and it's not that expensive.
She can't afford it. It's very hard to make enough money to live on minimum wage. (She works as an administrative assistant for a very small company; I'm trying to help her get a higher paying job, but she has social anxiety disorder and it's very hard for her to pass interviews. Get her medicine for it, you say? Nearly impossible; she doesn't have health insurance. Nice catch-22.) Rent, food, gas, and car insurance are ridiculously priced enough as it is. Health insurance becomes a luxury.
You may not realize it, but it's ridiculously hard to make a living here in the U.S. without a very high paying job. You continually feel the class gap pushing you down to the ground, and trying to make you stay there. It's quite frustrating.
Very dramatic, but wrong. They get treated -- by law. Hospitals cannot turn away people needing medical care.
Yes, well, I suppose it depends on your definition of "needing". It's up to the hospital to determine that. On one occasion, they almost didn't treat her (my gf) for a very serious medical condition that could have killed her very quickly. I'd rather not get into the details, but when something like this happens, it can really change your opinion on just how wonderful the healh care system here is.
The MP3 format itself is not illegal. The RIAA is not going after companies like RealNetworks, MusicMatch, and Xing that create software to encode MP3's. The fact that MP3's exist is not the issue here. The fact that Napster exists to facilitate the trade of MP3's is the issue.
Actually RIAA has several times recently gone after MP3 encoders and players (the Rio), so they apparently feel the format should be illegal for the same reason they feel Napster should be: it can and does facilitate the transfer of copyrighted music.
--
This is a pointer to a presentation on MSNBC that contains all the information and details I brought-up:
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/DigitalMusic/
Along the same lines try to change the views of the constituents. If a politician votes against the wishes of the constituents too often he will not be elected next time. So try to raise awareness of the issues that you feel are important. Post signs, place ads, write letters.
1. No one knows the name of your unknown garage band. Therefore, no one will search for your songs on Napster.
I know the name of his unknown garage band. It's called CHRIS JOHNSON. He's a one-man band. I went to his web page, and I liked it so much I bought his album. It was really easy.
By the way, thanks for dismissing him the same way the music industry does. You helped get his point across.
P.S. if you actually use Napster's client to browse the napster network, then sure, you can't browse, only search. But who actually does that? Not me...
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
"They'll have to implement something where any song with a particular word in the title is rejected. And the RIAA gets to choose which words."
The?
"And like that
m3t4ll1c4 - 0n3.mp3
w3ird 4l - 4mish p4ridis3.mp3
b34stie b0ys - int3rg4l4ctic.mp3
And how are you going to search those?
Sander
"Oooh, what does this button do?" - DeeDee
Well, some would claim that profiting from enabling the distribution of other people's copyrighted work is similar to the profiteering that took place in the 18th century.
Now, if Napster charged $20 per month and gave half or two-thirds of that service charge (or just the banner advertisements) to the RIAA, then things would be a little different. Or, perhaps providing the RIAA with general demographic information (e.g., users from the West Coast tend to prefer ...). There are plenty of alternatives that would allow Napster to make money, the RIAA to receive what it feels is its share, and users to continue trading music.
The fact that Napster wants to keep all its income for itself, despite the fact that no one is interested in the Napster software itself (users use Napster because of the music), is a bit unscrupulous.
No, that is "mob rule" and it is specifically one of the things that the Founders feared. This country was founded as a Republic, not a democracy.
Really, this is one of the most bizarre "standards" I've ever heard of. So when a majority of the citizens of this country had no problem with slavery, does that mean that it was then right? When a majority of people in this country believed that women had no business voting, does that mean that it was then right? What sort of bizarre worldview do you have, anyway? :-)
Besides, it bears pointing out that your 70 million people is more than just a little short of an actual majority; there are over 250 million citizens in this country, which means that your paltry 70 million is at MOST just 28% of the population. Which leaves a 72% super-majority, which is very nearly sufficient for passing a constitutional amendment.
No offense meant, but I suggest you spend a bit more time thinking about your standard here.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
People all over the world are arguing for Napster, saying that no one can take away this "legal" program. Well, Napster, much to the sugrin of fans everywhre, is not legal. The only clause that can possibly be used in the argument that Napster is legal is the tiny loophole that used to be a part of almost all music copyrights. This tiny tear stated that the distribution of the music is illegal when a profit is being made off this distribution. No money is being made by anyone using Napster, right? So it is legal, correct? Wrong. That copyright was revised several years ago when the discovery that bootleg taps were being *gasp* sold to friends, strangers, and ebay-ers alike. So the clause was changed, distribution of any sort is frowned upon. Much as I like Napster and support it for the *promotion* of music, I cannot fend for it's existance as a legal program.
- RogueLoup - phoeben9@hotmail.com
Here is a link passed on to me by a friend. It is essentially a petition against the RIAA.
Here is the URL: Boycott the RIAA
Please show your support. Thanks!
Titus Barik
and I do use it to reclaim music for cd's I can't find anymore (but still technically own)
This reminds me of my own situation, where my ex-gf destroyed some 100 CD's of mine that I would not seriously endevour to locate and purchase again. Looking at my current "stash" of 400 some odd MP3's I estimate a good 70% of them are from those said destroyed CD's. Another 20% or so are from obscure techno DJ's that put out their own mp3's and only a mere 10% are from artists where I enjoy only a few songs of and therefore would never purchase a CD from.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
That's OK, you'd just be wrong. Copyright law makes no mention of the "perfection" of copying The point I was addressing had nothing to do with the quality of the copies, but with the "copy-ability" of the copies, you're bringing up a whole different issue that isn't really related to my point. But in deference to the argument you bring up, the quality of the copying has been one of the motivating factors for the RIAA to now enforce their copyrights. Regardless of whether the legalese mentions it or not, it is a very real factor in the issue.
So basically, he said, if he can't fix the economy, he'll ask congress to suspend the constitution so he can. Nowhere does he say he DID suspend the constitution.
Now, I may be wrong, but I don't think it was ever suspended during his presidency.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
Because music was meant to be performed live, and i am willing to support bands that i enjoy listening to in that fashion.
Do you realize how incredibly arrogant that statement is? It's not up to you decide how music should be enjoyed by everyone else. Music is intended to be listened to.
Recorded music allows me to listen to the Venice Philharmonic Orchestra without travelling to Venice. Maybe you enjoy listen to any third rate musicians live, but I would far rather listen to good recorded music than bad live music.
And if you ask any REAL musician whether or not they'd still be playing if all music were free...and they'd give you a resounding "hell yeah!"
Again, it's not about what you think anyone should be doing. It's about artists having control of their creations, and allowing them to choose how they want to distribute their music.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The BeOS Napster clone has built in Napigator support.
Napster for BeOS-- "Never call your girlfriend 'Butterball'. Not even once."
Yes Jesus would work end Welfare and throw the sick off of healthcare. He would fight against clean air and water.
War is necrophilia.
Now obviously, there were ftp and irc and web searches and the like, before those. But my point is, napster could not be the "motivation" for all other programs/services to exist. But I will agree however, that where others failed, napster brought mp3 piracy to attention of the general public, and the mass "market."
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
Let's see, they do a search, get your IP, track you down, FBI steals your shit, case never goes to court. You're right, they wouldn't prosecute.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
The judicial system conversly is meant ONLY to enforce those laws, it is NOT there to make laws or use their power to reflect the views of the people.
uumm. Roe Vs. Wade???
And in keeping with your lil attack there on the other poster let me just say that your view is strictly that of high school level education. For the most part, it's not until college that you learn just how much public opion has/does sway the courts.
benifits of a clasical education.
"I mean, All you can definately say about a fellow who thinks he's a poached egg, is; He's in the minority." James Burke
I am sick and tired of people comparing the VCR (a playback and recording device) with Napster (a sharing device). They are two completely different things.
:)
The MP3 format itself is not illegal. The RIAA is not going after companies like RealNetworks, MusicMatch, and Xing that create software to encode MP3's. The fact that MP3's exist is not the issue here. The fact that Napster exists to facilitate the trade of MP3's is the issue.
Let's try this: I set up a little flea market where everyone sits at a table with piles of videotapes, an infinite supply of blank tapes, and a tape copier. I sit in the center, with no tapes or copier of my own. When you arrive, you don't have to pay anything, but you just give me a list of the tapes that you're bringing. Then, when I open it up to the public, someone comes up to me and asks who has a copy of, say, "Terminator 2." I give that person a list of several tables where they can get a copy of "Terminator 2," he goes to one of them, and he gets his copy of the movie.
Well, then the MPAA steps in once my flea market gets to be the size of Giants Stadium, and 99.99% of the copies made are of copyrighted films. "But wait!" I say. "I'm not encouraging the people to break the law, in fact some people here are copying independent films that the directors WANT to be copied!" The MPAA will not care about that statistically insignificant amount of people, and will dutifully shut me down.
In fact, we have a few places where this analogy works out for computer software. They're called MarketPro computer shows.
For more information, click here.
So what your saying is that if you want to make a living doing what you love (ie music) then your not a "REAL" msuician?
you're twisting my words....very ingenious of you. No, wanting to get paid for doing what you live is fine. I love computers, and i get paid to screw around with them...good for me. But if i compromised my principles to make money like oh so many musicians do (read: metallica) then that is pretty much correct.
ask your sister if she would have gotten a degree in vocal performance if it was guaranteed that she would not be able to make money doing it.
lmfao! you wanna talk to my sister and ask her what the odds are of actually making a living off a degree in vocal performance. Let's just say she knew going in that it was going to be almost impossible to be a true "professional" singer. Not quite guaranteed, but then again, nothing is.
The point is this...recorded music should be free. Because IP is BS, and the signal to noise ratio can't get any lower than it already is, so you can't argue that bands would have less chance of making it in a Napster-esque world...they've already got about nil. You can try to villify me in any way you want. He's an asshole communistic anti-capitalist bastart! - well, i guess i am.
But when the time comes, and recorded music is free...i'll be one of the first to support musicians out of my own pocket. Now go buy something off copyleft and support Open Source too!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Voting is NOT a simple solution. It might keep Napster alive for a while, but it doesn't address the complex MORAL, ETHICAL, and ECONOMIC questions which Napster and similar music trading/piracy enablers raise.
Guys, this is nothing. Gnutella and other programs like it will take Napster's place if you want to trade stuff, legally or not. The cat's out of the back, and trying to stuff it back in will only get people clawed.....(hehe)
Exactly where does Roe v Wade fit in here???? Where exactly did the court ignore law and go with public opinion? Wanna step up and back your own statements? Did the courts not enforce the laws properly? The court system correctly chose the law that was of the higher order, public opinion didn't magically pop out a new law, they used an existing law on the books to over-rule another law, no public opinion if the law didn't already exist, I'm pretty damn sure that R v W would have gone the other way.
Where EXACTLY did I state that public opinion can not sway a trial? Please point it out to me, I believe I said that the judicial system is MEANT to. I never said it never happens, nobody would believe that opinion can never sway a court; but I never DID SAY THAT IT WOULD NOT. Again I will state the FACT that the judicial is not SUPPOSED to listen to public opinion; it is to interpret the laws that are already made and base their judgements solely on that.
Oh, and I went to college, (a liberal arts college in fact, good times...) and I new quite a long time before then that the world never revolves along the idealistic goals that it is supposed to abide by. On a side note, I bet my college was probably even more liberally eye opening then yours, mine actually paid to send students to Canada, to escape the draft during Vietnam. (top that hehehe.)
If you want to call my response an attack then fine whatever. If someone is going to respond sarcastically to me, with absolutely no true facts or is so completely wrong in such a simplistic fasion... then yes, I tend to respond in a curt way.
Spelling and grammar checker off because I don't care
Where there are no more CD's to buy (as you assert that music should be free), how do I support the artist if I want to? Remember, my closet is too full of t-shirts, and almost all of the musicians I like do not tour, or live overseas, or at least on the east coast. Send them money! If you really want to pay the artists, pay them yourself. $5 for all the songs from a cd is better than what they would be getting paid now by the record companies. Or, you could pay them a dollar or two per song that you download. Even though not everyone who downloaded their songs would do this, they would still make a profit. They would only need about 1 in 41 people to actually pay for the cd to make just as much as they would from distributing their music through record companies
I don't know about you guys --> what you're going to do about this closing, but my reaction upon reading this article was to install opennap on my router and to fight the... bad... US Gouvernement.
Let's look at some of your quotes:
"They feel they are entitled to the big salary coming out of college."
Before you say that again, remember that the average college grad (assuming all fields are combined) would be making somewhere in the high 30K's to low 40K's. Chances are that if you are in the high tech fields, you may make a lot more, but most of the "average" college grads come from "average" colleges, with "average" GPAs, which leave them with "average" choices, such as service industries, small businesses or some of the low-tech old economy industries. If you live on a trailer park in North Dakota, 40k is a wad of cash.
But most of these "average" college grads live on the metropolitan areas of the big cities, on bedroom communities 1-2 hours away from work, and having both spouses work to pay the bills, have reliable cars and raise families. A combination of two "average" college grads is barely enough to sustain the new couple until they get off the ground, pay their student loans, recover their credit and start saving for the house their kids will live in. And then you know the rest of the story, since I bet you are on your 60's or 70's.
Why do I say the word "average" so much? Because it seems to me that your comments go towards the fortunate few (in proportion to the US population) that have taken advantage of the new economy that is now developing, by being the pioneers on fields we were too afraid to venture in. Now, you and I are watching some of them get rich. I don't have a problem with that. We chose our paths. What I do have a problem with is trying to label the basket by the rotten few, or try to overgeneralize in an effort to demonize their intentions and justify your prejudice. The most of us are not on fat paychecks. Your paycheck may not be fat, so what's wrong with borrowing money from your grandson? Is your good ole' boy image distroyed? Get a grip!
"They feel entitled to free health care."
Yeah, right! We are paying yours!
They feel entitled to stock options.
We are not looking forward to 3% yearly increases. Just because you had no choice, does not mean we don't have either.
"They feel entitled to free web sites without any advertising."
If there are stations on cable TV that have no comercials, why shouldn't we have the same with our internet connections?
You are a lost case of senility. Go play checkers or something.
Las cosas mas triviales se vuelven fundamentales...
NUGSTER! http://www.boycott-riaa.com
"Place your lips around this sound, and slowly blow yourself away." --- Mercury Rev
A good 6 years ago, back before I had even HEARD of the Internet and when BBS systems were thriving, I downloaded my first MP3. It was a song my friend's band made by taking a live recording, and playing it through a microphone on his computer. It sounded bad. It wasn't even close to crystal clear, not even 44khz. But it, through his music, was his expression.
Freedom of Speech.
The music was free. He was not to entertain me and make money off of it. He was there to share his emotions and send it to an unlimited number of people. Many people downloaded it, not everyone liked it and deleted the MP3. Simple as that. No money was lost. No one starved and lived on the street because of it. He made more fans from remote areas where they would have not heard about his music with spending money on advertising that showed images but not his music.
I bought more CDs. I extracted the music and converted it to MP3 format. I ran a few FTP sites, but nothing of mass amount.
I'm guilty of sharing digital signals.
Napster is not the enemy. MP3's are not the enemy. The real enemy is musicians who want too much money for their emotions and demand to be better than everyone else.
Welcome to the real world.
I work. I've been in bands. I make an honest living. I actually make a lot LESS than what I should be doing, but I am content. When I was in bands, I made SQUAT. Diddly squat. I earned money, but it turned around and went to my equipment. Not my fancy tour bus. Not my lavish lifestyle. Not to my producers. It went where it should and was used for REAL necessities.
At least over half of the bands today will be washed up in 5 years, unless they are old men who can't let go.
And with a burning cry, FUCK YOU RIAA.
The boycott begins.
One of the great advantages of Napster (and Gnutella) is that you're accessing a single, common community. With dozens of alternate napster networks cropping up, that community is going to be splintered into many different ones. And people will have to search, possibly, many of the different servers before they find one that's got what they're loking for.
Wouldn't a better approach be some kind of client that combines the best of Napster and Gnutella? Connects to a list of servers, downloads a list of alternative server-list-servers (in case the current server list gets shut down), and talks to one of those servers? Then that one server could farm the request out to the other servers it knows about. Sort of like gnutella at the core, napster at the leaves.
Is there any effort in place now that will bring all these alternatives into a seamless whole, either like I suggest above or in some other way? Or a Napigator-like interface that will search multiple servers at once for me?
And therein lies the difference.... RADIO STATIONS PAY ROYALTIES. Napster doesn't. And although Napster may in fact open the door for a handful of bands that don't get airplay, we all know that VAST majority of traffic at Napster is there to download commercial music. The judge didn't buy Napster's argument to the contrary, and I don't really think anyone believes it. The RIAA has some strange views - - like, for example, its position that ANY music recorded onto a CDR on a computer, rather than a stand-alone CD-recorder that you hook up to a stereo, is illegal. In this case, though, the RIAA (and yes, even Lars Ulrich) is right.
Yes, but for WHO? Career beuraucrats won't even dream of commenting on this issue. We need a concerted effort to ferret out those just beginning their careers as politicians who are willing to state concrete positions on this so we can support them like all hell...
If memory serves, the rights to books which have gone officially out of print usually revert to the writer.
Interestingly, this could be a downside of e-books and print-on-demand technology, since, with no inventory cluttering up warehouses, there would be little reason for a publisher to ever declare a book to be out of print.
Why do I say the word "average" so much? Because it seems to me that your comments go towards the fortunate few
No, not all people have the "entitlement" attitude. But look at some of the posts on this thread, particularly the one from the guy who thought the industry owed him something because of his big $$ educational investment. My point is that the industry owes him nothing. It's up to him to prove that he's useful to someone.
I'm not saying that someone coming out of college shouldn't have the goal of getting the big salary -- through excellence. My beef is with thinking they deserve a big salary for no legitimate reason.
And then you know the rest of the story, since I bet you are on your 60's or 70's.
Actually, I'm 35. I dropped out of college mid-term to get the big software engineering salary. I've owned several companies and have made a lot of money. You seem to think I'm some old fogey who is jealous of "those young whipper-snappers who've got it so durn easy, not like in my day when we had move 2 ton computers and we we're glad to have the work!"
Believe me, I am the last person to begrudge someone money if they can get it. I don't even begrudge them money if they're incompetent and don't deserve it. It's the attitude that they are not willing to earn what they get in life; that they are expecting to have everything handed to them by people who work and are talented (such as, say, musicians).
We are not looking forward to 3% yearly increases. Just because you had no choice, does not mean we don't have either.
If you can get stock options, then more power to you. But there are a lot of college students right now who are in for a rude awakening in the next few years when the start-up boom dries up, and only people that are truly hard working and smart are going to get them. Again, it's about the attitude that someone is entitled to be an IPO millionaire.
If there are stations on cable TV that have no comercials, why shouldn't we have the same with our internet connections?
Because part of the price of your cable goes to the station, rather than charging for commercials. Web sites do not get a subsidy from your ISP bill.
Something, someone, has to pay the bills. When you demand that a web site be free and without advertising, you are basically saying: "Thank you for this cool web site. However, I demand that you pay for it out of your own pocket, rather than my being slightly inconvenienced by having to download an extra few seconds of data." It's an unbelievably selfish, self-centered attitude.
You are a lost case of senility. Go play checkers or something.
I'll try and find my Alzheimer's medication.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Close down the internet - it makes people do illegal things
Ask yourself why you are protesting the RIAA? For artists rights? Or because you irresponsibly want your free music? jeez.
Well, actually neither. I dislike RIAA because they want waaay too much control over my life -- specifically, where and how I listen to music. I don't like it.
I have no special feelings for Napster as a company. They did provide a valuable service: they opened the floodgates. RIAA in blind rage is trying to crucify Napster for that, but that's pure revenge -- they cannot turn back the clock. Too many people now know that Internet is where you get your music and trying to tell them otherwise is not going to work. If anything, this will force migration to lawyer-resistant Gnutella-type networks, which is a Good Thing.
There are two main reasons why Napster was so successful (besides providing free music):
(1) Napster is immediate (for broadband people, at least). If my buddy tells me about some great piece of music, I can check it out right away. This is important and a large part of Napster appeal.
(2) Napster is pick-and-choose. People's been bitching about having to buy the whole CD for a single worthwhile song for a loooong time and the recording industry did nothing -- why should they? Napster allows me to assemble collections of exactly what I want and nothing more.
If the recording industry is able to match these two advantages, it might survive. If it insists on blindly lashing out anything that threatens its dominance, it will die. It ain't gonna be pretty and the collateral damage might be significant, but die it will.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
if napster implemented wildcards, and if everyone only replaced vowels...
m?t?ll?c?
w??rd ?l
b??st?? b??s
_______
2B1ASK1
- Napster has a smaller market
- Napster's offerings are of higher audio quality
- By default, users get a copy of the music they listen too
- Napster has no built in revenue generation (no ads)
- You search for music you like, rather than what is thrown at you by a radio station (where you might change frequencies)
I still see advantages from providing music in this manner. Publisher's have pricing schemes depending on how large & the type of format that a radio station is. I would think that Napster could fit within that scheme, or a slightly modified scheme. It would then fall to Napster to pay royalties for the music it provides over it's distribution chain. I don't think Napster has any way of generating revenue at the moment...that's too bad. Maybe the could get donations from users, kinda like NPR! They in some ways compete against other Open Source Napster-like networks. However, their useage is the greatest...they've attained brand recognition maybe. Like I said before, it's too bad the RIAA can't find a way to work with this new way of distributing music...instead of fighting it.Anecdote: Speaking with a friend of mine last night, who is in a band, I learned that Hip Tanaka has sold 2 cds b/c of someone hearing an MP3. Likewise, he has bought cds after listening to a group's MP3s. I don't listen to music on my PC, so I can't say anything about my purchasing habits...well, I buy a lot of vinyl records. :)
Finally, in this article about the decline in cd sales near college students. Overall sales are continuing to climb! It's also questionable as to whether college students may be purchasing more music online. What the hell is the RIAA complaining about...they are making money hand over fist!
TGL
PS - bring on more punk rock. woo!
--- this space intentionally left blank.
Who wants to use an operating system nobody else uses, ill just go with windows because everyone else uses it, sure there are alternatives, but who wants to use them if nobody else does? BAAAAAAAAAAA! a wise man once said: "Dont blame me, I voted for Kodos"
Yessss, I can steal songs like I've been doing all along, but now I feel justified by calling it a boycott. Really, I haven't bought a brand new cd (for myself) in the last few years. Now I will call it...standing up for my rights. hehehehe Buy used! Its cheaper, you get cd quality and all that cool artwork, and the RIAA isn't getting your money.
The full story is right here! :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
no. films are a little bit of a different creature. A) they cost signifigantly more to produce and therefore people are willing to pay for that. (good for us). B)Films aren't the same as music in the respect that Das Boot can't be made again and again live.
Can "Sgt. Pepper" be made again live? How about Eno's "Music for Films"? Miles Davis's "In a Silent Way"? Stockhausen's "Gesang der Junglinge"?
It may come as a surprise to some, but, except in a statistically tiny area of music, recording has mutated far beyond the reproduction of live performance. (And no, a tribute band covering "In a Silent Way" is *not* the same thing as the real recording.)
By the logic that musical recordings should be free as a come-on to see the music in concert, I should be able to get a DVD of the X-Men movie for free as an incentive to see it performed live at a local theatre.
