Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the lawsuits-are-the-business-of-the-future dept.
Greyfox writes "In yet another twist in the current IP debate surrounding free music downloads, mp3board.com has filed suit against AOL for helping consumers locate and download copyrighted materials by creating gnutella. The story is here on USA Today's site." Ok, I'm officially confused.
Now what would be funny is to see the judge rule that anyone actually linking to Gnutella or any related material is guilty and has to pay xxxxxx$ in fines:o)
That would be soooo funny.
--
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
I'm taking bets on the next version of AOL having some sort of "copywright protection/watermark" code to prevent "unauthorised" media distribution.
You'd win that bet. AOL will be incorporating copy-protection measures (under the misleading name, "digital rights management") as part of the next WinAmp and AOL 6.0 release. The copy-protection technology is to be supplied by InterTrust.
Alert your AOL-using friends; encourage them to not install it.
EFF has limited resources. They need to use them where they are most urgently needed. While they may support AOL's position in this case (though I haven't heard them say anything to that effect), AOL does not have any urgent need for financial support for their defense. Their CEO could probably pay for it with the cash he leaves laying on his dresser. There are plenty of other cases, like 2600, where the defendant doesn't have the funds to mount any sort of effective defense. That is where the EFF should use its resources.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Come on. Doesn't giving users access to the likes of Google count as helping them find and download copyrighted material? Please. As much as I hate AOL, I hate music barons more. Go aol.
-- And I looked, and behold, the pokemon all spontaneously combusted.
This isn't an attack against AOL. It is an attack against all of US.
Satan, whip out the longjohns! I think I just read this sentence on Slashdot!
-thomas
--
"And like that... he's gone."
Appears to be silliness
by
__aapbgd5977
·
· Score: 5
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this is not advice. Please consult your own attorney before acting on any information in this posting.
That disclaimer aside, this appears to be a rather dumb trick. The RIAA is suing mp3board.com for providing pirated mp3s for commercial gain (putting aside the whole linking thing in the MPAA v. 2600 case). mp3board basically does do that, right? I don't want to get into the whole piracy/fair use debate here - that's not the point.
In this new action, piracy is just a red herring.
It's my understanding that mp3board.com's method of distributing mp3s is a direct download from a website (or a link to someone's website, yadda, yadda...)
So now mp3board sues AOL for creating Gnutella? WHY? In order to sue in civil court, you must have what's called "standing" to sue. Standing in a nutshell means that you have been injured by the actions of a defendant, and have the right to go into court to seek remedies to that injury.
Where the hell is mp3board injured by the mere existence of Gnutella? The only real effect mp3board might feel is that of competition - Gnuteela being a competing method of delivery. Certainly this isn't a justifiable injury. I think what they have in mind is criminal defense law - they're pointing blame on someone else who is doing something worse than they are, in the hopes that a jury will find them not liable. But that doesn't change their conduct.
Essentially, mp3board.com got caught doing 75 in a 55 mph zone. As the cop is giving them the ticket, AOL/TWX/Gnutella blows by at 100 mph. The events are unrelated - it in no way lessens mp3board.com's punishment, and in no way is mp3board injured by AOL/TWX/Gnutella's conduct. Now whether the cops (picture Ponch and John in tan jumpsuits with RIAA logos on the shoulder) pursue AOL/TWX/Gnutella is a different story.
Oh, and best of luck proving that damages caused by Gnutella are attributable to AOL/TWX. AOL's made it pretty clear that they didn't approve of Gnutella, pinning losses on them is pretty unlikely. ==
This post sponsored by the American Obstetrics Society:
Re:Appears to be silliness
by
turbodog42
·
· Score: 1
Where the hell is mp3board injured by the mere existence of Gnutella?
The injury could come from the Gnutella search box on the mp3board front page. MP3board feels it's being sued because it gives access to the Gnutella net. Kind of like Ford being sued because it uses Firestone tires. Yes? No? Maybe?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think I understand a little bit.
First off all mp3board.com does not provide pirated music. It enables you to find any music provided by other people. They have no responsibility for what other people provide. Neither does AOL for the gnutella-users.(IMHO this would be the only defense Napster should need).
Check out comment 10 to see what I'm talking about.
As I see things the only thing they can do is to sue every single user that provides any copyrighted material, one by one. (Gnutella doesn't even exist in the sense of central servers. The users are the network)
At last I would like to say that if I got something wrong, (or the whole thing for that matter) please reply to this comment.
Re:In this latest addition...
by
RollingThunder
·
· Score: 2
No, no, no, it's "Who wants to be a Plaintiff" starring Regis and Judge Wapner.
Right at the top of the main page on mp3board.com is a place to search for mp3's by artist or title on Gnutella.
So I guess this means they have to sue themselves for contributing to the contributors of copyrighted materials!
-- "it could just be the midgets. You've got to be careful with midgets in Spandex."
--Jamie Richardson
Re:As seen on SlashDot fortune ...
by
nublord
·
· Score: 1
Offer up a file (birthday cake OR web/ftp site)...
Go to jail....
Sue 'em all! (Sung to the tune of Bless 'em All)
by
ackthpt
·
· Score: 1
MP3Board lawyers say, "Duam xnaht foobie bletch tharr." Translation: "Because they are big and huge and rich and we want money." I banged my head on the wall at the thought of Warner, which has an enormous music catalog of its own (and subsidiaries), merging with a company who (allegedly) helps water down their profits by assisting music pirates. Though I left a large red mark on the wall and a few small cracks, AOL nor Warner responded with any comments.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
cHiphead
·
· Score: 1
Get in the damn information loop people, slashdot cannot be your online source of news.
Gnutella was created after AOL bought Nullsoft. AFTER.. after Justin Frankel signed over his company to satan, after that little contract had that 'everything you think, breathe, eat, see, or smell is our property' clause in it, after the winamp/icq fan-world ended.
-=Gargoyle_sNake
-=-=-=-
--
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
Covener
·
· Score: 1
How can you say someone invented fire, that was more a discovery. Its people like you who give caveman lawyers a bad name.
AOL isn't going to get in any trouble...
by
the+italian
·
· Score: 1
Aol shouldn't get in any trouble they didn't do anything.. This lawsuit is so dumb.. it would be like suing a gun maker for making guns because people are using them to kill other people. they are suing because they are dumb asses.
Do you realize that this is going to turn the whole issue around? AOL will reach into it's deep pockets and they can be attacked with all the wrong logic that has been dogging the technology we cherish... but their leigons of lawyers will effectively put the matter to rest and hopefully settle the matter in a precident setting way!
Go AOL... fight hard and stong and win one for the Napster;)
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
interiot
·
· Score: 5
How the hell is that insightful?
It's not designed to give coders nightmares. Mp3board was sued for having a web-to-gnutella gateway. If MP3board loses, they want AOL to have to cover some of the costs since AOL created the thing in the first place.
It's simply a childish "but he did it first!" act. They just wanna cover their butt, not make a moral stand against anyone who creates software that goes against their personal idea of right-and-wrong (they seem pro-pirating anyway).
As a sidenote, I don't think this suit will go anywhere. If the law decides that you've done something wrong, and you did it of your own will (not entrapment or mental sickness), then you get punished, regardless of what some other party did.
perhaps mp3board is filing suit in hopes of a court finding AOL/TWX at fault for hte same thing they're suing others for. if AOL/TWX would be found guilty of the same thing they're prosecuting for it'd be pretty hard for their suit ot hold water; and, in a pipe dream, might drop the whole case at large.
Allow me to brief you on events which have happened while you were sealed in a cave on Mars.
Several firearms companies have been sued. These lawsuits are as bogus as the napster/gnutella/DeCSS suits. Mostly they are being thrown out of court.
The NRA has not been sued because it is a group of 4 million Americans who are associating with each other. Association is a constitutional right in America, so no one will be suing them.
Welcome back to Earth, and please immerse yourself in current and past events before posting on Slashdot.
Your sig... It's actually beneath, not below. And I've used it as a sig for almost as long as I've had this account (checks UID, yup, far too long).
...Of course you went trough the trouble of actually formatting it properly.
...Which shows how lazy I am.
IF I EVER MEET YOU I WILL KICK YOUR ASS!
;)
-- I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
nublord
·
· Score: 1
Hey! I have a copyright on the letters X, Y, and Z! You both owe me 25 cents for your posts! Pay up!
It's not 'legal thuggery'
by
John+Jorsett
·
· Score: 4
This isn't designed to 'put the fear of God' into anyone. It's an attempt by a defendant in a big-bucks suit to spread the exposure around, particularly to a deep-pockets party (AOL). I predict that they're at least considering adding Napster, Freenet, Gnute, ad nauseum. If they can get a court to buy their theory, the additional parties gives them some additional folks to extract dollars from to reduce their liability. The longer I live, the more I think I should convert my net worth to gold or something and hide it. It's getting reeeal dangerous out there...
On the MP3Board.com site, there is a SEARCH BOX in the MIDDLE OF THE PAGE that searches GNUtella... (Gnutella Search by Artist or Title). Why exactly are they suing against something they openly use?
what I don't understand...
by
Mandrake
·
· Score: 2
what I don't understand is why mp3board.com uses Gnutella right off their front page if they are going to be suing them. This just strikes me as frivolous. But then again, in a land where a lady can sue someone because of hot coffee she spills on her own lap... --
Geoff Harrison (http://mandrake.net)
Senior Software Engineer - VA Linux Labs (http://www.valinux.com)
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
dorjelorand
·
· Score: 1
I've heard that this also differs between Canadanian and US usage. The context I heard it in referred to bands. While an American would say "Aerosmith is..." Canadian would "Aerosmith are...". Can anyone verify this?
You're thinking of the Brits. They say things like "the crowd are loving it" whenever the subject noun in question is clearly a collection of things, the way a crowd is a collection of people. Aerosmith is also a collection of people.
Personally, I find that usage quite amusing.
Wangden
-- --
"You're not fooling me, young man - it's turtles all the way down!"
Neither am I, and here's the reason:
by
Kabloona
·
· Score: 1
I am also not a lawyer, but I thought it was a little confusing at first. It seemed as though an unrelated company was being sued for the perceived sins of another. However, as another USA Today article points out:
"Gnutella was developed by rogue programmers at Nullsoft Inc., a subsidiary of America Online Inc., who briefly posted the program on its Web site on March 14."
That makes much more sense doesn't it? If AOL is the parent of Nullsoft, the 'offending' company, then of course they got sued.
Sounds to me more like you get pulled over for speeding, and claim as a defense that you were just keeping pace with traffic. Then, when you get home, you sue the other drivers for driving above the speed limit, thus causing your pace-keeping to be speeding as well.
Wow. I didnt even know that aol created it.
It will be interesting to see how such a huge company will battle this especially given the ties to time-warner and their music producing-ness.
You know, I've been hearing a lot of the 'don't sue the messenger' argument lately. Here's an analogy, though. Illicit drugs are created/grown/manufactured by someone. Dealers make it easier for joe-on-the-street to get hold of them. The dealer didn't make the product, and might not use it, but knows that what's being dealt is mostly illegal. Joe-on-the-street obtains and consumes said products, driving the market.
But in anti-drug policy, isn't the philosophy not to go after the end user, but to nab the dealer? We generally say 'Leave the little guy alone.' Isn't 'sue the user, not the provider' effectively the opposite of this?
The reason end-user drug offenders go to jail is because it's easier to grab them, than to work up the chain. The reason intermediaries are getting sued is because it's easier to sue a company than scads of users.
I'm not challenging drug policy here, and I'm certainly not saying that I agree uncontestedly with it. Nor am I saying that it is appropriate to sue/prosecute intermediaries like mp3.com, napster, et. al. Perhaps, though, we need a better way to challenge unconstitutional laws.
Do we really want to sue/prosecute end users for this type of litigation?
--- "The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
-- "Life. Don't talk to me about life."
Re:Big guys get it now
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
Er... your anology doesn't work at all.
Drug dealers KNOW what they're selling illeagle things. That's the entire point of what they do.
A better anology would be the USPS. They dilver mail and postcards and other legal things. It can also be used to send drugs through the mail. I've seen it done! Should the USPS be sued because the facilitate the transfer of illicit substances?
Of course not! Just the same gnutella doesn't know if what it's transferring is legit or not, it just provides a way to transfer it.
In any event, all these anologies are poor. Oh well.
Gore: "I have created a cure for cancer and can provide fusion power at.001 cents/ gigawatt-hour. I also know where all your missing socks are, who shot JR, how Dan Quayle got to be VP, how to earn $$$ in your spare time, and why Hollywood keeps giving Demi Moore millions of dollars. Whilst still at High School, I invented powered flight, the space hopper, the vacuum flask, and the push-up bra. I was also the first man on the moon, the first white man to reach the Americas, the first lungfish to crawl out of the primordial ocean. Oh, and I made that stupid internet also."
AOL didn't really create it. Nullsoft (the company behind Winamp) which AOL bought some time ago created the first versions of Gnutella but stopped maintaining it like half a year ago or something like that.
AOL didn't really create it... if you RTFA, you'll see that a subsidiary created it. That subsidiary is Nullsoft, the makers of the popular Windows MP3-Player "Winamp"...
I'm guessing that the federal government is eventually going to get sued for creating the internet in the first place... people have see to have forgotten that there are PEOPLE who are pirating, and aren't going after them anymore... they're going right up to the people responsible for making them...
Hell... let's sue the DOD for creating DARPANet... let's sue the estate of Vanevar Bush for coming up with an idea about knowledge-sharing back in the 40's.
What is it going to take to make these people realize that they keep going after the wrong people in all of this?
--
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Just as I feared, programmers are now accountable for the uses of their software. This of course has some major implications...for example, if the 'ping' utility were to be written today, the author could be accountable for including the "-f" switch, which of course floods a circuit with ICMP traffic...DoS tool anyone?
-- --
mikeDOTd
Re:It goes and goes and goes
by
vinnythenose
·
· Score: 1
Then it's only a short time from when the big monitor in your room tells you when to do you jumping jacks and makes you touch your toes! (the one scene from 1984 that I remember)
-- ---
I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Oh but wait. We can't just sue God, there's a whole host of deities which are responsible for creation in the various forms of creationism. And just in case, you better find those first two particles that collided to make the big bang since that theory may be correct too.
Wow, you could keep the courts died up for millenia!
I'm really amazed that napster/gnutella/DeCSS would be illegal because you can do something illegal with them... yet I haven't seen a suit against the NRA and firearms companies....oh, it's true, nobody has ever committed a crime using a gun!
AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
suwalski
·
· Score: 2
This is interesting news. I say this because AOL is the first 'big' company to get in trouble with Napster/Gnutella/lookalikes business. It'll be interesting to see if it turns out any differently for a larger company than for a smaller company or group of people. Either way, it might be one of the more interesting points in this never-ending line of law suits dealing with MP3s.
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
ackthpt
·
· Score: 1
Authors were NullSoft. Interesting only if AOL had a hand in saying, "You there! Tiny subsidiary of peons! Make this thing and publish it! We shall harm the RIAA with it! If we can get the music industry of CD's then there will be more for us to send out in junkmail!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
joshsisk
·
· Score: 1
the following may not be correct. It seems that the subsidiary of AOL that originally created Gnutella is suing AOL and Time Warner in order to protect itself, in the event that it is sued.
You are right. What followed was not correct. The skinny: MP3Board (an unrelated company) is suing AOL/Time Warner in order to protect itself, as they are already being sued. What they hope to accomplish out of this is a bit unclear to me, especially since AOL disavowed Gnutella almost from the beginning...
Josh Sisk
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
zocky
·
· Score: 1
It depends on whether you're talking of an organisation, company, band, whatever it's singular and if you talk about the people who are the members of the.org,.com, whatever, then it's plural. like,
police is an organization for law enforcement.
police are fine young lads with helmets on their head.
z.
-- disclaimer: I might be right.
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
RedGuard
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't the 'their' refer to AOL and
Time-Warner.
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
Frizzle+Fry
·
· Score: 1
I've heard that this also differs between Canadanian and US usage. The context I heard it in referred to bands. While an American would say "Aerosmith is..." Canadian would "Aerosmith are...". Can anyone verify this?
Care about freedom?
-- I'd rather be lucky than good.
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
slycer
·
· Score: 1
I Am Candadian..
and nope.. I choose "Aerosmith is"
however in the context of "The band members of Aerosmith" - it would be "are"..
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
grammar+nazi
·
· Score: 2
You need to read the article more closely. I am a grammar nazi, not a lawyer, so the following may not be correct. It seems that the subsidiary of AOL that originally created Gnutella is suing AOL and Time Warner in order to protect itself, in the event that it is sued.
In other words, that company is covering their ass.
All three companies have disowned the project as soon as they realized the consequences of it. I think this is a liability lawsuit.
--
Keeping/. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
bison
·
· Score: 1
If I grock this right, this will be the most interesting case of the "inventions" clause in most tech contracts. You kow the one, "Anything you make while you work of [big company here], belongs to us and only to us." It's about time someone started using that clause to shove it up big company's ass.
of course, that's just my opinion.
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
wesmills
·
· Score: 3
Nope, not correct.
MP3Board is currently getting sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement by distributing MP3s. MP3Board has turned around and sued AOL because their subsidiary, Nullsoft created Gnutella. MP3Board wants AOL to share some of the liability for music piracy if MP3Board is found guilty. MP3Board's reasoning is that piracy wouldn't be happening as much if AOL's subsidiary hadn't created Gnutella.
---
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
Ralph+Wiggam
·
· Score: 2
This can't be the first time that some engineer invented something illegal/troublesome on company time. Any lawyer worth his wingtips would put a clause on there saying, "Anything you invent while employed by us, including those great ideas you have while driving in rush hour and in the shower, are owned entirely by us...unless we don't want it, then it's all yours." But good call, though. If AOL didn't have that kind of language in there, they may well get screwed.
I sure hope not. That would be a waste of EFF dollars that could be used to represent someone who needs representation. AOL does not need additional representation.
-- end of line
It just doesn't get any dumber
by
hpsolo
·
· Score: 1
While they're at it, why not sue:
makers of cd writers: for providing a means of copying music cds
xerox machines: man, all those authors not being paid for their work! i'm sure steven king is out there starving becuase of these copying machines
makers of cassette recorders, vcr's, hard drives (if we didn't have all those gigs, we wouldn't even consider downloaiding 4 meg mp3's)
What is this world coming to? It seems like peole are just trying to pass the blame... and for some reason I feel the inventors of the internet will soon be sued for providing a means of quickly exchanging all these illegal files.
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
SvnLyrBrto
·
· Score: 3
Damn, you're so right it's scary.
And what's scarier is thet there is precident, and we all failed to notice it and arrive at your conclusion until now.
Remember the eyntomology of the word "sabotage"?
Back in the 19th century, french factory workers took it upon themselved to force a stop to any kind of automation or technological advance. When they would come across any kind of automatic manufacturing equipment, they would force their wooden shoes, called sabot, into the machinery, destroying it; hence the word "sabotage".
The inventor of the sewing machine, if I recall my history correctly, was run out of several towns by tailors who refused to tolerate any competition; leaving a trail of smashed sewing machines in his wake.
The RIAA/metallica vs Napster, MPAA vs everybody, and now this suit againts AOL are nothing more than the modern equivelent of that same simple, pathetic thuggery. The only difference is the lack of *PHYSICAL* violence.
In all these cases, a geek invents something that threatens to make some other, old technology or business model obsolete or irrelevent; so the now useless people, instead of adapting to the new model, simply lash out at the geek who made them useless, by trying to sue the techies into destitution.
If there is any justice at all in the world, the RIAA/metallica, the MPAA, the DVD-CCA, and the whole bloody lot of them will be smacked down like the life insurance industry was in Robert Heinlein's "Lifeline".
john Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
-- Imagine all the people...
Re:I'm not officially confused. ;)
by
titus-g
·
· Score: 1
The good thing about lawyers in HK movies is that they generally end up dead.
Except in Steven Chow's 'Lawyer Lawyer', but that's ok cos he's very funny.
I think you should only be allowed to apply for the bar if you have had *at least* a succesful 2 year career in comedy beforehand.
I demand more humour in my bread and circuses!
--
~ppppppppö
Re:Meanwhile on IRC . . .
by
Jeppe+Salvesen
·
· Score: 1
Though it may seem easy by the masses of lamers, connecting to the IRC is harder than connecting to napster. Thus, they either figure it's too hard to use for the mainstream, it's too hard to use for them or they're all irc junkies who want to escape into irc once in an hour.
--
Stop the brainwash
Re:This is the same web site that..
by
fReNeTiK
·
· Score: 1
but the various categories that it includes *does* make it look bad. (I. e. "illegal MP3s", etc
Actually...
Since we both agree that they are just a search engine, and linking to illegal material hasn't (yet?) been outlawed, wouldn't this actually make it look good?
Like: No Mr. RIAA We're only providing those links for inormative purposes, and besides we clearly state that they are illegal. As a matter of fact, we're helping YOU to find sites which host illegal copies of your intellectual property. So shouldn't you really be paying us for our detective work instead of suing us?
-- I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
It's Not the Fact AOL is Being Sued
by
miss_america
·
· Score: 1
The funny part of this is find, is not the fact that AOL is being sued for "creating a monster" with gnutella, but the fact that mp3board is tring to beat the opposition at there own game.
Anytime a "big boy" like AOL comes along and slaps little startup with some sort of legal restrictions, the courts most always favor the big boy. Now the tides have turned.
Anyways, the AOL/TimeWarner deal has little hope of being approved IMO. It is MEGA scary that one company can have a HUGE impact thgouht ones life and mold them into little AOL/TimeWarner clones.
-- -If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 2
Actually it look more like these guys are suing to protect themselves. Read the article.
Actually, I did read the article, but my interpretation had been (foolishly) slanted by the slashdot intro. Having re-read it, you are right: it is more of a preemptive strike or effort to share the blame, and being perpetrated by the subsidiary which was spun off (perhaps to take the brunt of such actions?), not the recording industry (as I had first thought after skimming the article). That of course changes the entire tone of the lawsuit. (though it is still a bit rediculous -- shall Napster sue the power company for having helped them develope their file sharing technology by providing electricity to power their servers, thus making them vulnerable to being sued by the RIAA?)
Such acts coming from the RIAA/MPAA do appear to be aimed at intimidating engineers into not developing new sharing technologies (e.g. the DeCSS debacle), but this particular case isn't one of them.
I am TOTALLY not a lawyer (though I have more sense than most), but I think I see a strategy here. What mp3board is doing to AOL is essentially the same thing they feel is happening to them.
If they can manage to sue AOL before their case is finished, and intentionally expose they total insanity of such a case, they hope to set a precedent such that their own case may get thrown out--- or at least ruled on fairly.
Basically, they have no intention or expectation of winning. Once they lose, there's one other case to use as a reference in their own defense: "see, this case was thrown out because it was stupid!"
The hope would be that the judge in their own case might be a bit sensible and rule correctly in their favor rather than the RIAA's.
And no, I don't think stealing mp3s is right, but it's always going to happen and I for one see it as nothing different from recording music off the radio; I still want to buy the album if it's good....
RIAA are idiots, and greedy pirates. They may win a few rounds, but they've already lost the war.
Re:I think I see a motive...
by
LoonXTall
·
· Score: 1
FALSE: There is nothing we can do about it. Some actions will stem the tide. Being a large corporation with a lot of money, the only option the RIAA can see is a lawsuit. If I could get the albums for $5 instead of $15 I would actually buy several (instead of none). DVD piracy isn't nearly as bad; how much of that is due to connection speed/filesize, and how much to price? (Disclaimer: the $4 price in my mind for the cost of a DVD movie came from Slashdot, so there is an 83% chance it's wrong.)
-- LoonXTall
--
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
As the AC pointed out, I was partially incorrect. Glock did indeed sue someone for killing with their handguns, but it was in LA, not New York. I quote from my source:
"LOS ANGELES - Glock Inc., a maker of guns, is suing Buford O. Furrow, the
white supremacist charged with killing a postman and wounding five people
at a Jewish community center last year.
The suit, filed Wednesday, claims that Furrow used Glock's product in an
illegal fashion and should share some responsibility for the negative
attention Glock and other guns makers are receiving because of the Aug.
10, 1999 shootings. It seeks unspecified damages."
-saintalex
Observe, reason, and experiment.
--
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
...is sue all the record companies for years of product tying. Sound ridiculous? Well, it is, but consider the way the law works right now:
They've determined that downloading one song you don't already own on a CD is theft. It can only be theft if it's something they could have sold. That means that each song on a CD is a product they could have sold. Now, how do I go about buying just one obscure, say, Metallica (to pick a name out of a hat) track, without buying the album? If I have to buy the album, I've been forced to buy all the other products on the album that I didn't want: all the other tracks.
Seems to me that IE is a lot more integral to Windows than "The God That Failed" is to Metallica's black album.
There's money to be made, here!
--
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
ewhac
·
· Score: 2
So what you're saying is the entertainment industry believes it has found a way to tell us, "You'll never work in this town again!!"
Sadly, I fear you may be right.
However, engineers can fight back. For example, somewhere within the bowels of Intel are a bunch of guys working on bringing copy-protection to IEEE-1394 (FireWire) devices. It simply requires the engineers to lay down their pencils/keyboards/VHDL compilers and say, "We will not build this for you. We don't want it, and you don't need it."
Yes, they will put their career at risk, but even if they are fired, they will not carry the responsibility of having created the tools by which their families, friends, and neighbors were shafted.
For myself, I couldn't live with myself if I did something like that to my friends.
Re:Can AOL Really Be Held Responsable?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Well, considering that a lot of companies now claim exclusive intellectual property rights to anything their employees ever create, seems to me like it makes sense to go after those companies. If my company wants to take my creative efforts and call them their own, then they can't get to pick and choose only the ones that won't get them in legal trouble, right?
I remember hearing about the a story a while back about the control of the drug extacy in Holland. Extacy, more technically the drug MDMA (I believe), is illegal. But under dutch law, it is the exact, specific, chemical that is banned. So drugs labs just come out with new varients, with slight differences, all the time. These varients may be more dangerous than the original - as companies have to keep trying to do something different, so the drug is mutating all the time. In England, and I guess most countries, it is the whole class of similar drugs that are banned. In Holland, every time they discover a new varient, they ban it. Just like whack-a-rat.
Whether this story is accurate or not, it is a good analogy for the legal situation RIAA and friends find themselves in. Either you must ban the whole class of programs to share files of the Internet (ftp & web browsers included, after all web pages are just.html files), or we will keep producing new varients of file sharing programs.
