Slashdot Mirror
Freenet Music Venture; Napster-like ROM Swapping
artg writes "The Guardian is
reporting) that Ian Clarke and others are creating a company called Uprizer to provide a legal Napster replacement. It apparently relies on voluntary contributions from users, but full details are secret until December." In other news, we've had a number of submissions concerning a Napster-like program called RomNet. The main difference is the swapping of ROMs -- looks cool.
Funny coincidence - I was listening to Neil Young (Harvest) yesterday when I wrote that comment.
How about this? Let's NOT close down the crack house down the block. Okay, so the hookers and guns are dragging down the neighborhood and keeping everyone inside, but the dealers have a right to express themselves by selling crack.
The fact is that it was not a free speech issue! The ab.warez.* groups have no legitimate use -- they are explicitly for the illegal copying of software created by people who do not wish to have their software copied in such a manner. Anything that can be legally transmitted by such a forum is by definition off topic. Anything that is on topic is illegal.
IANAL, but it seems that this is not a moral issue, it's a legal one.
/Brian
Anyone else find it ironic that the above post was lifted without permission from the RIAA, without even including proper attribution?
FWIW, it appears to come from here: http://www.riaa.com/MD-US-7.cfm
MSK
Well, developers would get hold of GPLd works from their distributors, for free, as per the GPL, then modify them and create "derivative works", and then distribute these derivative works in binary only form, using my system. Clear enough for ya?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Currently, copyright law allows something that the FSF and others consider to be wrong, namely allowing someone to put computer code under lock and key and claim ownership of it, depriving all others of any right to make use of, modify, or in many cases even look at the code in question.
Exactly. But you're mixing apples and oranges, namely freedom and morality. I have the freedom to cheat on my wife. However, it is morally wrong to do so. If we legislated adultery and made it illegal, we would get a net loss of freedom, but a net gain of morality.
That's the basis of how the FSF argues it. A loss of individual freedom (i.e., the freedom to withhold changes to GPL source code) in exchange for a net gain of morality.
I actually would have more respect for the FSF if they would stop the language battle and just come out and say what they mean. Unfortunately, they deliberately confuse "individual freedom", "group freedom" and "morality" in order to make their points.
The FSF's goal and philosophy call for a world in which all information is available to everybody under what amounts to BSD style conditions,
That is absolutely, positively wrong. The FSF's goal and philosophy call for a world in which everyone is FORCED to share information. The BSD license does not have forced sharing. The BSD license, in essence, says "I am sharing this with you in the true spirit of sharing... without the expectation of something of return. We hope you find this useful. Use it in any way you like."
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You know, people like yourself are what made this country (the US) what it is today.
More and more, I am agreeing with the NRA. The solution to all our problems is definitely MORE GUNS.
Think of it as giving Darwin a helping hand.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
It doesn't matter if it's "intellectual property" or physical property. You don't automatically get the rights to something just because you want it.
If you write a love note to Sally, the whole world doesn't automatically get the right to read it, even though you "distributed" it to selected members of the world (Sally). Even though it doesn't cost you anything, you have your reasons for not wanting everybody to have the note you wrote.
I know that companies like Nintendo don't really enjoy the idea of people creating emulators and ripping roms, reasoning that after playing the older games, people will stop buying the new ones.
...
On the other hand, I don't know of any serious legal action going on against ROM sites or emulation sites, and the companies don't seem to pay too much attention to the issue.
So why do we need a Napster-like ROM trader? I've no problem finding any ROM I want on the web. I guess it's just for convenience's sake
1)Rip off music without buying the CDs? 2)Rip off software so programers can't make money? 3)Rip off games, so that more won't be put out? 4)Spam screens with porno ad pop-ups?
All of this steps on Copyright (and Copyleft) and prevents ppl from making the money they deserve.
Don't get me wrong, I have mp3s, and own ROMs, but I go buy the 'real thing' if I like what I see/hear. And as far as porn, all for it, but, their are ppl who don't want to see it, and I don't want to deal with the pop ups.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
You know, as much as I like the idea of ROMNet and the fact that I can get some of those rare NES games I could never find, something like this isn't helping to push peer-to-peer file sharing any. The existing file-sharing programs, major ones like Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet, are just being pointed to as yet another mode for piracy by the respective industries, and in many cases, it's simply unwarranted. I think that peer-to-peer file-sharing is a great idea and it should be pursued, but I think if more programs such as the ones mentioned pop up, they will just be unfairly demonized as havens for pirates.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
either that or it's a totally new media paradigm that up until about a year ago never existed in the known history of the universe. And people like to talk about it, but hey that's not a good excuse for the cynical whiner who worries about how many banner ad impression C|net gets when /. links to them.
--
+&x
If it's this simple, why are CDs more expensive than cassettes, which are more expensive to manufacture than CDs?
Furthermore, the banter about the CPI going up 60% is a crock as well. Other media haven't followed the CPI either (although movies in my area have gone up a tad).
The fact of the matter is, we've been being overcharged for CDs for years. True, their margins are probably shrinking due to higher production costs, but make no mistake: the recording industry is nowhere near losing money.
Beta generally means no known bugs. I'd say the author probably knows about quite a few. Alpha means feature complete, known bugs. Clearly it is alpha, not beta.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
>>By all measures, when you consider how long
>>people have the music and how often they can go >>back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an
>>incredible value for the money.
Well, lets take another angle on this. Since the actual cost of producing the physical CD is only a SMALL part of the whole equation, the lions share goes to the recording company, the artists, the cost of producing the music, the artwork, promotion, etc etc. Following so far? So once the music is produced, the medium that is used to convey it is an extremely small portion of the overall cost.
Following so far? Good.
Now explain the price discrepancy between an casette tape and a CD of the same 'artistic work'.
Oh yeah... there isn't any explanation, except for price gouging. I can buy BLANK CDR discs for $1 (with a jewel case). I can only imagine what it costs 'the industry' to stamp out CD's - maybe 40 cents? So why is a CD always at least $5 more than a tape. Cut the bullshit about 'quality' - they are post produced from the same master work.
The rise of Napster (et all) also comes from the fact that it is generally IMPOSSIBLE to buy A SINGLE SONG. If there is a song i like i have to drop down $20 for the CD. Give me a freaking break. Charge me $2/song - deliver it electronically and I'm responsible for supplying the medium. I'd spend a fortune. But that isn't possible. There isn't a legal way to do it.
Just as the recording industry has fought producers of custom, made to order compilation CD's (vending machines etc) in order to maximize profits. Well, the cows are tired of being milked.
People have been taken advantage of by the recording industry for a quite a while - the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. Be interesting to watch the subsequent oscillations.
j
Believe me, if I had the time and expertise to create an ultra-efficient P2P file-sharing application, I would, but I do not. /. is a forum where ideas can be batted around; I am not commanding you to code an application I want, I'm merely offering a suggestion--take it for what it's worth.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
How can you even compare files to drugs? Lets take a step back and look at the BIG picture. "Please stop drawing so much attention to it, and maybe we can avoid a lengthly..." you draw an even greater amount of attention by even comparing file swapping to drugs. drugs kill. file swapping does not.
Yankees suck. yep you know it.
This isn't another generic Freenet-will-kill-intellectual-property article. The Uprizer project will sell music. The description is vague (and the spec is secret until December), but evidently it will use some form of Street Performer Protocol. Anyone want to guess how this will work?
Maybe artists will release two songs and "threaten" to sign with an RIAA distributor unless they get enough contributions to live on.
Maybe they'll release the really catchy refrain to a song, and withold the rest (so you can't get it out of your head by singing it).
Maybe they'll play half a fugue and request payment before returning to the tonic...
- Michael Cohn
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
Thank you for taking the time to explain about freenet. When the subject was first brought up, it sounded like a pipe dream akin to the Open Windows project. After reading more info at http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ it still sounds vaporish. From the FAQ:
"On Freenet, whatever you do, your identity is still revealed to the first Freenet Node you talk to. The anonymity that Freenet offers is really just obscurity in the fact that it is hard to prove that your node wasn't proxying the request for or insert of data on behalf of somebody else (who might also just have been proxying it)."
"to attain true anonymity you have to send the message through an external network of anonymous remailers first "
This is what originally made me think of the meta-web anonymity issues. Freenet is taking us no further along than non-trivial implentations of encryption. And as for removing or censoring information, isn't the DeCSS mirroring phenomenon proof enough that it's really hard to whack *all* the moles?
I remain unconvinced.
The so called War on Drugs is not about people's health, it is (like all wars) the continuation of politics by other means. The "War on Swapping" will only come into being if one side in a political struggle sees it as useful in repressing the views, opinions, political activity etc. of the other side. This might happen, but it won't come from RIAA.
just looking at this, and according to what i can see on their site, it looks as though this program just transfers .zip files. anyone see a potential problem with this for trojans, etc?