What I've heard from most small labels is that they don't like Napster. Napster really has the potential to hit their sales the hardest. Also, most successful small labels have been continually bought out by larger labels...
well, napster gets 5 million for their troubles, that bit of info was not out when i posted this, so it seems somewhat fair...
BUT, what Next?
Next we'll outlaw yahoo.
Outlaw Email, FTP, Usenet, IRC, ICQ too! Outlaw floppies, zips, jazes, hard disks and CD's! Outlaw tv's and teeshirts. Outlaw air and air-breathers!
every man and every woman is a star
Early Beta versions of Napster had a place for Banner ads, but they only head Napster banner in there. I figured they would put real banner ads in there later, but the space was gone on the next beta version.
'Course, now all I can do is shop online....
Which is precisely what Corporate America and its underpaid lackey, the U.S. Government, want.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So you would rather see people die and suffer than make health care available to everyone? Very compassionate.
This issue hits me on a personal note. My girlfriend, through no fault of her own, does not have health insurance. It costs mega-bucks whenever she needs to see a doctor. I pay for it, of course -- I love her. But it makes me really sad that there are people who can't get health care at all -- and they might not have the benefit of someone who will pay for it for them. And guess what happens when they come to the hospital, pleading for a doctor, begging for their lives? That's right -- they turn them away, because they don't have the cash.
It's sickening.
[dons asbestos underwear]
Clarification, or perhaps something I should have made more evident in my original post: I chose those quotes from Douglass and Thoreau not because I want to suggest that shutting down Napster is as great an injustice as salvery, nor because I equate the tyranny of the RIAA with the tyranny of slaveholders. I chose those quotes because they are eloquent philosophical and ethical arguments for the civil disobedience of laws that are unjust. I apologize for any confusion that may have been generated by my out-of-context quoting of two great men.
J
If you think the music that is out now sucks, imagine what it would be like if this happened. No more full CDs, so the only thing that any music company would be interested in would be hit singles. That really great song that is on the CD, but is too long or too different to become a hit single? For get it, it's gone. Can't be sold. You can do maybe one or 2 songs that won't be radio hits, and hope people actually check them out, but a full album is just become a thing of the past, and that is something I don't want to see. I like the songs that don't get released to the radio, I like B-sides, and I don't want to see them disappear.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Here two quotes from their web cast:e r.cnn.html)
* "..ordering the online music service Napster to stop doing what it was invented to do, distribute copyright songs free over the internet" (source: http://www.cnn.com/video/tech/2000/07/27/gl.napst
* "The music swapping web site Napster is apealing it's order to stop it's 20 million customers to download copyrighted songs..". (source: rtsp://realchannel.cnn.com/channel/headlines.rm28. rm)
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
Napster will NEVER set enough kill filters. It's too easy to break.
But I suspect that users will simply switch to another more distributed mp3 network. Just like the earlier poster's analysis, Napster is unlikely to come out alive.
not Hillary Rosen's definition of "fair use".
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I'm glad they can't use the other programs.
It's these "sheep" that are getting everybody into trouble. If they weren't on napster then to this day the press would never have heard of MP3s.
I'm not saying this coverage hasn't done good things. We can now get portable mp3 players and there are a lot more songs available.
I will miss the fact that when I can't find a rare song on irc it will be on napster (I just have to wait longer because no matter they say people on Napster are slow), but I will not miss having to deal with idiots so that I can get a mp3 of Dave Matthews Band playing All Along The Watchtower with the Grateful Dead. How many times have you found a great song only to find that the person offering it: lied about their connection speed (funny story on that one), mislabeled the song - with the wrong artist and song name (I actually downloaded a cool live pearl jam song only to find out that it was some odd spanish song), cancel your download 95% of the way through, didn't compress with a high enough quality causing funny noises, or just cut the end of the song off while recording it? You don't find too many of these problems on IRC (before napster's songs got spread around that is) the only thing you ever had to worry about then was if you lost you internet connection before the download is complete, and that problem is solved with high-bandwidth always-on connections.
the Funny Story I promised:
When I first found out that my sister was using Napster I asked her if she had left the server on (this machine is too old and underpowered for such things). She said "Yes, but dont worry, I didn't let it slow down the computer because I set it to the highest speed." Turns out she had labeled that 28.8 connection as a T1 line. Kind of proves my point though.
Good Riddance.
Devil Ducky
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
The UK register (http://www.theregister.co.uk) points out a small nugget worth mentioning:
The judge in the case is forcing the RIAA to post a 5 Million dollar bond in the case, for lost earnings, should napster prevail. This should be taken into account before declaring the RIAA as a victor in pretrial.
If memory serves, the RIAA had to post a similar bond in the Diamond Rio case.
They lost that bond.
Obviously the judge believes that Napster has some points to its arguments, otherwise, the judge would not have ordered such a bond.
Lets consider this before we go flying off about how unfair it is when big corp's throw money around.
In addition, this is one of those dicey issues which will play out like a roller coaster, and will most assuredly wind up in the Supreme Court's lap. In all honesty, the supreme court has not taken too many cases relating to the online and computer fields. With M$ going soon, and presumably, the DeCSS case, the Supreme Court will need to get in here and set some rulings down. They have a habit of letting things boil before acting.
Supernaut
Yes, it would be nice to reuire use to maintain a copyrightm but one must ask "what constitutes use."
Example: If I own Startrek: TNG, but I want it to die so people will watch Voyager, then I can offer to sell video tapes of the show but prohibit TV or internet distribution.
The solution is to say "You loose your copyright with respect to a specific media if you do not distribute it under that media for (say) 4 years."
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
2. According to the CNN article, two main points of Napster's defense were "gee, we didn't know there was pirating going on," and "sharing is personal use." Both are bogus arguments that either point to a horrible legal strategy or (more probably) a doomed business model.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The Entitlement Generation is an attitude that began with the hippies of the 60s, but is going full-force among the GenX crowd. They feel they are entitled to the big salary coming out of college
If they're GenXer's coming out of college now, it's took them quite a while(The last of the genXers were born around '76 I think) I'm of the next generation (Gen Y or whatever the hell else you would like to call it) And Yes, After spending close to $100,000 on my education, plus getting 2 1/2 years of actual co-op time in the computer industry, and spending a couple of thousand dollars to get my Oracle and MCSE, A+, and other certifications, I think that I should get at least 80K+ when I get out of school next year.
I also think that programs like Napster should be able to operate. While I don't use it because I don't have a fast enough connection. I think that programs like this should be available as a distribution channel for artists that aren't big enough/ or don't want to be associated with RIAA.
I happen to be a big fan of techno music. And while I can get mix tapes of all the local DJ's that I want with ease at parties, but it's really hard to get music from out of state DJ's that that either I've seen because they have come to Detroit, or even one's that I've never heard of.
(Speaking as someone who reads the freenet-dev list, not as one of the developers!)
$ cat < /dev/mouse
2. It's true the lawsuit does not prevent him from publishing his songs on his web site. But the lawsuit also do not prevent him from going door-to-door selling his music. The musician will try every channel to sell. Napter happens to be one of them.
Let's say the RIAA wins... They should win, they wrote the laws. What's next for the RIAA?
Many have spoken of the free alternatives which are decentralized and impossible to stop.
Well maybe not so impossible...
Regardless of the alternative used, these applications transfer data from a one machine to another. The RIAA sets up several applications with numerous copyrighted songs on them and records all data transfer. Next track down the ip addresses which access this info. Many will be difficult to trace, but a few will be easy to trace. Next nail a few users legally, make examples out of them and publicize it.
End result is a chill through these free alternatives to napster.
here, here.. but not forget "a losing hand can start a winning game"...
Exactly. That's why that part of the analogy is not applicable to this discussion.
Come on people, it's a friggin' ANALOGY! No, an mp3 is not the same as strawberry jam. SO?
It doesn't matter if people are making money off it, as long as it's illegal it's illegal. Seems easy enough...
Last time my district's rep seat came up for vote, there was this character by the name of Chip Pickering (Republican, 3rd district, MS). He was the first candidate I had ever seen who made Internet policy part of his platform: he espoused all the right ideals: privacy, freedom of speech, yadda yadda yadda. It was beautiful.
Three guesses who I voted for.
So recently I decided to actually make use of Thomas, and check on his record. That's when I discovered that...oh no! He helped introduce a bill into the House to put censorware in public libraries and schools. Argh! But what's this? He signed as a sponsor of the DMCA? He voted in favor of the CDA?
I am Jack's Despondant Sense of Disillusionment. I had been thoroughly lied to. Which, in retrospect, given the stereotypes for politicians, is to be expected.
Now that's an interesting statement. Think about it for a moment.
So my repsonse is: Vote? Ha! For me it has only made things worse. I might cede that one who doesn't vote has no right to complain; however, I posit that voting has become an empty and hollow ritual.
But there has to be an alternative to voting. Preferably one that doesn't involve relocating to another country (where the situation as a whole is surely no better, even though the laws currently in the books may be better). Money is one, but that thought leaves me even more depressed than before. I'm still looking...
have fun
dongoodman
ell, since you need it spelled out for you. You can rant all you want to about should and supposed to, but in the end you have to deal with WHAT IS. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind and blaming god for making the wind blow the way it does (how wet are your pants?).
As far as your colege being more "liberal"--- that isnt exactly something to brag about. after all, Inoticed you didn't mention how much you learned there. My professors spent most of their time teaching to look at things and understand how/why they hapen, and what can be learned from it. I'm not sure what yours taught you. Maybe they were too busy flying guys to canada and didn't teach anything and you feel ripped off and thats why you have all that bent up hostitlity.
As far as the facts go --- yea Roe V Wade turned out the way it did because of public opionion, as did thedecision to allow states the right to use capital punishment. Again, they do it all the time. Remember, they judges that make these desicions are people,and they watch tv, and read the newspaper, and listen to the radio. They play poker, and talk to friends. And, they listen to what people say. Yuo can whine and moan and bitch all you want about how it shouldn't happen. But, you have to accept that it does, and only then can you have an intelligent dicsusion about how cases like this one will paly out in the courts.
My previous post was short because I felt the average slashdot reader could understant what I was saying. Thanks for proving me wronge. In the future, I will make a point of writing out long wordy post with lots of CAPS and lots of anger so that people like you can understand it.
"I mean, All you can definately say about a fellow who thinks he's a poached egg, is; He's in the minority." James Burke
I think many people are missing the point. Not to side with the Judge or RIAA, but legally, as it stands, downloading mp3's of songs you don't own is prohibited. Now, granted Napster is not only used for pirated music, but for legitimate small name distro as well. What needs to happen is a compromise: remember that word from kindergarden (which is how the RIAA and Napster are acting). They need to find a way where both sides benefit. Or one side needs to find a way to change the current laws regarding the issues at hand. Don't complain when you can't get illegal music anymore, you don't have a right to it in the first place. (regardless of who makes the most $ off the sales). I'm not a saint. I make no claim to not using napster, but I don't bitch and moan when it doesn't work out. Perhaps we are going about this all wrong... not to advocate for big brother, but there should be a way to remove certain artist-title songs from the napster index. Gnutella and such open another can of worms where it's not even worth going b/c they are designed to be unregulatable... which is both good and bad, depending on your side of the coin. What it all comes down to is people will go the cheapest route to get what they want. All gnutella and napster do is make it easier... personally i think the RIAA is wasting time and $ (which they seem to have plenty off.. hmm...) on something that won't help them much anyway. Kudos.
So you would rather see people die and suffer than make health care available to everyone? Very compassionate.
No, I would rather have 90%+ of people get the best health care in the world, than 100% get poor, crappy health care while waiting six months for a non-life-threatening surgery.
My girlfriend, through no fault of her own, does not have health insurance.
Through no fault of her own??? Unless she has been totally disabled and unable to work, she could have bought health insurance. You know, there is no law against buying your own insurance, and it's not that expensive.
And guess what happens when they come to the hospital, pleading for a doctor, begging for their lives? That's right -- they turn them away, because they don't have the cash.
Very dramatic, but wrong. They get treated -- by law. Hospitals cannot turn away people needing medical care.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
1. No one knows the name of your unknown garage band. Therefore, no one will search for your songs on Napster.
Step 1: Search Napster for songs you like
Step 2: Add user who has them to Hotlist
Step 3: Look at the other songs user is sharing
Step 4: Download the ones that look interesting
~ I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere.
Actually my college being more liberal is something I do brag about, I feel that I am a much more well rounded individual, than some others narrow minded people that came from my hometown. During my time I received 2 degrees, and was working on a minor in theatre. I learned probably more than most people who go to prestigious universities because of the size of my college. For my CS degree program they combined 4 colleges to get 12 CS professors (as long as you don't mind a 30 min commute) so I had a large knowledge base compared to the class size (largest was around 15 people, smallest was 2). I feel that I learned more at this small college than I could at a large university. One professor specialized in compiler construction, another in algorthmic research, another in software engineering, another in.... I had a damn good time.
Ummm... you completely side-stepped what I asked, again re-read my post and tell me where I'm false. That's all I'm asking, tell me where I'm incorrect. And for the facts, I didn't see a single one relevent one in your paragraph. All you did was say RvW and C.P. turned out that way because of public opinion, hell using your way of providing facts I could say Jeffry Dahmer was only convicted because public opinion was against him. And if I use your method of "truth" it's because that's the way it is so it's a fact.
I'm not arguing that RvW wasn't influenced by public opinion, but for some damn reason you are trying to put words in my mouth, that I said public opinion is supposed to influence the courts. Then you are trying to say that I'm whining and moaning and bitching about SOMETHING I NEVER SAID. Wanna continue trying to spread lies about what I said, or if you are up to it why don't you in your next post actually
1) Respond to my second request to where I said courts never get influenced by public opinion?
2) Find a single news story that said the RvW judge wasn't fully on the up and up (I'm pretty damn sure the anti-abortionists wouldn't have let that stand).
For future reference a fact is something that can be proven NOT a single statement by someone.
Here's a fact for you, remember that dogs are animals, and they watch tv, and listen to the radio, and bark at other dogs, and they listen to what people say. You can whine and moan and bitch all you want about how it shouldn't happen, but those dogs are just studying us to take over the world. That about right on how you prove your facts???
It's interesting that the cost of recording classical CDs has been mentioned. Can someone please explain why [in the UK, YMMV] the average classical CD is about half the cost or less of the average Metallica CD (to pick an example at random :> ) ?
Online classical music sales are a different proposition to pop music. Because MP3 is, quite frankly, shite when it comes to sound reproduction. Also, classical music listeners want to listen in their lounge, not at their PC.
I'm old fashioned; if I want to listen to something but don't want to pay the ridiculous price, I copy the CD.
"... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
No, not all people have the "entitlement" attitude. But look at some of the posts on this thread, particularly the one from the guy who thought the industry owed him something because of his big $$ educational investment. My point is that the industry owes him nothing. It's up to him to prove that he's useful to someone.
Actually, The money that I spent isn't the only reason why I think that I deserve to make a high living.
As I put in my post I've also worked hard to earn numerous certifications to prove my worth, I've also worked full time for the last 2 1/2 years at a small database consulting company, to make sure that when I get out of college I have actual real world experiance and not just a bunch of theoretical knowledge that I've learned at school.
But, I feel that the amount of the money that I spent on my education should be reflected in what I make when I leave. And not because I spent x amount of money, but because I spent x amount of money to go to a very good college to get the best education that I can get, I could of just as easly gone to a community college and gotten a degree, or just decided to drop out and start working. But, while I have been offered good paying jobs in programming with out my degree, I feel that you should have to work hard to get what you want, and I have, and that's why I feel I'm entitled to the money that I will make (the $70,000 figure price is from the offer that my current employer has already made).
cybrix - Napster is not as big a promoter as the radio, TV, or even browsing a music store. But Napster is doing a better job of promoting music than you give them credit for. Say you did a search for "techno" (one of my personal favorites). You are sudenly introduced to at least 4 new artists or songs that you never knew existed. Sure, this may not be as close to the actual definition of "promotion", but it gives people who know their genre, or even artist, the opportunity to pick up more than what they thought they would. It is a promotion of sorts, and you do have to give them their credit for that. :-)
- RogueLoup - phoeben9@hotmail.com
yes, we still have gnutella...but what happens when THEY are attacked? :-)
- RogueLoup - phoeben9@hotmail.com
And Yes, After spending close to $100,000 on my education, plus getting 2 1/2 years of actual co-op time in the computer industry, and spending a couple of thousand dollars to get my Oracle and MCSE, A+, and other certifications, I think that I should get at least 80K+ when I get out of school next year.
Guess what? How much you spent on your education has nothing to do with how much you are paid. You may want to take an economics course, because the concept of supply and demand hasn't sunk in.
You might get your $80K; hard to say. But you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You feel entitled to that $80K salary because you've invested all this money in your education. Well, companies pay you to do a job. If there is a glut of people with your knowledge, particularly people with real paid experience, then you might get $25K. If the knowledge is scarce, then you might get the higher salary.
Talk to some Aerospace engineers during the 90s about how much all their knowledge and experience was worth. It's not worth jack if there is no demand for it.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Jeez, I just want to weigh in on this - Chris, that's one of the most lucid posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. Keep it up guy! And oh by the way I'm a musician and I couldn't agree with you more. But I could never say it like you did. Umm, how about a song then?????
--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I can hardly call Napster a promoter for music as it is nearly impossible to find new music when you don't know who or what song you're looking for. They really need a better system, not just a cheapo IRCish program implemented with one idea in mind: MONEY MAKER.
pffffffffhhhhhhhhhhaahahahahahahahahahahahaha... b*****ks
In the spoon, there is no Soviet Russia!
its not about Napster's (or anyone's) views on sharing MP3's. the problem with shutting them down is that its causing a -network- to become illegal. the internet is based on file sharing. if this is allowed to happen, what next? ftp? irc? how about we just pass a law that blocks every port except for 80?? of course thats only if its an 'acceptable' website, judged by the government... Napster has not broken any laws. they merely set up a network, much like IRC. They should not be responsible for what people use it for. **vote for your rights** www.lp.org
I'll be the first to admit that the ability to search for unknown bands is weak, at best. I would personally love to see the ability to search by genre, a block of years, a "similar to" or a host of other things.
You missed my point, though. He's saying you can't find unknown music on Napster, I'm saying I do, as do many of my online friends. We frequently fire messages back and forth of the "try this" or "listen to this" variety..mostly unknown/unsigned bands.
ironically your last argument is more relavant than you think. Recent court rulings/laws have shown that most artists contracts put them somewhere along the lines of workers for hire. all those artists you listen to? most of them don't own the copyrights to their music...their labels do.
as far as the Monks are concerned. I suppose my view is slightly different on the concept of royalties. If you write a song, and you own the copyright. No, it should not be illegal for your fans to publicly trade your music. However, another company making money off of your music is a slightly different matter. The logic there is that someone is making money off of it, and it's "your" music...so you should get a piece of the action. While the vast majority of our IP system is kludged together, i would say that i would generally agree with the system of royalties. I am not going to take a musicians music for free and then try to resell it for a quick buck. That has nothing to do with IP or copyrights, that's just a fucked up thing to do.
But when we're talking about Napster, or gnutella, or any similar program, things get a little bit strange. We're talking about a product that, by the end of the year is projected to have over 70 million users. I think the public has just spoken on what they think of free music.
Now if only the government would stop trying to save us from ourselves.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I do get it, I was just being subtle...
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
That said, I don't think I'd vote anyway because:
Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Hopefully.
BR> I had an interesting discission with someone the other night on this subject, and despite my best efforts, he still didn't get it. And to top it off, he is (nominally) tech.
My worst fear is we end up with status quo.
I think napster's "buycott" makes a lot more sense. Give cash to the people who are fighting your fight to make up for all the cash that you find you just cant live without giving to people who are raging against you.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The RIAA does have a point... I'm not saying that everyone logs on to Napster to steal copyrighted music -- but if you've been to Best Buy (CompUSA, Wal-Mart, etc) recently, you'll notice that a -shocking- amoung of shelf space is devoted to 10-50-100 packs of CD-Rs -- not to mention CD burners, CD labelers, etc... Obviously a lot of money is being spent buying media for putting music on CDs ... There are only so many discretionary dollars in a person's budget to go around. If money is being spent on MP3 players and CDR (and bigger hard drives to hold hoards of MP3s) that is probably money that won't go to buy the latest $16.99 Kid Rock CD.
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
Can't slashdoters even do BASIC math these days?
You meant to say "You get $21."
0**0 = 1
-- Michael Chermside
Former cs & math teacher before I gave in to the x2.5 salary and turned to the "dark side" (computer consulting)
"The Man" is holding us down. Fight for freedom! Rock on!
The only way you will waste your vote is if you vote for a Republican or Democrat. Votes for the mainline parties mean that you approve of their activities. Votes for a third party, even if they lose, wake up the mainline parties to a change of mood. The more votes a third party gets, the more influence the third party platform has on the mainline agenda.
Not just OpenNap. There is also AlterNap, BOMBnap, DJNap, Doublehirc, EnergyBC, GimmickNap, IndustrialNap, Insomniac, ItalianNap, KinkyNap, MP3Boy, MyNapster, Nakednap, NedBelNap, OzIndexNapsterNetwork, PhrozenNap, PowerNap, ProcrastinatorNap, and PublicAccessUNIXSystemsNapsterServers. If you have any questions, i dont know, i just got all the names off Napigator (a great little util for win32 Napster).
Mark Duell
Read The Fscking Article. =)
t ml
The RIAA said it would post a $5 million bond requested by the judge against any financial losses Napster could suffer from being shut down pending the trial.
http://www.zdne t.com/zdnn/stories/newsbursts/0,7407,2608120,00.h
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
See this post.
I believe it is generally the case that plaintiffs must post bond before an injunction can be issued, so that the defendants will receive compensation for damages if the injunction is not upheld. IANAL.
Now, I think it's fairly clear to everyone, that Napster's success is primarily due to the trading of copyrighted works of artists from major labels. My own downloading has almost exclusively been limited to those groups. The only unsigned artist I've downloaded was Meryn Cadell, and her work was almost impossible to find anyway...
Napster is claiming that they are just another way of sharing files (like ftp). But in practice, it's used for the sharing of copyrighted work.
Because of Napster's centralized model, it would be possible for searches to only return "kosher" songs. They could basically set up a killfile that searches for certain strings, and eliminates those songs from being searched. They could also re-add songs that are deemed ok (for instance if some artist wrote a song "Briteney Spears Sucks" it should not be killed because it contains "Briteney Spears".)
Obviously, people would find ways around it (like spelling songs backwards, and using 3l33t sp34k), but Napster could figure ways around it.
And if some songs would slip through every once in a while, I don't think that the courts would rule against them--as long as they show a good faith effort.
But face it, napster has never tried to block copyrighted songs. And it's not because it's technically impossible, but because they get their bread and butter through illegal activity (committed by others).
Oh, and I'm not saying I'm against free distribution (so people can preview before buying), but that is up to the individual artists and labels until such time as fair use is expanded by congress. I would like to see fair use expanded to say that it's alright to preview music, but the laws don't say that...
geez... I'm probably just feeding a troll here but whatever.
hahah. Like nobody drank during Prohibition. Might I suggest some American history for you? (Why do you think prohibition was repealed?)
um... sarcasm anyone... what you're saying was the previous posters entire point...
-- Point? None! Cob.
previsible isn't a word
Radio is inherently better at promotion since it gives exposure
You are right, radio has better market penetration. What about those bands that aren't on major labels or are not on heavy rotation on all those Top 40 stations? Isn't that part of the initial success of www.mp3/com?