Let them ban gnutella. Let them have their fun. Who gives a damn - we'll only come back stronger. RIAA, I'll warn you this: I know that everytime I revisit a programming problem, I learn, and I do a better job than the last time. I'm sure most programmers are the same. If you keep making us come up with new programs to share files, then the programs we use will just get more and more sophisticated.
cheers,
G
*(ps. I am not dutch, I don't know the situation that well, so if I'm wrong and offend, I apologise.)
Re:Meanwhile on IRC . . .
by
Chemical
·
· Score: 1
I've been wondering about this for a long time. I used IRC to trade (read: leech) MP3s for years before Napster was invented. It amazes me that the RIAA have apparently no knowlege of IRC mp3 trading. I've never seen an article, heard a news report, read a Slashdot headline, or anything about IRC mp3 trading, but I see something about someone suing Napster or Gnutella almost every day. I would think that the RIAA would demand DALnet and other IRC networks shut down if they knew of the stuff that happened on these networks, but nothing like that has happened. However, it seems so unlikely that they have no knowlege of IRC mp3 trading. Even if no one on their staff was internet savy, I would think some lamer would email their piracy department and report it. What's going on?!?
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
Borogrove
·
· Score: 1
From what I read of the news blurb, it basically sounds like mp3board is just hoping to make AOL help pay it's legal bills/fines based on the logic that, yes, we did it, but they did it, too. I doubt it'll fly, phrased like that, but at the same time, I'd be very surprised if AOL hadn't made the gnutella guys sign a NDA that made anything they did the property (and by extension the responsibility) of AOL.
I'm sure AOL has enough money to get themselves out of any liability in this, but it hardly seems fair that a company can make you sign away all your work and ideas yet not be responsible if that work is deemed illegal. Then again, who ever said anything about the system being fair?
I also have to note, though, that if this does go through, and AOL gets successfully sued, it bodes very badly for the rest of us. Jsut imagine the atmosphere if the management has to keep track of everything you do, since they're liable if they don't stop you from developing illegal software.
Can you tell I'm bitter about Non-Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements in general?
Borogrove
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
BJH
·
· Score: 2
No, I'm pretty certain that Y was a replacement for X (Window, that is). Hang on a minute... ah, found it. Take a look here.
That's my point... AOL doesn't need the money. This post is intended to show that we are all hypocrites ourself if we don't stand behind AOL just as much as we stand behind 2600, napster, DeCSS etc. etc. etc...
Just because they are the "big guys" doesn't make them any less of a victim than one of us...
--
-- A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong!
Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande
by
VAXman
·
· Score: 1
What's being singled out for Napster is not the technology (i.e. the actual client, protocol spec., server software), but the service (the central servers which index the music). Napster is not responsible for creating the technology, but for operating the service.
Re:I think this is a good thing.
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 1
I'm with you. I scanned as much of the discussion on this as I could stomach, and you made the most valid point. MP3Board did a very interesting move, I bet people have tried it in the past but I'd like to see it.
Think about it, being sued for facilitating freedom, and seeing the side of freedom crying that it hasn't the firepower to stand up to the forces working against it would make someone scared.
Now like "The Mouse that Roared" it attacks someone with lots of firepower to that firepower on their side. Its brilliant, and could play as the key turning point in this whole matter. I want to meet the person who came up with this plan.
I for one hope it works. Here's to the little countries...
Precisely--don't jump to conclusions
by
heymanslowdown
·
· Score: 1
Bingo.
Before everybody jumps on the Slashdottically Correct bandwagon and starts screaming at mp3board, please keep in mind that these kinds of lawsuits are not always adversarial. They could simply be looking for a clarification of the law that may favor the both of them.
M-2, you are my hero for pointing this out.
hmsd
--
-in a fast german car im amazed that i survived...
an airbag saved my life!-
Whoops.. so it is! It's correct now. I normally browse at -1 anyway, so I'm not accustomed to seeing that type of message.
And I've used it as a sig for almost as long as I've had this account (checks UID, yup, far too long).
Heh.. well, I can only hold up my hands and claim ignorance.:-) I was reading Slashdot once from a machine at work where I hadn't logged in before, and so it defaulted me to zero (or is it one now? I don't pay attention to these things) which resulted in me seeing a bunch of these "below/beneath current threshold" messages. At the time, I thought it would make a nifty sig. However, I didn't (consciously, at least) steal the idea from you.. but I'm sure you're right about using it longer, because I've only used it for a couple of weeks.
IF I EVER MEET YOU I WILL KICK YOUR ASS!
Heh.:-) Well, I can change it if you want. You've got the claim on it.
And shouldn't someone be suing the media for publicising it all?
Every time I read one of these articles about the MP3 controversy the first thing I think is, 'hey have't downloaded any good tunes lately'.
I must have cost the RIAA at least $658 million all by myself in post publicity mp3 download binges.
--
~ppppppppö
Re:Have you seen Newtella?
by
generic-man
·
· Score: 1
I could have sworn that was supposed to be satire, but lo and behold, they're real. According to their FAQ, Newtella is "effectively a subset of the gnutella [sic] network . . . designed to retrieve and exchange only MP3 files."
Translation: take a Gnutella client, strip all the file extensions away except for.mp3, and filter all non-.mp3 files out of search results. Absolutely brilliant. I wish I had that kind of initiative.
I don't get it! I went over to http://www.mp3board.com and looked at their lame web site. These boneheads have links to copyrighted mp3's all over their friggin web site. Ohhhh.. and they also provide a web interface for Gnutella searches. Then they have the cajones to turn around and sue AOL for "creating" a service that they are providing access too. This is not kosher my friends.
Major hypocracy! It's gotta be a PR stunt.
--grumpfish out
Actually there have been several cases against major gun manufacturers by families of murder victims... tatctics have been to attack gun
marketing and safety shortcomings (not unlike tobacco suits?).
suffice it to say that that doesn't have any
uses which are lawful under the US's new Digital Millenium Copyright Act
What if I want digitical copies of all the old LP's I have but have refused to buy again on CD? Since the DMCA doesn't alter "fair use" (or so it say's), I can legally make a "copy" of my LP's by pulling them down with Napster or GNUtella or FTP or whatever.
Even Judge Kaplan says I can make copies of analog media. With these tools, I can "make" legal copies without having to buy the recording hardware...
You probably haven't noticed that I am not American and don't know everything that's going on there (Do YOU know all the news in Canada?). My point was to say that if the ones who make napster/gnutella/DeCSS are guilty because you can do illegal stuff with them, then the firearms manufacturers are even more guilty, because the worse you can do with firearms is far more damaging than the worse you can do with DeCSS.
Welcome back to Earth, and please immerse yourself in current and past events before posting on Slashdot
So you think you know everything or what? I know I don't know everything going on in the US (should only US citizens be allowed to post on slashdot, since most stories are about stuff going on there?) and I'm very pleased to be told where I'm wrong. I have, however, a problem with your attitude....and before you start complaining about my spelling, can I say that english isn't my first language either.
perhaps the RIAA fired the blamethrower ...
by
pyros
·
· Score: 1
Dr. Heller: Don't touch that, it's a blame thrower
Shovler: A Blame Thrower?
-click-
-Spleen and Bowler argue-
-click-
-Spleen and Bolwer apologize-
Shovler: Your ARE a genius
Dr. Heller: That's what the card says.
Has their been any legal precedence set yet in terms of prosecuting offenders for denial of service attacks?
If so, why not charge RIAA, MPAA, and others that file frivilous lawsuits for denying citizens expedient use of public services (the legal system)?
(Yes, I know the article does state that it is the MP3Board suing AOL and completely understand the irony of it...but everyone here keeps bringing up RIAA over and over again =)
Re:Can AOL Really Be Held Responsable?
by
Control+Group
·
· Score: 1
Assuming AOL operates like every other company that employs coders (or even relates to them, I had to do this when I had a bit on a MOO), the nullsoft boys signed all proprietary rights to their code over to AOL when they accepted employment. I think it'd be a riot if that means AOL is liable for Gnutella.
Mostly because I'm sure they'll pour the equivalent of Taiwan's GNP into the defense if necessary...might be nice having one of the megacorps fighting for the side of right for once.
--
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
OK, what does Gnutella have to do with MP3board?
by
VAXman
·
· Score: 1
I have no idea what MP3board is, but why is Gnutella somehow responsible for it? Is MP3board actually a service which runs Gnutella?
And you think that's a joke .....
by
taniwha
·
· Score: 1
The Scientology lawyers ( tried in deposition..... but couldn't find him. Seriously they really did.....
All this in the same deposition where they tried to find out who was running the FTP site at 127.0.0.1 that had all their files on it (YHBT-HAND).
For more antics of those wacky lawyers check out www.xenu.net
Suit, CounterSuit and the Ridiculous
by
zip+the+pinhead
·
· Score: 1
MP3Board is itself fighting a lawsuit filed against it by the Recording Industry Association of America, arguing that MP3Board violates copyright laws by assisting consumers in the location of online MP3 music files
**GUFFAW**
Sounds to me like MP3board.com is covering their ass in suing AOL.
It looks like this silliness has no end to it in sight and one after another, any number of peer-to-peer file sharing networks will have problems in the end. As I've said before, the US Judicial system is not equipped to handle the "new" technology ("new" as in "new to them") and the cases that may be brought forth because if it.
I have a sneaking suspiscion that most companies that DO know the technology will be more than happy to tie up the court system and get as much "moolah boolah" as possible from those that were too lax to comprehend.
--
"The answers are always inside the problem, not outside"- Marshall McLuhan
This post is un-informed. Poster obviously did not read the original story and there is absolutley nothing insightful about it.
If he had he would realize this is a jab at the RIAA. They're simply pointing out a double standard the RIAA has here. They're going after everyone else, but not after one of their own. They probably can't win, but it's good PR for the movement.
Actually there have been several cases against major gun manufacturers by families of murder victims... tatctics have been to attack gun marketing and safety shortcomings (not unlike tobacco suits?). Don't know the results of such cases, though.
Re:GNUTella? What about AOL itself?
by
mini+me
·
· Score: 1
Lets not forget to sue AOL for distributing those disks, I mean what if I were to save a copywrited work on it and give it to someone else? Not like you are going to fit much of an mp3 or anything else now-a-days, but that's beside the point.
Another thing, why can't AOL send out it's programs on CD-RW's or something that can actaully be used for something other than a coaster or frisbee?? It was always nice to be able to use the AOL disks to store other stuff on them!
Battle of the Century
by
phillyclaude
·
· Score: 1
Here's my idea....convince micro$oft to put gnutella & DeCSS links on their page...They're all about innovation, so they won't refuse. Wait for the three-way heavyweight legal battle of the century, sit back and laugh during the 20 year court battles that ensue
-- A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head
Re:Isn't that AOL's fault too? ;)
by
MaxGrant
·
· Score: 1
This is the natural outcome of a world where huge conglomerates own nearly everything and have no idea what half their company is up to. Pretty soon we'll have companies suing each other, only to arrive in court to find out that their higher-ups are the same person . . .
Actually, I spelled it wrong correcting you (heh heh) - Cheetham is pelled - well, Cheetham. I've inverted an A and an E... Oops:-) Stupid webcam doesn't work under Mozilla either, but that's not really a very large concern. (It works under Netscape 4.73, though.)
-- You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
*loads mp3 playlist*
I dont understand why the RIAA/MPAA and whoever are scared of new internet based technologies? Dont they know that the internet isnt going anywhere. Dont they know whats happens when you try to bully people. It just doesnt work. They have foolishly put themselves againt the internet and new technology. They cannot win, they shall be assimilated. The logic now is simple:
1.I listen to music
2.If I like it I give a little money to the artist and alot of money to the record company.
The suit against napster DOES have some sense behind it. If I give someone a gun knowing full well what he or she are going to do with it, I am held accountable as an accessory to murder.
Napster does have the ability to filter what content gets indexed on there server, If they would simply remove the artists that request that there music not be available through there service.
Gnutella on the other had has no centralized server system, or a centralized organization controlling the distribution, thus making it completely unstoppable, and no lawsuit is going to change this.
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
jtdennis
·
· Score: 2
The people (who do still work for AOL) that created GNUtella are the same folks that created an obscure MP3 player called Winamp. They might have a future.
-- --
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings"
-Optimus Prime
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
Jaeger
·
· Score: 1
Oh yeah? Well I've patented the idea of patenting and copyrighting stupid things, so you're supposed copyright reverts to me, and I can sue you for millions of dollars in strange and mysterious damages. Take that!
Re:Have you seen Newtella?
by
generic-man
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I think that their clocks are just set ahead. That press release is just one point in a very short line of stupidity from this company.
Let's see if I can explain this for ya'll.
1. AOL created Gnutella way back when.
2. AOL is now a part of Time-Warner.
3. Time-Warner is part of RIAA, which is suing Napster for creating a program that "assists" copyright infringment.
You get it yet? This has the potential for putting Time-Warner in the nasty position of having to defend themselves against the same thing they're suing someone else for, which puts them in the difficult position of having to use their resources to defend and attack the same thing.
-- I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Defendants [AOL], [...] are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located.
So obviously, by promoting this open not-controlled-by-the-RIAA file exchange system, that AOL is necessarily guilty.
As well as I can tell, since AOL pulled the plug on the program shortly after it was posted (they should be able to prove this) then they should be in the clear.
But no, that's the truly hilarious thing, they aren't! The lawsuit should be (it doesn't list the specific Cause of Action in the news article, but this is the legitimate one) negligence. You can't show that AOL intended to aid music piracy, because I don't believe they did. What you can show is that they were grossly negligent in allowing it to happen.
Think about it. It's like you're a biochem lab researching different compounds and virii, and you authorize your researchers to take any new samples and just dump them into the general populace without your even checking them first. Then when you find out from all the deaths that they developed a disease instead of the cure for cancer, you tell them to stop.
AOL granted their programmers (Nullsoft) the access to publish on the web any new tool that was created, and didn't require that Nullsoft's tools be approved by AOL. When they found out what Nullsoft had done, they shut it down, but they should have known what it was before publishing it.
Now the other hand is that you can't hold ISP's responsible for the content they allow to be published, but AOL wasn't just Nullsoft's ISP, they were the employer. And if a security company hires a felon who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and murder, then gives him weapons and leaves him in a building lobby, they take some of the legal responsibility when he goes on a killing spree. Sure, it wasn't their official corporate decision to kill people, but they were grossly negligent in allowing their employee to do so.
Disclaimer: I like Gnutella. I'm just pointing out that there is legal merit in the case.
Re:It goes and goes and goes
by
SlashGeek
·
· Score: 1
"If he were still alive could we sue the inventor of guns
because guns are used to kill people illegally??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Why the hell not? Smith and Wesson, Colt, all of the big US gun manufactures have already been sued in the past five years, right along with the tobaco companies, and everyone else who operates within the confines of the law and is not responsible for the end use of their product. Guns aren't bad, some bad people just use guns. Cigarettes only kill you if you smoke them. (ok, I understand the second hand thing, but aside from that) And Gnutella and Napster don't trade copywrited music. People do. But it seems like in this day and age that doesn't matter. All you have to do is have your product misused by some third party and you are liable. It's a sad, sad situation. Hell, even video game companies have been sued for making violent games. Oh, so it's not the parents fault for allowing their children to play them? There seems to be some misconception there that video games are all for children. No, and not all cartoons are either. The problem is nobody wants to take any personal responsability any more. Everything must be somebody elses fault, because if guns/cigarettes/video games/file sharing software were illegal, than nobody would be able to make a poor decision, nothing "bad" would be there to decide on. So just take everything that has the potential to do bad things and make it illegal, sue the hell of the people who make it, and "bad" things will just go away and the world will be all bright and sunny because nobody will have to think for themselves any more. All this anti everything sue the world crap is really starting to make me sick. We are just watching our rights slip away, one at at time. But it's ok, Big Brother will protect us from the evils of the world. Keep smiling, and kiss your freedom goodbye.
--
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
How long do you think it will be before one of these huge conglomerates ends up suing some portion of itself over something like this?
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think this is a good thing.
by
artful
·
· Score: 1
I hope they don't settle out of court. It would be nice to have a multi-billion dollar mega-monopoly on the side of freedom for once. I wonder though how Time Warner feel about being sued for what it is suing napster for? If they do go on the defense do you think this could hurt their case, or are they so mega-huge that the courts would consider the two sections of the mega-coporation diffrent mega-entities?
Don't forget to sue the estate of Ida Lovelace, since she was the first programmer (wayyy back in the 1800s!)
-- First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting.:) -- Illiad
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
MouseR
·
· Score: 1
Y, however, appears to be available
I'd still be carefull about that. Depending on your intended "Y" product, you might run into trouble if it's too close for comfort with the "KY" brand.
Side constraint to first principle of lawsuits
by
/
·
· Score: 2
The party with the deepest pockets can hire the biggest lawyers. Bigger lawyers means more room to fill with bullshit, and as we all remember, bullshit is what wins these frivolous lawsuits.
Sometimes, it's more effective to sue little people who cannot contest your suit. If your utility function is something like $=(assets)/(countersuingpower) where countersuingpower is a function of assets, then the maximum of $ is perhaps suing someone with midrange assets.
You're also forgetting that the purpose of these lawsuits is not to maximize $ but to maximize legal restraint of the party sued. That requires a whole 'nother system of equations.
--
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Re:Side constraint to first principle of lawsuits
by
jallen02
·
· Score: 1
OJ Simpson case for example.. Im not speaking of his guilt or innocence (we all know he did it anyways right?)
Just the fact that it was one of the biggest BS/obscured/god and OJ only really knows the truth in the end type cases that had you questioning your left or right... thats what 400dollar/hour lawyers do.. make you question your left and right. Jeremy
You probably don't have standing.
by
CaseStudy
·
· Score: 1
I know this was meant as a joke, but you can't sue somebody for distributing child pornography unless (1) you're an attorney authorized to bring a criminal suit on behalf of the government; or (2) you suffered personal harm from the distribution--e.g., pictures of you or someone for whom you have power of attorney were distributed (evidence for a tort), or it was forged in your name (defamation), or it was sent to disturb you (intentional infliction of emotional distress).
Case 2 is a civil suit, and would involve damages but not jail time.
Re:Can AOL Really Be Held Responsable?
by
CaseStudy
·
· Score: 1
What the company is sued for in those cases isn't the direct act so much as fostering it with the workplace environment. Or do you have a case where a company was successfully sued because of a one-time (as opposed to ongoing) action that was in violation of company policy?
Good analogy, but it's "Ouroboros" (OO - ROB - OR - ROSS), not "Ourobos", I think. Watch more Red Dwarf:)
-- -- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
This sucks for Justin Frankel
by
GuNgA-DiN
·
· Score: 1
If this lawsuit actually goes through and AOL ends up paying out some cash to settle with MP3board then they are just going to turn around and try to tighten the leash on Nullsoft and Justin Frankel. I bet he won't be making any more innovative software that sets the world on it's ear. Time to start his own company and get the hell out of there.
Or, maybe it's just a ploy by the cash-strapped MP3board. Maybe a nice infusion of out-of-court settlement money from AOHell is exactly what they need to pay off their lawyers so they can continue the suit against the RIAA.
Half right. AOL can win this without hurting the Napster case. They just shouldn't focus on the "we're just a messenger" defense, but instead on the "we never sanctioned Gnutella" defense. If they have to use the former defense, they should base it on the fact that Gnutella isn't MP3-specific, as Napster can't make that claim.
Lawyer A: "Let's tell our client that we've got a great case for him! One that we will take loads of billable hourse to loose. Let's also convince him that he wants to loose!"
Lawyer B: "Sweet! we won't even have to try very hard. Ha Ha Ha Ha! I'm going to talk to accounting."
I'm filing suit against Tim Berners-Lee for creating the web which helps people find kiddy porn. I'm filing suit against Vint Cerf for his part in developing TCP/IP. I'm suing Moore for mass production of computers. I'm suing Shockley for developing the transistor. I'm suing Maxwell for his work in E&M which is vital for our understanding of electronics. And finally, God will be hearing from my lawyers for starting this whole mess.
Although I have no legal opinion on the case, I think suing the RNA because they promote firearms is not more (or less) silly than suing 2600 because it promotes DeCSS. The MPAA has sued 2600 (and won). I wouldn't be suprised is there was a law suit (at some point) against the NRA. Of course, the NRA has a much deeper pocket than 2600.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me, either. The current mindset in the gun control industry (and yes, it is an industry) is "legislation through litigation" -- a process by which gun manufacturers will conform to their agenda, or be bankrupted by meritless lawsuits -- and it's succeeding. Smith & Wesson was forced to sign an "agreement" which also applies to their distributors and dealers, and really handcuffs how they do business. Colt is essentially out of the civillian market. Ruger shut down their manufacturing lines for the summer. Oh, and taxes keep going up, which along with the legal fees are making firearms more and more expensive. Kind of like what the government did with cigarettes.
The NRA would be a much harder target, however. We have over three and a half million members (annual membership dues are $35, which works out to something like $122 million in income per year by simple math.) and growing and, as a result, have more friend sin congress than the gun industry itself. This year's election is probably the most important election of the 20th century, at least in terms of constitutional rights.
I'm curious, if you don't mind answering, about what the "average canadian" feels about the current firearms registration mess going on up there right now?
-- What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Now why where the other replies to the above post modded down? admittedly your could argue they deserve it for bitting if you see the above above post was left as a troll but then the above was left at 1.
I think they were modded down out of dissagrement with the opions they contian, not thier actual merrit.
for those at reading at 1+ heres what was modded down:
Re:Breaking news
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22, @19:19 CST
No, it will restrict law abiding citizens from owning guns and being able to protect themselves. Moron.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Breaking news
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22, @20:02 CST
>What's wrong with suing the firearm companies?
>Seems to me a fairly good way to restrict gun use.
Second amendment to the Constitution, for one.
For two, is a/. post I grabbed as a text file, but forgot to grab the author's name (ie, it ain't original, and I don't have the citation) here goes:
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century bceause of gun control: 56 million.
It is going to take an awful lot of random crime to make up for those numbers.
Hey don't you have to do a background check on anyone who tries to buy a gun?
Maybe the RIAA and MPAAshould ask the same thing of Napster/Gnutella/DeCSS
I'm really amazed that napster/gnutella/DeCSS would be illegal because you can do something illegal with them... yet I haven't seen a suit against the NRA and firearms companies....oh, it's true, nobody has ever committed a crime using a gun!
I should really know better than to respond to this, but on the off chance it isn't a troll, the firearms industry is currently the target of numerous (meritless) lawsuits by several dozen cities, one state (New York), the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and organizations such as Handgun Control, Inc. One would think the lawsuits were groundless, given the fact that firearms are one of the most heavily regulated legal products in the US, but apparently your friendly neighborhood government (who, as with cigarettes, get a rather large chunk out of every sale, FYI) doesn't agree.
As for suing the NRA, that would be more akin to suing Ziff-Davis because some users of computers have been convicted of crimes... your analogy jumps a bit too far there.
-- What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Sure, they are only in the business of leasing planes, but if they know what is going on and just ignore it and pretend they are ignorant, that is just plain unethical and they should be called on it. It's at least a gray area.
By that argument someone had better start suing Honda, because I bought my car for the sole purpose of running down pedestrians.. and I told the Honda salesman when he sold me the car that I would not use it for transportation, only to run down pedestrians.. in no way did he attempt to stop me from purchasing the car..
For that matter it is time to sue Micro$haft for creating a product that can be used to pirate MP3's.. after all.. if it wasn't for Windoze there would be no Napster!:)
--
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Although I have no legal opinion on the case, I think suing the RNA because they promote firearms is not more (or less) silly than suing 2600 because it promotes DeCSS. The MPAA has sued 2600 (and won). I wouldn't be suprised is there was a law suit (at some point) against the NRA. Of course, the NRA has a much deeper pocket than 2600.
I think suing the RNA because they promote firearms is not more (or less) silly than suing 2600 because it promotes DeCSS
I'm sure that the NRA has at least one link from their page to the page of a gun manufacturer, which the 2600 case seems to imply that linking to a place to buy a gun is as bad as selling a gun.
--
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
My point was to say that if the ones who make napster/gnutella/DeCSS are guilty because you can do illegal stuff with them, then the firearms manufacturers are even more guilty, because the worse you can do with firearms is far more damaging than the worse you can do with DeCSS.
You know, you're right. Sure, technically, Gnutella and Napster *themselves* are not doing something illegal. But it could be argued that they are *aiding and abetting* illegal activity. Napster sure isn't being *all* that aggressive in preventing people from doing illegal things. No matter how much people don't like it, some sort of responsibility comes in proportion to the potential or actual illegitimate activity perpetrated on a system. For most small systems, this is negligable...carriers can entirely disclaim responsibility. But in others it's just unethical. Take for example, a small private airplane company who leases planes. Now what if it so happens that every single one of their clients uses their planes to traffic drugs. Sure, they are only in the business of leasing planes, but if they know what is going on and just ignore it and pretend they are ignorant, that is just plain unethical and they should be called on it. It's at least a gray area.
Just so you know, I think the suits are largely bs, too, but the main difference with firearms and stuff is that firearms can be used for lawful purposes (hunting, target shooting, etc.) and mostly are. Napster is used mainly for piracy (along with Gnutella) and DeCSS, well, that's another story but suffice it to say that that doesn't have any uses which are lawful under the US's new Digital Millenium Copyright Act (pray you never get this in canada). In short, it says that it is illegal to reverse-engineer access to any copyrighted works the copyright holder took pains to protect technologically. IE - no reverse engineering DeCSS, even if it's for fair use, I think.
It's all BS, but that's the case they are making, just so you see how they are different from the firearms cases.
It's not like that at all. There is no court injunction against selling guns, so as long as all the gun sellers that the NRA links to (if they even do) are licensed gun sellers, then they aren't committing any crime at all.
How about suing every government that allows freedom of speech, movment etc.. for making all this progress posable so that all thies IP violations could exist...
I mean come on.. eliminate free speach and you have no IP violations right?
The above is a joke... just in case anyone dosn't get it...
PS: Just becouse it's a joke dosn't mean it's funny... just means I think it's funny... so if you don't think it's funny... thht....
Oh sh;t I am also "aiding and abetting" criminal activities. If only I hadn't not held the door for the guy leaving the sporting goods store with his purchases in a brown paper bag. How was I to know he was a *freaking psycho* who had some ammunition in his bag and went out to shoot people.
