Slashdot Mirror
Implications For Software Like Napster And Gnutella?
vsync64 asks: "My employer hosts the main Gnutella site, and with the recent ruling against Napster, our servers are being pretty much crushed by the flood of Napster refugees. I'm wondering how much longer people believe this software will be usable. Obviously, given past events such as the whole DeCSS thing, the software will never disappear. Since there is a long tradition of "piracy" and sharing, going back to world-writable FTP sites, IRC channels, and BBSes, the practice won't disappear. I'm just curious as to what options the government and major corporations have in trying to stop it. They could probably get the software removed from the main sites, and possibly enact legislation to criminalize 'systems [and software] for the primary purpose of violating copyright', but what would the media and the unwashed masses think of this? Could copyright violation become stigmatized, much as smoking has, or could such an action be the final straw that turns public opinion against the large corporations once and for all?"
Let them sell their CDs for $5.99 too, and maybe I would buy one. Their artists get LESS than I do per CD. Their production values are worse than what I'm able to put out (in particular, see some of my very recent work like 'B17 Flying Fortress'- you don't get that kind of lushness and fullness out of pop CDs anymore, they are compressed to _death_). Nothing about what they're offering merits prices two and three times what I sell for- it's grotesque. I totally support anybody fighting these creeps by whatever means. And if you want to 'pirate' my mp3s too- *waves* have fun! You have my permission, not that you can't download them from me for free anyhow, and give me the page hit :)
That's not entirely true. Their business plan is intimately tied to the free availability of musical works. You are not required to pirate your CD collection (or someone else's, for that matter). I've used napster to download MP3 copies of parts of albums I only have on vinyl (old Strangler's stuff mainly) - I could have made those MP3s myself, given enough time to sort out the turntable and so on. My understanding is that this use is the 'personal backup copy' part of the copyright legislation.
All that said, I wouldn't doubt someone who claimed that x% of the material is illegally copied (where x tends to 100). I do doubt that all those violations are food stolen from the mouths of record company executive's children though.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
People here are in for a rude awakening sometime soon, I reckon, because on the one hand they want to ignore the "bad" copyright held on music by the studios, and on the other hand they want "good" copyright law to be strong to protect the GPL and other similar licenses.
I don't think that's going to work out.
The whole apparatus of IP, copyrights, patents and trademarks is proving to be less and less viable as worldwide networking becomes all-pervasive, as available bandwidths rise and as the media converge with the Internet to provide everyone with access to everything without legal nor corporate controls.
That won't stop (short of a global police state), so we might as well bite the bullet: so-called "Intellectual Property" is dead, at least in the sense of being a commercial asset with a price tag, and destined for burial along with it are all the other bits of legal nonsense invented by lawyers with excess time on their hands. We're well on our way down the road towards global recognition that once information of any kind enters the public arena, it is thereafter totally public with no strings attached. The supporters of yesterday's worldview will just have to adjust.
As for the GPL, it wouldn't make much sense without copyright law, but I don't really think that would matter much. Our commmunity is bound together with informal bonds that are much stronger than the legal bonds of the GPL, which really is just symbolic for us. The community has strength in depth within itself, not merely strength because of the luke-warm support of lawyers and judges. I venture that the community will survive the loss of IP and copyrights and the other related nonsenses regardless of what happens on the legal front.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I agree that suing gun makers is ludicrous. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
BUT we should and do have every right to sue the tobacco companies. You think the entertainment industry is insidious and sneaky and without morals when it comes to MP3/screwing artists/etc? You ain't seen nothing - nothing - yet. In terms of morals, tobacco companies make RIAA and the MPAA look like they were sanctified by the pope himself.
You take for granted the fact that smoking is addictive, but people didn't always know that. Tobacco companies knew that for about 60 years and never told anyone because it was such a great way to make money. The jacked up the levels of nicotine in cigarettes to hook more smokers. They advertised to kids (Joe Camel?! Hullo?). They are just complete scumbags and slimeballs and the simple truth is that they've done everything short of forcing cigarettes into people's mouths. One wonders how many smokers took up the habit just because they were smoking cigarettes that were engineered to be more addictive - that figure has got to be in the millions. As far as I'm concerned RJR, B&W, and all the rest of the tobacco companies can rot in hell for all of eternity and no one would really be worse off.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Without copyright, those licenses wouldn't be needed.
Assuming copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, how would I make sure source follows binaries? Everything created would be in the public domain. Some person could distribute a version of Linux with all kinds of proprietary modifications they've made, but keep their modified source a secret. Since they didn't have Linux licensed to them under the GPL, this would be perfectly legit. I guess we could hire thugs to kick down this person's door and seize their source code modifications, so maybe we wouldn't technically need copyright licensing to enforce the terms of the GPL... =^) Anyway, this is why you see rms wanting to legislate enforced-sharing terms similar to the GNU GPL rather than just abolishing copyright.
> made my father a John Denver CD from Napstered
> mp3s in a spate of feeling guilty about breaking > his old turntable. He is really glad to have the
> music back
I take this to mean that he owns the records
of everything you've put on the CD.
What people don't seem to understand, and one
of the main points about the whole debate is
that it's LEGAL for him to have and use this CD
made from the MP3's of the songs he has a right
to use because he OWNS THE RECORDS. The royalties
were paid, and he's exercising his explicitly granted right to fair use by listening to the CD
you made.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
You're wrong, or at least your statement is misleading. The user can make any modifications they like, as long as they don't give modified binaries to anyone else. If you distribute your modifications to others, then you have to give them the source code if they ask. However, if you're writing and (presumably) selling modifications that you wish to keep private, you're not just a user, are you?
