Slashdot Mirror
Sony VP On Stopping Napster
akira-x writes "I spotted a link to an interesting (and disturbing) article on Gnutella News regarding some comments that were made by Steve Heckler, senior vice president of Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. According to him, Napster WILL lose, because "The [music] industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams. It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what." The disturbing part is what Heckler says Sony will attempt to do to help them win: "Sony is going to take aggressive steps to stop this," Heckler told the Summer Forty-Niner. "We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source -- we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]. We will firewall it at your PC." "
If they intend to target MP3 itself- ouch. Modified ouch... after all, mp3 is a painfully encumbered format and there is every reason to believe the patent holders will start putting the screws to ME the musician just as soon as they are ready to. This kind of lessens my willingness to madly defend the format- defend for whom? But all the same I _really_ don't like the idea of a world-controlling corporation shutting off entire forms of media, encumbered or non-encumbered.
If they intend to target ALL forms of media, current and future, being used to exchange Sony music for no money- *tweet* outta the pool! The towering, unavoidable problem with this is that it outlaws non-corporate media. I as a non-corporate musician wouldn't be allowed to function if every time I found a new digital format I could distribute on, Sony pulled strings to get it banned from all ISPs- particularly ugly is the fact that, unlike music-exchangers, I wouldn't find it so convenient to be anonymous or to conceal the filetypes or whatever.
Currently, I put out mp3s (see URL link, as ever) quite openly. If a Sony manages to make it impossible to traffic in mp3 files at all, I'm hosed. (If the patent holders start demanding $30,000 to use the format I'm also hosed- and this is beginning to happen already.) So I move to Ogg Vorbis *tadah* just as soon as I get my hands on the MacHack hack that ported the codec to MacOS (yes, turns out such a hack does actually exist- I want!). This time there is no patent holder, but there's Sony again, trying to get Vorbis outlawed- and that is the problem.
It's really not acceptable, in this day and age, for the individual to be forbidden to produce and distribute media. What Sony _wants_ is for anything that might ever get in their way to be made illegal and ferociously punished. They may not get what they want, but people must remain aware of the overwhelming importance of placing the tools for this media in people's hands. To legally support the position that the common man is fit only for mindless consumption is a despicable point of view- and it doesn't even matter that the common man's art or music may suck compared to a handpicked Sony artist with a million dollar (all out of royalties...) bankroll. That's irrelevant- the fact is, that ordinary person MUST NOT be legally forbidden to create. To forbid this is a shocking development that speaks volumes about the perspective and motivation of the corporate entity in society...
One would hope that the common man doesn't get forbidden IN PRACTICE from creating, either. "Oh, go ahead! That'll be thirty thousand dollars. ...so incorporate and do an IPO why don't you? Stop being a human being and become, legally, one of US..."
Bite the hand.
(Anyone ever think of making use of a kind of cookie that keeps tabs on how many times someone downloads/uploads/aborts uploads, and being able to see those stats... think about it... if they aren't going to share (Lots of upload aborts, few successful uploads) or are not stable... no point in dealing with them then. Kinda reminds be of the WLT(win loss tie) scores in Starcraft battle.net)
Not sure of any way you could do this and make it tamper-proof. Battlenet worked because the info was kept on a central server... something that the napster clones are actively avoiding for legal reasons.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No, never, never! It's 248 on DirecTV, BTW. I was too young to see the original series (and laugh, that is), so I have to make up for lost time.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
As was said so eloquently (I forget by who):
The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Correct.
We have no right to use IP in ways other than how the licensor intends.
Incorrect.
Even with GPLed software, you don't have to obey the GPL. Got that? You can completely ignore the GPL and no one will have any right to complain...
...as long as you don't break copyright law.
There is simply no basis, legal or moral, for assuming that people must agree to additional licensing terms after they purchase copyrighted works. Licenses are voluntary. Sony is not a licensor, they are merely a vendor.
If I buy a CD that has shrinkwrap on it that says
I will break the shrinkwrap, rip the CD, and convert it to Vorbis, because when they said "by doing this, you agree to this" they were making a statement, not a contractual offer, and their statement was incorrect.---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
and we should all tell them this, too. via fax and physical mail (somehow, I don't think they "get" the internet thing...)
I can see their point; like Big Tobacco, they're running scared. times have changed yet they refuse to adapt to them; instead acting like the 100 pound gorilla who thinks he can control everything in sight.
well maybe they can control quite a bit; but The Net is quite QUITE bigger than sony - hate to break it to you, sony. if you alienate your consumers, they'll go elsewhere and there goes your brand loyalty that you so cherish and fought YEARS to promote. something about pennwise and pound foolish comes to mind..
anyway, I love a good challenge as much as the next man. I'd like to see sony firewall my box from sending any damned [properly formatted] IP packets I want.
in short, this whole tirade from sony reminds me of the scene in the Python movie, "monty python and the holy grail", where arthur is whacking the arms and legs off that Black Knight and even though he's being rendered more and more helpless with each blow, he still barks as tough as a fully armed/legged man. of course no one is scared of these idle threats from sony; we all know sony will soon be missing more and more limbs as music if freed and their "continual profit stream" is severely reduced.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Idiots.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
And I will firewall Sony at my wallet.
'nuff said.
I think not...(*poof*)
Well, if they (the RIAA) does lose that lawsuit, I don't see how they could posibly manage to get all cablemodem users blocked from napster (and its not like they couldn't just change the port or something.... (port 80, anyone? Napster could easly be layerd on top of HTTP)
Some cable companies might agree, particularly ones owned by the same media giants, but others wont. If napster's growth continues on its upward trend, I doubt people would stick with a cable company that censored their internet access for its own finacial gain, espcialy with DSL just a phone call away..
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
For all practical purposes, DES takes a 56-bit key. OK, so the standards specify that you have to have eight extra "parity" values but they're of no cryptographic value; it's not really accurate to refer to them as key bits, they're more like key padding bits.
A real 64-bit key is pretty hard to crack; the distributed efforts to crack 64-bit RC5 are still running and won't finish for some years yet.
I should also point out that the export controls have been relaxed considerably, and it now seems to be legal to export strong crypto like PGP from the USA...
--
Xenu loves you!
Just a small comment:
It would be trivial to add encryption to Napster.
The only way to filter it then would be to filter all encrypted content, or, to filter all transfers that are not either to or from an "official" web site - i.e. a big, money-making web site.
In other words, rip the heart out of the internet and turn it into TV.
I don't think it will happen. Napster might get shut down. So Gnutella will be there. If people start filtering Gnutella, they will add encryption. If Guvmint, Inc. starts filtering all peer to peer communications they can't read, well, it will be time for the next American Revolution.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Already the MPAA is calling its initial victory in the DeCSS case a warning to all Silicon Valley types, that if they keep it up they will shut the whole internet down if it facilitates piracy!
I had been down for a few days over this entire evil-corporation-taking-over-the-world thing. Then something occured to me that made me feel much better. Let them try. We don't need them. That's why tools like Napster and deCSS exist. Corporations are nothing but the conglomeration of talent into an economically viable format. "Need that music distributed? We've got trucks and stores! Need that video decrypted? Well, it turns out we developed the scheme, and we can give you what you need!" Nowadays, however, we don't need them. I remember when I first saw the web. I was amazed that I didn't have to pay for an expensive tool to build a web page. All I'd have to do was learn something. The barrier for entry wasn't money anymore. It was knowledge. So it is now with music, movies, and ideas. The barrier to entry isn't money. It's talent. And that scares the talentless hacks who've worked for 50 years to accumulate enough money to buy the world! Anyway, I'm going sit back and watch them burn. The courts don't matter. If Sony or anyone else wants to take this battle out of the courts of law, we'll meet them there. That's where we seem to accomplish the most anyway.
I'd love to see them try to shut down the Internet! It would be like watching a pack of hungry wolves turning on each other! MPAA wants the 'net shut down. Time Warner/AOL/Satan owns the worlds largest ISP. Everyone is tangled up in this mess. It would be a great show to see.
Gah
If we were still using analog, that is, LPs, cassettes, and maybe even 8-tracks, and MP3 came along with the Internet, I believe it would be substantially more popular than it is now. It would in such a case be the ONLY medium that does NOT introduce significant wear per use and the ONLY medium that does not degrade in quality per copy (not counting the first transcription into MP3).
The higher quality of CDs has reduced much of the need for copying. I used to copy LPs to cassette because the cassette format had less wear than LP did. The reason I now copy CDs to MP3 is because it is more convenient. The loss in audio quality is there, but it is one we accept in most cases, and many people can't even hear it at all.
If it becomes impossible to extract raw digital data from CDs and DVDs, people will just digitize the analog form. That's way easier to do today than a couple decades ago when analog ruled. But once the initial loss of quality is done, there is no more loss as the digitized bits are now copied further perfectly.
Will most people know how to digitize analog? NO! But they won't need to. Music/movie piracy is about a few people making originals and a distribution of perfect digital copies.
Then there's the issue of whether the guy who has 30 gigs of MP3's on a $200 harddrive downloaded with $200 worth of DSL time would have been willing to ever pay $5000 for that same music. I believe most of those "stolen" MP3s are things he never would have purchased at the rate the music industry rips people and artists off.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Lets face it. Sony can't buy the internet. They can't firewall our individual PC's. But Heckler is right - they WILL DO ANYTHING to protect their revenue stream. Here are some hypothetical situations to be aware of:
Everyone, eventually, buys new hardware. It doesn't happen too often.. but it does happen. Everyone upgrades. What is to stop Sony and/or other manufacturers from selling us hardware that is based on censoring or encrypting data? Suppose they DO come up with a scheme to encrypt music and video all the way to the electron gun or the D/A convertor, and suppose further that they intentionally price these products substantially lower than competition (because they can afford to). Then what? Even though you and I know better than to buy these things, Joe Blow America doesn't, and its only a matter of time before it becomes impossible or extremely cost-inefficient to purchase "open" hardware.
Encrypted processing:
Its also only a matter of time before company X develops a consumer-level processor that executes encrypted code. Imagine a public key / private key setup (lengthy private key stored inside the processor, *NOT* accessible). This architecture could be used to encrypt downloadable software: The website dynamically creates encrypted exe's from the public key you submit when you buy it. Instructions are decrypted and executed in CPU memory (*NOT* accessible) - imagine trying to hack CSS without being able to read the code. To saturate the market with these things, all company X has to do is price their processor lower than everyone elses (and what software and/or IP-oriented company wouldn't be willing to subsidize such a scheme if it meant guaranteed protection of their data?).
So -- don't think that just because everything is open now, it can't be closed later. Just about anything is possible, period. Never forget that. Its up to us to make sure that the "right" things happen. Corporations can do everything in the world to protect their revenue stream - but they can't survive if we don't buy from them.
DO NOT SUPPORT COMPANIES WHOSE GOALS ARE TO CENSOR, BLOCK, OR RESTRICT ACCESS TO INFORMATION. If you do that, you open the censorship door just a smidgen. If we all do that, we fuck ourselves. It might cost you more to buy the "right" products. Don't let that stop you.
How eager will Sony be to include censoring / blocking hardware in the US PSX2 or PSX3 if millions of geeks undertake the fairly simple task of NOT buying it. In the end, no company can dictate what their customers will and won't buy - as consumers we have to be aware of who tries to take advantage of us, and not give them our money.