However, making an analog copy of something transmitted over the airwaves is a world apart from making an exact duplicate of a didgital master.
In terms of signal quality, yes. Not in terms of having in your hands a musical recording that you did not pay for. MP3s are by no means digital masters, "ripping" means compressing means loss of information.
Maybe publisher's fees is the solution
TGL - an analogue loyalist
--- this space intentionally left blank.
Um.. One thing -Napster is a filesharing application that utilizes files stored on the users hard-drives, not on a central server.. So how do you go about charging for this, and If I am paying to access Napster, why would I share files from my computer? Why waste the upstream bandwidth? Do I get payed 'rent' for the storage of those MP3s? Do I get a discount based on how many files I have made availiable? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against charging for music, but I dont thing Napster has the right set-up to do it.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Vices - what I lack in originality, I make up for in volume.
The best thing about Napster's alternatives is that they are neither strong nor unified. There is nothing to attack.
Not having the sheep around for a while might not hurt either. I'm a little tired of the whole OSS = Intellectual Piracy spin that we've been catching in the media lately.
-cwk.
Is this as silly as say, when Microsoft had an injuction put against their Java implementation months before the trial ended? I'm not for Microsoft, but you gotta take the good with the bad, the court system isn't supposed to be swayed by public opinion.
They presented enough evidence that a judge found the case reasonable to stop Napster while the trial is in progress. Truely I want the government to work this way, for an example if I was wronged; let's say someone dumped my GPL'd code into a closed commercial product. If I was able to present enough evidence to the jude that my case was resonable and that the continued use of that was detrimental to me, I'd like to see that use stopped. Cases may run for years and years, if someone is able to reasonably show that another one is in the wrong; I'd prefer a temporary stop be put in place.
But hey that's just me, I apply my statements to cases in general not to just napster; like I said take the good with the bad.
spelling & grammar checker off because I don't care
"Napster users are the same people who can't remember not to open e-mail attachments from random people."
This is oftopic I know, but actually it's executing attachments that really causes the problem. I open dozens of data attachments from people I've never heard of (.doc attachments etc). The real problem here is junk email clients that execute the attachments by default.
You could blame the users for using Microsoft email clients or you could just blame Microsoft itself. I generally do the latter.
is that radio stations don't play entire cds from start to finish, only the tracks meant for singles.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Ian Clarke, the creator of Freenet has been quoted saying that even if he wanted to, he couldn't bring down Freenet. There is no central server to unplug.
As bad as this sounds, perhaps this is what is needed to push along technically superior solutions.
Unisys is pushing PNGs with their licensing, Fraunhofer is pushing Ogg Vorbis with theirs, and now, the RIAA is pushing Freenet and Gnutella.
In all three cases, the Free Software world has overcome litigation be creating open, free, superior alternatives.
Colin Davis
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The software industry knows just how well pirates traded cracked copies of games well before most of us could get to the then government-controlled 'net.
Local BBSes did it just fine...
Heck, it'll be even easier with CD burners and high-bandwidth. Pirates were willing to make mutiple floppies of games or download them for 4 hours. I don't think MP3 will die.
-Aria
If Napster is disabled for a week, they might recover. If they're disabled for a month, I don't think it matters past that point, they'll have lost most of their marketshare and mindshare and I doubt they'll ever recover.
:/
That's what I call some DAMN signifigant harm to Napster.. I thought that an injuction was only granted to prevent signifigant harm to one party when it would not signifigantly harm the other party.. Oh well, I guess the law runs different if you're the record industry.. Unless it's settled in a month, Napster is the walking dead.
I give it $100 if they don't settle within a week. They'll have to implement something where any song with a particular word in the title is rejected. And the RIAA gets to choose which words. And if you have a song that has those words in the title well, sorry.
not a lawyer but can you imagine in the M$ case, the judge saying "Whoa, this internet moves so fast and Netscape is such a small fry. We gotta shut M$ down until the case is over."
Yeah right.
every man and every woman is a star
of the corporate idiots.
Contrary to what the man in the solid-gold ferrari (lars) would like you to beleive, artists aren't starving to death from the big bad napster. Limp bizkit has embraced napster, encouraged their fans (like me) to have napster and use napster and go ahead and trade limp MP3's on napster. Limp bizkit got free concert sponsorship by napster, limp got money, limps fans get a free concert, all groups get cash and publicity and are generally happy.
Lars, on the other hand, has rejected napster. He has made derogatory comments toward napster, he has alienated 330,000 of his fans, he got a lot of bad publicity, he loses money from the people who are sick of his actions and refuse to buy metallica CD's.
What all the artists and regular people saying the evils of napster seem to forget is that NAPSTER IS FOR AND BY PEOPLE WHO LOVE MUSIC!
Shawn fanning created it because he needed a better way to find MP3's. Software developers for napster created it because if they hated napster, they wouldn't be working for it. The people with napster are supporting it by having their collection available to everyone else on napster. The so-called "pirates" lars has spoken of don't exist. People who have (had) metallica songs on napster and were booted off weren't snickering while downloading songs and saying "haha look at lars we're stealing from him because we hate him and his band". The people downloading it did so because they liked metallica. If they didn't like metallica, they would have either deleted the songs or never downloaded them in the first place.
None of the people on there are on napster for the sole purpose of spiting, stealing from and angering artists. They are on napster because they enjoy listening to music. Napster users buy more music, as the independent study showed. Is this hurting the RIAA? That the people with this software are buying more music? If anything, more music being bought means more dough for music execs. If the RIAA endorsed napster, we wouldn't have 300,000 alienated fans, we wouldn't have the dumb puppet man, we wouldn't have this lawsuit and we would still have napster.
Why can't we all get along?
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Thanx. Appreciate it. It doesn't take a moron to understand legal malpractice and disciplinary actions.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Interestingly, Judge Marilyn Patel, who issued this injunction, is the same judge that ruled that source code is speech when Bernstein challenged the encryption export restrictions a few years back. See this EFF press release.
VIVA GNUTELLA!
:). Anyway, I don't really think that this is a good thing, and I would be very disheartened if napster ended up loosing the case out-right. But an injunction is just that, and I think napster does have some legal legs to stand on.
Well, its not like Napster corp is going to loose any money on this
But, that said, I hope this is an opportunity for Gnutella and napster-clone/clone servers and other non-centraly controlled systems take over, rather then a propritary format.
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
but now that they've had a taste of the forbidden fruit, they'll find new ways to hunt.
And it'll piss off a whole bunch of people who just might write their congressmen...
--
+&x
And, uh, to give a gratuitous flame to Metallica...Lars' mom sucks donkey balls.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
The judge's ruling is a welcome one.
Why?
Because it enables up-and-coming musicians to take a stand with Richard Stallman.
How?
Because now musicians will choose (that is, if they choose) to release music under the GNU license. Some musicians may choose the BSD license (God love 'em). And some musicians (Metallica and Dre, for example) may choose the restrictive proprietary licenses. If it's good enough for code-software, it's good enough for music-software.
Fair is fair, and if they choose not to enter the future, well, then, so long dinosaur!
This is now our chance to quit listening to those musicians who thumb their collective noses at us. We can kiss Warner Brothers goodbye. Adios! And we can return the favor in spades -- no GNU (or BSD) license, no listen. We shall henceforth listen only to musicians who recognize *our* rights and *our* freedoms.
The judge's ruling draws a clear line in the sand, one which benefits us. It further strengthens the GNU license and those who believe in it. We now determine the future, and the Internet will crush (negatively sanction) those retro-musicians who think they can control us and make us pay ad infinitum for something so trvial as a song.
We should be dancing! To GNU music!
No time to read other's comments, must use 100% of 56K modem's BW for MP3 archive. Be fore it all disappears.
Oh wait, I forgot about Gnutella. Nevermind.
Why should owning previous aging non-digital media grant you the right to perfect copies of new, cleaner media? I mean, that's like expecting Ford to give you a new car for free because you bought one 6 years ago.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The part I'm afraid of is that they will start censoring traffic at the server level.
Censoring traffic at server level would be a huge mistake for any company. When you start doing that, you lose common carrier status (at least in the US) and limitation from liability from your users actions. At least this is what I understand, after all IANAL but I know and have worked closely with one.
I feel like I have to weigh in on this one.
Those who know me know that I am a supporter of intellectual property rights, but if they are shut down, it's wrong.
Why? Because they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Eewww... I've done it. I've "joined the other side". Ok, maybe not, but I think you get the idea. If *I* can say "Napster OK, RIAA sucks", this is kind of like Nixon going to China... on a smaller scale.
Hardcore /. Open Source poseurs should take note of course, that I expect constitutional protections to be granted uniformly. That means that I don't think MS should be punished until all their appeals are exhausted either.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Oh, and Napster isn't being shutdown, they're just being asked to not allow the sharing of commercial music... Simple greps will take care of that...
Actually, IIRC, the plaintiffs have stated that they are unable to provide Napster with a comprehensive list of the music they hold copyright to. I don't know if this is still true, but if it is, it seems wrong to force Napster to shutdown in such a roundabout way, since the only way to avoid a shutdown would be to have a comprehensive list of music the plaintiffs hold copyright on.
it makes me think that the old days of requiring property ownership before you can vote weren't such a bad idea.
$20 says your a republican. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That's a bullshit way to do things, and i won't give up my mp3's because of the recording gentry. It seems to me that this has been a long time coming. Music should be free. Yes, of course the artists have a right to make a living off their music, that's what they do. So go to their concerts, buy a fscking t-shirt. Do whatever it is that you do to support them. But let's not hear some bullshit schpiel about how Napster is killing the music industry. (fuck, are people still making music now days?) The artists get something on the order of 12 cents for every album that's sold, the rest goes to the label, the A&R guys, and the promoters. Personally, i'd be willing to pay 12 cents a download if the oh so wise author of the fucking thong song decided that's the way he wanted to play it. (Thank you Sisqo you brainless twit)
The point is that napster isn't going to destroy the record industry. If anything, it's making the RIAA and their cohorts richer. (Read: %80 of all napster users go out and BUY CD's of the bands they download).
what sickens me are the people who justify their actions by rationalizations like "music should be about the art, not about money." Well, to those people I say that it's nice of you to make the decision for the artist.
sorry, but that's society's decision in the first place. Maybe i like to dance around in my underwear singing show tunes in the middle of downtown Denver. You think it's up to me to decide if i should be paid for that? I'm sorry bud, but art is art. If people like it, they'll pay for it one way or another. If people want it for free, i've got two choices. Continue to do it because i love doing it, or get a new line of work. I say the same to the bands out there who are so poor and misunderstood by the rest of the general public. Why? Because if a band is just in it for the money anymore, that makes them SELLOUTS - and personally, i'd like to see them broke and homeless.
Now go listen to some Pavement before your brain explodes!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Not that I think this is right. MP3 isn't the greatest music format out there (definitely not CD quality), but it has (or should have) it's place in sampling music before you buy.
-----------------
Kevin Mitchell
Eh? That doesn't make sense. RIAA doesn't sell any products, and offers services only to a very limited groups of persons (professional musicians). A boycott against the RIAA would mean that the people represented by the RIAA would seek other representation.
Assuming that Commander Taco irresponsibly misspelled "record companies" as "RIAA", I love the implications: would it be moral for me to boycott Walmart if they have a long history of prosecuting shoplifters? Would anybody with a clue even consider that?
The second wave was a lot more intelligent, people recognizing that Napster isn't really the best example of a responsible musical revolution. I wonder what that says about slashdot readers.
Frankly, I think this decision is a lousy excuse to start protesting the RIAA. Clueful people should have been protesting them beforehand. Even though the RIAA doesn't have the artist's interests at heart, at least their actions against Napster are in line with most artists. Ask yourself why you are protesting the RIAA? For artists rights? Or because you irresponsibly want your free music? jeez.
Napster is a hypocritical company whose actions aren't in line with the rhetoric it spews. I couldn't believe their "Sharing" argument. They'd expect people to believe that a million people swapping cds is the same "in essence" as three friends swapping cds. Please.
This is good for musicians that are trying to protect their investments. Napster has never been a cause, they don't stand for artists' rights, consumers' rights, or anything like that. They has never looked out for any other interests other than accumulating eyeballs, traffic, and bucks.
tune
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
The shutdown order will accelerate both the development of Napster alternatives and the public's willingness to find and use alternatives. Some folks here pointed out that there's a significant usability gap between Napster and other P2P systems. That's true at the moment, but I'd wager we'll now see consumer-friendly, distributed-P2P alternatives in a matter of weeks. Plenty of developers and consumers are going to take this personally; instead of containing the momentum by cutting a deal with Napster, the RIAA just guaranteed it will never get a grip on the situtation. The only card the RIAA will be able to play is to hunt down and prosecute individual consumers. They just might be stupid enough to try that, and the consequences for the industry will make their Napster problems look like child's play. If this is the record industry's equivalent of Vietnam, then think of the Napster shutdown as the Tet Offensive.
Granted the city itself does have its contingent of ultra-liberal "money BAD, technology BAD, geeks BAD, economic growth BAD, uh... poverty GOOD, urban decay GOOD" folk. But most people seem to be brighter than that.
Besides, it seems that even the ultra-liberal crowd should've sided with Fanning and Co., seeing as Napster's yet to make a profit, whilst metalica rakes in millions, and their masters, billions, each year.
Dissapointing, to say the least.
Well, I, for one, on general principle, will be downloading the entire metallica, dr dre, and m&m catalog's tonite, before Napster goes offline. I wonder if my ex-roommate's anonymising usenet gateway will accept so large a tarball?
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
Too expensive to host in Seeland for us to still get free music. Otherwise a good idea.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
Try watching or reading the news before complaining. The judge has issued a preliminary injunction against Napster until the case is resolved. They will be shutting down Friday. Notice the time in the quoted article -- 2:00 was when the hearing was. They may have not yet updated their MOTD, but the injunction has been made.
Turn on CNN's Headline News if you have it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
If we want to send a message to the RIAA, hit'm in their pocket books--where it counts! I hereby *REFUSE* to buy CDs in stores now. And, yes, I have bought CDs in the recent past, such as the Gladiator soundtrack, which I did sample via mp3.
I don't know about you, but I've been buying lots of used vinyl lately. I upgraded my turntable earlier this summer and have been converting all my vinyl to CD audio. It qualifies under anybody's interpretation of 'Fair Use' to do so, so long as I retain the original vinyl, which I fully intend to do.
I am worried, though, about the erosion of 'fair use' that a lot of boneheaded pirates are accelerating, by calling it 'fair use' to widely distribute rips of their CD collection to total strangers over the net. If it keeps up, 'fair use' may go away altogether. Thanks, guys.
I think that the son of one staff member is using our company dial-up access (kind of) for Napster - I wonder if our Internet traffic use will finally fall to something reasonable...?
This story has me so annoyed. As does most of the whole Napster thing. But I will try and contain my disgust long enough to write this.
There are several aspects of this that are just plain wrong. The whole thing just seems to be one misunderstanding after another.
We've all aready been over the fact that Napster does little more than provide an infrastructure for trading of MP3 files, much like any file-oriented protocol, FTP for example.
But this doesn't seem to have sunk in.
Here is the headline:
"Injunction bars service from trading music online pending federal trial"
Napster doesn't trade music. Period. People are trading the music.
Why not go after the users you ask? Well, because that makes you look evil. It's better to go after a company, with no real identity than be seen as a company going after helpless users.
The second thing about thise whole trial, that offends me personally, and must offend other people who have MP3s is the assumption that seems to have been made that "MP3's are bad mmmkay".
For the RIAA, or Metallica or whoever to be so keen to stop the trading of MP3's they must be assuming that it as a filetype is generally bad. Because they are not seeking just to stop the trade of copyrighted music, they are seeking to stop the trade of a filetype, regardless of the content.
It's a sad day when technological growth can be stunted by these greedy, suited corporate halfwits. In fact it's not just a sad day for technology, it's a sad day for society in general.
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
There are alternatives to Napster with legitimate use.
For example, the newly launched Friskit (http://www.friskit.com) allows you to find and listen to all the streaming music on the Internet so there is really no need to copy around pirated CD quality music. A lot of the streaming music on the web is legitimate.
but as an important catalyst whose death was, sadly, inevitable.
:-)
say you need a little bit of copper to allow the lightning to reach the flux capacitor. The only thing you have around is an old warn penny with a big hack out of it. You use the penny, the ligtning hits the capcitotor, the future and past become as one. But, the penny, with the hack, is burned up in the vast power that has flown through it.
Thus, the bad penny metaphor holds.
--
+&x
In reality, the Napster shutdown is not the worst fallout that could result from this case. Napster is essentially a business that has as its strategy using the trading of copyrighted works as a means to make money for itself. In this sense, Napster is not significantly better than the RIAA in terms of exploitation of other people, though the RIAA companies certainly have exploited more artists and customers in their actions.
The worst of the outcome in this case lies in how digital copyright violators are perceived by the mainstream media (and especially the representatives in DC) after this case is over. The business aspect of Napster has unfortunately been associated with the users of Napster, but in reality (as shown by the earlier articles on the insides of Napster, Inc.) the reasoning and purposes of the two groups of people differs widely.
Napster users could very well being using Gnutella, Freenet, or any other service (including OpenNAP servers) that allows the "piracy" of copyrighted works. The justification of those users would still have the same validity, though, regardless of the service being used. The Napster business group, though, as described above, is essentially planning to exploit the copyrighted works of others to make money. Due to the fact that Napster, Inc. is being sued, though, the users will likely be branded "pirates" and "thieves" along with the company due to the inevitable adoption by the mainstream media of the RIAA's lexicon.
So, in conclusion, I would say that losing Napster is not the bad part of this case. It is the possiblity that users of those services, people who violate digital copyrights but feel that such action is justified in some way, will result from this case with a bad reputaion, unable to be taken seriously since they are perceived simply as criminals, just like those once-famous Napster executives.
SB
www.DigitalRenegades.org -- Are your opinions being unfortunately buried in discussion boards? Submit essays, short bytes, or article responses to be posted concerning why digital copyright violations are widespread and continue to occur.screw RIAA.
"it's not much, really" said the horse.
Nah, I don't think Katz has ever used "progeny" before.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with people not knowing about how their computer really works. (Who in here really knows how their car works?) Irregardless of their level of knowledge, it is the masses, the sometimes unwitting people all around us, who drive what happens in this country.
Remember, before all of these sheep got interested in the Internet (and corporations thought they could make money off of it), nobody really cared about the 'net...
This is an outrage! On an issue so new and unique, the fact that this decision can be made by one person when there are MILLIONS of people supportng either side of the issue is just a damn shame! This isn't such a cut-and-dry issue that can be decided so easily. What does this say of our nation? This issue was uncharted territory in the legal world, and one person got to decide based on THEIR WHIM, not based on the outcome of a collective thought process and representation of the people this issue really affects. It goes against everything our legal system was built for. Yeah, maybe napster's days were numbered, as we all know. That's not what bugs me. Who cares if napster is gone? better throughput on the major backbones now. But this represents what is wrong and corrupt with the US legal system. -Mike King
This betrays either a woeful lack of understanding, a blatant bias, or a harmfully-narrow reading of the statute.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Napster is first, who is next? If this can happen to Napster who never even carries the offending material, what about IRC servers? What about News Servers? How about your favorite search engines? This is a very slippery slope.
I'd rather be pepper-sprayed by a mountie,
Great. Once again the major labels fuck things up for everyone. There's a lot of music available via Napster that isn't on the major labels. Don't they have a say in this? Where the fuck are the independent labels in all of this? Why shut down Napster instead of having Napster block the music by the major labels?
Everyone loses now. The people promoting their music from major labels. The music that I won't be able to try out otherwise. Who fucking cares if people are downloading Britney Spears songs. They hear that shit on the radio anyway. What about all the music that doesn't make it to the radio? I enjoy searching for songs, then adding people to my hotlist to see what other kind of music they listen to. It's like the Amazon "people that bought this also got this CD" situation but better. I see songs by people I have never even heard of all the time. The best part is that I can hear the whole song and learn about someone new. That's really important to me before I try to hunt down a CD that might not even be carried by Amazon or any other major retailer. Not to mention the amount of money that I am going to have to plunk down before I even get to listen to the whole CD.
What a shame. For both the major labels dominating the whole situation and the smaller labels failing to stand up and be counted.
</rant>
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
This order restrains Napster from enabling the copying of copyrighted works that the plantiffs (ie, the major record labels) have rights to. Granted, it effectively removes a large chunk of the content availble through Napster, but it is different than a shutdown.
How might this be implemented without a shutdown? I am playing a devil's advocate here, as I definitely hoped that Napster could continue in its present form. But, the labels could provide to Napster a list of all song titles that fall under their copyright, and the Napster server could employ pattern matching to prohibit songs with those names from being traded.
Sure, the list would be huge. And one could just rename a file, or intentionally misspell it -- so it would be quite easy to bypass.
But it would hinder searching for them. And, if a user delibrately rename/misspell a filename, the user him/herself, and not Napster, are conciously committing an act to skirt it, so the onus rests on them, and might consitutute that Napster is at least reasonably trying to proactively block unauthorized material from their servers.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Writing to your representatives helps too, but remember even though were talking about technology, Congress is not. You might have to send the message to your printer, and not your mail server for a more effective message.
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
Why are people preparing an RIAA boycott? According to the ZDNet story, the judge made an injunction that trading of the RIAA member's music shall stop, not all mp3s. Also, though Washington Post stated "all copyrighted music", which is incorrect because every song, when created, is automatically copyrighted, this is a smart decision.
The RIAA has a perfect right to defend their music. It's THEIRS. Sony publishes an album, it's their copyright. You can't just take that album, copy it via CD-R, and start handing it out in front of a record store. Why should you hand the music out online?
Some bands allow free trading of their music, which is perfectly fine. They want it done. Some people use Napster to trade their music, and allow people to sample it. That's fine too. This is how Napster should work.
But if you don't have the rights to the music, nor are any rights granted to freely trade them, why on earth do you feel you are entitled to get them for free?
This is not an attempt at a flamewar or trolling. I just don't understand why there's a common thought that people are "entitled" to someone else's hard work, if that person feels that his or her works shouldn't be given away free. That's their rights, not yours.
Not one person would enjoy it if someone took something of theirs that they were hoping to make a living on, or hope to control how it was distributed, and started giving it away for free and undermining their control.
Please, don't boycott the RIAA for doing what everyone here would do if they were in their shoes. You would protect your house from intruders, you would protect you financial records from banks getting your information, this is no different.
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Well, I'm not sure what exactly they meant to do, but if Napster is shutdown for more than 2 weeks it's history. People will use alternative means to get their MP3's, and once they start doing so I don't believe they'll come back to Napster if it ever comes back online (I know it hasn't even officially shut down yet!).
So, is this the end of Napster?
Try Audiogalaxy. It's a lot sweeter than Napster and still evolving. Better yet, it has a Linux client and some GPL'd source code!
Ryan Earl
Software Engineer
Ryan Earl
Software Engineer
- just another cosmic ray -
This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
View slashdot the way it was meant to be.
(-1, Nested) with scores turned off.
Fuck moderation.
Fuck self moderating karma whores.
I still enjoy slashdot as a result of turning off scores.
Lars -
quick ppl download as many mp3s as u can before they shut down then use gnuttella and ur set
The RIAA still doesn't get it. All the free and open alternatives to Napster are _still_ going to eat their business models alive. When will the suits realise that it's OUR Internet? Where will this all stop?