As for RMS and IP, I've heard him talk on the subject, and (IIRC, and to paraphrase) he feels that the whole concept of IP is wrong-headed. Rather than attempting to paraphrase him, go read some of his writings.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Buddy, I'm a Boomer, & I know the details about Napster very well thankyouverymuch. (And I figure if the foks at RIAA had a clue, they'd stop racheting up the prices on every CD, & make it worth people's whiles to buy high-quality CDs over free, but lower-quality mp3s.)
In a nutshell -- yes, there are a lot of clueless people over 30. But the majority of people under are also clueless. Remember this when you decide to change the world. It just might help you to suceed.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Yes, I know that, I was slightly inattentive with my words. However, I was right in spirit, whereas you just seem to know a few key words. It is obvious and well known that RMS has an axe to grind with more than just the concept of intellectual property. He hates the notion of closed source/proprietary code in general. They are not one in the same, and if you care, I'm sure you could find many statements of RMS to that effect.
The GPL explicitly extends beyond the mere lack copyright protection on that code, and even on the whole world in general. Put it this way: If I were to use a piece of GPL code in an IP-less society for a product that I sell, I would be required to distribute that source code. There is nothing inherent in the lack of IP that naturally incorporates the idealistic sharing that RMS envisioned. Afterall, well before formal intectually property rights really existed, many craftsman and artists relied on a variety of trade secrets.
I suggest that you go look at the intentions of both the original poster and RMS.
First of all, Napster is more than just software, a type of "device". Napster's success hinges on their centralization of servers--it is a SERVICE. It is this service that has made napster so easy for the average user to use, unlike IRC, ftp, usenet, and what have you. You type in the text of the songs or artists you want, and it delivers a half-decent host which serves it. It is precisely that service that RIAA has been attacking.
Many still argue, that, although they are a service, they have legitimate uses and should be left alone. Let us be honest here. Today, something like 99.99% napster traffic is used for downloading materials illegally. While many of napster's supporters talk about all the supposed benefits of napster to the "indy" artist, they remain extremely vague. Just how is napster supposed to help in this department?
Napster is certainly not a promotion vehicle. All you can do on napster is text searches. These searches are only good if you know what you're looking for. What then is their substantial contribution to society? Distribution? One cannot honestly claim this is a decent method, let alone a superior method, of distribution for the "indy" artist. There is no hardly any shortage of alternative means. There are hundreds of websites and services which would be all too happy to get this "indy" business. Mp3.com? Certainly. Geocities, certainly...there remain many others. What's more they can PROMOTE and MARKET material. These alternatives means can deliver the "right" material to the "right" person and faster than napster could ever hope to.
For those who pine for a napster-like, dumbed down interface, where you might get "random" (but still legitimate) music, napster themselves could offer it (RIAA has even stated that they'd drop the lawsuit if napster just got rid of the infringing material) if they weren't afraid to kill their sacred jaurez cash cow to-be. For one, they could offer a proof-positive service, where artists can register their materials as being "legit". If that seems too draconian, napster could employ other methods to simply be more responsive to complaints by the artists, and assure prompt removal of all discovered materials. Napster might even, if they actually desired and were intelligent enough (a big IF), employ some sort of checksumming scheme to atleast filter GUARANTEED copyrighted music out.
But napster does none of that. Why? Because they're not a non-profit organization who is out there to help the "indy" artist or any other cause, napster is a for-profit corporation that simply wants to profit. Napster profits whether or not the materials are illegal. While all they want is eyeballs (so they can be used as a marketing platform), the means to deliver those eyeballs is in providing the one thing that these more acceptable services do not provide, pirated music in large and accessible quantities. It is simply not in their interest to do anything other than continuing to facilate the piracy of music.
The question for the courts and society comes down to cost versus benefit. While there still may remain one scintilla of benefit outside the scope of the alternatives, weigh them against the costs--or atleast their illegality if you don't agree with "big music", copyright law, or what have you.
...to drag this out a bit more. A more realistic comparison for napster is if they offered to be a directory of...well let's say guns for hire--hitmen. Only this service costs a lot, far more than the yellow pages. What's more, it's generally a pain in the ass to use for any legitimate uses, say, for bodyguards. The one thing the service does provide is a degree of anonymity where law enforcement cannot reach it effectively. If this services has indirectly contributed to the murders of hundreds of people, and has virtually never been used by anyone other than a thugs, would you still support it even if all they do is push information around? Why should society shoulder these immense costs when the benefits are between slim and none?
PS: Minor detail: Bomb making instructions are not published in the encyclopedia, at least not in any major one. It's covered loosely and conceptually--not enough to actually build one. However, it is covered extensively elsewhere, much of it may well be available in your local library. Certainly any competent student of electrical engineering could build one if they had the materials.
First of all, Napster is more than just software, a type of "device". Napster's success hinges on their centralization of servers--it is a SERVICE. It is this service that has made napster so easy for the average user to use, unlike IRC, ftp, usenet, and what have you. You type in the text of the songs or artists you want, and it delivers a half-decent host which serves it. It is precisely that service that RIAA has been attacking.
Many still argue, that, although they are a service, they have legitimate uses and should be left alone. Let us be honest here. Today, something like 99.99% napster traffic is used for downloading materials illegally. While many of napster's supporters talk about all the supposed benefits of napster to the "indy" artist, they remain extremely vague. Just how is napster supposed to help in this department?
Napster is certainly not a promotion vehicle. All you can do on napster is text searches. These searches are only good if you know what you're looking for. What then is their substantial contribution to society? Distribution? One cannot honestly claim this is a decent method, let alone a superior method, of distribution for the "indy" artist. There is no hardly any shortage of alternative means. There are hundreds of websites and services which would be all too happy to get this "indy" business. Mp3.com? Certainly. Geocities, certainly...there remain many others. What's more they can PROMOTE and MARKET material. These alternatives means can deliver the "right" material to the "right" person and faster than napster could ever hope to.
