Slashdot Mirror
Napster Ruling Stayed
StoryMan was the first of a flood of readers to note: "Napster ruling has been stayed. Doesn't have to close by midnight! Woohoo!" As of 10:15 GMT, CNN is displaying a note that says "The injunction barring Napster from trading music online has been stayed. Details to come." Watch this space for updates.Update: 07/28 10:26 PM by H :Thanks to Sgt. Owen for the first real link about the stay. Update: 07/28 10:58 PM by t : And to michael hirschorn, who points to this story at inside.com.
>in its filename, that would make it so much more
>difficult to trade Metallica's works that most
>people would no longer bother.
I have a friend who is in a Ska band. One of their songs is entitled "Metallica Sucks Donkey Dick" (no, that's not a joke, they really DO have a song by that name. Oh, and it predates even the existence of napster. They wrote it because they are of the opinion that metallica sold out when they released the black album, and that it, end everything since, has... well... sucked donkey dick).
They have said, *publicly* at their shows, that they "don't give a flying fuck" if people make and distribute MP3s of their music.
So if Napster conspires with metallica/RIAA to block any files with *metallica*.mp3 in their name, how does my friends music, which the band HAS given permission to distribute, get through?
Sounds like restraint of trade and abuse of monopoly power on the part of RIAA to me.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
OT but:
Another article on CNN states that the RIAA server was crushed by a huge amount of hits July 27th @ 11AM. They say it wasn't a DoS attack, just that there servers couldn't handle the sudden popularity.... they must be running NT.....
---- I made the Kessel Run in under 11 parsecs.
Joe Double-click is probably safer sticking with Napster.
/.s 'audience' who might actually be inclined to do all the extra clkn&drgn needed to slip into these FS alternatives.
After loading up 'gnotella' (now recommended instead of gnutella_v.56), freenet, blocks, and pheed (?) clients, I hate to admit it but all are not terribly 'newbie friendly'.
I'd argue the simplicity of napster is the key to its '20-million users'. That is a whole lot more than
The end is nigh of course, eventually... but this brings up the question whether the success of public file sharing could falter simply because other big name desktop clients (ICQ, AIM, YM, MSM, etc.) rush out a new version with (oh-my-god) public file sharing -- perhaps with some 'small' restrictions, thus creating a few semi-controlled continents of file sharing.
Simply because they have the ez2use interface could FS be severely limited (think exponential network growth factors) for the generations of the future?
Only the U.S. justice system can tell us for sure, eh?
Oliver's Law: Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
We believe one answer to this is our website at www.fairtunes.com which enables you to send money directly to ANY artist thereby bypassing the record industry.
Support your favorite artist not the middle man.
Matt
Their PR machine is running, as they are now attacking students and on their web-site you'll be explained what the costs of a CD are.
Back again to technique: any page on their web-site is *.cfm does anyone know any security holes in Cold Fusion? perhaps?
Bizar technology?
How likely is it that temporarily shutting Napster down would cost the company more than 5 million dollars?
There will never be a way to figure out what it would cost.
Anyone can provide their service. If I was willing to shell out for the servers I could be doing exactly what they're doing within a few days. Many have already done so. People only use them because they're in the habit of using them, any interruption will mean that people will find another provider and never come back.
Of course, you have to balance that against the fact that they have no income. Like ICQ, they don't get any revenue at all from people getting or using their client or connecting to their server, and if they ever try to collect, people can just move to someone else willing to do it for free.
If you ask me, Napster is just following standard IPO scam procedure: give stuff away (preferably leveraging someone else's content), become famous, vaguely imply that you'll make some money somehow in the distant future, go public, and keep afloat on money of dumb investors, all while drawing hefty salaries.
Yay for Napster! They're the Good Guys, right?
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
The way the music industry looks today seems to me is that it is very industrialised, i.e. a few standardized products are manufactured in positively huge numbers. Once a product (i.e. a song, album) has reached some critical mass, it becomes very profitable to put in huge marketing resources to make it a mega hit. It grows like a tree that shades and quenches the brush and undergrowth. We will buy not because it is fantastic but because it is reasonably good and they're shoving it down our throats.
This effect makes for a very Big Brotherish attitude from the RIAA companies, who play this game. They are shaped by the old mass media technology.