Geez, now I gotta do a background check on the people I "help" by holding a door, or something. Oh man, I might have let that child molester cut in line ahead of me since he only had a candybar and I had a cart full of stuff.
Crap, crap, crap. I guess the lawyers will be coming to arrest me, since they're the only ones that think I have broken the law.
Exactly. It's as if noone ever traded music before Gnutella came around.
"Let's make a case... Without technology, no one would have ever broken the law!"
Ha. The slashdot article from the Atlantic posted a few days ago mentioned that copyright infringement was huge around the turn of the century -- people were bootlegging printed music. I wonder how wide the distribution channel would have been if there was a sheet-music version of gnutella around in 1890.
This could be the perfect opprtunity to fight the silly GIF patent. Since Compuserve claims that they own the GIF format then they must be responsible for it. And I have seen some pretty sick stuff in GIFs (usually worse then the jpgs even).
I am now officially announcing my intent to sue Compuserve for damages done to my frail innocence cause by implicit images compressed using the.GIF format. (It doesn't get much more legalese than that from me)
Heh.:-) Well, I can change it if you want. You've got the claim on it.
By all means don't, that was all in good fun. At least yours is formatted nicely and all.
btw: default treshold is 1 now.
-- I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Re:Isn't that AOL's fault too? ;)
by
Uart
·
· Score: 1
AOL/TimeWarner is hardly a conglomerate
--
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
GNUTella? What about AOL itself?
by
shaunj
·
· Score: 3
If that logic works (indeed the logic that is the basis for the RIAA vs. Napster case), then shouldn't you also be able to blame AOL itself (ie AOL v5.0). It also "helps users find illegal music". That is just one example of how huge this issue is. That logic extends all the way to newspapers and phonebooks and (yes) speech!
ho hum, go to the nullsoft web site and you could get the idea that these guys are a bunch of independants who are raging a holy war with the music industry. They created winamp, the most popular mp3 player, they created gnutella, the next best thing to napster (our last best chance for peace?) and yet they are owned by AOL.. WTF?
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
You will find 100's of users per channel, and 5-10 channels per IRC server, and what 100's of irc servers? Also what about the potential thousands of people trading them in run of the mill channels like #anarchism, #darkpoetry, and such?
I wrote to RIAA and they wrote back!
by
monkeyfamily
·
· Score: 1
>>They must love me!
Thanks for writing to us about Napster.
Since Napster put my name on its site with a direct e-mail connection, you can imagine that I have received thousands of e-mails. Most were urgent pleas for Napster, most were from music lovers and some of them were even polite!
We've read your e-mails, and put together a short Q&A that addresses the most commonly asked questions. I've printed it below. We've also revised the Q&A on our website (http://www.riaa.com/napster.cfm) to address the issues you've raised, and I encourage you to read it.
But first, I want to address some of the common themes in this response to you.
1. The record companies and artists who have repeatedly asked Napster and other sites offering similar services, want a simple thing that I am sure you want for your work - respect. Napster has a new artist program where artists give permission to have their works shared. Shouldn't all artists have the same courtesy from Napster?
2. Music is as important to all of us as it is to you. Those of us who work with creative artists are especially grateful that we have a deep understanding of how hard artists work to achieve music that in their minds is good enough to offer to you. That work takes time and money.
3. The price of music today is the best entertainment value for the dollar. Numerous studies have shown that the price of music has not even kept pace with inflation and has stayed more level than other entertainment products. As the various media outlets for music increase, the cost of marketing and promotion go up, not down. The price of the physical piece of plastic is the least relevant part of the costs of music. The marketing and promotion that broadens the audience for an artist's music is the most expensive part. For a record company (big or small), 85% of all recordings fail to even make back their costs. It is the small number of successful records that fund the development of new music. Therefore, when someone takes the "hits" new artists are getting hurt as well.
4. For those who have written that Napster has been a source of education about new music, I say thanks for being open to new music. There are numerous music sites on-line that promote new bands that don't also encourage stealing from those that are already popular. Go to MTV.com, getmusic.com, sonymusic.com. warnerbros.com. listen.com, launch.com, emusic.com, mp3.com, hollywoodandvine.com, artistdirect.com?.the list goes on.
5. A number of people have suggested that we "just don't get it". People say if Napster is shut down, numerous other places are ready to takes its place. Believe me, we do "get it" and we do understand both the technology and the interest people have in getting music on-line. Litigating our way through the Internet is not our preferred or intended method. We hope that once the service offered by Napster is confirmed to be against the law, that there will be little interest by most people in continuing to test their fate. While some may think that a Gnutella program or one of the many other kinds of open source programs offers anonymity to users, they don't. While I don't have any illusions that all free music distribution will suddenly stop, I do believe that most people want to be honest and care about their favorite artists.
6. Finally and most importantly, in my view, the legitimate on-line music business is developing quickly. Artists and record companies know that you want music on-line and you want it soon, easy to use and at a good price. That is the challenge of the music community. It is a good challenge and I believe it will be met. But it will be met with a fundamental difference from the way Napster operates. A legitimate music business will recognize that music is the lifeblood and career for artists and songwriters and producers and musicians and many others. That work must be respected and rewarded by those enjoying the fruits of their labor.
Thanks again for sharing your views.
Sincerely,
Hilary Rosen
President and CEO
Recording Industry Association of America
What is the RIAA action against Napster all about?
RIAA, on behalf of its members, sued Napster because it launched a service that enables and facilitates piracy of music on an unprecedented scale.
The overwhelming majority of the MP3 files offered on Napster are infringing -- and the district court found that Napster knows this and even encourages it. Napster is thus enabling and encouraging the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music. Just because Napster itself may not house the infringing recordings does not mean Napster is not guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright law has long recognized that someone who materially contributes to infringing activity, with knowledge of that activity, is liable for copyright infringement as if that person did the copying him or herself.
Is this a lawsuit to stop the use of MP3 technology?
No. The suit is against Napster, the company, and not MP3 technology. Any company that offers to help distribute illegally obtained music is a problem -- whether that music is transmitted on tape, CD, or on the Internet in whatever form.
RIAA only has a problem with the illegal uses of the format to distribute copyrighted recordings without the permission of the artist or record company. To the extent that artists choose to use MP3 technology to distribute their work - music that they own the rights to - that's great; in fact, it's a potent example of the ways in which the Internet can connect creators and fans and produce new opportunities for the distribution of music.
Napster's copyright protection page clearly says it revokes the ability of users to access Napster if they violate copyright law. Isn't that enough?
A few words cannot undo the harm caused by hundreds of thousands of Napster users unlawfully downloading millions of infringing music files. In any event, Napster's actions speak louder than its words. Napster is actively encouraging and facilitating the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music.
While Napster now claims that it's all about creating a community for the new and unknown artist, the district court found that it was just an afterthought to try to help them in the litigation. Before this litigation, Napster was more forthright about its true purpose. On its web site, Napster touted itself as the "world's largest MP3 music library" that "ensures the availability of every song online." Leaving little doubt about its disregard for the unknown artist, Napster boasted that "Napster virtually guarantees you'll find the music you want, when you want it... and you can forget about wading through page after page of unknown artists."
Napster is unfair to the artists and musicians who have invested their time, effort and money to create music.
Isn't this just like the motion picture association's battle against VCRs in the 1980s?
Not at all. A VCR can be used lawfully (time-shifting, rentals, home movies) and never infringe on a copyright. The overwhelming use of Napster, by contrast, is for infringing purposes. Indeed, the district court found that Napster did not have any non-infringing uses that were commercially significant. The magnitude of the activity is also very different. An individual making a copy of a TV program (which she was invited to watch for free) so that she can watch it later cannot be equated with an individual re-distributing a copy of a CD to millions of anonymous strangers who were not invited by the copyright owner to get it for free.
Finally, the record industry is embracing Internet technology and actively working to take advantage of the new technologies for the delivery of music online. But it's very hard for an artist or label to sell their music online when the same songs are available from Napster for free.
Don't technologies like Gnutella and Freenet pose the greatest risk for the recording industry? Why worry about Napster?
Record companies have lived with piracy forever, so new technologies for piracy on the Internet is nothing new. Certainly, there will be challenging issues to address, and perhaps technical measures will be helpful. But, the mere fact that there are other piracy challenges on the Internet is not a reason to do nothing about commercial operations like Napster, which seek to build multi-billion dollar businesses on copyrighted works they neither own nor license.
Record companies recognize that the ultimate response to technologies like Gnutella and Freenet is a legitimate alternative that consumers will prefer. It's up to the industry to offer consumers such convenient access to music, with such ease of operation and great sound quality, that consumers will choose to use legitimate sites. They're also likely to prefer dealing with legitimate sites so as to avoid the security and privacy risks of dealing with anonymous strangers on the "Undernet."
What do artists think of Napster's system?
Artists have been voicing their opinions in increasing numbers. Many appreciate the promotional opportunity the Internet presents, but have passionate feelings about being able to decide where and how their music is distributed and to receive some compensation for its use. Here are just a few examples of what artists are saying.
"Many artists have spent their lives honing their craft and now some anonymous person in a little dark room with a computer somewhere is able to collate that lifetime's work and pass it around the world for free. It's just not on. Stealing is stealing regardless of what name you choose to call it."
-- Matt Johnson of The The
"It pisses me off and I resent it. I spent $15,000 on my Web site. I paid a publicist for a year and a half out of my own pocket. And now some kid's going to tell me my catalog should be free? They're just entrepreneurs setting themselves up to make a ton of money off other people's work. Where's the compensation for the artists? I know people using Napster are chuckling about kicking big, bad record labels. But as evil as the record companies may be, at least they're paying for your recording budget, and at least they're promoting you, and paying for tour support. We can make a new model - yeah right. It's laughable. Those people have no idea how the music business works. Because unless you're Alanis Morissette or Dave Matthews, you're not making money on the road. It's all I can do to break even on tour. And the only reason to tour is to promote the sale of my CD."
-- Jonatha Brook, Salon, March 25, 2000
"Artists, like anyone else, should be paid for their work."
-- Lou Reed
"I don't have a big giant record deal or a movie deal. I don't make money on the road; I lose money on the road. A Newsweek article said, 'It's the kids versus the suits.' Well, it's not really that - it's kids versus the damn musicians, the people you supposedly like, whose music you listen to."
-- Aimee Mann, Yahoo! Internet Life, August 2000
"Napster presents huge problems for the artists. It raises the questions - which is positive - of where and how artists are compensated. But I don't agree with the model they've set up. The artists should be the person who's ultimately in a position to decide when, where, and how something should be shared with whomever they choose to share it with."
-- Alanis Morissette, Yahoo! Internet Life, August 2000
Once I purchase a CD or movie, doesn't the "fair use" doctrine and "personal use" allow me to use my CD as I see fit?
The "fair use doctrine" of copyright law is complicated and its application varies depending on the specific facts and circumstances. In general, the doctrine can allow someone to reproduce, distribute, adapt, display and/or perform a copyrighted work depending upon the nature of the use (commercial purposes, non-profit, educational), the length of the excerpt, how distinctive the original work is, and how the use will impact the market for the original work.
You don't have to be a copyright lawyer to know that it is not "fair" to allow an individual to make copies of copyrighted music available to millions of anonymous strangers. That's the equivalent of publishing, and few people would argue that you can publish someone else's copyrighted work without his or her permission. In fact, courts have routinely held that wholesale copying and distribution of the entirety of creative works is not a fair use. The district court in this case came to the same conclusion.
Regarding "personal use," there is a big difference between a consumer making a copy for his or her own personal use, and that same consumer making the file available on Napster where it can be freely downloaded by millions of people. Not even the staunchest proponents of consumer rights have suggested that the latter is fair or lawful.
How is downloading files from Napster different from recording from the radio or making mix tapes for friends?
Taping a song from the radio for your personal use is nothing like file trading. Unlike radio, file trading allows you to search for specific songs and access them at will. Also, the quality of downloads is much better. You are able to get a copy of the whole song, without a DJ talking over it or another song being mixed in. Downloads are digital and as such don't lose sound quality in the transfer, as you do with analog tape. Most important, the harm that can be caused by file trading over the Internet is orders of magnitude greater than the impact of off-air taping.
File trading is also nothing like trading mix tapes. The more appropriate analogy is if you give your mix tape to millions of anonymous strangers. That's not legal, and it's certainly not innocent.
Aren't record companies at fault for the proliferation of file trading because they've been so slow in offering music on the Internet?
The Internet is revolutionizing entertainment - and the recording industry embraces it. Our reason for existence is to find, develop, and promote talented musicians. We build careers and make a contribution to our ever-evolving culture.
In order to accomplish this, we must market and distribute our catalogs in ways that are legal and that result in the creators being fairly compensated. It takes an enormous amount of effort to determine how to offer music to consumers online in a way that meets their needs and grows the business. Method of delivery, format, rights clearances, relationships with retailers, and price structure are but a few of the many issues to be worked out, as is negotiating for digital distribution rights where necessary with artists, songwriters, publishers, and their representative organizations in the US and abroad.
Some examples of how record companies are going digital are:
- Many record labels have been licensing personalized webcasting services, and many more are on the way;
- Three of the five major labels (EMI, Sony and Universal) have already begun offering digital downloads via the Internet. The other major labels and several independent labels (e.g., Zomba and TVT) have likewise announced plans to begin digital downloads of music and are slated to begin operations in the near future;
- Warner, BMG, EMI, Beggar's Banquet, and other labels have already licensed MP3.com, MusicBank, and other services to offer consumers the ability to store their music wherever they are and whenever they want;
- Sony, Universal and EMI have announced that they will soon be offering a subscription service to consumers for the first time.
If music wasn't so expensive, wouldn't there be less incentive to want to file-share?
First, this is not file sharing. This is unauthorized, illegal file duplication - on a massive scale. Sharing is when one person gives up something for another - a half a piece of pie, for example, or the use of a car. With Napster, nobody is giving up anything because everybody gets to keep a copy. And that's just plain wrong.
Second, the price of music is not just the cost of the plastic on which it's recorded, any more than the price of a movie is based on the cost of the film. The price of a CD includes the cost of paying all the people who helped create it. Those people include songwriters, artists, background musicians, studio engineers, talent scouts, marketers and retailers, among many others. It also carries with it the enormous costs of marketing and promotion that are required to call attention to the album in our oversaturated entertainment market.
In any event, dissatisfaction with the price is not a justification for stealing. Would you steal a book on the grounds that its price is too high? Or break into a theater because the tickets cost too much?
>>Hell yeah!
According to the Times, MP3Board argues in its filing that it has committed no copyright violations in it service. But if it should lose its suit, the company argues, AOL and Time Warner should help shoulder any penalties because of their indirect role creating the Gnutella program.
To put this in more common terms:
Officer, why did you stop me for speeding and not stop all those other cars?
First I thought it was a joke, but campchaos is doing a series on Napster parodies. There is this movie called 'sue all the world'. Y'know, if I'm reading this Gnutella case, I still wonder whether 'sue all the world' actually is a joke.
Wait a stinking minute.....
by
glitch_
·
· Score: 3
If i create program X....then get hired by company Z, could group Y sue company Z cause I work for them, and I created program X?....that doesn't seem to make very much sense to me....or did I miss something very obvious?
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
Shaheen
·
· Score: 2
The creator of Gnutella did not do so entirely on his own time - he released it as a product of NullSoft. In this case, it is NullSoft that has to take responsibility for it. And since AOL is now the proprietor of NullSoft, they must take responsibility for what NullSoft creates.
And hence, you get the blame game...
-- You should never take life too
seriously - You'll never get
out of it alive.
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
arivanov
·
· Score: 2
There are two products with Y. Besides the hungry stuff there is Y sound system by Fox. The same guys that do the stratrek stuff.
-- Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
VFVTHUNTER
·
· Score: 2
Sorry, dude, but X has already been created, and Z is a shell. Y, however, appears to be available;)
Re:Wait a stinking minute.....
by
treke
·
· Score: 1
I think Y is a remote audio system, probably mean to be used in conjunction with X. treke
Re:Meanwhile on IRC . . .
by
generic-man
·
· Score: 2
IRC is relatively small. In an average MP3 channel, you'll find a couple hundred people, tops. On an average Napster server, you'll find thousands of users. Add that with the fact that Napster script kiddi3z don't keep bombarding you with confusing ads and high-ASCII-laden instructions, and you'll see that IRC is not really meant for the masses.
People want a simple point-and-click interface to download MP3's, not an endless stream of "j00 @r3 #49800 in d@ qu3u3" messages from your friendly neighborhood script kiddy. IRC, Usenet, FTP sites -- all of these confusing old "standards" are no match for the point-and-click clients that get millions of people into "sharing."
I guess this means the DEA will be shutting down Expedia or Travelocity for selling plane tickets to Amsterdam...
-- These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be.
The real money is in digital music lawsuits!
by
jms
·
· Score: 3
After reading about mp3.com's $20,000,000 out of court settlement with Sony, it is clear to me that the big money with internet music distribution isn't in actually distributing the music -- the major labels can't seem to do that successfully. The big money these days is in suing people who actually are able to distribute the music. mp3board.com just wants to get in on the action while the getting is good.
- John
Re:First principle of lawsuits
by
carlos_benj
·
· Score: 1
Sometimes suing the party with the deep pockets is what stops this sort of thing by setting precedent. The guy with the deep pockets (AOL in this case) has the resources to fight through the appeals courts and field a crack legal team in the process.
--
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
More to it than that...right?!?!
by
kpickard
·
· Score: 1
First of all, as the news article states, AOL hasn't even confirmed that a suit has been filed. Secondly, it sounds like two children getting in trouble with their mother:
"If I did break the vase, Timmy should be in just as much trouble as me! I really didn't break the vase...but if I did..."
This makes me think that any company (MP3Board.com) that would try to pull this kind of stunt is, in fact, either run by children, OR knows something more about AOL's involvement in the creation of Gnutella than we (or maybe I) do. Alternately, it could just be an attempt by MP3Board.com to get attention pointed in someone else's direction.
Re:Meanwhile on IRC . . .
by
generic-man
·
· Score: 2
All that means is that IRC is spread very thin. Sure, you'll find a few kiddies running fserves here and there, but IRC was not designed as a medium for searching for and sending files. Gnutella and Napster were. The primary function of file-sharing networks is just that, sharing files. 99.9% of the traffic on Napster is file-sharing related (the rest being the odd chat room here and there, and who's to say that's not about file sharing). The vast majority of traffic on IRC is not about MP3 transfers, at least on the big networks. Porn? Well, that's another story.;)
-- For more information, click here.
The etymology of Entomology
by
abe+ferlman
·
· Score: 1
Publicitiy publicity publicity
by
um...+Lucas
·
· Score: 1
It's just some lame attempt at a publicity stunt. You can't sue someone just for the sake of suing someone. They need to have materialy harmed you. So what, is mp3board going to say that gnutella is unfair competition for them, or something? If not, then it's just an attempt at getting their names into headlines/potential users minds. A bad one, at that.
Hey, lawyers DO understand technology!
by
Dr.Dubious+DDQ
·
· Score: 2
No, I'm serious - look at it this way:
RIAA (including Time/Warner) Sues Mp3Board
Mp3Board Sues AOL, which may (God forbid!) own Time/Warner soon
Don't you see?
They've invented Peer-To-Peer Lawsuits!
Now all we need for poetic justice is some good anti-silly-lawsuit legislation, and perhaps we can get a class-action-suit going against Congress for creating this lawsuit-sharing technology...
thuggery NOT thuggary
precedent NOT precident
etymology NOT eyntomology
equivalent NOT equivelent
irrelevant NOT irrelevent...
This is not a personal attack on anyone,
but reporters and other non-geeks who visit will be likely to take opinions more seriously if they are couched in more reasonable language....
Just $.02
--
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
Re:I'm not officially confused. ;)
by
_Sprocket_
·
· Score: 2
Counter-suing (or suing a third party) is SOP in these sorts of disputes.
Indeed!
For some reason, this brings forth an odd image of lawyers in a Hong Kong martial arts movie. It's all legal kung-fu.
The RIAA has thrown the first legal punch at mp3board.com. The energy from that hit needs to be disapated somehow and mp3board.com doesn't have a way to strike back at the RIAA. But there's an available conduit - Time Warner, one of the major RIAA members. Time Warner is AOL. AOL is also Nullsoft. Nullsoft made Gnutella. Go after Gnutella, therefore Nullsoft, therefore AOL, therefore Time Warner, finally striking the RIAA.
I'm not sure how practical all this is. But it does make for some amusing coreography.
I think their point is that if they can be sued for making it possible to download MP3s, then they can sue Gnutella for making it possible to download MP3s. They are deliberately acting in an absurd way to highlight the absurdity of their own case.
what thick brown envelope?
by
andykilner
·
· Score: 1
It wouldn't suprise me if the RIAA didn't throw huge amounts of money at AOL for them to do nothing. A couple of Billion dollor 'bung' would probably safeguard their monopoly for the time being, and AOL wont mind because tehy won't suffer financially (they may even gain) and there reputation wont take a hit because they're 'admitting' that Gnutella is illegal.
So I for one won't be suprised if AOL does just turn around and take it on the nose, the backhanders are sure to soften the blow.
Re:isn't there a conflict here
by
snillfisk
·
· Score: 1
I think the main problem here is that you've by some means misinterpreted the text, they're getting sued by mp3board.com, not by the RIAA.
-- mats
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
The human race has officially devolved
by
supz
·
· Score: 1
How freaking stupid can you get? That's like a little kid saying "WELL HE DID IT TOO", after getting in trouble for something. I bet the judge's reply to the suit is gonna be "WELL IF GNUTELLA JUMPED OFF A BRIDGE, WOULD YOU JUMP TOO?"
You aren't the only one... NullSoft... a subsid. of AOL, is the first place where GNUtella shows up, written by some "rogue" programmers there. It is yanked within hours. They don't run the servers - heck, a lot of the people using gnutella now are running a clone. It's not like Scour, where they host the searches... not that I like AOL all that much, but I can't see how they could be held at fault...
--
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Dunno about ironic, but definitally bloody stupid.
Don't people grow up any more? this sort of thing might be tolerable among 12 year olds in the playground, but for adults??
All these millions getting thrown around in cases that in the end only argue pretty much bugger all but minor semantic points. I thought the millenium dome was a waste, but think of the actual good, betterment-of-mankind, causes that the money and resources could be going to.
"Rogue" programmers are still employed by the company and use company-owned equipment to write their software and post it online. Any email, source code, etc., made on company time with company equipment and transferred through company communications systems is legally considered an official message from that company. That means that not only do they own it -- they can be held liable for its contents, and AOL could conceivably be found at fault for the copyright violations facilitated by Gnutella.
Whether any judge in the country is going to accept that is anybody's guess. I, for one, think it highly unlikely. We can hope, though, right? Basically, if this thing doesn't get thrown directly out of court, it becomes a win/win situation for supporters of peer-to-peer networking tech: either AOL/Time Warner loses, thereby biting themselves in the ass with the legal teeth of their anti-Napster arguments, or AOL/T.W. wins, in which case the future of peer-to-peer tools looks a little brighter.
Plus, either way, they're going to be involved in a nice, hyped, confusing legal action which will obscure their anti-swapping message for months. I can see the first-time Net users reading the AUP for their service now:
AUP: "...any use of these services for the purpose of knowingly violating copyright or patent protection of intellectual property is strictly prohibited; these uses may include, but are not limited to, the sharing of copyrighted media files, software, or proprietary information (see MP3s, FTP & Me on p. 3)."
User: "...uhh, but didn't AOL do a bunch of that stuff? I saw it on the news, I think, so they must mean something different than what I think they mean...so where's that stupid Noo-tella site? I want me some tunes...
But AOL shut down the official releases of gnutella after they found out about it. They were the ones that first tried to shut it down, and now they're being sued by someone who wants to shut it down? Ironic, that.
MS should jump in the fire, and make their own vesion of Gnutella/Napster, and make it easily available for download for windows users.
Let them attempt to get sued by RIAA and have MS's almightly legal team have at it. Get the big guns in. hate MS all you want for their legal teams and legalsese, but this time let them work for you! They could make up some fancy story on how it is no different than a user's transfer directory, but with added search features.
gnutella can't be from AOL
by
linux2000
·
· Score: 1
I don't, I can't believe Gnutella came from AOL.
If it did then it would...
have AIM bundled with it
display a "running man" icon linked to AIM
play a voice saying "you have new porn!"
required a two-word password of the form SKREW/YEW
arrive as a CDROM in my physical mail once a week for the rest of my natural life
Yet none of this has happened. Sorry, the facts just don't indicate it.
Re:Isn't that AOL's fault too? ;)
by
ucblockhead
·
· Score: 1
That actually happened once, though damned if I could remember who it was.
Yet another lawsuit just so people can make a quick buck. I say this one will fall through the cracks, not to be on AOL's side or anything but they haven't done anything, except DISTANCE themselves from the whole Gnutella community.
Well, AOL itself didn't release the software. IIRC, the software was released by Nullsoft (the authors of Winamp). AOL found out about the software and had it pulled. Therefore, I reiterate, AOL should be in the clear. If anyone would be liable, it would be Nullsoft in my eyes.
Now I understand where your confusion lies.. take a long hard look at who owns Nullsoft. AOL is responisble for their subsidiaries just like any other company. If New York decided to invade Canada, do you think Canada would blame just the people who live in New York? Or do you think they would blame the USA?:)
--
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
It's funny that one of the largest media/content-producing companies is now going to have to defend something like Gnutella. If they do, I wonder what that says for the technology. If they don't, well...then they're going to have to take the hit in the wallet. Sort of makes you wonder what could be done if there is financial incentive to protect this type of technology (or at least financial counter-incentive if they don't).
I'm not officially confused. ;)
by
zorgon
·
· Score: 4
Why is this confusing? It's obvious to me even though ianal. Counter-suing (or suing a third party) is SOP in these sorts of disputes. If there's anybody even peripherally involved that might have deep pockets they get whacked with a lawsuit. That's why they have full-time legal staff. That's why we pay too much for everything, it's the litigation tax. DoH.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
--
I am quite civilized, and I should be
brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
If I am not mistaken, didn't the movie industry do this with VCRs when they first came out?
Now they're making lots of $$$ of them...I guess people DON'T learn from history very well with all these lawsuits because of Napster and DeCSS...
-- "I've had a perfect evening...this just wasn't one of them."