For those who pine for a napster-like, dumbed down interface, where you might get "random" (but still legitimate) music, napster themselves could offer it (RIAA has even stated that they'd drop the lawsuit if napster just got rid of the infringing material) if they weren't afraid to kill their sacred jaurez cash cow to-be. For one, they could offer a proof-positive service, where artists can register their materials as being "legit". If that seems too draconian, napster could employ other methods to simply be more responsive to complaints by the artists, and assure prompt removal of all discovered materials. Napster might even, if they actually desired and were intelligent enough (a big IF), employ some sort of checksumming scheme to atleast filter GUARANTEED copyrighted music out.
But napster does none of that. Why? Because they're not a non-profit organization who is out there to help the "indy" artist or any other cause, napster is a for-profit corporation that simply wants to profit. Napster profits whether or not the materials are illegal. While all they want is eyeballs (so they can be used as a marketing platform), the means to deliver those eyeballs is in providing the one thing that these more acceptable services do not provide, pirated music in large and accessible quantities. It is simply not in their interest to do anything other than continuing to facilate the piracy of music.
The question for the courts and society comes down to cost versus benefit. While there still may remain one scintilla of benefit outside the scope of the alternatives, weigh them against the costs--or atleast their illegality if you don't agree with "big music", copyright law, or what have you.
...to drag this out a bit more. A more realistic comparison for napster is if they offered to be a directory of...well let's say guns for hire--hitmen. Only this service costs a lot, far more than the yellow pages. What's more, it's generally a pain in the ass to use for any legitimate uses, say, for bodyguards. The one thing the service does provide is a degree of anonymity where law enforcement cannot reach it effectively. If this services has indirectly contributed to the murders of hundreds of people, and has virtually never been used by anyone other than a thugs, would you still support it even if all they do is push information around? Why should society shoulder these immense costs when the benefits are between slim and none?
That's not entirely true. The GPL, atleast, tries to restrain the user from more than just claiming ownership over the source code. It prevents the user from extending and making their own private modifications of it, whether or not they file for IP protection...RMS evidently felt that the dangers of IP lurk not just in intellectual property protection.
So yes, RMS might very well disagree with you here.
I'm not so sure that that is an accurate statistic. I doubt napster even keeps logs of transfers, or if they're even capable of doing that due to the protocol. I could easily see that 13% as being the 13% of the songs OFFERED on napster as being legitimate. Perhaps RIAA chose to quote this number, because it was the only firm number they could provide. Even if Napster was the provider of that data, it still demonstrates for RIAA that napster is overwhelming used for piracy.
However, even if that number is entirely accurate, that does not necessarily mean napster offers a 13% compelling benefit for society. i.e., It's possible that the vast majority of the 13% are people who come to napster for pirated songs, but while they're there download legitimate items on impulse or simply because it's more convenient than using an alternative method at THAT instant. Much in the same sense that a beer store that sells booze to minors may make 20% of their revenues selling snacks and other munchies, heh.
Personally, I do not see why people, in the free software community especially, are so willing to just let mainstream media and business characterize all users of Gnutella, etc. as thieves and pirates (not to say that a large amount of those people are not on Napster, etc. though).
It is true that the free software movement is different in many ways from the free music debate. Free software supporters do not advocate piracy as a means to fight the big software companies; instead, free software supporters say essentially "make it yourself" and then the "it will be better" part includes both "free (as in speech)" and usually develops the "quality" aspect as well.
But how does a listener (i.e., user) of music (you can argue if this is information until you are blue in the face, but that is not the main point here) make his or her own music to replace that of the music industry? In this, the free music debate cannot be solved in the same way the free software debate can.
Like it or not, piracy is a more integral part of the "civil disobedience" aspect of the free music debate. Or at least it is at the moment.
Piracy can be replaced by the alternatives being proposed by sites like fairtunes.com. But that cannot happen if services like Gnutella are somehow outlawed.
So, we have to make our voices heard to support the continuance of services like Gnutella; as I see it, Napster has helped to draw attention to the free music debate but in all the wrong ways. There are very legitimate uses of the technology, but we cannot simply allow the terms such as "piracy" and "stealing" to continue in use since that undermines the entire host of alternatives to the RIAA.
If Gnutella, etc. are made illegal, then how exactly are these alternatives ever supposed to get off the ground?
SB
Editor, DigitalRenegades -- Give your opinions a permanence on the web; submit and make your voice heard.
Personally, I'm an avid try-before-you buy kinda consumer. I own a copy of every single thing I've ever pirated. And I believe that the biggest problem with the market today is the high prices that are charges for most things. I know this has been hashed over before, but that doesn't make it any less true. High prices mean less choice for the consumer, and are a big incentive for black markets (or their equivilent -- in this case, free piracy). This is not to say that lowering the prices with fix everything; there are always people who won't even pay a dollar if they can steal it instead -- even if the time they invest in stealing it cost them more than a dollar.
Anyway, my point is that data piracy will always exist as long as it has a reason to exist (high prices, national restrictions, and egos). And killing any number of methods of delivery can't destroy them all. (You can always have stuff FedEx'ed to you. What are they gonna do? Outlaw mail?)
--
--
Look, I know the road is rough, and the work is hard; But we'll burn every bridge as we get to it, OK?
Because, napster, the company, started and gained it's popularity (which translates to money eventually), based on the fact that people would use their service solely to pirate music, which is illegal.
THey knew that their service would become popular because people would use napster for illegal purposes. This is illegal.
And you know what? I agree with this.
On a purely technical level, though, napster should *not* be illegal... it's just software.
REmember, though. If napster gets smacked, lots of *cool* free napster-like things will spring up (look at gnotella now, it rocks). Napster was 'just enough' to pacify people, and only gained it's popularity through the network effect. Why be complacent with napster when we can do so much better?
You missed the point completely. THe point is not whether or not the software has useful purposes...