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
v.3.12
GCS d-(--) s+: a-- C+++$>++++$$ UL++$>++++$$ P+>++++$ L++>++++$ E--- W++$>++
It seems to me that freenet is not really the right tool for the job. Freenet is intended as a way to anonymously post stuff in an uncensorable way, it has NO search mechanism, and its fairly bandwidth intensive -- all downloads get routed through the freenet software. Why do we need this level of protection, especially for a service that is supposed to have a way to be 100% LEGAL by ANYONE's definition??? If they don't plan to get sued, why the heavy crypto, etc?
---
I wasn't saying "go out and rip PS/2 games kids, rip off Sega if you can, storm Nintendo!" What I am saying is... Activision isn't making money off of Barnstorming anymore. Why not release it into the public domain and have a legal repository of such. Why hold onto a license that isn't EVER going to be used, when the game is plenty of fun anyways?
Eh...
Lost its battle? My understanding was that the trial won't actually begin for another six months; the RIAA got a prelimminary injunction and Napster was granted their appeal. Exactly what battle are they talking about?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
We've just released a draft of our Music Payment Protocol so any ambitious soul can integrate the Fairtunes voluntary payment model into something like opennap or XMMS or WinAmp..
Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes Inc.
Slightly off-topic, but as of yesterday the Ontario Court of Appeal has just put Canada's pot law into limbo:
The National Post
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
I'm a ROM developer. Before you insult, look at my NES work: GNOME vs. KDE is a GPL'd game; Who's Cuter? is what you get when you cross Precious Moments with a Rorschach inkblot.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
People are usually sending between $5-$20US. Since there is no minimum limit a few people have put through transactions as low as $0.15. But usually people are being very generous. And I guess it's interesting to note that more money is being sent to "no-name" artists than the big name top 40 bunch.
Matt.
co-founder
Fairtunes
So I would be paying, more AND less. More of the money would go to the artists who provide the content.
Sure, definitely. If we're talking about specific charges set directly by the artists, then they could certainly charge less, but make more.
I'm interested, though, in the concept of collective payment. The idea that everyone (in general) pays toward a fixed sum, beyond which all is free (beer). So, any given person might pay a buck, if they thought the product was fair, or thirty bucks, if they thought it was supreme. Once supported to whatever pre-determined level, the product would simply be available to anyone interested.
It's not a *fair* model, but is it a viable one?
"So we're not home and dry."
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
I think that it is a shame that software companies get all pissed off about people trading software titles that they don't even publish anymore.
Publishers have very good reason to want to protect these games even though they're not currently available for sale. As the fervent interest in emulators and roms indicates, there is currently a demand for these 'classic' games to be played. There have already been numerous shrinkwrapped emulator packages sold with a limited number of games (Microsoft Arcade, Activision whatever-it-was, Namco Museum -Playstation release only, etc). Games publishers have a potential to tap into this demand, but they won't be able to so long as these ROMS are being pirated over the net for free. Imagine this meeting of marketing execs:
Exec #1: "Seems like a lot of people still love to play Wizard of Wor. Hundreds of thousands of people are passing the roms around to play on their computers."
Exec #2: "Sounds like an opportunity to make some money!"
Exec #1: "Maybe we should license the Wizard of War rom to some company so they can bundle it with their emulator?"
Exec #1: "Great idea! All those hundreds of thousands of people currently playing wizard of wor for free would gladly pay $49.95 for an emulator bundled with it and a few other games. This is giving me the same tingles I felt when we came up with DIVX!"
Exec #2: "We're so smart."
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
This place is getting positively oppressive. If you say somthing a little toungue in cheek some bible thumping lefty mods you down. You post a reply to a question someone askes thats slightly off topic you get modded down. Get a friggen life losers. Use your mod points to move stuff you like up not the stuff you disagree with down. Bunch of book burning politically correct morons. I'm strating to see why people give up posting honest commentary and start flaming.
This is ludicrous. Businesses do not have any intrinsic or legal right to make money. If customers are "destroying your business model" then your business model sucks and deserves to fail.
Interestingly, though, this was Napster's defense against the preliminary injunction. Their argument boiled down to, "If our music service is cut-off we will have to layoff employees and go out of business" (how they make money off people downloading music is anybody's guess, though).
Why do you have a double standard? Why do you think it is OK for Napster to make this argument, but not for the record companies to make it?
Oh, good for you. I'm glad to see you taking a morilistic stance on other peoples behalfs like that.
Sarcasm, eh? Well, next time I see a crackhead stealing your car stereo, I'll make sure not to take a morilistic stand on his behalfs...
Absolutely.... I consider myself very much a political conservative, but I'm all for ending the "war on drugs". Any true conservative should realize that things which let government get larger and increase taxes, like this pointless "war" should not be acceptable.
Comparing drugs to copying software is pretty ludicrous to begin with, though. I don't know anyone who can honestly say copying some CDs caused their health condition to deteriorate, for starters....
The difference, of course, being that RIAA can drop a trackable ID onto the chip and charge for every exchange.
Thanks...but no thanks, I get enough banner ads on Web sites already, I don't need one on my Rio.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
Your cost analysis is interesting, but ultimately flawed. I refer you to the much more interesting speech on the subject given by someone actually involved in this process.
But don't believe for a minute that the recording industry is the only one to use these tactics. There is an interesting analysis of the book industry and the advantage of going your own way here. It would be interesting, to say the least, to see what would happen should musicians follow a similar road.
Burris
I'm sick of liberals whining about "sweat shops" and how children in Third World countries are being paid a dollar a day to put together sneakers for ten hours straight. Of course, if it wasn't for that dollar, the child would probably just curl up in a ball and die...
Just like they were doing before the United States.
Sorry if that offends leftists, but profit is why we are where we are today.
So thats who to blame!
Nike are working hard to feed poor children
..............I hope this was just a bad joke.
Guess what, folks, if you can't compete, you don't deserve to be in business
Guess what, folks, if you break the law, you don't deserve to be in business.
What part of BETA don't you understand?
I don't wan't to flame, but when it says beta, I expect things to be unfinished, possibly broken. You should forward your issues to the author at jetro3@a1isp.net
---
"The philosophy behind the GPL is that people should be allowed to use their data however they want (including sharing with others)."
No. That's the philosophy behind the BSD license. It is very hard to violate BSD-style licenses and almost no benefit is gained from doing so.
The GPL is a different animal. The GPL's philosophy is that people should program collectively and unselfishly to create a good product. Hoarding of code (releasing binary-only derivatives) is discouraged and outlawed. Under the GPL, people cannot use data however they want but must share it with others.
Both licenses "use the existing IP laws to make this so".
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
Is anyone else getting sick of stories about software that promotes rampant piracy? Maybe these stories deserve a new slashdot category...
Insightful? Who would use it? People who want to download GPL'd binaries without getting the source code. Oooh, the rebels! Actually I can already download binaries from many distributions but they also have to offer the sources. With your GPLnet, people would get the exciting ability to download GPL'd code without source available. Who cares? Who would bother offering it? You can't exactly offer the downloads for money, as a business. You'd have to get the money somehow, then you could be tracked down and sued for violating the copyright of the authors. And it wouldn't be a case of 33,000 violators in that case.
(-1 Lame, Old and Tired)
A lot of bullshit is spoken about how artists don't want to "sell out" by signing with a record company. Every musician, if given the chance, would sign a record deal and anyone who claims otherwise is lying (this is simply a case of sour grapes, because they have never been offered a record deal). There is a very good reason why there are so many unsigned bands around - 99.9% of unsigned bands produce unlistenable shit.
The public do not want to support the "small guy". They want finely crafted, highly polished music - the sort of music which only the big recording companies can produce. The public will only be interested in this project if it can provide them with the Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys and Eminem records that they know, love and copy from Napster. If this project is to make money, the only way it will do so is by the piracy of music produced by the major labels.
I'll leave you with a final quote from the article: "The public pays, but collectively rather than individually." This sounds just like piracy to me - the greed of a few people pirating music on Napster, means that the majority suffer through paying higher prices in order to subsidise the pirates (check out this link for proof).
I don't get this Uprizer story:
The London-based founder of Freenet, the software that allows digital music downloads, is setting up a new company in the US, designed to directly challenge existing copyright laws.
and
"We intend to stay vigorously on the right side of the law."
and
Mr Clarke explained how the new venture would bypass copyright protection laws by citing the example of Stephen King, the blockbuster novelist, who is asking for voluntary payment for each online instalment of his latest novel.
So, they're not breaking or challenging any laws at all. They're asking people to pay for the music they want.
