Slashdot Mirror
White House Files Amicus Brief Favoring RIAA
declan writes: "The Clinton administration is siding with the entertainment industry to shut down Napster. It just filed a 37-page amicus brief (WP file) in the court case, saying Napster can't use the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 as a legal shield. The brief says 'the activities of Napster's users do not even arguably come within the terms of the statute' and the district court's ruling should be upheld. The Justice Department, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Copyright Office signed the brief. By way of possible explanation, a colleague has compiled this handy list of entertainment industry contributions to Democrats. :)" While that's a clever jab, it hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party involved here. Seems more like a question of Establishmentarianism -- politicians in office like to remain there, and know about both corporate bread-buttering and the importance of appearing reassuringly normal.
From the brief mentioned above comes this convenient view of reality:
" ... Neither a personal computer nor its hard disk constitutes "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium. Napster itself does not suggest otherwise."They can make that claim not because it's true in a larger sense (obviously, your computer can make a fine recording device -- ask at any music store), but because, as the brief goes on to say,
"The terms 'digital audio recording device' and 'digital audio recording medium' are specifically defined in the Act. A 'digital audio recording device' is defined, with exceptions not relevant here, as any machine or device 'the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use.' 17 U.S.C. 1001(3)"If you define your terms correctly, black is white and 2+2=5, too.
The strange bedfellows clause seems in full effect at the moment; remember that just weeks ago, an industry group including AT&T and other unexpected Napster allies filed their own amicus brief favoring the other side, on the reasonable basis that the controls the courts would be declaring acceptable under the DMCA would soon if not already impinge on activities of nearly any large digital carrier.
Your knee-jerk reaction to blame this on the "liberals" is unfounded.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Nice to see you read Suck. The problem with your contention is that you have no idea what these people do besides post. I appreciate the sentiment, but suggest you should divorce it from your condescension.
Like it or not, the AHRA isn't Napster's best argument. The White House Brief, essentially aping the Plaintiff's brief, is pretty much on point. I think there are arguments for both sides concerning construction of the AHRA, and certainly, this argument is a fairly well-written account of the law.
But so what? AHRA is hardly Napster's only argument. The crux of Napster's case does not rely on AHRA or the DMCA "exceptions" -- it relies primarily on two key arguments, one hypertechnical, and the other a fairly clear slam-dunk from the Supreme Court opinion in the Betamax case.
The hypertechnical argument observes that the plaintiffs failed to identify (and provide registrations for) the Copyrights for which they seek relief. Under applicable statutory and case law, this should preclude relief. RIAA is seeking a special-purpose exception, so they can sue in the present "all-in-one" capacity. IMHO, they should be spanked for their arrogance. Real copyright lawyers routinely attach the certificates of registration to the complaint.
The sound argument lies in the fact that Napster isn't itself infringing directly any copyright of the plaintiffs -- a point conceded by the RIAA. RIAA argues instead that Napster has contributed to the infringement by all its naughty users.
However, the Supreme Court in Sony held that to be liable for contribution, one must use an apparatus not capable of a substantial noninfringing use. (Clearly Napster has the capability, for example, for distributing works for which the parties have permission to distribute; also, it is capable of facilitating space-shifting -- whether or not that is its "intended purpose" as some have argued.) The 9th circuit was spanked decades ago for adopting a "primary use" or "primary purpose" test, when the Supes reversed them in Sony -- and I suspect they are likely to look closely at the fact that this was PRECISELY the basis with which the District Court found liability.
So, let's not get too hasty. The W.H. may actually be making the right argument, and perhaps for the right reason -- perhaps not.
Napster is clearly illegal, indefensible and doomed, as it currently exists.
No reflection on peer-to-peer file transfer, 'net broadcasting or file linking. (Which the law in its infinite [lack of] widom can't see are symptoms NOT causes.)
But with micro-payments going directly to the artists (via services like X3.com,) and using "web bugs" to collect payment from the recipient of every over-the-net transfer, then you are not pretending to get or give something for nothing.
The content providers are compensated as adequately as they need to be (THEY set the price) and the content recipients are not under an illusion that they're getting something for nothing (they pay the price if they feel its worth it...)
And the RIAA can suck eggs and the songs drop to something affordable (not $21 for a CD that costs $0.02 to make,) while the artist gets the full benefit without getting ripped of by agents, (mis)management, inflated production costs and all the ways the RIAA and its members have figured out to keep Li'l Richard touring at 72 because he HAS to since HE never made any money off his music.
And don't worry about 'em. The RIAA, the MPAA or any of these other industry associations has NEVER won a single rear-guard, stop-the-tide, un-invent the atom-bomb neo-Luddite, anti-technology actions. Not one.. Since before the invention of the player-piano roll.
They may the stupidest, most wasteful self perprtuating bunch of troglogytes on the planet and idiot intransigent moves like Universal's stubborn refusal to negiate wiht MP3.com may cost them their very existence but, lets face it, no one will weep for them when the next phase of the Net economy starts up without them.
ATRISTS OF THE WORLD! Get your money DIRECTLY from your listeners and avoid paying a fortune for the privilege of getting screwed by a recording company who will screw your fans by over charging and then screw you by paying you off of net when they make sure there's never any left
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Clinton "Justice" Department under Ms. Reno has been one of the most politicized Justice Departments in the history of the US government. Further, this is an election year and not a little bit of support for one of the worthy candidates of one of the worthy parties comes from the entertainment industry. Yes, you can call me cynical, but somehow I smell special interest infuence in this one...
You wouldn't get paid. You would have to get a real job, instead of being a hack that makes money off of giving his work to people with talent.
Of course, if you actually compose good work, then you might be able to make a living off of that as well. After all, although we know that Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Bach were all poor folks who had to live in the gutters, it's obvious that composers can't make money under any model. Maybe you will have to figure out a way.
O.K., I'm trying to be serious here, so I'll try to put it as diplomatically as possible... The collective thoughts of Napster supporters can bascially be narrowed down the the words "Oh NO! They're trying to take our shit!"
I mean, c'mon, how does RIAA's ripping off of artists make it OK to rip off artists even more by downloading their music via Napster?
I also don't see why it is so important to everyone else that RIAA rips off its artists. SO WHAT? That is the artist's fault, for either being stupid or hiring stupid lawyers, and I don't see why anyone else feels pity for them.
And... come to think of it, the Slashdot community relies on copyright laws to protect something that is very close to their hearts... the GPL. Suppose some big company took a GPL program like... say... Nmap, and incorporated it in their closed source software, and consequently benefiting from other people's work? Oh wait, you can't do that with software under the GPL.
What's that you say, you mean information is free for people to do whatever they want to it? Not according to the GPL. The aforementioned act is ignoring intellectual property laws just as much as getting something for nothing from Napster.
Honestly, people who support Napster here should at least be honest about why they REALLY support it (LOOK, THE NEW METALLICA ALBUM, AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PAY FOR IT! SWEET!).
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
And whether you and I are right or wrong, logical or not, doesn't work in the court room.
Look at MP3Board.com that's getting sued because they do web searches of Gnutella files. Crazy... So to get the work done for them, they go and sue AOL (whose newly founded employees of Nullsoft were the creators of Gnutella).
And don't forget the worste one yet: The magazine "2600" getting sued for publishing a list of web sites that had the DECSS software. Or a professor getting sued for showing a T-Shirt on the internet that contains the DECSS software on it. Or suing web site owners that point to web sites that point to web sites that have the DECSS software on it.
These over-large corporations (MPAA, RIAA) with a 50 million dollar a year legal department, are writing their own laws.
Rader
Napster is clearly illegal, indefensible and doomed, as it currently exists.
No reflection on peer-to-peer file transfer, 'net broadcasting or file linking. (Which the law in its infinite [lack of] wisdom can't see are symptoms NOT causes.)
But with micro-payments going directly to the artists (via services like X3.com,) and using "web bugs" to collect payment from the recipient of every over-the-net transfer, then you are not pretending to get or give something for nothing.
The content providers are compensated as adequately as they need to be (THEY set the price) and the content recipients are not under an illusion that they're getting something for nothing (they pay the price if they feel its worth it...)
And the RIAA can suck eggs and the songs drop to something affordable (not $21 for a CD that costs $0.02 to make,) while the artist gets the full benefit without getting ripped of by agents, (mis)management, inflated production costs and all the ways the RIAA and its members have figured out to keep Li'l Richard touring at 72 because he HAS to since HE never made any money off his music.
And don't worry about 'em. The RIAA, the MPAA or any of these other industry associations has NEVER won a single rear-guard, stop-the-tide, un-invent the atom-bomb neo-Luddite, anti technology actions. Not one.. Since before the invention of the player-piano roll.
They may the stupidest, most wasteful self perpetuating bunch of troglodytes on the planet and idiot intransigent moves like Universal's stubborn refusal to negotiate with MP3.com may cost them their very existence but, lets face it, no one will weep for them when the next phase of the Net economy starts up without them.
ARTISTS OF THE WORLD! Get your money DIRECTLY from your listeners and avoid paying a fortune for the privilege of getting screwed by a recording company who will screw your fans by over charging and then screw you by paying you off of net when they make sure there's never any left
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
>>I'm not gonna say who you should vote for
:-)
I think we should organize a huge write-in for Linus Torvalds
That could cause an interesting twist in all of the legal battles on the table now. Too bad he's not even eligible.
Do not teach Confucius to write Characters
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I'm not from the US jackass.
Actually, there is a system that's even more effective. You can completely block any stories that I (or any other author) post, by adjusting your user preferences. That way, you don't even need many other people to agree on a particular slashdot author -- you get to choose with total autonomy. If you block us all, the page will cause you much less stress!
But re: the claim about definition, well, I stand my the statement that spurious definitions can ruin any argument. 2+2=5 has several funny mathematical "proofs" out there, just like the proofs that say 1=0. In the case of the Act's definition of a digital recording device, especially, plain facts are turned on their heads in the guise of a "definition." That's why it's a ridiculous point, and why I wanted to make fun of.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I've yet to see a libertarian who supports the MPAA or RIAA in these matters. Libertarians support contract law, and thus take a dim view of one party attempting to unilaterally impose terms of use after a sale is completed. Now, if customers were required to sign a contract every time they bought a DVD stating that they would only play it on approved players, etc, then libertarians would likely find that enforceable (sucky, but enforceable). On the other hand, the MPAA would be unlikely to do that as it would require them to directly state their belief that consumers should have no rights.
I think a three way debate over this issue between Brown, Nader, and Buchanan would be FAR more interesting than what Bush and Gore would say.
Absolutely. I think that's true of just about any issue.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
There is no spin.
Don't talk to me; talk to your elected representatives. Work to get the law changed.
In the meantime, don't be a thief.
You never bought it in the first place. You just don't get it, do you?
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
If you are looking for CHEAP CD-R's, have I got a deal for you. Not me, but Outpost.com. A 50 pack 8x CD-R spindle for $12.95 w/ free overnight shipping. That's $0.24 per CD:
Kingston H (CD-R Media):
CD-R 8X 74min 650MB 50 Spindle Pack
8X 74MIN 650MB 50 Spindle Pack is the Best Choice of Storage Media.
In stock, ships by free overnight delivery
Outpost # 84352 $ 12.95
50 pack 8x CD-R spindle for $12.95 w/ free overnight shipping
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Well, that explains it. Your hard drive isn't a digital audio recording device... the software on it is! After all, the software can't be speech, if I recall correctly, because it's got a functional component which makes it more like a machine.
But wait... that would mean Napster would be protected after all, so that's not right. Damn, it seems like if the government has its way, software won't be speech or machinery. I wonder what the heck it is. Hopefully we can find some use for it, or I'm out of a job.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I felt the trolling was a much higher quality then 9.5, I would say 9.8. It had that flare that few Trolls posses. If you would like to learn how to Troll like this or dare I say *gasp* better please go to
http://www.howtotroll.org
we only charge a small fee for using our copyrighted material, of course the right to copy and/or reproduce this material is stirctly forbidden, as we only are letting you loan the words untill we see fit.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
Did anyone else look at the chart mentioned in the article?
Now, is it just me or did I count at least five musicians above the CEO of the RIAA in terms of contribution? The trend continues too: The CEO of BMG dug deep and ponied up a huuuuge $1000 - twice as much as the Executive Vice President of Sony. Sheryl Crow on the other hand put up $5000 and many other musicians I've never heard of put up substantial amounts also.
Now, I don't pretend to know anything about the politics of the Democrats and I don't particularly care. What does interest me is how the musicians and composers seems to be much more forthcoming with their money while most of the industry execs (apart from the top 6 donations) are tight. Maybe the poor RIAA is going under due to all this terrible, hideous piracy.