OK, Napster is being lead to the headsman's block - and others will follow if we're not careful. If DeCSS is any indication, they'll go after the people WRITING OpenNap, GNUTELLA et. al. under the same shoddy banner. OK, then these people go underground too. How will the man strike back?
If the RIAA and other such don't-kill-our-golden-goose organisations had thier way, you'd only be able to get a one way connection to the Net. That is, you only get back what you request - no serving files, IRC uploads banned and other such restrictions to control the channel and make sure they make money. Don't forget, fellow geeks, that the bandwidth-blood of the Internet is controlled ultimately by the telephone and communications companies - a single point of failure in my book.
I say we come up with a way of usurping any way that the man can try to wrest control back. Anyone figured how to get a respectable data stream across a HAM link? Soup up an AirPort, and distrubute them throughout the world to people willing to help?
OK, so I'm paranoid. I just know that these short sighted business men are trying to find a way to reign in the Net, to make it spout cash and nothing else - no new ideas except for them. The net is our best hope for bringing people of all stripes together, and by doing so make the world a better and safer place for our progeny.
Ech. I'm sounding like Katz - time to shut up.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
In the hypothetical you propose, it's hard to imagine that the balance of equities would ever favor shutting Microsoft down.
I've been playing music for more than twenty years, bought all my recording equipment one painful bit at a time (sometimes I have to choose strings over food, dear), spent uncountable hours learning everything from soldering to dual-integrator EQ networks so I could reconstruct that which I wasn't able to afford for gear, and I choose to give my music away, selling only to enthusiastic fans who want to help me get more gear, strings and food ;) which is also my best shot at the most expensive musician cost of all- attention. I rely upon new media such as Napster to provide distribution at no cost to me. I've asked publically for my tunes to be put on Napster by anyone who can spare the time to download them and put 'em up for sharing. I remember having to physically transport cassette tapes around in order for anyone to hear my music, not so many years ago. Now I don't have to pay anything to get my music into someone's hands, thanks to Napster and other services like it, and thanks to mp3. You talk like I ought to be selling individual CDs to every single listener 'to make profit' on my music- like I should want no more mp3, that I should want only purchasable, accountable physical media.
I should have to buy _trucks_ for my distribution because people like you want to prop up the RIAA?
I have only one thing that I can say to a silly post such as this: precedent. Shutting down Napster is BAD - I'll say it again - BAD! It creates precedent, a means for the money grubbing lawyers to say, "hey look you did this before, it's the same thing now so shut these guys down too!" to any other startup that deals in copyrighted materials. I love napster, and I do use it to reclaim music for cd's I can't find anymore (but still technically own) and yes, to hear new music *before I buy* it (did you read what that idiot Hillary Rosen from the RIAA said, "Clearly, people who are using Napster love music. They're probably our best customers." Duh. Alienate your best customers. It goes to show that the RIAA has no interest in the "customer" except to take their money and run.) So I shall state once again, shutting down napster IS technically illegal, due to the nature of the product, and it WILL create precedent. This will cause other companies and their lawyers to be more aggressive in their approach when dealing with issues such as this. Precedent is bad in this case, when Napster has done to the letter of the law (in the U.S. at least) nothing wrong, but will be found guilty due to the rampant corruption in the US justice system. I mean, the RIAA is known for being a BIG contributor to the govt. in the U.S. so who are they really fooling here? Themselves, in the long run, by believing they can actually win. Shut down napster and another, better, stealthier product will come along and take up the torch and move along. I think to say that shutting down napster is the end all would be foolish. You are right with your reasons above, but these will happen if Napster (by some freak chance) does win this case as well. If they lose, what you say above is possible, but much more difficult to achieve. Oh, and try going to http://freenet.sourceforge.net to see what they offer. It isn't as user friendly, but it opens up a whole new world of opportunities for a more connected internet. It also on a lesser note opens up a new can of worms for the money grubbers to contend with, which is great IMHO.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
That last line should read- and that if napster could be changed into a fee based service it would level the distribution playing field that they (the major labels) pretty much control at this time.
Now there's an interesting standard for ethics.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
In my opinion, if Napster is shut down it will just spawn more Napster clones.
.. I have 2, bought like in 1995 and 1997, by my sister since she actually listens to CD's ... she has over 100 of them. She actually downloads mp3's to see if she likes them before she goes and buys the CD from columbia house or the local CD store. No use buying a CD if you find you don't really like it... you can't return them either.
Let's bring up an issue here, which would you rather do: Buy a CD of someone you never heard of on the off-chance you might like it, Buy a CD because you heard a song on the radio/TV, only to find that that 1 song is good and the rest are horrid, Download that 1 song off the net instead because you heard about it from the radio/tv/a friend to see if you like it and then consider buying the CD.
Personally since I don't buy CD's (How do you go about ordering out of print Japanese CD's anyways?) I have to get them in MP3 format to begin with, that's the only reason I know what they sound like.
As for American CD's
Can you imagine the problem that would exist if there were CD-rental shops in North America? (Rent, go home copy it/mp3 it, return to store)How about bootleg companies... goto Brazil, Goto China, you can find just about everything in bootleg cheaper format. (I've seen these bootlegs, they are stupidly inferior in production quality, a lot of them are green-tinted CD-R types.)
Napster isn't being run by idealistic young teenagers or 20-year-olds. It's being run by a well pedigreed team of middle managers. They're not going to sacrifice themselves or Napster just to make a statement. They're going to settle one way or another. (See my other post for why I claim that.)
Although, I will agree that the RIAA was a little stupid. Napster, because of the aforementioned team of middle-managers was trying to figure out how to safetly join the RIAA fold. How to satisfy the industry while still being able to do their own thing. Now they've lost one way or another. They'll either castrate their service, or go dead. Either way they'll lose their mindshare/marketshare.
And get replaced by services that ARE being run by idealistic young students, and who won't try to be concilatory.
Bzzt. Napster is all about a new model of distribution. "Piracy" to me invokes images of swashbuckling on the high seas. In the sense of copyright it is merely a contrivance meant to paint copyright violation in a bad light.
But what if there are no copyrights? Napster suddenly becomes a new model of distribution (sound familiar?). They are making a business out of piracy only in a world where copyrights are protectable. Unfortunately, the internet has proven that they are increasingly not. Essentially, that is Napster's argument - that the whole entire system is going to undergo a fundamental change, and they are at the forefront of it.
You can go ahead and scribble and rant about piracy all you want, but the fact is it's only illegal as long as the law is on the books. The 20 million upper-middle class, educated white people (you know, the ones that vote) that have signed up with Napster represent a huge chunk of political equity. Some enterprising politician is going to realize this. It would not surprise me if you saw legislation as early as the 107th session extending the AHRA or amending the "fair use" clause to support Internet filesharing. "Piracy", at least in the Napster sense, looks to be an increasingly deprecated term.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I can't argue with most of what you have to say, but I think that there are a good reason for napster to continue to exist. First, I think it is good to archive old, hard to obtain music. I try to find some older music that I want to listen to at used music stores and they are almost impossible to find. This is why I also support SNES9x, MAME, etc. When it is possible to get the music, you should buy it. Like when Square released Final Fantasy Anthology, I had downloaded FF5 and 6, but bought Anthology when it was released. Second, most music released today is MTV'ifed crap, and the companies that are responsible need to be taught a lesson.
The king is dead, long live the king! (ie. There will always be another!)
Then again, maybe that's not such a good idea. After all, the diversity of music available via gnutella would surely suffer if people quit buying CDs. :)
Um...simple greps?
Ok...
Metallica-Bla bla song.mp3
M/e*'tal(lic&a-Bla bla song.mp3
acillatem-Bla bla song.mp3
Song (This really that other song..hint hint).mp3
Yeah it will be harder to search but people will cope somehow...maybe a one way cipher (just encodes). So Metallica-bla bla song.mp3 becomes sdjfKUFHSkSDf234JSDBC.mp3 but you can't pull the first out of the second.
I think Napster is just going to shut down the server. Use opennap!! Use gnutella!! Eat gnutella (it's tasty)!!
---------------------------------- I like fig newtons...they're tasty
I'm afraid not.
Napster has proven itself to be a good faith player with the producers and distributors in the music industry. There will be something similar to what you describe with regard to downloaded music, eventually. But when Napster loses their case, they'll be liquidated and their assets given to the RIAA. The RIAA will probably then rebrand the 'Napster' trademark for what it's worth, to recover legal costs.
I'm trying to think of where they might use the trademark. I'm thinking maybe they'll sell it to Johnson&Johnson. It would make a nice trademark for a hip brand of disposable diapers.
Mp3's and music piracy are one thing, but I cannot for the life of me understand why Napster is this Golden Boy of the slashdot community.
Napster is a closed-source, COMMERCIAL company that hopes to PROFIT from music piracy. Napster is not about a "new model of music distrubution", it's about piracy. In fact, if all music was free and downloadable then Napster would go out of business and all the VC would lose their money.
If you could download artists music in mp3 format straight from their web sites then Napster would be obsolete and wither away and die. Napster survives because it offers a friendly way to obtain otherwise difficult to find illegal data.
The link between piracy and the free-software community is a blight and an abommination. If you create the data then YOU decide on the license, if you don't like the license then DON't BUY OR DOWNLOAD THE DATA.
I have Knapster and one can enter servers in it. For windows there is a great program called MyNapster (aka File Navigator.)It allows one to connect to more then one server, thus getting around the 100 limit. Is there such a thing for the Linux world?
I for one applaud the judge having the guts to drop the hammer on The Entitlement Generation. This proves that the justice system does get it, and is not intimidated by crap like "it's a new world, and you better get on board before you get left behind."
The Entitlement Generation is an attitude that began with the hippies of the 60s, but is going full-force among the GenX crowd. They feel they are entitled to the big salary coming out of college. They feel entitled to free health care. They feel entitled to stock options. They feel entitled to free web sites without any advertising.
And yes -- they feel entitled to the work of recording artists.
I would bet that most of the people outraged by this decision have never created anything of value in their lives, and most likely never will. They will never watch the fruits of their labor ripped off. They are the people who suckle at the teat of society.
What sickens me are the people who justify their actions by rationalizations like "music should be about the art, not about money." Well, to those people I say that it's nice of you to make the decision for the artist.
When I see people with their pseudo-socialistic attitude that they deserve everything for free, it makes me think that the old days of requiring property ownership before you can vote weren't such a bad idea.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Plus another issue on pulling the plug:
What percentage of RIAA income is lost by Napster piracy?
What percentage of Napster income is lost by Napster being shut down?
This article discusses more about the research on how Napster helps recording industry sales, and could be even more helpful if the industry folks would use their heads a little...
If the company owns the equipment, the company has the right to spy all it wants.
Umm, isn't the status quo leaving Napster UP????
What about those of us that own small labels who see napster as a promotional tool? The RIAA does NOT represent us!! As usual the major labels are trying to kill a new technology, instead of looking at ways of using it. I feel the their bigger fears is that many of their existing recording contracts may not cover this new type of distribution method, and that if napster could changed into fee based service it would level distribution the distribution playing that pretty much control at this time.
yea.. does seem that napster is in a jam..
but is it a strawberry jam i just dont know...
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
I'm not just being obnoxious. It's important to realize that (shocker) money isn't everything, and there are valid non-economic reasons for doing things. The rights and the harm here only tangentially depend on money... although the vigor with which this is pursued has everything to do with money.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I agree with you... but $3-$4 a song?! If I created a 12-song CD (the usual amount of tracks on an album), that would $36-$48, not including shipping & handling. There's no way I would pay that much for a CD, even if I loved every second of it. If anything, that would make me turn to napster even more so than I do now (which is not that much).
www.poak.net
But millions of "one votes" do make a very big difference.
Without those sheep, there wouldn't be such a large supply of music available. Before Napster, I used USENET to find mp3s and unfortunately never could find much of what I wanted, because largely a few people post what they themselves like. A small number of USENET people take requests for mp3s, and I always felt bad for asking since I'm on an ass-slow connection and can't upload easily.
/. reader, I tried Gnutella when it was available. My conclusion? Why bother using it for mp3s, when using Napster produced more results, and greater chances of finding a high-quality 192kpps or greater version (I may be on a slow connection, but I can't stand crummy low bitrate stuff; I'm half-blind, but my hearing is great...). Plus, there's nothing wrong with ease of use. I will never understand why some people around here are practically *offended* by ease of use. Why use a more complicated system if an easier-to-use one, which saves the user's time and effort for other pursuits, is available? If I wanted files other than mp3s, Gnutella or Freenet is the tool of choice, but for mp3s nothing can beat Napster for both variety and for saving my precious time (until the plug is pulled, at least).
/. are nice down-to-earth people, but some have these Sysadmin=God complexes, and look down on people who appreciate ease of use and such principles. Quite frankly, we have the Mac to thank for making computers popular and sparking interest of the generation which spawned the Net, and cheap x86 boxes with Windows to thank for turning the Net into the common ground of immense possibilities which it is today. While *nix owned the Net on the server side, without those Windows and Mac users the Net would still be a small playground for a few comp sci majors and academics.
Then came Napster, and Napster was good. Type in a song title and artist, and the odds were that it was there. The key was sheer volume of users whose entire collections were available at any given time. Being a faithful
Try getting something terribly specific like "When I Fall" and the other tracks from *Martinis & Bikinis* by Sam Phillips on USENET or Gnutella; not very likely, whereas I pieced it together from Napster after a little nightly diligence. I repeat: those "sheep" you condescendingly talk about are the reason for that, since sheer number provides greater chance for finding the files you want. Please, stop being such elitists, some of you. Most people on
Napster is now belittled by some around here for bringing this sort of file sharing to the masses. Nothing personal, but those few who dislike anything made for the masses ought to stop actingng like such l337 hax0r chillun. There's a difference between the mind-numbing stupidity fostered by AOL, and stuff that's just easy to use as opposed to stuff which actively promotes stupidity. Not everyone is or wants to be a guru, try to understand that and don't belittle something merely because of its ease-of-use or shininess. What is actually bad about what Napster has done (aside from the debate over morality of mp3 trading)?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
is this actually going to help the RIAA? any repercussions in the form of a boycott would cause sales to go much farther down than file trading would have caused. and didn't sony and other record companies admit to price fixing not too long ago?
----- DevLibrary ( http://devlib.virtualave.net ) -----
Well if the guy is only on dial-up, you might see 56.6kbps extra bandwidth. Big freaking deal.
from new.com:
"She also ordered the RIAA to post a $5 million bond to compensate Napster for lost business should Napster eventually prevail in the case. "
IANAL; hell even if I was a lawyer, I wouldn't tell anybody.
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
I think they'd rather be shut down than take those "simple steps". That'd be pretty much admiting that they could have protected commercial music all along and didn't.
The river will merely find a new path, and this time the path won't be a single set of servers, or one company that people are dependant upon for MP3s. This time the water will flow in many directions, over many very distributed and varying forms of trading that we've been building all this time.
That is the problem. If we ever want to get laymen into this stuff (fight corporate giants). Then they want a single easy to understand/find/use source. They don't want to scour the internet trying to find some place with more than 100 people. And if we lose the laymen, we become unimportant (to the eyes of corporations)
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
Ops! Fergot somthing:
I will be calling my representative and senators tomorrow. Whatever side you take, I suggest you do the same.
Regards,
prong
What??! No, it does not only come down to the use of napster for illegal purposes! Have you ever FTP'd something? Have you ever played a VHS tape? Have you ever played a cassette? Each one of these are devices that are frequently used to steal music. But since they have substiantial, legitimate purposes, they are legal.
[breaking out my cluetrout...]
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
What I want to know is how he updated it at 12:40 am on the 27th when it's now only 11:20 pm on the 26th EDT. Did they row the server out to the middle of the North Atlantic or has Andover bought him a Gulfstream?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Simple answer to that was that one should have had Metallica in the Artist field, and the other in the Title.
Probably too convenient an answer. To claim Napster is intended to be for unsigned music is hoping for extreme naivety/gullibility in the eyes of the public. The mere fact that mention was made of the analysis of user's query and "selling content" based on this would mean that Napster would *have* to at least passively/tacitly allow such queries, if not explicitly, in order to get the data they're going to be wanting.
So they're kinda stuck, either way I see it. If this "selling content" based on queries is true, there's also the issue of who in the music industry will be willing to deal with them...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Once again, the fallacy of relating a tangible object to an intangible one. One involves the expenditure of physical resources (giving me a new car) while another is dealing entirely with ideas (the sound of something). When you buy a recording, you are being granted a license to listen to it. It should not matter through what medium you listen to the work (just like it doesn't matter what quality of speakers you listen to it through).
Should the water company charge me more if I run the water through a filter so that it tastes better to me? It is a riduclous analogy.
Instead, a more 'correct' analogy would be: I pay John to play a song for me, and he allows me to record it. Should he charge me more depending on the quality of microphone I use?
Or how about: I buy a painting from Jill. Should she change the amount she charges based on the quality of the glasses I view it through?
If I want to upgrade the quality of the recording I am listening to, and can do it without expending any resources on the part of the original seller, why shouldn't I? I already paid for 'it' (the right to listen to the music), I am just improving the experience.
and if you take the amount of money Napster has made, muliply that by the amount of money that everyone using it has paid, take that to the power of the amount of money that everyone using it has made, and throw in $20.
You get $20.
It's not about money. Piracy is about money. It's not about piracy.
It's about control of information. Information is power. It's about power. It's about power.
Who's got the power?
--
+&x
...Gnutella and CuteMX serve the same purpose
--o You're just jealous cause the voices talk to me and not to you! o--
It's not "shadow of a doubt". It's "reasonable doubt", although in the OJ case . . .
-Dave
OK, so who is Gnutella? (Not what,WHO)
I like Gnapster and all.. nice interface, nice features, etc. but it's too buggy for me. But it keeps segfaulting! ARRRR!
I'm using gnome-napster for now, but I can't figure out how to get it to connect to opennap servers. It always fails saying that it can't connect to the server.
You are a caca head. You live in a great country, that grants you the greatest amount of freedom out of any other country on the planet. Being an iresponsible, spoiled little twerp that you are, I am sure that infringing your right to steal appears to be a grave injustice. And they tell me not to worry about the next generation? God help us in the future...
Ok, don't start going into Napster withdrawal syndrome yet ;-) There's an excelent alternative to that: OpenNAP. Its a napster network, free from Napster Corp. And there's plenty of users and music on the OpenNAP network too. The site also lists alternative clients, even for those using Windows. Plus there's gnutella and other alternatives (I have'nt checked them all out yet).
Thirdly, it means all the people downloading MP3 songs can get really pissed off. And then they can send emails to their members of Congress and Senators.
How is this.. feel free to use it if you find it useful.
Dear Congressperson,
I'm not voting for you anymore becuase the court system is making it harder for me to steal music. How dare they! I thought as an tax paying American I had the right to steal as much music as I wanted to. I'm sorry to find out I was wrong. Please do something about this travesty of justice.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
What do they expect this to do? I don't think the fact that there are OpenNap servers has hit the trial yet... =)
But, really, this is a little silly. They're not even sure at this point if there IS an infringement, yet the pull the plug? There's the "justice system" firing before they knew they had a gun again.
--
- I am a musician (see URL link above- please visit it if you haven't already?). A NON-RIAA musician. The RIAA labels are my competition, and crushing, stifling competition they are too, and I have to work really hard to get production values comparable to the majors (or better).
- I had songs on Napster BY REQUEST. I publically asked people to put my songs off mp3.com in their Napster directories, if they could, if they didn't mind taking the trouble to do so. I own my songs AND the mechanical recordings of 'em and I have an absolute right to permit such distribution. It's _my_ say-so, not the RIAAs, not mp3.com's.
- Napster is being shut down anyhow- the RIAA lawyers successfully convinced the judge that _I_ don't exist, just like the RIAA continually tries to convince the listening public that I don't exist, that nobody like me exists.
- So- the judge is taking away a _major_ distribution channel from me, at the request of... my competition.
Who thought _this_ one up? Wait, don't tell me, it might just possibly be the the same trade organisation that taxes the blank tapes I record MY MUSIC on, said taxes again going to my competition. Yes, the same people who arranged that I have to pay money to help the Backstreet Boys out-PR me have now arranged to sabotage a _key_ internet distribution mechanism that could work in my favor- and of course are also suing the 'label' (mp3.com) that I signed with (ever hear Roger McGuinn's take on the mp3.com contract? This is the leader of The Byrds. He loves the mp3.com contract- it's actually _fair_. Quick, kill it before more people realise how brutal standard major label contracts are! Competition must die!)I don't remember agreeing to steadily pay off my biggest, most implacable competition to bury me. Please, Judge Ma'am, stop the music industry, I'd like to get off? Seems that owning my own music, owning my own equipment, recording only my own songs, attempting no samples and expecting no industry PR is not enough for me to be allowed things like non-RIAA distribution channels and the ability to buy tapes at the store to put MY MUSIC on and not pay taxes to my biggest competitors. So please, Judge Ma'am, if you hear of a free market out there somewhere won't you let me know? Apparently me buying all my own gear and recording all my own stuff and trying to put it out there through services like Napster is not permissible. Tell me, is this for my own good? Should I learn to behave? :P
(this is turning into a song- now if only my lungs will hold out to put out a quick single- fighting off chest-cold from hell)
"...compositions of which the plaintiffs hold rights,"...
What about the compositions of which the plaintiff does *not* hold rights? Say I have a garage band with a song I've made freely available on Napster. Can I now sue the RIAA for preventing my music from being distributed in a free and fair manner?
The last time I checked, my public library allowed me to check out some CDROMS. What next, "Library Shut Down Until Trial"?
Gupta
Just trying to draw a line in the sand....
/. communities thoughts on the following scenarios?
Lets try and forget about RIAA and MP3's for a moment and look at the process... what are the
Assuming the US legal system, determine what you're thoughts are on the legal status of each participant:
a) Person A copies a CD and gives it to Person B.
b) Person A copies a CD and gives it to Person B who gives to Person C.
c) Person B tells Person C that he can get a copy of a CD from Person A.
Before Person C receives the CD? After Person C receives the CD?
d) Person A organises a Music Swap Meet, charging stall holders and patrons a small fee, and stall holder B sells a copied CD to person C.
If Person A knows/doesn't know its a copy?
If Person B knows/doesn't know its a copy?
If Person C knows/doens't know its a copy?
e) Person A possesses a list of copied CDs available from Person B.
If Person A then gives that list to Person C who buys a copied CD from Person B?
If Person A/C don't know that they are copies?
Finally, which, if any, of the above situations best fits what Napster is doing with mp3s and how does the analogy affect your original position on the Napster lawsuit?
'sapientia potestas est'
The law is like a gun: powerful, but requiring a very specific target. In the case of Gnutella, I don't know what that target would be.
Louis Wu
"Where do you want to go ...
Here's the truth though: An additional 1 voting member in a certain demographic group doesn't change a thing. So instead of wasting time registering to vote and actually voting, just work a few extra hours and make a few extra bucks. You're certain to get more out of the few extra bucks than what you'll get from your one vote: absolutely nothing.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
There was a discussion on NPR today concerning digital music. An intellectual property lawyer was arguing that MP3s and services like Napster are coming under the same fire that VCR and VHS tapes did back in the 80s(?).
The movie companies and broadcast TV stations, were scared that VCRs would erode their markets. Suddenly, millions of viewers could record their programs and distribute them. How could the broadcasters protect their material?
They couldn't, and even today they cannot.