(vote for Nader)
trey
www.treyharrison.com
Interestingly, Judge Patel wrote in her judgement:
I have often wondered what Opera -- and innumerable other software companies -- feels about the attitude of many users that digitally downloaded *software* ought to be free... a fact that undoubtedly prevents them from gaining market share.>just trying to get MP3s of records they own,
>instead of just using a ripper program to make
>their own? Sounds pretty unlikely.
Not unlikely at all, actually. The majority of the MP3s I have *DO* fall into this category.
I personally own about 500 CDs. Let's say that I want MP3s of ten songs, each on a differentt CD. Now, what is a the, fastest, most convinent, more efficent way for me to get said MP3s?
1)
Get up from the computer, go to my CD cabinet and find those ten CDs. Most of my collection is organised alphabeticly, but my more recent purchases are not. Last I reorganised everything was about six months ago, so I have quite a time-consuming task to find those ten CDs. Perhaps some of them are out in my car, and I have to discover this, and walk out there and get them.
Now that I have those ten CDs in my hand, walk back to the computer, start a ripper/converter program, and, one at a time: remove the CD from the jewl case, open CD drive, insert CD, close drive, select track, wait for it to rip and compress, eject disk, place disk back in jewel case, repeat *10.
*OR*
2)
Start Napster. In turn: type the name of the song I want an MP3 of, select an appropiately high bitrate and connection, double click on each, repeat *10. And have those ten MP3s in a TINY fraction of the time it takes to do #1.
Now, the RIAA/metallica would have you beleive that #2 is horribly, evily, wrong, and that I should take the trouble and time of going through #1. I happen to disagree. There is no functional or moral difference if I rip the the CD track myself, or Napster it. The RIAA/metallica want #2 to be illegal, and I don't think they're happy at all about #1, but fortunately, there is a supreme court ruleing protevcting #1.
However, unlike RIAA/metallica *I* can see the difference between what is legal and what is moral. Unfortunately, it appears thay you do not; and have subscribed to the theory that (((illegal==immoral) && (legal==moral)) for all values of x).
All of the above ignores, of course, the fact that MP3 is lossy compression that sounds like crap on a real stereo system (NOT my rio headphones, NOT my computer speakers (at work or at home), NOT my car dash unit, I mean my STEREO), and is no threat to red book audio anyway.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
"Yes, but it does a lousy job of avoiding eavesdropping. If you've got anything that speaks its protocol (like, say, a PCS phone) then that
device will pick up those frequency change instructions and follow them. It only prevents really easy eavesdropping via normal radios."
Depends on how the frequency hop info is encoded.
If it's on an open stream, then yeah, if you catch the conversation on the right frequency, you can follow the hops.
If it's encrypted (which, not surprisingly, the PCS companies can do (the phones can support triple DES encryption)- they just don't because of stupid laws against the same...), then only the parties that were in on the initial handshake (public key authenticated and encrypted, btw...) will be able to follow the hops. This, by the way, is how the US military forces secure their spread spectrum communications from tracking and snooping.
It can be done such that only someone like the NSA would stand any more than a snowball's chances in hell of snooping a conversation of any kind (I think that's the real reason behind the laws against encrypting the digital PCS phone connects...)
Port hopping is analogous to spread spectrum communications. Since the above is, in fact, possible- it's not hard to extrapolate that port hopping could also work to some degree. Why? Because while you could know the source and destination of a packet, there's absolutely nothing that says that the packet is meaningful data- you can encrypt and then steganograph via blowfish and chaffing. The object here is to not be easily monitored, not to breach blocked ports (though it'd work nicely for finding good ports...).
As for blocking everything but a specific port (Port 80, as in your example) opens up enough of a pathway for someone to up and totally bypass the stupid firewall. All it'd take is for someone on the outside to run a server instance of httptunnel on their machine and someone on the inside to run a client instance of the same. It'd be clumsy and slow, but it'd bypass any scheme they'd come up with. Only normal access methods? httptunnel already uses nothing BUT those. Only "valid" content? What determines "valid"- magic numbers which can be faked? Blocking access to the server site? The site moves to another machine. And so forth.
And that's just with port 80. Do they have an e-mail system that PC's can acces or do they open the mail ports? That too is a pathway- the same individual that came up with httptunnel came up with mailtunnel. Same with any port you open. It all boils down to how hard you want to bypass the controls, how clever you really are, and how much resources you have at your disposal.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Just don't buy the games. Sony loses a lot of money for every PS2 they sell, and they make up for it with the royalties they get from the games.
my TV is a Panasonic.
Does that make a difference?
Until a month from now, when the CEO of Panasonic says something really stupid....
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Just because people want to make a living, we need not condone all actions. I'm sure the people who made horse-and-buggy rigs were mostly nice people who just wanted to support their families. Would that have justified them in distorting the laws of the nation to prevent the rise of the automobile?
Corporations are driven by the need to survive, just as people are. But in civil society, we reconginze that some things you could do to get ahead are simply not acceptable. We recognize that there are creative channels for such drives and destructive ones. We recognize that there are many values in a constantly-shifting tension, and that personal affluence is not sufficient to trample on all the others.
Corporations don't. Plain and simple -- a corporate droid sees nothing wrong in crushing his rivals, in destroying their ability to make a living, in suppressing free expression, or in trouncing basic human dignity. A corporate droid sees no problem in abusing its workers or its customers (if it can get away with it).
There are people who refuse to compromise their principles in order to make their business grow. There are those who, seeing the cost of "success", decide to remain small. You don't hear about them much because they threaten the premises of the consumer-based, gigantistic corporate culture we know and hold so dear.
Most corporations are as fanatical and dangerous as any cult. True, they don't fixate on their warped ideas of God. Instead they fixate on profit and the bottom line, which they raise to godhood. Anything that stands in the way becomes more than a obstacle, it becomes an unholy threat. And they pursue their ends with the same bloody-minded, single-minded head-in-the-sand blindness as any religious nut every dreamed of.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
There is supposed to be an escalating mechanism to prevent this happening, but there's no enforcement, and if you pay your lawyers enough, they can threaten every connectivity provider. Now, as an ICP, do you cut a feed - especially to a site that's in legal trouble, and unlikely to take action against you - or face Sony in court?
This has happened to me.
A certain nameless California law firm, likely representing a certain nameless cult based mainly in California and Clearwater, FL, has had my ICP cut routing to my site using a DMCA threat. Because they totally skipped the part about requesting that I take down a particular page (which would have given the site's owner the right to file a counter-notification) and skipped the part about informing my ISP, they gave me no chance to resolve the problem. Instead, they threatened my ICP, who immediately buckled and turned my IP off in their router. Which, of course, killed not only the site in question, but all other sites hosted at the same IP (likely part of their reason, since another site was more topical, more embarrassing, and less easy to attack with DMCA)*.
Obviously the DMCA mechanism was violated. But as long as the nameless law firm claimed to have filed in good faith**, the ICP has little choice. In my case, when they realized the law firm was not acting in good faith, they developed some backbone. But if the law firm had chosen to divert a tiny percentage of the group's resources at them, they'd have been in trouble, and even though I would have had legal redress, it would have been damned expensive for me and for the ICP.
Who, in a similar situation, is likely to go up against Sony?
No, their real goal is to make it difficult or illegal for independent record companies to compete. This is very similar to the Microsoft case. Electronic distribution and promotion can level the playing field between large media conglomerates and small, musician-oriented, independent labels.
I know I keep rehashing this over and over but the piracy thing is really overdone; and piracy is not what they're worried about.
moral, not technical
Buzzer. Plato cheated, son. Moral discussion can't leave the realm of the real world and remain moral. Parmenides says: "(Morally)Thou canst not speak of what is not nor indicate it in (moral)speech," which is shorthand for Hume/Kant's: All solutions to a problem fall into four categories:
Moral-Possible | Moral-Impossible
--------------------------------------
Immoral-Possible | Immoral-Impossible
Only one of these categories is "morally acceptable": Moral-Possible.
For you elite hackers and script kiddies: M-P=[1], I-P=[-1], M-I=I-I=[divide by zero].
Therefore, all moral discussion involves discussion the discussion of reality, and reality in this discussion is -what you can do with a computer-. What these kids are doing is possible (napster, gnutella) and what they are arguing falls within the grey area of [soon to be possible], they are suggesting that something likely to be possible will make some moral argument of Sony's impossible.
It's a perfectly valid point, and your argument attempting to remove morality from reality demonstrates you grasp neither.
-jpowers
-jpowers
Yes, moderators, this is OT; so sue me.
I thought we're talking about MS Office here. There's no requirement to ship Office with a new PC, the stranglehold was mainly on Windows.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
Sometimes the market is a nice thing to have around. It's a good thing MP3 players aren't bought by pointy-haired IT managers...
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
The thought that keeps me up at night is: who's really benefiting from the new world taking shape? I mean, even the corporate droids at the top are still droids. Their lives are being stripped of meaning, too. I see the corporations as a new life form that is gorging itself on the old.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
You wrote:
The electronics industry can't simply tell Hollywood to take a hike. The entertainment industry will probably have a number of standards to choose from and they will chose to support the standard that most suits their needs. Technical superiority has seldom been the top priority, so what else? It is just turing into the opposite. The entertainment industry is climbing onto the driver seat.Only one standard of distributing "content" over the Net is going to be supported by Hollywood in the long term and being among the first to offer (and market) a working device puts you in a good starting position as a hardware or software maker.
At the moment, everyone in the entertainment industry seems to be concerned with a way to control distribution, so one of their demands for the standard is going to be a scheme for just that.
Since there is a lot of money to be made, hardware and software makers will want to please the entertainment guys.
You are probably right that CDRs and Napster don't account for the kind of losses the music industry claims to suffer from. However, that is today's situation and they are afraid of the "wrong" (in their eyes) use of technology. That Sony VP's statements tell us just how desperate they are.
-Hilko
Yes, I've been thinking that it might be possible to bring some form of anti-trust action against them (at the behest of independent record labels and musicians). Of course, if the Microsoft thing is any example, the Justice Department would probably: 1) miss the whole point and focus on relatively unimportant aspects of the case; and 2) come up with a completely useless, ineffective, and just downright wrong solution to the problem. Such is life.
That was the most ironic bit, because I took it as a Monty Python reference.
My .sig kind of tends to come across that way when I comment on stories like this one. ;-) Although, I have to say that I hadn't thought of that particular scene in the way you described it. I'll have to watch it again
Eliminating the middle man
The internet as a whole is doing just this. Companies like Sony, and AT&T are finding themselves in the middle of this buisness evolution. In a way Sony used to be our Internet. They would provide artists with a meas of exposing their music to more people than the group could do otherwise. Now the internet can do this. AT&T is finding that they are loosing buisness to the internet for their product - Long distance calling.
The difference is in how they are both dealing with that. Sony seems to be trying to re-insert themselves by litigation. AT&T seems to be doing it by re-investing into internet infrastructure - eg cable ISP.
Which would you rather be? the prospector or the general store?