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge, and where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"-T.S.Eliot
http://www.cnn.com&story=lawcenter@1076628671/top_ story/
Even though I believe that under our current system Napster should be held responsible (at least the way the napster system is right now), isn't it interesting that the line in the post says that the activities of Napsters' USERS do not come within terms of the statute. I didn't read the whole brief, but isn't it quite obvious that Napster users are violating the act?
I beg to differ... The newest release (7 beta i think) has an entire tab devoted to new artists who have consented to having their music available. I am not saying that the majority of Napster users care about this feature but it is there. To shut napster down would be a huge diservice (sp) to these artists.
-valgrim
I agree completely with your assessment of this situation. If Slashdot wants to maintain the quality of discussion, quality has to be present in what's presented for discussion.
This will be a shock, but some slashdot readers (i.e. ME) are actually Republicans. I do have Libertarian leanings (voted for some too) as well, but I'm a registered republican. I take great offence at being labeled as an "evil repbulican" by the mainstream media.
/. in this case is the Democrats, but I guess they get a pass.
I agree with your comments sentiment, I don't like seeing all the mud slinging on the political side, especially when the party drawing the ire of
If you really want political discussion that's fair, watch the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News.
Napster is specifically designed to search for illegal mp3s, it has no other use. How am I supposed to search for unknown bands using keywords? Type in random words and hope to find something new? Maybe if you could browse by category they could at least try and make it sound legitimate.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
uhmm... 2+2 is 5
for large values of 2 that is.
---
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
I see what you mean, but what I was envisioning was something more along the lines of "we scratch your back and you scratch ours." Much like the RIAA's associations with Viacomm (MTV) and various radio conglomerations. Obviously Napster would be hostile to something that would charge the *users*, but if for instance they hit upon a deal with the RIAA for mutual advertising, that could get interesting. Of course, I don't think the RIAA could even *concieve* of a scheme where people weren't actually paying money for each song, so in the meantime we will get these silly legal battles.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
I'm not gonna say who you should vote for, think for yourself, rockthevote.com
1) Talking to one's elected reps get you 0 in most parts of this country. Big donations, though...
2) He/she did buy it in the first place, and stated as much quite clearly.
You just don't get it do you?
BTW, the American Medical Association just released a study in which, try as they might to find a ray of sunshine, they were forced to conclude that the Brady Act did not have any effect on gun crime. Other studies have credibly (but not definitively) shown that legal handguns do reduce your risk for being victimized by crime.
Maybe I am just ignorant of the political system, but aren't the 3 brances of the government supposed to be seperate? The White House is part of the executive brance and it's talking about something that should be up to the judicial brance in the trial. Not only this, there was a Senate hearing on Napster, so the legislative brance is involved too. How is Napster having a fair chance to survive when all 3 branches of the government are going up against it? This just shows that our government isn't working how the founding fathers intended it to work. If the big companies who finances political compaigns don't like something, then the whole government attacks it. I thought the whole point of 3 brances is so that if one did something weird, then the other 2 would keep it from turning really bad.
But if he votes for one of the major parties, both of whom are equivalent to him, then will he have still not wasted his vote? And have sent no message to the winner, either (if Nader gets >=5%, the Green voters will be pandered to somehow by whatever party does win come 2004). And he will have helped assure things will not change in the forseeable future. If one can vote for Nader rather than Bore or Gush on issues important to him/her, why not?
>If you define your terms correctly, black is white and 2+2=5, too. Remember who you're dealing with here.
But the RIAA would like nothing better than to force you to pay everytime you listen to a song. Think about it then... if what you say is true, then why was MP3.com sued? They offered a service where if you could prove you owned the CD you could listen to it on the net without needing to drag your CD around. If you do indeed own a license to listen to the music on that CD, how can they say it is illegal?
Napster has no obvious business plan as far one can tell from their website:
No banner adds
No fees for use
No nuthin
At one point I thought the plan might be to sell detailed marketing information on the listening habits of 20-million users by region/age/gender, etc.
Now, I'm guessing they foresaw this legal action long ago and fully expect to lose it. Thowing up their hands, they tell 20-million users "sorry guys, we really tried. But since you already have the software installed, how about signing up for our new pay per download service."
Could be sweeter for them if they can still use the existing user-hosted (read free) distribution system. And don't forget about that marketing info!
Do I really believe this? Naw! I'm just goofin around -- but assuming by some miracle that Napster comes out a winner, what IS their business plan?
Is this sig nificant?
I agree. What's more, I've posted a few truly half-baked ideas that were moderated up to a 5. The readers aren't that discerning, it appears.
It's one thing to bitch and another to offer a cure. I don't have one, so this amounts to nothing more than a rant. So you. Yes, you. The one with moderator points. Take this down a peg.
Thanks.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
I don't think they really exclude a computer, as such. They try to, but I don't think they accomplished it. Provided you keep only digital audio recordings on a drive, of course. :)
;)
Incidentally, a Rio or a car-mp3 player would definitely qualify; apparently, it just depends on the extent to which you devote that machine to digital audio. So buy a Pentium with a 40GB HD, and burn an mp3 downloading/ripping program into ROM!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I have so many disparate thoughts on this subject that I don't know where to begin...
Those in power wish to stay in power. We have traded the Kings for the Corporations. The government is propped up by the wishes of these corporations. (If you think otherwise, take a long hard look at corporate campaign contributions as opposed to individual campaign contributions)
The wishes of the corporations do not always agree with the wishes of the public and the consumers. Corporations desire to maximize profit. Consumers desire to minimize the cost of products. Real people wish to live and enjoy their life to the fullest without hassle.
This is exemplified best by my mother: I tried to talk to her about things like the DCMA and UCITA, her eyes glazed over and she said she was more worried about other things.
When will she start worring about the DCMA and UCITA? When it starts infringing on her lifestyle, i.e. when she can no longer record the shows she wishes to off the television. However, by that time, it will be far too late.
What are my thoughts on Napster and file sharing? The tools are there, they are available. Napster may make it easy to infinge on copyright, but, ultimately, it is the users download the music that are commiting the crime. Will copy music from other people on Napster? Yes, I will. Will I continue doing it even after they declare it "illegal" and slap fines on those that do it? Yes, I will.
Why? Because the music is a part of my culture, just as the TV shows I have watched are a part of my culture. And if the shenanegins that are going on right now with the DCMA continue, there will be a time where I cannot share that cultural legacy with my children - the corporations desire that each individual "license" material for themselves so that they can maximize profit.
And finally.. in the words of Utah Phillps speaking to a Young Writers convention - "You're about to be told one more time that you are America's most valuable natural resource. Have you seen what they do to valuable natural resouces? Have you seen a strip mine, have you seen a clear cut in the forest, have you seen a polluted river? Don't ever let them call you a valuable natural resource. They're going to strip mine your soul, they're going to clear cut your thoughts for the sake of a profit unless you learn to resist."
but... what do I know? I'm just a citizen, I don't control billions of dollars of wealth.
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
In the words of Bill Hicks, "All governments are lying cocksuckers."
Ok, I've read this comment a bunch of times, and I must conclude that the poster does not know what this site is. If you've got a problem with an editor, take it up with CmdrTaco, who just happens to control the content on this site. Slashdot content can be reasonbly expected to be biased by his personal views, and I'd certantly consider it reasonable for him to throw comments like this about Bush and decidedly Clinton-like behavior (apologies, but I couldn't resist!) in. If you don't like the content, as I said, complain to Taco instead of bitching and moaning about things to look wise and intelligent to the moderators. Or go start your own site, or apply to be an editor here or somewhere else.
-RickHunter
This is exactly the kind of thing you can expect from the Gore DOJ!
Yes, it is reasonable for the doctor to charge for the exam, but it is not reasonable for the doctor to forcibly gain monetarily from patients who later use the knowledge they gained from being examined to help others. Note, this sort of patients-advising-patients isn't practically good thing to do anyways, because there is not a perfect transfer of information; there are many contextual issues that a patient is not aware of that the doctor is.
You're right, it is no different. However, I think that eventually all information should be unrestricted in it's spread. But I'll settle for one battle at a time.
So, even if I hook my mixer to a set of analog ins on a sound card and record the school choir (using the hard disk to store the bits), the computer is not a digital audio recording device, and the hard disk is not a digital recording medium. Even if I have a dedicated computer which does nothing else, rackmounted in a nice SKB case with the rest of my gear, it doesn't count -- because it's not "primarily marketed" that way. Ha! Plain facts, on head. Convenient, phoney definitions.
Pro-level equipment (ie. stuff that's primarily designed for recording from scrach where SCMS restrictions would get in the way) isn't covered by the AHRA either.
It doesn't matter if it's a computer, DAT, CDR, Minidisc, whatever - if it doesn't enforce SCMS then you're not granted "immunity from suit". Which is irrelevant anyway if you're recording stuff you're allowed to record in the first place - the AHRA is about allowing people to record other people's music for their own personal use as long as they comply with the conditions of the Act.
--
qube
In that case, they could sue every node that the copyright-infringing data went through, sue the ISPs, sue the backbones, sue the modem manufacturers...
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Because the license applies only if you use that CD for playback.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Getting back to the subject at hand, I'm not sure I understand quite what plain facts were turned on their head by the AHRA's definition (in 1992) of a digital audio recording device. Could you elaborate?
this aruguement is nothing new. that being said, a large number of fibre runners in the US are now thinking that they might be considered a carrier for this medium of illegal media and wish to distance themselves from it.
digital media offers something that the normal analog media cannot offer, control. yes, those companies that can completely control what traverses their network are now voicing something so that they are not, in the future, construed as the facilitators of this medium. they are covering their butts. nothing more.
if someone were in control of the radio waves, and the FCC does not count, they might have had the same difficulties back in the 20's or 30's. due to physics, however, no one is in control of radio waves in the US other than some legal stuff that the FCC puts out every once in a while. hence, no one can sue the medium of transport for what goes along its tenues. in the realm of data transport along fibre and copper, someone is in control and can be sued.
good move by those folks to be rid of that possibility.
...is ass-backwards.
Concerts are considered merely advertising, to the end of selling more recordings, rather than the other way around.
And look, I found a coincidence. Who's promoting this line of thinking?
I don't even need to say it anymore.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Lemme get this straight: kids listening to free music in the privacy of their dorm room is somehow comparable to marching for racial equality in the 60's?
Let's keep this in perspective: this is *not* about social justice. This is about effecting change in the balance of power between copyright holders and the general public. It's happened before, and will happen again. Cooler heads will prevail.....
Driving is a priviledge, not a right. The second ammendment clearly states as follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note the comma between state and the. A comma is used to seperate two different thoughts. So it is my *RIGHT* to keep and bear arms.
Guns are not designed to kill, they are used in several olympic events to show skill and coordination. Its sad that in countries like england olympic athletes are not allowed to practice their sport shooting because of current laws. Last time I checked england wasn't exactly the safest place to be. Why do they need cameras on highways and street corners to look for criminals?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Yes, it's utterly and completely impossible for any party other than the Democrats and Republicans to ever get elected. Have a sense of history, people; there have always been exactly two parties in this country and they have never faltered or been replaced.
In case you can't tell, or have a 3rd-grade education like the parent poster, I'm being sarcastic.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
It's even simpler.
Napster says that a certain clause says that home recording is legal for noncommerical use by consumers. If consumers are allowed to copy, then napster is a legal business.
The act, however, specifically exempts computers from the act, as not being considered 'recording devices'. This was so computers would not have to follow the SCMS (serial copy managemtn system).
Double-edged sword.
Anyone with an elementary understanding of the nature of copyright will realise that this argument is bullshit.
You don't pay to listen to the music. You're paying for a license to have a copy of copyrighted material.
BZZZT Wrong answer. You have indeed purchased the music, with one caveat. You have unlimited personal usage of it, but you do not have the right to copy it (hence copyright). This is reserved for the holder of the copyright. This is an essential difference.
When I purchase a copyrighted work, I am enjoined from copying it, not by the copyright holder, but by the government, who has giventhe copyright holder a limited monopoly on profitting from his/her/{corporate entity}'s original work. I have not purchased a license for something; I own it. I am enjoined from using it in one particular way. That way is defined by the government (We the People ) not by the copyright holder.
What the corporate entities involved with these court cases are trying to do is shift this idea, to one where the original thought become 'real property' which according to the constitution can not be taken away without due cause and compensation etc. . By doing this, they will have taken away one of our natural rights. To freely share ideas and thoughts, no matter what their method of expression, is a natural right.