When Sony, among other companies, was brought to court, the judge ruled against the media companies for a few reasons:
1) The VCR technology had become penetrated the consumer market very deeply. To outlaw a device in common use would anger a huge amount of citizens.
2) If there is a legal use of a technology, like using VCR tapes to store personal videos, or share licensed material, the media cannot be made illegal even if there is an illegal market -- video pirates.
MP3s parallel VCRs so incredibly well. There is a legal market for MP3s, as evidenced by eMusic and MP3.com. These companies have been growing a customer base that isn't going to be happy if unnecesary restrictions are put upon them.
Further, by virtue of the aforementioned companies, MP3s have a legitamite and legal use: the preservation on digital media of home audio recordings.
Content distribution channels like Napster are going to come under fire, but this doesn't spell the end for MP3. This is only the beginning...
Wow, that had to be the shortest "webcast" in history!
And I thought the Metallica yahoo chat was a waste of time...
Go to www.cdnow.com and you can create your own custom cds to buy. So stop bitching. If you pay $18 for a cd you're getting ripped off, find a new store.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I've been on the Internet for over a decade, and I've yet to see a centralized way to exploit the work of others succeed. To be honest, I have no problem with that at all.
--In this life, or the next, I will have my vengeance.
H ey, students at several colleges and I have been locked out of Napster for several weeks now. Now EVERYONE knows just how much this really (hasn't) impacted us, we simply get our MP3's from another source. However, this sheds more light on the underlying freedom-of-internet-speach issue. We need to stop censoring the internet. Kalrand -The voice of reason
Kalrand
-the voice of reason
I don't think most people on napster are quite ready to tackle File and Printer Sharing just yet. Not to insult them, but sometimes for fun on a tech support call I'll say "That sounds like you have a virus" just to listen to them panic for a few seconds before I fix their mail server settings (hint to helpdeskers: they pay attention a little better when they're frightened.)
This salon article has a somewhat similar perspective on this.
Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned. - They Might Be Giants, Dark and Metric
Make posters, something along these lines:
NAPSTER is being SHUT DOWN
at midnight on Friday July 28...
FIGHT BACK!
The RIAA can never touch GNUtella!
Download it at HTTP://GNUTELLA.WEGO.COM
Free, Distributed, Open Source, Anonymous!
Replace GNUtella with your sorta-user-friendly distributed-filesharing-system of choice. Post them around your local campus (at night if you want, in order to avoid questions). Be ready to post them again if university officials tear them down.
They will be seen, and they will be seen by the people who matter most. Most colleges and universities have incoming freshmen registering and taking tours now, in addition to summer semester classes.
As to why you should engage in civil disobedience like this, I can never hope to be more persuasive than either of these two great men:
J
Confusious smells many burning "witches". The streets of Salem are alive tonight....
Do we raise our broomsticks (gnutella) or do we go into hiding?
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Now where oh where will we get our illegal pirated music?
... other foot ... deal with it.
Someone rips off Linus and you people form a lynch mod, someone stops you from ripping off Lars Ulrich and you whine, bitch, and moan about how it's so unfair and that you should boycott the RIAA blah blah blah.
Shoe
(From the ZDNet story):
"Saying there's a strong likelihood that the recording industry will prevail..."
Something tells me the verdict on this one was already decided before it got to trial. Of course, the RIAA doesn't care about the new study that came out that shows that Napster users tend to download more music, or that this is going to hurt independent bands. In fact, it says it in the same article:
"Patel's decision marked a major victory for the U.S. recording industry, which had targeted Napster as a dangerous Internet rival that could short-circuit traditional music sales."
There we have it folks, they consider Napster a rival, which means that its in competition and all they want to do is regain control of their near monopoly (cuz let's face it, there are other labels, but its not like they're easy to find)
As for "traditional music sales", well you can tell that that means the watered down pop-drival, radio friendly bubblegum and gargantuan rock/metal bands (no offense intended to any one who listens to any of those). The RIAA doesn't care that this may help end the careers of the current indie and unsigned bands who may one day become the next Matchbox 20 or Metallica, those are merely possible profits, and not actual profits (which they've yet to definately prove their losing anyways), instead they are suing for possible and future losses. (If the logic here seems confusing, it is... Really this case doesn't make much sense to me either)
Of course, we couldn't expect them to be anything near consistent, after all this is a group that said (from the MSNBC article):
     The recording industry says the Napster case isn't about alienating music lovers, but rather about protecting artists.
     "Clearly, people who are using Napster love music. They're probably our best customers," said Hilary Rosen, president of the RIAA.
Hmmmm.... so Hilary, let me get this straight, you're saying that Napster is causing you to lose money, but the users are your best customers, and you don't want to alienate these customers, but at the same time you are alienating them by cutting off their access to out of print songs & unsigned artists. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as some of your previous logic.
-GreenHell
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How can you negotiate with people like this? How can you even have sympathy for them?
--
Thank you so much for that post - I totally agree. As some one who only wants mindshare for my music, and doesn't give a rats arse about the money, Napster rocked for me.
About the only people who benefit from the RIAA model are the manafactured groups that are the descendants of The Monkees (Spice Girls etc).
(I know this is a bit of a me too post - that's why I posted it at score:1)
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
Spotty Catalog - Lots of stuff I went looking for just wasn't there, and I wasn't looking for rare delta blues, just rock tunes from about 1970 on.
Dubious Sound Quality - About half of the 28 songs I downloaded are lower quality than the cassette copies of LPs we made when I was in college, and I downloaded mostly 160 kbps tracks.
Pokey Slow Downloads - It took me 8 hours to download the 28 songs I did get, and I'm on 768k DSL.
To counter the RIAA's claims, I doubt I'd ever have bought any of the "albums" these songs came from. They're NOT losing money from me, because its money they'd never get from me. They only money they're losing is the money I would have paid if they'd sell me the tracks I want for $.50 each or something. What struck me was that the music industry _used_ to sell loads of 45 RPM records. If you liked a song, you could buy JUST that song and be done with it. I think lots of people wouldn't mind that, but nowadays you can't do that. It's a limited selection of CD singles or buy the whole album, which they prefer because there's so much more margin.
No.. The problem is that you aren't purchasing the music. You are purchasing a tape that happens to have music on it. If it breaks (because they designed it to), Tough ! You have to purchase a new one.
They are trying to make it so that if I purchase a CD, I can't dup the CD to CDR (or to a casette) so that I can leave the CD in my nice air conditioned house and use the CDR/casette in my car... (the same right you DO have with software - to duplicate it and save the original)..
Why the hell should I have to purchase a copy on CD so that when I'm in my office, I can listen to it on my computers CD player, a copy on casette to play in my walkman when I'm on the tredmill, or to rip an MP3 to play it on my RIO ?
UPS Sucks
I found a public listing for the office of Judge Patel. I do not know what the rules are for contacting a district judge. I also do not know the rules of advocacy toward judges. However, it is a public listing. Maybe if her office was flooded with advocacy concerns, she might consider them. I could be wrong. Phone #: 415-522-3140 (San Francisco). Taken from link: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/8825666d006460cb/f382 7768 4916d5df882565cc00758957/993f06bc45f 9caf5882566730071327a?OpenDocument
Have you been paying attention to the news lately?
To name a few:
Napster
DeCSS
CPHack
DMCA
Anti-Meth Proliferation Act
Echelon
Carnivore
Freedom in the US is very rapidly vanishing.
AHHHHHH. mass exodus to gnutella.
Hah! What, you're saying it's unethical to screw the same record companies which have been unethically screwing artists for 50 years? That's your position? Come on. I think you need to make a distinction between murder - the evils of which I don't need to rehash - and reciprocity, which is exactly what these record companies are getting.
I sleep fine with 6000 MP3s on my hard drive, 15-20 queued for download, and thousands uploaded to people across the world. And that's not because I'm amoral - it's because I don't consider it unethical at all.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I agree Napster must die for free music distribution to reamain free. Remember, Napster could start doing all sorts of nasty things to make money, like placing versions of the songs which include advertising first.
I do not know how long they will be down, but unfortunatly people would not really notice if they are only down for a short period of time and Napster wil come back with just as many users.
We need to maximize the harm done to Napster during this period. College students need to start campus orginiations to help people set up IRC, OpenNAP, napigator, Gnutella, FreeNet, etc. This is an opertunity to move free music distributin out from Napster's shadow that we should not miss.
Fall symester will be starting soon (September here at Rutgers). It would be good to have people posting banners arround campus between now and the end of the first month of school which instructed people in setting up napster alternatives. If we can divert the returning college students then we stand a real chance of preventing Napster from killing free music distribution by selling out to the RIAA.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Seriously. Email the people at Napster. I'm sure they realize they have a very tough standpoint to get across.
It's bleak for them. Look at it from an uninformed person's perspective. The basis of it is that this is a utility for trading music for free. The uninformed no nothing about unsigned artists, they only think about mainstream, and that's what the RIAA is trying to prove.
The Napster cause could use a lot more people like yourself. Hell, mp3.com should get all of their unsigned artists to join the fight as well. I'm sure there are loads of people with the mp3.com "label" that would be more than willing to fight against the RIAA.
I really wish the RIAA would just die. They will eventually, they can't live forever.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
Windows users might find Napigator useful in the intertim. I do not know of a Mac/Linux/BSD alternative, though I suspect that on at least some of the open-source clones, one can manually enter a server that uses the Napster protocol. Here is a list of alternative servers.
yours,
john
At least slashdot has quit linking to Amazon in their book reviews. But they stif use GIFs, as do Red Hat, VA Linux, and even GNOME. The MPAA boycott is a complete joke. The latest spawn of the many-tentacled corporate movie industry was much hyped through out the geek community.
So I'm not expecting much out of this boycott. Sure, a few of us will give up corporate movies and music, but the majority will keep right on eating up all the pop music, movies, and television they can ge their hands on.
For those of you with a backbone, go to independent films, attend live concerts, sell your DVD player, and turn off the TV
So you can vote for a number of different politicians, all of whom will ignore your wishes and follow the music industry line - great!
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
yes, but mine doesn't. my point was that my vote doesn't matter, period. call me apathetic if you will. I really am not apathetic. I do plenty of things to further causes I believe in. Voting just happens not to be one of those things because I am well aware of the fact that one vote doesn't make one bit of difference.
I strongly suggest you stop using napster. Simply migrate to one of its better alternatives. I personally like CuteMX. Its free, it supports all file transfers and has features which napster doesnt. bye bye napster hypocrites. PS. I do hope that this will make them reconsider opening up their database and technology to opennap and others such clones.
On the other hand, there should be laws against the RIAA giants charging $18 for a damn CD......
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
before Son of Napster rises and forces the Music industry to die. Maybe this time it will be 40winkster?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This is total bullshit. The music industry is full of rich bastards anyway, and they are pissed that some smart poeple had a smart idea, and then it got popular. I hope Napster doesnt shut down, and if it does i sincerely hope someone else starts another network like this. Anyone planning on it? Let me know, ill donate some money for your first server. NAPSTER MUST SURVIVE
BUSH 2000
opennap ownz =)
You are right, radio has better market penetration. What about those bands that aren't on major labels or are not on heavy rotation on all those Top 40 stations? Isn't that part of the initial success of www.mp3/com?
Success of mp3.com - not of Napster. mp3.com does indeed have a respectable business model. They foster new musical talent by investing money into artists. They behave exactly look the record companies except for that they distribute the music electronically instead of on wax. Napster is merely a conduit for distribution; it depends on record companies (including, potentially, mp3.com) for actually creating the music.
In terms of signal quality, yes. Not in terms of having in your hands a musical recording that you did not pay for. MP3s are by no means digital masters, "ripping" means compressing means loss of information. Maybe publisher's fees is the solution
MP3's are not currently digital masters, but it is also not the be-all and end-all of digital music formats. In the future the digital music format may be identical to the digital master (when bandwidth gets better), and in the nearer future it may be audibly indistinguishable. What's the record company to do then? Why should it invest millions of dollars into producing a record if some warez boy can put it on the internet for the world to download? In online distribution, are we sentenced to listen to music which is inexepensive to produce - lo fi punk rock?
Heres my outlook on the situation: I think this is a carbon copy of the drug reality. The government can spend billions and billions of dollars trying to stop everyone from buying/using/transporting these drugs, but in the end, the government will not win. It is just a show to put on for the voters so they can say they are "trying." (waste of money if you ask me) Its the same thing with the RIAA, and artists like Metallica. (Do they really need more money) Not to say that what we and others are doing isn't "right," but they are getting screwed... who knows.
there alot more unsigned musicians than signed ones. why not a class action suit against the riaa for restriction of trade. the musicians should detail their experiences of how they didn't get a fair shake with record companies and that alternative distribution didn't exist before napster. now that the riaa has succeeded in shutting napster down, isn't this restriction of trade?
--
And Justice for None
--
And Justice for None
... inocent untill proven guilty?
This is a civil trial right? How can one company legaly force another company to cease comerce without a trial? Even if napster is found not liable, they will have suffered damages due to the law suit. Don't they teach us in school that this kind of thing doesn't happen in America?
Well, let's think about what shutting down Napster means to us all.
...
First, it means that Gnutella and other Open Source alternatives will gain mindshare and users. This is good.
Secondly, it means someone won't be driving their fancy car around SF and weaving in and out of traffic. This is also good, although I suppose one could argue against it.
Thirdly, it means all the people downloading MP3 songs can get really pissed off. And then they can send emails to their members of Congress and Senators. And harass the music labels. And look into any unethical business practices that RIAA might be getting involved in.
This is really good
The way gnutella is structured it can theoretically handle more people than Napster can anyway.
--- Can i borrow your Clue-Stick(tm)? I need to go beat a few people with it...
However, Napster's legal argument is absurd. They say that they have the right to promote distribution of copyrighted works. I think that's bullshit.
Imagine the day guns are invented. Then imagine someone saying, "Well, with these guns, it's really easy to kill someone, so we might as well make murder legal, because there's no way to stop it."
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Maybe with Napster down, the end users will have to learn how to point their Napster clients to other servers that do the same job as Napster's centralized server. Or better yet, drop the closed-source and centralized-server approach of Napster altogether and get into Gnutella, FreeNet, and what-not.
Really, who really needs Napster when they've practically admitted that their goal is to get into "selling content" and tracking users' search queries. It's easy to use, but is it necessarily better from a privacy perspective?
And if it's just MP3s they're after, with proper choice of provider, there's a hell of a lot better quality cycling through the servers listening to port 119 anyways.
And unlike any of the peer-to-peer networks, where you have to trust the machine from which you leech, what you suck down through port 119 is strictly between you and your ISP.
(Of course, what you upload, whether through port 119 or any other service, is always traceable back to you. But since your garden-variety Napster user is more interested in downloading, this isn't really a factor.)
Shutting down Napster is gonna help people share files, not hinder them.
The harder RIAA tries to fight, the more I can't help but think that Pandora must have looked really stupid trying to close that damn box.
Ya know its funny, I posted this information a while ago when something similar came up. Have any of you people ever bought a compilation CD before? The bootleg ones with all the newest songs on them. If you live in a major urban area where hip-hop and dance are popular, then you've probably seen them, most likely with the name of your local radio station (KTU and Hot97 here in the NYC area).
You wonder about these bootlegs because they contain CD quality cuts on them from material that isn't available commercially ANYWHERE! I should know this becuase I work in a music store. Go into New York city for bootleg versions of all the new radio songs that aren't available as single, go get yourself Jay-Z & Mya, DMX, Creed, Britney Spears, N-sync, whatever, but many of them you can find nowhere in a legal format.
I'm reminded of one very noteworthy song that came out on one of these bootlegs last year fully TWO MONTHS before it was available to the public in any form; radio, video... no one had heard this song or even this artist before. It came out on a dance compilation called KTU radio cuts Volume 3 in early May of '99. The song was called "Genie in a Bottle" and as everyone now knows, it was done by Christina Aguilera. Anyone who follows that stuff knows that her first (and still only) album didn't hit shelves until late July.
You have to wonder, how did this bootlegging company get ahold of an artist's work MONTHS before it came out? Who had the work? Hmmmm... I do believe the record companies had the song, no?
Who else has access to ALL these brand new cuts available elsewhere? This is in all genre's mind you. I'm sure Oklahoma has country bootlegs somewhere. Kind of makes you wonder how the bootlegger's get them if someone VERY high up in the music industry (RIAA?) is the one bootlegging them and selling them blatantly illegaly (as opposed to people D/L'ing one track at a time to hear artists).
they both need to be mocked. i like using napster, but i find the majority of other users of napster to be totally moronic. when they discover you don't have any Eminem mp3s in your library they cuss you out and start flaming away... how pleasant.
my point is this: napster is a service that could be useful if 1) there weren't so many greedy bastards in the world and 2) there weren't so many stupid people in the world.
as you probably noticed, i think that napster suffers from many of the ails that plague the rest of the world, too. kudos to napster for resisting it, at least.
grizzo: totally insecure, but very convenient.
Call me cynical, but politicians tend to pay more attention to money than they do about the worries of an 18 year old. Do you think some politician is going to give a shit about some teenager who likes music distribution, compared to the RIAA's "worries" and pockets of money? Maybe if the politicians gave two shits about the problems and concerns of the 18 to 24 crowd, maybe more people would vote. But the Almighty Buck(tm) reigns supreme.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
Step 1) Free MP3s linked our servers.
Step 3) Make money.
What is step 2?
I don't have a link handy, but according to the RIAA, you aren't allowed to rip audio from a non-"home audio" device. According to the RIAA, it is ILLEGAL to buy a metalica CD and MP3 it for personal use. Whether or not it is actually illegal is a matter for the courts.
/.er would agree that two consenting entities have a right to draw up almost any sort of contract between the two of them, right? The RIAA claims that it sells people music and conditions along with said music, and if you don't like said conditions, then don't buy said music. They have a point.
I'll bet the average open minded
I agree with Fair Use, and I hope that it comes to the rescue. But to say that it IS legal to have an mp3 on your HDD is misleading.
Mike
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
I wonder how much we'll notice the load difference on the Internet in the next few days. From what I've heard, Napster traffic is actually a substantial portion of traffic on some backbones.
I'm serious. You can't win every battle in a war, and the RIAA is determined to make Napster look more malicious than Tim McVeigh. The fact is, the RIAA has many millions of dollars to continually fight Napster, and look-alikes. Napster, on the other hand, does not.
;-)
The internet will eventually decide whether this is gonna stay or go, because it depends solely on volunteer effort. If Napster is shut down, just watch a clone spring up designed for sharing renamed 'zip' files. Or anything else. The fact is, even with dozens/hundreds of lawsuits involving Warez sites, Warez is still around, and still very easy to get with a high-bandwidth connection.
Warez is probably a lot worse than 'bootleg' mp3s, but not according to the RIAA, I'm sure. I do hope, though, that Senator Hatch kicks some butt this way.
Legality is not often Ethical. Ethics are not often Legal. Morality is often neither.
tingaling
This is the kind of crap an attorney has to deal with. For the general populous, this phrase would mean the state of affairs, what is current. The definition of 'status quo' could vary jurisdiction by jurisdiction but should be similar to the following: "[t]he status quo is the last, actual, peaceable, noncontested status that preceded the controversy." State v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 526 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975). So, looking at Nap v. RIAA, what was the last event that would be noncontested in this suit? Probably the non-operation of Napster. The contested issue in this case is the operation of Napster itself. Disclaimer: I don't know shit about the law. I'm a moron.
There are a few countries out there that do not reconize International Copyrights - forgive me if I'm wrong but Finland comes to mind. Why not move the servers to that country, incorperate and watch the RIAA try and shut them down. Of cource there are other problems, some of these countries have unstable governments and some of the tax rates are 70%, but if you want to beat the system...
Um, maybe their banner ads?
Note that the contents of the mp3 are technically copyright 2000 napster inc., but I don't think they want to open that can of worms. ;>
Damn! Now how am I gonna replace all these aging vinyl and audio cassettes with a decent digital copy? ..Guess I'll have to move on to some other file-sharing app..
Maybe if I ask the large music companies, they will give me a digital copy of all these old formats I bought - I mean, did I buy the object, or the license? If I bought something on vinyl, should I have to go back out and buy a CD copy?
Whatever..
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Vices - what I lack in originality, I make up for in volume.
Who's next? Scour, of course. Where else can you find every song Napster ever thought about having, plus having that idrive space to back it up. The songs are being saved on 'idrive' and deleted as fast as they are posted. However, idrive isn't keeping up. We've already seen the MPAA freak out over the Scour movie-finding situation. But Scour also has it's own "Napster-ish" program that does the same job for music as it does for movies (on a personal note, the 'movies' on scour normally turn out to be pr0n).
Okay, okay. So, what does this all mean? This means that Goliath is pissed, because we may be stealing some money from them. Money is the root of all evil, didn't somebody say that? A better quote is, and I'm quoting Boiler Room here, 'The people who say money is the root of all evil don't have any'. We're pissed and we can point fingers but we don't get the checks. You know what I say? Screw Napster. Let 'em get canned. They're making millions. There are tens of hundreds of clones out there, and they'd have to be shut down one at a time. There are no lynch mobs to hunt down the coders. There are the courts. And the Internet has (for now) some small bit of privacy (don't let me get Katzy). And that is our advantage. That is our strength.
Who needs one big shiny, rich pebble to kill Goliath when we can make thousands of tiny ones, causing a (metaphor-enduced) avalanche?
Up until now the vast majority of the internet community was able to ignore the court battle - as long as Napster was not actually shut down they could afford not to care. Public opinion is about to make itself known in a big way for the first time, as everyone is deprived of their music source. I'm predicting two things: 1. Napster will never come out of this alive, unless there are so many restrictions imposed on it that it no longer is the Napster we know. 2. The free alternatives are about to get a big boost in user numbers and probably in developer interest. The part I'm afraid of is that they will start censoring traffic at the server level. What I wish they would do is stop selling CDs in the stupid way they have so far. Why are most of us interested in Napster, despite the lower sound quality of MP3? Because we don't want to pay $18+ for one or two songs we like off of an album. If the music industry were to get their act togeather and create a site where you could create your own CD containing ANY 60 minutes of music you wished, from whatever author, I think at least some of the demand for Napster would fade. Certainly a lot of the legitimate use would. Plus, they'd make more money. I think most of us would be willing to pay $3-$4 per song if we knew we were getting songs we liked. Yet I've never heard of them doing that. Is is power, or wanting to maintain an image, or what? If they let us sample songs from such a website, and then let us order a CD of exactly what we want, I think everyone would be better off. But then, that's just me.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I'm boycotting. No sense in throwing money at the industry that doesn't get it and thinks I -owe- them something. I've never downloaded an MP3 from anywhere and never had the means to make them.
Like with many things, the power of the consumer to say 'no' to a product will hurt the copyright holders more than anything you can do otherwise.
Too bad RIAA, you lose a lot of money, cuz I spend a LOT of money on music.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
This is a direct link to the NBC story.
yours,
john
ROFL.. Napster makes a fat whopping zero every month. They make a fat whopping zero every year. And that's just revenues. On the whole they're hemorraghing to the tune of millions of dollars every month.
When was the last time you paid to use Napster?
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
While you're at it, why not not shutdown RealMedia, Winamp, Microsoft Media Division (yeah I would love that one) and a slew of other net radios! It's as if people haven't found ways to beat the streaming copy protection of the file which happens to be located in a cached directory on your local PC (for you bootleggers wannabe just go read some of them hackerz sites for this info)
The problem isn't with Napster or GNUtella or any of these other softwares, it's with people out there who are abusing it and RIAA making a giant mountain outta an ants hill (ants hills are smaller than moles hill most of the time take a peek!). I myself download songs using Napster & such but if you really want to hear more music from that artist which you just download, support them by buying some of their albums then you can download more.