The choice is ultimately with the people. Either a company is part of the solution or part of the problem. If they do not become part of the solution they will not survive. Nature as a whole expands and evolves, not contracts and stagnates.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
You pretty much just reiterated my point. The War on Drugs is a dismal failure at accomplishing its stated goals. It has however resulted in the imprisonment of thousands of people for very minor and victimless crimes. That's what I'm afraid of seeing if media corps get their way with copyright law. Apparently we agree about the damage that the music industry has sustained (i.e. none).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You are more right than you know: Corporations are persons, at least in the eyes of the law (which is where it counts). The horrible consequences of this are that they get equal protection under the law. This means that they have an unbelievably disproportionate amount of power in comparison to ordinary, everyday people like you and I.
So just what can be done about this? Corporations should no longer enjoy the privilege of personhood and be able to have their charters revoked. Get the full scoop over at Adbusters.
I agreee -- the clarifications will be coming soon & fast. But not that the comments are ``technically ill-informed". It's because he's about to open a Pandora's box of hurt for the corporate music industry.
There is an old rule about not starting a war one cannot win (variously expressed as ``never invade Russia late in summer" or ``avoid a major land war in Asia"). This PHB has just declared war on all of the warez kiddies out there.
And what are these warez kiddies gonna do? Hmm, hey look Corporate Music depends on all of these sales of pop stars like Britney Spears, In Sync, & so forth. All of their names & sales are printed in the newspaper every week. What if they start burning copies of every CD & give them away? Boy, are those sales figures gonna dip & crash!
And there are probably even simpler & cheaper ways to circulate copies at NO COST to the end recipient. But since I'm not a criminal, nor do I advocate this response, I can't think of what they are.
And if you think the government can stop this kind of theft of intellectual property, then why haven't they stopped the drug trade?
My advice to the suits out there reading this is simple: get the artists behind you. People are making mp3 copies of songs & sharing them because they like the music & respect the artist. If the artists ask people using Napster or Gnutella to buy after they try, they will get the revenue. And you get the artists behind you by offering them decent recording contracts -- not by ripping them off.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
On the other hand, I believe that the assumption that corporations are morally neutral allows people to adopt the "not my fault, I just work here" mentality. It enables a willing suspension of morality because, hey, corporations are intrinsically non-moral entities. Thus, it's not important to evaluate the corporate culture or to do one's part to ensure that the culture is a (if you'll excuse a bit of hokey terminology) "a force for good".
It seems that each of us wants people to demand higher accountability and greater moral sense from the corporations (or their top people), but we see the moral definition as effecting this in different ways. I'll have to ponder that some.
Perhaps some of the difference between us can be traced to
I do not and cannot accept this definition of evil. It is, I agree, evil to do things because they cause harm; to, as you say, enjoy doing harm. But the set of such things is merely (IMHO) a subset of the category "evil". As much as I am a child of the Enlightenment, as much as I revere the concept of the individual, I do not agree that self-interest is the only defining factor in Good v. Evil.Evil comes about, in my opinion, when one adopts a skewed ratio of weights between Self and Other. A person must respect both himself/herself and others. Most garden-variety evil stems from an unbalanced assignment of importance to oneself, ignoring the other. Such people evaluate everything only according to how it benefits or harms themselves. Others exist only as means to one's own ends. This devalues the human dignity of other people and is a path to evil.
Less commoningly encountered or commented upon, evil can also arise when one assigns ultimate weight and authority to the Other, negating the Self. This can often be used to justify the most horrific actions ("It's for their own good") as well as buttress one's own selfish actions ("Look how much I'm willing to give up."). Others are seen only as ends, and one's own self only as a means to those ends. Swinging the balance this way also devlaues human dignity -- the value of your life itself -- and thus leads to evil.
The only true path lies between these. (Hmm. Virtue as the mean between extremes. I guess I'm Aristotelean at heart.) One must recognize that individuals be means and have ends of their own. A philosopher prof I knew (hi, Nell!) once made a profound statement to me: The Enlightment was the recongition that individuals are more than simply means. Of course, they are means to ends; heck, the philosophy prof was a means to my own end of attaining an education degree. But each individual has ends of his/her own, and is entitled to respect. I, too, am an individual and thus also deserve respect. Finding the balance between Other and Self is a lot harder than hewing to an extreme; but it's also much more morally grounded.
Of course, it's clear that our views of Evil are distinct and, to some extent, incompatible. Thus it's not too surprising we have different opinions on whether corporations are (or can be) Evil.
By the way, is it safe to conclude that you oppose the judicial interpretation that corporations possess rights under the Constitution like free speech and equal protection of the laws?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
If sony has something you really want to buy, rather than not buy it at all (or worse - cave in and buy it), buy secondhand.
Sony gets nothing.
You only pay half price.
The consumer junk market shrinks somewhat.
The environment suffers less as less crap is consumed and manufactured.
Sure, this isn't a cure, and it has drawbacks, but it's a good start - it temporarily avoids the fundamental problem that individually boycotting the products of big companies often hurts us more than it hurts them.
Also, I don't think this is the same as "I boycott MS by pirating Windows" whereby mere use of Windows aids its dominance - in the appliance world, all brands of video work with all brands of TV and all brands of stereo, thus merely having sony gear doesn't aid sony indirectly (but watch those CD and DVD titles).
If your unsure, scratch the labels of the gear. No impressionable friends will know that your setup is sony, and if they ask why the label is scratched off, you get to explain and boost awareness of these issues.
Under U.S. copyright law, British works are "Berne Union works" or something like that and are subject to the same protections within U.S. borders as American works.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
You are canceling your PlayStation2 Order?
Well that is because you are an idiot and do not realize that the different Sony divisions are actually seperate legal entities with merely a similar legal name. One Sony company does not effect the other in any way except to generate negative press. The Sony entity that creates your PlayStation2 has nothing to do with the "Jack Ass VP" in this article who is commenting about Napster. So you will be boycotting the Sony name in general for the ludicrous actions of one entity.
But if you want to cancel your Playstation2 order then fine... go ahead! That just means I will get mine sooner becuase of stupid shits like you. So I say HAHA, Fool!!!!!
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
Corporations raze millions of acre of rainforest. Corporations strip-mine the planet. Corporations sue to silence critics, intimidate competitiors, and distort justice. Corporations conduct unethical and uninformed experiments on people. Do none of these count as "evil" for you?
Are you seriously proposing that there aren't guys "in a three-piece-suit with no morals hunched over a desk analyzing bottom-lines on a print out and deciding which companies to take over and who to fire"?? So all the downsizing of the 1980s -- professional hatchet men and all -- was actually the result of ten million mom-and-pop decisions sweated over a kitchen table late at night? Wow. It must be very nice to live in your world.
In the actual real world, on the other hand, there are these things called multibillion-dollar multinational corporations. They have motivations of their own, they have decision processes of their own, and they have survival unlinked to any particular employee. They interact with other corporations in a rapidly-fluctuating hunter/prey mode and they make decisions that, as often as not, have more to do with maximizing their own short-term profit than to respecting the people they work for or sell to.
As for not knowing any of the corporate droids: Heck, I've seen high school friends turn into them. These people are still my friends. In their personal lives they are still relatively decent people who love their kids, donate at church, and send flowers to their moms on Mothers' Day. In their professional lives, they backstab co-workers, abuse suppliers, cheat customers, and dedicate all to the corporate (bottom) line. Why? Because, at work, they are just cogs in a larger organism.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
It would seem Napster should have an ability for the Napster user community to support and promote their favorite finds. Of course, I'm not a big Napster user so I might be missing an aspect of "community" more savvy Napster users are a part of.
There are three such ways. (Well, two-and-a-half.)
1) You can add any user to your "hot list" (right click their name). This allows you to browse their entire MP3 collection. That way, you can, for example, do a search for your favorite band, and then find out what else people who also like that band listen to. This is my favorite way of discovering totally new music on Napster.
2) Plus they have chat rooms sorted by music genre where you can a) find people to add to your hot list by genre and b) get people's recommendations directly.
2.5) Plus there's instant messaging which can serve the same purposes, although I tend to think it odd when strangers IM me on Napster...
All these are relatively effective ways to discover totally new music that you might be very likely to enjoy, and they all involve at least a modicum of community. In addition, Napster is great for finding sorta-new music, because you can search by artist name only--songs from that band's first album you didn't know about, or B-sides, or live versions of everything, or, best yet, compilations with other artists you hadn't heard before. Yes, a google search will most likely turn up a fan site which contains this information, but Napster just makes it more convenient.
All in all, I'd give Napster about a 6 out of 10 in terms of fostering community, and maybe a 7.5 in terms of introducing one to new music one is likely to enjoy. It's not perfect in these respects, and it's possible to imagine ways it could do better. (Depending on what they are, they would theoretically get them in more legal trouble, but since the judge has ruled they're not entitled to safe-harbor protection as a content-neutral ISP, there might no longer be a reason it would put them in a worse position legally.) Still, I think its community aspects are significant, and its a more effective and convenient way to find good new music than any other I've come across.
where can I get a sony PDA to help me keep a sortable list of all the companies I am suppossed to be boycotting....
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
And they made butterfy knives illegal.
I could see ftp getting blocked on home accounts (have to have a business account to use it), cos after all you can just use frontpage.
hope not, but it's dangerous to underestimate, who would have thought that linking could be made illegal...
~ppppppppö
This is a peek DEEP inside the mind if a corporatist. Key phrase: We will transcend the individual....
We will firewall Napster at source -- we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]. We will firewall it at your PC.
and lever our monopoly against...
Again, deep seated corporatist mindset. Note the monopolistic mentality and naive assumption of technical superiority over "The Individual". I find it disturbing to think that this guy is probably a key decision maker at Sony. Is this representative of the type of mentality found in "high places"?! Brrrrr!
"These strategies," Heckler said, "are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake."
So what I get from this statement is: We will transcend the individual...and (aggressively) lever our monopoly (real or imagined) against...anyone or anything (real or imagined) that threatens OUR revenue stream! Read: our revenue streams transcend the individual, and thus take precedence over individual rights (e.g. fair use, free speech, etc). The statement smacks of the kind of ruthlessness that is just shy of malevolence (IMO). At least thats what I infer from it.
Dude, this is about Napster, not Gnutella. I can understand some people can't be bothered to read the linked article before posting, but not reading the /. header before posting, wow ;-)
MP3 is a proprietary format. They buy the rights to the MP3 format, and charge any site that distributes MP3's a "license fee" similar to the one that Unisys tried to levy against websites that use GIF's. Remember, this is the company that threw mad cash at ZZ Top just so that their label would appear "more American" a couple of years back. (I think it was 10 mil or so...)
The truth is that the music industry will protect its buisness. If someone kept breaking into your house, you'd get a burgular alarm, and the record companies see themselves in that same situation right now. (Whether they are or not is another question entirely and beyond the scope of what I am trying to present.)
Furthermore, they could change the format of the music they sell, making piracy (can't really think of a better word) more difficult at least or impossible at best. (Impossible is not possible. The music will eventually be converted to an analog signal where it could be converted to something digital.) If we were still using LP's, I'm sure that the MP3 thing would not have taken off. Most people out there can't figure out how to get AOL working, I can't see them figuring out how to hook up analog inputs to their sound card and record an MP3. By reducing the number of people that can produce digital copies they create better targets for the law to go after.