But what will come instead? Will people stop buying new music and be content with what is already there? This is after all how we do when we eat. You don't see people queueing for the next new, hot dish. I think that people do not listen to new music necessarily because it is better than the old, but because it provides for a feeling of communication (communication originally means too make something to have in common, as in "communicable diseases"). We listen to new music because we know others do. To the same music, at the same time. We are with the times, or want to be at least.
If people stop buying new music it could be because it has been turned into a commodity, like food.
On the other hand, the new paradigm could lead to a music industry where more music is reasonably big at the same time. And it wouldn't be an industry anymore, since an industry is targeted towards mass production. In the new paradigm it would instead be a ... thingy?
You guys are all not getting it.
Anybody with half a brain can type "napster" into a search engine and find Napigator etc.
The problem is that Napster users are increasingly the great unwashed masses, who *CAN'T* figure out how to use a search engine.
The beauty of Napster is that the client just figures it out; it asks their server for a reference, and goes there.
The average dumbass on the street can't go use Napigator.
Telling him to use Gnapster as his client doesn't help. Telling him to use Napigator to find servers doesn't help.
Napster isn't about the client, it's about the service.
--
Hank Barry, CEO of Napster
Mr. Barry is stating that because:
A) Like a typical Corporate Monkey, he's saying that to improve his company's image.
OR
B) He is truly ignorant.
I have a firm belief in option A. Let's face it, everyone *knows* what goes on inside of Napster. Sure, everyone would like to believe that they're "Just sampling the music to see if they like it." and if they do, they'll "buy the CD."
See, there are conflicting arguments at work here. The two primary arguments are "We're sampling the music! If we like it, we'll buy it!" and "Music should be Free! I refuse to pay outrageous prices for CDs." Okay, so you refuse to pay high prices for CDs, and Music should be free....but you'll buy it if you like it?
Look folks, deep down inside, we ALL know what Napster is for. No, don't knee-jerk and say I'm supporting the RIAA - I'm not. I think the RIAA is just as guilty, if not MORESO than Napster. They're dicking the Artists AND the public, and keeping the bulk of the cash for themselves. But stealing from BOTH isn't going to solve things.
Lots of people will say "Well, why not shut down IRC. It also facilitates the transfer of illegal material." Um, was IRC *designed* to do this? Are the creators of IRC *profiting* from that? Guess what, folks....Napster is both. Napster is walking in your house, stealing your stereo, and giving it away on the street - and the people buying it are screaming "Equipment should be Free!" and "We're just borrowing it to try it. If we like it, we'll buy one."
But we all know in reality, They're going to keep the stereo.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
--
What do people think about voluntarily paying your artist online for music you've downloaded?
We believe this is one answer to the MP3 situation and have started a website at www.fairtunes.com that allows you to do exactly that. It is the Stephen King model implemented for music. We allow you to securely send any amount of money using your credit to ANY artist.
But do we live in a society that can adjust to a voluntary system when we've lived so long in a system that has always set the price for us? Can we handle the freedom that Napster gives us? Can we be trusted to use Napster responsibly? Young kids might always pirate music, and we accept that, but is voluntary payment an option for everyone else?
Matt.
stop the copying of copyrighted music over its
servers without shutting down entirely?*
Gee, that wasn't hard, was it?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Here I was ready to cancel a busy Friday night. Thank the heavens.
The music industry wasn't as consolidated as it is today.
Plus, "the formula" was still being worked on. Yeah, the original model was The Beatles, but they were actually talented. It didn't take the industry long to figure out they could milk the formula without talented performers. . . (disco)
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.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/28/napster.stay/ind ex.html and http://www.thirsty.com/Common/StoryReview/1,2351,3 ~19842,00.html?
You are not freaking listening. I use Gnapster daily, I'm quite familiar with what it does.
Listen carefully this time:
THE RIAA IS TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE NAPSTER SERVICE. IF THEY DO SO, WHICH THEY VERY NEARLY DID TODAY AND COULD SUCCEED IN DOING REAL SOON NOW, GNAPSTER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO IT EITHER.
Exactly how did you construe my comments that Gnapster wouldn't work on Windows to mean that there was no client available for Linux?
There are several clients available for Linux. I've used two of them.
That is completely irrelevant to the 99% of Napster users who aren't using Linux.
Before you hit "reply", go back and read this post again.
