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.
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
--
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.
Here I was ready to cancel a busy Friday night. Thank the heavens.
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..."
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
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.
The Motion to the Ninth Circuit, which resulted in the stay, is available here, in .pdf. Makes for a very interesting read.
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.
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!
--
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