It is also unclear how Uprizer, which will use the open source Freenet software, is to make money.
Uh, by taking a share of the money raised? Seems simple enough to me. Oddly, no one seems to wonder how Napster is going to make any money, or Helix Code or Eazel or...
My question to the world is: would you pay with a system like Ian Clarke's? Would you voluntarily pay to support the creators of the stuff you like? Would you pay more than you would elsewhere? Less?
"So we're not home and dry."
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
Okay, I may get strung up by my toenails for suggesting this, but anyone who seeks to live long enough to outrun the next court date in this arena really needs to work with RIAA, not against them. Simply put, they're running scared. Why?
See, until now, the companies that make up RIAA have run the entire network -- from A&R all the way to producing the CD's. Napster and its ilk seek to remove the production end from the business, where the real money is made. In fact, they're also gobbling up A&R as well, as the A&R process becomes more democratized.
What does this do to the average record label? It simply puts them in a position where all they're doing is helping to organize touring (oftentimes done as a by-the-band function) and marketing. That is a low-margin area, as it's pretty cost-intensive.
Granted, how RIAA and its constiuents screw over artists is legendary. While the politicians are overlooking the IP rights to other things, they need to look at how IP is getting squelched for individual artists. But if you want to be successful in the digital (compressed) music world, you have to work with RIAA, not against them. Just guard your wallet.
--
<><
-- Geof F. Morris
not everyone can use even the simplest "peice" of software. don't worry, there is some porrige left for you too, across the street and one turn left.
In fact, I like that analogy so much, I think I'll make it my new sig. :)
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Uprizer will distribute its music through Freenet, and as Ian Clarke has said, "nobody - including myself - can shut down Freenet". When the music industry discovers that *shock horror* Freenet is being used to trade pirated MP3s, Clarke will shrug his shoulders and say "there's nothing I can do about it - I just set it up to run my indie label".
BTW you spelt Britney correctly. I'm sure you knew that and you were just embarrassed to admit that you have her CD case in front of you. ;)
I'm not saying that there aren't cases, even including ones like this, where Freenet is very useful, I just think that the application being talked about isn't (for the majority of stuff shared) one of them.
... he enjoys support from those who tried to run the Maplethorpe exhibit out of Cincinnati and imprison the Art Museum's curator.
There is a 50% chance we will have Tippor Gore as our next first lady. Can you say "War Against Music?" She has a history (as a senator's wife) of stirring up lynch mobs of mothers to try and censor music.
If dub-uh-yuh gets elected, don't count on an age of enlightenment either
The point being that both major parties have an appalling record when it comes to civil liberties and freedom of expression. FreeNet may well become the only place artists can distribute their work without the likes of Tippor and the Religious Right stirring up the modern day equivelent of a lynch mob against them.
That being the case, why not build a responsible system for reimbursing artists upon a solid infrastructure designed to make it impossible for their work to ever be censored by anyone, anywhere?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I don't see what's wrong with any of those examples. None of them are a problem per se, only when used in conjunction with a poor society. You can spend a lot of time and effort trying to outlaw something, but it doesn't solve the problems behind it. Does it really matter that I can't get a picture of an 8 year old getting raped if I'm still a person with an intention to harm children?
I think the resources put into outlawing these things would be better put into trying to make them less attractive, possibly through propaganda, or maybe through the creation of a better alternative.
Actually, I don't.. Neil Young & Crazy Horse, sure, but no Britney.. Still, your comment made me laugh, and I thank you for that.
wish
---
Not only that, but this, too:
... why must it be forgotten the first place? I mean, why not *consider* the pink elephant? And why not *not* ignore the request to ignore the pink elephant?
Asking for attention to be stopped merely draws attention. I say this not as a troll, but to prove a point: that for attention to be stopped, all parties involved -- or at least the party wanting attention to be dropped -- must be proactive and actually *refrain from commenting*
Silence may be a virtue, but it's virtually impossible in this so-called "information age." Why? Because keeping one's mouth shut, hands down, is one of the more difficult things to do in this world. (Of course, Slashdot actively encourages you to open your mouth -- metaphorically -- so the fact that someone is actually posting on Slashdot and asking *not to draw attention to something* makes absolutely no sense at all.)
It is, of course, like asking you to forget about the pink elephant. But when people say that: "It is, of course, like asking you to forget about the pink elephant." Then I have to wonder: forget about forgetting about the pink elephant
What is it about silence that is so powerful? And why is it that advocates of silence (who are, in fact, far from silent) so certain that non-silence is so dangerous? Isn't silence, in fact, more 'dangerous' than non-silence?
And in the case of drawing attention to something: isn't silence, in fact, a more powerful weapon for drawing attention? Why do the advocates of 'not drawing attention to something' not stop and think that their most powerful weapon is exactly the thing they are negating when they attempt to implement their most powerful weapon?
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
not only do we need more guns, we need fewer airbags, fewer guardrails, no more safety harnesses of any sort, and no medicine. By the way, I *AM* serious. Let a little darwin back in our lives.
(`._(`._( , , . JimmyPop[nL] . , , )_.)_.)
And, if he owns the original cart, he has a right to the original ROM - much like people have a right to tape CDs to play in their cars. He can't give the ROM to all his friends (unless they too have the original cart), but he can have the ROM without breaking copyright laws.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Well, I guess I was hoping that at least something on that list would disturb everyone. Since a lot of people around here don't respect IP, I thought (and apparently Streetlawyer thought too) that maybe some other form of information transfer would be offensive in some way. I really thought the privacy angle would work.
One very defensible position would be to say that no information sharing ever infringes upon the rights of others. (And of course, any activity that infringes upon no one's rights should be unrestricted. (The immorality of War on Drugs comes to mind.))
To say that information sharing never infringes upon anyone's rights is a fairly bold assertion, though. I wish some of you people would just come out and say it.
I wonder if people would continue to hold that position if they saw naked pictures of their mothers/daughters/wives on the front page of the newspaper, along with a listing of all their credit card numbers (and usage histories), ex-girlfriends' reviews of past sexual performance, current partner's rebuttal to the accuracy of those reviews, their salary history, and quotations of everything they ever said behind someone else's back. All anonymously published, with no way to hit back.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
No. The philosophy behind the GPL is that people should be allowed to use their data however they want (including sharing with others).
Good God! Maybe you actually read what Gnu is about, instead of making unbelievably wrong assumptions about it.
The philosophy of GPL is NOT "that people should be allowed to use their data however they want". There are very specific restrictions on what people are allowed to do with GPL code, including 1) Source code must be distributed, 2) Source code which isn't GPL'd becomes GPL'd when GPL code is used within it (the "viral" aspect of the GPL).
If there were no IP laws, the GPL would be impossible.
If anything, you're thinking of BSD-style licenses, which are almost unrestricted.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"Under the GPL, people cannot use data however they want but must share it with others."
False. The GPL requires you to share source code if and only if you've also shared binary files.
And the REASON for this is to make sure that the NEXT person has as much freedom as you do. But, again, if there were no other copyright/licensing restrictions on the "next person" I wouldn't have to give them the source code.
The GPL makes use of the system in order to undermine it. The BSD tries to avoid the system but gets easily trapped by it.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Regarding the Next war on drugs.... IMHO drugs won that war convincingly.
I did some searches of the more common rom extensions (fig, smc, sfc) - apparently RomNet shares your entire hard drive. Just about everyone seems to have a C:\windows\default.sfc - and I'm pretty sure thats not a rom. Someone else had stuff in a directory called \lotus\ which looks like it contains some sort of database stuff..
A more pertinant example is king size rolling papers, of which it is estimated 99% are used for marijuana.
A typical music fan who buys a CD might use that CD at home, take that CD in the car, make a tape of that CD, - or using it as part of a compilation, play that CD with friends and for friends, and keep that CD for many years.
That's funny. Didn't Hilary Rosen say that making copies of your CD, so that you could keep one at home and one in the car, was not an example of "fair use"? Let's all be glad she's not the webmaster there.
For more information, click here.
"The GPL requires you to share source code if and only if you've also shared binary files."
That's what we've been talking about the whole time. A system to share binary files was the topic of the thread.
"The GPL makes use of the system in order to undermine it."
How does the GPL try to undermine the system of IP laws?
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
No, people who want to distribute binaries of derivative works of GPL code while maintaining proprietary extensions. I'd charge people for adding a file to the network; companies would want to do this in order to take advantage of GPL code to create proprietary applications.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
uprizer won't work. they are talking about helping the smalltime and unsigned bands - and those are not the MP3s most people want. They want Britney Spears.* And neither Britney Spears nor her label are interested in micropayments.
Besides, if I want unsigned artists, I can go to mp3.com.
wishus
* I probably misspelled Britney. I am sure to get flamed for this.