--
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
here's a right on article. not only did they (ron harris, associated press writer) explain the news, but they also spent the last half on the fact that freenet was available, worked as well, and was "inpenetrable" to court orders (well ... close enough).
point is, they managed to give some good press to freenet while still covering the story.
Bite the hand.
And if we're lucky, they'll hold on to their business model long enough for independent artists to create/join independent internet-based "labels" with a better business model that will permanently sideline the RIAA.
That's why RIAA in general is against new tech that could make mass distribution and promotion cheap/easy enough for the little guy.
IMHO, it's only a matter of time before that happens anyway. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Napster is wrong and so is the RIAA/MPAA. These transactions should be between the creator and consumer. The creator gets to choose how much is charged for their goods and the consumer gets freedom of choice.
The distributor is just a middleman easily replaced by whatever mechanism so long as the creator has chosen that mechanism. What has happened is the consumer has said, we want our music via digital download. Now it is up to the creator's to decide how to implement that. Or more realistically, it is time for those of us with a better way to present it to the artists. Not to the distributors whom we'd be competing.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
GnutellaNews, Gnotella, Gnutella(.wego.com), Gnutmeg, AudioGnome, MyNapster, FreeNet, Jungle Monkey, Scour Exchange, Spin Frenzy Exchange, ChartBox 0.91, Gnutella MP3 Search, Gnute, Metallicster, CuteMX, IMesh, Hotline, FileSwap, OpenNap
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
> Of course, at this point, RIAA would rather loose more money and put Napster out of business to protect their business model over the long haul.
And if we're lucky, they'll hold on to their business model long enough for independent artists to create/join independent internet-based "labels" with a better business model that will permanently sideline the RIAA.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I have a libary full of indie or near-indy bands, I quit using napster because I noticed a sever decline in new hits several months ago. I suspect that the reason that there are some many 'Big Music' bands is because the adverage Napster user is not into that kind of music. Neither am I but try looking up Britityney Spears songs and I would assume you would get a ton of hits. My way of getting good new indie MP3s is from ripping friends ripped CDs of rare stuff and supporting the musician whe the use of the MP3 merit it.
There are plenty of other ways to get good music. The only problem I had/have with loosing Napser is the precedent that it sets.
Actually, the MPEG headers have a field, called, you guessed it, "copyright". Of course it seems that each mp3 encoder randomly decides weather to set it to 1 or 0, so its of no use, but if people actually used the field as it was meant to be used, napster could filter pretty easially.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Over to our correspondent in Reality:
/. cares more about ripping off music than it does about freedom to link to things that upset people with money. Back to you in the studio, Bob"
"Napster, a company that facilitates downloading of copyrighted material (sometimes with the approval of the copyright holder, mostly not) has won a reprieve from their inevitable closure.
Napster have always guarded the protocol they use, and have changed the protocol to prevent others from interoperating with them on more than one occasion. For some unknown reason, the erstwhile 'news for nerds' site slashdot has posted three stories about this today. Interestingly, they have been posting stories about 2600 (which is currently not responding) court case at a rate of less than one a day. Your intrepid reporter infers that
Thank you, Casey. And, right after this break: How much would you sell your birthright for? We have 300 million people right here who don't need paying. But first, listen to these important messages..."
Have you heard of summer term and year round school? Both of those happen at large universities. So, I suppose most of your point is moot. Besides, why buy when you can steal and not get caught? Answer me that? Are these users so altruistic? Not really. Get a clue and stop trying to find the high moral ground for an activity that has none.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Yes, libraries pay a licence for works they lend out. Plus they buy the books, and they don't distribute unauthorised copies. They don't have advertisement contracts.
Napster is NOT a free, open source utility made for the common good by a couple of enthousiastic coders in their spare time. It's a commercial company, who use other people's work for getting multi million dollar advertisement contracys, without the owner's consent.
What will Napster users do -- continue d/ling like there's no tomorrow from Napster, or look for alternatives out of realizing that other means might be safer?
Any Napster users know firsthand?
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
In the same story on CNN, as soon as Napster won their stay, RIAA lawyers in several courts filed motions to have the stay lifted.
did so! did not! did so! did not! did so! did not! did so! did not!
Hey you kids, stop your squabling, or you will both be sent to bed without any gnutella for desert.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
They didn't need to look hard for reasons to grant a stay: the 9th Circuit judges tore the earlier court's decision to shreds in so many ways that the stay verdict document (pdf) is an absolutely hoot to read. They practically said "You're a load of idiots."