The point is that the *company*, napster Inc, is *making money* (or attempting to do so) by facilitating piracy.
It's not the software that is on trial, it's the COMPANY.
Do I think software should be banned because it has potential illegal uses? of course. As I said, on technical grounds, the napster software is fine.
But as a COMPANY, napster is succeessfull only due to piracy.
Now, as for the comparison to bongs, etc... the fact is, these things all had original, legal uses, and the companies that make zigzags did not go into business sayhing 'hey, let's make these rolling papaers because people need somethign to smoke their grass in'.
Should bongs be illegal because they can be used to smoke dope? Nope.
Shoudl a company that goes into business selling just bongs because they know people will use it for somethign illegal? Yes. They are facilitating crime, knowingly. The only reason they don't get sued is because of today's lax attitudes towards marijuana.
'
But with copyright, it's somewhat different. THere is an identifiable body of people who are having their rights violated because of the software.
Regardless of what people feel, those artists, adn record companies, etc, *DO* have legal copyright over what napster is helping people pirate. Over what napster is *in business* to help people pirate. So obviously they have a beef with napster, the company.
The point is, it's not about the tool, it's about the company. The tool is irrelevant, the company is on trial because the company is trying to make money off other people's copyrights in a slightly roundabout way.
Actually using napster has made me buy a lot more music that I ever bought berfore, just by bringing an interest to the fore, but while the back catalog remains un-available, while record companies operate outside the law, while CD prices are kept high, I will remain a "Pirate"
Ah, nothing I love more than the Napster has cuased me to buy MORE CDs lie. I mean, that must be why there were huge lines outside of every record store in the country a few weeks ago when everyone thought Napster was going to be shut down and people went through on their mad orgy of downloading... right?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Um, well, see, fundamentally our society ISN'T any different from those of the 'animal kingdom', which, you may have noticed, we belong to.
Go hang out with the gender studies people, the behavioural sciences people, the biology people, and the psych people for a bit, and you will be trully suprised at how much behaviour is based upon Sexual/Fight-Flight/Phermonal/Primate Group interactions.
Put simply, thats it. Everything 'else' that makes us 'different' is just a result of scaleing the intelligence up in the system (and simillar traits can be found in the cetaceans, so we aren't all that different, we just have hands, something they must find terribly amusing)
And if you think there is a differance between force and cooperation, you don't understand behaviour.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
The GPL and BSD licenses exist to use copyright laws againts themselves, to prevent people from closing up and claiming source ownership.
Without copyright, you dont NEED protection from copyright, so your argument does not hold.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
>the entire basis of civilization rests on
>respecting the desires of others _without_
>coercion.
And silly me, I thought that civilisation was an emergent property of each individual's attempts to maximize their scarce resource allocation and genetic proliferation.
Hate to tell you this, but force is, and always has been, and probably always will, be part of this system.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Piracy will die down because it's not worth the hassle to save $.20.
There is no hassle. People who download GB's of music without paying for it will always have ways to actually find stuff. Why should they start paying? Not that I support that idea, but why should they suddenly change their mind?
There is no way to easily find out where downloads are illegal and where not. As long as that does not change police will not be able to fight piracy. Hence, no hassle.
Readings don't pay as much as you might think. And most authors don't get to perform them -- only a select few big names. Same goes for musicians. Their only income source from their art is through the sales market.
what about a place like Recycle Records here in Denver? I can go up to them, and sell my CD to them for, say $6. I can also buy CD's that other people have sold to them. The artists aren't making any money off these transactions. If all i'm doing is paying for a "site license" for my music, why am i allowed this particular courtesy?
You're selling your license to listen to that music. In much the same way, you can do the same with software. Or books.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
When you talk about ripping a song to mp3 and then redistributing it, you're talking about intellectual property...a concept that is, basically, dumb. Are you paying for that CD, the right to do with it as you wish? Are you paying for the right to listen to that CD? Does the CD actually belong to you in that instance? What if i were to give that CD to a friend? what then? Everything get's convoluded with IP...and it's just crap. Pay the artist for a service, not for an idea.
You're paying for the right to listen to it. That's all. That's how IP works - without an explicit contract assigning copyright to you, all you can do legally is read/listen/use that material - you can't redistribute it.
Everything get's convoluded with IP...and it's just crap. Pay the artist for a service, not for an idea.
So presumably, if an idea takes months to come to fruition, it's not worth anything to you? Say you spent two years coming up with a novel? Is it then worthless? (in the material, monetary sense). How do you provide a "service" then?
Would you care to suggest what "services" an artist/writer could provide as an alternative to the current model?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You wrote:
...
redistributing credit card numbers == redistribution of stolen goods.
... and then you wrote
I think it's fair use to distribute copyrighted material for non-commercial purposes. Why does a larger scale make bootlegging any diferent?
Don't you feel at least a little hypocritical putting both of these sentences together in the same post?
Believe it or not, but the redistribution of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owner is THEFT. Therefore you are dealing in stolen goods.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
let me guess. you're a white heterosexual man, right? never been mugged for coming out of a "wrong" club or feared for your life because of the color of your skin?
:)
Actually, taking your example one step further... I fit the description above, and have feared for my life because of the color of my skin.
Though I must admit to feeling ambivalent about the concept of tearing down hate sites -- there's freedom of speech on the one hand, and then there's the fact that they're completely warped and fucked up on the other.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You are blurring the line between *information* and copyrighted material. Bombmaking instructions, names/addresses, and even credit card numbers are NOT copyrighted nor are they protected from mass distribution by the copyright laws of the US. While other laws could be applied in certain instances (i.e. distributing witnesses addresses could be considered unlawful endangerment while credit card number distribution is obviously protected by anti-fraud laws), to put Napster in the same boat as someone trying to distribute legitimate information is just wrong.