My personal opinion is that copyright has outlived it's usefullness, and that We the People should nullify this incursion on one of our natural rights.
Oh, and just so you know... I hold copyright on all of my jewellery designs, and am painfully aware that without the resources of a large corporation, enforcing copyright violations is a joke.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
quite a few of the search engines do make a thing out of being able to find mp3's now, especially Lycos (picking on them cos I am v.v. pissed off with thier TV adds over here - go get my arse)
~ppppppppö
a=guns
b=people
Premise: a kill b.
Action: Make a illegal.
Result: a can't kill b anymore!
a=Napster
b=files
c=people
Premise: a copies b illegally.
Action: Make a ilegal.
Result: c can't copy b illegally anymore!
They're not equal arguments.
Specifically the lawsuit wasn't filed with the intent of keeping people from copying files. It was filed with the intent of keeping people from using Napster to copy files. Yes, there are other ways of accomplishing the same task, but Napster is likely the current most common method of copying mp3s.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Maybe she has other intentions besides protecting IP. The system can work both ways, she could be donating the money to ensure that the crap that occured in the 80's with Tipper will not happen again. The intention of the donors cannot be surmised without questioning the donors themselves. BTW artists had a difficult battle with the RIAA earlier this year concerning sound recordings being reclassified by federal law as works for hire. So it may be prudent for artists to donate money to politicians so that they are not shut out of the process.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Am I tripping on something or is that a Ministry reference?
What would Al Jourgensen say about Napster?
Because, hypothetically, the artists don't own their music any more than the RIAA does. The legal basis for copyright in the US lies in promoting the progress, not protecting property rights. If the laws are now diminishing the people's freedom without providing them with adequate compensation, there's a big problem. The RIAA, aided by outdated laws, is ripping off music listeners, just as pork barrel projects rip off taxpayers.
What's that you say, you mean information is free for people to do whatever they want to it? Not according to the GPL. The aforementioned act is ignoring intellectual property laws just as much as getting something for nothing from Napster.
Sans IP laws, we'd have much less need for the GPL. Sure, some big company could modify the software and keep the source to the changes private. Personally that wouldn't disturb me very much (nor does it disturb those developers who use the BSD license). Even if it bothered you a lot, though, you might still reasonably conclude that on the whole, we'd be better off if IP laws didn't extend to software.
Honestly, people who support Napster here should at least be honest about why they REALLY support it
Oh, please. I can't speak for everyone, but my interest in the matter is certainly not about the nickels and dimes I get to save. Most of the stuff I actually want these days is classical or baroque anyway, and you pretty well have to buy that stuff if you want anything decent. In any case, arguing the issue ad hominem is just silly... don't drag your useful arguments down with speculation about the motives of those who disagree with you.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
If the ahra is read in it's entirety, it basically says this:
1) A digital recording device must follow the SCMS.
2) Definitions of what constitute a digital recording device
3) Computers are NOT a digital recording device for the purposes of the act
and
4) The noncommercial use of such a device (as defined by the act) by consumers is not actionable (ie: legal)
In other words, the music industry conceded that if a digital recording device followed their copy mangement system (let you only make copies from an original, couldn't do 3rd generation copies, basically), then it was cool.
Computers are not part of this act.
And some of us, due to the MINOR stumbling block of not being US citizens and/or being too young to be paid attention to (only by a year in my case, but still...) can't do anything else about it. I plan to contact some of my government reps about it as soon as I'm able to vote, I also plan to donate to the EFF if they allow donations from Canada and are willing to help in legal cases up here. (Haven't investigated that throughly yet)
-RickHunter
Being factual doesn't stop it from being flamebait
What Napster has done is to act as a facillitator to illegal activity ( piracy ). What the RIAA has done is to mis-apply existing laws to try to stop Napster and it's entirely understandable on the RIAA's part. ( I don't support RIAA in regards to css ).
The judge should find for Napster because of the mis-application of laws that the RIAA wants. Congress should get off their fat buts ( take a look - they're really really fat - that's why the TV usually shows them from the waist up or just their heads ), and pass some laws to make the facillitation of illegal activity like this illegal.
This then brings up the question of activity regarding GnuTella and other distributed search / retrieval engines. Due to free speach concerns etc - these should not be limited or constricted in any way. Any encouragement or activity to facillitate illegal activity should be addressed on who / what company is doing the encouragement / facillitating. Society can either be totally free or totally restricted. I'd rather see it totally free and have the RIAA follow up with the individual users.
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
redtoade objected to me saying "it hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party involved here," and wrote: "Why the hell not? Why do people always insulate their chosen parties?"
Well, why people may isolate their chosen party I leave up to you -- perhaps in some cases because they implicitly agree with the arguments or stances that party chooses. But the Democrats certainly aren't my "chosen party." Neither are the Republicans, for that matter. I'm just saying that despite the nice graph of contributions by music industry bigwigs to Democrats, I doubt that Bush in the same situation would have filed a brief supporting Napster instead!
I think it's political, but of the sort that all the political types can get into without discrimination;)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Why not perform your creation yourself? That's how you would get paid. Music is suppost to be an expression of what you are feeling and if someone else is preforming it then all of that meaning is lost. That's my opinion anyway. Even if someone else is performing the work you could easily make money! You could sell the music to someone else or you could work out a deal to get a cut of the profits from each performance. The only one who might not get paid is the people who work for the recording companies. As unfortunate as this is it is how our capitolistic society works. Once a product or service is no longer needed to company with that product/service will have to adapt or go out of business. This applies for all businesses. In this case the recording industry is no longer needed to distribute music.
The cat is out of the bag now, there is no going back. Even if Napster is shut down other similar services will follow, Gnutella, Freenet, and newer technologies that don't even exist yet. I'm not saying that it is right or wrong to download music off of the internet but my point is that if people want to download the music they will, shutting down Napster wont solve the issue at all (well maybe for a week or two until everyone discovers a new file transfer system). Instead of fighting the new technology the recording industry will have to adapt or go out of business.
No, buying a copy of a copyrighted work does not equal licensing. It equals OWNERSHIP. You can't distribute more copies, but you own that copy. At least, that's my understanding of copyright law, and I've read a couple of legal rulings linked to (very kindly) by another Slashdot poster that back it up.
-RickHunter
Just so you know, "Information wants to be free" is describing an inherent property of information. Information's natural state is to propagate as much as possible.. You have to ACT to keep it from being free. That's all it means, I hate when people think it means "Information Should be free"..
You forgot the operating an illigal cartel that conspired to manipulate the market.
"robbing people of remuneration for their time and expense" doesn't quite sound so great any more.
F
btw...there's an interesting interview with Gail Zappa here.
The question in my mind is:
Do the songs that are being shared most frequently over the internet so freely have any value in the first place? Consumers will only be willing to pay for something that they see as having value.That's why Metallica's songs are so heavily traded because Metallica's songs have 0 actual value.
So, why are the politicians that our tax money pay for being used as pawns to protect music that
has been recognized as having no real value other than the value chosen by the RIAA.
Soon people will begin to see how worthless our government is in protecting our rights against the pirate's of our Republic's supposedly democratic process: The MPAA and the RIAA.
Wholesale disobediance of the law will take place
and it will be found that the majority of laws propped up by our Government and the Corporations that have corrupted it are meaningless. In other words, the will of the people can not be thwarted.
Most of the codes and laws of our nation and many of the worlds nations are meaningless In conclusion it is my belief that a large amount of people with the power of technology in the hands can easily ignore a corrupt government.
It's extremely "fair", and even valuable. The Democratic party and their supporters would have us to believe that they represent the interests of "the people" while the evil Republicans represent the interests of "Big Money". While it's been a good line for pulling in suckers to vote for them, the simple fact is that they rely as much on "donations" from big business as the Republicans. It's nice to see the myth exposed.
It's also important to point out that the link also includes a list of Republican donors, although it's much smaller.
Seems more like a question of Establishmentarianism -- politicians in office like to remain there, and know about both corporate bread-buttering and the importance of appearing reassuringly normal.
That's all true, but according to the Democrats, that only applies to Republicans. It is important that light be shed on the double-standard.
By the way: I'm not a Republican. Don't bother.
Michael
Do you have ESP?
Wow! You demonstrated that you either didn't read my post or already had your mind made up before you did.
I was just pointing out that politics makes strange bedfellows, especially in the entertainment biz where creative freedom is fine... but don't screw with my bank account. When it comes to money "I'll make a deal with the devil, Al Gore or Richard Nixon.".
You are an uptight coward aren't you.
With artists such as Beck, Chemical Bros, and many electronic music artists, I believe that you are correct. The computer can be used as a digital audio recording device. And as far as the reference timothy made about the the writer and his notice of certain politcal advocation behind the RIAA, timothy needs to be whacked with a clue stick. The Clinton administration has been all about taking away the common man's freedoms, if people would just pay attention once in awhile.
Has
futang futang!
Let me give another (somewhat random) example, from 7 U.S.C. 6802 (2)(A)(ii), regarding "Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information" (whatever):
So, even though all the Douglas firs I've had as Christmas trees I've are clearly "greens" and certainly "cut," they're not cut greens. Even if I don't celebrate Christmas, it doesn't count -- because it's traditionally a "Christmas tree." Well, that's why the definition is important. The choice was made by the drafters of the law not to apply it to Christmas trees. They didn't do that accidentally. The definition is just a way to avoid repeating the applicability constraint dozens of times.
My point, of course, is that the definition of terms embodies the intent of the law. It provides a context and scope for the legislation, which is good. The AHRA seeks to narrowly define (thank goodness) the devices it covers. Maybe I'm assuming a level of sophistication that I shouldn't, but that seems sensible to me, and that's why I didn't understand what your contention was.
Because the license applies only if you use that CD for playback.
Where in god's name did you read that?!?!
BZZZZT! Wrong! There is no license. I own it. I am enjoined by the government(not the copyright holder) from copying it except for non-commercial use) see Sony et. al.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
Part of the reason that we need to learn to differentiate is that it's quite possible to have a member studio of the MPAA that might actually disagree with the larger group regarding it's DeCSS lawsuits. If a single member studio can be convinced that it's against its best interests to participate in the case, then you have much more leverage over the actions of the industry group.
The MPAA allows the studios to decide AS A GROUP what types of lobbying they want to do. If enough member studios disagree with their actions, they will need to change them.
Of course, the chance that somebody will ever convince a company like Disney to change its mind is somewhat remote (and I even own stock in the company), but perhaps some of the smaller studios could be shown the error of their ways by encouraging them to examine ways in which DeCSS might encourage easier distribution or viewing of their titles.
I haven't read your entire comment yet, but I'm definitely going to. I'm afraid the comment where I got the link was too far back to find, but here's some details to help you. (Its late here, I'll try to find it again tomorrow) The lawsuit that I got a link to the ruling of was Novell suing a reseller (but not a Novell authorized reseller). The case was something like the Napster one, in that the reseller was pretty obviously scum and was taking advantage of Novell to make a buck. (Some Napster execs seem to be... not entirely above-board) He was buying full copies of Novell software, then buying the upgrades and selling the upgrades with quite a profit margin. Novell sued him under (IIRC) two counts of trademark infringement (he'd used their logo in ads) and copyright infringement. He lost on the trademark charges, but the judge ruled that he did indeed own the software he'd bought and that the EULA of the upgrade software was invalid for about ten different reasons.
And that's just one such case. A sale can be a license, but by my understanding, it must be made clear to the consumer and I think they have to sign the agreement...
(Apologies for not being able to find the text of the ruling. I wish I'd bookmarked it...)
-RickHunter
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Come on, you know it can't be that simple; if this quote was really all that mattered, then it wouldn't be legal to tranform your legally purchased cd into a tape so you could listen in your car, or make a "backup" cd of the music to protect against scratched CDs. Both of those are obviously legal.
."
You have to trace back through the chain of references. What does "actionable as an act of infringement under section 501" mean ? Well, read title 17 501. It applies to "the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 118" among other things; I think that 501 is defining how you can sue and what remedies you can seek if your copyright privilidges are violated, not what those privilidges are.
Look at those sections 106 through 118. Immediately you see all kinds of limitations on the copyright holders exclusive privilidges. Some of these even apply specifically to sound recordings, and not other types of material.
Basically read the definitions of copyright privildges (106), which sounds pretty tough; then read section 107:
" Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
-STATUTE-
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . .
If you want to make an argument that buying a Metallica CD, copying it and posting it on the web, is illegal, I think you have some serious work to do. Check out the whole of Title 17 -- there is commentary in there on the lack of definition of the term "fair use", and stuff like that, but I haven't seen where it made exchanging MP3 files (or any other files) illegal.