The only reason that Napster is getting the heat is because of that Metallica drummer (sorry can't remeber his name right now) who made such a big fuss about it. Don't get me wrong here I like music from Metallica infact I have a few of their albums along with some MP3s from which I can't get their albums
All I'm saying is that RIAA should check around before getting a court injunction on Napster while other softwares with bigger companies (eg Microsoft) get away with similar acts.
In closing I would just like to say is that Recording Industry Ascociations of the World (not just America) take note... music fans are STILL paying your paychecks
-----
Heh, if you read the article, at the very end, it says:
Several companies have developed such systems, but most users resist paying for something they can get free from Napster, and some of the systems have been invaded by hackers.
What they mean is that a bunch of us coders dressed in fatigues and stormed their corporate headquarters with snurf guns and snurf-proof vests and took hostages, threatening to blow up the building with snurf bombs.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet, tasty beer."
This is not good. Napster has never been something that I cared about or cared to use, but the strong arm tactics that the Music industry has been using concern me greatly. When bands like Metallica go on a Jihad against 'grab-asstic pieces of meat' (gotta love that cartoon) and this is the eventual result, it really puts things into perspective. How much power do the labels really hold over their Artists? Their seems to be a very clear line drawn between the more independent signed artists (offspring, chuck d) and the New-Money type artists. You have to wonder how much snoop dogg really knows about a computer anyways.
www.cyborgworkshop.com
...and the geek shall inherit the earth...
www.linux-skunkworks.com
Maybe not where you live, but in local issues where I live (Bethel, ME,) and in surrounding towns, one vote can make a difference. Actually, a controversial interlocal transportation agreement (that would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years, most of which would have been paid for by the taxpayers via the federal government and state government and not come out of local money; a bunch more was pledged by private biz) passed in our neighboring town, Newry, something like 19-18 at Town Meeting. One vote definitely can make a difference.
(Incidentally, the same agreement failed something like 108-90 in Bethel's Town Meeting).
And the point about millions of one votes counting: definitely. Even a few thousand can make a difference in a close election--or even in a not-so-close election, if a politician realizes that the next election will be close and he/she needs those votes.
However one feels about Napster, there may be a silver lining for Open Source: two of three mostly likely successors (Gnutela and freenet) are both Open Souce, so we may have another high profile success on our hands.
The third runner-up, Scour, is closed -- but it is already having legal problems.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
I'm sure someone already posted the napster webcast that happened a short time ago .. I beleive it is still viewable from that link ... also, FYI Wired Magazine has a good 2 page article about the trial today, some interesting reading....
Try the older interface or the new snazzy javascript interface.
As we all know, Windows file sharing works over the internet, it has search features, it does everything that napster can do! So why not use it? If I understand Windows file sharing corectly, all we'd need to do is setup one large WINS server with everyone's IP address in it. Searching would be easy for even the non-techies, it'd be just like searching for a file right on thier own hard drive! Unix users can use Samba so they're not left out either.
The point I'm getting at here is who created this technology to transfer MP3's (and Movies, etc.)? That's right, Microsoft. Now who is the RIAA gonna sue? Microsoft. But we all know that Microsoft would have the money to defend themselves (if the US government doesn't take it all first!) and they might even win. They'd have to win or Windows would become illegal to use! (Hmm, there's a thought!) The technology is there, right from Microsoft, it may not be good, it may not be secure but the whole reason to use it is because Microsoft has power and MONEY.
Since this wasn't mentioned.. stolen from the website and motd when you log in...
---
Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. PDT we will give the Napster community a brief update of what happened in the courtroom via a live webcast that you can view at www.napster.com.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
In a democracy - every person has equal weight. In this case the right of one private musician to be heard on Napster weighs equally against one mega-platinum super-star. There are, it seems, a number of artists on both sides of the napster issue. Some wish to be heard, others wish to be silenced. The judge has placed the interest of some not to be plagiarized (which is NOT a constitutionally protected right) over the right of numerous others to be heard (which cleary IS). The danger here is that the flagship of the bill of rights is running up the colors of a plutocracy. "We, the wealth of the richest states of america, in order to form a more perfect onion. . . do establish a government of the money, by the money and for the money." U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel
They might decide it is in the interest of liberty to sue, and they might give your Class the lawyers.
Its worth a shot. Get out a pen and pad and send a note.
"50% are out of publication,"
Thats my point -- Why do not they (RIAA/Greedy record execs) spend some time and money on making available to me, the music I would gladly buy...Instead they stop making the music, thus it's not on the shelf...And a used copy on ebay would cost me more than half of these old band members make in a week pumping gas at the corner station after their record companies sent them down the river after their albums did not go gold or platinum.....
Fuck Em.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
My favorite moment on CSPAN was when I watched a presentation about non-voters. It turned out that while a large percentage of non-voters are apathetic morons, about 1/3 of them actually follow as much political news as their voting peers. In short, many non-voters are not the ignorant baffons they are made out to be.
This is a clear reason why, and you've hit it on the head: voting does *not* matter. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the system was set up that way. The two parties in control are so similar that it's hard to decide which one is worse. The worst of it is that most of the politicans are in the pockets of the corporations ANYWAY, so it doesn't matter. There was a story in the Washington Post earlier this year showing that politicans vote in the manner the electorate wanted a mere 40% of the time, down from 60% 30 years ago.
And don't tell me that's what the Founders intended. The Founders rightfully had a distrust of direct democracy, but they did not intend for our representitives to ignore the populance.
The problem is with the people who vote, not those of us who do not. The people who vote only have two choices, but in reality, most of them have none, having been conditioned to vote either Democrat or Republican no matter what. Add a sprinkle of controversy over one-button issues like abortion, and presto, you have our current political situation.
In short, I agree with medicthree's suggestion. Make some money. Hide it in Switzerland so you don't pay taxes on it. Attempt to support the government of this country as little as possible. It's a sham anyway.
Personally, I don't vote because I believe it would give legitmacy to a political system I don't believe in. I don't tell that to legislators, of course, on the off chance that they listen to me. Which is rare, or else I would vote.
Do I have a solution? Sure: reduce the size and distance of the government from the people. You're more likely to influence your mayor than your congressman, and even more likely to influnence your school board member. Government needs to be cut back to the local level, exclusively.
So does this mean that a ban on firearms in the U.S. is the next step?
Sure there are some legit uses of hand guns (and napster) but people are often tempted to use them for infringing on the breathing rights of others... rock on hypocrisy
- PrinciplyUncertain
Check out this link Napster Ordered by Judge to Stop Duplicating Copyrighted Music from aol.com.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
I have given up all hope for creating change by using words. Whoever said that the pen is mightier than the sword was dreaming. No one cares about constitutions or rights. No one cares about freedom. We have let corporate interests dictate the agenda of the public interest, and they have decided that there is NO public interest. There is only profit. The Free Market was a bad experiment and we need to stop it now before we have nothing left. There is no time left -- they are destroying the planet and our families. They want us to be rich and yet they want us to be slaves. They want to divide us so that we will fight against each other when they know that if we co-operated we might avoid being co-opted.
I have never felt more despair for humanity than I do now. We have given up every ideal and every virtue in the name of Economy. I don't see any hope for the greedy, mean-spirited, selfish despots who are growing fatter by the minute. They are making trillions of dollars and answer to no one. Arguments do not move them. Passion does not move them. Only numbers move them. They are soulless. Trade and commerce do not have to be soulless endeavours. Real entrepreneurs can be very human and forgiving. They can bend the rules for every customer. They can accept responsibility for things over which they have no control. Yes, I said things over which they have no control. Accountability is the buzzword of these Leviathans of commerce. But don't be fooled. They have no accountability whatsoever. They only take responsibility for the things they can "control". This is like leaving the scene of an accident. Hey, I couldn't help hitting that kid when he ran in front of my car -- but that doesn't mean I can just leave the kid there. This is what corporations are doing to our Civilization and to our Earth. They are not people. They don't have feelings and they never get hungry. They don't suffer when someone close to them dies. They are the AI machines that have overpowered their creators. Science fiction fantasies about computers were a mere trifle compared to the voracious, unstoppable, hypnotic hum of the death machines.
The lawmakers and the government are accomplices in this. They don't care about democracy or even about getting re-elected. Your vote means nothing to them. They are just praying that they can keep you busy enough to stop you from thinking about anything. They prattle on about the virtues of industriousness, ingenuity and moral integrity. They are obsessed with motion, activity, incessant, compulsive, blinding, deafening factories that churn out soap, seeds, movies, microchips, cereal, cars, fat-substitutes, abortions, financial "products", software, socks and other distractions. The less time we have to think, the less time we'll have to realize we don't need 90% of the stuff that gets cranked out. We don't have consumer choice. We don't have the choice to live peacefully without the daily infestation of salesmongers, tallymen, and trained chimps dressed in butler suits. These are unstoppable forces because we don't know what they own. We don't know who owns them. We don't know who sits on whose board of directors. These corporate machines have gone too far. This is not freedom or democracy or a Civilization -- this is the War of All Against All, carefully orchestrated by the Invisible Hand-gun of corporate coercion.
We have no alternative. We have no voice. We have no power. We have no government. Our only alternative is to declare War on corporations and fight until there's no one left standing. I don't mean letter writing campaigns. The time for that has come and gone. The letters are screened and sanitized by handlers and PR monkeys. Then they let the lawyers lose. You are food for the maggots. Your family starves while the lawyers eat thick, bloody steaks at the table of the CEO.
Give these sick motherfuckers what they deserve. NOTHING!
I'm not spying, that's why I don't actually know what's going on. All I have are overall company internet traffic figures that jumped rapidly after this guy got dial-in access and when he brought his PC in to be fixed I spotted the Napster client. He has a 10-12 year old son. I only care because traffic above our free quota is now costing us almost the same as the normal monthly fee...
Well, there's still hope. You can use Napigator to switch to one of the "open" Napster servers out there (sorry, its Windows only, although there is probably a way to change the Linux client's server as well, so check out the Napigator server list on the site). I for one plan on using these open servers alot in the coming days as my own peaceful protest/civil disobediance. Good luck Napster!
---- I made the Kessel Run in under 11 parsecs.
is here.
"In a lengthy statemenet, the judge said the recording industry had shown the likelihood to win a trial, while the defendants had failed to prove it had substantial non-infriging uses."
this is the official announcement from napster headquarters. Let's hope they fight the good fight.
keep the music flowing.
--
+&x
It is down here in the back of beyond (Perth, Western Australia). We're only an itty-bitty 50-person company ;)
-metallica I always thought Metallica sucked, but this has eliminated all doubts. They have lost a large costomer base in their latest vendeta... This agreement will backfire in the worst way to Lars and co. -napster If you think about it, its not a big deal as far as music or file trading goes, that will always continue, whether a company or ten other companies are shut down. It is a symbol that the internet can now be controlled by government figures and aging has-been rockstars that are to greedy to allow "free market" metallica will die soon enough, but the ideals of these four cretins will live on, unfortunately. Capitolism is the end of civilization as we know it. Luckily, as pop culture grows stronger, so will those who do not wish to become slaves to the powers that be. "WE SHALL PREVAIL" -Mars
"Napster is enjoined from copying or assisting or enabling or contributing to the copy or duplication of all copyrighted songs and musical compostions of which the plaintiffs hold rights," U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered in a surprise ruling at a hearing in San Francisco federal court.
It's a shame that the RIAA can't embrace this technology rather than denounce it. Napster probably provides more exposure to recording artists than radio play. In fact, is there a difference between recording songs off the radio and downloading an mp3 from the napster network? .ram is here, it's towards the end of the broadcast. Commentary by John Flansburg (sp?) of TMBG.
An interesting take on this whole Napster dilemna on NPR's Marketplace yesterday (July 25th). The
TGL
--- this space intentionally left blank.
The stories didnt go into much detail, but if the injunction was phrased how they reported it, Napster doesnt need to do anything. The articles state that Napster is no longer allowed to allow trading of MP3's on their site. Napster doent allow the trading of MP3's through their servers at all. All the trading is done *directly* between the users. Hopefully they will find some loophole and keep on going. otherwise, get mynapster from MyNapster.com load it up on opennap servers, and your set. In fact, it's better than the original napster IMHO.
It's about control, Stupid.
Musicians want to have control of thier music
RIAA wants control of everyones wallet
We want control of the Internet.
Who do you think has the waepons to succeed?
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
What if someone were to just setup a napster server outside of the United States? opennap seems to allow anybody to do this. What about that island near England that's supposed to be a haven to that sort of stuff? I can see it now: Saddam is no longer the ememy! It's those HACKERS that pirate the music. Everybody invade Sealand! It will start World War III. The slashdot article is located here
The RIAA's members are perfectly happy without Internet revenue at the moment.
The moment and the past are the only times they can appreciate, as they are only masters in their own history.
The independent labels can, as always, get fucked. They're used to it, hell, they're so loose you don't even need to work them up now.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/metal licops_56k.html
I for one will speak with my wallet. My $50 a week CD buying "habit" has just gone on vacation. And the sad part of it is that their may be no coming back from vacation....When I first decided to "Cut" Metallica out of my life -- I assumed it may be for a few weeks until I cooled off...Well needless to say, once my favorite band -- I still cannot stand to listen to them on CD, tape, LP, Radio and especially not MP3 (and would gladly send all above media to burn at any vigal that is organized, or to burn in hell.)
It will sadden me to do it -- but at this point I do not think I will ever again be able to walk through the hollow doors of a music store again, and my nose will never get to smell the sweet aroma of a freshly opened CD or Tape....So be it...Cheers to the people who fight the good fight...
And all this because I thought I could snag a few mp3's from the tapes or CD's I did not get a chance to purchase while they were in production.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
This is only the begining of media attention to this, but it is the end of something else. It is the end of copywright law in the sense we know it today, next will be movies, then tv shows and books, until data will all be free. I think this is wonderful, and a blow to capitalism. --Joshua
I'm hearing so many things about protecting the MP3 this and protecting the MP3 that. Doesn't anyone realize that Napster does NOT represent MP3s? Napster was created for illegal puposes, it has been said numerous times; to deny it now is ludecrous. ;-)) is illegal. The companies know they won't win the cases and they know that the technology is useful!
MP3s are not being outlawed, and they won't be! You will not see the RIAA try to say MP3s are illegal and you won't see the MPAA say MPGs (or DivX
Moderators! View at -1, Newest first w/o threads, ignore scores!
I am a bad speler. Please ignore speling meestakes in me poast.
I can't say that I'm disappointed by this whole development. I've not been a Napster fan since the stunt that they pulled with Offspring. I'm not against the uncommercial sharing of MP3's, but when a typical corporation starts to base its whole business plan around piracy, then I have some problems. The articles mentioned in the previous Slashdot Napster story pretty much solidified my opinion.
Will shutting down Napster do anything? Absolutely not. People will move to Gnutella. So, the RIAA has not really won anything by doing this. If anything, I believe that the entertainment industry has shot itself in the collective foot by pushing Napster out of the way.
How many users will log onto these "alternative" services such as Gnutella and see that all the mp3's that they could find on Napster are also on the Gnutella net? Furthermore, they will see the other large amount of content there and if bandwidth is not a factor -- start pirating other media. If I were the MPAA, I would be severely pissed at the RIAA at the moment.
So, the situation has not changed one bit. The only difference is that Napster is out of the equation (good riddance) and the entertainment industries have to deal with a service that makes the whole Napster thing look like a cakewalk.
-Chriswhat will people do once napster is shut down?!?! nobody will be able to get any mp3s! nobody will be able to say "backstreet boys are so gay" in chatrooms anymore! we won't have access to that incredible "discover new artists" service (which is what we all use napster for anyways). well, i guess the moral to this is: if you do illegal things, the government will track you down and take huge drastic measures to insure that the law-breaking STOPS!
...shit
this is like when we had that problem with everybody drinking alcohol. the government stepped in and made drinking illegal, and it solved all our problems. nobody drank, nobody beat their kids and nobody unwound after work. let's hope shutting down napster is equally as successful!
grizzo: totally insecure, but very convenient.
Right, and do you see any banner ads on www.napster.com or within Napster?
You might be right about Napster not making any money, but when was the last time you paid to use Yahoo.com? Where do you suppose their revenue comes from?
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
I first got on the boycott bandwagon over Amazon, and then jumped on it full throttle over DeCSS and the MPAA. This weekend I finally stopped and looked around me... and realized that I was alone. I haven't gone to the movie theater since DeCSS; I have purchased books through Barnes and Noble (I had been using Amazon), yet all the geeks I know have fallen back into the same old patterns. Even my wife (just as much of a geek as I) uses Amazon.
I don't get it - why are people giving their enemies money?
I draw the line at this one. Especially given the particulars of this court case, I'm not even certain that it was worth a boycott in the first place. But I'm already on two "geek" boycotts... along with the five other geeks in the world who are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
On the other hand, if any of you are having any quirks of the conscious, it isn't too late! You can still stop giving people money so they can buy the rope to hang you with. But please, before we get all fired up over another boycott, remember the ones you've already said you would do - and decide why you aren't following through.
All operating systems suck. Some just suck less than others. (and some are virtual black holes)
...or music prices simply become more resonable.
BWA HA HA HA HA!
Music prices lower? The RIAA acting descent? Like that will ever happen. As for now, I'm getting gnutella.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
OK. Fine.
/. norm. A lot of clueless fucks going "yeah! it's shut down!" and a lot of clueless fucks going "this is so wrong!"
I've glanced through the comments so far, and they fit the
Personally, I believe that there is no *right* to make money from an idea, concept, program, series of sounds, etc. And, frankly, the law of the land backs me up. (Go re-read the constitution, idiots.) I've had a number of pious developers try call me on this opinion over the years, but here's the thing: THEY DIDN'T OWN ANYTHING THEY'D EVER WRITTEN PROFESSIONALLY. You make money off of support and maintenance. Period. I get satisfaction from the fact that a very limited number of people can do what I do. I derive continuing income from that same fact. Go ahead. Write the "killer app." The only thing that can support it is a corporation, and that will make it's money from the ongoing fees. Collect your pay and buy a boat, house, Ferrari, whatever. Good for you. If you think you have the right to continue collect in perpituity, you're dreaming.
Bottom line: I can hold a piece of physical property against all comers for a long time. Add my kin into the equation, and we can hold it indefinitely. An idea I cannot hold.
20% of my mp3s, I have legitimate fair use of. 50% are out of publication, and I couldn't go buy the media if tried. 10-15% are whim material, and will probably be deleted in a week or two, unless they end up in the last category: Music that I will buy.
RIAA needs to look at the math.
Regards,
prong
Gnutella http://gnutella.wego.com
Scour.net http://www.scour.com
Search engines http://www.oth.net http://ftpsearch.lycos.com http://mp3.box.sk
I've mentioned in the past on Slashdot and I'll say it again. This whole crusade isn't about legal or illegal, right or wrong, artist rights, etc. CALM DOWN ALL YOU PISSED OFF PEOPLE! TAKE A DEEP BREATH, AND THINK. All this stuff you've been hearing in the news is fluff to what's really going on behind the scenes. Accept the fact that there are highly intelligent businessmen richer than you that run the music labels (contrary to what you might perceive). They're not idiots. When they see a company like Napster go from 0-20 million users in nine months, they have no delusions that the Internet music revolution will be stopped. All the RIAA has to do is DELAY the onset of online music distribution. Their executors for carrying out these delays are lawyers and the US Judicial system. Okay, so what are they DELAYING for then? Simple. CDs are not dead yet folks. They are still sitting on a well honed multi-BILLION dollar CD selling machine. For every day that passes by that they can keep customers away from free Internet music.....$Cha$Ching! Easy Money. *For those of you that want numbers, the RIAA web site posted last years global music market at US$38.5 billion. I won't do the math here but it should be apparent to you home viewers that keeping Napster shut down for even a month is more than just a morale victory ;) Eventually, all the lawyers in the world won't be able to stop the change. The music industry will reach a point when the cash cow is milked dry and they will be forced to switch over to the Internet. And that key point in time will occur when the mass of the global music consuming population has access to "broadband" Internet (we aren't even close yet, trust me). Without broadband, downloading music is pretty much a hobby. They plan on giving away music free. FREE!? Yep, you heard me right. This makes sense when you consider the competion they face from programs like Napster. Simple. Free. But the music labels have an advantage in the Simplicity Department. By running well polished sites, they will be able to quickly and reliably deliver music much easier than any Napster-like file exchange program ever could. And exactly HOW will the music labels make $ by giving music away free? Well, it's a very interesting business model and one I definetly wouldn't have thought of myself. It requires the music labels to merge with or partner with those who provide access to the gateways of the Internet. While everyone's diverted by all the lawsuit crap, we're all failing to see the busy bees at work getting ready to make this so. Need proof? Can you say "Time Warner/AOL merger"? Also EMI records is merging with Time Warner as well. God help us, I can see the AOL commercials now: "Sign up now, and get free access to every recording made in the history of mankind" Don't we all feel dumb now. Aaron Cook
you'd only be able to get a one way connection to the Net
Yep. We're dealing with the broadcast media. Their mindset is completely fixated on serving out the entertainment. (If I may, I'll glob the RIAA in with the MPAA and TV as well for this argument, it fits).
They have always done demographic studies, Nielsen ratings, focus groups.. They have clamored for control, merged and acquired, conglomerated and associated, statistically analysed and strategized every bit of entertainment that they have ever released.
They do not understand. The concept of individual choice is completely, absolutely alien to the people in charge of this thing. They believe in market research, so when some like rap, and some like rock, and others like country while still others like opera... Well, the statistical average of album sales demonstrates a strong corellation that the average consumer buys 1.2 Backstreet Boys and 2.1 Britney Spears albums each week.
[aside] Why do people buy the albums that reinforce these figures? Because they have no choice. It's all they know to be available. It's all they hear on the radio. It's all they hear in the stores. It's all they see on the shelves. Once in a while, some mainstream artist lights a spark in one song, and we buy the album for that ONE song. And over time, we develop a taste for the other tracks on the disc - for the homogenized, cookbook mediocrity. Because we no longer know any better. This is why most people buy WinOS. Lack of awareness that there are alternatives. Yeah, we hear about them, but we don't even know where to look, most of the time. Where's the nearest Strawberries or Sam Goody to where you live? The bright lights point the way. Where's a decent independent music shop? What? Out of business? I wonder why... [/aside]
From their perspective, individual tastes are a statistical anomaly, something that throws off good data and causes special-order album overhead. It's cheaper to send a gross of crap than it is to send 144 individually burned albums. Consumers WILL buy two good tracks on a disc of 15 for $20. They have before. The economies of scale will prevail and money will be made. Here's a PowerPoint slide to show the market research...
At least that's how THEY see it.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
1. No one knows the name of your unknown garage band. Therefore, no one will search for your songs on Napster.
2. The lawsuit against Napster does not prevent you from publishing your band's songs on your own web site. Your band's web site is arguably a better way to publish your mp3s than Napster. You can post band info, tour info, sell t-shirts, link to other bands you like, get fan feedback, and get other music sites to point to YOU! Napster does not allow you to do ANY of these community building functions.
cpeterso
Do you really want to make a difference? Don't just go and vote once. Get all of your friends together and organize. Then you might get a couple hundred votes. A couple hundred votes by a couple hundred cities is a LOT of votes. It's called a "lobby group", and people use them all the time. If you don't have money - the RIAA are a bunch of RAT ASS BASTARDS, so they use money - you can use VOTES.