...
I especially liked this little technicality:
Copyright registration is not a prerequisite to a valid copyright, but it is a prerequisite to a suit based on copyright. [Kodadek v. MTV]
Apparently the plaintiffs had merely identified some 200 songs for which they allegedly claimed copyright without providing proof of copyright registration, and to add to their incompetence, they then tried to extend the claim to millions of songs which they didn't even bother to name, let alone declare under copyright. Apparently this is a legal no-no.
And lawyers get paid for all this fun. Sigh
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
This might be out of line from me, but as an indie musician can I ask that you _not_ give money to the RIAA? They're my competition, and they use that money to cut off my air supply.
RIAA pretty much accepts now that they're the Borg of music... go check out RIAA.com, look under their left navigation menu, under "Licensing and Royalties"...
"The RIAA Collective"
I KNEW IT!
NO CARRIER
The link is here
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Time to start running Gnutella!
I don't think the court should even have considered shutting down Napster at this point. Shutting it off before a verdict can even be arrived at is a little like believing them guilty until proven innocent.
So napster goes down. So what? At best, they can shut down the servers. So people will simply use the OpenNap network. Even if that goes down, people are flocking to alternatives such as Gnutella, which can't even be shut down by the developers. Free music distribution is here. The RIAA either has to work with it or be destroyed by it. And the RIAA has already set it's path by attempting to shut down napster. I sense an echo of the Hackers Manifesto... -Tell a man that there are 400 billion stars and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint and he has to touch it.
Ironically, this lawsuit and the barrage of news stories is only drawing more attention to MP3 trading. Napster may not survive, but mp3 trading has never been stronger. Look at what we have:
-Napster users in a downloading frenzy to get everything they can before the deadline. Now that the death sentence has been stayed, there's no reason to believe this frenzied level of activity won't continue for a few more weeks.
-Enormous publicity for Gnutella, Freenet, and other file-sharing alternatives, which were little than pre-beta geek curiosities until now.
-An unprecedented public forum to expose the exploitative and monopolistic business practices of the record companies. (really, how many news stories did you see about the RIAA settling with the FTC on their antitrust suit for price-fixing?).
Yes, truly a Victory against Piracy!
If the RIAA wins, there will be no digital music trading. PERIOD. They'll send their watchdogs out like a swarm of locusts searching for crops to eat. So people will go to Gnapster and Freenet. And with that will go the musicians profits, and the labels' as well. If there are no labels, there is no production scheme for modern music that ISNT Digital. And as we all well know we can't trust people to pay for things if they can take them for free.
If Napster wins this suit, then commence the online trading revolution on a more permanent and prevalent basis. Enter the dragon. No longer will artists be able to make a living doing what they are doing.
Sure the current touring bands and the ultrapop bubble gum acts will survive, coasting on a wave of teen sensationalism and washed up nostalgia, but the new artists will make their living scraping by as the starving artists of the 1600s. And yet, we crave that media, that sweet song that soothes our savage soul. No longer will it be possible for a band to take a year off from life and record a thought productive and creative album. Am I bitter? YES. You betcha.
And here's why. I love music. In nearly every form (industrial and country excepted) I enjoy it. And the industry will suffer. We'll get some nice stars, but those people who KNOW that their talent will never be seen will give up. Those bands who might make it now won't make it in the future. It's a sad day for the industry. We've caused the unemployment of thousands of promoters. We've caused the unemployment of thousands of recording studios who won't have clients.
So now you say, "Napster sells more records" Nope. Napsters COSTS records. Why pay when you can have it for free? I like the idea myself sometimes, especially when I see a CD priced at $15. So some altruistic souls go buy more, but I doubt that's what most of the users do.
Here's my deal. I think this whole thing sucks. I hate Napster, I hate the RIAA. I love the artists. Hell, I love the promotions folks more. They work in an industry we all love, but also love to hate. So Let's work on this. Let's get Congress to regulate a digital media transfer source. Let's let our government do their job, represent the interests OF the people FOR the people. So write your congressman, I just wrote mine. It's all doable.