---
OK, wait a second. Let's assume for the sake of argument that swapping is ethical. Why are you blaming people who engage in ethical conduct for the government's subsequent unethical conduct? I'll spare you a Godwin-invoking analogy.
Since when is stealing music and files ethical?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Why would you do that? There are already plenty of people who violate the GPL without paying a fee (and are probably not being caught). Go figure...you are assuming people let their conscience weigh in on their decisions.........
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
The market for peer to peer file sharing is already diluted, with most (Napster, Scour, etc.) concentrating on multimedia files. I do not want a program that only targets a specific niche, as I will then need XX different programs just to share all of my files over a network. FreeNet will probably only capture a small user base because of its complexity and the implications of storing portions of other people's potentially illegal information on your computer.
Instead of integrating micropayments or encouraging users to pay for downloaded songs, I would like to see a content-neutral *efficient* file sharing system. It should be both like Microsoft File Sharing/FServes, where you find the name of friends computer and download his files, if you have the right password, and Napster, where you can search the entire network for unprotected files. It should not require a central server but, unlike Gnutella, which is incredibly inefficient, it should immediately query the "server" that it connects to for all IP addresses that it is connected to, cache ALL hosts, and immediately announce itself to the network. It should not respond to search requests unless it has a hit--all file system information should be cached in memory.
I want flexibility and performance, not a program designed to handle only a certain type of file that the developer allows. The web has evolved into what it is today because it is a trivial task to extend HTML to embed new multimedia enhancements, and it can link to files of all types. Why should we accept file-sharing programs that are unneccesarily restrictive?
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Amusingly enough, folklore states that Rizla's official explanation of king skins is that they are for lorry drivers, who need their smokes to last longer before their next roll.
;)
Whatever
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Check out Mojo Nation which is a distributed file system that makes it inexpensive to publish something that is very popular while maintaining a way to get paid. It reduces the load on individual servers by spreading files out among different hosts (redundantly) and uses market economics to prevent the "tradgedy of the commons" problem...
Burris
Who cares?
You cannot get hurt by buying drugs per se. You cannot get hurt by illegally trading music per se.
You *can* get hurt by using drugs. You *can* get hurt by listening to music (you could develop tinnitus, for example).
Now that the analogy fits, don't you see how useless it is?
Flaunting marijuana use is exactly what's causing change. And media opinion and public opinion feed back on each other: it's what makes the moguls money.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I don't know anyone who can honestly say copying some CDs caused their health condition to deteriorate, for starter...
Possibly some moral harm maybe? Of course that is assuming that they have morals...
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Since intellectual property was unethical.
Since when was a point of view other than my own valid?
Since it reversed the meaning of a concept by the use of pejoratives.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
>[...]They want finely crafted, highly polished music[...]
>Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys and Eminem records[...]
Ummm...Are you suggesting those are 'finely crafted' and 'highly polished' and not 'unlistenable shit'?
It might be popular, but it's still shit. (Check out this link for proof.)
Note to crackhea^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H moderators: see SARCASM(1) and HUMOR(3) for details.
=-=-=
And yet the amount that artists receive is negligible, whilst the record companies think a record's flopped if they've posted less than 10% profit!
It's disingenuous (or 'just plain wrong', to put it another way) to say that the record company pays for marketing, playlisting, etc. Certainly they pay initially. But then they charge that to the artist(s) concerned, so it doesn't actually cost them anything! The promotion costs are then indented against the artist's next record, so if the artist's next album doesn't make enough of a profit (and bear in mind that the artist is on a crap deal where they only get a few cents per CD sold), then the artist ends up owing the record company, in spite of the fact that the company may still have made a decent profit on the record! And that's why only the most extremely successful artists make enough to retire on - the rest get stuck in share-cropping hell, trying to cover their existing debts. This has remarkable parallels with the indenture system of the feudal society, and with how smugglers of illegal immigrants get their victims to 'pay off their travel'.
The concert tour was actually the main way for artists to make money - artists never used to make anything on recordings, so they played live, and the proceeds from that went directly to them instead of to the record company. Even the Beatles didn't start making real money on recordings until much later in their career, although no doubt it gives the surviving members a nice cash boost each year now. This is doubly true for session musicians, who may only be paid for a week's work recording an album, but get 6 months guaranteed work off a tour.
Artists are starting to get wise to these problems, and are getting more bolshy with their record companies. I'm sure this accounts for the rise in 'manufactured' groups of boy- and girl-bands (911, Spice Girls, Take That, etc, etc). These guys are just doing it bcos the record companies are paying them more than McDonalds would, not bcos they actually _want_ to be real musicians, and certainly not bcos they're at all talented.
As for CD sales - no doubt many groups don't make much in sales, just as many paperback books don't really go anywhere. The problem - cost. In the UK, £15 for a new CD release is about average. Now that's a fair amount of money, and I'm reluctant to spend that on a CD when I don't know if I'll like it - hence the appeal of being able to listen to extracts on Napster or suchlike, or having the CD available on the trial stands in the shop (I found one of my favourite CDs, by Porcupine Tree, just by sticking on the demo headphones in a music shop). It's almost worse when you know there's only one good song on the whole CD (eg. Mariah Carey's Music Box) - is it worth paying £15 for one song? If you can't afford to write off the cost of a CD, you will never experiment with new artists or genres, and consequently sales will suffer.
Grab.
Interestingly, though, this was Napster's defense against the preliminary injunction. Their argument boiled down to, "If our music service is cut-off we will have to layoff employees and go out of business" (how they make money off people downloading music is anybody's guess, though).
Why do you have a double standard? Why do you think it is OK for Napster to make this argument, but not for the record companies to make it?
Didn't you read the comment you were replying to? If the _CUSTOMER_ is destroying your business model, then your business model sucks and deserves to fail. Napster's argument was that somebody other than the CUSTOMER was trying to destroy their business model.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
Used to be copyright was good for just 14 years, with a 14 year extension possible (in the USA). Now corporations have extended this to (75? 95?) years after the author's death.
:-)
No one in their right mind pretends this is for the public good. It benefits corporations only. Well, lawyers who battle over it, and the politicians whose pockets were lined, yeh, they got some benefit too, but I digress
As far as I am concerned, they have stolen information from the public, and napster and all these other so-called "pirates" are simply stealing back what was once theirs. I don't care that they also steal back more than what the corporations stole in the first place, because the corporations started this war on public access to info, and the public will finish it (and them!).
It's like the old Aesop fable about the monkey who was so greedy that he would not release a few peas from his handfull and thus could not get his overfull hand out of the jar. The corporations are so afraid of losing even the tiniest bit of control that they are going to lose it all.
Too bad, so sad.
Lest the conclusion jumpers out their misconstrue this, I don't hate businesses, I just hate greed and the over-powerful.
--
Infuriate left and right
The RIAA or whoever does it. Spends way too much money advertising. It doesn't need to do it the way it does. In fact it shouldn't. That way people could judge music on its quality. They are a crappy value for their money. I certainly would rather not pay for the advertising that is spent on them, or for that matter I would really not like to spend money on the advertising of other crappy cd's that the riaa thinks I should listen to(ones that are loosing money). Furthermore recently recording companies lost a law suit brought forth by the us government. The lawsuit claimed that these recording companies have been price fixing for the past 10 years. Don't tell me a cd is good value when you have to pay for advertising plus an additional couple dollars because of price-fixing.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
And, of course, in a world without IP protections, it's impossible to add restrictions to code you distribute. If you distribute some code with source, and I distribute changed code in binary form, someone else can reverse-engineer your code, write equivalent source, and distribute that.
Heck, that can be done even if the initial author doesn't distribute source.
So, essentially, the net effect of abolishing intellectual property would be that everything would have an implicit GPL license attached to it. I don't think the FSF would have a problem with that.
You are a hypocrite You are tired of hearing about Napster, yet you just mentioned it. Shame on you
Of course, the most important component of a CD is the artist's effort in developing that music. Artists spend a large portion of their creative energy on writing song lyrics and composing music or working with producers and A&R executives to find great songs from great writers. This task can take weeks, months, or even years.
So then why is it that the artist is often the only person in the transaction who winds up losing money?
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
I did search for good old Benny on a friends Napster once a while ago and found about two dozen, which was more then I expected. But I didn't need any of them. I do fine with my CD collection the way it is.
You'd be suprised the esoteric and obscure stuff you find on Napster. I just searched on Benny Goodman and got 100 hits, which is all my broken napster client will allow; I'm sure it would have been two or three times as many, including some stuff you haven't got already, or even better...stuff you have listened to so much that your cd is scratched and won't make a clean rip and plays badly...