Naspter is being shut down BECAUSE it *is* doing something illegal, regardless if you feel it is not. Knowingly trafficing copyrighted materials over your network is a crime. Even ISPs are liable if copyright violations are pointed out on their resources and they STILL do not remove them. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to break the law or aide and abet those who are breaking the law.
The argument that MP3s are "information" will fail miserably in court which is why Napster's attorneys haven't even bothered to pursue it.
Suggesting that each violation be considered on a case by case basis is ludicrous. We have copyright law in place so that artists, publishers, or whomever owns the copyright is PROTECTED from the get-go. They should NOT have to track down each infringing action to have it removed especially when it's proven in court that Napster's only viable use is a criminal one (which will happen in the coming months, you can be sure of that.)
I'm considering helping in the development of a Mac Gnutella port or starting a Mac OS X Gnutella port. The main thing holding me back is the question of whether it's really the right thing to do. No matter how evil the recording industry is, artists don't get a dime from Gnutella/Napster/Freenet/Blocks. They do from the recording industry, even if it's not very much.
What we need is a site where we can download MP3s for reasonable micropayments ($.20 - $1.00), with half the cash going to the artists. Piracy will die down because it's not worth the hassle to save $.20. People also don't really want to rip off artists, and it will be a lot harder to rationalize when you know every pirated MP3 is money out of the artists' pockets.
Is anyone else tired of Napster discussion being beaten to death? Nothing new comes from these new threads, every argument has been made, every position explored. All there is to be done now is to perhaps share different points of view with people who haven't heard it all ten THOUSAND times, and wait patiently.
--
"Could copyright violation become stigmatized, much as smoking has, or could such an action be the final straw that turns public opinion against the large corporations once and for all?"
Copyright violation is (at least in my experience) and *should* be stigmatized. Just as stealing and murder. But as such, there are mitigating circumstances (stealing food because your family is starving, killing in self defense). To my knowledge there are a lot of people who like the flexibility of MP3 and are only using it because there *is* no way to legally buy the ones they want. Of course there is a majority of lamers who say they're doing it for the same purposes but just want warez. In any case, MP3 needs to be legitimized and business models incentivized so people don't *have* to steal/copy/copyright infringe.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
There's a cosmological concept that's been mapped onto socialogical theory that (I think) applies here. When the rules break down, either in physics or in society, you have a singularity... no one knows what's on the other side, what the new rules will be. Whether it's an event horizon or the future in a time of great change, all that you DO know is that things are going to be radically different.
With communication technology practically nullifying all concepts of ownership of information, if we already aren't in a societal singularity, we soon will be.
'Intellectual Properties' are uncontrollable in the wild. To base an economy on them is just stupid.
no need. I'm a humble son of god. No reason to think I'm better than most of creation just because I AM, silly.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
because they have my blessing. Yes, I, the current incarnation of Jesus, fully advocate file sharing utilities. it is not for you to own, but for you to share with your fellow man. If you buy a cd, it is your obligation to share the .mp3s such that I might decide if I also wish to buy that cd. Sharing is devine, trust me, I would know. Ditto (yes, christ says ditto. Have a problem with that? heathen.) software and pornography.
Now, I know that last statment might have set a few of you off. But hear me out. The CHURCH is against pornography, not me. I hung out with a whore on my first go-around, for My sake. Sex is pretty okay, if you ask me, and I understand that you are not full of Devine Grace, such as myself, and cannot readily get a date with whom you choose. And like the true son of god, I forgive you for that. So thus I have provided pornography and lubricants, such that you might be satisfied until that time when you might "socialize" again.
Do not berate your fellow man, if he chooses his own loving over the loving of others, for there is wisdom to be found therein. But lose respect for the man who does not share his pornography, his music and his software. This is my word.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
The key here is education.
One man's education is another man's propoganda.
The shareholder is always right.
Depends on the state. :)
Either that, or the show Oz is wrong
I saw it on TV..it has to be true!
What are you talking about? Music is dirt cheap in this country.
Let's draw an analogy. Suppose someone set up a search engine where the main purpose was to track down kiddie porn. Now even if some legitimate pornography (I've always wanted to use that phrase) slipped through the cracks, the majority of the content is still kiddie porn. I know that yes, I'd want the individual sites taken down, but I'd also really want the search engine gone as well.
Now, the way that you and I feel about kiddie porn is the same way that the RIAA feels about people trading music that it currently owns the copyright for.
All that it will take for opinion to turn against the free music crowd is for them to be seen as criminalistic freeloaders. Considering that a.) MP3.com has settled with most of the RIAA and will soon reopen it's My.mp3.com service (with paid options to offset the million$ in settlement options) b.) The major RIAA labels are all rushing to create flat rate music subscription services and c.) Napster will eventually need to make money to recoup all that VC funding and the according to Webnoize's survey over half of current Napster users would willingly pay $15 a month to use the service.
Eventually there will be several different ways to get music online and pay for it. Similar to the way that the MPAA fought VCRs and now there are many places we can rent videos. Currently people who watch movies for free (i.e. movie pirates, har har har) are considered freeloaders and criminals. It is not hard to conceive then that Gnutella users will become the w4rez d00ds of the music industry.
Napster already has a write-to-Congress page. Gnutilla probably should have one, too.
In the end, popular music will probably be free, but it will have ads. Look for big growth in product placement.
I think taking legal action against Napster is like sueing gun companies for making the guns that were invovled in killing someone. The gun companies didn't fire the gun, the person who aqquired the weapon did. It was the individual's choice to pull the trigger. Same with smoking. They want to sue the tobacco companies for making people smoke. Now this is more of a grey area because smoking is addictive, BUT.....the individual had to at one point make the choice to start smoking in the first place. Napster has plenty of legal applications. Why sue Napster when it's the individuals out there that are making the CHOICE to distribute copy-righted materials. It's the individuals the record companies should be going after, not the organizations that provide the service. I mean what's next.....are they going to shut down the police services because some currupt cops make the choice to abuse their powers for illegal ends? People make choices......they are the ones accountable. Quit trying to blame everyone else.