But it sucks in the meantime
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
This just gives me a few more weeks to get all the music I like so I can burn it on CD's. The ruling supposedly allows Napster to keep up until a trial begins (check this MSNBC article). Has there been any boycott sites up btw? I've vowed not to buy any more CD's for the remainder of the trial, and have promised my friends free burned CD's as long as they promise not to purchase any CD's. Is anyone doing the similar?
BTW, on a side note, has anyone noticed how in all the publicized trials, they refer to it as "napster stealing their music" (such as lars on Capital Hill). Why do they keep blaming Napster for their users behavoir? But oh well, hopefully the federal courts will realize that the RIAA has no case against Napster, only their users, and service will continue as normal soon....
It may be that the appeals court also thinks Napster will lose, but that the damages are sufficiently unbalanced that they're overturning the TRO. And it makes a lot of difference whether the appeals court thinks Napster's odds are 49:51 or 1:99 or 75:25.
Judge Patel, of course, was the excellent judge in the Dan Bernstein Crypto Export case.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Napster is a service. And a really amazing one if you think about it. The organization that is suing them is using laws that were amended two years ago to do so. They lobbied hard to get those laws.
The Internet has allowed the market to speak directly to each other and the people that run it. Both the businesses and the lawmakers. I can't even imagine the filth that is running over the RIAA's mail servers right now.
That being said. I think a service like Napster should be allowed to exist, with certain limitations. But those limitations should all be on how much money they can make as a service. Perhaps they should only be allowed to be a non-profit organization, and in steps Gnutella and OpenNAP.
Regardless, we are stepping into a new media environment (all the music ever created and recorded available) and it scares a shitload of people, mostly those that had control over the last one.
If this issue is important to you, I think it is important that you ask your lawmakers how they feel about it. Internet copyright, IP, and the media industry in this country. Votin' time is coming up soon. Abuse the power that millions of people have died for and make your opinion reality.
--
+&x
http://www.RIAAboycott.org/ has no new info...
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
The Differences between the MSNBC article and the CNN article are astounding.
I've never been a fan of MSNBC, but they at least mention that there is a question of the appropriateness of the injunction, and the fact that tens of thousands of fans are threatening boycott of the RIAA.
The CNN article, on the other hand, only mentions that the injunction was stayed, and then spends the rest of the article in effect decrying napster and spouting the RIAA party line. Journalism so yellow my urine looks pale in comparison.
If I were a journalist at CNN (and some of the other news sources that so distort the story and hide the "other side" from their readership/viewership altogethre), I would be deeply ashamed.
As it is, I am going to engage in my fair use right, as affirmed by the court of appeals today, to use napster to space shift some more music I own on old vinyl to my hard drive for more convinient listening.
Eat your heart out, RIAA.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Here is an article on salon that you might be interesting in: It is Courtney Love's take on the real culprit in music piracy - the RIAA .
Hope this helps,
Rainbowfyre
Vericon is coming!
I have to disagree with you. Whatever their faults, Fanning and Napster are clearly in the right on this issue, and their attackers ARE clearly attacking things that I hold dear and that I believe to be the very basis of good as it exists (arguments about platonic ideals shoved to the side.)
Napster is a file sharing service. Any file sharing service can be used to break copyright laws - but it is the users who do this that are in violation of the law, not the service. Providing the service is reasonably responsive in shutting down abusers when notified, of course. This is long standing and well thought out case law, deriving from actions taken in the past attempting to hold ISPs liable because they were unwittingly being used by trafficers in kiddie porn.
Defending the ISPs is not defending kiddie porn - it's defending service providers. Napster is just another service provider, everything I've seen indicates that Napster has been responsive and responsible in locking out users from the system when they are made aware of violations, and if they can be shut down because some of their users are infringing copyright, then expect to see ISPs start shutting down left and right as well. It's precisely the same principle.
And just for your information, I have never even used napster. From the comments I have read it appears I am in a very small minority here in that, but it's true. I don't have the bandwidth to dick around with .mp3s, and I've never even considered using napster. I'm very very concerned about bad precedent though, and holding a service provider responsible for violations commited by it's users is very bad precedent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Supporting Napster==supporting Big Music, sort of. When was the last time you searched for indie bands on Napster? There's actually a lot of good music on mp3.com and other free music sites. support them instead. Besides, Usenet is typically more reliable when it comes to getting mp3z anyway.
NO CARRIER
Just go get gnapster. Works great.
Is this the new "hot topic" to replace the Elian Gonzalez saga for the news media here in the USA?