I'm not a lawyer, or even a law student, or even a law hobbiest. I haven't even read the whole of Title 17, although I plan to sometime. (I printed out a copy and left it by my toilet for thoughtful perusal.) But I just haven't seen the chapter-verse-line number quotation.
Napster has made this argument, but they don't seem to pushing it too hard anymore. Go to
http://www.napster.com/pressroom/
and scroll down to the date of about July 5. The news links that are there refer to Napster's brief filed about then on the fair use of copying music files.
For christs sake, Napsters servers hold no copyrighted works. End of story. How can you be sued for copyright infringement when you didn't copy anything???
Just how are they encouraging their users to copy music illegally when they have a clear license agreement prohibiting this when you sign on for their service. How is napsters EULA any less binding than anyone elses?? for example the EULA that comes with a CD - you may not copy this recording illegally blah blah..
If its napster's fault their users breach their license agreement, how is it not the RIAA members' faults that their users have breached their license agreements?
Napster should sue the RIAA for allowing their music to be traded by Napsters' users. It puts them in a difficult legal situation , obviously, and has clearly damaged their business.
Oh, but wait. one of these companies has billions of dollars. I guess thats justice in the USA.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
ahh so you'd be posting that comment from your handphone then ? :)
~ppppppppö
Actually, if you've read my rants on guns or ever listened to me spout about intrusive government (or found me listening happily to the Liddy show) you'd be unlikely to think that I give a lot of Special Democrat Passes;)
Read the part I wrote and the part that Declan wrote; I was just trying to separate the political party from the general layer of Establishmentarianist political scum
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Zach Baker wrote:
... Neither a personal computer nor its hard disk constitutes "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium."
"I'm not sure I understand quite what plain facts were turned on their head by the AHRA's definition (in 1992) of a digital audio recording device. Could you elaborate?"
Well, for instance:
"
that's why I quoted this in the 1st place.
So, even if I hook my mixer to a set of analog ins on a sound card and record the school choir (using the hard disk to store the bits), the computer is not a digital audio recording device, and the hard disk is not a digital recording medium. Even if I have a dedicated computer which does nothing else, rackmounted in a nice SKB case with the rest of my gear, it doesn't count -- because it's not "primarily marketed" that way. Ha! Plain facts, on head. Convenient, phoney definitions.
Maybe we have to agree that we disagree here, if you think that the government's definition is sensible rather than silly and obviously false.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Of course it's full of people violating the RIAA's view of what copyright law is. Whether or not they are actually violating copyright law themselves is another question... the law is slippery.
I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which 'they' I'm referring to.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
Oh, come on!
The point was that in order to get laws changed, one needs to have the law passed through congress (changed through congress), or to have it overturned by the courts.
Congress is not likely to overturn a law they've created and upheld, and the courts don't try laws without a reason.
So how do you get the courts to listen? Break the law. Then you will have your trial. That's where the Rosa Parks and Tea Party references come from.
-Elendale (besides, who wants to listen to the crap the RIAA shoves down our throats? Cheap CDs at mp3.com! Woo!)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
very good point -- in fact, i remember a few weeks back, /.ers getting very indignant about this exact point, and for this exact reason.
if this is the best napster can do (and it's not) then i think we'd all be better off if they lose.
god is just pretend.
For all the supposed cleverness you geeks think you have, you still don't have a very good grasp of logic. Damn it, you all suck.
You sit here in your white towers preaching about the rights of the people - yeah right! The rights of your people and noone else. God, what hypocrites. Anyone who is not considered geeky is the enemy of the world and anyone who attempts to make any sort of living, putting food on the table for themselves or their children, is considered evil!
God, I'm just sick of it!
----
Lyell E. Haynes
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
bzzt. mp3.com is not napster.
different legal issue.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
Yes my point exactly. Just because the RIAA and the MPAA give money to get their way does not mean that artists and technical people cannot use their money to pursuade politicians. I think what really needs to be examined is the influence money has on our lawmakers. Campaign finance reform is a very important issue because, those with more money really do have more influence on our Government. This means my taxes and my vote have very little influence on lawmakers. Simply stated I am paying taxes, and voting yet I am not being represented. If I remember correctly the founding fathers of the USofA said these words preceding the revolution. "NO TAXION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"
Establishmentarianism is fine, but what about Antidisestablishmentarianism?
----
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
NO TAXION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" Oops I meant: "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!"
Got spam? We don't. Despammed.com.
Between the press portraying Napster as simply a network of piracy and the RIAA pumping big money into lobbying for even more restrictive copyright law than the DMCA, it is not surprising that the government would intervent on the RIAA's behalf. Next year, I'm going to ask my relatives to buy me a politician for my birthday--geez, at least a prostitute has limits to what she will do for money.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Trading copyrighted material is illegal, I'll give you that, but sharing may not be. Napster is set up without any system of quotas or controls ensuring that value is returned. It's a fine distinction between sharing and trading but it involves the idea of getting equal (perceived) value.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
How is Naster "obviously" violating the laws? Users have to agree that they will not share copyrighted materials when they use the service. Blame the users for copyright infringement, not the company.
Oh, give me a break. That's just a facade. Napster is a service for illegally distributing copyrighted music. All the old pirate BBSs used to say the exact same thing (and, unlike Napster, when they got busted they took responsibility for it).
Didn't anybody read yesterday's "Lawsuits Suck" article? There are plenty of real things to take action on; Napster is a lost cause. They are clearly violating the law, and the law (in this instance) is correct in protecting copyrights.
I have one thing to say Hackers of the world unite we'll easily take them down!!!!!!
How could this surprise anyone? Napster is obviously violating copyright laws. People don't like to admit it and they go and download songs anyway, I've even done it a few times, knowing that it's wrong. So what is Clinton wants to show his support for the RIAA? Do you really think he'd side with a company whose entire business plan depends on piracy?
Which constitution do you speak of? We are not all subjects of a global evil empire.
Being able to do something does not make it a natural right.
Copyright does not preclude copying; the copyright holder is free to grant permission for unlimited copying should the see fit to do so.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
I thought the one of the big points of the Home Recording Act was to line the pockets of the RIAA and company, but at the same time, not rob the common citizen of their rights by making not-for-profit music swapping legal.
Here we are, a few years later. By acting in the letter of a pro-consumer law, we are being trampled, and the rights guaranteed to us by this law are being stripped away. And still, we line the pockets of the RIAA.
This isn't merely depressing, it's utterly disgusting. The laws are being picked and chosen by the government. They ignore the ones that give us rights (Fair Use, Free Speech, a'la the DeCSS thing) and promote the ones that strip us of our rights (DMCA, UCITA).
What a sad state of affairs.
But that trade off would never be made by the RIAA etc. because when they made the trade off with Sony over DAT they knew that the amount of 'serial copying' would be limited to a scale way below Napster.
The goal of the entertainment industry associations in the next few years is to make copying information difficult enough so that, say, less than 10% of people will do it, while not pissing absolutely everyone off, so I would be very surprised if they go after IRC servers (the mode of copying which gave Fanning the idea for napster. Smae goes for the much more complex attacks needed on Gnutella etc.
If I were the Aimster people I'd be very interested in whether the court adopts the argument that Sec 1008 doesn't apply. Aimster - by restricting availability to those on your Buddy list aims specifically at coming within this section (and the tape-swapping cases) by denying that this is about 'distribution' = "it's just my buddies"
BTW - I think that arguments over the morality of file-sharing are a little silly. Of course artists need to get paid - doing it by paying for 'intellectual property' is just the way it has been done in recent monopoly capitalism.
There are other exciting and viable models for funding creative production. Street performer protocol, tipping
Cheers
James
This reminds me of that Onion article where all the corporations merged into one. Let's see.. who are the big players left with dominate positions domestically: SBC, Verizon, AOL, Worldcom, Sprint, and AT&T. OK, Worldcom and Sprint tried to merge already so we see that coming. Wouldn't it just be the ultimate in ironies if all these companies merged back into AT&T by 2004? Heh.
CDs cost too much There's no law that says ...
actually, there is a law that says monopolies and price-fixing cartels are illegal. The major record labels just caved on such an case, all but admitting guilt, and other lawsuits against them have been filed. They've been illegally keeping prices artificially high fro a long time. Perhaps they reap what they sowed.
Information wants to be free. What the fuck does this mean?
It means two things: in ECON 101 you learned (or apparently did not) that in a competitive market, price will drop to marginal cost. Since copies of information in the digital age have a marginal cost of zero, it can be seen that information does indeed want to be free. The high prices of CDs indicate thas some other non-market forces must be at work. Second, the other meaning is that if you teach me something, why should I be restricted from teaching it to someone else since that costs you nothing? Consider mankind in prehistoric times, or children on a playground: they learn from each other, and it's a good thing too. That's what "it's a free country" means. You need to make the case for restricting freedom, and I don't think "because it makes a small number of people rich" is good enough, nor does the argument that the information would not otherwise be produced... there has been music for as long as there have been people. The only new aspect are the robber barons.
Indie bands give away music
Actually, my response to this is that every interview you hear/read coming out of Hollywood has the creatives telling us how it is their calling: they write/act/dance/sing because they can do naught else, it's the very fabric of their being. So, since they're not in it for the money, why give them any. At least make them admit they are a bunch of lying money grubbers first.
The RIAA rips off artists. So if they are already getting ripped off then that makes it OK for you to rip them off?
Huh? MP3s get ripped from the ripper off-ers.
then why isn't it OK for corporations to incorporate GPLed code in their closed source products? After all information wants to be free
you are slyly restricting the meaning of free, excluding freedom. If GPLed code is locked away, it is not free. It's only free if they grant the same freedom to their customers... oh, that's that's the GPL.
if it is OK to pirate music then it is OK to pirate software after all the rhetoric is the same and information wants to be free.
not exactly right, but you are on the right track. It's OK because it is not piracy to steal from pirates. And a number of the points I raised speak to the actual circumstances, not just the fact that people are selling copyrighted material. Look at video rental: nobody bothers to rent and copy videos because they don't cost much. But people often bring food to the movie theater because of the price gouging.
Furthermore, when the people think the government of the society they live in is corrupt, the idea of taking matters into their own hands is enshrined in our (US) Declaration of Independence. Interestingly, the corruption then was the same as now, protecting the interests of fat cats at the expense of the unenfranchised. Every lawsuit we see seems to be settled with Big Marketing Companies being allowed to buy and sell data about us, and stuff our mailboxes with spam, and still more illegal to take the cover off the box and see how they are spying (violation of ECON 101's perfect information axiom) or price fixing.
....then they don't piss off 20+ million users of Napster. Ok, so probably only half are old enough to vote, but thats still at least 10 million. Thats enough to capture all electoral votes here in Texas, or all the ones in New York. And well, almost enough for California, especially if you count the Gnutella and other open source Napster alternative users!
Hey! Maybe they are actually trying to do whats right, even though its not whats popular!
Or maybe they're just stupid....
Think a little about the fact that you're ripping creators off.
in case you haven't sat down and thought about it, i'll do it for you...
napster users aren't ripping you off, they're ripping the record companies off. it's the fatass bloated record company that bends the artist over and gives he/she/it/them a big fat sloppy beef injection. this was the case before napster and will continue to be the case irrespective of napster's survival/demise. metallica isn't being hurt by napster, they're a goddamn mouthpiece for whatever scumbag company owns them, their music, their publishing, and the better part of their asses.
if a band comprised of four people having to split 7 points on an album between the four of 'em isn't anal violation, i dunno what is.
-dk
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
" ... Neither a personal computer nor its hard disk constitutes "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium. "
------
Wtf!? I have a hard time believing the administration with the guy who invented the internet could say something like that!
Yes, it's primary purpose is not "a digital, or analog recording device." It is a multipurpose device unlike any other the world has ever seen.
That could be taken to mean many different things. Can we legally record music onto a PC, because it is not really a recording device? Can we freely distribute these..uhh..liknesses of music. I'd say recordings, but being...hmm...created on something that is not a recording device, I don't beleieve that vocabulary would be correct.
Someone needs to go up to Clinton and Gore (the holy internet creator), and whack them around with the clue stick until they turn blue.
I agree with their thoughts, but their justification falls so far from the clue train, it can't even see the station.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
There's a very odd mix of cluefulness and cluelessness in this brief.
Some of the things here are dead-on. The AHRA was never intended for something like this, that is for certain. And certainly, many of Napster's users are engaging in copyright infringement (whether or not Napster should be held liable for that is arguable, but it's also not the point of this post).