You get a dozen dedicated guys to haul in a dozen other not-so-dedicated guys who might haul in 3 or 4 guys. Mainly people who wouldn't bother to vote. My mom did this last time because our MP was a bastard (We're in Canada). It worked.
The trick is to take that power and make the weasels you elect dance. You do that by getting each person in your organization to write, the old fashioned way, a letter and mail it, or hand-deliver it. If you mail it registered so they have to sign for it, all the better. BELIEVE ME, your reps will at least give you the time of day. I did this when that CDR tax was being passed; I at least got listened too and a two page letter (not a form letter, either) back.
Laws like this are going to fuck up the economy and technological developments of tomorrow. This ruling will set a precdent that could shut down IRC, shut down USENET, shut down a LOT of things. Think about it and get mobilized.
..don't panic
what you said is true. The fucking capitalist pigs are turning what used to a wild place where everything goes (remember warez sites that did not have ads and let you actually download software? how long ago was THAT.) into just another way of making even more money.
I miss the old internet. Before it became so commercial.
And unfortunately, its not comming back. Ever.
Sad, but true.
Our only consolation (probably not the right word, but ohwell, its late...) should be that the underground (which used to be the entire net) will live on. Piracy will live on.
And no, I shall never buy any software from M$. EVER!
typically this topic is referred to as prior restraint, not innocent until proven guilty, and while i dont quite remember the court cases dealing with this issue entirely, i think they can pretty much be summarized as follows: prior restraint is generally frowned upon by the united states supreme court, however: it is acceptible if needed to secure another's rights or if its a protection against national security. this decision is where the "clear and present danger" clause is envoked: prior restraint is acceptible if what is being restrained presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the united states (and/or apparently to another party's rights)....i'll look up the actual supreme court case and quote the opinions later, if i need/have time to :)= ===
=============================================
If ignorance is bliss, wipe the smile off my face
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Actually, no, I'd say they are two completely different things. We are talking about exact digital duplicates of copyrighted music, not the temporary borrowing of a piece of physical media.
Indeed he should. He could claim damages resulting from the injunction. Although that guy with the example of jam and nukes may have a point.
Please forgive in advance my non-linear thought process. You know its a world of self righteous pricks who truly believe that what they say, act out, or sing is worth a cash value that is fueling an incredible amount of angst and hostility towards the 'capitalist' form of government. How can musicians like Metallica who receive $.02 per CD on the points system really back up the RIAA. This is why open source is so refreshing to many Americans. You must give credit where it is due, but don't have the audacity to expect a reward for everything you do in life. It is a society which believes individual entitlements, opposed to doing what is best for society. I think the Napster issue would be put into better perspective for most of the world if we tried to imagine Buddha, Jesus Christ, Moses and Mohamed not as prophets, and philosophers, but as motivational speakers charging per hour of spoken word. Where would the worlds religions be today? Lars, if you have something to say, by all means say it. That is what freedom is all about. But I and I alone will decide weather you deserve a reward for your thoughts. BuckP
napster is still up and running as of jul 27 1:03 am
Has anyone ever been hurt because of mp3s? Has any_one_ (not corporations) lost money because of mp3s? I challenge you to show me figures of actual individuals being hurt because of Napster.
:
The corporation's predicted socio-economic effect of Napster is no where near being serious, when compared to real socio-economic disasters.
I know this is cliched, but what ever happened to the artist who didn't care about money? It's sickening to think that the RIAA is acting on behalf of so many artists, who could supposedly loose so much because of Napster. So they all are greedy talentless images whose personalities are determined by market surveys?
The RIAA will never win, even if they can twist our excuse for a justice system to the extreme, and "win." Anyone reading this message should feel the neccesity and urgency of organizing a boycott/demonstration against the RIAA. I am going to go order a bunch of anti-RIAA stickers.
Now a summary for those who are too lazy to read full sentences (oops!)
RIAA : FUCK YOU.
-Fred
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public." - H.L. Mencken
So- the judge is taking away a _major_ distribution channel from me, at the request of... my competition.
I see this post as a call to arms -- not to legislators, but to programmers. The extremist "music should be free" crowd have created programs (e.g. Napster and Gnutella) that don't even attempt to separate artists who want to share their music (e.g. the above poster) from those who don't (e.g. Metallica). By doing this, they have hurt independent artists by:
1. Refusing to separate legal content from illegal content -- and forcing judges (such as this one) to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
2. Flooding music sharing services with illegal bootlegs of major artists, making it even harder for independent artists to be heard.
3. Allowing music sharing services to become synonymous with "stealing," reducing their image as viable distribution methods.
There are a lot of brilliant programmers out there, and hopefully some of you are reading this. For the sake of musicians everywhere who want to be heard: create a music distribution channel that PROTECTS copyrights instead of circumventing them. You can do this; don't sit around waiting for the record companies to do it for you. And if you succeed, there's probably a lot more money (and integrity) in it than there is providing a way for people to steal Pearl Jam tracks over the Net.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
It's a story of the record companies using their clout to have a competitor forced out of business because they the record company are unable to compete and move fast enough in their own music space.
Some of you are screaming boycott. I couldn't agree more. But let's remember that in the end the artist does receive some of the money that you spend on a CD. So what to do?
One boycott solution: Don't buy CDs. Don't support the RIAA. Don't let them change the laws to suit their goals. But keep the artist in mind and when you pirate/steal/copy/download your MP3s send money to your artist directly. How do you do this? Go to: www.fairtunes.com. A website that allows you to send money directly to ANY artist completely bypassing the RIAA.
Matt
Dude, you should sue the RIAA!
sup
Theoretically. It's still bandwith sucking, and slow as hell.
Score -1, Flamebait? Maybe. I know I'd like to use Gnutella a lot, but I end up using Napster (or, well, ended up -- past tense, now) because it was a lot quicker. Maybe at least I'll find more MP3s on Napster.
Jeez, that's like saying that murder's only illegal as long as the law's on the books. Kinda ignoring the ethics of this, aren't you?
-Elendale (and even more congresscritters would be in a tight squeeze)
Karma burn coming
As i meta-troll again
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
"I've got the power, hey yeaaaah..." - Snap
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
A guy I know wrote a program that cataloged all the MP3s shared via Windows File Sharing on the campus ResNet and presented a web-based search engine. The nice thing about it was you could download directly through the search engine, even if you were on a platform that didn't support Windows File Sharing.
Of course, having one big server of any kind will get you into Napster-style trouble...
Almost two years ago, when the RIAA sued to keep Diamond from releasing the Rio, the RIAA was granted a temporary injunction preventing Diamond from selling Rios while the trial was on, with the caveat that if the court should find in Diamond's favor, the RIAA would have to compensate Diamond for lost sales during that period.
Well, the RIAA did lose, and had to pay $2 million for postponing the Rio's release by three weeks.
Does anyone know if a similar arrangement is in place here? I'd be curious to know what Napster makes in a month...
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
1- The greedy, asshole lawyers who exploit our legal system with cases like this? 2- The record industry for fucking us over and over again? 3- Moronic judges who just go ahead and support huge companies?
Have you been injured? We are morons! Call our free injury helpline and receive absolutely no legal advice! Our lawyers are working hard to make sure you have to consult someone else!
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Ok, Napster has not been shut down, but the RIAA has ASKED A judge to shut it down. The following text was on the startup screen of napster today at 8:33 pm EST:
A Message to the Napster Community from Hank Barry, CEO and Shawn Fanning, Founder:
You have probably heard in the news about the recording industry's lawsuit against Napster. The RIAA has asked a federal judge to shut Napster down, and an important hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. PDT Wednesday, July 26 at the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. PDT we will give the Napster community a brief update of what happened in the courtroom via a live webcast.
Thank you again for your continued support.
To prove this, I just downloaded Maxwell Murder by Rancid, and I am now chatting with my friends on Napster. I don't wanna be rude, but get the facts straight before you write an article!
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
This post is probably going to end up big and fuzzy, and contain lots of little issues for all you copyright nazi's to nitpick me on for days on end. And I know that a preliminary injunction is not a preliminary-injunction-sustained-on-appeal is not a verdict is not a verdict-sustained-on-appeal, and that the end of Napster is not the end of peer-to-peer file sharing; that indeed, nothing this or any judge or government can do can ever erase what Napster has wrought.
/. and Metallica parodies and debates over whether the current record label business model is more like indentured servitude or outright slavery and cover articles of every PHB-oriented PC rag in the biz on how MP3 is revolutionizing...something! (sidebar: copyright law and you)...what will happen on Friday afternoon is that the largest art museum in history will be closed up, maybe for good. And that's sad.
But I'm writing this tonight because I'm genuinely saddened by this ruling--saddened even though I have no doubt it'll be overturned soon, and no doubt it won't really affect anything in the long run. I'm sad because, when you take out all the hype and special reports at ZDNet and Wall Street Journal attack jobs and photos of Lars Ulrich testifying in the Senate Chambers and YRO flamewars at
The largest art museum in history??? That's a new one! But it's true--that's precisely what Napster is: a big place where one can go in, browse, and enjoy a decent portion of the musical art recorded on the planet. If you disagree, then it must be because you don't actually think music is an art form--in which case, well, you either have different tastes from most of humanity or you just haven't come across the music that really speaks to you yet. But rest assured, that music exists, and it's available for your perusal somewhere on Napster.
But...Napster's can't be an art museum! Napster is all about stealing, and pirates, and ripping off artists! See, at an art museum--unlike Napster, ho ho ho!--every time you look at a painting the artist is compensated by... Oh yeah--they're not. Indeed, it's not such a bad analogy after all... But at a museum the artist is the one who *decides* whether *their art* is shared with the public or not! Absolutely wrong. The typical painting available for free public viewing at an art museum is donated by a private donor, who has bought the painting from the artist. The typical recording available for free public listening on Napster is donated by a private donor, who has bought the CD from the artist. The artist has no say in either donation--which is arguably a bad thing. However, what cannot be argued is the fact that the free public sharing is a great benefit for all of society. And furthermore, just as common sense tells you that free public art museums stimulate rather than inhibit public consumption of paintings (and thus help out the oftentimes actually "starving" visual artists), study after study confirms that Napster stimulates public consumption of RIAA music--which, incidently, helps the record labels far more than the artists, although it does help the artists use their piddling royalties (we're talking under 5% of album sales, people) to pay off the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt they have accrued with the record label.
Yes, the shutting of Napster's doors would be a great public loss indeed. Now, of course, people will argue that Napster is just one of many peer-to-peer file sharing protocols, and that one can always get whatever music recording one wants via an OpenNap server using Napigator, or via Gnutella, Scour, iMesh, Hotline, IRC, FTP, the web... And they're right. But they're missing the point. While Napster may not be clearly the most technologically advanced of the peer-to-peer communities, it has (to my mind, at least) what none of the other options can quite match--a combination of convenience and community building features which make possible a truly new, and in some ways superior, way of getting one's music.
That is, using Napster (on a broadband connection) can sometimes evoke in me that singular experience which harkens back to the halcyon days of the web: surfing. While most of the other methods of getting music off the Internet only help if you know what you're looking for, Napster actually makes if easy (or reasonably easy; it could still stand some improvement, but then again, Mosaic and Netscape 0.9 had some kinks themselves, but in some ways they only added to the charm) to browse the MP3 collections of anyone on the system, searching for new artists and new music that you would have never otherwise heard. Just as a quick drill through the listings on Yahoo! (or a search on altavista once Digital brought it online) used to provide a starting point for my winding surfs across the nascent Web, a search for an artist I like but want to hear more of can provide a point of departure as I look through the shared files of those who already have that artist's music, finding new songs, live recordings, and artists new to me--both similar and entirely different from the one I started out searching for. Yeah, it's a tad cumbersome at the moment to start downloading something I've never heard of, fire up Winamp and stream the incoming song, and decide if I like it and want to look into more of this musician's work; but it often works alright, and it's certainly introduced me to some stuff which, while not quite earth-shattering, has been marginally life-enriching.
Unfortunately, it seems pretty difficult to imagine any for-pay model which could preserve and improve the wonderful surfing aspect of Napster. Or rather, it's not that difficult to imagine; it's just difficult to imagine the industry agreeing to a fair model for distribution--say, the first 3 listens of a particular song are free, then the song costs a cent/minute per listen for another 10 listens, after which point the user owns the song. (Cost for a typical 55 minute album, $5.50--a reasonably fair price, IMO.)
But no, it is difficult to imagine, because music is free now: Napster has made it free. Or really, the Internet made music free, just like it has made newspapers and encyclopedias free (note that you don't see the New York Times or Encyclopedia Britannica suing to shut down the Internet like the RIAA and MPAA are), just like it has made long-distance communications and negotiation buying free, just like it will make movies free, and hopefully (and already has to some degree) make political news and speech in oppressed countries free. Free music is considerably less important than some of these benefits (although arguably more important than others), but that's not the point: the point is that all of them and many others are inherent in what the Internet IS--a medium by which any human being can communicate with any other with no marginal cost.
The RIAA and others can whine all they want, but they won't be able to change the fact that the fundamental nature of the Internet, combined with a good idea some kid at Northeastern University had less than a single year ago, has broken their monopoly on recorded music forever. What they can do, however, is buy unconstitutional laws and gum up the US court system trying to get them enforced, using the power of US law to obtain injunctions against grass-roots Internet art museums left and right. To be fair, I was always a bit squeamish that Napster was desperately trying to think up a way to make money off its service--not because I don't think the service isn't incredibly valuable, but because it's just one of those things which inherently ought to be free, like an art museum. (I know many if not most public art museums aren't free. They should be, though.)
The ironic thing about all this is that a court win for the RIAA will probably be the worst possible outcome for their member labels in the long-run. It will only give the RIAA complacency they cannot afford, drive users to noncorporate peer-to-peer services like Gnutella (try getting an injunction against that!), antagonize the general public (20 million people already use Napster, and according to the RIAA itself, 70 million would have by the end of the year had the case not gone forward--that is, a very very substantial portion of Internet users and society as a whole) and inevitably delay the time when the record labels do what is obviously necessary: digitize their entire catalogs, and sell them, in open, standard, non-access-controlled MP3 format, for a fair price. As it stands now, I doubt I will ever pay an RIAA label again for recorded music, but many Internet users will be less idealistic or more forgiving than me. I would pay a fair fee direct to the artist to download his or her musical art in a heartbeat. (I'd sample it for free off Napster to see that I wanted it first, though.)
But all of that is for the future. Frankly, I've sort of had it with MP3's for a while--the sound quality out a pair of computer speakers isn't horrible, but it's not great either. I've been planning on getting a good stereo for a bit now (at the moment my only CD player is in my computer; dorm life...), and I suppose I'll go ahead with that anyways. Too bad I'll probably have to burn my own CDs. But for now I'll just go on exposing myself to as much music as possible, and mourning the potential end of one of the most incredible uses of the Internet for the betterment of society which has come around so far.
Perhaps Napster will end up like Netscape after all--gone but not forgotten, a company which changed the world for the better but then made the fatal flaw of trying to charge for something it had already made free, its spirit carried on in a community-owned open-source extension of its original promise.
Well, money is certainly a big worry of theirs, but an even bigger worry is actually getting elected in the upcoming election. In other words, politicians will start listening when 18-24 year olds actually start voting..until then, they couldn't "give two shits" as you put it.
~Steve
--
~Steve
--
"<r-xr-xr-x> Just try to edit me" -- www.ircnews.com
That realy depend on where in the world you are, I'm not an expert on the laws but I'm pretty shure that here in Sweden you are allowed to make copies for your own personal use, and to share this copies with your closest family, maybe even your closest friends (I dont remenber that part clearly) the only exection from this is Computerprograms. Programes you could not share with your family, but you are allowed to make copies for your own personal use.
This article on CNN states that the shutdown is to occur at 3am EDT on Saturday Morning.
This is most outstanding. With all the reports of Napster actually promoting and improving music sales, this kind of injuction is like a slap in the face of the whole community. I wonder if they realise that they're likely to get a whole bunch of people popping up with their own versions. There are a lot of alternative clients out there for Napster, it won't be hard for someone to engineer an alternate server application.
Suddenly Gnutella (and its clones) looks like it could see a huge rise in popularity. You can't get banned from it, can't be easily traced with it, and you can share everything, not just MP3's. RIAA is going to have a lot more to tackle than just MP3 sharing. Movies, warez, music and anything else you can think of are going to be so much easier to get hold of now.
RIAA needs to stop and listen to what the people are saying instead of forever looking into their wallets. We do buy the legitimate stuff, but we like to know what it is we're getting before we shell out those hard earned dollars.
Usually i dont get into the whole Kharma whoring arguement, but you, sir, are a fucking moron.
= =
I live in california. I live in a state where elections involve literally millions of people, of which 18-24 year olds make up less than 5% of the voting population. I dont know if you read political news, but the politicians in california care about three basic things: 1) rich white vote, that's where their money comes from; 2) minority vote, trying to win over the so far un-swayed mexican voters (who cares if they just crossed the border, they still get to vote because we're too stupid to regulate it); and 3) local voters. Since non of the senatorial candidates are from my area, that throws out option three. I'm white, but far from rich (i owe my college quite a bit), so there goes options one and two... so, how, sir, am i supposed to get the politicians to give a flying fuck about my vote? hmmmmmmm? Your demographics are exactly why my votes dont matter... now all this being said, i do still plan on voting, and who supports napster has nothing to do with my candidates of choice.
===============================================
If ignorance is bliss, wipe the smile off my face
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
I'm sorry you heart is so full of hate. God bless you anyway! :-)
OK, maybe I'm tweaking your nose a bit, flame on - before you call me a pinko and try to out-conservitive me, consider that if 70 million people do something that is at odds with the government, under OUR form of government (the United States since you're from Rio Linden), it means the current law is wrong. That's democracy.
Ask the Napster users of this site, and they will tell you they are using the music they download in accordance with "Fair Use", a clause in the copyright code which gives them a legal claim that will soon get it's day in court. That's different from being a thief. It's having a view of copyright that is at odds with the RIAA's narrow interpretation. So don't call me a thief or a communist. I am niether.
I don't think God has ever expressed a viewpoint on copyright, so don't go there. This is about law, not theology.
Making analogies in legal case is like trying to load a gun with corn flakes. Will the gun be able to shoot if you do the latter? Well as you know, according to faithful statistics of NRA, people owning a gun tend to die less of hunger (after all, they can hunt). But would this apply with corn flakes? I don't think so!
GPL.
--
I wonder if it has occured to folks at Napster that they might apply for free colocation services at Havenco ? Of course, it'd quickly get them all in hot water with the court (if they lose for good, and would then be defying the judge's orders), but they could just move to Mexico and remotely manage the whole thing from there.
HavenCo is donating free colocation space to Non-Governmental Organizations of our choosing. In general, the types of organizations that we will want to provide hosting for are those that
promote free speech - check
promote human rights - uhm, check, I think
give a voice to minority and oppressed groups that otherwise may not be heard - check!
Yes but that would involve actually getting off of your butt and doing something. Of course you realize that getting off of your butt and actually doing something would take valuable trolling on slashdot time away. Same goes for picking up a pen and writing your congessmen, talking to a friend, joining a political party, going door to door, or writing a letter to the editor.
/.
Screw getting involved man I'd rather read
War is necrophilia.
Shh. Stop encouraging him to vote. The more stupid people that don't vote increases the weight of my vote proportionally.
Well, I don't think most people are concerned with Napster the company as opposed to Napster the symbol.
There will always be others to follow Napster if they go by the wayside, but if the force of the law is on RIAA's side, it will be driven deep underground, in effect limiting access to the most technologically elite. It will also allow RIAA to delay implementing a digital interface for consumers. We'll probably see a continuation of the monopolistic pricing that we've experienced with CD's.
So from a pure consumer point of view, we should all care.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Therefore, I feel that both parties will have to come to some middle ground. Napster will exist, but not as a free service. Rather, users will pay a fee, either by month ("Unlimited downloads for only $24.95/mo") or by song ("Today only: All of Metallica at 75 cents per tune!").
Going in such a route will enable Napster to not only survive, but flourish as well. With the backing of the recording industry, they'll be in the forefront of a musical revolution. While other alternatives will exist (ie: Gnutella, Opennap, et al) the financial backing of the music industry will enable Napster to be the preminent player in the MP3 music scene. The music industry then gets some control over something they've previously had no control over.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Napster BAD
Napster really just opened the floodgates. MP3s have been huge for a very long time, and Napster merely made it very easy to distribute and obtain MP3's, increasing everyone's collections. Now that the music trading is so prevelant, do they think that this flow of it will stop? There are amazing numbers of MP3s out there, and people are all too happy to let people dip into their stash for access to someone else's.
Pulling Napster out of the picture this late in the game is not going to have the effect they want. The river will merely find a new path, and this time the path won't be a single set of servers, or one company that people are dependant upon for MP3s. This time the water will flow in many directions, over many very distributed and varying forms of trading that we've been building all this time.
It will be so distributed that they will have no hope of stemming the flow. They may have done much better by riding Napster--- leaving it functioning until they can work a way to encourage Napster to work in their favor. And instead they shoot themselves in the foot. By removing our need to depend on Napster, they're giving up all chance of controlling where and how we get our MP3s.
And now, suppose the Napster CEO comes on the webcast and delivers his rallying cry? Stand up against the monster RIAA that wants to take away your music. Why should we? The RIAA is doing nothing but forcing us to make the next step... leave behind the central, haltable, stoppable location in favor of many other means which are harder to trace and much harder to prevent.
Napster was just a step. By shutting down Napster now, the RIAA is just ensuring that we take the next one.
If the public has its way, that last step will be on the heads of the once immortal recording industry.
Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned. - They Might Be Giants, Dark and Metric
The majority of computer users out there are not the saavy people who read /.. The whole appeal of Napster is that it's so simple a sheep could use it. Just type the artist name and title, and boom, "[music] You've got MP3s!"
The popularity of Napster is built on word of mouth communication, and not too many people have heard of Gnutella or the alternatives. I worry that without a strong unified alternative to step in and take Napster's place that the sharing of music industry may be stunted (for the sheep at least) for a while. (Don't get me wrong, we can't put the genie back in the bottle now, but it may take a little while to recover...)
Hello?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I think this is good. Shutting down Napster is going to make the MP3 trading community much stronger. People are now going to move to better technologies, such as Gnutella. For those of you that want to get your feet wet with Gnutella, there are a few web front-ends to it out there, my favorite being TellaFind.com.
So not only are you a fucking ignorant waste of space, you're also a hypocrite.
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
The judge is on crack.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
First, you people are mising the point when you say that why bother, there are alternatives to Napster. Yes, of course there are but the point here is that Napster is just a file-sharing program that happens to specialize in Mp3 (but can be used for everything as Wrapster has proven). This is what the Internet is about!!!, file sharing, we share HTML files, PNG images, Java applets, files of ALL kinds!!! We should NOT be talking about whether Napster has two faces or whether there are other (allegedly better) alternatives. Sheesh, of course there are other alternatives, centralized and distributed, but that's not the point. This is what Chomsky talks about, our discourse is now between two poles and they're NOT the proper ones, think outside your little box, people: we talk about two choices, one, what Napster does is legal and, two, what Napster does is illegal, "a monster" as the judge so eloquently said. But the point, that Davies Boies and the other Napster attorneys have been trying to make is that users are NOT trading songs for a profit. They are giving away this music. Someone out there DID BUY the record and began giving it away; it is completely legal. So there is NO contributory copyright infringement! Napster is just helping people what they're entitled to, give music away without making a single dime. Napster is helping them to do what they can do via ICQ, IRC, email!, there're so many options. That IS the real point, that's what we should be making people understand. Somewhere, sometime, we, the press, the judge, were lead to believe giving away copyright works to friends or WHOEVER we feel like was illegal. Maybe at some point the law was modified so it actually was illegal, but it's not. The argument Boies et al. are using is so simple that nobody is buying it, but it's true!