"When you gotta shoot, SHOOT! Don't talk." Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez
This might explain religion... ;-)
Okay, good point... =) Seriously, though, our servers were fine (the "crushed" was metaphorical, and meant to show how I thought it was nifty-neato that the unwashed masses can still act of their own volition, without an actual /. link). The main thing was bandwidth, and the people here did a great job getting the connection upped. I wasn't really involved in that, but I did get to look at pretty network load graphs.
I have nothing to do with Gnutella. My employer has nothing to do with it, either, except that we host it. And most of the employees know the people involved (I don't really, since I'm kinda new there).
I hate this sort of thing, but I might as well point out that I am speaking personally and not as an agent of my employer, that my employer is merely hosting the data and not supporting it, cigarettes cause cancer, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
See above. And I posted it because I am genuinely interested... The only MP3s I have are ripped from my own CDs or from MP3.com, and I have never used Napster or Gnutella. But it's interesting, and I think the social effects could be far-reaching. Or not.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Instead of worrying so much about the piracy thing, how bout a way to prevent it? i know there are some very skilled people out there that can get around alot of it. Instead of stoping software that is so nice as a sharing tool, why not focus on keeping your software safe?
Shhh, it's just the noizes in your head.
I think services like Napster, Gnutella, et al are the agents of change (I like the term 'creative destruction' that was coined to describe the phenomenon). The fact that the Napster shutdown threat has caused a huge run on Gnutella and other sharing services is evidence that it just isn't going to be possible to reverse course; people have gotten accustomed to getting what they want, when they want via the net. The only question remains is what will the corporations whose revenues are affected going to do to counter the trend, or at least adapt to it? My personal vote in the music realm would be for an all-you-can-eat service. I'd like to be able to listen to any song ever recorded in return for some monthly fee. I'd be willing to part with some reasonable sum in return for not having to deal with the flakiness of a Napster or Gnutella.
Whatever emerges, the world of intellectual property has changed irreversibly.
I forgot to include a link to this story in the NY times (free registration required). It talks about how German publishers are trying to stop the sales of books at a discount. It's just one more example of how the net is tearing down the old ways of doing business. And I think it's a good thing to, once in a while, clean out the old, ossified structures and replace them with something fresh.
Just couple of points I thought I'd share:
1. Napster is not shut down.
2. Your logic has a flaw. Posting bomb making instructions, credit card numbers, etc. is illegal; most will agree on that. But many will argue that such distribution of songs is not. At least it hasn't been proven yet. There are legal, fair uses to copyrighted material, and other laws that will be tried in court. You are assuming that this case has already been decided against Napster and equating it with other criminal offenses.
Assumptions are your worst enemy.
Copyright is not a binary thing -- either on or off. There is a lot of gray area as to what constitutes fair use, and what rights copyright holders can restrict the public from having. It's not about whether copyright is good or bad -- it's about where the copyright holder's rights end and fair use begins.
This distinction is not trivial. It is probably one of the most important issues that we have to resolve as we enter the networked world.
The question of what constitutes fair use will not be answered until it is asked -- i.e., until it is raised by events on the ground. Napster raises these issues in ways that were probably inevitable. Is it legal for me to have friends over to listen to my new Metallica CD (leaving aside for the moment whether doing so will allow me to keep my friends)? I think most of us would say yes. So how does that right translate to "virtual" space? Can I let them listen to a copy of it? Can I stream it? Maybe I can and maybe I can't, but the question will not be answered until I try and someone else challenges me on it.
Also, Napster does have legitmate, lawful uses. Should it be shut down or otherwise hindered to prevent the unlawful uses it also enables? Again, this issue is not just restricted to Napster; it applies to many other technologies that have emerged in the last few years and will emerge in those to come. Remember: RIAA tried to prevent Diamond Multimedia from selling the Rio for similar reasons.
It's not about being "for" or "against" copyright law, though the RIAA would probably like the issue framed that way. It's about what kind of copyright law we want to have, and what kind of solutions we can come up with to resolve the fuzzy bits. The Napster case is part of the national conversation that we are having to try to settle the issue.
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
If a Napster shutdown is mandated, I will use Gnutella. If Gnutella is forced down, I will use the next flavor of the month to get music for free. For those of you who are wealthy enough to get financially raped by the RIAA, I encourage you to continue doing so. I am not, and thus, I will not relent in my search for stolen music. I do not encourage anyone else to follow my lead, but do encourage you to consider exactly who is profiting each time you choose to purchase a CD, as it is certainly not the musician to any notable degree.
This is a world where each individual must look out for number one, which is why I simply don't give a shit about any of the anti-pirating sentiment. If artists, in the process of looking out for themselves, decide to quit making music due to people like myself, I truly feel sorry, but that does not move me any closer to justifying the price of legitimate media. I was thoroughly screwed on the 100 CDs I purchased, some for as much as $30, before pirating became as simple as it currently is, so I have absolutely no regrets over performing the same sexual act on the recording industry. The RIAA, due to the disgusting percentage paid to the artists themselves, are essentially a pimp in this situation, and I can't remember the last time anyone was chastised for financially jerking a pimp around. I do not fault the RIAA for their ongoing attempts to curtail my activity, as it is a sound business move, but there is simply no way to stop people like me now that the word is out. I will never go back to paying inflated prices for music.