However, it goes on to say a few strange things. First, that copying an MP3 is not "making an audio recording." This is, in a word, absurd. While it is true that no audio plays when you copy a file, the fact remains that the mechanisms used in copying an MP3 from one disk to another are, for all intents and purposes, identical to those used in copying audio from one DAT to another This can be very easily demonstrated. Furthermore, no one disputes that MP3's contain audio (Wrapster notwithstanding, and even then they contain audio of a sort). Since DAT-to-DAT is considered making an audio recording, it is unfair to apply a double-standard by saying that copying an MP3 is not. Does this make it right or legal? Not in and of itself. But it is what it is.
Second, it claims that a hard disk is not an audio recording device. This in and of itself is basically true. However, they say it's not an audio recording device because AHRA excludes devices on which computer programs are stored. However, it's quite possible to have a hard drive containing only MP3s; I don't doubt that many Slashdotters have just such a setup. What is the disk, then?
I'm not trying to say the article is pointless. It raises several good points about AHRA and the fact that Napster shouldn't be using this to defend itself (neither should it be responsible for the actions of its users, but that's for another post). But some of the reasons they're giving for it are just plain dumb.
----------
so according to this, my pc DOES hold as I built it SOLELY for digital audio use (ripping, encoding, playing, cataloging, searching, etc).
also, consumer and pro audio gear is more and more based on computer technology. and as the line blurs of what the "primary" function is (games machines that can store audio, dvd players that play audio, heck even PDA's that store and play audio) I don't see that act being very accurate or relevant in today's world.
fair use is being totally ignored these days. how convenient this is for the music producers - who never benefitted from FairUse anyway (it was always meant for consumers/users).
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
But I am from Europe and we sometimes do understand things differently: I always thought Mr. Al Gore was the Mr. Internet and subsequently Mr. Clinton followed Mr. Gore in Internet issues.
Mr. Gore should know that Napster is just a realisation of peer to peer technology similarly as a car is a means of terrestrial transport. Stealing by means of Napster is comparable to robbing a bank by means of a car. Needless to say that banning all cars is not the right strategy in the fight against bank robberies.
More statistically: there may be a high correlation between music piracy and the use of Napster but probability of the event of the causal relation between the two is much lower than the correlation. It is like blowing up an entire city to catch a few drug trafficers.
The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
I did find this under title 17 sec 115. Is there an exclusion for individuals which nullifies this?
(H)(i) A digital phonorecord delivery of a sound recording is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and section 509, unless -
(I) the digital phonorecord delivery has been authorized by the copyright owner of the sound recording; and
(II) the owner of the copyright in the sound recording or the entity making the digital phonorecord delivery has obtained a compulsory license under this section or has otherwise been authorized by the copyright owner of the musical work to distribute or authorize the distribution, by means of a digital phonorecord delivery, of each musical work embodied in the sound recording.
It seems like even though the delivery is automated by FTP, the owner of the machine would be digitally delivering a phonorecord to another party. I am not sure if there is some nonprofit or individual exemtion to this. Also, the legal definition of digital phonorecord delivery is not present in sec 101, so I may me misinterpreting the meaning of 'digital phonorecord delivery'
Any ideas? No wonder there are so many lawyers...
This still does not affect napster as napster simply alerts people to other people engaged in legal or illegal 'digital phonorecord delivery', if I am in fact interpreting this term correctly.
Now what's to stop me from renaming the extension of an MP3 to say something like *.DOC or *.XLS? Maybe I'll create a program that will transfer Word documents over the internet. Would my program be wrong? I wouldn't condone transferring MP3's over the 'net but whats to stop you from renaming these files back to *.MP3? I think its the people to blame and not the conduit. Just because cars can kill, should mine be taken away?
You're right, that was somewhat simplified. Napster only hosts the directory, and the clients have the files. But after a person searches for a file, then it's just like Samba: a transaction involving two people and a file, where Napster (the company) is not involved.
Good call!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yeah, I was noticing those laws too; they frighten me. But you don't have to record copyright info.
Does the Rio contain anything like that internally?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yes, actually. I think 'geeklawyer' does that occasionally, and I've seen it a few other times. But he was complaining that when he *does* post a lengthy explanation, no one notices... :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Try donating close to home : EFF Canada
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
Going by this Unix the ability to do any kind of file sharing is illegel. So http, ftp, AIM and ICQ, can all disappear. Infact TCP/IP and IXP can probably all hit the road too.
Code softly but carry a big magnet.
"hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party"? Give me a break.
Can anyone here imagine people making similar excuses for a Republican administration? If a Republican Administration were doing this we would see people here screaming themselves apoplectic about how this is yet another sell out by the Republicans to their powerful backers.
Face it, the Democrat's rhetoric is for the little guy, but their deeds are somewhere else entirely. It's the Democrats who were involved in the serious campaign finance violations. It's during the Clinton administration that the biggest corporate mergers have occurred (lest you forget, the 2 largest oil mergers ever, the 2 largest media mergers ever, the biggest automotive industry merger).
Wake up! You might not like the Republicans, but it's the Democrats who are clearly in the pocket of rich and powerful special interests.
-Jordan Henderson
I'm writting this as an expression of sadness. This just makes me unhappy. I'd like to be prophetic, forward or visionary but frankly I don't think the future is that uncertain. We will move this way until the interest of the powerful is fulfilled.
There won't be much resistance, just some unhappy comments. Nothing pro-active. Anyone pro-active will be dubbed extremist and austricised. People say nothing changes, that the elite always have the same amount of control, that we masses always strive to steal some. I don't think this is true anymore, the elite control so much and the masses are happy with the little (in relation to the whole) they have. Peity pleasures like shopping and television. Imacs and the gap. Lust and profanity. The meaningful things like creation and arts, science, love, intellectualism and discussion are dying into minority. The cultural elite is degrading civilization not with totaliterian control but tradeoffs.
Don't bother voting, there's no reason. Just give them the power.
Don't question media, just let it infect your mind.
Don't share music, buy it for $15.99.
Those of us who know the truth about the music industry (remember when it was an artform?) know what we want. We want justice, we want the death of the pop celebrity cult. To imply that music cannot survive without an "industry", especially in this day in age, in completely without warrant. Free the music
I blame all who'd consciously bring down such a regime over something as connected to the human soul as music.
These are the new power structures of the 21st century, not structures of royalty or democracy but those of opression and extortion. They live above the land of the law, as has been demostrated countless times, and reign down with an anti-human force.
Sad
Trolls, it must be cool to be that bored.
Considering just how freaken often napster or the RIAA or something to do with mp3 transfering is mentioned here on /. shouldn't it just be made into a topic? I for one am SICK of it all, and really don't care about it. Every single time it is mentioned the same points are re-iterated. Its tiring.
Sorry, but Napster is nothing like Samba or FTP. The client may perform similar functions but Napster as a company and a service provider equate more to a search engine like Google or Yahoo than to a file server. NO illegal copyrighted material is stored on their servers. It would be like you searching for any other illegal material on a search engine.. they just happen to organize and present it to you in an easier to view fashion catering to your tastes. Unfortunately the old world media and the courts are too obsolete to see this... or actually more likely, the old media knows this but uses the court's lack of technological prowess to trick them into believing anything they tell them. The average jury isn't going to understand file sharing protocols or search engines.. they're just going to see the prosecution lawyer bring up the napster client, search for a song, download it (from some other client) and then listen to this copyrighted material. To them this is damning for Napster because they don't understand what is going on. My mother at first for example had no idea how a search engine worked, she just knew if she typed in a query, "Netscape" would provide a bunch of pages she could choose to view.
I'm compelled to recall the history of the subject of music as it applies to the Clinton administration.
Remember when he used Mtv to lure all the trendy "alternative" 18 - 20something demographic?
Choose or Lose.
Of course we knew stuffy grandad Bushs rock didnt roll.But,here was Slick Willy dripping politically
correct sauce into the ears of all hosted by Tabitha Sorensen.(he "did not have sexual relations with those people,the demographic")Lubricating them for the moment he would drive into their aural cavity with a few uninspired honks on his horn.(there is a place for a brass band,outside and several miles away.)
"Airguitar"Bush and Mr.Potatoe never had a chance.
Lets not forget Tipper,a high profile member of the Washington Wives,the P.M.R.C. and her supportive,then senator,Alfred E.Gore(what me wooden?)censoring censoring censoring censoring censoring censoring censoring censoring censoring censoring censoring censoring anything they didnt like(anything more unwholsome than preMETAL Pat Boone.Do you like the parents warning label screwing up perfectly good album art?Do you think it really benefits more than a handful of snakehandling fanatics?
Now Bill sends his blessing to the RIAA,those who represent the same industry that has robbed artists since wax was invented.Coerced them into cooperation thru addictions.Brought us Easy Listening in the '50s bubblegum in the '60s Disco in the '70s,Bighair Spandex Prettyboy metal in the '80s and for the '90s regurgitated everything that could have been considered cool in the aforementioned decades.This,for the very same kids Bill was tooting his horn at,Generation X.They never got to have musical culture of their own.They just got our old crap with some sequins glued to it and some bullshit legends attached.
So fuck him and Alf Gore,and the maleducated politically correct little socialists that helped elect him.When Bill was elected was the day that music died.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Sigh.
You know, Carnage4Life, every once in a while someone posts a well-structured, well-phrased, well-designed argument on Slashdot.
These superlative arguments are immediately followed by a ill-reasoned, illogical, poorly-phrased, frequently irrelevant and, may I be so blunt, remarkably *stupid* attempts at counter-argument.
Frankly, Carnage, I'd love to read many, many more postings from you -- but my patience for wading through the shite to get to the pearls is rapidly wearing thin.
It is, I suspect, time to just give up on Slashdot entirely. The revolting masses have swarmed the system, and it's just sinking to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Just wanted you to know that at least one person acknowledges the quality of your post and agrees with your argument. Maybe I'll get to see you over at the other, better discussion boards...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Actually from part (B) it appears that having the mp3-player in the same hard-drive is OK, as the player software would qualify as
However, you would only want the mp3-player software and programs necessary to "directly or indirectly" play the "fixed sounds". Any other software present would disqualify the hard drive from being a "digital musical recording", from my reading.
I am not a lawyer, of course. (Has anyone seen a lawyer post "IAAL"?)
-- Tim Little
make an illegal activity much easier than it is without Napster. The current sharing model that Napster uses *is* illegal. That having been said it was also illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus and it also was illegal for those guys in Boston awhile ago to dump all that tea in the harbor. Very rarely is social change brought about by keeping the law. Now would most of the people using Napster think that they are helping to change society? Hell now most of them have never thought about it that much. But they are. Information may not want to be free but it sure does tend towards that state. As much as the RIAA, MPAA, and of course the government will try to maintain the current system they will fail and the people and the artists will have much greater control over their own lives and work. As a result of the current mess that is Napster we will get micropayments and all that and it will be good. IMNSHO
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Do you honestly believe that your average DVD-buying jerky-chewing consumer knows what copyright is and would give a flying fuck about it if he did?
Man, you are naive. Consumers are stupid. They buy things.
People are a different matter entirely.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Actually, you're wrong on this point. Radio stations do pay for playing music, and the money does go to the artists...
I know someone who was in a relatively popular band about 25 years ago, and he still gets royalty checks from the airtime that his music gets (classic rock stations are doing a lot to support aging musicians! :-) )
2+2=5
This is only feesable when using very large values of '2'
Primarily if your using one of the original pentium processors that had the rounding error and your using very large values of 2
Instead of pointing out that there are systems that are primarily built for audio use (specialty audio systems used for recording, or even CD MP3 players)
However some systems (computer) are built around digital mixing. (ie. Avid (for Mac) and I suppose BeOS as well as others
Nothing against StickerBoys post, just bringing up alternate views and being perhaps a bit of an Arse.
If it got to be a high enough profile case, the RIAA would look really stupid, or the court system at least, if it were held up.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
And the next time the CHP pulls me over for speeding, I'll insist that Honda be shut down.
So is it ok to pirate music made with pirated software?
Of course Napster should be shut down. Its users are thieves.
Of course guns should be outlawed. It's users are murderes.
Bjarne
If he/she had bought the music, he/she would then have copyright over the music in question.
This is clearly not the case.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
not a flame, just a thought...
---
guillaume
give me all your garmonbozia
Well.. it kind of makes sense. Under the DHRA, it is clear that computers are not 'digital recording devices' for the purposes of the act, and hence, do not have to follow the copy management scheme. However, this has nothing to do with the DMCA, or other cases of contributory infringement. Heck.. this isn't even about recording. It's about trafficking.
ooops , reading at +2 occasionally makes you post like an idiot... you miss some of the conversation and end up arguing the wrong topic.....