Why UCITA is attractive to software makers
by
BetaRelease
·
· Score: 1
If UCITA has been passed as law in Virginia, then according to its terms, AOL cannot be sued.
The thing here is that Nullsoft released Gnutella under their name. And AOL is held legally responsible for what its subsidaries do.
Even so, this probably won't damage AOL much. They handled the situation relatively quickly, and have had nothing to do with Gnutella since the first posting. But what mp3board may be hoping for is the action to confuse the RIAA (of which AOL-Time Warner is a member) enough to stall things, and perhaps damage their continuing attempts to cast themselves as morally superior. It seems to me to be primarily a stall tactic.
-- Sean Daugherty
"I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
This is the same web site that..
by
Talonius
·
· Score: 4
This is the same web site that sued the RIAA "before the RIAA could sue them" as an effective countermeasure to being shut down after MP3.com was sued. (Reuters article, don't have a link handy, was posted on Slashdot I believe.)
I have to admit that mp3board.com looks pretty much like it's *just* a search engine, but the various categories that it includes *does* make it look bad. (I. e. "illegal MP3s", etc.) Also, the "Top Ten Downloaded" MP3 list including nothing but big name bands also can't be good.
Still this is funny, unless mp3board is counting on the bad publicity to help drive hits before they get shut down. (Suicide pact?)
IANAL but the basic premise of the lawsuit seems to be hilarious and pretty similar to "I'm going to sue the phone company for servicing phone lines because I'm getting phone threats." Or, take the "Napster is nothing more than a service provider and not liable for content" theories and apply to Gnutella.
BTW, if Gnutella was never officially sanctioned by AOL and AOL pulled the plug on it, can they be held responsible for the open sourcing of it?
And, not to mention, that MP3Board allows searching of "HTTP" and "Gnutella". Ack?
We use your service, let's sue the person that created the original, which was reverse engineered and created clean room, because we don't want to be held responsible for our own actions.
Wow, this is jumpy.
Talonius
-- My reality check bounced.
Since when was Nullsoft an AOL subsidiary?
by
AFCArchvile
·
· Score: 1
I think that this is a major load. Many/.ers know that Gnutella was started by Nullsoft, who then stopped making the Gnutella client and released the source to give birth to other client/server shells for Gnutella. Even flatplanet.net is in Gnutella; they're spamming every search query; already, most of the Gnutella clients have flatplanet filters.
-- "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
As well as I can tell, since AOL pulled the plug on the program shortly after it was posted (they should be able to prove this) then they should be in the clear. This is just another way for someone to attempt to control the flow of information (granted, gnutella is mainly used to trade music and porn right now, but was it designed for this or for the general sharing of information?). I hope mp3board.com falls flat on their proverbial face here.
Disclaimer: If you take any of this post as any type of legal advice and you get burnt in the buttocks, don't come crying to me. _______ Scott Jones Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
AOL granted their programmers (Nullsoft) the access to publish on the web any new tool that was created, and didn't require that Nullsoft's tools be approved by AOL. When they found out what Nullsoft had done, they shut it down, but they should have known what it was before publishing it.
This is a pretty disturbing argument, in terms of its implications, tho. Imagine that an employer allows its employees to put up web pages over which they (the employee) have complete content control, and stipulate that that content is to be generated not on work machines during work time.
MP3Board's argument, as explained in your post, is that the employer is, in that case *still legally responsible*. IOW --- if you don't keep your employees muzzled, we will punish you for it.
This is yet another dark shadow on the wall of the net. Our economy doesn't actually seem to believe in free flow of ideas any more, if it ever did.
MP3Board's argument, as explained in your post, is that the employer is, in that case *still legally responsible*. IOW --- if you don't keep your employees muzzled, we will punish you for it.
Well I'm not sure this is the specific argument that they're using, the article didn't say. As to the scariness, Negligence is hard to put down into law, so most of it is left up to the discretion of the jury. This is good because it allows for common sense to win over letter of the law in these cases, but you have to remember that it's the common sense of a jury, which may not be all that sensible even before they get hit by high-priced lawyers.
In any case, the point is that yes, negligence is a cause to be sued. And well it should be, as in the example I named with the biotech company. Now it's up to the judges and juries to be reasonable with it.
As well as I can tell, since AOL pulled the plug on the program shortly after it was posted (they should be able to prove this) then they should be in the clear.
That line of defense makes no sense.. think about it.. if I release poisonous gas in Times Square, then decide, three hours later, that I did the wrong thing and start handing out gas masks.. does that clear me for the 1000's I killed in the first place?.. How can you do something (make a program and release it publicly) then hours later decide nevermind (remove the link) and ever think that clears you of a thing... you still did the damage.. just because you later changed your mind doesn't make a bit of difference (I'm sorry that I killed your family but I relized what I did is wrong and I wont kill anymore so don't punish me okay?)...
Now the reality is that both the Napster and the Gnutella cases are bogus. It would be like suing the poisonous gas manufacturer because I (an independant third party) decided to kill people (instead of the intended victim: bugs) with the gas. So the cases are bogus, but not because AOL repented for their sins, but because they never sined in the first place.. I'm amazed the RIAA hasn't gone after whoever designed the FTP protocol (or HTTP for that matter) because it facilitates the transfer of illegal materials...
--
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
That line of defense makes no sense.. think about it.. if I release poisonous gas in Times Square, then decide, three hours later, that I did the wrong thing and start handing out gas masks.. does that clear me for the 1000's I killed in the first place?.. How can you do something (make a program and release it publicly) then hours later decide nevermind (remove the link) and ever think that clears you of a thing... you still did the damage.. just because you later changed your mind doesn't make a bit of difference (I'm sorry that I killed your family but I relized what I did is wrong and I wont kill anymore so don't punish me okay?)...
Well, AOL itself didn't release the software. IIRC, the software was released by
Nullsoft (the authors of Winamp). AOL found out about the software and had it pulled. Therefore, I reiterate, AOL should be in the clear. If anyone would be liable, it would be Nullsoft in my eyes.
Note also that I am not condoning this lawsuit, just pointing out how the wrong defendant was chosen. _______ Scott Jones Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
-- FC Closer
It goes and goes and goes
by
vinnythenose
·
· Score: 1
But Gnutella itself doesn't actually do anything illegal!!!
If he were still alive could we sue the inventor of guns because guns are used to kill people illegally??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Ed there invented the toilet seat that was used to bludgeon someone to death. LET'S SUE HIM!!!
This is out of control and stupid.
-- ---
I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Re:It goes and goes and goes
by
vinnythenose
·
· Score: 1
Well paint me stupid:)
-- ---
I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Melvil Dewey, that rat bastard!
by
HvidNat
·
· Score: 3
Finally there will be precedent... Soon we can
all file suit against the Library Bureau and
the American Library Association for the damage
caused by their meddling founder, Melvil Dewey, who invented a numerical classification system for
books (and other media) that makes it easy to
catalog and access megatons (literally) of
copyrighted material. Down with card catalogs!
Can you imagine the Library of Congress' reaction
when next year, under the auspices of the WIPO,
they are confronted with a global class-action
lawsuit for maintaining their catalog!? People of
Earth v. US Library of Congress!
Every year thousands of school children all across the US have simple access to pronographic materials like "Catcher in the Rye" and such because of such indexing systems. It's nice to see this madness is finally coming to an end.
Why would they sue AOL? There's nothing that AOL did wrong (in this case). Just because they own Nullsoft doesn't mean they can stop people from working on side projects. Maybe this is simply to make the whole case a big shitstorm so the RIAA drops it. It's like in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me when he's talking about time travel and goes cross-eyed.
--
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
"Who wants to be a Millionare??!!"
by
NoWhere+Man
·
· Score: 2
"Hello, I'm Regis Filben and Welcome to "Who wants to be sued!!??"
[Cheesy rip off Who wants to be a millionaire theme music].
"Today's defendant is AOL, being sues my the Mp3board"
"How you doing AOL?"
"As always you have your life lines...
Phone a friend, 50/50 and get out of jail free"
Now lets play, "Who wants to be sued!!!!!"
[Cheesy rip off Who wants to be a millionaire theme music].
--
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
When pencils are outlawed, only outlaws...
by
ThwartedEfforts
·
· Score: 1
Next thing you know, Dixon Tryconderoga and Bic will be cited as producing materials which help people steal copyrighted works.
All these law suits are starting to get out of hand. Why don't book publishers sue Xerox for creating a device that allows people to copy books? Why not sue every ISP, since the ISP's provide the means for people to get on the net to grab all that is copyrighted. How about sueing the manufacturers of Silly Putty, since you can use it to copy news paper articles (and comics). Ah, better yet, sue gun makers and automobile makers, since they provide a "tool" that kills people. We can't leave out the alcohol manufacturers.
The RIAA is really targeting the wrong people. They should go after people that are doing the copying and distribution.
Who should really be sued in all this...
by
B00yah
·
· Score: 2
Is Mr. Al Gore...after all, he created the internet, which fuels these things anyway:P
Re:This lawsuit is smart as hell.
by
Grahf666
·
· Score: 1
Of course, in reality, AOL didn't exactly want the Nullsoft guys to make Gnutella, in fact they disowned it a few hours after it appeared, but the courts won't listen to a flimsy argument like that. (grin) If the RIAA is so righteous about stamping out music piracy, shouldn't they follow mp3board and sue AOL/Time Warner? At a purely philosophical level, yes, but of course they won't sue one of their own members, so then we can accuse the RIAA guys of being two faced bastards, i.e. what we already know them to be. This then rips the heart out of any advantage the RIAA had, they lose their fire, and Napster, etc. gets a whole lot more.
Wow. What a smart idea. Thank you to Gog_Magog for making this all crystal clear. Mod him up. Way up.
I can't understand why people are this greedy
by
redd
·
· Score: 1
I'm writing this on my laptop. I beat the shit out of my computer when I read about this, and now I'm HD-less.
1) AOL (much as I hate them for other reasons) cannot be responsible for their employee's spare time's code
2) coding is not a crime
3) If I send a file to a friend, providing I'm not breaking the law by doing so, it is NOT the business of ANYONE else
4) wtf do AOL have to do with this?
5) a plea to napster users. PLEASE stop distributing copyrighted material over napster - you're ruining the concept of private file-sharing for everyone else.
Re:Spelling lazyness (OFFTOPIC)
by
abe+ferlman
·
· Score: 1
I guess lazyness is a joke.
Ferlman is intentionally misspelled. It comes from a college nickname.
-- Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Trying to bring AOL against Warner
by
Tester
·
· Score: 2
Disclaimer: I speak about my feelings and not as a lawyer, I have very little knowledge and I'm not even american. Feel free to moderate me down if I'm too far off the track...
My feeling here is that MP3Board is trying to force AOL to be on its side against Warner and other MPAA members. The idea being that if MP3Board is declared guilty, then AOL will have to pay an even larger sum. So having AOL "on their side" would make enforcement against Gnutella because there would always be the possibility of annoying AOL... Would be nice if a lawyer could comment on this?
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
linzeal
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps we could compile a black list of people known to have worked on such projects and refuse them hire elsewhere.
...if mp3board.com is doing the suing because of gnutella, they shouldn't have a gnutella search field on their freaking home page!! Am I seriously missing something?
"It's not our preference to say Gnutella is infringing or that our search of Gnutella is infringing," said Ira Rothken, MP3Board's attorney. "But if a court finds that it is, we believe that AOL should share part of the blame."
But it goes on to argue that if it loses the suit, AOL and Time Warner should help shoulder any penalties because of their indirect role in creating Gnutella.
Software security holes detection
by
barcode123
·
· Score: 1
There could be a chill here regarding writing GPL software "that could be used to do Evil," as defined by some big company. Of course this suit has to succeed.
So, if this happens, Microsoft will be suing all the security companies that wrote code to detect security holes in their software. And, if that happens, and they win.... OMG
As far as I can tell, MP3Board.com was founded before Gnutella was posted to the Internet by anyone at Nullsoft. Even if some court finds it illegal to link to or provide MP3s in the manner that MP3Board and Gnutella do, isn't MP3Board responsible?
AOL tried to stop Gnutella. MP3Board.com, on the other hand, not only provided MP3-related services before Gnutella, but also adopted Gnutella searching technology contrary to the wishes of AOL. AOL certainly isn't responsible for any action here since MP3Board.com was already "infringing" on copyrights. AOL didn't give MP3Board.com any ideas about infringing use here.
And remember, IANAL, butI wouldn't have to think like one if we weren't living in a legal never-never land.
i think i'll sue... hmm..SONY
by
thinkpol
·
· Score: 1
i'll sue SONY for makeing putting out music on compact discs that make it possible to distribute. No wait, I'll sue Pearl Jam for making music that can be put on CDs to pirate. No, I'll sue the guitar manufacturers for makeing the guitars that pearl jam used to make the music to distribute illegally. No, I'll sue the lumber company that made the wood to make the guitars to sell to the band that used them to make the music that gets pirtated. No, I'll sue.... the tree?
I found about GNUtella while I was using Netscape. AOL owns Netscape (as we are all too often reminded of) therefore it is their fault that I know about GNUtella.
Worse yet I downloaded Napster with Netscape as well as many other things I will refrain from mentioning here/now.
But if we really want to get into this, I have used WinAMP to play some of my illegal MP3s (I have also used XMMS, but that doesn't go towards my current point) and AOL owns WinAMP too. Wow, I think we can solve all of the worlds problems with this one.
P.S. Another thought I had is that maybe someone just got confused about GNUtella. They realized that it is really a products of the internet (no matter who wrote the code) and they checked their computer to find out who owns the internet... Voila - AOL is to blame. When you look at it that way Al Gore just barely slipped through this scandal.
File sharing is a right. If I'm not breaking the law, it is no business of anyone who I give my data to.
Unfortunately, because you theives are just stealing music, napster and all the other file sharing tools are seen as "trafficking" software.
Admittedly, napster have no respect for anyone - they're just a company out to give their investors early retirement, but for all you PEOPLE out there, PLEASE save gnutella and freenet. they're legal at the moment, because without being abused, they're nice ways to be private. Hang on to our freedom while it's still there.. please?
Spelling lazyness (OFFTOPIC)
by
SvnLyrBrto
·
· Score: 1
If you're gonna bitch ME out for not bothering to use a spell checker, I'll do the same for you.
the proper spelling is:
Frohman
http://www.idiotsavant.com/bueller/script.htm
john Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
-- Imagine all the people...
Modern day philosophy...
by
Chaos+Monkey
·
· Score: 1
When accused of a crime, point to the nearest person and run like mad...
Not very surprised by this, actually. Concerning how much legal pressure the internet is under, it's only natural to start draggin the ISP's into the debacle...
-- - I'm making a page dedicated to procrastinators! I'll let you know when I get started.
Re:Modern day philosophy...
by
Chaos+Monkey
·
· Score: 1
Point well taken, though the consequences (or benefits) of decisions like this one can easily trickle down to the little ISP's, many of them could easily suffer.
-- - I'm making a page dedicated to procrastinators! I'll let you know when I get started.
Re:Modern day philosophy...
by
Rumble
·
· Score: 1
Well, good points and I agree with you, just not in this context. AOL is a hell of a lot more than your average internet service provider. This has nothing to do with AOL being an ISP and everything to do with AOL/Time-Warner being the parent company of Nullsoft, which, to my clearest recollection, created Gnutella (or at the very least, owns it now). The fact that AOL/Time-Warner is a huge mega-conglomerate super-corporation with more money than God, err, I mean BillG, is just icing on the cake, and the biggest bullseye on the dartboard. And the fact that AOL potentially has a lot to lose at this, it is probably a good idea... just get AOL's lawyers brains crunching on the problem that has been plaguing the "mp3 industry" of late and maybe everybodies problems will be solved!
As seen on SlashDot fortune ...
by
Stavr0
·
· Score: 2
Actual Slashdot Fortune from today:
Use an accordion. Go to jail.
-- KFOG, San Francisco
Share a file. Go to jail
Design a file sharing app. Go to jail ---
Re:As seen on SlashDot fortune ...
by
B1
·
· Score: 2
The RIAA is suing mp3board, who is suing AOL as a responsible third-party, who owns Time-Warner, who is a member of the RIAA...
Don't be surprised if AOL botches the defense.
The value to the AOL monopoly of the court precedent set by losing this could be worth far more than the value from gnutella and the net payout losses combined.
In other words, this entire court case could be a setup for a high level con game.
It's obvious the company is filing lawsuit against AOL as a form of advertisement. Why else would a random site feel the need to uphold copyright law. As far as I'm concerned, it worked. I visited the site for the first time right after reading the story.
Next they will sue the creators of TCP/IP for assisting in the violation of copyrights. Then they can go after the people who created networking. Then the people who make cables. Or they can go after Intel, et al. for creating processors that are capable of being programed to violate copyright laws. Think of the $billions you could get!
Um... Yes, but isnt' the world-snake supposed to eat the sun or something before it dissappears? Damn, and just when I was going to get a tan...
But honestly, who here is actually surprised that AOL finally managed to bring about armageddon?
Re:Americans are stupid
by
vinnythenose
·
· Score: 1
RIBBIT.
-- ---
I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
digitalmind
·
· Score: 1
The RIAA/metallica vs Napster, MPAA vs everybody, and now this suit againts AOL are nothing more than the modern equivelent of that same simple, pathetic thuggery. The only difference is the lack of *PHYSICAL* violence.
Well maybe there should be some physical violence!
In other news, J. Robert Oppenheimer is searching for help paying the legal bills after defending himself against 100,000 counts of first degree murder.
When will this madness end?!?!?
Who's next, the inventer of fire??? The wheel???
Ug.
(I'm wearing my DVD-CAA tshirt today.)
-- ...or maybe not.
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
dpplgngr
·
· Score: 1
#pragma warn +rambling
Indeed, Justin Frankel authored both of these. At 20 he already had over 60 million in assets because of the deal. He could certainly walk and start his own company- when he becomes a freeman. It was Marc Andreesen's idea to buy Winamp and Spinner- and of course he's out of there, onto the Loudcloud venture. AOL is not going to be able to hold onto the hottest talent for long no matter how much cash they provide. Their environment is contrary to the motives that produce innovation. Lavishing [those things big money buys] on someone who is creative+effective won't further motivate that person or gear them up to produce the next big thing, especially if they are now surrounded by people who _are motivated by [those things]. If the individual is still inventing, they'll begin to see the chaos (especially in this case I'd imagine). Some [inventors] let their creative selves die getting led around by the economic expectations they acquire after the point of being an acknowledged success.
#pragma warn -rambling
-- --
Maybe I should reconsider...
by
ascheuch
·
· Score: 2
I'm hopefully going to graduate in May with a dual EE / CE degree. Maybe I made a mistake! Looks like the only people making money these days are the lawyers!!
d'oh
Now THERE'S the pot calling the kettle black.
by
catseye_95051
·
· Score: 1
Slash-chutzpah never ceases to amaze me.
It greedy of someone to file a lawsuit over very real violations of their copyrights? AOL may or may not be the right target, but with the "if it ain't nailed down its mine" attitude toward MP3 piracy often espoused here, this just plain dumfounded me.
I wonder whats going to happen when Hillary Rosen and her pal good ol' Jack discovers IRC.
" . . . and thats why sharks don't get cancer. In totaly unrelated news, the RIAA has sent threatening letters to several operators of IRC, a totaly new way of trading pirated MP3 files over then Internet. The RIAA has posted losses of $300 bazillion due to this new service."
**Insert sounds of geeks laughing so hard at the reporter's technical illiteracy here**
also sue Al Gore for inventing the internet (heavy sarcasm) which facilitated the easy exchange of information and fiels, some of which may be copyrighted.
:;-)
Let's get a really good law suit
by
pheonix
·
· Score: 1
Why don't we all pick up a crappy Windows box and place it, un-firewalled with all of it's directories shared, on cable modem connection. The only thing you store on this? Your MP3s and a list of every other open PC you know of. Why should we do this?
When the RIAA finds our new file sharing scheme, they'll have to sue MS. Do we think there's a chance of MS losing? If they do, so what, no real loss. Chances are good, however, that MS will win, setting a good precedent for file sharing software. It's win-win!!
maybe they should accuse AOL of helping users "find" spam, trojans and --#MP3 ownz j000--//-- messages.
This lawsuit is smart as hell.
by
Gog_Magog
·
· Score: 3
MP3Board is using AOL to do its defense work for them. AOL/Time-Warner will basicly have to prove that they aren't facilitating piracy. ANY defense AOL uses, will be able to be used by ALL other Napster/Gnutella/MP3Search programs.
Also since AOL/Time-Warner is part of the RIAA, they won't get sued by the RIAA. Basicly this lawsuit devides the RIAA on this issue, because conversely, any argument the RIAA uses to kill Napster/MP3Board, is one that MP3Board can use against AOL.
Ta Da.
Re:This lawsuit is smart as hell.
by
Refrag
·
· Score: 1
Sounds damn good to me... I guess I can quit reading this thread now that someone has summarized it so well. Seriously.
Re:This lawsuit is smart as hell.
by
Nastard
·
· Score: 1
this is probably the most intelligent thing ever to be posted by a slashdot user. Thank you sir, you are an inspiration to those of us who are sick of penis birds and Natalie Portman.
Now someone will moderate me down...
Re:This lawsuit is smart as hell.
by
CaseStudy
·
· Score: 1
Two things:
AOL could try a defense that isn't based on the software itself; for example, they could claim that they don't own the work, and that they shouldn't be party to the suit. (Not saying this would work in this case, but if it did it wouldn't help Napster.)
Gnutella is a bit different, in that it's not inherently MP3 the way Napster is. "Trading recipes" is a better cover story than "trading public-domain MP3s" is.
Re:This lawsuit is smart as hell.
by
EzInKy
·
· Score: 1
Sound, logical thinking!
Still, I think the RIAA will win this one. Making complete copies of copyrighted works and distributing them really can't be considered fair use.
The DeCSS case on the other hand should have the backing of everyone.
-- Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
This just in:
The Apache Software Foundation, Microsoft, Netscape, Lotus, and many other http and ftp server software developers are being sued for making it possible to distribute copyrighted materiel...
Gnutella is now a freeware project, AOL couldent stop it if they wanted to. What is the point? are they going to start suing fertilizer manufacturers for the Oaklahoma bombing?
Right. Now let's sue the folks that invented capitalism because it allows people to sell stolen property. Also, let's sue the people that created the first storefront, because someone else could have used that idea to put together a shop that sells questionable material. Also, we should sue the people that actually make computers -- they help promote the internet and the internet is the root of all evil, right?
Maybe we should just sue god for creating the world and making it possible to have people who do subversive things with enabling tools. Any lawyers wanna take this one up?
(I wonder who god would god would choose as a defense attorney?)
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
kreyg
·
· Score: 1
I was thinking last night...
There are strong parallels between Church vs. Galileo (and science in general) and Corporation vs. Hacker (and computer science in general).
So, if history is any indication... we have a long, troubled road ahead.
There are simply too many contradictory absolute truths.
Anonymous Coward asks "Hi, I'm an executive of a rather large Internet company, and we just had a suit filed against us because of some file-sharing software we created that happened to be used for sharing MP3s. I'd like to ask the community - What do you think we should do as far as a defense goes?" (insert some random, half-sensical comment from Taco here)
Dear my! What are those things coming out of her nose?
Spaceballs!
Deferring blame and costs
by
Savitska
·
· Score: 1
Don't be confused.
mp3board hopes to spread some of the blame and defer some of the costs of the case to others.
Basically, they (mp3board) let users perform gnutella searches. The catch here is that gnutella was created by AOL. mp3board is basically trying to shift blame to AOL ("Yeah, we use gnutella, but THEY made it!").
According to C|Net this won't work. In a copyright case, defendants are picked by those who originated the case, in this case the RIAA. mp3board can't just say "why aren't you suing them (AOL)?!" b/c they (RIAA) get to decide who they sue.
If you ask me, it's a shrewd move. It will force the discussion of file sharing technologies and hopefully show that the RIAA won't go after it's members (Time Warner) only those it deems as evil (mp3board).
-- "Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and I'll give you somethin' to cry about!"
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
theNAM666
·
· Score: 1
If the law decides that you've done something wrong, and you did it of your own will (not entrapment or mental sickness), then you get punished, regardless of what some other party did.
Aye, but what we're talking about here are civil damages, not criminal prosecutions.
Imaging Ima Dion O. Cancer sues Guiless Drugs for selling her cigarettes for 50 years. Guiless is, of course, gonna point his finger directly at Brown and Williamson, since they (a) made the damn things (b) are on record as knowing they were bad and (c) have pretty big pockets.
Now, AOL only meets 2 of the 3 criteria here, but since they're non-exclusive in the legal world, and because AOL has pockets that extend right down to the center of the earth, I suspect MP3Board thinks its worth a shot.
Or, more simply put, pointing yer finger at a likely accomplice (however innocent) is always preferable to walking the plank straightaways.
... And in other news, Hydrogen has officially sued Mother Nature for her use of Oxygen in carbon-based lifeform respiration.
"We have a clear case of infringement in this issue," said Hydrogen. "Everyone knows that all other elements are a derivative of us, and they're unaurthorized use will not go unpunished."
Mother Nature countered, citing that Oxygen did not derive directly from Hydrogen, but rather, there were many steps in between.
The case is going to be presented before the Quark Committee for final determination later this week.
If MP3Board LOSES this case... then there's a legal precedent set about what's allowed and not allowed as far as the liability of the writer of a piece of software. And it's got a very large company involved in it, which means the company has an interest in making sure other jurisdictions know about it. While it's not a binding precedent nationwide, it WILL become a referenceable case for other suits about the responsibility of a software author for the software they right and how it gets used.
And that... that's where it goes. In New York District Court. Where the DeCSS trial was held. We could see this suit turn around the other one's presumptions. It could lay down completely opposite precedents in the same court district.
IANAL, but I think that's the sort of thing that makes Appellate courts go crazy. It may very well be the thing that makes them toss the DeCSS verdict out.
Unfortunately, if this backfires, it's going to be very, very ugly... ----
They owe "us" bigtime for being the horses' asses they've always been, trying to monopolize and over-commercialize the net. They are the Microsoft of ISPs. They deserve to have to fight a legal battle for us and win our side some points to make up for their transgressions.
People who use spelling as a standard for intelegence should stick to reading marketting matereal, propoganda and other matereal that is carefully checked for spelling errors and stay away from the Internet where people spend time thinking about what they say NEXT instead of what they allready said...