Remember, Napster's defense is that they do not pirate the music themselves, they only provide a service for sharing the files. In scenario #2, the actual producers of digital copies can be made liable.
So long as Napster and related services remain (in their eyes) a threat to their revenue, the industry will do whatever it takes to stop them. This is called survival. If the record companies think they're going to lose a billion dollars because of this, they will spend a billion to stop it. "Welcome to the jungle, it gets worse here every day..."
~Hammy
"You're listening to American Bandstand and who gives a shi*" ~Casey Kasem
Head Office Sony of Canada Ltd. 115 Gordon Baker Road Toronto, Ontario M2H 3R6 Main Telephone: (416) 499-1414 Main Fax: (416) 497-1774 E-mail: general_enquiries@sony.ca
I was in #yourmom today
So run it over ssh. There's always a technical solution to whatever Sony or the music industry manages to accomplish. Besides, they don't own the infrastructure and their pockets are not deep enough to buy it.
They don't realize that they've already lost. If they block napster (unlikely), something else will popup. They'll probably succeed in destroying the company napster. That will be the music industries defeat because then everybody will switch to distributed solutions like gnutella or freenet (which will have matured by then).
The music industry is not moving or thinking in internet speed. It took them months to realize napster was bad for revenue. By the time they took action it had millions of users already.
So here's what they should do: make sure that napster stays the no1 source of illegal mp3s. This way it is controlled since the users all go to central servers. They can insert adds, encrypted mp3, etc and make some money.
Jilles
"Doctor, wait, their corporate prospectus, It's a cookbook!" (evil music as the door closes...)
~Hammy (Outer limits rules!)
We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source -- we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]. We will firewall it at your PC." Was this guy beating the podium with his shoe?
mods metamodded as "Unfair"
Encryption would work best and that's definitely where the technology of distributed file sharing is headed. What I see for the future is a constant leapfrog battle between the distributed file sharing technologies and the technologies (and corporations) trying to stop it.
Sony's behaviour is amazing.
It makes me so sick - it actually makes me want to buy an X-box.
:-(
you think the unwashed masses would rebel against an internet where the only thing you could read or see or listen to or watch would be what had been approved by a large multinational corporation?
ever heard of AOL?
if it really does come down to this: corporations vs. consumers, we better all get down on our knees and pray for salvation from a hell worse than Orwell's 1984
A lot of stupid laws restricting technology have been passed, both here and in Europe. For example, in the US, you cannot buy a receiver that covers the analog cell phone bands anymore (although it's easy for a criminal to put one together). Why? Because rather than holding the cellular companies responsible for their appalling lack of security, the cellular companies prevailed on congress to simply outlaw the production of receivers. It didn't make the world much safer, but it removed the responsibility from them and put the burden on the tax payer and consumer.
Or consider that in Europe, people pay a tax on blank tapes, money that is then shipped directly to the music industry. The presumption is that you use tapes for illegal copying, so you might as well pay the "legitimate artists" for that.
And, of course, in the US, the industry already succeeded in getting cumbersome copy protection devices into digital audio systems.
Don't take the current situation for granted, where computer hardware is reasonably open, well documented, and programmable. We may well end up with a situation where most people use proprietary, limited hardware (like a future PlayStation) with tightly controlled interfaces and software, and in which other people have to pay a steep premium for "professional" equipment that is programmable; and even that kind of "professional equipment" may be tightly controlled.
It's pretty clear that Sony and other content providers are going to fight tooth and nail to protect their obsolete business models. We need to be vigilant to keep them from succeeding. Sony needs to figure out how to make money in a world of open hardware and cheap distribution; if they can't do that, they should go out of business. As a society, we have no obligation to protect companies that can't adapt to new technological realities.
But he was the first
"What we're saying [to software developers] is that all these kids [worldwide] have Play-Stations," Heckler said. "So don't fight it. Join it."
I think this "VP" should be aware of the following:
- I am not a kid (anymore) since I am 30.
- I use Gnutella for PD-progs downloads (but If you want music for free I can give you some of mine which is Free).
- This guy sees a money stream instead of an artistic flow. Napster proposed me to publish my music for free on their web site. Why would he close them ? Does he want money for what I give or does he want to be the only authorized music publisher in the world ? We already have such a disease in France, this is called SACEM and they don't only help artists but make a profit from their music.
- I don't have a television, hence I don't have a Playstation.
- I wouldn't buy a PSX2 since its DVD player is hard-region-locked. (just move as often as me and you'll understand this does't make me a gangster)
- Sony is a Japanese Corporation. M. Heckler's name doesn't sound like he is. He is quite violent in this interview, unlike his employers from the Zen country. This is bad for Sony's reputation. I then suspect such a speech (errors, lack of accuracy) should not be considered as reflecting Sony's spirit but only denotes its author's lack of self-control.
- Sony's advertisings are usually smarter ("I dreamed of it, Sony did it") who actually dreamed of being sued or of keep paying for Art ?
OK, I wrote lots of things here but this is a normal reaction to this bullshit.This actually reminds me of my former company:
- Something happened.
- Somebody sends a mail about it toall the employees (at least in the building).
- An executive about to be evaluated just adds one detail and resends the mail.
- Evaluators who never read mails just see that he wrote about the event and consider him as a [Negociator|Leader|Communicator] and give him a good note.
- Other employees do the same
- And this way, a forgotten laptop that was found behind an open door one month later was declared stolen and the company's Lotus Notes system almost melted under the mail load (and the guy who finally told the laptop was found almost got fired for political uncorrectness)
Here, we have the event (Napster), all the american VP want to be involved in the suit (in case they get known or even money), we are flooded by these news though we are not even sure that the artists lose money because of Napster.It might be an advertising.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Right, but guess what I think is going to happen eventually... A school is going to say 'We are filtering such-and-such bad stuff from your childrens precious eyes'[which sounds like censoring to me] then some of the kids are going to get ahold of some of the bad stuff, and the parents are going to blame the school for not doing as they promised.
If you don't promise to filter, you can't be punished for failing to do so...
Ender
Nothing to see here
The old artilce on salon is the transcript of Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference back in May. It's about who is the real pirate, technology or the industry, from an artist's point of view.
This may not be the Outer Limits, but a company like Sony or TimeWarner that has horizontal and vertical integration might be able to get pretty close to doing what they are saying.
I mean, I'm on RoadRunner cable modem: TimeWarner is my cable company and my ISP, and in some areas they could be my phone company too. Sony has its own line of PCs. This may not be as incredible as it first seems.
translation: our law-buying department has an unlimited budget to defeat this napster thingy.
Be very afraid, people. But more importantly, write to your congressfolk (on paper and fax! email doesn't work!) about it. Don't assume the good guys will win. We won't unless we fight.
Let's do our fighting in a way it counts: lobby the right people the right way and educate the public.
This is the beginnings of the old argument: if it wasn't free, would you buy it?
I think you will find that most people who pirate music, software, video, etc. wouldn't buy those items even if the only way to get those items was to buy them.
How an industry claims loss of revenue when they report record earnings is the real problem here. Record companies are making more money this year than last year. Where is this loss of revenue caused by the Internet?
Radio was once thought to be a potential loss of revenue to the recording industry. ASCAP charged outrageous radioplay license fees because of this fear, uncertainy, and doubt. BMI came along and offered substantially cheaper radioplay license fees: crowning Elvis as the King, selling millions of albums because of his exposure to the radio audiences, and pushing many ASCAP artists into obscurity.
The questions are, who is going to be the next BMI, who gets to be the King because of that company, and how many artists is the RIAA screwing out of exposure (like ASCAP did) which could have catapaulted them to King status.
In the words of Purdue University's Professor Steven Robb: "The problem with you kids is you don't bring enough history with you to the table." Mr. Vice President Heckler would probably get the same lecture.
We are (i think) beginning to see the evil empire to end all evil empires (Microsoft of course) use it's influence to try and sway the decision away from splitting Microsoft up. On top of the legal battles we all know about M$ is also reving up it's propaganda machine to sway public opinion. I also saw on CNN that they have made significant contributions to BOTH the Democratic and Republican parties in hopes to buy more influence. There are probably more things that M$ is doing that that others have heard about, and there are probably still more that NONE of us know about. Just how much influence does M$ have? We'll find out if/when this case gets resolved i guess.
Of course we are talking about large music companies who have resources that probably can rival Microsoft's and then some. How much influence do THEY have then? We already know that they managed to push the DMCA quitely through without many knowing about it until it was law. If we know that the recording/movie industry has the power to make a law that they seem to be basing many of their significant legal proccedings on (DeCSS and Napster?) then i would assume it is possible for them to change the rules on everyone again.
We all thought it ridiculous that they could prosecute Napster at all since it was supposed to be treated as an ISP rather than a content provider... we were wrong.
We laughed when we heard the first news of the MPAA taking a creator of DeCSS to court and thought it would never stand up legally... we were wrong again.
Now we laugh at this idiot who thinks he's going to firewall our PC's... With all that is happening around us, it wouldn't really suprise me if they eventually found a way to do what they say.
Basically all i am saying is that we have to stay on our guard for any more erosion to our privacy and our rights and when we see it kick and scream and fight for what is ours. If we lay back and say "naww... this guy is wacko.. it'll never happen" then we will find ourselves cornered sooner than we think.
Ceres
I would like for them to shut down the internet, and just see what happens. It could lead to a great awakening to the fact that corporations are not your cuddly friend. It would be quite ironic, that shutting down a medium that inspires free thought would in its death inspire even more free thought in others who never had it.
I believe 'cartel' would be the word to use here.
If Al Gore gets elected, there will be plenty of "Friends of Al" who will be advocates for the MPAA and RIAA.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Why would Project Gutenburg, a not for profit project that makes available public domain (due to copyright expiration in the most part) texts available to the world, want to help out a comcercial entity whose business is to help music pirates?
Its just too funny watching you guys, who would foam at the mouth about the violation of a GPL'd copyright, well, foam at the mouth when these other guys try to protect their copyright.
This press release isn't about MP3 or digital music. Its about stopping a major source of piracy. That is all.
And for all the talk of using other distributed file copying systems, I seem to remember that before Napster dominated the scene there was another that was much harder to shut down. FTP. Thousands of site all over the world, thousands of people to be tracked down to put a stop to it, and hence too much work for anyone to stop it. Just a bit less convenient. So really, has the beloved Napster done the world a favour? Or has it just blurred in many peoples minds what piracy is? "Hey, these guys are a company, it must be alright to download this from them..."
So when ya gona sue radio stations hmm?
Napster is not a major conspericy to steal music and just give it away... Napster isn't some assult on the music industry...
Napster is legally vage... not armagedon...
It's a tool for trading music files. Was the idea to trade files illegally? Prove it... no really PROVE IT... don't go ranting about it.
Thies are straw man arguments and only weaken the case...
Develuping the technology makes the guilty?
Ok cool... sue Yamaha for making sound chips...
Sue Memorex for selling blank CDs...
and.. sue.. Sony... for selling a wide range of profesional quality audio equipment that could press out larg qualitys of pirated CDs.. as well as reel to reel audio tape and casset tapes.. for YEARS.
Unless I am mistaken Sony makes dual casset tape recorders that copy from one tape to annother quickly...
Ohh but thats not for piracy....
Bullshit.... Sony knows exactly what they are for... so dose every audio phile...