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
How many artists can you name that are going to the poor house because of napster? What percent of working musicians do you think make a living on royalties? How can you steal something from artists that they don't even have in the first place?
And... come to think of it, the Slashdot community relies on copyright laws to protect something that is very close to their hearts... the GPL.
You are correct. The GPL exists only because we are currently living under antiquated laws enforcing "intellectual property". "When in Rome", so to speak. If and when IP is no longer recognized, then the GPL will no longer be needed.
True, true.
Also notice that Sheryl Crow gave $5,000 to the democrats as well. And if you remember she was one of the artists that gave her 2 cents on the works for hire issue before congress. At least the labels didn't win that one.
1982 - Digital Research sues Microsoft and IBM - DR wins. It was obvious MS-DOS and its PC-DOS variant were simply rip- offs of Digital Research's CP/M operating system. It remained only to prove it contained DR code. DR's Gary Kildall sat down at an IBM PC supplied by IBM and, using a secret code, got it to pop up a Digital Research copyright notice.
It's case won, Digital Research received monetary compensation and the right to clone MS-DOS. This is why Microsoft never sued DR over DR-DOS, but used every other means to destroy it. The settlement was under a strict non- disclosure agreement, so few even know DR sued, never mind that they won.
Where's the references to court cases? Or any kind of source info? Because I've never heard that story before, and without that info, it's impossible to verify this.
What was that "secret code"?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You're being simplistic. Just because the CD market shows some elements of monopolistic competition does not mean that one factor explains everything. There is tons of music available, and it is quite substitutable in each genre (ever stood next to a jukebox?), not to mention many more bands waiting in the wings. However, by colluding to restrict the supply of music, the record companies minimize their costs and ensure high prices.
Monopolistic competition is by any definition good for the consumer. Consumers value variety and are willing to pay for it.
Customers of a monopolist are willing to pay as well. That's not the point. The point is that utility maximization takes place at the market clearing price and the music industry operates high above that level, enriching a few at the expense of the many. True monopolistic competition would have Patsy Cline competing against the Judds head to head on price (or other factors), not both controlled by one company which coordinates their activities.
If CD's were perfectly competitive and substitutable, there would be only one CD title, which you could buy anywhere. This is bad.
this is an example of nonsense: if it is "bad" they wouldn't be perfect substitutes. You need to understand what your definitions mean.
The marginal cost of delivering information electronically is not zero. There are constant costs such as electricity, additional bandwith expense...
Oh please. I was obviously (a) exaggerating, using colloquial speech, (b) "copying" as I said is close to zero; you are talking about distribution, and (c) networks have high fixed capital costs with zero marginal cost within great ranges anyway, and the consumer has already purchased the bandwidth he is using.
Napster's users don't matter.
Napster Co., however, does. They claim not to have a business plan. BS. Their business plan is to get bought out byÑor made the royalty-receiving default file-exchange protocol ofÑ"The Industry" as part of a settlement of this suit, which they knew was inevitable. e-Xtortion.
Napster's users can go to Gnutella. Only Lars cares. Napster Co. should go to jail. Yes, all of them.
-1, Troll
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
You can moderate the truth down, but you cannot make it stop being true.
It's time moderators recognised that someone stating facts that do not support their view of reality is not flame bait.
Napster users are thieves. Napster the company runs a service that they know enables theft. Shut it down.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Don't think. Let us think for you.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"hack that makes money off of giving his work to people with talent"
Oh come on, so your saying that talent rests with people such as Britney Spears who probably wouldn't know the difference between a microphone and a mixer, much less have any idea on how to read music notation. In music there is two levels of talent, the creator and the performer. Performers are nothing more than actors unless they are writing their own music (or atleast cowriting some of it). I guess in your little make believe world everything would be OK however, no one would have a job, but everything would be free... Nice fantasy, but wake up.
interesting how the definition of theif changes over time.
it was ok for Gates to ripoff DOS in those early days. most people in-the-know do consider Gates a theif. but he got away with it, didn't he?
think back, oh, maybe a few hundred years ago. courtisans played music for their kings. if one heard a song that wasn't theirs, was it "theivery" to play that song for your king? I seriously doubt the concept of royalties [sic] applied then.
I guess what I'm saying is that today, the music industry has drilled it in our heads that its quite natural to pay every time you want to listen to music; even if its recorded music. oh, it wasn't so blatant when the labels organized; they'd charge you for the recording on the media and whatever you did with it was your business. but now, more and more, we're moving to a "you don't own it; its only on loan from us and we can change the terms at any point" system. I don't see ANYTHING natural about the current fee-based system. I say we go back to the roots of music; you get paid when you perform - period. if someone records the music, touch tittie - its out there and there's nothing you can do about it.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
We should have a Napster topic so you can filter this out.
On a not-really related note, I just got an email saying that Ventura may announce on Fox News tomorrow that he is organizing a presidential debate that will invite all candidates who have a mathematical chance of winning the Electoral College. That would be George Dubya, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin and Howard Phillips.
If Ventura does announce this, it is certain to be a major deal with the media, and would no doubt be widely watched and very educational to the public.
--
sad, how napster is an internet startup that hasn't been around long enough to bribe the feds into doing what they ask. Instead we have a stupid corporate entity that bribes the feds when the money should go to the artists.
The beleifs expressed above are those of me and only me. Not those of my parents, friends or anyone else, who are probably deeply offended.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
How amazing. Worthy of Alice in Wonderland. Nothing means quite what it means. All the key words in the law mean the opposite of what they say.
... The administration claims:
...
...
Digging in
[T]he compromise underlying the Act involves a basic quid pro quo. In exchange for accepting the marketing of digital audio recording technology and the use of such technology for noncommercial home taping, the music industry receives financial compensation (through the Act's royalty system) and protection against serial copying. This quid pro quo was central to the agreement and the legislation that embodies it. See, e.g., Senate Report at 30 (summarizing the purpose and basic elements of the legislation).
The government's analysis of the quid pro quo is defective. There is a third party. The third party is the general public, who pay actual money directly to the recording industry; payments described as royalties The nature of the royalty collection system is hardly mysterious. It is a statistically based royalty payment system. Royalties are collected on the purchase of blank media, and paid in proportion to industry sales of works on fixed media. There is no special definition in Section 1001 for "royalty." The Government would like us to believe that unlike any other royalty payment in copyright law, and that unlike any definition of "royalty" that I can find in any dictionary, this "royalty payment" does not actually confer any right to use the material on which the royalty payments are made, but instead provides a technicality, immunizing consumers from prosecution for their still-illegal activity. This is preposterous. It turns the entire concept of a royalty on it's head! Incredibly, the government is claiming that the real purpose of the Audio Home Recording act is to protect illegal activity by getting the government involved in a "protection racket." Hardly an argument the government should be making about federal law. If this is the true meaning of Chapter 10, then it should be thrown out entirely, because the government has no constitutional authority to enter into such a scheme. I certainly hope that the courts do not buy into this interpretation.
Section 1008 does not designate any use of copyrighted works as non-infringing; it merely bars "action[s] * * * alleging infringement" based on such uses. Assuming arguendo that Napster's users are otherwise engaged in acts of copyright infringement, nothing in Section 1008 purports to render those actions non-infringing, and hence the claims against Napster for contributory and vicarious infringement would remain unaffected even if Section 1008 did apply to Napster's users.
The action against Napster is based on the activities of Napster's users. It has to be. If Napster's users had been only copying non-RIAA music, this lawsuit would not exist. The government claims, in effect, that Section 1008 means:
"No action may be brought under this title against any consumer based on
when it actually says,
No action may be brought under this title based on
and on and on it goes. We learn from the government that the word "non-commercial" really means "home" because they were able to find references to "home taping" in the congressional record. The law does not say "home taping". The law says "non-commercial use". Once again, we learn that the law means something different than it says.
The brief argues that because computers and hard drives have no royalties, that the music industry doesn't benefit from Napster. This is nonsense. People are buying CDRs by the millions. I go to my computer store. There's an entire wall of them. A good percentage of that wall is devoted to audio CDRs. People are buying them like they're going out of style. Why are audio CDRs suddenly so popular? Either there has been a gigantic upswing, for no explained reason, in home copying of CDs, or more likely, the boom in CDR sales, including audio CDRs, when priced competitively, is largely a result of Napster users who want to clear their hard drive, don't want to lose all their MP3s when the hard drive on their Windows machine inevitably crashes or needs to be reformatted, or want to listen to MP3s on their CD players, Napster is a 21st century adjunct to the 20th century practice of home taping -- with the same result as traditional home taping, the consumer driven production of, under the AHRA, royalty-paid music CDRs.
Finally, the government makes a tortured argument that after all that, the AHRA is inapplicable because what is really going on is distribution, and that:
[T]he Copyright Act also grants the copyright holder a separate and distinct right of public distribution - the "exclusive right * * * to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Id. 106(3).
No need to speculate on what "copies" and "phonorecords" are. The definitions are given in Title 17, Section 101.
''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
''Phonorecords'' are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''phonorecords'' includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.
The problem here is that a Napster downloader is not distributing a material object in which a work [or sound] is fixed; she is creating a copy. That's the whole point of the internet -- that you can share information without distributing material objects. If the two are to be considered identical, then the AHRA provides no protection, because even home taping is now "distribution", and the AHRA was clearly meant to protect, if nothing else, home taping. So which is it?
The government claims that copying is synonymous with distribution, that recordings aren't recordings, that royalties aren't royalties. I suppose this all makes sense to the administration lawyers who composed it, but to me it seems like a dirty attempt to recast the AHRA into a kickback/protection racket, which, sadly, is exactly what those of us who were using DAT in 1992 called it then. If the administration came out and admitted this, at least this administration would have the benefit of appearing honest, instead of acting as a shill of the recording industry, asking that laws designed to create and protect consumer rights be recast for the sole convenience of the corrupt entertainment industry, and that the only ethical interpretation of the AHRA be cast out.
This brief reflects strongly on the ethics of the Clinton administration, a fact that won't be lost on me in November.
How can the president whos in the executive branch have any infulence over what happens in the courts, which is the judiciary branch of government. Seperation of powers is one of the corner stones of our government. -
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
Did the court mention anything about the fact that Napster shouldn't even be in court over this; since they have done nothing to promote the distribution of illegal music, and have not made a utility which can be construed as illegal in any way shape or form?
My girlfriends apartment got broken in to about a month ago, [SARCASM]I'm still involved in litigation with 6 different companies that manufacture crowbars. When are these people going to learn, they can't provide the public with Tools. Idiots. [/SARCASM]
I love hearing comments like this: "Of course Napster should be shut down. Its users are thieves."
Actually, my CD collection got stolen about a year ago. Every one of the 65 songs I have on my harddrive, I own the intellectual right to. I know, I know, "What about people who *do* use it for illegal purposes?". I suppose I'm being a hypocrite hating all these absolute moron Americans who own guns for whatever reason; or the fact that I drive a car, when it has been proven that cars are used in Hit & Runs and sometimes they're stolen and people 'joyride' in them.
Let's not get in to the fact that I have a computer, which could be used to steal music like napster, or that my fingers work so I can type things and use a mouse to steal music like Napster. Cuff me now; I'm a criminal like everybody else.
I sure hope the extra Writable CD tax stays since Napster has nothing to do with the majority of *real* piracy operations. After all, we're all criminals deep down inside, and we may as well punish ourselves under the religion of law.
Ace
actually, you and the White House are overlooking something that should make a lot of sense to slashdotters: programmable computers are not one thing; they virtualize a whole bunch of things. My computer is not an audio device. But my computer with a media player program is. If there is to be a royalty, it would correctly be on the software.
What's next, legislativly mandated DIVX style pay per listen of music?
I was really hoping ventura would have made a run. Failing that, Browne seems the candidate least likely to continue eroding my personal freedoms.
----------------------------------------------
The war on drugs may be over soon.
On my first day in office I will pardon everyone who has been convicted of a non-violent federal drug offense - Harry Browne - Libertarian presidential candidate
....and in other news, the RIAA has filed a lawsuit against Slashdot. An undisclose source in the RIAA reportedly said, "they need to learn to leave us the fuck alone, just how many times can they say we are sueing Napseter"....
Burn Hollywood Burn
To me, it's all about convenience, and NOTHING about money.
;)
I have money. I'm quite comfortable. I could certainly go out and buy lots of CDs.
Would I buy more music if I couldn't get mp3s? Certainly (hey.. I don't even use napster).
Why don't I buy music at the store.. is it because I feel like I deserve free music? No..
it's because I think "Why should I have to get dressed, put on my shoes, go to the mall, and look through a limited selection of music, perhaps going to a different mall/store to find waht I want, even though it may not be there, and when I do find it, it may be a bit overpriced", when I can simply sit at my desk, in MY home, with my bare feet, and download the music?