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
No, people who want to distribute binaries of derivative works of GPL code while maintaining proprietary extensions. I'd charge people for adding a file to the network; companies would want to do this in order to take advantage of GPL code
to create proprietary applications.
Why would a company pay you to distribute their proprietary extensions (GPL violations), so that anyone could download their proprietary extensions for free? Once again: who in the world would use GPLNet?
The games are works for hire for the software vendors. The copyright dies years after the company does, that's how copyright works. This means that a long time, after the software vendor permanently closes its doors, the software goes into the public domain, which could be a VERY long time for anything by Microsoft.
Eh...
You see, Napster could be perfectly legal if the RIAA wanted it to be legal. They don't so it isn't.
:give them what they want.
I think that what is being forgotten about is that the customer is always right.
What I'm trying to say is that, we as music customers like using MP3's, they're small, portable, and sound decent. The RIAA on the other hand doesn't want us to use that because they lose a measure of control over it. While I understand that issue, I think it's overblown, and frankly, I have a better opinion of my fellow man than to think the majority of them are theives that wouldn't rather use legal means than illegal ones.
Instead of giving us what we want, the RIAA is forcing us to become pirates. They have ignored the basic business truism
I'm willing to pay money for music, but I want to do it my way. If they won't play ball, I'll take my business elsewhere.
Nephs
OK, wait a second. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am right. Why are you arguing with me?
You just don't get it, do you? No one ever said IP laws are bad/wrong. The purpose is not to abolish them. Copyright, patent, trademark, they all are very useful concepts and are needed. Without them, the global economy would collapse, and even if you're anti WMF, WTO (as I am) you can't really think that would be a Good Thing.
/.ers who rant and rave over GPL violations but see nothing wrong with pirating anything and everything under the sun, claiming it's free speech.
.
But on the other hand, free speech is just as important. The post you are replying to points out hypocrisy of
What Napster is doing is illegal. They are (or are hoping they will be) profiting from piracy. Gnutella isn't and is therefore probably fine. The users of Gnutella may be breaking the letter of the law, but it is too hard to track them and too costly to prosecute them.
The GPL isn't using the system against itself, as you claim. The GPL is using the system for just the purpose the system was created. The purpose of the GPL is to protect property and limit it's use. The RIAA is, at this point, using the system against itself. By resisting electronic distribution and charging too much, they are encouraging the their own (and the system's) destruction.
<RANT>IMHO information does not want to be free. It wants to be created and used.</RANT>
The RIAA is trying to halt the use of information. They killed the single as a medium and charge too much for records. As a result they are being hit hard by mp3 piracy. If the RIAA wanted to solve this problem once and for all, they could adapt their pricing schemes to reflect the new and drastically lower cost of duplication and distribution and LET US LISTEN TO THE MUSIC WE'D GLADLY PAY FOR
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
the search tool is awful (and it's in some horrible font meaning that there's hardly any space for the results on a small screen)
the search tool has no status, so i type 'mario' in and press enter... how do i know if it's searching? i don't - and guess what - it isn't! i have to move my hand across to my mouse and click 'SEARCH' in some kind of awful font. i really didn't think that user interface design was a problem for anyone. most of the open source community seem to design nice, uniform windows, but this piece of shite breaks all those rules.
server based popup windows on all conditions - "if you don't have a firewall, ignore this message!"
so, i've got my search results and guess what - all of the speeds are 'unknown' - maybe it would be useful if there was setting in the program to change that so i don't end up downloading mortal kombat of an 8 year old on a 14.4k modem in russia.
ok - i'm downloading my rom and it's not fast enough... what shall i do? i know - i'll cancel. SURPRISE! it doesn't work.
other things i don't like: giving the ip addresses instead of a user based system and the fact that it shows the full directory of where these roms are in the search AND the download. there's no rom data either, napster at least gives the bitrate etc... for a rom utility, it could give the name of the game and also test it's validity - but does it? NOPE. it's just a file sharing program that only produces search results if they end in the appropriate suffix.
saying that it looks cool in the story was just plain hype.
i'm just being honest here - if someone really thinks that it's usable and friendly - let me know. i want to hear your views.
Do you not understand the concept of Stolen Property?
In my closet there exists a sock that has not been used (by foot or any other appendage) in a little over 6 years. In all likelyhood I'll never wear this sock again. But guess what? YOU DON'T MAGICALLY GET THE RIGHT TO THIS SOCK! IT'S MINE, DAMN YOU!
Interestingly, though, this was Napster's defense against the preliminary injunction. Their argument boiled down to, "If our music service is cut-off we will have to layoff employees and go out of business" (how they make money off people downloading music is anybody's guess,though).
Why do you have a double standard? Why do you think it is OK for Napster to make this argument, but not for the record companies to make it?
Because Napster was using that argument against the preliminary injunction, not as a reason they should win the trial (the argument there being, that they aren't doing anything wrong).
Keep in mind the purpose of preliminary injunctions. They are intended to protect both sides in the case from suffering irreperable damage until the trial is completed and a verdict declared. This is to prevent the side that wins the case from still 'losing', in all practical terms.
For example, suppose the recording companies win this case. If this happens, then presumably, they are in the right, legally speaking at least. Now if the recording companies were right in their assertion that Napster was doing them irreperable damage, then they would have already suffered great damages over the duration of the trial, even though they were in the right.
On the other hand, suppose Napster wins the case. This would mean that legally, they were in the right. Now, if Napster was correct in asserting that a preliminary injunction shutting them down would do them irreperable damage, and the injunction had been granted & enforced, then by the end of the trial, even though Napster was in the right (legally), they have suffered irreperable damages. An example of what those damages might be is market share; if napster had been shut down, and the majority of its users had switched to other alternatives (OpenNap, gnutella, freenet, etc), then at the end of the trial, even though Napster technically 'won', they still would have suffered the loss of the majority of their users to these other competing services. Once lost, they would have a hard time getting the users to return, as they don't offer anything that the other alternatives don't.In this scenario, the recording companies, despite having 'lost', they have, for all intents and purposes, won -- they managed to destroy/decimate Napster.
When dealing with preliminary injunctions, the 'destroying your business model' argument is a perfectly fine one to use, for either side. The problem, to which the poster you quoted was probably thinking of, arises when you try to apply the argument to beyond the duration of the trial; when you try to use that argument -- that someone is threating your business model, threatening your profits -- as a reason in and of itself to make the thing that's threatening them illegal, protecting your flawed business model in law, and making your competitors criminals, for the sole crime of trying to compete against you.
But can Sally distribute or publish it? You sent it to her, so she owns it now, surely, or is she prohibited from publishing it because you have copyright? I don't see that your example is valid, which is the same problem as with the sock fellow. You may be right, and music "sharing" may be wrong, but you need to come up with some beter arguements and examples.
IT is a stupid fad, please let IT die!
Well.... it is true that you make some valid points. However, I know that it can't be quite as bad as the War on Drugs thing. For one thing, drugs are physical, and this data isn't. The government has more physical control then internet control. They still have (potentially) a lot of net control. However, my personal plan is to set up my own frickin "net" without anybody except my friends and family and those I trust (and not even all of my friends/family/"those I trust").
That'll be nice..... by myself a couple big servers, a variety of boxes, hook em up..... have to get rich first though. Oh well.
As for the file swapping, at least the swapping (so far) is MP3s and ROMs and "warez". I personally have no interest in anything that ends in a "z", so warez is out for me. ROMs I do download and have for years, for nostalgic purposes. But I haven't downloaded for any console newer than the SNES. I'm mostly an Apple II/NES/Genesis/other neat old console type of guy. ROMNet will be kind of neat, and I might download it, but maybe not.
You know, the funny thing is I still haven't downloaded Napster. Period. I don't know why. Just haven't bothered. I don't maintain to large of an MP3 collection, namely because my tastes conflict with those of most people. I bet if I did a search for "Benny Goodman" I'd be more likely to find "Britney Spears". I'm not even kidding.
I did search for good old Benny on a friends Napster once a while ago and found about two dozen, which was more then I expected. But I didn't need any of them. I do fine with my CD collection the way it is.
Hopefully, instead of a war on swapping, the companies will be forced to lower the prices of CDs to a more reasonable level (3-5$ range). As for ROMs, eventually (if not already) the companies aren't going to *care* about the old systems. They'll care about Dreamcasts and Dolphins and PS2s and whatnot, but emulating those is tough in the first place. So I don't really care.
Well enough ranting for now. Point is, I don't think the issue is quite as bad as you painted it, but it is still quite bad. If file swapping is somehow outlawed over the net, then I'll just boycott the whole frickin internet.