Napster isn't the dual recorder but the single recorder... it's just as useful for free music as it is for pireted music...
The question isn't even dose Napster hurt the music industry.. quite simply it dosn't. Napster has proven it's benifit as a premotional tool. Just like radio...
The problem is.. Was Napster made for an illegal perpous?
You know... not even Sony seems to answer that question... It seems to me they dodge it...
Can they prove it? In corts they are trying...
They can't firewall at my PC and Sony knows better....
But then Sony is the original Napster.....
I don't actually exist.
when they pry my linux box from my cold, dead hands.
They'll look at omni-present header at the beginning of the transfer. And implementing out-of-band meta data is a pain in the ass.
cat sony.wav | lame | pgp | gzip > pronmovie.gz
Ryan
So if the content providers have this level of control, then they can do they same as they do on game consoles?
Subsidise the hardware and make the profits back on the software?
Then just to push the paranoia up that touch further seeing as they seem to think they can licence everything to us rather than sell it to us the next step is to provide licences with the hardware (probably on the grounds that they've got software written onto the hardware.) then if we use 'unaproved' software (read open source) then they won't be getting their dollar here and there through our using their net based software so they can come and take our hardware back for breaking their licence conditions?
Is it me or am I just being driven to paranoia by these people?
Someone should cut down this guy's ritlin doseage. Seriously though, I never thought I'd see a representative of a company so blatantly admit that it's really the consumer they're fighting, especially without choosing J. Random Artist to be their poster child. At least he's honest, I suppose. If you can call that honest.
:-)
Personally, I'll still stick with mp3.com. I personally find quite a bit to like there, esp. the comedy sections... Gotta love that "Internet Help Desk" skit
GPL: Free as in will
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
"Zeese-a keeds ere-a ecteeng illegelly! Shuoold zee cuoorts deceede-a thet zeeur ecshuns ere-a legeetimete-a, zeen ve-a veell poorchese-a yuoor puleeticiuns und inteemidete-a yuoor feed prufeeders."
Cunsoome-a, shoot up, deee-a. Bork Bork Bork!
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Technically impossible? Sure.
On the other hand I'm sure they could find a way to get more censorship laws passed, forcing ISP's to block something ambiguous like "services deemed by govco to be inappropriate and unnecessary."
Of course it would only be trackable and enforcable on centralised services like Napster.
===
This is a plea for people to wake up. "Citizens" have rights and responsibilities, minds and talents and souls. "Consumers" have disposable income and a valuable database of spending preferences.
By transforming citizens into consumers, we have laid the foundation for a new government based entirely on money. It's becoming more apparent every day. The frightening part is that we see it coming, but we feel we have no way to stop it, perhaps even no right to stop it.
From what divine or constitutional source did Sony get the right to an uninterrupted "revenue stream"? Where did we as a society come up with the vocabulary that says a corporation has a "right" to anything at all? Particularly since the largest of them don't seem to have very many accompanying responsibilities.
1. Set the price of a CD to $5.
2. Set the price of a DVD to $10.
3. Watch sales go through the roof, easily making up lost profits by increased volume.
4. Most consumers wouldn't go through the hassles to do unauthorized copying.
5. Everybody is happy, except the lawyers.
Oops, it's just a dream. Time to wake up.
If you're in the netherlands, you can listen to VPRO radio. they've been boycotting sony over their malicious policies towards the net.
;)
//rdj
PS did anyone hear a rumour about sony having problems with quality? - nothing but FUD..
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Funny that I was just looking at that Sony music Clip that plays mp3 and ATRAC3
I bought one of those. Doh.
I was foolish enough to not read all of the stuff about it too carefully _before_ I bought it... *sigh*
Now I have a very nice mp3-ish player, which of course only works with the windows software to download to it...
Is anyone working on a Linux client for the Music Clip, or any of the other SDMI players? (Are there any other SDMI players?) A first feature should be an `About' box which reminds you not to buy any Sony hardware ever again if you wish to do something non-consumer-hardware-like with it
/rant
They cant write drivers to make stuff work under linux, so how are they going to justify a working product on linux that only restricts, instead of doing something constructive? Not that anyone will use it...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Perhaps the unholy octopoly -- like the trinity only different. All 8 in one going forward in union heh...
>We have no right to use IP in ways other than how the licensor intends.
wrong. very wrong. I cannot use it for just anything I want, but I am NOT bound by what the licensor INTENDS me to do with the stuff. Just like with real property. Webster's dictionary is INTENDED to look up words. But it also comes in handy to prop up a chair with half a leg missing. And I can freely use it as a leg-replacement.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
What if everyone ran IP over encrypted, point-to-point, tunnels? A snooper could see the source and destination addresses, but the ports and packet contents would be protected. It would make it difficult for an ISP/NSP to filter out "bad" protocols and services.
The problem would be implementing this without killing servers under the load of encrypted connections, something that I've heard is a problem with current secure web servers.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
maybe it is in the US (but I doubt it)... but I'm not a lawyer, let alone a US lawyer. we just had some short lessons on dutch copyright law. It just plagues me if I get called a thief. And better this than go off on some crazy crusade against someone for silly reasons :)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Remember, Napster's defense is that they do not pirate the music themselves, they only provide a service for sharing the files.
Actually, no. If you read Napster's legal filings you will find that this is not their defense. Nor can it be. They are being sued for contributory copyright infringment, not actual copyright infringement, and contributory copyright infringement is an uncontroversial part of copyright law.
Instead, Napster's first line of defense is quite a bit more simple: the sharing of files on Napster is not illegal. No one is breaking the law on Napster, and thus neither is Napster. The basis for this shocking (well, shocking if you get your news from large corporations as most of us do) argument is quite simple: the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, which quite plainly makes all noncommercial copying of recorded music legal. Since no one is making any money or getting any commercial benefit for sharing their music on Napster, there is no copyright infringement going on, and thus no contributory infringement.
The RIAA is arguing that when the bought and paid for the AHRA in 1992, that wasn't what they meant for it to say. What they meant for it to say was that noncommercial copying was ok only if it was done on DAT, because the other part of the AHRA allowed the RIAA to charge ridiculous royalties on every DAT tape sold to compensate for the loss of royalties due to copying. This isn't what the AHRA actually says, but the recording industry hopes the judge doesn't notice (so far it looks as if she hasn't).
Now, Napster's second line of defense, if the above fails, is to note that a significant portion of the uses of Napster are fair uses. According to the standard set by the Supreme Court in the MPAA vs Sony Betamax case, this is all that is necessary for a provider to be absolved of contributory infringement. (Actually, according to the Betamax case, it is only necessary that the system be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.) There is little doubt that this is true. A surprisingly large portion of Napster traffic is that of unsigned artists/artists who have explicitly allowed their material to be traded. Indeed, there are several times more artists in Napster's "New Artists" program than there are signed by the major labels--and all of them allow trading of their music. Furthermore, many copies of RIAA-copyrighted songs are made for protected fair use purposes, like sampling and space-shifting.
Amazingly enough, Judge Patel managed to get around this point by insisting that it doesn't matter that Napster is capable of substantial noninfringing uses, or even used for substantial noninfringing uses, it only matters that its "primary" use is infringing. No matter that this test was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court. No mention of how she even figured out that Napster's "primary" use was infringing, except that Napster's internal memos alluded to it. Well, Sony's advertising for the Betamax played up its infringing uses and didn't mention its fair uses, but the Supreme Court ruled that it doesn't matter what the company says, only if the product is also capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Judge Patel doesn't seem to care.
But Judge Patel is going to get overturned on appeal, and that will be sustained by the Supreme Court. Without a new law to replace the AHRA and change the Betamax standard, the RIAA doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Indeed, they're pushing for such a law now; they held hearings on it a couple months ago, although the Senate wasn't too impressed by the RIAA's whining this time around.
But just so you know, the defense of "it's not us, it's the people using our system" doesn't legally hold water. Luckily all of Napster's other defenses are pretty watertight.
:-)
Got his email address?
Just guessing, maybe we should try steve.heckler@sony.com
Funny that I was just looking at that Sony music Clip that plays mp3 and ATRAC3
As much as Sony can complain about loosing IP and that Napster serves just to steal etc. they have absolutely no right to interfere with my personal software, hardware, make business contracts with my ISP, my ISP's ISP, phone companies, etc. They think that they are above the law which is exactally what they are saying Napster thinks. IMHO this proves that the big 8 are nothing more than monopolies that will stop at *nothing* to make sure that I do not do something that the exec. staff of RIAA say I can do.
it may be piracy, but it's not theft. Those are 2 different things by law.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Just good to know that they can't get their heads out of their collective poop-chute to realize that we'll buy their stuff if they just bend to the market, not the other way around.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
How funny, then, that when the music industry complains that we are doing something similar to them by violating their intellectual property rights wholesale and distribute their IP against their express wishes, we call for their boycott.
Perhaps we are more than a little hypocritical?
IPR is IPR, whether it's licensed using the GPL or a commercial license. We have no right to use IP in ways other than how the licensor intends. We should honor their wishes before someone does to us what we are doing to the music industry. Payback's a bitch, right?
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Hell, if I was vice president of a horseshoe company, I'd try to outlaw cars and get streets blockaded.
It's a desparate, dying, gasp from a soon-to-be extinct species. They have alot of money, and alot of lawyers, but sooner or later they will be forced to evolve or DIE horribly like the rest.
You can safely ignore the rantings of that particular lunatic.
That said, it will proably get worse before it gets better as the monied interests circle their wagons. The end result, however, will be the same; good riddance.
The problem is that no matter how much money they throw into killing Napster and similar programs, there will always be some people who are both very devoted to making anything free and very talented. Napster has become almost as common as ICQ or Winzip( or their equivalent on *nix and Macs), yet it wasn't started to make any money. I remember the guy who wroted saying that he did so to see if he could find a better way to do things.
If Sony were to manage to get Napster blocked at the source (technologically, not legally), then this could be done with anything. Politically unpopular speech, Financially threatening free software, whatever. But someone is going to want to get around it, and actually wanting to see a project through to completion can be more important than the skills of the programmer. It's hard to get interested in doing something, much more difficult than learning to do something that interests you.
Legal issues would be trickier, if for example ISPs were successfully sued(read: easier to cancel customer account than to go to court) everytime a napster server was run, then the technology would most eventually die.
treke
.....it was either the "This England..." speech or "By any means necessary..." Can't tell. Either way, in the context of the music industry it sounds like some coke fueled delusion. Sony will:
1 Control all networking technology
2 Control by legal means all networks throughout the world
3 Anything else it fucking feels like
Only thing missing is something like "God is on our side and we will cleanse the world of these infidels!" Hey Steve why don't you go back to blowing coke off the thighs of supermodels?
Well there you have it the powers that be starting to show their true colors as their power and financial base becomes threatened. Lets face it, if and when peer-to-peer file sharing becomes a dominant paradigm of the internet, all traditional ways of doing business will be fundamentally altered. The vacuous rhetoric that the internet would usher in a world of global grassroots democracy and the end to centralized power structures could actually happen if P2P becomes reality. In fact P2P was supposed to be the operating paradigm of the internet in the first place until corporate interests have co-opted it.