I happened to turn on "Politically Incorrect" (a light, quasi-comedy based political talk show hosted by a comedian with 4 guests for the benefit of those outside the US viewing area) and the first topic discussed was, you guessed it, Napster.
The host actually had something insightful to say about the music industry's assertion that Napster was killing their sales. (Paraphrased) "When I was younger, everyone I knew taped songs off the radio, and swapped albums and tapes to be copied."
One guest replied, (paraphrased) "Yes, but the ratio of then was like 3 or 4 to 1, who copied. With Napster, I believe that it's like 1 person buys a CD and 20 million copy it." What??? Are we to believe that Titney Spears and Outta'Sync, with that ratio, would have sold 30 Gazillion copies each if Napster didn't exist? The above statement by the clueless guest is what an un-elightened, un-informed public probably really believes.
However, the host had a CLASSIC line, "Record executives are just people who don't have the people skills to be pimps."
LOL!
So true. Napster has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've seen get this much funding. People think VCs are the smartest eggs in the box. Please. They just have enough dough to stay ahead of the odds.
-cwk.
sounds like a slashdot poll if i ever heard one
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
I don't know of any boycotts except this one:
http://www.RIAAboycott.org/
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Except the RIAA have refused to provide such a list.
Really, I wouldn't expect them to. A thriving, legal, Napster is the worst possible outcome for them. They are just out to shut them down so they can bring their own (pay-for, of course) version online without fear of competition.
--
--
E_NOSIG
more here http://www.msnbc.com/news/438526.asp
Now, I think we have a major education problem in front of us. How many of the alleged 20 million Napster users know (I mean, really understand) these philosophical reasons? I spent a few hours on napster's chat rooms yesterday trying to do a little explaining on these same reasons and it was very difficult to get my point understood (there's of course the highly likely possibility that I wasn't very good at explaining myself). What I saw instead was a lot of people doing what you just mentioned: flaming, acting like little children whose parents have just confiscated this wonderful toy, people were talking like well it was good while it lasted, so what are the alternatives to Napster?. And it's of course very nice that people are finding out about Gnutella or Freenet, but there's a huge and complicated intellectual property issue that needs to be addressed. Anyway, my point is that an important part of a boycott is to talk to people about the REASONS BEHIND that boycott.
"All the things one has forgotten scream for help in dreams". Elias Canetti
There are heaps of open source clones out there that connect to the napster servers. Try a search on freshmeat.
===
The record companies will be happy to sell you songs individually, or sell them over the internet, but those songs must be encrypted, digitially signed, and permanently linked to a particular player, (a closed source, obfuscated player program or hardware.) And you gotta give them you player's serial number.
Oh, and they'll also be licensed and not sold, and, because they're now selling songs, they'll claim that there's no reason for any player to play unencrypted music, so all THOSE players will be made illegal. Of course, like software, they won't accept returns.
And if the player they've licensed for goes sour, you'll be stuck with megabytes of useless crap. They'll never let you convert your music to a second player, as you might be lying about your origional one breaking and you might be a pirate. So you'll have to buy it all over again.
Need I continue?
Oh, and once they've made everything else illegal, they'll put on limits. You can only play the music so many times before it disables, or so many times a month, or a limited timeframe to play it in.
And of course, once people forget about free music and think 'public domain' is a dirty word, the price will go up. $1? $5? $20? a track. The monopolies will screw you for as much as they [safetly] can. And then they'll work to make copyrights perpetual.
This is what the record companies want out of the digital future. This is what any 'copyright control' company wants. Music, lyrics, video, photography, software. This is what they all want.
Napster and any other way of letting the MASSES trade media that's unencrypted and not digitally linked (Masses != computer nerds who know FTP or IRC.) risks this bright future for record companies. It gives the heretical idea that people should question copyright. Something which they haven't seriously done in decades. Like the witches at the stake, Napster must be destroyed for that reason.
Computers don't necessarily make information free. They're good at processing information, duplicating it, checking it, debiting accounts... Thus, they allow control at a fine level that would have been impossible in the past. The media companies want this control, and are holding our public heritage as a hostage until they get it. This is why you they don't release content on the internet.
To those who think this isn't happening.. They're working on a specification for encrypted-USB speakers. Intel demo'ed a graphics chipset that encrypts every pixel to your monitor. DIVX came and (thankfully) died.