I am so tremendously sick of this moral and legal debate. Go ahead, call me part of the problem, because it may be true, but I can't afford to care. Ideally, I would love to walk to the music store and purchase several CDs at two bucks a piece, but that will never happen, so I will steal it until I simply can steal no more. I will be happy to send a buck to the artists themselves, should they ask that I do so, because I appreciate their art. In that situation, I will be paying for the priveledge of enjoying their creation. The buck that I send is far more than they would receive from their pimp if I had purchased the music legitimately. I seriously doubt that any role the RIAA actually plays in the production or marketing of an album is worthy of a 99.5% cut into the profit.
To summarize, screw the RIAA because they screw everyone else first. How would you sheep respond if big, bad Microsoft paid one slave laborer $0.10 an hour to code product they then sell for $100? You'd hit the roof, yet portions of the same group suddenly get all high-and-mighty in a situation like this. To that segment of the Slashdot population, I say to hell with you. This is the wrong place for anyone to be taking a moral highground.
---
Slashdot: News For Zealots. Stuff That's Hypocritical.
-When cars started driving down the roads that horse riders built, did the breeders get upset and try to ban the automobile?- Yes they did in a matter of speaking. Many cities and towns passed laws making it harder to use auto. Like requiring someone to walk in front of the vehicle carrying a light. One law specified that cars had to be pulled over and covered with a tarp to hide it from horses coming from the opposite direction. Just don't scare the aminals..........
A sufficiently advanced culture would leave almost no trace of it's existence when it was gone.....
I see this as the next huge conflict between our government and the people. Just as the War on Drugs has tried to stop something that millions of people do, the War of Copyright will be the next tool of control of the American people.
Whenever the Government "cracks down" on something that is illegal that a huge subculture practices, bad things result. What it gives them is the tool to control everything that almost everyone does. It will be a war that the Government doesn't want to win. By criminilizing the acts of large groups of people, it gives them the tools they need to supress the members of the group that speak out against the Government.
It isn't even about copyright anymore. It's more about the government and control of individual rights. Think about it.
-----------------------------
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Just because the final product can be copied, perfectly and infinitely, does it make it right? I spent hours on the graphics on this page... what claim to control them do you have? I think that expectations have to change with regard to IP. Since you know that your web page can be ripped off so easily, I don't think it is reasonable for you to have the expectation that it will not be. You shouldn't base your decisions on the assumption that you will be able to make money from the exclusive rights of your work, as long as the work is so easily copied. Sure, there is a high likelyhood that you can make money off of it, but I think it is incorrect to assume that you can make money off of a product that has no marginal cost to provide it to infinite users.
Slashdot is a good example. They make money (well at least a little), and yet their site can be set up on anyone's server that wants it. The value is not in the easily copied parts of the site, the value is in the content, and the ongoing work of the editors.
Does this mean the end of IP? I say probably not. I think the paradigm will just be much different from what we are used to. The economic theories that state "When there are no barriers to entry, profitability will fall to zero" will rule. All we had before was an artificial protected market, through technological supression (DAT) and legislation.
-----------------------------
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Last time I checked the BRG people are doing exactly that! I couldn't get TRW to remove all of my info if I tried. And they share it will all of their fellow evil corporate empires. Sure they require money, but they have plenty. They think a mere "privacy statement" is enough reason for trusting them with our info. I dont know them I have never met them and I do not trust them. Yet they have info on us that most people wouldn't share with their mom. My spending habits are none of their business, yet it is their bussiness somehow. How did we let them pull this wool over our eyes? BRG sell and share any info they want, when we share info and it is not in their best interest it becomes illegal. I just saw a FRY's Electronics a cd with "Info on 10 million consumers" for $10. I bet they didnt ask those 10 million people for their permission. Not to mention paying them anything for their info. Enough of my ranting
Still gathering sigs from all you fools!!!
As hard as it might be to believe, the vast majority of people I deal with don't really care either way. They don't see how it affects them. They just assume it's the same people that steal software (possibly true) and that they'll get into trouble for it and it will end.
We're unlikely to get favorable public opinion in the near future. Big business will win this battle, stigmatize the whole process of "free music" downloading, and it'll continue essentially as it is now. I don't think it's comparable to smoking...it's comparable to smoking pot. It's illegal, that doesn't slow down anyone that wants to do it.
My two cents at least...
Well, there is a long history of copyright law in the US. Its initial intent comes from the US Constitution.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This was initially interpreted fairly narrowly, and the time of copyright monopoly was comparably short. In the last 100 years, the copyright monopoly period has been extended and extended, primarily on the behalf of large corporations like Disney (who wants to continue monopolizing original Mickey Mouse films).
The original intent of copyright law - to PROMOTE the release of material for eventual public domain status - has been corrupted. Copyrights no longer expire. Technically they do expire, but copyright law has been extending copyright periods faster than they can expire. Thus, the copyrights no longer pass into the public domain at all.
The digital technology can change all of that. Copyright holders of a medium amenable to digitization, such as movies and music, are scared. Previously, I could copy a CD to a tape and give it to my brother. These actions are essentially unprosecutable and unpreventable in a society with some privacy rights.
Now, in a digital age, I can rip a CD and email it to my brother. This action is also unprosecutable and unpreventable (assume I use PGP on the email). This underscores the movement of a digital copyright into public domain. It is unstoppable on technical grounds.
Napster and Gnutella facilitate the same actions - but on a much broader level. So they raise the issue - how does copyright law apply ??? And how should it apply ??
A bigger issue still is the record companies. They provide almost no digital internet distribution even though there is a market of more than 20 million consumers. How scared must they be of digital distribution to do that ??
They will eventually adopt a small pay per download market. They have to. It will largely calm down the napster commerce. And napster/gnutella can still be used on uncopyrighed materials like concert tapes, or copyrighted and approved materials like band demo songs.
Fundamentally, sharing music or moveies with one's neighbor is not something you ought to be prosecuted for.
Every single person who reads this post has probably been in a situation where someone else took advantage of them. It doesn't matter if it hurts directly or not (witness the Slashdot/Hellmouth debacle), people don't like it when their things are used in a way they don't like. Upsetting other people because you can get away with it is the enemy of civilization.