Until the ridiculous Napster decision came down, I hadn't given IP much thought. But as I've watched the rhetoric fly both ways in the Napster and DeCSS trials, I began to see that it has nothing to do with IP in the end, but the beginning of a global war between corporate interests and the forces of democracy. Although the corps make a good argument about compensating intellectual creators, does this justify the complete elimination of freedom online? Already the MPAA is calling its initial victory in the DeCSS case a warning to all Silicon Valley types, that if they keep it up they will shut the whole internet down if it facilitates piracy! Such a statement is completely insane, yet Jack Valenti, president of MPAA actually said it. And since he and the majority of corporate interests agree with that sentiment, their wishes could become reality. This despite the fact that there are already 25 million people and growing who feel otherwise.
If the courts and politicians decide to ignore their constituents and pander as usual to their corporate backers, it could mean a complete re-engineering of the infrastructure to prevent so-called piracy in the future. The nature of the internet is so dynamic, that to accomplish such a monumental task would effectively mean squelching any remaining freedom left on the internet. We'll be left with some draconian super-surveillance network, where all communications will be monitored and censored, and all communication will be increasingly centrally channeled. That is the only system I can imagine that could possible have any chance of stopping piracy. Since such a system is completely repugnant to most people, rather than stop piracy, the nature of business and society should accept it for the prosperity that it really is. Prosperity for the people that is. Imagine that - a society based on individual rather than corporate profits!
Regardless of how anyone feels on this issue, they need to ask themselves do they want a society based on consumer power or corporate power? When corporations start telling its customers what to do, rather than vica versa, then we can start saying good bye to a democratic society. If only the Democratic and Republican Parties, both supporters of stronger IP laws, got a clue. But since when did they give a hoot about the people anyway?
www.enthea.org
I should note that my TV is a Panasonic.
Does that make a difference?
The only problem with banning Sony products, personally, is the fact that they've created my Playstation, and soon my Playstation 2, those would be impossible to give up, as a true gamer geek.
Fine. Be spineless and short sighted.
Just don't come bitching to the rest of us when Sony "firewalls you at your playstation."
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Yeah, Sony is going to fight back. The problem is, it's already too late. Sony and the rest of the members of the RIAA are basically fucked. Their customers hate them (thats you and me, bud). Their suppliers hate them (artists - see articles by Courtney Love, Prince). These two groups now have an easy way to cut the big music companies out of the deal. Both groups (artists and consumers) will benefit from this. It is only a matter of time. The cool part is, this is just the beginning.
Okay, I can understand them wanting to get rid of Napster but this is scary! You don't like Napster and since you haven't been able to get rid of it (yet) you're going to cut it off the net (essentially)? Hell, I hate child porn but some of it's legal in Holland (15 y/o and up I think). So using their logic I should try to cut Holland of the net?
- Apple Computer......proudly going out of business for over twenty years.
I can't imagine they would have any better luck collecting the license fees than they would enforcing their copyright. It might obviate fair-use issues, but it doesn't seem like the case is going to turn on those anyway.
And we'd all just switch to non-proprietary formats anyway, which for them would be worse (just like it will be worse when they force everyone on Napster to switch to Gnutella, et al).
If you kill a porcupine, a thousand more will come.
- Asante proverb
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
Your comments on using IP "in ways other than how the licensor intends" are also incorrect, but other posters have corrected you on that.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Nah. They really are this evil. Although, in theory, the RIAA winning their case against Napster (in addition to previous legal cases) just screwed them over big-time. You see, Napster's licence agreement said that users agreed not to trade copywritten files, and that Napster wasn't responsible for any files the users did trade. The RIAA sued them anyway and won. Does anyone know how strong this precident would be for the validity of post-sale click-through licencing? (Which is already illegal?)
Of course, the thing for them to do would be to force distributors to make you sign a physical contract. But this would probably make people wary, and their "you don't REALLY own this" ploy would be more obvious. Or push the UCITA through, which would really let them screw consumers over.
-RickHunter
I wonder if the stockholders are any smarter than this guy (I'd hate to image they are any dumber). Assuming the music industry has taken in massive gains last year (they have), hopefuly the stockholders will question the sanity of anyone who wants to spend all that money fighting some college kids and their software which has YET to be proven to negativly affect their revenue stream.
Finkployd
You can call it flamebait, but he has a point.
Sony, and RIAA in general, has hordes of lawyers out there who actually do this for a living, instead of just posting it on Slashdot because they decide to take an hour out of their day to care about the laws.
Before they make decisions like this, they ask their lawyers if they'll get away with it.
Then their lawyers tell them things like "yes, you can sue Napster" and all the geeks at Slashdot laugh and say "Silly RIAA, you can't get away with that! We have a legal right to pirate mp3s, and Napster has a legal right to make money while helping us!"
Next they win their lawsuit, and all the geeks, who are just sure that they know the law better than an army of lawyers, cry out "What? I can't believe this. That judge is stupid. This is unfair."
So maybe there's a reason why Sony is talking to their lawyers instead of reading Slashdot posts like "Go ahead, firewall me, I'll sue."
Although the facist remarks made by Mr.Heckler seem to be over the top, in light of the recent decision against 2600, the original injunction against napster, as well as the DMCA, the Methamphetamines act, Carnivore, and everything else... maybe im paranoid but there does seem to be a possibilty that what he says will happen. the recent study that found the majority of internet traffic traveling through a small number of servers (6 main ones i believe the number was, correct me if im wrong.) what happens when sony goes to them and offers the people in charge of those boxen some very large figure to install their filters into the stream?
Of course it also shows you how scared they are of this new technolgy... These strategies, Heckler said, are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake. Makes you think.
thats just my opinion, i could be wrong.
--Ks9
The whole premise of an ISP's "common carrier" status is that they don't inspect traffic passing through their network. If they start blocking out Napster/Gnutella, it gives me the impression that maybe we should threaten to sue them for other traffic on their networks. Maybe that will keep them out of Sony's pockets.
We shall fight at the cable companies, we shall fight at the phone company, we shall fight at the ISPs and in the PCs, we shall fight in music stores; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
(Woops - drifting off-topic there - sorry)
I can see the headlines now:
Sony sued for:
Of course, they have a lot of money and a lot of lawyers (those seem to go together), so they might be able to bend the law a bit. But I doubt they'll be able to bend it that far...
--frank[at]unternet.org
He is also showing his hand, how much future technology is going to change things such as media distribution... Things most slashdotters already know, may not agree with, but things that are just dawning on this sony executive. He is showing his fear of his job no longer being necessary, there no longer being a spot for a middle man when artists can sell their craft directly to their fans... makes one think.
--Ks9
No US (or australian, brittish or azerbadiani) government can dictate the terms for a multi like Sony. If one country has tough laws, they route around it. Now they focus their legal fight on the US (CSS, DMCA etc), to establish a standard. If they can get a dumbed down, copy secure system established in the states, they might get the world to follow. (cause we want those hollywood movies)
Perhaps the only way to stop this is to lessen the power of Hollywood et al. Look for independant movies! Check out unsigned artists! Make sure that organisations like the MPAA and RIAA becomes just one player and not the big bully who everyone is following!
..when you let people like senior vice presidents talk to the press without being kept on a leash.
These sound to me like, ah, technically ill-informed comments - I'll bet you he's got no idea how they're going to go about all this firewalling in reality, and it's quite likely he hasn't spoken to anyone with half a clue about the technical viability of it. Sounds like he just came out with this rant rather than actually, well, thinking first.
I predict a rush of conciliatory noises and, er, "clarifications" from Sony Music's PR folks to smooth these comments over once it's realised that what they're talking about is, well, pretty close to technically impossible on today's Internet.
"If we lose our precious revenue, we will take out the Internet with small tactical nukes placed on all the major carriers."
I'm currently reading Terry Pratchett's "Equal Rites", and to quote a paragraph:
--
Pokéthulhu
Gotta catch you all!
I was going to write a polite letter informing him of the inadvisability of making such threats, but then I realised that noone can rise to be VP of an entertainment industry and not be three times better at manipulating people than I will ever be.
So there must be reason to this madness. Looking back at other recent debates, we have the judge in the 2600 case being openly predjudiced and microsoft intentionally pissing off that judge in order to try to force a mistrial.
When I first heard the microsoft theory, I was more amused than intruiged, but I do get the feeling that the players of these games are playing for the long run. I guess in those cases it is sometimes desirable to get a highly visible defeat so you can yell "DoOver!" when the stakes are hihger.
I just can't figure out why Sony want to piss off their customers. What is the upside to that?
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I suppose since Sony, etc. are oh so frightened by the decreasing revenue stream caused by Napster and such, they are going to try to go to whatever lengths they can. I suppose its their way of keeping the current crap bands on top and protecting their 1 hit wonders who are keeping their wallets fat.
Hear, hear, finally the words were uttered, the greed verbalized. Until now it was the sin that no one dared mention (no, not that one!), tacitly accepted by everyone, yet never acknowledged. Now Sony finally came out shouting it, screaming it at the masses: we're making shitloads of money off you, and we're gonna keep doing it forever, and there's nothing you can do about it. If you try to do anything about it, we'll beat you with a big stick and still take your money.
Yet the masses are sheep, they bleet in an uproar of protest, then get back to their herd and forget. Soon they will line up again at Sony's trough, and everybody will be happy again.
The thing is, as outraged as people might get about the open contempt of a company for their customers, the track record of making a company pay is not good. Most of the time they get away with it, because people simply don't care enough.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
And then, our l33t HaX0rz will convert all of your VHS tapes to Betamax!!!
"Blue Elf shot the food!"
Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop...
No more money for Sony from me either.
And if this motherfucker is even thinking about buying up all the ISPs, and a really far-fetched IF they develop some multi-gigabit backbone routers that can route packets AND filter them too, you'll find me in the trees, on the roofs and down in the storm drains, pulling Cat 5 to my various friend's houses.
cat
http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/c onsumer/ss5/feedback.shtml
to tell Sony that you won't be buying any more of their products.
I can't believe they would say this. I mean.. this could backfire *SO* bad on them. What if sony tried to buy all the cable companies? ISPS? FTC anyone? class action lawsuit in multiple countries anyone? GOod luck sony.. good luck.
Sony cannot block Napster at your ISP, at your phone company, at your cable company, or anywhere. They certainly can't "firewall it at your PC." The guy doesn't understand the Net; he may not understand the courts system; and he certainly doesn't understand (or have respect for) U.S. antitrust laws.
All this, of course, is to presume that Napster will survive in its present form. Most legal types don't think Napster has much of a case, that the injunction will be imposed and it will go down, hacking out ugly death-throe sounds.
Sony won't have to "firewall it at your PC." Napster's about to have its air supply cut off.
--
C'mon, baby, kiss The King.
"We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source -- we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]. We will firewall it at your PC."
Do they control the horizontal and the vertical as well? Should I not be adjusting my TV?
The thing is, recently Sony has asked the VPRO to refrain from putting music from its artists online. In response, the VPRO has banned Sony artists from all their TV and radio broadcasts! If you understand Dutch, check out: this article with RealAudio interview for more info.
Reinout
I have an idea. Have Project Gutenberg distribute their official archives on Gnutella. Trying to censor audio and video is one thing, but try censoring harmless, useful, and loved books. Even the common joe should take offense to that.