You are confusing "medium" with "message". The FSF has a task to perform--freedom. The GPL is the tool, not the task.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Many would define freedom as "The ability to do anything I want with the this piece of code", as you implied in your original post. [ ... ] In other words, I am not allowed to do what I want with the code, even if I make my own changes to it. People are NOT allowed to "use their data however they want", as you asserted.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Currently, copyright law allows something that the FSF and others consider to be wrong, namely allowing someone to put computer code under lock and key and claim ownership of it, depriving all others of any right to make use of, modify, or in many cases even look at the code in question.
The FSF's goal is to counter this. Unfortunately, because the law as it stands favors those who would restrict information, specifically source code to software, the FSF had to write guarantees into its license to protect the freedom of the code from those who would alter it and then hide their changes behind existing copyright laws.
The FSF's goal and philosophy call for a world in which all information is available to everybody under what amounts to BSD style conditions, but the current state of the law fosters and encourages a form of intellectual vulturism and predition that has forced their hand, namely to write specific protections into the license requiring others to behave in an ethical manner. The law should do this, but it doesn't, so the license must.
The BSD license, unfortunately, has no such protections.
I for one won't consider releasing my material under the FreeBSD license given the current legal climage. All software I write is under the GPL because it achieves what I want, the guarantee that anyone can use my code for whatever purpose they want, as long as they share it with the rest of us.
I have written a Free Media License which does the same thing for other media (photographs, movies, movie scripts, music, etc.). Anyone can use my material, as long as they release the derivative product under the same, emmenently fair, conditions. What I do not want is some hollywood mogul using my stuff to make a movie, then turning around and suing me when I use DeCSS to decrypt the resulting DVD and watch it on my Linux box. As the GPL does for software, so my license does for media: namely protects the rights of everyone, at the expense of not permitting predators to take our work and make it their own, with the full force of government regulation and the gun to back them up.
FreeBSD is appropriate for some things, but there are a whole hell of a lot of projects for which it is singularly inappropriate (ditto for any other license you can name, including the GPL).
To summarize: the BSD license represents an ideal of where most of us want to be one day, but as long as the law is stacked so heavilly against freedom of information, the GPL is what is needed to get there.
The GPL is a means to an end, not the end itself.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Some do -- selling them to manufacturers of products like Ultracade. Activision still sells its old Intellivision games. Capcom, if memory serves, sells CDs of its classics to bundle with some arcade gear and so forth.
The property ain't dead yet, and companies are often still profiting from them...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Nice idea as it is, I can only foresee problems here, if the RIAA are being dumb about this issue, do you really think Nintendo and Sega are going to embrace it? Sega already have their sharing solution in the form of Dream Library where you can play old Genesis games on your Dreamcast by paying a nominal fee. Somehow I doubt free distribution of their games/IP will make them happy.
Even though it's illegal, it would be kinda cool to have the rom sharing, because I could but it on my visor (palm) and play them. It's kinda hard to find them.
Well, for example, if a company had used an open standard like Kerberos, and wanted their embraced and extended standard to be widely used, so that they could later charge a ton?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Copyright is a privilege that society affords to content creators. It involves denying the rest of society the right to do various things that basically do not affect the original creator, and do not require trespassing or sock-drawer-raiding, and in no way deny anyone the use of their socks. We use the term "intellectual property" because property is a close analogy, and makes it easy to understand. It isn't a property issue, it's a rights issue. The law doesn't grant the copyright holder ownership in the property sense, it denies society the right to do what they want with their own property (eg, a DVD). Note that I am not taking sides, just pointing out a different way of looking at the law.
I personally don't have a problem with any one of those scenarios. What exactly is so bad about sharing any of that info?
I recently got a job at a big technology retailerand one of the questions on the "exam" they give is if you have pirated software or music. I had to put yes. I can just see it in twenty years when people in this generation become politicians and are asked "Have you ever used Napster?" The Bill Clinton of 2020 will have to say "I used it but I didn't download."
We had a few old games without any real sellable characters too. Think about those. I can see protecting Pac-Man...
Eh...
He didn't say that people shouldn't be swapping files (just as he didn't say that people shouldn't be smoking marijuana). He said that people should not flaunt it. Once the media gets ahold of it, anything will happen. The government listens to the media better than to its constituents, and there's no telling what kind of spin the media are going to put on it, so it's best to just swap and shut up about it.
He is just going to distribute with artists permission. This has nothing to do with the case the RIAA are bringing as their objection is to do with IP rights and all Ian's company is doing is distributing people who sign him the distribution rights to their music.
THis has been going on for years, this is nothing new. The chances of making money are minimal as the advertising costs are huge and the margins are tiny. Artists would be better off creating their own sites for fans to download.......
Working for the (other) man
This is pretty interesting, but the successful implementation of what I'm calling the potlatch protocol will succeed due to it's clone-ability; it's adaptability which equals its adoptability. In other words, it needs to exist now, not in December, and it needs to use the existing plumbing. It's likely that Freenet or something like it will define the future evolution of this new/old economic form, but we gotta be here now kiddies!
Here's something now: a programmable radio station, built with PHP, MySQL and icecast (source code included): spinsystem lets you vote for the next song.
I'll be folding this feature into the next rev. of radio potlatch, but right now I'm at a cabin up the coast, watching the tide come in over the oyster beds and I think I need to go read a book in the sun now...
I emailed the creator of RomNet as soon as I saw that there was no Linux client, asking for either protocol docs or the current source.
He says that he won't distribute docs, though he will "at some point hopefully build that client".
So, my question is, are there any generalized versions of a Napster client-server model? Something with modules for getting info on the given files, perhaps communicating this to the server via XML (easy to do fields)? Don't say GNUtella; GNUtella is a completely different paradigm. It's distributed client-client, not a client-server/client-client model like Napster.
Napster, for me at least, is much much faster than GNUtella, sucks less bandwidth (from me), is easier to find things on, and has more of the MP3s I want. I think it's the right model, performance-wise.
---
END OF LINE
If there is a legal way to do what Napster is doing, why isn't Napster doing it?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
This new "file-sharing" bent among young people perfectly mirrors the start of the Drug Revolution. Many people thought then, as they do now, that if enough people do it, how can they make it illegal? Well, last I checked, Marijuana is still illegal, despite how many people have used it.
You're creating another War on Drugs, except this is the War on Swapping. It'll be moderately successful and waste huge amounts of govt. resources. Do you want to see file swapping where drugs are today - where you can be fired if you've ever been known to swap a file? Please stop drawing so much attention to it, and maybe we can avoid a lengthly and costly War on Swapping. By flaunting your illegal activities, you create the next War on Drugs.
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
No one ever said IP laws are bad/wrong.
Actually, quite a few people have said that. Among them are Eben Moglen and Brian Martin. If you look at just a subset of the IP laws then there are a whole lot of people who've said they're bad... including the Free Software Foundation and The League for Programming Freedom.
Without them, the global economy would collapse
That's speculation. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps not. Even if you're right, is this really so terrible an outcome? Will there be riots in the streets of Paris if they can't get American movies? Will American college students invade Washington DC with firearms if they can't get Japanese anime?
The purpose of the GPL is to protect property and limit it's [sic] use
Others have already responded to this part, but it's important enough to warrant reiteration. The purpose of the GPL is to promote free software which is, at its core, the freedom to share with your friends and with the whole of society. The only denial of freedom in the GPL is the part that denies you the right to deny other people the right to share. A lot of people don't seem to grasp this, which is why we see this debate over and over (ad infinitum) on slashdot.
[...] reflect the new and drastically lower price of duplication and distribution and LET US LISTEN TO THE MUSIC WE'D GLADLY PAY FOR
Here, I think you're absolutely correct.
It's interesting to see how the legal system is dealing with what occurs on the 'Net with each new issue that arises.
You've got the source code that will let you get around DVD encryption now, Napster, and now RomNet... a program explicitly designed for piracy.
Like most people on the net right now I'm focusing on what's going on with Napster. It's true that retail music sales are increasing. It's also true that the recording industry is raping performers and consumers at every turn.
Is Napster increasing the sales of CDs in the retail market? There's probably a good chance of that too, if we're to believe the studies. But anyone can bend statistics around to their whims.
I ran Napster the other night for the first time and took a look around. (I hadn't tried it before, as I don't agree with the consensus of the majority of it's users). It doesn't seem that friendly to people looking for new music to invest in. Sure you can find the bands you already know quickly and easily, but for the hell of it I tried doing a search for "German Industrial" and came up zip. Now I'd love to find some new bands to listen to, and it's hard to find good import cds without knowing what you're looking for. I found Rammstein quickly enough, but I already have their cds. The only thing I could do was search for people listening to Rammstein and hope they listened to other German bands. Some luck, but not much. It still seems very oriented to finding music by bands you already know, and less for sampling new talent.