So, from a societal standpoint, it is important that it be made as difficult and stigmatized as possible. Of course it can't be stopped; what can? Nonetheless, this is just social darwinism. Get used to it.
There's a whole lot of emphasis on Napster at the moment, but the stakes are much higher than that. Consider the lawsuit that got launched at the folks that wrote PAN not too long ago. These people are after any and all means for transmitting information. Taken to a logical extreme, many of the core features of the Internet are at stake, since any of these tools can be used to distribute copyrighted works.
If a Usenet reader that decodes binaries is a violation of copyright, how much longer before other apps fall prey? FTP? HTTP? If it's found that the means by which binaries are distributed on the Internet is itself a copyright violation, how long before the Internet itself is the target of this kind of lawsuit.
This is a war folks. This war is about who controls the keys to the gates of information. MP3's are nothing more than the initial battleground. The music industry is scared as hell right now over possibly losing the 50 year absolute control they've enjoyed over this art form, with the movie industry also bringing up the rear guard. They have the legal, monetary, and political backing to turn that fear into something destructive against anything that threatens them.
If Napster falls to these gate keepers, you can damn well be assured that they are only to be the first. For those of you in the "I don't collect MP3's, so I don't give a crap" I guess we'll just wait for you to jump on board when something that does concern you eventually does fall under attack. Of course, by then it'll most likely be too damn late.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
It's been interesting to see my parents' reaction to Napster. My mother at one point referred to it as "anarchist," which really cracked me up until I thought about it. She has a point, however. Napster (and Gnutella) are a bunch of people doing what they want regardless of existing law (be it correct or not, I don't want to get into that debate). I made my father a John Denver CD from Napstered mp3s in a spate of feeling guilty about breaking his old turntable. He is really glad to have the music back, but he is still pretty nervous when it is playing. Kind of like he is afraid he will get caught. All of this goes to show that while the world is still run by boomers, Napster will never really become an accepted mainstream critter, and the corporations will continue to win legal battles. B
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
These sorts of problems will continue for as long as future generations grow up believing that they are entitled to those things that previous generations had to work for. To read some of the newsgroups and forums (especially the one at http://forums.napster.com), so many of those people truly believe that they're doing absolutely nothing wrong, that they're not stealing from anyone (because bits are not "tangible"), and that in fact they're happy in punishing an industry that reaped the benefits of a prosperous economy.
The key here is education. The recording industry and/or artists need to find a way to explain to people that through their actions, they are indeed stealing. Intellectual property has real value, and when it's copied around with no compensation for the creator of that work, it's value is decreased.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Without copyrights, tools such as the BSD license and Gnu Public License, which allow open source development to happen with some modicrum of protection and safety, would not be possible.
I think it's possible to have both copyrights and relative freedom of information, and we need both. While information may "want to be free", we need a more developed sense of ethics online if we want other beneficial aspects of copyright to remain.
What's wrong with "copyright violation becom[ing] stigmatized"? I think this would be a good thing. Big corporations would have less of a hair trigger when it came to the net, the door would be more open for a legitimate micropayment system (since it would no longer be the case that 99% of the audience wants/knows how to go it for free), and so on.
If you think copyright law is a bad thing (Disclaimer: I don't), then try to get the law changed. Don't just break the law and wait for someone else to change it for you.
to freely distribute information? So many of us balk at the shutdown of Napster; what if Napster had been distributing bomb-making instructions?
Would it have been okay to shut them down then? No? What if it were used to distribute the names and locations of people in the Witness Protection Program (That's in America, I don't know if other countries have something similar)?
or, while we're at it, what if Napster was being used to distribute your credit card number?
Napster wasn't shut down because it did anything illegal, it was shut down because in fervantly protection free speech, it failed to provide a reasonable system through which someone could request the removal of material that was harmful to them. True, the only people that were "harmed" were big and rich and greedy, but that doesn't mean that only BRG people *can* be hurt. If you had awakened one morning to find your name, address, phone number, cc #, and photos of you and your wife in bed being distributed through Napster, how would you have gotten them removed? Who would you have contacted? You would have had no options to solve the problem.
Systems like Napster are great, and the freedom they provide is an unarguably nessecary component, but there has to be some system to address the objections raised on a case by case basis.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
Napster wasn't shut down because it did anything illegal, it was shut down because in fervantly protection free speech, it failed to provide a reasonable system through which someone could request the removal of material that was harmful to them.
/easiest/ protocol to deal with individual users on who were acting up. So you see any of these four major protocols is worse than napster. Napster was shut down because it's /primary purpose/ was exchange of mp3's, a majority of which were copyrighted, a majority of those by RIAA clients.
Sorry, that just isn't true. If it were, then email, irc, usenet and the web would all have to be shut down. To go to your example, I could post bombmaking instructions to any of them without being permanently removed. I could be using an anonymous remailer for three of them and for irc, they could ban my IP from the server but I would probably be at the library and could just go to one of the other myriad libraries in the area. Or I could take advantage of the fact that my ISP uses dynamic IPs and use a diff. username each time, but then I risk getting reported and tracked so I would prob. do the library thing. Napster was actually the
BTW photos can't be put up on Napster. have you ever even used the fscking service on which you are commenting? You can put mp3's in your directory for d/l and there are chat channels where you can type stuff. That's it. IRC is 100x more dangerous. Also if you didn't notice large numbers of ppl w/ mettalica songs were systematically removed from the system at one point. How hard would it be to do that to people doling out credit card numbers, as well as logging their IP to report to their provider? You can't hide behind a wall of anonymity with napster, at least not without being seriously being traceable, the way you can with other protocols. So then the law tracks them down and prosecutes them. Whereas we know of people distributing credit card numbers elsewhere online who haven't been caught.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009