Second, right now I feel very frustrated because I'm not an American citizen (not that I wanted to be one, no offense). This not some judge from my government who is doing this, I don't have a congressmen to write to make him understand what's wrong with DMCA. What can we all, non-US citizens living around the world, do?? I'm not trying to start a flame war US vs. Rest of the world, BUT you US citizens have now a greater responsibility because this is happening in your country (and the same goes to many other issues, like what's been happening with Network Solutions, an American company, misbehaving). Sure, we outside the US could start our own Napster service, maybe we will, but right now the problem is on your side of the court, we can only help with our opinions.
Third and last, I believe the RIAA has such a big problem with Napster because it's now a commercial venture. That's what Lars Ulrich said, they are being the middlemen and they, of course, want a piece of it, that's not fair from their point of view. Now, this is just a vague idea, but don't we all need a Napster-like public service?; what if Shawn Fanning decided to ask for volunteer contributions to support Napster servers instead of basically selling all his share of the company to some greedy investors? Would that have made any difference? I think it would, what happened today it would be more like closing a public library, which is not like closing a bookstore at all.
Anyway, I should probably stop ranting. Sorry, can't help it.
"All the things one has forgotten scream for help in dreams". Elias Canetti
The fundamental problem is that there's a difference between LAW and JUSTICE. JUSTICE is what's GOOD... LAW is what the court's decide :)
Of course Napster is good. Quite frankly, any trading of mp3s is good... I've been doing it for years, and I remember a time when a guy called Blex had a single html page that listed all of a few dozem FTP sites that were serving mp3s... it's certainly grown since then. And I can honestly, honestly say that downloading of illegal mp3s has NEVER stopped me buying a CD. I own about 180 CDs, (including 10 Sonic Youth albums he he he), 80% of which i've bought since I began leeching and trading mp3s. On top of this, the opportunities offered to unsigned artists by services like mp3.com and downloadmusic.com.au is immense.
Trading mp3s is good. But it is illegal, and that's the issue. A court of law isn't there to decide what's RIGHT, it's there to decide what's LAWFUL, and Napster were, unfortunatly, breaking the law as it stands today, and therefore, according to the law, they deserve this. Solution: Change the law. Recognise the importance of freedom of distribution in the statutes.
By the way, to the guy who suggests encoding mp3s at 320kbps to get CD quality, you are a GOIT. Every heard of people still having to connect to the net by MODEMS? Ever considered that tripling the filesize cuts by a THIRD how many mp3s you can have? People who encode their mp3s past 128kps, or 160 at the most, are missing the point entirely.
-"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
I'll have to read the judge's ruling and the statute, but my understanding is that an injunction is backed by a bond (or perhaps other terminology, but same effect) placed by the plaintif, in proportion to damages. I suspect a similar arrangement in this case. Statute would be 17 USC 502, though I don't see reference to the bond here. Hmmm....
IANAL. Corrections/amplifications apprecitated.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
For everyone's sake, Vote Nader. While I agree anything would be better than another Bush in office, it is inevitable. Casting your vote for a viable candidate rather than a talking monkey speaks for itself. Voting for the lesser of two evils (Gore) is throwing away your conscience instead of trying to make a change. Why blindly fall for second best? We must begin taking the steps to change our leadership to represent us again, and we can do it without bloodshed if you would just vote your conscience.
Napster will take the fall for MP3 redistribution and so we must take the next step in improving Gnutella and Freenet. By legitimizing our own distribution systems instead of corporate bound Napster, we strenghten our own voice. And we should speak out for what we want, even if it is "lawless" at this time. In the current culture of lawyers and copyrights I can't see any way for Napster to survive. But vote for Gore and the government dogs won't get the message will soon come for the rest of our freedoms rather than working to protect them.
"I have a cunning plan..."
I've mentioned in the past on Slashdot and I'll say it again. This whole crusade isn't about legal or illegal, right or wrong, artist rights, etc. CALM DOWN ALL YOU PISSED OFF PEOPLE! TAKE A DEEP BREATH, AND THINK. All this stuff you've been hearing in the news is fluff to what's really going on behind the scenes.
;)
Accept the fact that there are highly intelligent businessmen richer than you that run the music labels (contrary to what you might perceive). They're not idiots. When they see a company like Napster go from 0-20 million users in nine months, they have no delusions that the Internet music revolution will be stopped.
All the RIAA has to do is DELAY the onset of online music distribution. Their executors for carrying out these delays are lawyers and the US Judicial system.
Okay, so what are they DELAYING for then? Simple. CDs are not dead yet folks. They are still sitting on a well honed multi-BILLION dollar CD selling machine. For every day that passes by that they can keep customers away from free Internet music.....$Cha$Ching! Easy Money.
*For those of you that want numbers, the RIAA web site posted last years global music market at US$38.5 billion. I won't do the math here but it should be apparent to you home viewers that keeping Napster shut down for even a month is more than just a morale victory
Eventually, all the lawyers in the world won't be able to stop the change. The music industry will reach a point when the cash cow is milked dry and they will be forced to switch over to the Internet. And that key point in time will occur when the mass of the global music consuming population has access to "broadband" Internet (we aren't even close yet, trust me). Without broadband, downloading music is pretty much a hobby.
They plan on giving away music free. FREE!? Yep, you heard me right. This makes sense when you consider the competion they face from programs like Napster. Simple. Free. But the music labels have an advantage in the Simplicity Department. By running well polished sites, they will be able to quickly and reliably deliver music much easier than any Napster-like file exchange program ever could.
And exactly HOW will the music labels make $ by giving music away free? Well, it's a very interesting business model and one I definetly wouldn't have thought of myself. It requires the music labels to merge with or partner with those who provide access to the gateways of the Internet. While everyone's diverted by all the lawsuit crap, we're all failing to see the busy bees at work getting ready to make this so. Need proof? Can you say "Time Warner/AOL merger"? Also EMI records is merging with Time Warner as well. God help us, I can see the AOL commercials now: "Sign up now, and get free access to every recording made in the history of mankind"
Don't we all feel dumb now.
Aaron Cook
Patel's order prompted an immediate rush by music-hungry Napster users to the company Web site seeking to download songs before the Friday deadline. .yahoo.com/h/nm/20000726/ts/tech_napster_dc_7.html
http://dailynews
I find it funny that reporters are still insinuating that the "napster website" is where these mp3's are downloaded from. I think I've been to the site about one time; to download the client.
.. One is 'legit' - You can buy CD's online, plan your vacation, look at adds for furniture and cars.. The other is 'underground' - The more stuff like this happens, the larger the 'underground' web gets -Just take a look at napigator - If you are under 13, you may not legally visit this site, due to COPA.
The more ridiculous these laws get, the more people you drive over to the 'underground' web, and most dangerous of all -An assortment of rediculous laws, takes away respect for laws that do make sense. And more and more children are growing up in this world -If you were 12, would you stay away from napigator, because it is ILLEGAL?
I've got to say I lose respect for these laws and institutions by the day -I want to update my old vinyl collection to something that doesn't have scratches - Why can't I legally do this without spending a ton of cash to some corporation I've allready given a ton of cash to?
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Vices - what I lack in originality, I make up for in volume.
I have a large collection of vinyl and magnetic tape. At one time I have owned everything that had been published by Metallica and several other bands. Did I purchase the rights to own a copy of songs in .mp3 format when I purchased it as an LP or cassette? I have not kept much of an eye out on new music for the last decade or so, but I do not want the hassle of transferring my cassettes and LP's to .mp3 format so I can easily catagorize and access the music from any computer in my house or at work. Does anyone know how the law defines my ownership (liscense?) of these purchases?
Politicians pay attention to demographics. If a lot of college kids vote in this year's election, they'll care more about your causes. It doesn't even matter who you vote for (except to you), so VOTE!
Scream, yell, jump up and down flapping your arms.
Get in touch with the EFF, and add your name to any relevant class-action-suit against the RIAA that you can possibly find.
Talk to an attorney at the EFF. The RIAA is depriving you of income. The RIAA is illegally leveraging it's monopoly power to prevent you from taking part in fair competition.
Thanks to Microsoft, you now have a legal precedent to point to. IANAL of course.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
What does media add into music that you can lend your CD to a friend and you can't give him an mp3 of it? Say, can you lend him your harddrive with your mp3s? Of course nothing will stop him from copying them to his machine. But nothing stops him from copying your CD as well. As digitally and exactly as he wishes.
Sigh.
It's a sad situation, but let's be honest.
But who honestly was thinking that such a system could really last on the long run?
What's next? Selling drugs on the net, or having a prostitute delivered to your doors, all of this with a lot of hype from different forms of media?
I used (a lot!) Napster, I downloaded plenty of CD that otherwise I would have bought. It's been nearly a year since I bough a CD. I'm only going to HMV (and the like...) to see what might be cool to download.
And I sure that I'm not the only one.
It's not a question of free speech, or saying that you wouldn't have bought this CD anyway, that's pure bullshit.
Situation: You're in court, you've been caught with 5 kilos of heroin. You: But my Honour, if didn't have this drug, I wouldn't have injected it..
What kind of a sick idea is that? It's the same thing I heard over over regarding "But I...." and Napster.
Let's Napster goes down. Yes, this is copyrighted material. Yes, legal action can be taken. No, you can't download those songs for free!.
If they let Napster running, what would be next? NapISO, where you can get the latest ISO from Adobe, MS, Corel for free and in a convenient way?
Let's think about with for some time please...
I just did a search for 'fire techno' and got a list of songs most of which had the word 'fire' in their title. (I suppose they must have been of the techno genre.) Nothing by Chris Johnson.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
...distribute their music for them, sue the RIAA for anticompetitive tactics (antitrust law?). By shutting Napster down, they have removed your avenue of distribution and made it even harder for you to get your music out.
Here's a proposal about how to get back at the RIAA - close them off from the Internet! Detect when a RIAA-allotted IP addy is the source of a request and silently drop the packets. Of course the large ISP's won't do it, but the mom-n-pops out there might just consider it. Or better yet, detonate a very small nuke inside the building. This enrages me. I will never buy a CD again as long as they keep these tactics up.
P.S. : Dick in their ass.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
Maybe, if the music industry charged reasonable prices then they would not be in this boat. A CD costs 50 cents to make. And they sell for 14-30 dollars (CDN funds).
Look at it this way- Napster is likely to force the first real discussion of intellectual property of the Internet age.
And that's what will get us where we need to be.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Miller-Tydings Act
"contracts or agreements prescribing minium prices for the resale of a commodity and which bears, or the label or container of which bears, the trake mark,label, or name of the the producer or distributor of such commodity and which is in free and open competition with other commodities of the same general class produced or distributed by others, when contracts or aggreements of that description are laeful as applied to intrastate transactions, under any statue, law, or public policy...in effect in any state"
Key words being free and open compeition. Is there any cometition to the RIAA? NO, none that can rivial it.
How to hang their Asses
Sherman Antitrust act Section 1
"Every Contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspirancy, in restraint of trade or commerce amoung several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal"
Clayton Anti Trust act section 2
"Every person who shall monoplize, or attempt to monoplize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monoplize any part of trade or commerce amoung the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed gulity of a misemeanor"
Robinson-Patman Act
No good quotes, basically outlaws price fixing.
There is no major oppisition to the RIAA. If you want a major record to be distributed, you have to go through them. By shutting down other means of access to the material, such as napster, they are being monopolistic. By setting "minium prices" they have stiffled compeition since all the major corperations must abide by the RIAA's rules. Now if Sony set prices at $8 and BMG at $10, this I think would be legal since they are similar products at different prices. However, the industry had one set price between all the major labels. This leads to unfair compeition and price fixing.
Now where the hell is the trust busters?
_Nice_ troll...
Napster's lost revenue over this time will be a big fat goose-egg. They have no revenues beyond venture capital investments yet.
To those of you who take the position, "so what if Napster is gone, there are even better alternatives" remind me of my father, whenever the subject of any problems looming in the future responds with, "Hell, I would be alive then, who cares". Napster has always taken the position that it is about building a community. This means we band together and we care about the future and we care about the issues larger than ourselves. I believe that no one has the right to tell me what bits go in and out of my house. The RIAA, MPAA, SPA, and other pig farms have not lose anything other then control. They are evil and laws like the DMCA are evil. They must be opposed. The artists will be reward. It is the controlling corporate dinosaurs that will free the fire of the asteriod of our Nu Community. Yesterday, I was dreaming of a boycott of both the RIAA and the MPAA. The CD/Videos stores, movie theaters - anywhere that RIAA/MPAA members suck the 90% of the gross and demand total control - were empty. Only the used shops and the independent labels were selling. The community all banded together for freedom.
DREAM LOUD!
I remember about ten years ago or so you could make your own compilation tapes from a pool of popular songs by popular artists. Something like a buck or so per song. It was called the Personics System and while I thought it was a cool idea I don't think it lasted very long.
HTTP header ad space for rent! Advertise to thousands of server log readers - only $50 a week per header! 1-800-SURFALOT
Maybe thats the questions the RIAA should ask itself. Why should they feel threatened that the average Joe can have a jukebox in his home? If youve ever used Napster then you know a few things. One, the sound quality is relatively poor, perhaps the same quality you can achieve with a decent FM station in a metropolitan area. Two, assembling the entire content of all but a few, very popular albums in their original form would appear to take more time and effort than just buying the album in the first place. Jukeboxes are great promotions... they get people buying music.
And perhaps the most importand thing you may have noticed about Napster... Three: It breaks down the strangle hold of a few hundred recording industry exuctives that control WHAT content you see, and from WHICH artists. Artists that are paid a fraction of the revenue there effort generates. Artists which may never even be signed because they don't fit a sales projection or market analysis. Maybe this is the part the RIAA has noticed
Gnutella, on the other hand, has "one central server" in the way that if every Napster user opened up Gnutella and would log in through the same GnutellaNet, the searchable directory would be bigger. Result: Gnutella has the ability to have a MUCH larger user base searching MORE files.
I remember a few months ago, I had both Napster and Gnutella open at the same time (logged into the Gnutella net a Wego.com). Napster was offering a terabyte of songs, Gnutella was offering over 8 terabytes of files. Now, given the possibility that Gnutella's content is at least 25% MP3s, you've got a larger searchable base of music in Gnutella, given in MBs, not unique songs.
To reiterate, search for Chris's music several times on Napster at different times of day. Or search for it in Gnutella. Then come back to us.
(Off-topic): My favorite band on MP3.com is De Vil, who combine film music with techno beats.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
What I'm getting at here is that RIAA is NOT suffering and NEITHER are the artists. After watching MTV's "crib" or whatever the hell it is, my jaw dropped at the lavishness of the (c)rappers/singers. HUGE houses, 3 cars, eating OUT every night. (every time they showed the pantry its been empty). I'm not saying that copying/downloading is LEGAL all I'm saying that napster HELPED them even more by letting people preview songs and let them go out and buy them on their own. Also, I'm certain that if RIAA was FAIR in their pricing of CDs and tapes people would not clog up their hard drive with MP3s when they could have a legal set of CDs at home.
The RIAA and artists aren't suffering. Our pockets are.
When death looks you in the eye, smile. Someone needs to cheer him up.
Forget that, Nader is even more pro big government than Gore & company.
Just because you feel the urge to run away from the encroaching arms of the corporate world, doesn't mean you have to run into the arms of a nanny government. You won't be in a better place.
Vote libertarian, or at least demand the right to choose how you live your life from those who you do vote for. Fight any attempt to take away your constitutional rights, and don't allow the burdensome and unfair tax system to remain.
(mods: feel free to moderate this Offtopic as needed)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Hey I went to this guy's page, and it's fucking good shit!
Tim answered this question already.
pay attention
Judge shuts down the Internet
... this is not sharing, it's duplicating. Down with the Interweb.
SAN FRANCISCO, July 26 - A federal judge today granted a temporary injunction barring users from transferring information via electronic networks, pending a trial. The decision marked a major victory for U.S. movie industry, which had targeted networks such as the Internet as a dangerous rival that could short-circuit traditional movie sales and distribution.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Marilyn Hall Patel said it seemed clear that the Internet's millions of users were not all simply engaged in reading news and researching information.
Patel said that members of the Internet were encouraging "wholesale infringing" against the movie industry. Patel noted that 900 million people are expected to be using the Internet by year's end and said "what lures them is the availibity of pirated movies... and pr0n. Hey... get away from my computer!"
When the infringing is of such a wholesale magnitude, the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce their copyrights, Patel said.
Patel's order, which came after a two-minute hearing, instructed network administrators to cease its network operations by midnight Friday PT.
The judge also ordered the Motion Picture Association of America to post a $5 bond requested against any financial losses Internet corporations could suffer from being shut down temporarily.
Vint Cerf, founder of the Internet, responded quickly, announcing that their legal team would work around the clock to appeal the ruling before Patel's Friday deadline.
"We understand the ruling and basis for it," Cerf said. "We disagree with it, and we will continue to work hard between now and Friday to allow Internet users to continue to use our service."
The movie industry, which had targeted the Internet as a high-tech haven for piracy and copyright infringement, was quick to declare victory.
"The decision will pave the way for the future of online music," said I. M. Veryrich, a lawyer representing the RIAA. "This once again establishes that the rules of the road are the same online as they are offline, and sends a strong message to others that they cannot build a network designed to transmit copyrighted work without permission."
Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich, whose band also sued the Internet, was a bit more blunt in his euphoria.
Hell, yeah... this f*cking rocks!" Ulrich said. "Sharing is such a warm, cuddly, friendly word
CLOSELY WATCHED DEBATE
But the injunction is far from the last word in a case that has pitted new technology against old laws and sparked concern among everyone from heavy metal rockers Metallica to America's most powerful corporate directors.
The Internet works by letting user transfer digital information from one computer system to another, without the use of a central server, or "hub". While originally designed to tranfer information between universities and government organizations, it has since become a haven for illegal movie distribution, pornography, and trolls.
The MPAA sued the Internet in December, accusing it of encouraging an unrestrained, illegal, online bazaar. On Wednesday, MPAA attorney I. Makemoney told the court that, as the hearing was going on, 1,400 movies were being downloaded each minute via the Internet. He also added that they were paying him $1000 per hour with money earned from inflated ticket prices.
"It is the most egregious case of massive copyright infringement that has ever existed," Makemoney said. He added, "Do you like my new Porche? It's better than my two other ones. And more red."
900 Million Users
Internet lawyers argued that personal copying of files is protected by federal "fair use" laws, and that it encourages the quick distribution of these files in a manner quicker than floppy disks.
They said its service should be considered a non-infringing use as defined by the precedent-setting Sony Betamax case. In that case, the movie industry tried to quell the development of VCRs, claiming they would be used primarily to make illegal copies of copyrighted movies. The movie industry lost the battle, but Makemoney said the Internet did not meet the same criteria as VCRs, since they can't make a deal with the Internet in the same way that they did with the VCR makers.
He also said it was hard to envision applying the "fair use" principle to a worldwide network of some 900 million users.
The movie industry has made the Internet the focus of a long-running dispute between copyright owners and thise who believe information of all sorts should be traded freely.
"All of this litigation is really setting the groundwork for what is going to the future of information," said Larry Iser, an intellectual property attorney.
A SETTLEMENT IS UNLIKELY
The heavy metal band Metallica has been particularly outspoken against the Internet. Metallica sued the Internet for copyright infringement after the band found more than 300,000 users trading their songs online.
In response, one company, Napster, blocked access for more than 30,000 of those users identified by Metallica, but new people log on daily and continue trading the band's music.
The RIAA estimates that song-swapping via Napster by an estimated 20 million people worldwide has cost the music industry more than $300 million in lost sales, and now they can't feed their children, and they have to buy the house with only two garages.
But some research suggests that the Internet file transfers may not be so bad for the movie industry after all.
A recent study of more than 2,200 online music fans by Jupiter Communications suggests that users of Napster and other music-sharing programs are 45 percent more likely to increase their music purchasing than fans who aren't trading digital bootlegs online.
Both sides now must gird for the next step in the battle, a full trial over the future of movies and copyright law.
Many industry analysts expect the legal pressure to boost efforts on both sides to come to some sort of compromise which will extend copyright protection to information which is distributed over the Internet.
But Patel disagrees with that. "I think that a settlement, frankly, is unlikely, since I get paid more to let these things go as long as possible." Patel said.
Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
(*) I am currently still deciding whether I think that it makes sense to say copyrights can be "owned", so I avoid the phrase "copyright owner" (which is used in the media and in case law). Copyright is clearly transferable. Is it exclusive? When I "license" a work to someone, can I give them a partial or full right to copy at will and to extend that right to others, even without my consent?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
What I object to is the bit about 'no substantial legitimate use'. Now, I asked for my stuff to be put on Napster by anyone who used it, but I know that I and other indie guys don't add up to 'substantial' use. However, I don't think 'substantial' is the point here! The point is that the judge, in caving to a large and rich faction, has taken action that _injures_ my access to media and cuts off my options. I have a problem with that. I might grudgingly tolerate it from private companies, for instance if Napster went "Hey, let's ONLY do RIAA acts just to piss them off!", but I have a real problem with my access to distribution channels being choked of by the judicial system of MY government just to benefit MY competition (who do not need help! sheesh! They have a freaking stranglehold)
I don't think I need to argue that I represent a zillion indie musicians to illustrate that there's a problem there. It's not that I am simply not being represented- I am being _injured_ specifically to prop up my deeply entrenched competition.
This is the sort of lies your local newspaper prints (from Newsday, 2000-07-25:
"Respect for private property serves a bedrock of civilization. And despite the difficulties of enforcing property rights, this is a core function of government, which shouldn't be diminished in the zeal to promote technology. Unfortunately for many in our society, people feel they are entitled to art or other goods, and no entrepreneur or business has the right to control those items with so-called "unfair" prices. Such thinking is not just a failure to understand the free market, but a failure to understand adulthood. "
Do you believe they might be referring to you? Have you read your Constitution lately? Do you know how to send an email to the Editor of Newsday or your local newspaper? Or do you care only enough to spew off on Slashdot?
SLASHDOT THE RIAA SITE!
My personal position on Napster is that they are trying to make big bucks with little value added, so while the music industry is (as usual) being closed-minded and ignorant, Napster are not the big heroes in my book.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I am going down with napster... Some people don't like it, but hundreds of thousands do... the RIAA is standing to loose those hundreds upon hundreds of thousand consumers by this action. But hey, if they want to commit financial suicide more power to them. i have a site dedicated to the supporters of napsters, it may be only a little, but the more people that come to my site and post threads or entries into the guest books the better. I am going to forward all posts and threads to the RIAA, the GOVT, and the supporters of napster in congress and other branches of the Govt. Long Live Our Internet Freedom. So check in and leave some messages, you'll only help your self, and if not for Napster, then the next poor schmuck that the RIAA targets.
Kerensky http://www.geocities.com/vivalanapster