"Big Brother, Inc. tries to stop 1984 from begin read" is alot worse for PR than "[Insert beloved band here] tries to prevent teenagers from stealing its livelyhood."
No, money does not rule everything. The people and the courts rule everything. Money is certainly the most common, and usually, the most powerful influence on society.. but not always.
And big companies have *NEVER* had free rule over me..
"We shall fight them on the beaches..."
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
If peer to peer software uses existing protocols like HTTP, FTP, SMTP, then there's nothing anyone can do to block it.
BTW, doesn't that Sony ranting rather sound like Mike Tyson's "I wanna rip his heart out, I wanna eat his children..."?
I agree. nice comment, if only HEckler was to ever read it. i'm sure it would piss him off. thats what i like. good job. D
Maybe I'm too "secret plots & conspiracy" minded, but do you really think They don't have anyone reading Slashdot, reading comments, paying attention to the attitudes and plots and plans of the evil, evil content thieving community?
So, it might not get straight to him, but I'm sure some blob of weakly firing neurons connected to eyes staring at a monitor somewhere in the lawyer infested Borg cube of The Industry has registered this comment, indexed and attributed it for attitudinal and demographic sigificance, and entered it into The Database.
Maybe I'm attributing too much insight to Them, but just because I'm paranoid don't mean They ain't after me.
I would expect that it would have no effect whatsoever on the validity of click-through licensing either way. The RIAA was not party to the agreement between Napster and the end users, and so can't be bound by it. Check with someone who actually is a lawyer, though.
I mean at first, when I read this, I thought this guy was a complete idiot, but then, every time I turn on my Trinitron monitor, this line gets appended to my rc.firewall...
/sbin/ipchains -A input -p TCP -d 0.0.0.0/0 6688 -j DENY
Sony - Electronics and Communications
Products include:
compact disk players
mini disc players
Walkman
WEB TV
Digital Video Discs (DVD)
camcorders
televisions
radios
video cassette recorder (VCR)
phones
Digital Satellite Systems (DSS)
Computers
digital imaging
CD-ROM
CD-ROM storage products
business communication systems
audio and video tapes
data storage
batteries
Wireless Telecommunications
JumboTron
Sony - Movies & Theaters
Columbia Tri-Star
Columbia Pictures
Tri-Star Pictures
Jim Henson Productions (partial interest)
Mandalay Entertainment (partial interest)
Phoenix Pictures (partial interest)
Sony Pictures Classics
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Columbia-Tri Star Home Video
Theaters
Sony/Lowes Theaters
Sony - IMAX Theater
Magic Johnson Theaters
Loews - Star Theaters
Sony - Merchandise & Finance
Merchandise
Sony Signatures - (entertainment related clothes and merchandise)
Insurance and Financing
Sony Life Insurance Company
Sony Finance International
Sony - Games & Interactive
Games
Sony Play Station - machine and games
Psygnosis Limited - video game developer
Interactive
Sony Online
TheStation@sony.com - online entertainment network
Jeopardy Online, Wheel of Fortune Online
Columbia - Tri-Star Interactive
Sony - Music
Labels
Sony Music
Legacy
Sony Music Nashville
Sony Wonder (children's music)
Sony Music Products (promotional music for business)
Sony Music Soundtrak
Tri-Star Music
WORK
Crave
57 Records
550 Music
Columbia Records
Epic Records
Epic Soundtrak
Shotput Records
Relatively Entertainment
RED Distribution
Relatively Records
Harmony Records
Sony Music International
Soho Square
Dance Pool
Mambo
Rubenstein
Squatt
Sony Classical
Arc of Light
Masterworks
Sony Broadway
SEON
Vivarte
Sony Music Publishing (copyright owners, joint venture with Michael Jackson)
Columbia House (50% venture with Time - Warner)
Music Choice (with Time - Warner, EMI, General Instrument - digital stereo for cable TV)
Music Choice Europe
Sony - Television
Production & Distribution
Columbia -Tri Star Television (programming)
Columbia -Tri Star Television Distribution
Columbia -Tri Star Television International Television
The Game Show Network
International Television Ventures
Cinemax Latin America
E! - Latin America
HBO Ole
HBO Brasil
Mundo Ole
Warner Channel - Latin America
Showtime - Australia
Encore - Australia
TVI - Australia
Channel V - Asia
Cinemax Asia
HBO Asia
Beijing Television Arts Center
Viva 1 - Germany
Viva 2 - Germany
Carlton Productions (U.K.)
Golden Square Productions (U.K.)
Frensch Productions (Germany)
HBO Poland
Sony has licensing arrangements and interest in:
Kirch Group (Germany)
FORTA (Spain)
BSkyB (U.K.)
JSkyB (Japan)
Telemundo Group Inc. (formed venture with Apollo Management, Bastion Capital Fund, and Liberty Media. Sony is managing partner of group and will oversee programming and marketing.)
And I don't think changing the port number of protocols that Napster and Gnutella use (to something like port 80) will help much either. I believe there are certain firewall modules being developed at this time can "understand" and learn how certain protocols work and travel over networks, and filter them out accordingly.
I do recall that a module for Firewall-1 could filter out Java and Javascript out of web pages for "security purposes". This was back in 1997. You might want to have a look at products such as Websense, etc.
Given the threat to crack PCs and damage their connectivity, shouldn't this story have the DoJ logo, or perhaps it should have provided the rollout for a "Computer Crime" logo?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
While this may seem like a heavily Draconian method, the question is: what else can they realistcally do to curb piracy?
They can do nothing, wipe foam from their faces and start thinking, what model they can use to still benefit from that even if it will drastically reduce their profits. And if they will find none they can just leave music alone and let other, more smart people, get into that field.
There is nothing in the nature of music that gives them right to make their current amount of profit from it, and even IP laws are not cast in stone, and must be adapted to changing situation in technology and society. They were lucky that they were able to profit from it, but luck ran out, and their privilege will be taken away -- just like it happened thousands of time in history. Magical word "property" doesn't matter -- slaves were "property", too, yet social progress made slavery obsolete, and more advanced relationships between employer and employees taken its place, and now no sane person would justify restoration of slavery by applying the idea of "property rights" that former slave owners had over slaves and their families. The same thing will happen with intellectual property -- when existing model stops working new one takes its places, regardless of old laws, dogmas, threats and propaganda.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Hey, everyone who wants to write this "transcendent" software for Sony, raise your hand. That's what I thought. Neither do I. Of course, I already have a much better job. The sad part is, they'll probably find someone willing to do this sort of thing. Hell, lots of someones, and then they'll go sign the contracts (with ISPs, etc) to make it practical. Damn, damn, damn.
Perhaps push a format for digital music encryption that allows them to directly make money off the Internet instead of developing a knee-jerk "kill 'em all" reaction.
It's like Michael Eisner said (and I'm paraphrasing)... "If you make it cheap and easy enough for people to get their entertainment legitimately, they will."
It's their market, their industry, their product... hence they should have control of its distribution and selling.
It should be the property of the artists, not the record company. Unfortunately, this isn't how the industry really works. And as for being "their market," they only have as much of a market as we, the consumers, want them to have. We stop buying, they stop making, no market.
Call it what you like, but Napster and its kin amount to theft of intellectual property. This theft will probably cost record companies billions in the coming years, and force them to raise prices to survive like they are doing right now.
Or as I said before, they could actually try inventive ways of profiting from this phenomenon instead of mainting their "we must sell more CDs/anything that causes us to sell less CDs must be destroyed" tunnel vision.
Sony is taking drastic measures because Napster is a sincere threat to them.
Unfortunately, by the time they actually realized this, the Internet file-sharing phenomenon expanded way beyond Napster.
They're not hacking your computer, they're merely making a deal with ISP's to prevent piracy.
I don't know, saying "We will firewall it at your PC" sounds a bit too close to hacking for my tastes. (Yes, I realize it isn't, but it's still very scary that some corporation who I'm not giving a cent to gets the ability to have direct prior restraint over what I can do with my PC.)
I'm sorry if the Napster kiddies will be forced to return to asking Mom and Dad for money to buy their music instead of stealing it, but that's how laissez faire capitalism works. You will appreciate it when you grow up and perform a viable service in exchange for an income.
I regret to inform you that plenty of people who "perform a viable service in exchange for an income" use Napster, and not just "kiddies." I, for example, am in the journalism business (not as a reporter, so everybody relax), which I certainly like to think is a viable service. And I get paid for it. And I use Napster. So please watch who you're calling a "kiddie."
Nobody should deny you of your income, so why do you feel inspired to deprive hard working record companies and artists of their justified income?
And how much money do you think the artist actually gets from an average CD purchase? Major artists get maybe $1 at most.
Yes, Napster's primary function is the theft of intellectual property. But does that justify a corporation (not even the government, but a corporation) being able to prevent adults from accessing sites/information/whatever they don't like? I certainly hope not. America's legal history of media law (with the possible exception of the Pentagon Papers case) points to "Make whatever you want, access whatever you want, but if violates criminal or civil laws, you'll have to answer for it." Sony, which last time I checked is not a lawmaking body, has deluded itself into thinking it can change this to "Access whatever you want unless we don't want you to, then you can't access it." This scares me, as I certainly hope it does many others.
we will block it at your phone company,
we will block it at your [Internet-service provider].
We will firewall it at your PC.
-Steve Heckler
- No you fucking won't.
Fine.-Me
Kill Napster in court.
Firewall them ports.
We have, uh I forget - is it 2^16?, more ports to choose from.
Go ahead and have your fun. .html files), or we will keep producing new varients of file sharing programs.
Kill Napster and we will replace it with a new way of sharing files 5 minutes later. 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
So long as I have the right to swap .zip files with other people over the Internet, how can he know if I am swapping .mp3's in them?
And as for his last sentence - if he thinks he can do a damn thing to our PCs, then please would someone explain this whole open-source thing that has been going on around him. It makes controlling people that bit more difficult.
Final Thought:
-
"The [music] industry," Heckler said, "will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams. It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what."
Sorry, was that protect 'musicians rights to have a say in what is done with their art', or protect 'that revenue stream' - I couldn't quite hear.G
Just what is Napster worth to you by itself? Just sitting on your machine? Without enough other people who are also using it, it's worth nothing. Bupkis. Nada. The fact that a handful of technologically sophisticated individuals can get around it will mean nothing (especially since we could already do file-sharing, anyway) - the value of Napster comes from the critical mass of musically sophisticated people who can use its straightforward and convenient interface without a lot of hunting around. recently I managed to find some new, unusual music (Thinking Plague, Science Group - both of which I have since purchased on CD) via Napster, and I can assure you that I would have been likely to find them or anything else novel or interesting if I only had the tech-geek crowd's collections at my disposal.
They can get away with this crap as long as you keep buying CD's. They get a royalty off of every single one. Stealing it from Napster isn't the right answer either. Go see a local band. Live.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
For example: The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story
DNA just wants to be free...
The Internet Declaration of Independence.
..don't panic
Epic
550
Work
C2
Sony Classical
Legacy
Sony Music Nashville
Sony Wonder
Sony Music Video (SMV)
According to Sony's site, that's all of them.
anyone try to install napster on a vaio yet?
hehe.
i guess sony can't even firewall their own products against it.