The internet gives everyone a press. As a famous quote goes ``Freedom of the press is only for those who have one.'' The internet must be controlled to protect those who already have presses. The media companies own the presses, and they claim to own the content they publish. Generally, they don't create that content, but they're damn good at grabbing control of it. They are powerful, and used to scheming for what they want.
Napster.com has been updated with a list of Napster-friendly bands /artists to support (buy buying CDs).
TheGeek
TheGeek
http://www.geekrights.org
Kill the monkey
Napster BUYcott
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
It lets them track statistics on how many people read through to the end of the story. That in itself is often worth more than a couple more impressions.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Everything she said could equally apply to a photocopy machine. Perhaps Xerox should be shut down until they figure out a way to ensure that their photocopiers cannot be used to infringe copyright.
Can't stop MY NAPSTER. I'm useing OpenNap serverers. Thanks www.Napigator.com
If naspter had been shutdown for even a few hours, it would have turned millions against RIAA as opposed to the current situation where there just isn't a critical mass agasint them yet.
Once naspster is shut down, then people (like the bands on my web site) have a real case against RIAA for using their monoploy power to prevent their music from being heard which results in poor sales.
And the next time the RIAA is talking about "how will the artists get paid" ask them about how much the artists get paid for cutouts and "clearance" cds.
Your comparison breaks... you can resell your car, but you can not make identical copies of your mercedes and sell them as if they were real mercedeses
Is it really so unreasonable of the artists to object to someone distributing their work without their consent? It's not just a matter of money. Napster is just the internet age equivalent of a record bootlegger: they make money of someone elses work, without the artist's consent. The artist has no control over the quality, the format, the packaging, _and_ he doesn't get payed.
Before you label napster as a cyberspace patriot, only there to fight for your electronic freedom of speech, at least try to consider the other side as well. If you compare napster to radio, which should be a good comparison, don't forget that (legal) radio stations pay artists a certain amount of money for their work, and the artist (or more accurately the owner of the work... quite often the record company) at least has the option to decide which of his songs are ok for radio, and which he would rather chuck in the bin than let anyone else hear.
As I understand it, it was this situation that infuriated renowned control freak Lars Ulrich so much that he wanted to take legal action. Metallica were in the studio finishing an album, and were astonished to hear their unfinished, unreleased album on the radio. Someone had distributed a demo using napster, without asking metallica if it was ok with them.
That metallica are filthy rich, and haven't made a decent record in 10 years is completely irrelevant. If open software coders find that a commercial company which is considering an IPO takes their work, rips off the COPYRIGHT notice, and makes money distributing their proprietarised work, then how would slashdot readers respond?
Reuters
CBC
Wired News
MSNBC
CNN
--
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
I'm just wondering how the fuck we survived without Napster back in the 60's and 70's. Some great music back then, and we never seemed to have a problem finding an opportunity to hear it. Whatever.
The Motion to the Ninth Circuit, which resulted in the stay, is available here, in .pdf. Makes for a very interesting read.
Sounds pretty good, until you realize that $1 million is a drop in the bucket to the recording industry. I don't know what their revenues are off-hand, but I will say that I work for a large corp. (somewhere around #150 on the Fortune 500, I think), and we don't even blink at the gain or loss of $1 million.
The boycott has a long way to go if it wants to have an impact on the recording industry.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
I can't help feeling that being on either side is right. The side we should be on is the artists' and not napster or the RIAA. In my eyes, they are both (at least partially) thieves. Think past all of the "they are taking my freedom" bs and think about what napster is REALLY used for and then choose a side.
Suppose we were to celebrate by only using Napster to download songs whose owners intend for them to be spread without charge?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't understand why the court granted this stay.
Napster claims that the injunction would have put them out of business. The injunction did not state that Napster had to shut down, merely that it had to stop helping people copy copyrighted music.
Further, the court asked RIAA to post a 5 million dollar bond to cover any losses suffered by Napster as a result of the injunction if Napster ended up winning the case. How likely is it that temporarily shutting Napster down would cost the company more than 5 million dollars?
What reason did the court have for staying this injunction?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Neuracnu Coyote presents:
The RIAA vs Napster: A Diologue
aka: Monty Python and the Holy Internet Startup ---
[SupremeCourt] Bring out your copyright infringers!