Slightly OT but I wonder just how far some of the larger corporations have gone before they realised they were suing themselves...
Anyone got a good story to tell?
-- 'sapientia potestas est'
Legitimate suit but unlikely victory
by
catseye_95051
·
· Score: 1
IANAL but I've dicussed this general issue with a few...
As I understand it if AOL created a product whose sole and only purpose was illegal, they could indeed by potentially liable.
I doubt however thats proveable in the case og Gnutella. As I udnerstand it all AOL has to show is SOME legitimate users out there and they are reasonably safe.
As a secondary issue, it will be hard to collect anything in punative damages even if they win ebcause AOL is nto making any money themselves from Gnutella. They've even gone so far as to distance themselves from its creation so its not even a PR win (or loss).
Can AOL Really Be Held Responsable?
by
Spasemunki
·
· Score: 2
There would be a whole different debate if AOL had sanctioned an official release of Gnutella (after the fashion of the Napster trial), but considering that Gnutella was allegedly developed and released without their consent, it would seem that there is little ground for them to be held liable. Can you be held liable for something that an employee of yours does without your permission? Seems a little dubious. The last time that I checked, development on the origonal Nullsoft Gnutella client had stopped at the Gnutella site in favor of clonese using the same protocol, meaning that they would be basically sued for the development of a communications protocol. Maybe we ought to go after the authors of The Infinite Monkey Protocol for cruelty to animals. ..
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Re:Can AOL Really Be Held Responsable?
by
be-fan
·
· Score: 2
It happens all the time. It's called a sexual harrasment lawsuit.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
whats going to happen next? are the search engines going to be sued for the content of there index. are they going to be forced to filter out questionable materiel out of fear of lawsuit. Artist have a right to there money but i can see this going to far very easily. and i for one don't want to see its destination.
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
--
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
by
shaunj
·
· Score: 1
Sorry to use the cliche but...
The News.com article says:
"That argument, however, requires the company to prove that AOL is responsible, and that the technology itself--rather than MP3Board's use of the technology--is illegal. Outside attorneys say each of those tasks will be difficult."
Why is it this way for AOL but not for Napster. AOL has a good reputation and therefore plantiffs are expected to have to prove the legality of not the company but the program itself. The same scenario with Napster though, the reputation of the company (non-existant as far as I can tell) somehow changes law so that the plantiff merely has to show that the company had malicious intent.
Napster as a program is no more illegal than the AOL client (let alone GNUTella). Perhaps Napster as a company had malicious intent while AOL may not have (at least as an aware corporate entity), but the intent of either company should be proven in the same manner, leaving the company's standing reputation aside.
Re:First principle of lawsuits
by
JCCyC
·
· Score: 1
Big companies pay the paychecks of a lot of little people, myself included. We steal them blind, they go out of business, I have to find a new job.
hahahah this is ridiculous
by
wukong888
·
· Score: 1
What's next???
Chip Manufacturers?: because their chips are being used in computers that are being used to listen to mp3s!!!
Hard Drive Manufacturers?:their hard drives are being used to store mp3s until they can be traded!!!
speaker manufacturers?: their speakers are being used to listen to etc. etc. etc.
seriously, there are far too many frivolous lawsuits relating to mp3s these days- and this latest suit against AOL is a good example of one.
-- I like cake
isn't there a conflict here
by
passion
·
· Score: 1
you see, AOL *is* Time/Warner, which *is* part of the RIAA, so they're ripping off themselves, and suing themselves...? Will somebody explain to me what this incestuous sue happy/merger industry will become?
Rothken says that bringing AOL and Time Warner into the case is the natural response of a defendant, much as someone sued for causing a car accident might in turn sue the manufacturer of the car or the maker of the car's tires for bearing
some responsibility.
So what now? We sue database software companies for creating an easly way of storing results, the developers of PERL/PHP/ASP/Insert fave web progaming tool here/ for suppling code that allows us to search? C'mon...
The car idea kinda makes sense - A car has one purpose - to drive on a road/surface and transport things/people from A->B. If there is a defect in its normal operations, the manufacture can be held responcible.
The difference is that gnutella was not designed to transfer MP3 files - it was created to share recipies.
It's like Ford being sued because while driving your car underwater, it failed and you killed someone. There not libel because you used it outside it's intened use. Same with gnutella - those who use it for MP3s are OUTSIDE IT'S INTENDED USE, and AOL is not lible.
Now I'm off to search gnutella for a recipe for "KoRn Flakes"..........
-- Driven by 100% sarcasm - fueled by the need to be heard.
Gnutella isn't about piracy, its about Porn, everyone knows that.
But seriously, this is pathetic, and an absolute abuse of our legal system. I was under the impression that you at least needed to own some copyrights before you could actualy sue anyone. And as someone who is activly developing a gnutella clone, this is not happy news...
This remindes me very much of the 1940's-1950's wich hunt for comunists in our society. The hunt is on for anyone that in any way is even remotely related to MP3. how long before computer manufacturers are sued for producing MP3 compatable hardware? what about RIO and the clone devices? all it will take now is for someone to claim injury, no evedence required and someone will be grabing the pichforks.
To win a copyright lawsuit you have to show harm, or the expectation of harm (IANAL). I don't see how Gnutella is harming mp3board.com except through competition. Last I heard, competition was still legal.
Copyright law may be bad, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. The most you could argue is that its current incarnation isn't the best way to achieve the intent of copyright stated in Article I, Section 8.
That's it! If this works out we can all sue our local libraries! And with a class-action suit against the Library of Congress, we can finally put down the free flow of information started by that Gutenberg bastard!
The strategy here is simple. MP3Board was sued by the RIAA, which also includes Time Warner. So now MP3B sues AOL (merging with TW) in order to outline their hypocrisy for supporting Gnutella while at the same time prosecuting other file sharing systems.
If AOL/TW is not guilty for Gnutella, they would be in an awkward position against MP3Board.com who did essentially the same thing (including providing access to the GnutellaNet).
Of course if AOL loses, MP3Board.com is screwed. If I were them, I'd use the cheapest lawyers and try to get this to the Supreme Court, trying hard to lose in every round:-)
It would be even more appropos if AOL et al. sued the RIAA members (including themselves) for making music. After all, if they didn't make music, who would pirate it?? Makes as much sense as the mp3board suit.
Here's hoping for a summary dismissal.
-- Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
This kinda amuses me, I mean, because in essence, the company thats being sued here, is Nullsoft. I mean, they did create before Gnutella before they "sold out".
MP3Board is itself fighting a lawsuit filed against it by the Recording Industry Association of America, arguing that MP3Board violates copyright laws by assisting consumers in the location of online MP3 music files.
essentially this is MP3Board trying to divert some of the blame/press/damages/etc. to someone/anyone besides themselves.
be assure that the lawyers thought this up, it is a tactic to by them time and was the direct result of the 2600 case.
-- /* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
It seems that MP3Board is saying, if you can sue me, you can sue AOL for the same (similar) reasons. If AOL fights, wins, and sets a precedent, then it might be available as a defense for MP3Board vs. RIAA.
WTF! Anyone looked at their site yet?
by
yomahz
·
· Score: 1
There is a gnutella search available on their main page
Maybe they should sue themselves. --
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
-- "A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
This has happened before - with Tobacco and Guns.
by
Slump
·
· Score: 2
This is the same as the latest Tobacco lawsuits and Gun lawsuits.
Can we all please stop suing an countersuing each other for trivial crap? All this litigation is getting RIDICULOUS!!!
NEWS: Metallica Sues Descendants of Alan Turing
by
cje
·
· Score: 5
METALLICA SUES DESCENDANTS OF ALAN TURING
".. And Justice For All," Vows Furious Drummer
LOS ANGELES, CA (AP) - In a legal move that is likely to set a precedent for many portions of the entertainment industry, the rock group Metallica today brought suit against the living descendents of Alan Turing, who is widely regarded as the father of modern computing. Claiming that Turing's work spawned the creation of "unabashed piracy machines," Metallica is seeking unspecified millions in damages.
Though Turing had no children of his own, he is survived by a large number of great-nephews and nieces. Spike Turing, the owner of a Starbucks' franchise in El Paso, Texas, told the Associated Press that he recieved a letter from Metallica's legal firm, Dewey, Cheat & Howe. "The letter claims that great Uncle Al is responsible for the destruction of the economies of the Western world," explained Turing. "They're taking us to trial."
"This is bullshit," stated a confused 84-year old Bertha Turing, who is a retired seamstress living in a cozy London suburb. "These Metallica fellers sent letters like this to all of us."
Lars Ulrich, who is Metallica's drummer, has taken the lead in fighting against what he claims is "a coordinated band of pirates hell-bent on obliterating creativity and musical freedom." Ulrich expressed hope that the Turing lawsuit would send a message to the rest of the community. "Um, we want people to understand that file sharing is not to be tolerated," explained Ulrich. "Open source is not to be.. uh.. tolerated. Piracy is not to be tolerated. Britney Spears is not to be.. well, her music is not to be tolerated. And above all, we want to make the relatives of the inventor of all of these fucking devil-boxes pay their dues."
In retrospect, I wonder if the plan here is to clog the legal system so badly with silly suits that no real justice has time to get done. Furthermore, being highly concerned about real justice getting done, I wonder if I can sue them for something or other for filing lawsuits to clog the legal system.
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Responsible for creation? Maybe...
by
DreamingReal
·
· Score: 1
Even though this lawsuit sounds like a huge smokescreen by MP3board.com to displace some of the blame, I wonder whether there might be some validity to it.
This reminds me of the discussion about companies and, particularly, universities laying claim to software/hardware that was developed using their equipment. Does the blade cut the other way? Even though AOL had no knowledge of the application should they be held responsible since it was done using their subsidiary's computers?
Personally, I don't think they should - but since companies and schools can be held liable for obscence email, pornography, and warez are sent using their systems, then how would this be any different from a legal perspective (IANAL)?
-------
-- We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
For its part, AOL has long disowned any involvement in the development of Gnutella. The company has said nearly from the time that Gnutella was launched that it was the unauthorized creation of an AOL subsidiary, and that AOL has not supported nor endorsed the peer-to-peer program.
A few questions: who is this AOL subsidiary? Why were they not sued? Well, a good answer to the latter would be that AOL works in BILLIONS. But what's the point? AOL 'didn't know' (/sarcasm) that it was being developed, and this whole lawsuit reeks of the "lets sue gun makers because guns kill people" type of legal action.
This will get thrown out of court as fast as they can slap the gavel down on mp3board, who are, obviously, just trying to save their ass from paying millions in damages from their own lawsuit by the RIAA.
Is anyone else here disturbed by the attitude that is generally going around these days? More specificially, the attitutude that says "you don't own anything" rather everything you have MUST belong (in some intellectual sense) to someone else?
Have any of these arrogant boneheads thought that perhaps ways of sharing files might, you know, have a purpose OTHER than giving away their crap that they can't sell?
What's next? Someone gonna sue the makers of Hotline? What about the collection of people who wrote the first FTP servers/clients? How about the people who made it possible to transfer files over Usenet; maybe the guys who made it possible to tranfer files via IRC. Damn, I can find all sorts of Warez on the web, sue the guys who worked on Apache! Dangit, AFS and NFS have to go too, as does every bastardized home network protocol Novel and MS cameup with.
ARG. I hate stupid people. I really really do.
Re:It seems to me like...
by
Ranger+Rick
·
· Score: 1
Shhh! Don't give them any ideas!
:wq!
--
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
First principle of lawsuits
by
dpilot
·
· Score: 4
Sue the party with the deepest pockets. AOL certainly has deeper pockets than Napster or any of the other mp3 (or any other file format) "online exchange clubs."
What's missed is that this may well have a knock-on effect, where legal blame gets transferred to the original author. This is kind of a fallout of the DeCSS case, except there the author was clearly a citizen of another country. Makes you kind of surprised that there isn't some sort of international civil suit against Johansen. (Is there such a thing?)
There could be a chill here regarding writing GPL software "that could be used to do Evil," as defined by some big company. Of course this suit has to succeed. Won't it be odd to see Slashdotters rooting for AOL?
-- The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:First principle of lawsuits
by
Jeremi
·
· Score: 1
These programs are not tools of free speech and informaiton interchange, they are ways of ripping people off. Do not even pretend that they are anything else, becuase if you do you are not only lying to the/. community, you are lying to yourself.
It depends on how you define "ripped off". One could argue that it's wrong to restrict what people do with *their* computer equipment on *their* time, just because *you* can't think of any other way to extract money from them.
Copyright isn't a God-given right, inscribed in stone forever. It's an pragmatic legal convention that was useful when it was created, but may now be approaching the end of its usefulness.
--
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:First principle of lawsuits
by
Mr.+Adequate
·
· Score: 1
Speak for yourself.
I've been using Gnutella for two months now, and I never stole anything. All the stuff I got was sanctioned for download and sharing by its creators. If you cannot envision that someone might use a peer-to-peer filesharing tool for legitimate purposes, I urge you to seek therapy immediately.
ObLawsuit: I think mp3board.com should sue Britney and N'Sync for making music that people want to rip. Come to think of it, mp3board.com should sue them on general principles. I know I would.
Re:First principle of lawsuits
by
wcb4
·
· Score: 1
Before I root for AOL, I think I'll just keep quite. Not sure which the the greater of the two evils.
I generally think that Napster/Gnutella etc SHOULD go the way of the dodo. These programs are not tools of free speech and informaiton interchange, they are ways of ripping people off.
Do not even pretend that they are anything else, becuase if you do you are not only lying to the/. community, you are lying to yourself.
So what if they are big companies that are getting ripped off. Big companies pay the paychecks of a lot of little people, myself included. We steal them blind, they go out of business, I have to find a new job.
The folks here on slashdot advocate OSS, and that is fine, you have chose to allow free and unlimited distribution and modification of your works and all derivitive works. As it is your right to do so with your work, it is my right, or my company's right to sell our work. It is the record labels right to sell the work of those whom they hold under contract (and if those contracts are unfair to the artists, blame THEIR lawyers, not the recording industry, it is the job to negotiate contracts in their favor).
I think....therefore I am
-- I reject your reality... and substitute my own.
if mp3board.com can be sued for simply providing a search engine that, among other things, finds illegal mp3, then why can't gnutella be sued as well? They have a point.
For the first time I'm actually on AOL's side. I have always hated their software and system for Internet use, however, being sued for this goes beyond their stupid interface. This infringes also on my rights (or possible rights) in the future. Is there anything that can be done to stop stupid filings like this? How I despise people that are clueless about technology and then try to regulate it's use...
If AOL loses, maybe mp3board.com makes lots of money.
If AOL wins (lots of $$$, lots of lawyers), then mp3board.com probably gets some valid arguments and precedents for its own lawsuit, (or appeals thereafter), right?
Seems to me that mp3board.com has just forced AOL to enter the fray and throw their considerable legal weight towards the defense. Rather tricky, IMO.
Ahh, how I long for the Good 'Ol days of non-commercialized technology. As soon as corporations get ahold of the newest big thing (i.e.: Internet), everything gets commercial.
Ahhh, Sonny...Remember the days when the Internet was used for sharing information?
I do. But remembering them is like remembering a dream.
I'm so sick and tired of corporations bullying eachother over who has the bigger dick. I'm not involved, so I don't care. I just want to learn, socialize, and have fun.
But this can't be done anymore without seeing banner ads, or spam, or "X is suing Z because they created Y", or "Corinthians isn't a book from the bible, it's a soccer team! That's OUR rightful domain!", etc.
It's time for an underground internet, to take back to the sense of community the internet once had. Leave your commercialized, greedy asses on this internet.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.:P)
In this latest addition...
by
NoWhere+Man
·
· Score: 2
Welcome to "Who do we sue next?", bringing you tons of whining ninnies from around the globe because they might lose 5 cents.
Seriously though, they have started televising small claims court room dramas, they should start doing this crap. Hey it could be bigger than day time tv. No more "Young and the Restless", here comes "The Rich and the Whinny".
--
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
I doubt this is a 'real' court case. It has probably already been decided between the two parties that AOL will lose. There just isn't enough precedent to bring a case against a media giant. The newfound relationship with Time Warner could play a part, though, as Time Warner has some stake against music piracy. Note: I am into all encompassing eternal conspiracies held together by underground secret societies, thus I am bias.
--Drew Vogel
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
neo
·
· Score: 1
Actually it look more like these guys are suing to protect themselves. Read the article.
By opening up the threat to anyone creating searchable indicies they are showing how rediculous the suit against them is. It's a bitter pill for the Justice department to swallow that helping people find stuff is not the same as giving it to them.
I think AOL deserves it... in my opinion most things that AOL buys... winds up more screwy than before. Despite my lack of sympathy towards Nullsoft for selling out to AOL... Im still glad Justin had this much of an affect on them:)
--
/* Lobster Stick To Magnet!*/
Time/Warner/AOL/Netscape sues self
by
xant
·
· Score: 1
. . . but is later found incompetent to stand trial. The company is apparently suffering from an accute multiple personality disorder. The crucial competency test came when the company was unable to locate its ass with both hands and a flashlight.
-- It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Implications for the GPL?
by
ethomas8
·
· Score: 1
IANAL, but if things here go against AOL (to be very presumptuous) since they supposedly helped to create gnutella, then what about all of the GPL'd code out there. Say someone uses parts of the Linux kernel to do something that a major corporation or group of corporations doesn't like. Could Linus or AC or any of the other kernel hackers be held responsible in a similar manner? Is that idea even feasible, or does the GPL offer some sort of protection? Obviously I am doing a tremendous amount of extrapolation here, so maybe this isn't even an issue. Just curious.
"the RIAA has sued the Internet Engineering Task Force for standardizing e-mail, a pernicious protocol used to forward MP3s to unauthorized parties. The RIAA has lost billions of dollars due to this highly illegal service."
Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 3
This lawsuit isn't designed to harm AOL.
It is designed to put the fear of [insert deity here] into any software engineer harboring dreams of developing the next generation of file sharing technology.
I don't recall if the original developers of GNUtella still work at AOL or not (if they do, you can bet they're in a whole heap of trouble and their opportunities for advancement just went to zero), but it isn't really relevant.
The message to employers (and independent contractors) is clear: if your employees develop software we don't like, we're going to sue you.
The message to engineers is: we're going to give your employer every incentive to shitcan your career.
The message to everyone is "don't invent technology we don't like or we'll destroy you, and we have more than enough money to do so."
Our message, in response, should be "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" in the form of boycotting their products as well as supporting and embracing the technologies they are trying to suppress.
This isn't an attack against AOL. It is an attack against all of US.
Slashdot Mirror
Now what would be funny is to see the judge rule that anyone actually linking to Gnutella or any related material is guilty and has to pay xxxxxx$ in fines :o)
That would be soooo funny.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
You'd win that bet. AOL will be incorporating copy-protection measures (under the misleading name, "digital rights management") as part of the next WinAmp and AOL 6.0 release. The copy-protection technology is to be supplied by InterTrust.
Alert your AOL-using friends; encourage them to not install it.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
EFF has limited resources. They need to use them where they are most urgently needed. While they may support AOL's position in this case (though I haven't heard them say anything to that effect), AOL does not have any urgent need for financial support for their defense. Their CEO could probably pay for it with the cash he leaves laying on his dresser. There are plenty of other cases, like 2600, where the defendant doesn't have the funds to mount any sort of effective defense. That is where the EFF should use its resources.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Come on. Doesn't giving users access to the likes of Google count as helping them find and download copyrighted material? Please. As much as I hate AOL, I hate music barons more. Go aol.
And I looked, and behold, the pokemon all spontaneously combusted.
This isn't an attack against AOL. It is an attack against all of US.
Satan, whip out the longjohns! I think I just read this sentence on Slashdot!
-thomas
"And like that
That disclaimer aside, this appears to be a rather dumb trick. The RIAA is suing mp3board.com for providing pirated mp3s for commercial gain (putting aside the whole linking thing in the MPAA v. 2600 case). mp3board basically does do that, right? I don't want to get into the whole piracy/fair use debate here - that's not the point.
In this new action, piracy is just a red herring.
It's my understanding that mp3board.com's method of distributing mp3s is a direct download from a website (or a link to someone's website, yadda, yadda...)
So now mp3board sues AOL for creating Gnutella? WHY? In order to sue in civil court, you must have what's called "standing" to sue. Standing in a nutshell means that you have been injured by the actions of a defendant, and have the right to go into court to seek remedies to that injury.
Where the hell is mp3board injured by the mere existence of Gnutella? The only real effect mp3board might feel is that of competition - Gnuteela being a competing method of delivery. Certainly this isn't a justifiable injury. I think what they have in mind is criminal defense law - they're pointing blame on someone else who is doing something worse than they are, in the hopes that a jury will find them not liable. But that doesn't change their conduct.
Essentially, mp3board.com got caught doing 75 in a 55 mph zone. As the cop is giving them the ticket, AOL/TWX/Gnutella blows by at 100 mph. The events are unrelated - it in no way lessens mp3board.com's punishment, and in no way is mp3board injured by AOL/TWX/Gnutella's conduct. Now whether the cops (picture Ponch and John in tan jumpsuits with RIAA logos on the shoulder) pursue AOL/TWX/Gnutella is a different story.
Oh, and best of luck proving that damages caused by Gnutella are attributable to AOL/TWX. AOL's made it pretty clear that they didn't approve of Gnutella, pinning losses on them is pretty unlikely.
==
This post sponsored by the American Obstetrics Society:
No, no, no, it's "Who wants to be a Plaintiff" starring Regis and Judge Wapner.
Ada Lovelace. Thus the Ada programming language.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Right at the top of the main page on mp3board.com is a place to search for mp3's by artist or title on Gnutella.
So I guess this means they have to sue themselves for contributing to the contributors of copyrighted materials!
"it could just be the midgets. You've got to be careful with midgets in Spandex." --Jamie Richardson
Go to jail....
MP3Board lawyers say, "Duam xnaht foobie bletch tharr." Translation: "Because they are big and huge and rich and we want money." I banged my head on the wall at the thought of Warner, which has an enormous music catalog of its own (and subsidiaries), merging with a company who (allegedly) helps water down their profits by assisting music pirates. Though I left a large red mark on the wall and a few small cracks, AOL nor Warner responded with any comments.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Get in the damn information loop people, slashdot cannot be your online source of news.
Gnutella was created after AOL bought Nullsoft. AFTER.. after Justin Frankel signed over his company to satan, after that little contract had that 'everything you think, breathe, eat, see, or smell is our property' clause in it, after the winamp/icq fan-world ended.
-=Gargoyle_sNake
-=-=-=-
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No GY to integrate w/ my panel?
How can you say someone invented fire, that was more a discovery. Its people like you who give caveman lawyers a bad name.
Aol shouldn't get in any trouble they didn't do anything.. This lawsuit is so dumb.. it would be like suing a gun maker for making guns because people are using them to kill other people. they are suing because they are dumb asses.
http://www.1053.org -=We use big words=-
Do you realize that this is going to turn the whole issue around? AOL will reach into it's deep pockets and they can be attacked with all the wrong logic that has been dogging the technology we cherish... but their leigons of lawyers will effectively put the matter to rest and hopefully settle the matter in a precident setting way!
;)
Go AOL... fight hard and stong and win one for the Napster
"a powerful and unexpected ally..."
It's not designed to give coders nightmares. Mp3board was sued for having a web-to-gnutella gateway. If MP3board loses, they want AOL to have to cover some of the costs since AOL created the thing in the first place.
It's simply a childish "but he did it first!" act. They just wanna cover their butt, not make a moral stand against anyone who creates software that goes against their personal idea of right-and-wrong (they seem pro-pirating anyway).
As a sidenote, I don't think this suit will go anywhere. If the law decides that you've done something wrong, and you did it of your own will (not entrapment or mental sickness), then you get punished, regardless of what some other party did.
perhaps mp3board is filing suit in hopes of a court finding AOL/TWX at fault for hte same thing they're suing others for. if AOL/TWX would be found guilty of the same thing they're prosecuting for it'd be pretty hard for their suit ot hold water; and, in a pipe dream, might drop the whole case at large.
Dear jmv,
Allow me to brief you on events which have happened while you were sealed in a cave on Mars.
Several firearms companies have been sued. These lawsuits are as bogus as the napster/gnutella/DeCSS suits. Mostly they are being thrown out of court.
The NRA has not been sued because it is a group of 4 million Americans who are associating with each other. Association is a constitutional right in America, so no one will be suing them.
Welcome back to Earth, and please immerse yourself in current and past events before posting on Slashdot.
Thank you.
No comment at this time
It's actually "Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe" ..
:-)
I knew I didn't have it quite right.
Thanks for the correction.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Hey! I have a copyright on the letters X, Y, and Z! You both owe me 25 cents for your posts! Pay up!
This isn't designed to 'put the fear of God' into anyone. It's an attempt by a defendant in a big-bucks suit to spread the exposure around, particularly to a deep-pockets party (AOL). I predict that they're at least considering adding Napster, Freenet, Gnute, ad nauseum. If they can get a court to buy their theory, the additional parties gives them some additional folks to extract dollars from to reduce their liability. The longer I live, the more I think I should convert my net worth to gold or something and hide it. It's getting reeeal dangerous out there ...
On the MP3Board.com site, there is a SEARCH BOX in the MIDDLE OF THE PAGE that searches GNUtella... (Gnutella Search by Artist or Title). Why exactly are they suing against something they openly use?
what I don't understand is why mp3board.com uses Gnutella right off their front page if they are going to be suing them. This just strikes me as frivolous. But then again, in a land where a lady can sue someone because of hot coffee she spills on her own lap...
--
Geoff Harrison (http://mandrake.net)
Senior Software Engineer - VA Linux Labs (http://www.valinux.com)
Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
Some Random UI Hacker
I've heard that this also differs between Canadanian and US usage. The context I heard it in referred to bands. While an American would say "Aerosmith is..." Canadian would "Aerosmith are...". Can anyone verify this?
You're thinking of the Brits. They say things like "the crowd are loving it" whenever the subject noun in question is clearly a collection of things, the way a crowd is a collection of people. Aerosmith is also a collection of people.
Personally, I find that usage quite amusing.
Wangden
-- "You're not fooling me, young man - it's turtles all the way down!"
I am also not a lawyer, but I thought it was a little confusing at first. It seemed as though an unrelated company was being sued for the perceived sins of another. However, as another USA Today article points out:
"Gnutella was developed by rogue programmers at Nullsoft Inc., a subsidiary of America Online Inc., who briefly posted the program on its Web site on March 14."