It's all about convenience! If I could pay a monthly fee to a record company to have unlimited access for personal use to their archives, I would! It would be a convenience to me!
The legalities are pretty simple. Copyright violation is copyright violation. Copying music via napster is technically illegal. Napster was formed to make money off the fact that lots of people whould use it to pirate music. This is contributory. I have no issue with that.
And I agree, people should get off the moral high-ground. There are two simple facts here.
1) mp3 is more convenient for many of us. WAY more.
2) if the majority of hte music industry's former market no longer believes in it's distribution model, it will not ultimately succeed in legislating those people back into being customers. Regardless of the reasons why, if everyone is turned off of the whole music-store thing, then that's how it's going to be, legal or not. REmember, ultimately, if the people of the US (or wherever) want copyright law changed, it WILL be changed
I was saying that I don't see the Republicans getting a pass, ever, on such issues. I stand by it. I still haven't seen it.
The best you can bring yourself to say about the Republicans is that they are the 'lesser of two evils'. Sheesh... Why not just focus on the greater evil? The party (Democratic) who had all the campaign finance law violations and then have the temerity to lecture us on the need for more stringent laws. The administration that's allowed the most aggressive merger mania in history and lecture us that they are 'for the little guy'. The party that claims not to be in thrall to big special interests like Drug Companies, but takes huge donations. The party that looks the other way when Anne Richards (former Democratic Governor of Texas) executes more convicts than any other state at that time, but then roasts GW Bush for doing the same.
Everybody has failings, Democrats and Republicans alike. To say that they are both evil may be true, but doesn't accomplish anything. I say, let's focus on the worst always and rid our political process of them. If we continue to do this, then Government will get better.
If you don't like Republicans, then vote Green, whatever. Just get rid of the Democrats and their hypocrisy.
-Jordan Henderson
Nay, it is YOU that lack common sense!
If Napster is illegal, then so is Usenet, the World Wide Web, ftp, K-Mart, General Motors, Smith & Wesson, Chicago Cutlery, etc.
These things all provide services or products that allow people to break the law.
For instance, GM produces cars. Cars can be used to facilitate bank robberies, murder, fraud, all sorts of illegal activities. Are you saying we should outlaw cars?
Smith & Wesson produces guns. I can use a gun to kill someone, which would be illegal. But I can also use a gun to defend myself (which is not illegal).
Clinton/Gore is against Napster because it bolsters their case for gun control: if you can outlaw Napster because it facilitates the breaking of the law, then you can outlaw guns because it facilitates the breaking of the law.
Let's just overthrow the U.S. government. We'll have to start by eliminating the damn media!
My journal has hot
That aside, it doesn't excuse you. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to download MP3s.
They are not forcing you to steal their intellectual property, you're doing it because you damn well please, and foresee no personal consequences. This is not new in the world.
Argue against RIAA if you want... just not from that angle. It doesn't hold water.
Does the Rio record anything, or is it just storage and playback?
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
But I have no doubts that the RIAA is going to overreach itself. Somehow, they will setup a law so draconian in their frenzy to protect their own asses, that they will outlaw their competitors. This anti-competitive behaviour will be their downfall.
Guess what, Chris Johnson is already doing all of the above - sending his music to MP3.com and hosting his own music. He knows where is rights end and the RIAA's start. And we should all support artists like him, especially when the RIAA starts overreaching.
Just look at this Wired story . I'm more than a little disappointed with Gail Zappa. :-(
--
Quake should be banned forever. Not only does it promote student violence, but it allows people to trade maps, skins, and game mods through its QuakeWorld servers, and could likely be made to distribute mp3s as well.
Debuggers should also be banned, because they make it a *lot* easier to crack software than it would be without them.
Before you reply: I'm being sarcastic.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
You see, the book publishing business is many times more ethical than the music publishing business. This as a result of it being a far more mature industry.
It is definitely NOT a given that goods are not perfectly substitutable. If the MPAA companies respected copyright law and actually allowed the artistes to exercise their rights (or if the artistes are not lazy bums), there would be some choice for consumers to choose which publisher they want to go with. But no - as a I recall, there was even some legislation (now repealed) where the RIAA tried to make the works out to be work for hire. Think about that.
The RIAA is evil, copyrights or not.
"the activities of Napster's users" Exactly like they said... the users! NOT napster themself!
The brief the White House has filed is not a 'shut down Napster' argument. It simply states that Napster should not be allowed to use the Home Recording Act as a legal defense (which is one of the many defenses Napster has put forth.)
This is a VERY good thing.
If the court was to eventually rule for Napster on those particular grounds, the decision could eventually be used as a precedent to, among other things, collect royalties from PC makers for every PC sold to benefit the RIAA- and that's just for starters. In the long run, such a result would be a disaster for everyone involved *except* Napster, Napster users included.
If the appeals court, or, eventually, the Supreme Court, does eventually find in favor of Napster, it will hopefully do so on other, unrelated grounds.
Ahhh yes I see your point, hmmm better go update the troll faq methinks. Point of Troll=bites, no bites=baaaaaaad Troll baaaaaad!
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
[IANAL, etc.]
The brief the White House has filed is not a 'shut down Napster' argument. It simply states that Napster should not be allowed to use the Home Recording Act as a legal defense (which is one of the many defenses Napster has put forth.)
This is a VERY good thing.
Quite. It would also fly in the face of the legal precedent set by the Diamond Rio case, which basically stated that an MP3 player (and the computer it relies on) is not a digital recording device as defined in the AHRA .
But in simple terms, what does the AHRA say? That (if you're American) you're granted immunity to make non-commercial copies for your own private use if you use analogue equipment or digital with SCMS enforced. Note it doesn't say it's legal/lawful - just that you have "immunity from suit". Pro-level equipment (that doesn't follow SCMS and will copy anything) doesn't allow you that immunity, and neither do computers (which have no way to implement SCMS - well, there's SDMI *cough* :-) ).
You can't have it both ways - either your computer is a digital recording device and you pay the RIAA tax on every computer, hard disk and data CDR media, or it isn't and while people will go on burning audio CDs and storing MP3s on their disks they won't be granted their immunity under the AHRA.
It's a lame defence on Napster's part though - they're trying to justify their users actions with some very shaky interpretation. It's also quite amusing that they're taking the "OK, there's massive infringement but our users are allowed to do that" attitude while their Terms of Use still state "you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way".
The White House doesn't particularly favour the RIAA - it's just speaking sense. Napster are shooting themselves in the foot badly with this defence - they'd be wise to just drop it before they look like fools in court.
--
qube
Bad example -- several, myself and many countries' governments included, agree wholeheartedly.
Let G be the quotient group R/Z where R is the real numbers and Z is the integers.
Then 2 + 2 = 4 = 5 rather trivially.
Or, equivalently, face east, turn 2 full rotations clockwise then "add" two more full rotations. You are facing east which is the same direction you face if you turn 5 times.
Math on circles is perfectly reasonable.
what with slick Willie selling out to the chinese , then to the indoneasians, then to the europeons , why it does my heart go to see him sell out to the americans, it's about time he keep some of that bribe money at home. As for the legal opinion of the Justice Dept. - they've been such a stellar example in the past , this ought to be a high water mark for them , it also makes me question your judgement, you might want to make an appointment to have that rectal inversion checked out.
It means two things: in ECON 101 you learned (or apparently did not) that in a competitive market, price will drop to marginal cost. Since copies of information in the digital age have a marginal cost of zero, it can be seen that information does indeed want to be free.
This is a completely and thoroughly incorrect analysis. You obviously haven't taken ECON 102 yet.
- CD's are not a perfectly competitive industry
- The only perfectly competitive markets are things such as grain, corn, blank CD-R's, and notebook paper.
- CD's are not a perfectly competitive market because they are not perfectly substitubable. You cannot substitute a Patsy Cline CD for an Eminem CD.
- CD's are in a market classified as "monopolistic competition".
- Every industry in the world outside of commodity markets is under monopolistic competition. For example, the fast food restaurant is monopolistic competition: a Big Mac is not perfectly substitutable for a Whopper, and their respective sellers have a monopoly on each product.
- Monopolistic competition is by any definition good for the consumer. Consumers value variety and are willing to pay for it.
- If CD's were perfectly competitive and substitutable, there would be only one CD title, which you could buy anywhere. This is bad.
- The marginal cost of delivering information electronically is not zero. There are constant costs such as electricity, additional bandwith expense, and so forth, which increase in cost as you deliver more product.
Yes, you could make the argument that CD-R drives, sound cards, and even ripping software are all "digital audio recording devices".
However, the computer as a whole is not such a device. And since this is about Napster, the network interface, hard drive, and Napster software and servers are certainly not "digital audio recording devices".
As others have pointed out, be careful what you wish for. If your computer components qualify under the act, you can legally make copies. On the other hand, you will end up paying a record industry tax as well as having to install a anti-piracy system.
The AHRA provides the music industry with two principal benefits relating to digital audio recording technology. First, the Act requires manufacturers of "digital audio recording devices" to incorporate circuitry that prevents serial copying. 17 U.S.C. 1001(11), 1002. Second, the Act requires manufacturers of "digital audio recording devices" and "digital audio recording media" to pay prescribed royalties into a fund that is distributed to copyright holders. Id. 1003-1007. The royalty payment system is administered by the Copyright Office. Id. 1005, 1007.
(How the CD-R industry gets around this is an interesting question. Perhaps they are just careful about their 'marketing'.)
According to a Slashdot comment the other day, Microsoft has already stepped forward to help enforce these provisions. Apparently, Windows ME includes "rights management software" down even to the device driver level.
Now, either Microsoft just doing these guys a favor, or (worse) they are actually getting ready for the big shakedown, or (even worse) they are actively planning it as soon as enough "rights managed" seats are out there. And, depending on the interpretation of the act, it might actually be illegal to distribute rippers which don't comply to the industry's copy management specs. Which probably rules out open source software.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
THe point is that the DHRA is largeley irrelevant to this case, and may not be used as a shield from prosecution.
They were not trying to say that, under the DHRA, a computer is a digital recording device; the DHRA is extremely explicit that this is not the case.
They are merely saying that this is not relevant to the napster case.
Economics is the way we deal with scarcity. It is a fact.
"Scarcity" means that only a limited quantity of whatever item we're talking about can be produced. This is not the case with data -- it can be reproduced any number of times, so data is out of Economics' scope.
Unfortunately, we use economics anyway, and that's leading to problems, as we can see.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
No more so than shutting down Napster because its users use it to pirate music. We might as well shut the Internet down as well then. I mean, what other use can there be for a global network of interconnected networks?? Obviously the intent by the original inventors were to distribute porn and pirate music.. it must be stopped. BAN THE INTERNET! ;-)
timothy, it's not that we don't want the stories you cover. We like what everyone else has to say, we just don't want to hear what you have to say, unless it's in the discussion and you get modded like everyone else. We can't turn off the editorial comments, and we can't mod them down. This actually contributes to the problem because you editors know that and are thus more reckless.
Does anyone know how questions are selected for the presidential debates? I would be very interested in knowing how to put questions like copyright, DeCSS, and such to the candidates.
I did, however, find a link to the actual copyright law, and it looks like you're right; you get no license, you merely own a copy. Now I'm trying to find out what rights you do have.
Under fair use, in the scenario I've outlined, it would be non-commercial, and it shouldn't affect sales. (since both people already bought a copy!)
Incidentally, I looked through some of the digital audio laws, too.
The 'digital-audio recording device' argument looks bogus, because this is what the law says:
Therefore, computers count; the digital audio recording device is a part of some other machine or device (the computer), but the sound card and the CD-ROM drive are definitely designed with audio recording and transmission in mind. Specifically, what other purpose could a line-in on a soundcard, or a DAC on a CD-ROM have? It *records* sound. And its part of your computer. So your computer contains at least one recording device, and can be used as such.
However, this part of the law is even more messed up:
The way I interpret this is as follows: make sure you devote one hard-drive entirely to mp3's, people! Put your mp3 player on the other drive!
But no, it doesn't make any sense.
Also interesting is this:
Good thing we aren't selling anything!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
What the fuck does this mean? If it costs money to produce then money will be charged for production (this is ECONS 101). It costs a doctor nothing to look at a rash on my hand or listen to my cough and get a diagnosis, but it costs money for me to get this service. Guess why? It cost a lot of money to imbue the doctor with his knowledge and to provide the doctor with medical equipment. The only information that wants to be free is information that is valueless.