[SupremeCourt] Bring out your copyright infringers!
[SupremeCourt] Bring out your copyright infringers!
[RIAA] Here's one.
[SupremeCourt] $2500 in court costs for the injunction.
[RIAA] Here you are.
[Napster] It's not illegal!
[SupremeCourt]
[SupremeCourt] What?
[RIAA] Nothing, here's your $2500.
[Napster] It's not illegal!
[SupremeCourt] Here now - he says it isn't illegal!
[RIAA] Yes it is!
[Napster] It's not!
[RIAA] Well, it will be soon. Our lobbyists are working on it.
[Napster] Stealing music is freedom of information!
[RIAA] No it's not. It'll be illegal any moment.
[Napster] I don't want to file Chapter 11!
[RIAA] Oh, don't be such a baby.
[SupremeCourt] I'm sorry, that's an impropper injunction. Here, little Internet Startup, have a stay against that injunction.
--
How will it continue? You decide! Get involved, send emails, sign petitons, write your congressmen, boycott the RIAA. Do something!
--
Here are a couple of quotes:
Napster went too far. A wildly popular software application and Web community for its millions of users, the company took already-existing Internet protocols (FTP, gopher and HTTP), added a nice Web interface and marketed itself as the best place to "share" music.
The judge was fast to point out that if these uses were so substantial, then it should not harm the company's bottom line to prohibit the infringing uses, but save the noninfringing uses. And, if the company cannot find a technological solution that allows it to separate its legal uses from its illegal uses, then maybe "the 19-year-old who was clever enough to invent the program" is not so clever after all.
That is the moral of the latest chapter in the Napster story. A company that is smart enough to write an application that is used by 20 million people should be smart enough to find a way for that application to conform to the law. And if the company does not think that conforming to the law is important, then maybe it is not smart enough to succeed.
Napster is not out of the water yet. Just because the Court of Appeals gave them a reprieve doesn't mean that Napster still can't get shut down by the RIAA. I could get into the philosophical reasons why Napster shouldn't be shut down, but a lof of you know them already.
I've already heard the standard cries of "I'm gonna burn my Metallica CDs!" and "I'm gonna send a flaming e-mail to Hilary Rosen!," but c'mon, what effect will that have? So what if you burn your Metallica CDs, you already bought them, right? And so what if you flame Hilary Rosen? You're just giving them ammo to use against you ("Look at this Napster user, see their blatant disregard for us?!?"). That is why I suggest that the planned boycott for the RIAA should go on. If you're going to send a message to the RIAA about how you feel about Napster, hit them where it matters most: their wallets.
And yes, I realize that this may give the RIAA more reason to cry "They're downloading music from Napster, so now I can't afford my new Lexus!" and the such. But then again, they're going to latch onto whatever they can squeeze sympathy for their side out of.
And if this doesn't make the RIAA listen up, I don't know what will.
Further reading:
www.boycott-riaa.com
www.riaaboycott.org
Napster Buycott (that's not a typo :))
RIAA Member List (for the boycotting, duh!)
RIAA Contact List (let your voice be heard!)
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
I'm listening to the audio broadcast of CNBC's market report on the way home tonight and they started talking about napster's stay of execution... this dumb ass Stock & Blond's bimbo comes on and then gives an update of how the MP3 related stocks are doing today and I quote "MP3.com, who's technology is behind Napster was unchanged." Please shoot me now.
when they ban enctryption only criminals wi$21*J *#JF$%!@#$':
Appeals court grants Napster reprieve
Federal Judge Allows Napster To Continue Music Trading
Court grants stay of Napster injunction
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
There are numerous messages over on the chat board at the Gnutella website that indicates that others are having the same problem.
I always thought that something was likely to happen bad to gnutella, seeing how it loaded the network so heavily with only 3000 clients at a time - the most I ever saw was maybe 5000. Napster had a total of 23 million users (not all of whom were logged in at any given time).
Has the gnutellanet gotten broken into islands? Is there a failure in the protocol?
I don't believe there really could only be a few users because there is a message on the Gnutella site that says they had to install a new server and buy more bandwidth to handle all the hits and client downloads they are getting.
Maybe decentralized peer-to-peer isn't all that it's cracked up to be - or at least the kinks aren't worked out of it yet.
Ah, I see this message posted on the development board:
-- Could you use my software consulting serv