That makes much more sense doesn't it? If AOL is the parent of Nullsoft, the 'offending' company, then of course they got sued.
peas,
Kabloona
Mr. Major Domo for distributing information about illicit activities.
- passion
Wow. I didnt even know that aol created it.
It will be interesting to see how such a huge company will battle this especially given the ties to time-warner and their music producing-ness.
Just as I feared, programmers are now accountable for the uses of their software. This of course has some major implications...for example, if the 'ping' utility were to be written today, the author could be accountable for including the "-f" switch, which of course floods a circuit with ICMP traffic...DoS tool anyone?
-- mikeDOTd
Then it's only a short time from when the big monitor in your room tells you when to do you jumping jacks and makes you touch your toes! (the one scene from 1984 that I remember)
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Oh but wait. We can't just sue God, there's a whole host of deities which are responsible for creation in the various forms of creationism. And just in case, you better find those first two particles that collided to make the big bang since that theory may be correct too.
Wow, you could keep the courts died up for millenia!
** Martin
This was also covered at News.com
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
I'm really amazed that napster/gnutella/DeCSS would be illegal because you can do something illegal with them... yet I haven't seen a suit against the NRA and firearms companies. ...oh, it's true, nobody has ever committed a crime using a gun!
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
This is interesting news. I say this because AOL is the first 'big' company to get in trouble with Napster/Gnutella/lookalikes business. It'll be interesting to see if it turns out any differently for a larger company than for a smaller company or group of people. Either way, it might be one of the more interesting points in this never-ending line of law suits dealing with MP3s.
I sure hope not. That would be a waste of EFF dollars that could be used to represent someone who needs representation. AOL does not need additional representation.
end of line
While they're at it, why not sue:
What is this world coming to? It seems like peole are just trying to pass the blame... and for some reason I feel the inventors of the internet will soon be sued for providing a means of quickly exchanging all these illegal files.
And what's scarier is thet there is precident, and we all failed to notice it and arrive at your conclusion until now.
Remember the eyntomology of the word "sabotage"?
Back in the 19th century, french factory workers took it upon themselved to force a stop to any kind of automation or technological advance. When they would come across any kind of automatic manufacturing equipment, they would force their wooden shoes, called sabot, into the machinery, destroying it; hence the word "sabotage".
The inventor of the sewing machine, if I recall my history correctly, was run out of several towns by tailors who refused to tolerate any competition; leaving a trail of smashed sewing machines in his wake.
The RIAA/metallica vs Napster, MPAA vs everybody, and now this suit againts AOL are nothing more than the modern equivelent of that same simple, pathetic thuggery. The only difference is the lack of *PHYSICAL* violence.
In all these cases, a geek invents something that threatens to make some other, old technology or business model obsolete or irrelevent; so the now useless people, instead of adapting to the new model, simply lash out at the geek who made them useless, by trying to sue the techies into destitution.
If there is any justice at all in the world, the RIAA/metallica, the MPAA, the DVD-CCA, and the whole bloody lot of them will be smacked down like the life insurance industry was in Robert Heinlein's "Lifeline".
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
Except in Steven Chow's 'Lawyer Lawyer', but that's ok cos he's very funny.
I think you should only be allowed to apply for the bar if you have had *at least* a succesful 2 year career in comedy beforehand.
I demand more humour in my bread and circuses!
~ppppppppö
Though it may seem easy by the masses of lamers, connecting to the IRC is harder than connecting to napster. Thus, they either figure it's too hard to use for the mainstream, it's too hard to use for them or they're all irc junkies who want to escape into irc once in an hour.
Stop the brainwash
but the various categories that it includes *does* make it look bad. (I. e. "illegal MP3s", etc
Actually...
Since we both agree that they are just a search engine, and linking to illegal material hasn't (yet?) been outlawed, wouldn't this actually make it look good?
Like: No Mr. RIAA We're only providing those links for inormative purposes, and besides we clearly state that they are illegal. As a matter of fact, we're helping YOU to find sites which host illegal copies of your intellectual property. So shouldn't you really be paying us for our detective work instead of suing us?
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
The funny part of this is find, is not the fact that AOL is being sued for "creating a monster" with gnutella, but the fact that mp3board is tring to beat the opposition at there own game.
Anytime a "big boy" like AOL comes along and slaps little startup with some sort of legal restrictions, the courts most always favor the big boy. Now the tides have turned.
Anyways, the AOL/TimeWarner deal has little hope of being approved IMO. It is MEGA scary that one company can have a HUGE impact thgouht ones life and mold them into little AOL/TimeWarner clones.
-If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
Actually it look more like these guys are suing to protect themselves. Read the article.
Actually, I did read the article, but my interpretation had been (foolishly) slanted by the slashdot intro. Having re-read it, you are right: it is more of a preemptive strike or effort to share the blame, and being perpetrated by the subsidiary which was spun off (perhaps to take the brunt of such actions?), not the recording industry (as I had first thought after skimming the article). That of course changes the entire tone of the lawsuit. (though it is still a bit rediculous -- shall Napster sue the power company for having helped them develope their file sharing technology by providing electricity to power their servers, thus making them vulnerable to being sued by the RIAA?)
Such acts coming from the RIAA/MPAA do appear to be aimed at intimidating engineers into not developing new sharing technologies (e.g. the DeCSS debacle), but this particular case isn't one of them.
mae culpa.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I am TOTALLY not a lawyer (though I have more sense than most), but I think I see a strategy here. What mp3board is doing to AOL is essentially the same thing they feel is happening to them.
If they can manage to sue AOL before their case is finished, and intentionally expose they total insanity of such a case, they hope to set a precedent such that their own case may get thrown out--- or at least ruled on fairly.
Basically, they have no intention or expectation of winning. Once they lose, there's one other case to use as a reference in their own defense: "see, this case was thrown out because it was stupid!"
The hope would be that the judge in their own case might be a bit sensible and rule correctly in their favor rather than the RIAA's.
And no, I don't think stealing mp3s is right, but it's always going to happen and I for one see it as nothing different from recording music off the radio; I still want to buy the album if it's good....
RIAA are idiots, and greedy pirates. They may win a few rounds, but they've already lost the war.
As the AC pointed out, I was partially incorrect. Glock did indeed sue someone for killing with their handguns, but it was in LA, not New York. I quote from my source:
"LOS ANGELES - Glock Inc., a maker of guns, is suing Buford O. Furrow, the white supremacist charged with killing a postman and wounding five people at a Jewish community center last year.
The suit, filed Wednesday, claims that Furrow used Glock's product in an illegal fashion and should share some responsibility for the negative attention Glock and other guns makers are receiving because of the Aug. 10, 1999 shootings. It seeks unspecified damages."
-saintalex
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
They've determined that downloading one song you don't already own on a CD is theft. It can only be theft if it's something they could have sold. That means that each song on a CD is a product they could have sold. Now, how do I go about buying just one obscure, say, Metallica (to pick a name out of a hat) track, without buying the album? If I have to buy the album, I've been forced to buy all the other products on the album that I didn't want: all the other tracks.
Seems to me that IE is a lot more integral to Windows than "The God That Failed" is to Metallica's black album.
There's money to be made, here!
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
So what you're saying is the entertainment industry believes it has found a way to tell us, "You'll never work in this town again!!"
Sadly, I fear you may be right.
However, engineers can fight back. For example, somewhere within the bowels of Intel are a bunch of guys working on bringing copy-protection to IEEE-1394 (FireWire) devices. It simply requires the engineers to lay down their pencils/keyboards/VHDL compilers and say, "We will not build this for you. We don't want it, and you don't need it."
Yes, they will put their career at risk, but even if they are fired, they will not carry the responsibility of having created the tools by which their families, friends, and neighbors were shafted.
For myself, I couldn't live with myself if I did something like that to my friends.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Well, considering that a lot of companies now claim exclusive intellectual property rights to anything their employees ever create, seems to me like it makes sense to go after those companies. If my company wants to take my creative efforts and call them their own, then they can't get to pick and choose only the ones that won't get them in legal trouble, right?
I remember hearing about the a story a while back about the control of the drug extacy in Holland. Extacy, more technically the drug MDMA (I believe), is illegal. But under dutch law, it is the exact, specific, chemical that is banned. So drugs labs just come out with new varients, with slight differences, all the time. These varients may be more dangerous than the original - as companies have to keep trying to do something different, so the drug is mutating all the time. In England, and I guess most countries, it is the whole class of similar drugs that are banned. In Holland, every time they discover a new varient, they ban it. Just like whack-a-rat.
.html files), or we will keep producing new varients of file sharing programs.
Whether this story is accurate or not, it is a good analogy for the legal situation RIAA and friends find themselves in. Either you must ban the whole class of programs to share files of the Internet (ftp & web browsers included, after all web pages are just
Let them ban gnutella. Let them have their fun. Who gives a damn - we'll only come back stronger. RIAA, I'll warn you this: I know that everytime I revisit a programming problem, I learn, and I do a better job than the last time. I'm sure most programmers are the same. If you keep making us come up with new programs to share files, then the programs we use will just get more and more sophisticated.
cheers,
G
*(ps. I am not dutch, I don't know the situation that well, so if I'm wrong and offend, I apologise.)
I've been wondering about this for a long time. I used IRC to trade (read: leech) MP3s for years before Napster was invented. It amazes me that the RIAA have apparently no knowlege of IRC mp3 trading. I've never seen an article, heard a news report, read a Slashdot headline, or anything about IRC mp3 trading, but I see something about someone suing Napster or Gnutella almost every day. I would think that the RIAA would demand DALnet and other IRC networks shut down if they knew of the stuff that happened on these networks, but nothing like that has happened. However, it seems so unlikely that they have no knowlege of IRC mp3 trading. Even if no one on their staff was internet savy, I would think some lamer would email their piracy department and report it. What's going on?!?
I'm sure AOL has enough money to get themselves out of any liability in this, but it hardly seems fair that a company can make you sign away all your work and ideas yet not be responsible if that work is deemed illegal. Then again, who ever said anything about the system being fair?
I also have to note, though, that if this does go through, and AOL gets successfully sued, it bodes very badly for the rest of us. Jsut imagine the atmosphere if the management has to keep track of everything you do, since they're liable if they don't stop you from developing illegal software.
Can you tell I'm bitter about Non-Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements in general?
Borogrove
No, I'm pretty certain that Y was a replacement for X (Window, that is). Hang on a minute... ah, found it. Take a look here.
Just because they are the "big guys" doesn't make them any less of a victim than one of us...
-- A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong!
What's being singled out for Napster is not the technology (i.e. the actual client, protocol spec., server software), but the service (the central servers which index the music). Napster is not responsible for creating the technology, but for operating the service.
I'm with you. I scanned as much of the discussion on this as I could stomach, and you made the most valid point. MP3Board did a very interesting move, I bet people have tried it in the past but I'd like to see it.
Think about it, being sued for facilitating freedom, and seeing the side of freedom crying that it hasn't the firepower to stand up to the forces working against it would make someone scared.
Now like "The Mouse that Roared" it attacks someone with lots of firepower to that firepower on their side. Its brilliant, and could play as the key turning point in this whole matter. I want to meet the person who came up with this plan.
I for one hope it works. Here's to the little countries...
Before everybody jumps on the Slashdottically Correct bandwagon and starts screaming at mp3board, please keep in mind that these kinds of lawsuits are not always adversarial. They could simply be looking for a clarification of the law that may favor the both of them.
M-2, you are my hero for pointing this out.
hmsd
-in a fast german car im amazed that i survived... an airbag saved my life!-
It's actually beneath, not below
.. so it is! It's correct now. I normally browse at -1 anyway, so I'm not accustomed to seeing that type of message.
.. well, I can only hold up my hands and claim ignorance. :-) I was reading Slashdot once from a machine at work where I hadn't logged in before, and so it defaulted me to zero (or is it one now? I don't pay attention to these things) which resulted in me seeing a bunch of these "below/beneath current threshold" messages. At the time, I thought it would make a nifty sig. However, I didn't (consciously, at least) steal the idea from you .. but I'm sure you're right about using it longer, because I've only used it for a couple of weeks.
:-) Well, I can change it if you want. You've got the claim on it.
Whoops
And I've used it as a sig for almost as long as I've had this account (checks UID, yup, far too long).
Heh
IF I EVER MEET YOU I WILL KICK YOUR ASS!
Heh.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Every time I read one of these articles about the MP3 controversy the first thing I think is, 'hey have't downloaded any good tunes lately'.
I must have cost the RIAA at least $658 million all by myself in post publicity mp3 download binges.
~ppppppppö
I could have sworn that was supposed to be satire, but lo and behold, they're real. According to their FAQ, Newtella is "effectively a subset of the gnutella [sic] network . . . designed to retrieve and exchange only MP3 files."
.mp3, and filter all non-.mp3 files out of search results. Absolutely brilliant. I wish I had that kind of initiative.
Translation: take a Gnutella client, strip all the file extensions away except for
For more information, click here.
I don't get it! I went over to http://www.mp3board.com and looked at their lame web site. These boneheads have links to copyrighted mp3's all over their friggin web site. Ohhhh.. and they also provide a web interface for Gnutella searches. Then they have the cajones to turn around and sue AOL for "creating" a service that they are providing access too. This is not kosher my friends. Major hypocracy! It's gotta be a PR stunt. --grumpfish out
Grumpfish
Grumpfish
I'd rather be fishing...
How about this? Or this?
-bluebomber
The Daily Build
No it's not. AOL is not part Time Warner.
What if I want digitical copies of all the old LP's I have but have refused to buy again on CD? Since the DMCA doesn't alter "fair use" (or so it say's), I can legally make a "copy" of my LP's by pulling them down with Napster or GNUtella or FTP or whatever.
Even Judge Kaplan says I can make copies of analog media. With these tools, I can "make" legal copies without having to buy the recording hardware...
Dear Super_Frosty,
...and before you start complaining about my spelling, can I say that english isn't my first language either.
You probably haven't noticed that I am not American and don't know everything that's going on there (Do YOU know all the news in Canada?). My point was to say that if the ones who make napster/gnutella/DeCSS are guilty because you can do illegal stuff with them, then the firearms manufacturers are even more guilty, because the worse you can do with firearms is far more damaging than the worse you can do with DeCSS.
Welcome back to Earth, and please immerse yourself in current and past events before posting on Slashdot
So you think you know everything or what? I know I don't know everything going on in the US (should only US citizens be allowed to post on slashdot, since most stories are about stuff going on there?) and I'm very pleased to be told where I'm wrong. I have, however, a problem with your attitude.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Dr. Heller: Don't touch that, it's a blame thrower
Shovler: A Blame Thrower?
-click-
-Spleen and Bowler argue-
-click-
-Spleen and Bolwer apologize-
Shovler: Your ARE a genius
Dr. Heller: That's what the card says.
Actually here name was Ada Byron. Lovelace was her nickname. IINM.
"it would be like suing a gun maker for making guns because people are using them to kill other people"
This happened in New York state. The gun makers lost. I believe it was Smith & Wesson that chose to leave the consumer gun market as a result.
Or perhaps you were just being ironic, and I missed it.
Has their been any legal precedence set yet in terms of prosecuting offenders for denial of service attacks?
If so, why not charge RIAA, MPAA, and others that file frivilous lawsuits for denying citizens expedient use of public services (the legal system)?
(Yes, I know the article does state that it is the MP3Board suing AOL and completely understand the irony of it...but everyone here keeps bringing up RIAA over and over again =)
Mostly because I'm sure they'll pour the equivalent of Taiwan's GNP into the defense if necessary...might be nice having one of the megacorps fighting for the side of right for once.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
I have no idea what MP3board is, but why is Gnutella somehow responsible for it? Is MP3board actually a service which runs Gnutella?
All this in the same deposition where they tried to find out who was running the FTP site at 127.0.0.1 that had all their files on it (YHBT-HAND).
For more antics of those wacky lawyers check out www.xenu.net
**GUFFAW**
Sounds to me like MP3board.com is covering their ass in suing AOL.
It looks like this silliness has no end to it in sight and one after another, any number of peer-to-peer file sharing networks will have problems in the end. As I've said before, the US Judicial system is not equipped to handle the "new" technology ("new" as in "new to them") and the cases that may be brought forth because if it.
I have a sneaking suspiscion that most companies that DO know the technology will be more than happy to tie up the court system and get as much "moolah boolah" as possible from those that were too lax to comprehend.
"The answers are always inside the problem, not outside"- Marshall McLuhan
If he had he would realize this is a jab at the RIAA. They're simply pointing out a double standard the RIAA has here. They're going after everyone else, but not after one of their own. They probably can't win, but it's good PR for the movement.
Scene: The Courtroom.
Pot and Kettle enter, stage left.
Kettle: Hey! You! Pot! You're... black!
Pot: Racist barsteward! I bet I can pirate more than you, anyway!
Judge Stallman: You're both in contempt of court (and freedom, as in speech), and I hereby order your wits melted.
Pot & Kettle: You can't melt what we don't have!
Judge Stallman: In which case, you are hereby committed to Jerry Springer's audience for life.
Pot & Kettle: ARGH!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Actually there have been several cases against major gun manufacturers by families of murder victims... tatctics have been to attack gun marketing and safety shortcomings (not unlike tobacco suits?). Don't know the results of such cases, though.
Lets not forget to sue AOL for distributing those disks, I mean what if I were to save a copywrited work on it and give it to someone else? Not like you are going to fit much of an mp3 or anything else now-a-days, but that's beside the point.
Another thing, why can't AOL send out it's programs on CD-RW's or something that can actaully be used for something other than a coaster or frisbee?? It was always nice to be able to use the AOL disks to store other stuff on them!
Here's my idea....convince micro$oft to put gnutella & DeCSS links on their page...They're all about innovation, so they won't refuse. Wait for the three-way heavyweight legal battle of the century, sit back and laugh during the 20 year court battles that ensue
A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head
This is the natural outcome of a world where huge conglomerates own nearly everything and have no idea what half their company is up to. Pretty soon we'll have companies suing each other, only to arrive in court to find out that their higher-ups are the same person . . .
Actually, I spelled it wrong correcting you (heh heh) - Cheetham is pelled - well, Cheetham. I've inverted an A and an E... Oops :-) Stupid webcam doesn't work under Mozilla either, but that's not really a very large concern. (It works under Netscape 4.73, though.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
*loads mp3 playlist*
I dont understand why the RIAA/MPAA and whoever are scared of new internet based technologies? Dont they know that the internet isnt going anywhere. Dont they know whats happens when you try to bully people. It just doesnt work. They have foolishly put themselves againt the internet and new technology. They cannot win, they shall be assimilated. The logic now is simple:
1.I listen to music
2.If I like it I give a little money to the artist and alot of money to the record company.
Napster does have the ability to filter what content gets indexed on there server, If they would simply remove the artists that request that there music not be available through there service.
Gnutella on the other had has no centralized server system, or a centralized organization controlling the distribution, thus making it completely unstoppable, and no lawsuit is going to change this.
The people (who do still work for AOL) that created GNUtella are the same folks that created an obscure MP3 player called Winamp. They might have a future.
-- "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -Optimus Prime
Oh yeah? Well I've patented the idea of patenting and copyrighting stupid things, so you're supposed copyright reverts to me, and I can sue you for millions of dollars in strange and mysterious damages. Take that!
Actually, I think that their clocks are just set ahead. That press release is just one point in a very short line of stupidity from this company.
For more information, click here.
Let's see if I can explain this for ya'll.
1. AOL created Gnutella way back when.
2. AOL is now a part of Time-Warner.
3. Time-Warner is part of RIAA, which is suing Napster for creating a program that "assists" copyright infringment.
You get it yet? This has the potential for putting Time-Warner in the nasty position of having to defend themselves against the same thing they're suing someone else for, which puts them in the difficult position of having to use their resources to defend and attack the same thing.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
So obviously, by promoting this open not-controlled-by-the-RIAA file exchange system, that AOL is necessarily guilty.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
As well as I can tell, since AOL pulled the plug on the program shortly after it was posted (they should be able to prove this) then they should be in the clear.
But no, that's the truly hilarious thing, they aren't! The lawsuit should be (it doesn't list the specific Cause of Action in the news article, but this is the legitimate one) negligence. You can't show that AOL intended to aid music piracy, because I don't believe they did. What you can show is that they were grossly negligent in allowing it to happen.
Think about it. It's like you're a biochem lab researching different compounds and virii, and you authorize your researchers to take any new samples and just dump them into the general populace without your even checking them first. Then when you find out from all the deaths that they developed a disease instead of the cure for cancer, you tell them to stop.
AOL granted their programmers (Nullsoft) the access to publish on the web any new tool that was created, and didn't require that Nullsoft's tools be approved by AOL. When they found out what Nullsoft had done, they shut it down, but they should have known what it was before publishing it.
Now the other hand is that you can't hold ISP's responsible for the content they allow to be published, but AOL wasn't just Nullsoft's ISP, they were the employer. And if a security company hires a felon who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and murder, then gives him weapons and leaves him in a building lobby, they take some of the legal responsibility when he goes on a killing spree. Sure, it wasn't their official corporate decision to kill people, but they were grossly negligent in allowing their employee to do so.
Disclaimer: I like Gnutella. I'm just pointing out that there is legal merit in the case.
Why the hell not? Smith and Wesson, Colt, all of the big US gun manufactures have already been sued in the past five years, right along with the tobaco companies, and everyone else who operates within the confines of the law and is not responsible for the end use of their product. Guns aren't bad, some bad people just use guns. Cigarettes only kill you if you smoke them. (ok, I understand the second hand thing, but aside from that) And Gnutella and Napster don't trade copywrited music. People do. But it seems like in this day and age that doesn't matter. All you have to do is have your product misused by some third party and you are liable. It's a sad, sad situation. Hell, even video game companies have been sued for making violent games. Oh, so it's not the parents fault for allowing their children to play them? There seems to be some misconception there that video games are all for children. No, and not all cartoons are either. The problem is nobody wants to take any personal responsability any more. Everything must be somebody elses fault, because if guns/cigarettes/video games/file sharing software were illegal, than nobody would be able to make a poor decision, nothing "bad" would be there to decide on. So just take everything that has the potential to do bad things and make it illegal, sue the hell of the people who make it, and "bad" things will just go away and the world will be all bright and sunny because nobody will have to think for themselves any more. All this anti everything sue the world crap is really starting to make me sick. We are just watching our rights slip away, one at at time. But it's ok, Big Brother will protect us from the evils of the world. Keep smiling, and kiss your freedom goodbye.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
How long do you think it will be before one of these huge conglomerates ends up suing some portion of itself over something like this?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I hope they don't settle out of court. It would be nice to have a multi-billion dollar mega-monopoly on the side of freedom for once. I wonder though how Time Warner feel about being sued for what it is suing napster for? If they do go on the defense do you think this could hurt their case, or are they so mega-huge that the courts would consider the two sections of the mega-coporation diffrent mega-entities?
It was actually Glock.
-saintalex
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
Mp3board most likely deals with illegal material themselves at one point or another.
They even have a damn Gnutella websearch on their own website.
I know that Nullsoft isn't maintaining it anymore, but it seems like a classic case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg... doesn't it??
First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting.
Y, however, appears to be available
I'd still be carefull about that. Depending on your intended "Y" product, you might run into trouble if it's too close for comfort with the "KY" brand.
The party with the deepest pockets can hire the biggest lawyers. Bigger lawyers means more room to fill with bullshit, and as we all remember, bullshit is what wins these frivolous lawsuits.
Sometimes, it's more effective to sue little people who cannot contest your suit. If your utility function is something like $=(assets)/(countersuingpower) where countersuingpower is a function of assets, then the maximum of $ is perhaps suing someone with midrange assets.
You're also forgetting that the purpose of these lawsuits is not to maximize $ but to maximize legal restraint of the party sued. That requires a whole 'nother system of equations.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I know this was meant as a joke, but you can't sue somebody for distributing child pornography unless (1) you're an attorney authorized to bring a criminal suit on behalf of the government; or (2) you suffered personal harm from the distribution--e.g., pictures of you or someone for whom you have power of attorney were distributed (evidence for a tort), or it was forged in your name (defamation), or it was sent to disturb you (intentional infliction of emotional distress).
Case 2 is a civil suit, and would involve damages but not jail time.
What the company is sued for in those cases isn't the direct act so much as fostering it with the workplace environment. Or do you have a case where a company was successfully sued because of a one-time (as opposed to ongoing) action that was in violation of company policy?
Good analogy, but it's "Ouroboros" (OO - ROB - OR - ROSS), not "Ourobos", I think. Watch more Red Dwarf :)
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Or, maybe it's just a ploy by the cash-strapped MP3board. Maybe a nice infusion of out-of-court settlement money from AOHell is exactly what they need to pay off their lawyers so they can continue the suit against the RIAA.
Half right. AOL can win this without hurting the Napster case. They just shouldn't focus on the "we're just a messenger" defense, but instead on the "we never sanctioned Gnutella" defense. If they have to use the former defense, they should base it on the fact that Gnutella isn't MP3-specific, as Napster can't make that claim.
Let's all open Window's file-sharing across the internet, then sue Microsoft for developing piracy software.
This is rich.
Lawyer A: "Let's tell our client that we've got a great case for him! One that we will take loads of billable hourse to loose. Let's also convince him that he wants to loose!"
Lawyer B: "Sweet! we won't even have to try very hard. Ha Ha Ha Ha! I'm going to talk to accounting."
I'm filing suit against Tim Berners-Lee for creating the web which helps people find kiddy porn. I'm filing suit against Vint Cerf for his part in developing TCP/IP. I'm suing Moore for mass production of computers. I'm suing Shockley for developing the transistor. I'm suing Maxwell for his work in E&M which is vital for our understanding of electronics. And finally, God will be hearing from my lawyers for starting this whole mess.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Heh. :-) Well, I can change it if you want. You've got the claim on it.
By all means don't, that was all in good fun. At least yours is formatted nicely and all.
btw: default treshold is 1 now.
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
AOL/TimeWarner is hardly a conglomerate
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
If that logic works (indeed the logic that is the basis for the RIAA vs. Napster case), then shouldn't you also be able to blame AOL itself (ie AOL v5.0). It also "helps users find illegal music". That is just one example of how huge this issue is. That logic extends all the way to newspapers and phonebooks and (yes) speech!
ho hum, go to the nullsoft web site and you could get the idea that these guys are a bunch of independants who are raging a holy war with the music industry. They created winamp, the most popular mp3 player, they created gnutella, the next best thing to napster (our last best chance for peace?) and yet they are owned by AOL.. WTF?