What concerns me is not the short term effects of Napster, which may be slightly increased/decreased retail sales, but the long term. Right now, most people use a CD player or their computer to listen to music. If they want to leave the house, they'll usually grab their CD case and go (yeah yeah, we're all gizmo junkies here, but I'm talking the general consumer). Most of the 'man on the street' people aren't carrying a digital playback device like a Rio or mp3Man. But what about when they are? I've had people argue that CDs aren't going anywhere, but they said that about 8tracks, vinyl, and cassettes. When *everyone* has an mp3player in their pocket, and can access Napster or it's clones, what incentive is there to buy the music? What incentive will a performer have to create if his income suffers a substantial decrease? Songwriters get an even smaller cut of the pie, and it will hurt them too.
I'm not saying we should jail the founders of Napster and throw away the key, nor am I saying we should let them keep doing what they're doing. But we need to examine the best ways to keep the artists paid. I don't want anyone taking what I've worked for and giving it away.. why should they?
Of course, you realize that someone either already did one or more of these things or that they will begin doing so presently.
Never give your enemies ideas; the less they know, the easier they are to defeat.
"A god outgrown immediately becomes a life-destroying demon."- Joseph Campbell, "The Hero With a Thousand Faces"
sig:
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
If you look at the prices for classical music CDs, where the "great music" is free and the artists are long dead, it shows that that argument is nonsense.
In fact, the classical music CD market shows clearly what is happening: record labels limit the choice of consumers by picking only a few artists, marketing the recordings to the hilt, and charging enormous amounts of money for those CDs. Artists likely don't see much of that. And, frankly, I doubt the situation is much different for other genres.
And why aren't they profitable? For most artists, it can't be the small percentage the artist gets. With digital technology technical production costs are minimal. And pressing CDs is, what, a few cents now? So where does the red ink come from? It must be the money they spend on buyin shelf space, endorsements, artwork, marketing and promoting artists that wouldn't stand a chance by word of mouth or true consumer preferences.
In fact, flooding the market with promotional materials for your product does not add value to the product. Neither does buying shelf space to the exclusion of other, smaller players. So, the lack of profitability is not related to any benefit to the consumer. Rather, the consumer pays record labels to allow them to limit the consumer's choice.
In the past, with limited shelf space, there may have been some justification for this. With on-line music, there is none. The record industry and its money-gobbling corporate structure is an inefficient anachronism, made obsolete by the Internet and technology. Let's hope that they can't use their accumulated wealth to interfere with the free market mechanisms that, rightfully, ought to drive them out of business.
That's not at all clear. Many kinds of swapping may well fall under "fair use". The legal system and legislation will ultimately clarify those issues.
And it is also well worth debating whether content that is decades old, not available commercially, and of social interest, should, in fact, receive copyright protection. 100 years ago, the copyright on many things being swapped would already have run out, and it is well worth discussing (IMO) whether we should bring copyright back into such a more sensible, conservative framework.
I would never call it "wimping out" if free-speech wins in the end.
-- "Never call your girlfriend 'Butterball'. Not even once."
Whatcha think, Slashdot? Does it "sound cool"?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
ooh gross!!! hehe :)
funny though
And it would be bad if it were otherwise. For example, multiple people may have developed the same "intellectual property" at roughly the same time, but only one person will be granted rights. Why should that person own ideas that the other person invested just as much time and effort in? A limited time grant of rights is a compromise. "Intellectual property" is different from physical property for those and many other reasons.
That's probably why most consumers, when asked, describe CDs as a good value. At the same time, when asked directly whether CDs cost too much, some consumers will say yes! Why the contradiction?
Probably because the latter was a leading question. Or maybe because the concept of value and cost are not identical?
Because some consumers don't understand why the sales tag on a CD is so much higher than the cost of producing the actual physical disc, a cost, which in fact, has decreased over the years.
Obviously it's decreased over the years. There was obviously a time when CDs were first being developed when it was expensive to make a CD. However, I don't remember a drop in the price of an album in the last seven or eight years, in fact singles cost more now.
Of course, the most important component of a CD is the artist's effort in developing that music.
Then why don't they get the majority of the profits?
For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen!
So let me get this straight, you are moaning about how hard it is to get the music listened to, and then turn around and sue the people who can make it easier for you to do that?
New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
Hmm... so lets see. There still needs to be a company between the artist and the public, that has to deal with promotion etc. Well I don't see "traditional" labels embracing the internet - so I guess you could consider Napster and MP3.com to be competition, in fact, competition that has a significant head-start on the traditional labels. Those lawsuits musta come in handy, huh?
Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority is never profitable.
Wouldn't it be handy if there was a way of promoting and distributing the music for less, so that taking on artists would be less risky? Hold on a sec, what about the internet?
Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%. Over this same period of time, consumer prices ... rose nearly 60%.
Yeah, that's the new technology premium for you. The fall in price can probably be attributed to the fact that in 1983, CDs were high-tech, and were commonplace in 1996.
While the price of CDs has fallen, the amount of music provided on a typical CD has increased substantially,
Not that I've noticed. I'll admit, I've not been buying CDs since 1983, but I can't remember a time when albums didn't have at least twelve tracks on them.
along with higher quality in terms of fidelity, durability, ease of use,
EASE OF USE?
and range of choices, including multi-media material, such as music videos, interviews and discographies.
Bullshit. I never see two different CDs on the shelf, one with videos, one without. Sometimes there are exceptions, but they are few and far between. And there is no choice in the matter, you either get an "enhanced" CD, or you don't.
Content of this type often requires considerable production expense and adds a whole new dimension that goes beyond conventional audio.
Now, I find it hard to believe that I can quite easily produce a music CD with a video on it, with minimal effort, yet you cannot. The video is already made for TV, so why not just stick it on the CD in MPEG format? It's not hard or expensive.
This has the same tone to it as Microsoft's "Linux is bad, mkay?" Linux Myths page.
"Flaunting" illegal activities is used by the masses as a way of voting with our actions, stating rather loudly that the law is wrong. Why is the law wrong?
Music: MP3's do indeed promote sales of music, as many audiophiles demand far greater quality to their music than MP3 can provide. Thus, they download a song, if it sounds interesting, they pay for the better version. Also, there is an element of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' in that any band supporting MP3's and sharing of them will likely see their fan base and therefore revenue grow as a result.
ROMs: Ok, N64 ROMs are blatently illegal, but old, no longer published titles are simply rotting away. Many folks still love the original Final Fantasy. There's a certain crispness to Super Mario Bros. If Nintendo et al would publish some compilation of the golden oldies, then they would have a case. As it stands, they just want to keep the old stuff away from us so we are forced to buy the new stuff if we want our 'fix'.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
Actually, you might already be able to use freenet or gnutella to do any of these actions.
As well as swapping
1. Government, Corporate, or Personal Secrets
2. Software of any kind (software piracy is pretty much what the ROMs are about)
3. distributed slander and libel campaigns
I'm not creative enough to think of more.
It's not truly anonymous, as someone has to give someone an IP number. But this may be fixed or improved in the future. Since there was no cost to the creator for these copyings, is this hurting anyone? Yes, if future merger plans get stolen, Cracked versions of Oracle software become more pervasive than registerred copies, or missile defense system information gets leaked. What if someone desired to slander a business competitor? Would the near anonymity of this system help? You bet.
-Ben
Even though the RIAA's lawsuits have helped boost Napster's popularity they claim that they will keep on fighting Napster to the bitter end. When asked if they would settle the response from an RIAA exec was ``Napster doesn't even have a business plan. There's really nothing they could offer us in settlement talks except a mailing list of people who want free music,' ". Read the story for yourself here.
Any so called legal alternative to Napster will face bitter opposition even if they are willing to pay the RIAA, just look at what's happened to MP3.com, they've shown that they'll pay an arm and a leg and yet only a few labels have settled with them.
I especially get irritated by the readers who insist that software/art/ideas should be free, as if the effort put into their creation doesn't require/need any return.
But on the other hand, free speech is just as important. The post you are replying to points out hypocrisy of /.ers who rant and rave over GPL violations but see nothing wrong with pirating anything and everything under the sun, claiming it's free speech.
I also find the hypocrisy absurd. I friend of mine repeatedly quotes "I'd pay a reasonable fee for music, movies, and sort of art", yet he downloads gobs of music off Napster, and the last time I mentioned buying a cd he said "I haven't bought a cd in years!". It pretty much seems to be a "I'm fighting for free speech", but since I can get it for free, I'm also going to pirate it.
The way I see it, nothing can reasonably be expected for free, at some point, somebody's effort goes into it, creating an intrinsic value that would need compensation. The problem with the RIAA and music corporations is that they artifically inflate the value of their merchandise, and attempt to monopolize their respective markets.