Sony Pictures Entertainment is the movie subsidiary of Sony. Sony Music is the music subsidiary of Sony. Sony Pictures has nothing whatsoever to do with Sony Music. Sony Music sells soundtracks from movies done by other movie houses, while Sony Pictures' movies very often uses music by artists from other record companies. The two are totally independant companies, linked only in that they take orders from the Sony CEO.
Therefore, why is Heckler giving his opinion about Napster and music distrubution? These are issues affecting Sony Music, not Sony Pictures. His interview is really strange. He's spouting off about stuff his bosses won't give a damn about.
What you call 'their property' is actually the property of artist... those who create the craft for which the music industry was made to distribute. Napster changes the means of distrubtion, ergo eliminating the need for the music industry as it exists today. I pay $16 for a cd: how much does the actual cd cost to make? pennies; how much does the actual artist make? pennies; how much do those who steal the artists rights and whore their craft all over america making and breaking people over market share? billions of dollars.
wasn't it courtney love who said something similar... an artist who was involved with the system, saw how it works and more importantly how it didn't? well we have something new, and its better, cheaper, and more competitive than the RIAA and THAT my friend is how laissez faire capitolism works, not 'forcing kiddies to ask mom and dad for money to buy their over priced cds'. you have it one hundred percent correct when you say that noone should deny you of income, so why then does the RIAA and the music distribution industry still exist? That my friend is piracy and theft of intellectual property.
Those are just my opinions, i could be wrong... but im most likely right.
--Ks9
Consumers aren't stupid. Historically, they have rejected products that restrict their choice, and embraced products that provide freedom, and if the product doesn't provide that out of the box, it'll get modified so that it will. Sony, and the other media conglomerates, will just have to get used to that fact.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
_______
2B1ASK1
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Neither George Orwell's 1984 nor anything else created on or after 1923 will ever be added to Project Gutenberg because anything created on or after 1923 is under perpetual copyright. This is at first glance unconstitutional (the Constitution mentions "for limited times"), but Congress gets around it by simply retroactively extending copyrights when they are about to expire.
Fuck you Walt Disney Company.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
What is really interesting is that at VP at Sony has essentially just pledged that the company will be seeking vigilante justice. He didn't mention anything about waiting for the court's decision, he simply states that they are going to take matters into their own hands, and bring the 'rogue' company to justice as Sony sees it.
Vigilante justace was both illegal and looked down upon in the old west. The same is true today. If Sony really does take to this course of action, it will most likely come back to haunt them, either legally, or through public relations.
Most people on this thread are talking about this being an issue of corporate vs. individual rights. While this may be true on a broad sense, I think that the most important point is that Sony has decided that the law doesn't work for it, and that in order to best protect themselves they need to work outside (or at least on the boundary) or the law. I'm sure that Sony won't explicitly violate any laws in getting their firewalls up. I'm pretty sure that it will be through strongarm tactics against large providers like AOL, @home, SBC, Verizon and others. Perhaps they will also call in some political favors, and get some laws passed to allow them to do what they want. The end result though is that Sony has decided that living in a democratic society does not suit it, and so it will attempt to force society to it's will.
Only time will tell what this will do to society, but I believe that if Sony does attempt this, this is going to be one of those little tests that our country has from time to time to see how much it really wants to maintain a democratic society. If we rise to the occasion and show Sony that it must play nicely and by our rule system, then I believe that it will be a big step for America. If we allow them to trample about, then we have taken one more step towards relinquishing the rights of a democratic society.
Impossible = A fun challenge
> MP3 is a proprietary format. They buy the rights to the MP3 format, and charge any site that distributes MP3's a "license fee" similar to the one that Unisys tried to levy against websites that use GIF's
I'm sure the folks at Ogg Vorbis are getting a hard-on just THINKING about that possibility.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Ha! Which means, "we will firewall, block, and otherwise haX Napster to ensure total domination of our own internet-based, distributed, for-profit music system."
http://www.3com.com/nsc/netage/v6n8/images/v6n8p12 f.gif
Steve Heckler
Steve Heckler has been senior vice-president, Information
Systems at Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) since 1995,
managing a worldwide staff of 200 IS professionals. He directs
day-to-day IS operations for SPEës Columbia TriStar Motion
Picture Group, Columbia TriStar Television, and Columbia TriStar
Home Video, and develops long-term IS strategies. He also helps
senior management explore opportunities for leveraging
information technology in the companyís core divisions and among
sister companies within Sony.
Before joining SPE, Heckler served as vice-president and CIO at
Health Net in Woodland Hills, California, overseeing all corporate information systems,
data processing, and telecommunications for the multibillion-dollar HMO. Prior to that, he
held the CIO position at Pactel Cellular in Irvine, CA, and was senior vice-president of
MIS for Lorimar Telepictures in Culver City. He began his career with a 13-year tenure as
programmer and manager at IBM. Heckler holds a B.S. degree in electrical engineering
from City College of New York, and both an M.S. in operations research and an M.B.A. in
marketing from New York University.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.
I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.
I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.
____________________
Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.
I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.
I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]
Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.
One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:
The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.
The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:
If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.
If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.
What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.
Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.
Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:
The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).
Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)
Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.
Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.
In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).
This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.
The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.
Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.
The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.
We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Impossible is not possible. The music will eventually be converted to an analog signal where it could be converted to something digital
Not necessarily, unless you're planning to put an open mike in front of your tamper-proof speakers receiving an encrypted signal and outputting an inaudible tracking signal.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Look around you. Your computer probably has an "Intel Inside" sticker. You probably have a magazine laying on your desk face down, so there is an ad blasting at you. You probably have Nike sneakers.
Go to the grocery store. Everywhere in there are ads. You can't even go to the checkout counter and use one of those bars to separate your food from the guy in front of you without seeing an ad. Go to the movies. Instead of seeing "coming attractions" you get commercials for websites, Coke, and cars.
You drive down the road and every 1000 feet there is a billboard of some sort blasting some product at you (here in Kansas City, they are closer than 1000').
Hell, you can't even visit a website without getting blasted by ads.
But you can do something about it. I have Junkbuster running (no ads!). I don't buy Nike (they make my feet hurt). I don't wear Levis (because their jeans fall apart 3 months after I get them).
Hell, I don't buy Microsoft products and I am surviving just fine, thank you very much. Why? Because I don't let advertising rule my life. I do something about it. I get very little junk mail. All it took was $3 worth of stamps and about an hour of my time to send off the already made letters they have on Junkbuster. It's simple, and amazingly effective.
And I don't think changing the port number of protocols that Napster and Gnutella use (to something like port 80) will help much either. I believe there are certain firewall modules being developed at this time can "understand" and learn how certain protocols work and travel over networks, and filter them out accordingly.
Well, it wouldn't be to hard to filter out even pure mp3 data, either, but the performance hit would be way to high. The network is continuing to grow, and the presn't infistructure is already stressed.
But besides that, encryption. You can't filter something out if you don't know what it is. And napster et al can not only change port numbers, but actualy layer over HTTP (IE send each packet as a HTTP request, etc, not hard to do, and not even a bad idea really)
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
<< Nobody should deny you of your income, so why
do you feel inspired to deprive hard working
record companies and artists of their justified
income? >>
Justified? Do you really think a $15 price tag
for a single is justified? Expecially when you
take into account that the artist only gets a
small fraction of what you actually paied.
Support the artists! That is a good thing.
But It seems like the record companies have
gotten corrupt. They will do anything to make
more and more mony, including screw the artists.
Sig? What sig?
"And we will bury you!"
I don't find this scary at all -- it's just a litany of 1950s solutions to 21st century problems, none of which will work. I don't have stock in Sony, so why should I care that the people in charge of the company don't have a clue?
This is emblematic of the whole Napster/DeCSS/DMCA battle that's going on now. The status quo has changed fairly radically and the institutions that profited from that status quo are begging any authority they can think of to shove the djinni back in the bottle. The authorities, who are lovers of the status quo themselves, will try to comply, but this djinni isn't going anywhere.
Sony and the like can bang their shoes on the table all the live-long day, or they can go look for other models to make money from music. If they don't, they will be replaced by others who do.
This is the beauty of the free market, da?
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
Okay, don't buy any CDs from any other companies either, then, or even blank CDRs, because Sony has a patent (or at least a trademark) and they get royalties for every one that is produced.
Do they realize that they have just totally screwed themselves? I never liked sony anyway, but now I'll never buy anything from them again.
From now on, I'll check the labels of CDs. If it comes from those bastards, I won't buy it. I'll download it even if I wouldn't have otherwise.
Doesn't the idiot realize that he is representing a large company that does more things than publish music? They'll never sell me another walkman. Stupid arrogant jerks.
So, how would they propose to block napster access at my computer? Hack into it? Change my netfilter rules? Good luck. How are they going to stop OpenNAP, Gnutella or freenet? There is no conceivable way to do so. You'd have to shut down all traffic on the internet. AT&T, Sprint, MCI and all of the other carriers might have something to say about that. They're quite a lot more important to the economy than sony.
This is so far out of line that I have to wonder if it's a hoax. No one in their right minds would make statements amounting to 'we'll hack the computers of all of the people in the world to protect our corporate interests'. This Heckler jackass has just gotten his company in a lot of trouble.
"We will get you Napster users! We will develop something that blocks anything we don't like. We'll use a moat around Napster. No, a wall of fire. A firewall! And the DMZ will be filled with charred cookies when we empty the packets and blockade the ports!"
Looks like Mr. Heckler had trouble finding the right buzzword to make it on Slashdot. After a few attempts, he finally managed to come out with 'firewall' and stopped using 'blocking'. I wouldn't worry about what this guys says. I'm not sure what he's responsible for as VP, but I'll bet he has trouble getting his Viao to connect to his AOL account.
Viv
-----------
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
I've searched for artists on napster that I first heard of on mp3.com. And I've found them on occasion. These authorized releases ARE available through Napster.
What Napster seems to be missing is a method of promoting these artists. Sure... they have links on their web page. That's hardly origional. It doesn't make use of the Napster client's function. It would seem Napster should have an ability for the Napster user community to support and promote their favorite finds. Of course, I'm not a big Napster user so I might be missing an aspect of "community" more savvy Napster users are a part of.
Of course, that's neither here nor there. The question is can Napster be used for legal purposes? Yes. And it is doing that today.
The great troll Ketzer has spoken.
If your lawyers say you can firewall Napster on my PC, go ahead and do it. Don't listen to the Slashdot geeks who say you can't do it.
Flagrant violation of Ketzer's IP follows:
Sony, and RIAA in general, has hordes of engineers out there who actually design software for a living, instead of just posting it on Slashdot because they decide to take an hour out of their day to care about the laws.
Before they make decisions like this, they ask their engineers if they'll be able to do it.
Then their engineers tell them things like "yes, you can firewall Napster" and all the geeks at Slashdot laugh and say "Silly RIAA, you can't get away with that! We have a constitutional right to free speech, and Napster has a legal right to write and distribute software without a monopoly trying to sue them out of the market!"
--
--
E_NOSIG
-
Actually,
.zip encryption is laughably weak...
Then write your own - and it doesn't matter if is laughably weak.Isn't the case against DeCSS based on the fact that, under the DMCA, it is illegal to even attempt to break somebody's encryption?
If they can use it against us, we can use it against them. :-)
cheers,
G