How we know is more important than what we know.
You will find 100's of users per channel, and 5-10 channels per IRC server, and what 100's of irc servers? Also what about the potential thousands of people trading them in run of the mill channels like #anarchism, #darkpoetry, and such?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
>>They must love me! Thanks for writing to us about Napster. Since Napster put my name on its site with a direct e-mail connection, you can imagine that I have received thousands of e-mails. Most were urgent pleas for Napster, most were from music lovers and some of them were even polite! We've read your e-mails, and put together a short Q&A that addresses the most commonly asked questions. I've printed it below. We've also revised the Q&A on our website (http://www.riaa.com/napster.cfm) to address the issues you've raised, and I encourage you to read it. But first, I want to address some of the common themes in this response to you. 1. The record companies and artists who have repeatedly asked Napster and other sites offering similar services, want a simple thing that I am sure you want for your work - respect. Napster has a new artist program where artists give permission to have their works shared. Shouldn't all artists have the same courtesy from Napster? 2. Music is as important to all of us as it is to you. Those of us who work with creative artists are especially grateful that we have a deep understanding of how hard artists work to achieve music that in their minds is good enough to offer to you. That work takes time and money. 3. The price of music today is the best entertainment value for the dollar. Numerous studies have shown that the price of music has not even kept pace with inflation and has stayed more level than other entertainment products. As the various media outlets for music increase, the cost of marketing and promotion go up, not down. The price of the physical piece of plastic is the least relevant part of the costs of music. The marketing and promotion that broadens the audience for an artist's music is the most expensive part. For a record company (big or small), 85% of all recordings fail to even make back their costs. It is the small number of successful records that fund the development of new music. Therefore, when someone takes the "hits" new artists are getting hurt as well. 4. For those who have written that Napster has been a source of education about new music, I say thanks for being open to new music. There are numerous music sites on-line that promote new bands that don't also encourage stealing from those that are already popular. Go to MTV.com, getmusic.com, sonymusic.com. warnerbros.com. listen.com, launch.com, emusic.com, mp3.com, hollywoodandvine.com, artistdirect.com?.the list goes on. 5. A number of people have suggested that we "just don't get it". People say if Napster is shut down, numerous other places are ready to takes its place. Believe me, we do "get it" and we do understand both the technology and the interest people have in getting music on-line. Litigating our way through the Internet is not our preferred or intended method. We hope that once the service offered by Napster is confirmed to be against the law, that there will be little interest by most people in continuing to test their fate. While some may think that a Gnutella program or one of the many other kinds of open source programs offers anonymity to users, they don't. While I don't have any illusions that all free music distribution will suddenly stop, I do believe that most people want to be honest and care about their favorite artists. 6. Finally and most importantly, in my view, the legitimate on-line music business is developing quickly. Artists and record companies know that you want music on-line and you want it soon, easy to use and at a good price. That is the challenge of the music community. It is a good challenge and I believe it will be met. But it will be met with a fundamental difference from the way Napster operates. A legitimate music business will recognize that music is the lifeblood and career for artists and songwriters and producers and musicians and many others. That work must be respected and rewarded by those enjoying the fruits of their labor. Thanks again for sharing your views. Sincerely, Hilary Rosen President and CEO Recording Industry Association of America What is the RIAA action against Napster all about? RIAA, on behalf of its members, sued Napster because it launched a service that enables and facilitates piracy of music on an unprecedented scale. The overwhelming majority of the MP3 files offered on Napster are infringing -- and the district court found that Napster knows this and even encourages it. Napster is thus enabling and encouraging the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music. Just because Napster itself may not house the infringing recordings does not mean Napster is not guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright law has long recognized that someone who materially contributes to infringing activity, with knowledge of that activity, is liable for copyright infringement as if that person did the copying him or herself. Is this a lawsuit to stop the use of MP3 technology? No. The suit is against Napster, the company, and not MP3 technology. Any company that offers to help distribute illegally obtained music is a problem -- whether that music is transmitted on tape, CD, or on the Internet in whatever form. RIAA only has a problem with the illegal uses of the format to distribute copyrighted recordings without the permission of the artist or record company. To the extent that artists choose to use MP3 technology to distribute their work - music that they own the rights to - that's great; in fact, it's a potent example of the ways in which the Internet can connect creators and fans and produce new opportunities for the distribution of music. Napster's copyright protection page clearly says it revokes the ability of users to access Napster if they violate copyright law. Isn't that enough? A few words cannot undo the harm caused by hundreds of thousands of Napster users unlawfully downloading millions of infringing music files. In any event, Napster's actions speak louder than its words. Napster is actively encouraging and facilitating the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music. While Napster now claims that it's all about creating a community for the new and unknown artist, the district court found that it was just an afterthought to try to help them in the litigation. Before this litigation, Napster was more forthright about its true purpose. On its web site, Napster touted itself as the "world's largest MP3 music library" that "ensures the availability of every song online." Leaving little doubt about its disregard for the unknown artist, Napster boasted that "Napster virtually guarantees you'll find the music you want, when you want it ... and you can forget about wading through page after page of unknown artists."
Napster is unfair to the artists and musicians who have invested their time, effort and money to create music.
Isn't this just like the motion picture association's battle against VCRs in the 1980s?
Not at all. A VCR can be used lawfully (time-shifting, rentals, home movies) and never infringe on a copyright. The overwhelming use of Napster, by contrast, is for infringing purposes. Indeed, the district court found that Napster did not have any non-infringing uses that were commercially significant. The magnitude of the activity is also very different. An individual making a copy of a TV program (which she was invited to watch for free) so that she can watch it later cannot be equated with an individual re-distributing a copy of a CD to millions of anonymous strangers who were not invited by the copyright owner to get it for free.
Finally, the record industry is embracing Internet technology and actively working to take advantage of the new technologies for the delivery of music online. But it's very hard for an artist or label to sell their music online when the same songs are available from Napster for free.
Don't technologies like Gnutella and Freenet pose the greatest risk for the recording industry? Why worry about Napster?
Record companies have lived with piracy forever, so new technologies for piracy on the Internet is nothing new. Certainly, there will be challenging issues to address, and perhaps technical measures will be helpful. But, the mere fact that there are other piracy challenges on the Internet is not a reason to do nothing about commercial operations like Napster, which seek to build multi-billion dollar businesses on copyrighted works they neither own nor license.
Record companies recognize that the ultimate response to technologies like Gnutella and Freenet is a legitimate alternative that consumers will prefer. It's up to the industry to offer consumers such convenient access to music, with such ease of operation and great sound quality, that consumers will choose to use legitimate sites. They're also likely to prefer dealing with legitimate sites so as to avoid the security and privacy risks of dealing with anonymous strangers on the "Undernet."
What do artists think of Napster's system?
Artists have been voicing their opinions in increasing numbers. Many appreciate the promotional opportunity the Internet presents, but have passionate feelings about being able to decide where and how their music is distributed and to receive some compensation for its use. Here are just a few examples of what artists are saying.
"Many artists have spent their lives honing their craft and now some anonymous person in a little dark room with a computer somewhere is able to collate that lifetime's work and pass it around the world for free. It's just not on. Stealing is stealing regardless of what name you choose to call it."
-- Matt Johnson of The The
"It pisses me off and I resent it. I spent $15,000 on my Web site. I paid a publicist for a year and a half out of my own pocket. And now some kid's going to tell me my catalog should be free? They're just entrepreneurs setting themselves up to make a ton of money off other people's work. Where's the compensation for the artists? I know people using Napster are chuckling about kicking big, bad record labels. But as evil as the record companies may be, at least they're paying for your recording budget, and at least they're promoting you, and paying for tour support. We can make a new model - yeah right. It's laughable. Those people have no idea how the music business works. Because unless you're Alanis Morissette or Dave Matthews, you're not making money on the road. It's all I can do to break even on tour. And the only reason to tour is to promote the sale of my CD."
-- Jonatha Brook, Salon, March 25, 2000
"Artists, like anyone else, should be paid for their work."
-- Lou Reed
"I don't have a big giant record deal or a movie deal. I don't make money on the road; I lose money on the road. A Newsweek article said, 'It's the kids versus the suits.' Well, it's not really that - it's kids versus the damn musicians, the people you supposedly like, whose music you listen to."
-- Aimee Mann, Yahoo! Internet Life, August 2000
"Napster presents huge problems for the artists. It raises the questions - which is positive - of where and how artists are compensated. But I don't agree with the model they've set up. The artists should be the person who's ultimately in a position to decide when, where, and how something should be shared with whomever they choose to share it with."
-- Alanis Morissette, Yahoo! Internet Life, August 2000
Once I purchase a CD or movie, doesn't the "fair use" doctrine and "personal use" allow me to use my CD as I see fit?
The "fair use doctrine" of copyright law is complicated and its application varies depending on the specific facts and circumstances. In general, the doctrine can allow someone to reproduce, distribute, adapt, display and/or perform a copyrighted work depending upon the nature of the use (commercial purposes, non-profit, educational), the length of the excerpt, how distinctive the original work is, and how the use will impact the market for the original work.
You don't have to be a copyright lawyer to know that it is not "fair" to allow an individual to make copies of copyrighted music available to millions of anonymous strangers. That's the equivalent of publishing, and few people would argue that you can publish someone else's copyrighted work without his or her permission. In fact, courts have routinely held that wholesale copying and distribution of the entirety of creative works is not a fair use. The district court in this case came to the same conclusion.
Regarding "personal use," there is a big difference between a consumer making a copy for his or her own personal use, and that same consumer making the file available on Napster where it can be freely downloaded by millions of people. Not even the staunchest proponents of consumer rights have suggested that the latter is fair or lawful.
How is downloading files from Napster different from recording from the radio or making mix tapes for friends?
Taping a song from the radio for your personal use is nothing like file trading. Unlike radio, file trading allows you to search for specific songs and access them at will. Also, the quality of downloads is much better. You are able to get a copy of the whole song, without a DJ talking over it or another song being mixed in. Downloads are digital and as such don't lose sound quality in the transfer, as you do with analog tape. Most important, the harm that can be caused by file trading over the Internet is orders of magnitude greater than the impact of off-air taping.
File trading is also nothing like trading mix tapes. The more appropriate analogy is if you give your mix tape to millions of anonymous strangers. That's not legal, and it's certainly not innocent.
Aren't record companies at fault for the proliferation of file trading because they've been so slow in offering music on the Internet?
The Internet is revolutionizing entertainment - and the recording industry embraces it. Our reason for existence is to find, develop, and promote talented musicians. We build careers and make a contribution to our ever-evolving culture.
In order to accomplish this, we must market and distribute our catalogs in ways that are legal and that result in the creators being fairly compensated. It takes an enormous amount of effort to determine how to offer music to consumers online in a way that meets their needs and grows the business. Method of delivery, format, rights clearances, relationships with retailers, and price structure are but a few of the many issues to be worked out, as is negotiating for digital distribution rights where necessary with artists, songwriters, publishers, and their representative organizations in the US and abroad.
Some examples of how record companies are going digital are:
- Many record labels have been licensing personalized webcasting services, and many more are on the way;
- Three of the five major labels (EMI, Sony and Universal) have already begun offering digital downloads via the Internet. The other major labels and several independent labels (e.g., Zomba and TVT) have likewise announced plans to begin digital downloads of music and are slated to begin operations in the near future;
- Warner, BMG, EMI, Beggar's Banquet, and other labels have already licensed MP3.com, MusicBank, and other services to offer consumers the ability to store their music wherever they are and whenever they want;
- Sony, Universal and EMI have announced that they will soon be offering a subscription service to consumers for the first time.
If music wasn't so expensive, wouldn't there be less incentive to want to file-share?
First, this is not file sharing. This is unauthorized, illegal file duplication - on a massive scale. Sharing is when one person gives up something for another - a half a piece of pie, for example, or the use of a car. With Napster, nobody is giving up anything because everybody gets to keep a copy. And that's just plain wrong.
Second, the price of music is not just the cost of the plastic on which it's recorded, any more than the price of a movie is based on the cost of the film. The price of a CD includes the cost of paying all the people who helped create it. Those people include songwriters, artists, background musicians, studio engineers, talent scouts, marketers and retailers, among many others. It also carries with it the enormous costs of marketing and promotion that are required to call attention to the album in our oversaturated entertainment market.
In any event, dissatisfaction with the price is not a justification for stealing. Would you steal a book on the grounds that its price is too high? Or break into a theater because the tickets cost too much?
>>Hell yeah!
According to the Times, MP3Board argues in its filing that it has committed no copyright violations in it service. But if it should lose its suit, the company argues, AOL and Time Warner should help shoulder any penalties because of their indirect role creating the Gnutella program.
To put this in more common terms:
Officer, why did you stop me for speeding and not stop all those other cars?
Wah-wah-wah
First I thought it was a joke, but campchaos is doing a series on Napster parodies. There is this movie called 'sue all the world'. Y'know, if I'm reading this Gnutella case, I still wonder whether 'sue all the world' actually is a joke.
Bizar technology?
If i create program X....then get hired by company Z, could group Y sue company Z cause I work for them, and I created program X?....that doesn't seem to make very much sense to me....or did I miss something very obvious?
IRC is relatively small. In an average MP3 channel, you'll find a couple hundred people, tops. On an average Napster server, you'll find thousands of users. Add that with the fact that Napster script kiddi3z don't keep bombarding you with confusing ads and high-ASCII-laden instructions, and you'll see that IRC is not really meant for the masses.
People want a simple point-and-click interface to download MP3's, not an endless stream of "j00 @r3 #49800 in d@ qu3u3" messages from your friendly neighborhood script kiddy. IRC, Usenet, FTP sites -- all of these confusing old "standards" are no match for the point-and-click clients that get millions of people into "sharing."
For more information, click here.
Jeez.
Okay. So the RIAA sues MP3board.com, which sues AOL, which owns Time Warner, which owns Warner Music, which is a member of the RIAA.
Around and round we go...
--------- Beware the dragon, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
Swoogan
Swoogan
sigs are for losers...and ppl who can think of one.
I guess this means the DEA will be shutting down Expedia or Travelocity for selling plane tickets to Amsterdam...
These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be.
After reading about mp3.com's $20,000,000 out of court settlement with Sony, it is clear to me that the big money with internet music distribution isn't in actually distributing the music -- the major labels can't seem to do that successfully. The big money these days is in suing people who actually are able to distribute the music. mp3board.com just wants to get in on the action while the getting is good.
- John
Sometimes suing the party with the deep pockets is what stops this sort of thing by setting precedent. The guy with the deep pockets (AOL in this case) has the resources to fight through the appeals courts and field a crack legal team in the process.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
First of all, as the news article states, AOL hasn't even confirmed that a suit has been filed. Secondly, it sounds like two children getting in trouble with their mother:
"If I did break the vase, Timmy should be in just as much trouble as me! I really didn't break the vase...but if I did..."
This makes me think that any company (MP3Board.com) that would try to pull this kind of stunt is, in fact, either run by children, OR knows something more about AOL's involvement in the creation of Gnutella than we (or maybe I) do. Alternately, it could just be an attempt by MP3Board.com to get attention pointed in someone else's direction.
All that means is that IRC is spread very thin. Sure, you'll find a few kiddies running fserves here and there, but IRC was not designed as a medium for searching for and sending files. Gnutella and Napster were. The primary function of file-sharing networks is just that, sharing files. 99.9% of the traffic on Napster is file-sharing related (the rest being the odd chat room here and there, and who's to say that's not about file sharing). The vast majority of traffic on IRC is not about MP3 transfers, at least on the big networks. Porn? Well, that's another story. ;)
For more information, click here.
Etymology involves the search for the historical roots of a word.
I'm not sure what Eyntomology is. Not trying to be a dick, but when you're talking about language precision is important.
Sausage King of Chicago
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
It's just some lame attempt at a publicity stunt. You can't sue someone just for the sake of suing someone. They need to have materialy harmed you. So what, is mp3board going to say that gnutella is unfair competition for them, or something? If not, then it's just an attempt at getting their names into headlines/potential users minds. A bad one, at that.
No, I'm serious - look at it this way:
- RIAA (including Time/Warner) Sues Mp3Board
- Mp3Board Sues AOL, which may (God forbid!) own Time/Warner soon
Don't you see?They've invented Peer-To-Peer Lawsuits!
Now all we need for poetic justice is some good anti-silly-lawsuit legislation, and perhaps we can get a class-action-suit going against Congress for creating this lawsuit-sharing technology...
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
thuggery NOT thuggary
precedent NOT precident
etymology NOT eyntomology
equivalent NOT equivelent
irrelevant NOT irrelevent...
This is not a personal attack on anyone,
but reporters and other non-geeks who visit will be likely to take opinions more seriously if they are couched in more reasonable language....
Just $.02
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
For some reason, this brings forth an odd image of lawyers in a Hong Kong martial arts movie. It's all legal kung-fu.
The RIAA has thrown the first legal punch at mp3board.com. The energy from that hit needs to be disapated somehow and mp3board.com doesn't have a way to strike back at the RIAA. But there's an available conduit - Time Warner, one of the major RIAA members. Time Warner is AOL. AOL is also Nullsoft. Nullsoft made Gnutella. Go after Gnutella, therefore Nullsoft, therefore AOL, therefore Time Warner, finally striking the RIAA.
I'm not sure how practical all this is. But it does make for some amusing coreography.
I think their point is that if they can be sued for making it possible to download MP3s, then they can sue Gnutella for making it possible to download MP3s. They are deliberately acting in an absurd way to highlight the absurdity of their own case.
It wouldn't suprise me if the RIAA didn't throw huge amounts of money at AOL for them to do nothing. A couple of Billion dollor 'bung' would probably safeguard their monopoly for the time being, and AOL wont mind because tehy won't suffer financially (they may even gain) and there reputation wont take a hit because they're 'admitting' that Gnutella is illegal.
So I for one won't be suprised if AOL does just turn around and take it on the nose, the backhanders are sure to soften the blow.
I think the main problem here is that you've by some means misinterpreted the text, they're getting sued by mp3board.com, not by the RIAA.
mats
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
How freaking stupid can you get? That's like a little kid saying "WELL HE DID IT TOO", after getting in trouble for something. I bet the judge's reply to the suit is gonna be "WELL IF GNUTELLA JUMPED OFF A BRIDGE, WOULD YOU JUMP TOO?"
SuPz.orG
You aren't the only one... NullSoft... a subsid. of AOL, is the first place where GNUtella shows up, written by some "rogue" programmers there. It is yanked within hours. They don't run the servers - heck, a lot of the people using gnutella now are running a clone. It's not like Scour, where they host the searches... not that I like AOL all that much, but I can't see how they could be held at fault...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
MS should jump in the fire, and make their own vesion of Gnutella/Napster, and make it easily available for download for windows users.
Let them attempt to get sued by RIAA and have MS's almightly legal team have at it. Get the big guns in. hate MS all you want for their legal teams and legalsese, but this time let them work for you! They could make up some fancy story on how it is no different than a user's transfer directory, but with added search features.
- have AIM bundled with it
- display a "running man" icon linked to AIM
- play a voice saying "you have new porn!"
- required a two-word password of the form SKREW/YEW
- arrive as a CDROM in my physical mail once a week for the rest of my natural life
Yet none of this has happened. Sorry, the facts just don't indicate it.That actually happened once, though damned if I could remember who it was.
The cake is a pie
Yet another lawsuit just so people can make a quick buck. I say this one will fall through the cracks, not to be on AOL's side or anything but they haven't done anything, except DISTANCE themselves from the whole Gnutella community.
Now I understand where your confusion lies.. take a long hard look at who owns Nullsoft. AOL is responisble for their subsidiaries just like any other company. If New York decided to invade Canada, do you think Canada would blame just the people who live in New York? Or do you think they would blame the USA? :)
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
It's funny that one of the largest media/content-producing companies is now going to have to defend something like Gnutella. If they do, I wonder what that says for the technology. If they don't, well...then they're going to have to take the hit in the wallet. Sort of makes you wonder what could be done if there is financial incentive to protect this type of technology (or at least financial counter-incentive if they don't).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
If I am not mistaken, didn't the movie industry do this with VCRs when they first came out? Now they're making lots of $$$ of them...I guess people DON'T learn from history very well with all these lawsuits because of Napster and DeCSS...
"I've had a perfect evening...this just wasn't one of them."
If UCITA has been passed as law in Virginia, then according to its terms, AOL cannot be sued.
Even so, this probably won't damage AOL much. They handled the situation relatively quickly, and have had nothing to do with Gnutella since the first posting. But what mp3board may be hoping for is the action to confuse the RIAA (of which AOL-Time Warner is a member) enough to stall things, and perhaps damage their continuing attempts to cast themselves as morally superior. It seems to me to be primarily a stall tactic.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
This is the same web site that sued the RIAA "before the RIAA could sue them" as an effective countermeasure to being shut down after MP3.com was sued. (Reuters article, don't have a link handy, was posted on Slashdot I believe.)
I have to admit that mp3board.com looks pretty much like it's *just* a search engine, but the various categories that it includes *does* make it look bad. (I. e. "illegal MP3s", etc.) Also, the "Top Ten Downloaded" MP3 list including nothing but big name bands also can't be good.
Still this is funny, unless mp3board is counting on the bad publicity to help drive hits before they get shut down. (Suicide pact?)
IANAL but the basic premise of the lawsuit seems to be hilarious and pretty similar to "I'm going to sue the phone company for servicing phone lines because I'm getting phone threats." Or, take the "Napster is nothing more than a service provider and not liable for content" theories and apply to Gnutella.
BTW, if Gnutella was never officially sanctioned by AOL and AOL pulled the plug on it, can they be held responsible for the open sourcing of it?
And, not to mention, that MP3Board allows searching of "HTTP" and "Gnutella". Ack?
We use your service, let's sue the person that created the original, which was reverse engineered and created clean room, because we don't want to be held responsible for our own actions.
Wow, this is jumpy.
Talonius
My reality check bounced.
I think that this is a major load. Many /.ers know that Gnutella was started by Nullsoft, who then stopped making the Gnutella client and released the source to give birth to other client/server shells for Gnutella. Even flatplanet.net is in Gnutella; they're spamming every search query; already, most of the Gnutella clients have flatplanet filters.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
As well as I can tell, since AOL pulled the plug on the program shortly after it was posted (they should be able to prove this) then they should be in the clear. This is just another way for someone to attempt to control the flow of information (granted, gnutella is mainly used to trade music and porn right now, but was it designed for this or for the general sharing of information?). I hope mp3board.com falls flat on their proverbial face here.
Disclaimer: If you take any of this post as any type of legal advice and you get burnt in the buttocks, don't come crying to me.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
Ed there invented the toilet seat that was used to bludgeon someone to death. LET'S SUE HIM!!!
This is out of control and stupid.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Can you imagine the Library of Congress' reaction when next year, under the auspices of the WIPO, they are confronted with a global class-action lawsuit for maintaining their catalog!? People of Earth v. US Library of Congress!
Every year thousands of school children all across the US have simple access to pronographic materials like "Catcher in the Rye" and such because of such indexing systems. It's nice to see this madness is finally coming to an end.
Why would they sue AOL? There's nothing that AOL did wrong (in this case). Just because they own Nullsoft doesn't mean they can stop people from working on side projects. Maybe this is simply to make the whole case a big shitstorm so the RIAA drops it. It's like in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me when he's talking about time travel and goes cross-eyed.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
"Hello, I'm Regis Filben and Welcome to "Who wants to be sued!!??"
[Cheesy rip off Who wants to be a millionaire theme music].
"Today's defendant is AOL, being sues my the Mp3board"
"How you doing AOL?"
"As always you have your life lines...
Phone a friend, 50/50 and get out of jail free"
Now lets play, "Who wants to be sued!!!!!"
[Cheesy rip off Who wants to be a millionaire theme music].
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
Next thing you know, Dixon Tryconderoga and Bic will be cited as producing materials which help people steal copyrighted works.
Oops.
Dear my! What are those things coming out of her nose?
Spaceballs!
All these law suits are starting to get out of hand. Why don't book publishers sue Xerox for creating a device that allows people to copy books? Why not sue every ISP, since the ISP's provide the means for people to get on the net to grab all that is copyrighted. How about sueing the manufacturers of Silly Putty, since you can use it to copy news paper articles (and comics). Ah, better yet, sue gun makers and automobile makers, since they provide a "tool" that kills people. We can't leave out the alcohol manufacturers.
The RIAA is really targeting the wrong people. They should go after people that are doing the copying and distribution.
Is Mr. Al Gore...after all, he created the internet, which fuels these things anyway :P
How Jaded Are You?
Of course, in reality, AOL didn't exactly want the Nullsoft guys to make Gnutella, in fact they disowned it a few hours after it appeared, but the courts won't listen to a flimsy argument like that. (grin) If the RIAA is so righteous about stamping out music piracy, shouldn't they follow mp3board and sue AOL/Time Warner? At a purely philosophical level, yes, but of course they won't sue one of their own members, so then we can accuse the RIAA guys of being two faced bastards, i.e. what we already know them to be. This then rips the heart out of any advantage the RIAA had, they lose their fire, and Napster, etc. gets a whole lot more.
Wow. What a smart idea. Thank you to Gog_Magog for making this all crystal clear. Mod him up. Way up.
I'm writing this on my laptop. I beat the shit out of my computer when I read about this, and now I'm HD-less. 1) AOL (much as I hate them for other reasons) cannot be responsible for their employee's spare time's code 2) coding is not a crime 3) If I send a file to a friend, providing I'm not breaking the law by doing so, it is NOT the business of ANYONE else 4) wtf do AOL have to do with this? 5) a plea to napster users. PLEASE stop distributing copyrighted material over napster - you're ruining the concept of private file-sharing for everyone else.
I guess lazyness is a joke.
Ferlman is intentionally misspelled. It comes from a college nickname.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
According to this, I think I do:)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Disclaimer: I speak about my feelings and not as a lawyer, I have very little knowledge and I'm not even american. Feel free to moderate me down if I'm too far off the track...
My feeling here is that MP3Board is trying to force AOL to be on its side against Warner and other MPAA members. The idea being that if MP3Board is declared guilty, then AOL will have to pay an even larger sum. So having AOL "on their side" would make enforcement against Gnutella because there would always be the possibility of annoying AOL... Would be nice if a lawyer could comment on this?