Fight for lower music/movie/art prices, fight for fairer supply/demand markets, but don't just use "free speech" as an excuse to pirate music cause you're cheap. /. as much as anywhere else.
Course, the standard rule applies "In any group, half the people don't have a clue", and I'm guessing that applies to
[that's not trolling, that's the truth]
How will developers be able to use sections of code that is distributed in binary form? It's much easier for comercial developers to get GPL'ed source code from the author or the many distributors of such code. No one wants to hide anything.
You and your friends would do better selling your expertise or a package instead of binaries. You would have few takers for them because the free version would always be better than yours. If you do manage to make any money with your code, the original author will take their fair piece of it from you after proving that you used it. In the end, you would probably agree that you should publish your code too.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
RomNet. Oy.
A few years back I tried to convince Boston College to stop carrying the alt.binaries.warez.* groups on their Usenet server because there is simply no legitimate purpose for those groups. I still think I was in the right, even though some criticized me for it and the BC legal department wimped out because of an alleged free-speech issue.
I don't know if I'd do the same thing today, since Gnutella and FreeNet have rendered the piracy issue moot. But if RomNet is really Napster for video game ROMs, it's illegal as all hell.
Good or bad, I can't say. There is a case to be made for a myMP3.com-type model, but the console companies will never let it happen (just ask Sony and Nintendo, who truly despise the emulator market even though their hardware is probably loss-leadered).
/Brian
Sick... of... hearing... about... napster...
:/
and... mp3's.
It's every other article now.
Politicians and federal courts, who do not understand the internet, should not be making laws for the internet.
Until that stops, theres not much to do.
Sadly, I happen to know that you spelled it right.
Either TrojaNET or ViruSWAP would be better.
--
"The purpose of the GPL is to protect property and limit it's use."
No. The philosophy behind the GPL is that people should be allowed to use their data however they want (including sharing with others). The implementation of this philosophy (the GPL) uses the existing IP laws to make this so. If there were no IP laws, the philosophy would be automatic and the GPL superfluous.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Don't punish the artist for what they have no control over (mainly the RIAA). Matt.
I really like ROMs. I think that it is a shame that software companies get all pissed off about people trading software titles that they don't even publish anymore. I mean, how else are you going to get it? They aren't making any money off of the stores that trade antique games and such, and quite frankly, you don't always find what you're looking for at these stores. I can see it if the company actually plans on licensing out the game to someone, but really, all that comes out of the license is a rewrite, which is technically a different game, and probably utilizes new hardware and such. So what if I want to download Castlevania, the original one? If they come out with a new version for Nintendo's new system, it's not really going to be the original anyways. I am glad that ROMNet is around, its' a great idea... What I am not glad about is people holding onto licenses and letting such great games die. I hope that people can start to be kinder about such things and just let 10 their 10 year old games out into the public domain.
Eh...
Why make any application trade a few or only one file type. It's all files, trade away. How about adding useful features like descriptions and some MD5 verification. I'm sick of getting partials.
To the whiners. You're not going to stop it, just let it go. Offer an alternative for christ's sake, how long is it going to take? The RIAA (and others) are just making it worse for themselves.
Do you not understand the concept of Stolen Property? In my closet there exists a sock [...] IT'S MINE, DAMN YOU!
(Sigh....) I was hoping that we wouldn't have to go through this again. But here we go....
Copyright infringement is not theft. The laws that apply to physical objects (like socks) do not apply to intangible things (like large numbers, which some people call "software" or "digital music recordings" or "ROMs").
You cannot steal something that has no physical reality. To steal means to deprive someone else of a possession. If I make a copy of a ROM (or music recording, or whatever) that you've created, then I have not deprived you of anything, and therefore I haven't stolen from you.
Under current law in some parts of the world, copyright infringement is a crime. But it is not theft (nor is it rape, nor murder, nor any other crime but copyright infringement). It does not fall under the same section of the law books, and it does not carry the same penalties.
PLEASE, PEOPLE, STOP spewing this nonsense about "theft" and "stealing" and "piracy" -- those are propaganda words used by copyright holders. The issue at hand here is copyright, not physical property. Thank you.
He still didn't get it, Street Lawyer, I take my hat off to you sir. This is one of the funniest things that I have ever seen on Slashdot ! So many people falling for it as well, it really proves your point. Congratulations.
Nintendo have already publically stated their opinion on emulators and roms and yet the romnet site says:
RomNet is used to transfer video game ROM images that can be played in free game console emulators on your computer just like your favorite video game system, for example Super Nintendo (TM). RomNet uses a Server-Client network with Peer-To-Peer file transfer.
Finally, they're using a client-server approach which means that after months of legal action it can be easily shut down.
This is napster all over again.
--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
This is an excellent distribution medium for indepedent console system programmers! We know most console system programmers get their money from live appearances, etc., anyways, they should embrace this as the future! Information wants to be free!
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
Better would be if the companies just re-released them on CD or something.
Eh...
Matt.
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com
Good to see that Slashdot is into recycling. http://slashdot.org/yro/00/07/17/1139220.shtml
When will people figure out that nothing is "legal" on the Internet, its just a matter of varying degrees of illegality. Over at Defcon I saw a presentation on Mojonation. Which along with its many flaws (paying for services) is very intriguing.
We already have things like mp3.com,
as well as sunsite tucows etc.
What could they posilby add to this?
;)
You see, the purpose of the GPL is to help bring about the happy day when IP laws no longer restrict us. So if there were a network that let us "route around" copyright/licensing laws the GPL would no longer be needed.
The difference between the GPL and the RIAA is that the GPL is using the system against itself.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Information wants to be free
Information wants to be free
So what? Guns want to kill, but we have laws against that.
1) change it to an 'alpha' version.
2) credit me in the credits.
that is all :)
Cost of a CD
," the reporter observes, "though some factions of the industry see price resistance -- CD prices are relatively low and home videos rentals are still a bargain -- consumers don't seem to balk at the rising price of fun in this strong, family-friendly economy." The prices of other forms of entertainment have risen, on average, more rapidly than has music or consumer prices, with most admission prices for other forms of entertainment having increased more than 90% between 1983 and 1996.
A typical music fan who buys a CD might use that CD at home, take that CD in the car, make a tape of that CD, - or using it as part of a compilation, play that CD with friends and for friends, and keep that CD for many years. That's probably why most consumers, when asked, describe CDs as a good value. At the same time, when asked directly whether CDs cost too much, some consumers will say yes! Why the contradiction? Because some consumers don't understand why the sales tag on a CD is so much higher than the cost of producing the actual physical disc, a cost, which in fact, has decreased over the years.
While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD, there are many factors that go into the overall cost of a CD -- and the plastic it's pressed on, is among the least significant. CD manufacturing costs may be lower, but it takes more money than ever before to put out a new recording.
Of course, the most important component of a CD is the artist's effort in developing that music. Artists spend a large portion of their creative energy on writing song lyrics and composing music or working with producers and A&R executives to find great songs from great writers. This task can take weeks, months, or even years. The creative ability of these artists to produce the music we love, combined with the time and energy they spend throughout that process is in itself priceless. But while the creative process is priceless, it must be compensated. Artists receive royalties on each recording, which vary according to their contract, and the songwriter gets royalties too. In addition, the label incurs additional costs in finding and signing new artists.
Once an artist or group has songs composed, they must then go into the studio and begin recording. The costs of recording this work, including recording studio fees, studio musicians, sound engineers, producers and others, all must be recovered by the cost of the CD.
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
For every album released in a given year, a marketing strategy was developed to make that album stand out among the other releases that hit the market that year. Art must be designed for the CD box, and promotional materials (posters, store displays and music videos) developed and produced. For many artists, a costly concert tour is essential to promote their recordings.
Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority is never profitable. Each year, of the approximately 27,000 new releases that hit the market, the major labels release about 7,000 new CD titles and after production, recording, promotion and distribution costs, most never sell enough to recover these costs, let alone make a profit. In the end, less than 10% are profitable, and in effect, it's these recordings that finance all the rest.
Clearly there are many costs associated with producing a CD, and despite these costs the price of recorded music to consumers has fallen dramatically since CDs were first introduced in 1983. Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%. Over this same period of time, consumer prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) rose nearly 60%. If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75. While the price of CDs has fallen, the amount of music provided on a typical CD has increased substantially, along with higher quality in terms of fidelity, durability, ease of use, and range of choices, including multi-media material, such as music videos, interviews and discographies. Content of this type often requires considerable production expense and adds a whole new dimension that goes beyond conventional audio.
In contrast, CD prices are low compared to other forms of entertainment and one of the few entertainment units to decrease in price, even though production, marketing and distribution costs have increased. In a USA Today article entitled, "Spending a Fortune for Fun: The cost of entertainment is rising along with our willingness to pay it
By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.