Perhaps we could compile a black list of people known to have worked on such projects and refuse them hire elsewhere.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
...if mp3board.com is doing the suing because of gnutella, they shouldn't have a gnutella search field on their freaking home page!! Am I seriously missing something?
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
So, if this happens, Microsoft will be suing all the security companies that wrote code to detect security holes in their software. And, if that happens, and they win.... OMG
As far as I can tell, MP3Board.com was founded before Gnutella was posted to the Internet by anyone at Nullsoft. Even if some court finds it illegal to link to or provide MP3s in the manner that MP3Board and Gnutella do, isn't MP3Board responsible?
AOL tried to stop Gnutella. MP3Board.com, on the other hand, not only provided MP3-related services before Gnutella, but also adopted Gnutella searching technology contrary to the wishes of AOL. AOL certainly isn't responsible for any action here since MP3Board.com was already "infringing" on copyrights. AOL didn't give MP3Board.com any ideas about infringing use here.
And remember, IANAL, butI wouldn't have to think like one if we weren't living in a legal never-never land.
i'll sue SONY for makeing putting out music on compact discs that make it possible to distribute. No wait, I'll sue Pearl Jam for making music that can be put on CDs to pirate. No, I'll sue the guitar manufacturers for makeing the guitars that pearl jam used to make the music to distribute illegally. No, I'll sue the lumber company that made the wood to make the guitars to sell to the band that used them to make the music that gets pirtated. No, I'll sue.... the tree?
-thinkpol
I found about GNUtella while I was using Netscape. AOL owns Netscape (as we are all too often reminded of) therefore it is their fault that I know about GNUtella.
Worse yet I downloaded Napster with Netscape as well as many other things I will refrain from mentioning here/now.
But if we really want to get into this, I have used WinAMP to play some of my illegal MP3s (I have also used XMMS, but that doesn't go towards my current point) and AOL owns WinAMP too. Wow, I think we can solve all of the worlds problems with this one.
Devil Ducky
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
File sharing is a right. If I'm not breaking the law, it is no business of anyone who I give my data to.
Unfortunately, because you theives are just stealing music, napster and all the other file sharing tools are seen as "trafficking" software.
Admittedly, napster have no respect for anyone - they're just a company out to give their investors early retirement, but for all you PEOPLE out there, PLEASE save gnutella and freenet. they're legal at the moment, because without being abused, they're nice ways to be private. Hang on to our freedom while it's still there.. please?
the proper spelling is:
Frohman
http://www.idiotsavant.com/bueller/script.htm
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
When accused of a crime, point to the nearest person and run like mad... Not very surprised by this, actually. Concerning how much legal pressure the internet is under, it's only natural to start draggin the ISP's into the debacle...
- I'm making a page dedicated to procrastinators! I'll let you know when I get started.
Use an accordion. Go to jail.
-- KFOG, San Francisco
Share a file. Go to jail
Design a file sharing app. Go to jail
---
Don't be surprised if AOL botches the defense.
The value to the AOL monopoly of the court precedent set by losing this could be worth far more than the value from gnutella and the net payout losses combined.
In other words, this entire court case could be a setup for a high level con game.
Seastead this.
It's obvious the company is filing lawsuit against AOL as a form of advertisement. Why else would a random site feel the need to uphold copyright law. As far as I'm concerned, it worked. I visited the site for the first time right after reading the story.
Next they will sue the creators of TCP/IP for assisting in the violation of copyrights. Then they can go after the people who created networking. Then the people who make cables. Or they can go after Intel, et al. for creating processors that are capable of being programed to violate copyright laws. Think of the $billions you could get!
...So what do you use now, an abacus?
;)
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
I sure wouldn't care is AOL gets sued and goes out of buisness. Would you?
Um... Yes, but isnt' the world-snake supposed to eat the sun or something before it dissappears? Damn, and just when I was going to get a tan... But honestly, who here is actually surprised that AOL finally managed to bring about armageddon?
RIBBIT.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
The RIAA/metallica vs Napster, MPAA vs everybody, and now this suit againts AOL are nothing more than the modern equivelent of that same simple, pathetic thuggery. The only difference is the lack of *PHYSICAL* violence.
Well maybe there should be some physical violence!
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
An astute observation. I just hope you're right. This could be very, very bad if you're wrong.
In other news, J. Robert Oppenheimer is searching for help paying the legal bills after defending himself against 100,000 counts of first degree murder. When will this madness end?!?!? Who's next, the inventer of fire??? The wheel??? Ug. (I'm wearing my DVD-CAA tshirt today.)
...or maybe not.
#pragma warn +rambling
Indeed, Justin Frankel authored both of these. At 20 he already had over 60 million in assets because of the deal. He could certainly walk and start his own company- when he becomes a freeman. It was Marc Andreesen's idea to buy Winamp and Spinner- and of course he's out of there, onto the Loudcloud venture. AOL is not going to be able to hold onto the hottest talent for long no matter how much cash they provide. Their environment is contrary to the motives that produce innovation. Lavishing [those things big money buys] on someone who is creative+effective won't further motivate that person or gear them up to produce the next big thing, especially if they are now surrounded by people who _are motivated by [those things]. If the individual is still inventing, they'll begin to see the chaos (especially in this case I'd imagine). Some [inventors] let their creative selves die getting led around by the economic expectations they acquire after the point of being an acknowledged success.
#pragma warn -rambling
--
I'm hopefully going to graduate in May with a dual EE / CE degree. Maybe I made a mistake! Looks like the only people making money these days are the lawyers!!
d'oh
Slash-chutzpah never ceases to amaze me.
It greedy of someone to file a lawsuit over very real violations of their copyrights? AOL may or may not be the right target, but with the "if it ain't nailed down its mine" attitude toward MP3 piracy often espoused here, this just plain dumfounded me.
I wonder whats going to happen when Hillary Rosen and her pal good ol' Jack discovers IRC.
" . . . and thats why sharks don't get cancer. In totaly unrelated news, the RIAA has sent threatening letters to several operators of IRC, a totaly new way of trading pirated MP3 files over then Internet. The RIAA has posted losses of $300 bazillion due to this new service."
**Insert sounds of geeks laughing so hard at the reporter's technical illiteracy here**
------
Not a typewriter
also sue Al Gore for inventing the internet (heavy sarcasm) which facilitated the easy exchange of information and fiels, some of which may be copyrighted.
:;-)
Why don't we all pick up a crappy Windows box and place it, un-firewalled with all of it's directories shared, on cable modem connection. The only thing you store on this? Your MP3s and a list of every other open PC you know of. Why should we do this?
When the RIAA finds our new file sharing scheme, they'll have to sue MS. Do we think there's a chance of MS losing? If they do, so what, no real loss. Chances are good, however, that MS will win, setting a good precedent for file sharing software. It's win-win!!
maybe they should accuse AOL of helping users "find" spam, trojans and --#MP3 ownz j000--//-- messages.
MP3Board is using AOL to do its defense work for them. AOL/Time-Warner will basicly have to prove that they aren't facilitating piracy. ANY defense AOL uses, will be able to be used by ALL other Napster/Gnutella/MP3Search programs.
Also since AOL/Time-Warner is part of the RIAA, they won't get sued by the RIAA. Basicly this lawsuit devides the RIAA on this issue, because conversely, any argument the RIAA uses to kill Napster/MP3Board, is one that MP3Board can use against AOL.
Ta Da.
The Apache Software Foundation, Microsoft, Netscape, Lotus, and many other http and ftp server software developers are being sued for making it possible to distribute copyrighted materiel...
argh...
Gnutella is now a freeware project, AOL couldent stop it if they wanted to. What is the point? are they going to start suing fertilizer manufacturers for the Oaklahoma bombing?
Dirty Pirate Hooker
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
Now, will the EFF step up to the plate and help AOL with free lawyers to help fight this injustice like they did 2600 Magazine???
-- A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong!
Right. Now let's sue the folks that invented capitalism because it allows people to sell stolen property. Also, let's sue the people that created the first storefront, because someone else could have used that idea to put together a shop that sells questionable material. Also, we should sue the people that actually make computers -- they help promote the internet and the internet is the root of all evil, right?
Maybe we should just sue god for creating the world and making it possible to have people who do subversive things with enabling tools. Any lawyers wanna take this one up?
(I wonder who god would god would choose as a defense attorney?)
I was thinking last night...
There are strong parallels between Church vs. Galileo (and science in general) and Corporation vs. Hacker (and computer science in general).
So, if history is any indication... we have a long, troubled road ahead.
There are simply too many contradictory absolute truths.
sig fault
Anonymous Coward asks "Hi, I'm an executive of a rather large Internet company, and we just had a suit filed against us because of some file-sharing software we created that happened to be used for sharing MP3s. I'd like to ask the community - What do you think we should do as far as a defense goes?" (insert some random, half-sensical comment from Taco here)
Dear my! What are those things coming out of her nose?
Spaceballs!
mp3board hopes to spread some of the blame and defer some of the costs of the case to others.
Basically, they (mp3board) let users perform gnutella searches. The catch here is that gnutella was created by AOL. mp3board is basically trying to shift blame to AOL ("Yeah, we use gnutella, but THEY made it!").
According to C|Net this won't work. In a copyright case, defendants are picked by those who originated the case, in this case the RIAA. mp3board can't just say "why aren't you suing them (AOL)?!" b/c they (RIAA) get to decide who they sue.
If you ask me, it's a shrewd move. It will force the discussion of file sharing technologies and hopefully show that the RIAA won't go after it's members (Time Warner) only those it deems as evil (mp3board).
"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and I'll give you somethin' to cry about!"
Aye, but what we're talking about here are civil damages, not criminal prosecutions.
Imaging Ima Dion O. Cancer sues Guiless Drugs for selling her cigarettes for 50 years. Guiless is, of course, gonna point his finger directly at Brown and Williamson, since they (a) made the damn things (b) are on record as knowing they were bad and (c) have pretty big pockets.
Now, AOL only meets 2 of the 3 criteria here, but since they're non-exclusive in the legal world, and because AOL has pockets that extend right down to the center of the earth, I suspect MP3Board thinks its worth a shot.
Or, more simply put, pointing yer finger at a likely accomplice (however innocent) is always preferable to walking the plank straightaways.
"We have a clear case of infringement in this issue," said Hydrogen. "Everyone knows that all other elements are a derivative of us, and they're unaurthorized use will not go unpunished."
Mother Nature countered, citing that Oxygen did not derive directly from Hydrogen, but rather, there were many steps in between.
The case is going to be presented before the Quark Committee for final determination later this week.
-----
"You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."
No, really. Think about it.
If MP3Board LOSES this case... then there's a legal precedent set about what's allowed and not allowed as far as the liability of the writer of a piece of software. And it's got a very large company involved in it, which means the company has an interest in making sure other jurisdictions know about it. While it's not a binding precedent nationwide, it WILL become a referenceable case for other suits about the responsibility of a software author for the software they right and how it gets used.
And that... that's where it goes. In New York District Court. Where the DeCSS trial was held. We could see this suit turn around the other one's presumptions. It could lay down completely opposite precedents in the same court district.
IANAL, but I think that's the sort of thing that makes Appellate courts go crazy. It may very well be the thing that makes them toss the DeCSS verdict out.
Unfortunately, if this backfires, it's going to be very, very ugly...
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
11*43+456^2
People who use spelling as a standard for intelegence should stick to reading marketting matereal, propoganda and other matereal that is carefully checked for spelling errors and stay away from the Internet where people spend time thinking about what they say NEXT instead of what they allready said...
I don't actually exist.
Slightly OT but I wonder just how far some of the larger corporations have gone before they realised they were suing themselves...
Anyone got a good story to tell?
'sapientia potestas est'
IANAL but I've dicussed this general issue with a few...
As I understand it if AOL created a product whose sole and only purpose was illegal, they could indeed by potentially liable.
I doubt however thats proveable in the case og Gnutella. As I udnerstand it all AOL has to show is SOME legitimate users out there and they are reasonably safe.
As a secondary issue, it will be hard to collect anything in punative damages even if they win ebcause AOL is nto making any money themselves from Gnutella. They've even gone so far as to distance themselves from its creation so its not even a PR win (or loss).
There would be a whole different debate if AOL had sanctioned an official release of Gnutella (after the fashion of the Napster trial), but considering that Gnutella was allegedly developed and released without their consent, it would seem that there is little ground for them to be held liable. Can you be held liable for something that an employee of yours does without your permission? Seems a little dubious. The last time that I checked, development on the origonal Nullsoft Gnutella client had stopped at the Gnutella site in favor of clonese using the same protocol, meaning that they would be basically sued for the development of a communications protocol. Maybe we ought to go after the authors of The Infinite Monkey Protocol for cruelty to animals. . .
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
whats going to happen next? are the search engines going to be sued for the content of there index. are they going to be forced to filter out questionable materiel out of fear of lawsuit. Artist have a right to there money but i can see this going to far very easily. and i for one don't want to see its destination.
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
Sorry to use the cliche but...
The News.com article says:
"That argument, however, requires the company to prove that AOL is responsible, and that the technology itself--rather than MP3Board's use of the technology--is illegal. Outside attorneys say each of those tasks will be difficult."
Why is it this way for AOL but not for Napster. AOL has a good reputation and therefore plantiffs are expected to have to prove the legality of not the company but the program itself. The same scenario with Napster though, the reputation of the company (non-existant as far as I can tell) somehow changes law so that the plantiff merely has to show that the company had malicious intent.
Napster as a program is no more illegal than the AOL client (let alone GNUTella). Perhaps Napster as a company had malicious intent while AOL may not have (at least as an aware corporate entity), but the intent of either company should be proven in the same manner, leaving the company's standing reputation aside.
Yeah, right.
Chip Manufacturers?: because their chips are being used in computers that are being used to listen to mp3s!!!
Hard Drive Manufacturers?:their hard drives are being used to store mp3s until they can be traded!!!
speaker manufacturers?: their speakers are being used to listen to etc. etc. etc.
seriously, there are far too many frivolous lawsuits relating to mp3s these days- and this latest suit against AOL is a good example of one.
I like cake
you see, AOL *is* Time/Warner, which *is* part of the RIAA, so they're ripping off themselves, and suing themselves...? Will somebody explain to me what this incestuous sue happy/merger industry will become?
- passion
Rothken says that bringing AOL and Time Warner into the case is the natural response of a defendant, much as someone sued for causing a car accident might in turn sue the manufacturer of the car or the maker of the car's tires for bearing some responsibility.
So what now? We sue database software companies for creating an easly way of storing results, the developers of PERL/PHP/ASP/Insert fave web progaming tool here/ for suppling code that allows us to search? C'mon...
The car idea kinda makes sense - A car has one purpose - to drive on a road/surface and transport things/people from A->B. If there is a defect in its normal operations, the manufacture can be held responcible.
The difference is that gnutella was not designed to transfer MP3 files - it was created to share recipies.
It's like Ford being sued because while driving your car underwater, it failed and you killed someone. There not libel because you used it outside it's intened use. Same with gnutella - those who use it for MP3s are OUTSIDE IT'S INTENDED USE, and AOL is not lible.
Now I'm off to search gnutella for a recipe for "KoRn Flakes"..........
Driven by 100% sarcasm - fueled by the need to be heard.
Gnutella isn't about piracy, its about Porn, everyone knows that.
But seriously, this is pathetic, and an absolute abuse of our legal system. I was under the impression that you at least needed to own some copyrights before you could actualy sue anyone. And as someone who is activly developing a gnutella clone, this is not happy news...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This remindes me very much of the 1940's-1950's wich hunt for comunists in our society. The hunt is on for anyone that in any way is even remotely related to MP3. how long before computer manufacturers are sued for producing MP3 compatable hardware? what about RIO and the clone devices? all it will take now is for someone to claim injury, no evedence required and someone will be grabing the pichforks.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
To win a copyright lawsuit you have to show harm, or the expectation of harm (IANAL). I don't see how Gnutella is harming mp3board.com except through competition. Last I heard, competition was still legal.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Copyright law may be bad, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. The most you could argue is that its current incarnation isn't the best way to achieve the intent of copyright stated in Article I, Section 8.
That's it! If this works out we can all sue our local libraries! And with a class-action suit against the Library of Congress, we can finally put down the free flow of information started by that Gutenberg bastard!
If AOL/TW is not guilty for Gnutella, they would be in an awkward position against MP3Board.com who did essentially the same thing (including providing access to the GnutellaNet).
Of course if AOL loses, MP3Board.com is screwed. If I were them, I'd use the cheapest lawyers and try to get this to the Supreme Court, trying hard to lose in every round :-)
See http://www.infoanarchy.org for daily news on file-sharing & related issues.
--
... is the mythical snake that bites its own tail...
The RIAA is suing mp3board, who is suing AOL as a responsible third-party, who owns Time-Warner, who is a member of the RIAA...
(desired) Net Result: The RIAA sues itself out of existance, taking the AOL-Time-Warner monster out with it...
This kinda amuses me, I mean, because in essence, the company thats being sued here, is Nullsoft. I mean, they did create before Gnutella before they "sold out".
MP3Board is itself fighting a lawsuit filed against it by the Recording Industry Association of America, arguing that MP3Board violates copyright laws by assisting consumers in the location of online MP3 music files. essentially this is MP3Board trying to divert some of the blame/press/damages/etc. to someone/anyone besides themselves. be assure that the lawyers thought this up, it is a tactic to by them time and was the direct result of the 2600 case.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
Who takes the biggest cut of them all: the lawyers.
Lawyers are great to have on your side, but the only reason you need them is because of other lawyers.
"Blue Elf shot the food!"
Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop...
It seems that MP3Board is saying, if you can sue me, you can sue AOL for the same (similar) reasons. If AOL fights, wins, and sets a precedent, then it might be available as a defense for MP3Board vs. RIAA.
Maybe they should sue themselves.
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
Some tobacco companies were sued for the health problems of smokers that started smoking AFTER the warning labels were placed on the packaging: http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/1 6/tobacco.smokers/
Some gun manufacturers are being sued for crimes using guns: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/08/09/ crime.guns.reut/
But we're catching up fast. I'm worried.
Can we all please stop suing an countersuing each other for trivial crap? All this litigation is getting RIDICULOUS!!!
METALLICA SUES DESCENDANTS OF ALAN TURING
.. uh .. tolerated. Piracy is not to be tolerated. Britney Spears is not to be .. well, her music is not to be tolerated. And above all, we want to make the relatives of the inventor of all of these fucking devil-boxes pay their dues."
".. And Justice For All," Vows Furious Drummer
LOS ANGELES, CA (AP) - In a legal move that is likely to set a precedent for many portions of the entertainment industry, the rock group Metallica today brought suit against the living descendents of Alan Turing, who is widely regarded as the father of modern computing. Claiming that Turing's work spawned the creation of "unabashed piracy machines," Metallica is seeking unspecified millions in damages.
Though Turing had no children of his own, he is survived by a large number of great-nephews and nieces. Spike Turing, the owner of a Starbucks' franchise in El Paso, Texas, told the Associated Press that he recieved a letter from Metallica's legal firm, Dewey, Cheat & Howe. "The letter claims that great Uncle Al is responsible for the destruction of the economies of the Western world," explained Turing. "They're taking us to trial."
"This is bullshit," stated a confused 84-year old Bertha Turing, who is a retired seamstress living in a cozy London suburb. "These Metallica fellers sent letters like this to all of us."
Lars Ulrich, who is Metallica's drummer, has taken the lead in fighting against what he claims is "a coordinated band of pirates hell-bent on obliterating creativity and musical freedom." Ulrich expressed hope that the Turing lawsuit would send a message to the rest of the community. "Um, we want people to understand that file sharing is not to be tolerated," explained Ulrich. "Open source is not to be
Dr. Dre contributed to this story.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This reminds me of the discussion about companies and, particularly, universities laying claim to software/hardware that was developed using their equipment. Does the blade cut the other way? Even though AOL had no knowledge of the application should they be held responsible since it was done using their subsidiary's computers?
Personally, I don't think they should - but since companies and schools can be held liable for obscence email, pornography, and warez are sent using their systems, then how would this be any different from a legal perspective (IANAL)?
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
For its part, AOL has long disowned any involvement in the development of Gnutella. The company has said nearly from the time that Gnutella was launched that it was the unauthorized creation of an AOL subsidiary, and that AOL has not supported nor endorsed the peer-to-peer program.
A few questions: who is this AOL subsidiary? Why were they not sued? Well, a good answer to the latter would be that AOL works in BILLIONS. But what's the point? AOL 'didn't know' (/sarcasm) that it was being developed, and this whole lawsuit reeks of the "lets sue gun makers because guns kill people" type of legal action.
This will get thrown out of court as fast as they can slap the gavel down on mp3board, who are, obviously, just trying to save their ass from paying millions in damages from their own lawsuit by the RIAA.
Man, what a clusterfuck.
Is anyone else here disturbed by the attitude that is generally going around these days? More specificially, the attitutude that says "you don't own anything" rather everything you have MUST belong (in some intellectual sense) to someone else?
Have any of these arrogant boneheads thought that perhaps ways of sharing files might, you know, have a purpose OTHER than giving away their crap that they can't sell?
What's next? Someone gonna sue the makers of Hotline? What about the collection of people who wrote the first FTP servers/clients? How about the people who made it possible to transfer files over Usenet; maybe the guys who made it possible to tranfer files via IRC. Damn, I can find all sorts of Warez on the web, sue the guys who worked on Apache! Dangit, AFS and NFS have to go too, as does every bastardized home network protocol Novel and MS cameup with.
ARG. I hate stupid people. I really really do.
Sue the party with the deepest pockets. AOL certainly has deeper pockets than Napster or any of the other mp3 (or any other file format) "online exchange clubs."
What's missed is that this may well have a knock-on effect, where legal blame gets transferred to the original author. This is kind of a fallout of the DeCSS case, except there the author was clearly a citizen of another country. Makes you kind of surprised that there isn't some sort of international civil suit against Johansen. (Is there such a thing?)
There could be a chill here regarding writing GPL software "that could be used to do Evil," as defined by some big company. Of course this suit has to succeed. Won't it be odd to see Slashdotters rooting for AOL?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
He created the Internet right? He's obviously
aiding and abetting piracy!!
My mom and dad should be added to the list of defendants, for giving birth to me...
I think I speak for all
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!! This is hilarious!!! What poetic justice!!!!
You may now return to your previous activites.
This
Don't forget to sue Al Gore for inventing the internet.
kwsNI
if mp3board.com can be sued for simply providing a search engine that, among other things, finds illegal mp3, then why can't gnutella be sued as well? They have a point.
The point is, both are rediculous.
For the first time I'm actually on AOL's side. I have always hated their software and system for Internet use, however, being sued for this goes beyond their stupid interface. This infringes also on my rights (or possible rights) in the future. Is there anything that can be done to stop stupid filings like this? How I despise people that are clueless about technology and then try to regulate it's use...
If AOL wins (lots of $$$, lots of lawyers), then mp3board.com probably gets some valid arguments and precedents for its own lawsuit, (or appeals thereafter), right?
Seems to me that mp3board.com has just forced AOL to enter the fray and throw their considerable legal weight towards the defense. Rather tricky, IMO.
Ahhh, Sonny...Remember the days when the Internet was used for sharing information?
I do. But remembering them is like remembering a dream.
I'm so sick and tired of corporations bullying eachother over who has the bigger dick. I'm not involved, so I don't care. I just want to learn, socialize, and have fun.
But this can't be done anymore without seeing banner ads, or spam, or "X is suing Z because they created Y", or "Corinthians isn't a book from the bible, it's a soccer team! That's OUR rightful domain!", etc.
It's time for an underground internet, to take back to the sense of community the internet once had. Leave your commercialized, greedy asses on this internet.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Welcome to "Who do we sue next?", bringing you tons of whining ninnies from around the globe because they might lose 5 cents.
Seriously though, they have started televising small claims court room dramas, they should start doing this crap. Hey it could be bigger than day time tv. No more "Young and the Restless", here comes "The Rich and the Whinny".
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
It's actually "Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe", you can see the window out there office through a webcam. Really.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I doubt this is a 'real' court case. It has probably already been decided between the two parties that AOL will lose. There just isn't enough precedent to bring a case against a media giant. The newfound relationship with Time Warner could play a part, though, as Time Warner has some stake against music piracy. Note: I am into all encompassing eternal conspiracies held together by underground secret societies, thus I am bias.
--Drew Vogel
Actually it look more like these guys are suing to protect themselves. Read the article.
By opening up the threat to anyone creating searchable indicies they are showing how rediculous the suit against them is. It's a bitter pill for the Justice department to swallow that helping people find stuff is not the same as giving it to them.
I think AOL deserves it ... in my opinion most things that AOL buys ... winds up more screwy than before. Despite my lack of sympathy towards Nullsoft for selling out to AOL ... Im still glad Justin had this much of an affect on them :)
/* Lobster Stick To Magnet!*/
. . . but is later found incompetent to stand trial. The company is apparently suffering from an accute multiple personality disorder. The crucial competency test came when the company was unable to locate its ass with both hands and a flashlight.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
IANAL, but if things here go against AOL (to be very presumptuous) since they supposedly helped to create gnutella, then what about all of the GPL'd code out there. Say someone uses parts of the Linux kernel to do something that a major corporation or group of corporations doesn't like. Could Linus or AC or any of the other kernel hackers be held responsible in a similar manner? Is that idea even feasible, or does the GPL offer some sort of protection? Obviously I am doing a tremendous amount of extrapolation here, so maybe this isn't even an issue. Just curious.
Josh
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
This lawsuit isn't designed to harm AOL.
It is designed to put the fear of [insert deity here] into any software engineer harboring dreams of developing the next generation of file sharing technology.
I don't recall if the original developers of GNUtella still work at AOL or not (if they do, you can bet they're in a whole heap of trouble and their opportunities for advancement just went to zero), but it isn't really relevant.
The message to employers (and independent contractors) is clear: if your employees develop software we don't like, we're going to sue you.
The message to engineers is: we're going to give your employer every incentive to shitcan your career.
The message to everyone is "don't invent technology we don't like or we'll destroy you, and we have more than enough money to do so."
Our message, in response, should be "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" in the form of boycotting their products as well as supporting and embracing the technologies they are trying to suppress.
This isn't an attack against AOL. It is an attack against all of US.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Now this is funny, seeing as Compuserve is now part of the AOL empire. I guess AOL should be sued for almost everything. ;)