You are mixing SERVICES with PRODUCT. If a doctor looks at my hand, and listens to my cough, thats 30 minutes he CAN'T look at somebody else's hand or listen to their cough.
Ahh! So it becomes clear now. INteresting twist.
THis statement would seem to say that non-commercial copying is non-actionable.
What it seems to say, in more detail, is that the use of a digital recording device (etc...) for noncommercial use by a consumer is not actionable.
This same act, however, explicity says that a home PC Is *NOT* a digital recording device for purposes of the act.
Very interesting..... so although pc's are exempt from serial copy protection, they are also exempt from the exemption...
>give some examples of where they took place,
>hypothetical uses won't cut it...
I have personally, and repeatedly (and NOT hypothetically), used Napster to down load MP3 tracks of:
The Smashing Pumpkins,
Keoki,
Spooky,
Less Than Jake,
Limp Bizkit,
Mustard Plug,
The Offspring,
The Pilfers, and
Social Distortion.
... all of who have spoken publiclly and enthauasticlly in support of Napster.
I have also used it to gather MP3s of bands that, while not (to my knowledge) haven spoken out specificlly in favor of Napster, have historiclly supported their fans' right to record and trade their music: mainly Phish here... the Greatful Dead were well before my time.
All of the above are non-hypothetical "legitimate" uses of Napster, and would remain so even if the RIAA/metallica and its lackys are sucessful in destroying the fair use principle.
Now, as I recall, the Sony Betamax case DID rule that where there ARE legitimate uses, the technology IS legal. Too bad the RIAA/metallica has been able to buy so many politicians in the meantime.
Care to try again?
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
'CmdrTaco hates George Bush, but Bush isn't in charge, so how could Bush be worse than your current administration?' asks a Curious Foreigner.
I don't think I could agree with you on that. I think something like the following would be a bit of a closer analogy:
Stealing by means of Napster is comparable to robbing a bank by means of an armored vehicle with a mounted machinegun on top.
A silly analogy? Yes. Any sillier than the one you put forth? Not by much. Are they talking about banning peer-to-peer networking? No. They're talking about a specific implementation of peer-to-peer networking, that just happens to be perfectly designed to exchange files for which all parties don't possess the rights. Whether I agree with them or not is one thing that I won't even go into, but let's at least stay a bit realistic..
. ._ _ .__. ___ ___ ._ _. _.. _. .. .
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
Napster was created to facilitate the pirating of Music (read: "sharing"). To build a commercial enterprise around the stealing of others works seems very wrong and illegal to me. It may be an index of pirate sites, but the bulk of its business model revolves around it! :-(
well thought out and reasonable response. thanks.
Can your IM do this?
If there are any of you still left that don't think that corporations are having a gigantic, inordinate amount of corrupting influence over government, well, follow my sig...
(yes, the Libertarian party and Reform party have some overlap here, but I disagree with each fundamentally on several topics...in all though, I'd say that there is a great mandate for a real non-establishment, reform/progressive third party, in whatever flavor it comes)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Napster users may violate copyright laws, but nowhere on Napster servers is there copyrighted material (besides Napster's own coprighted material, obviously). How hard is it to actually now about something before you post? Users send songs back and forth between their computers. The MP3s never touch Napster servers.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
I wonder, would you have said that if it was a Republican administration that had released it? If it's okay for Democrats to engage in "corporate bread-buttering," then I'd better not hear any criticisms of the Republicans in regards to similar activities.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
one of my pc's is JUST for audio use
...why don't you file a counterbrief with the court saying exactly that?
The main problem I have with a lot of Slashdot posters is that they like to bitch and moan about things to look wise and intelligent to the moderators, but they never do anything constructive about the issues brought up.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Your "statements or instructions" is the exception to the exception -- it's a digital recording device under the act.
My interpretation of that is the encoding, track markers, and other information which is used for digital playback.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
The entire argument that Pro-Napster users use, is a sidetrack from the argument that Napster is a massive music piracy ring. Don't try and tell me some preachy bullshit that it's for "Free distribution and sharing". Only an idiot would not see that the entire reason for Napster's existance is to pirate MP3's, no matter what kind of holy label you try to place on it. Certainly it could be some kind of "Free distribution system" for unknown artists, but who thinks that's the real reason they filed for an IPO and put up Napster to begin with? Pure bullshit. The courts simply aren't falling for it, as much as you'd like to try and distract them to irrelevant moral arguments. You know the truth, Napster knows the truth, and these people know the truth as well.
Why is intellectual or creative product classified as property? Because it can be. The ability to turn intellectual and creative product into a commodity and exercise control over it is not some universal and inalienable "right". It is something made possible by the natural friction of information exchange and the erecting of social structures that makes the framework of intellectual property possible. Copyright concepts have evolved over the past couple hundred years. They will continue to evolve...and not necessarily in the direction favorable to current creators, producers or "owners" of the works. Whether we like it or not, the friction is being lubed out of existence. Deal with it.
"I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I do deny them my essence"
My bad...
It was Darling Nikki, not Little Nikki.
NecroPuppy
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
I'm not siding with anyone. I'm stating an opinion I hold that has nothing to do with anything the RIAA has said or done.
Use of Napster to download copyrighted works makes you a thief; whether or not you were one in the first place is irrelevant.
Musicians make music, for the most part, because thay have something to express. The needs of the people who choose to listen to their music have nothing to do with it.
If something is free, it cannot be a luxury. For a large section of the population, water is a luxury, and it shouldn't be.
You want, you want, you want but you sure as hell don't need what you are using Napster to steal.
Oh! Was that an insult?
I guess I should go cry then.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
It's called age discrimination. In many states you are not entitled to minimum wage if your under 18. Further more, if your employer claims you get tips as part of your job some states let him reduce your pay yet again by half. And then your employer can mandate the tips go into a common fund from which he can take %90 for himself and the rest split among other employees. It all adds up to a minor getting as little as $0.35 (before taxes) an hour and their work hours limited as low as 8 hours per week maximum (to protection minors from the virtually- none-existent-in-this-country-sweatshops). It's all part of this plan to reduce gangs, drinking and all those other 'teenager' problems cased by %5 for which the other %95 are punished. Other parts of the plan include curfews which change on different days of the week and apply differently if your driving, a passenger or a pedestrian. Different legal blood-alcohol level standards, set so low %0.0001 that the amount of alcohol occurring naturally in the body will register. And lets not forget complex time, distance and zone restricted driver's licences based entirely on age instead of driving experience. Seemingly of less importance is campaign to protect minors from violent media, never mind if you need to burn the constitution to do it. It all appears to be to keep kids grounded until 18, not even giving them the opportunity to be good or bad until magically overnight they suddenly become contributing members of society after turning 18.
I think I can sum it all up by saying "Politicians blame and punish those who cannot vote in order to dupe those who can"
No, you idiot. Because in the process of burning your mp3s to CD, you will be using your "personal computer" which as you just showed, does not constitute "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium."
----
Lyell E. Haynes
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
This is a valid point.
If it costs money to produce (information) then money will be charged for production (this is ECONS 101).
Just because it costs money to produce something, it does not logically follow that you are entitled to receive money. It costs money to raise a child and release him into the world as a healthy adult, so who are you going to charge? In a world without IP, you will obviously spend your money doing things that will lead to reimbursement, if making money is your aim. The absence of IP won't stop you from making money. Your business model might have to change though. If you spend money on a business model that depend on the protection of IP laws and expect to be paid, then you would be wasting your time and money.
Indie bands give away music - Yes, to gain mindshare.
It's all about mindshare for the vast majority of artists. Precious few make any money on IP. Most make it on live shows. So they want the word out (mindshare) so attendence will be good. Musicians do not need IP to make a living. The absence of IP will not make a dent in the lives of the vast majority of working musicians. It will make it hard for those in the musical pork barrel industry that grafts itself onto musicians' backs.
It it not OK for corporations to put GPL in their closed source code because we currently live in under laws enforcing the antiquated notion of IP. GPL is an IP weapon of war that uses the mechanisms of IP itself. If IP were no longer allowed, then the GPL would no longer hold. But then it would no longer be necessary either.
That'd be pretty fucking dumb, now wouldn't it?
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
I made the comments, and hold no truck with Republicans either. Believe it or not (I can't make you) but I would have the exact same criticism of a Republican president. Same deal.
As I've said in other comments, so might as well here, in most elections and given *only * those two choices, I'd usually vote Republican, as that evil seems ever so slighly less to me. YMMV. "You might not like the Republicans," you say, but please note that I do like the Republican Party a hair more than I do the Democratic Party. To the extent that I *dislike* them, I dislike them both.
Just so you know,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
The law wasn't designed to be abused by people intending to break the law. It's damn stupid that people can use laws as an excuse.. Prostitution is illegal in most of the US.. How come "Escort Services" are still advertised? If they were legitimate, they wouldn't be advertised in the "Adult" section of most newspapers. They're hiding behind loopholes in the law, just as Napster pretends it's a legitimate "sharing service" ... Gimme a break..
By the way, the reason intelligent liberals want gun control isn't to ban guns. It's to help keep guns out of the hands of children and people too damn stupid to use them.
-Splat
If you listen to the Radio (Streaming music source) and you change the channel when the commercials come on, the act of changing the channel should be considered an illegal one. You are listening to the intellectual property of the artists, but you are not playing fair and listening to the commercials which pay for the music. Further likewise, you should not get up during the commercials to get a beer or take a leak during the superbowl. The whole business model is built on the assumption that the consumers are watching the ads. By undermining that model you are being subversive and should be labelled a criminal.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yes, he can fix the problem that way. But perhaps he hopes that a little constructive criticism will lead to a better solution.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You're being simplistic. Just because the CD market shows some elements of monopolistic competition does not mean that one factor explains everything. There is tons of music available, and it is quite substitutable in each genre (ever stood next to a jukebox?), not to mention many more bands waiting in the wings.
Quite, but not perfectly substitutable. People would rather pay to listen to a band they like than listen to music they don't like for free.
Same goes with books, computer games, movies, etc.
However, by colluding to restrict the supply of music, the record companies minimize their costs and ensure high prices.
Yes, there are monopoly forces at work here - it's called intellectual property.
This statement is untrue and I don't want to ever hear this argument again. I know several local musicians, many of whom are very good, much better than 90% of major-label artists--but none of them make a dime off of playing shows. The fact is that you have to sell tickets to turn a profit playing shows. Very few people have enough name recognition power to fill a venue. U2, Pink Floyd, LatestTeenPopSensation--these are the people who have been able to convince enough fans to give $20 or up to go se a show. But not Noe Venable--an incredible musician in my area. Do you know how she makes money? BY SELLING RECORDS AT HER SHOWS. Not by selling tickets. If you can come up with a way to sell tickets for a small artist, let me know. But most people won't pay to see someone they haven't heard of. However they will go to a free show, or to a club with a small cover and many musicians--and if they like it, they'll buy CDs there.
Now there are exceptions to this rule--the rave scene comes to mind, as most DJs make money by playing shows. But still, only a few rave promoters are able to turn a profit, and to be blunt, a pair of turntables and a collection of records costs much less than good musical inturements and studio time. And if someone playing at the rave has albums out, you can be sure they'll sell them.
Now these DJs must buy their records from someone, right? It's a rare electronica producer that has the ability to play a live show. How do these people make money? Why, by selling records!
Look into the costs of touring and playing concerts before you spout off misleading information. FEW artists may make money on album sales, but FEWER (much, much fewer) make any money on live shows.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
William D. Freeman http://members.xoom.com/EvilGNU -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s+:++ a---
(wagging finger)
"I did not..have..sexual relations..with that drummer...Mr. Ulrich."
i find it amusing that you explain away the administration's position with 'Seems more like a question of Establishmentarianism -- politicians in office like to remain there, and know about both corporate bread-buttering and the importance of appearing reassuringly normal.' It wouldn't be because Napster is blantantly breaking copyright law would it?
of course the DMCA is absurd (and dangerous). of course the MPAA's fight over DeCSS is simple-minded. but i get increasingly frustrated by the knee-jerk reactions this site has to anything that impedes anything in the digital realm. Napster is nothing if not a well capitalized black market for artists' work. You have to apply the same fundamental property rights to the digital world as you have in the physical world or else all property rights become pointless. downloading songs for free is a hard sell on the 'fair use' provision, and Napster has no other purpose aside from providing a black market.
why should ebay be allowed to sell stuff like tortoise shells and get away with "i'm sorry, we'll try and stop that next time"? if that were a local Kmart, they would've been forced out of business. either do away with property rights laws or at least make them consistent for both the digital and physical worlds.
i rule.
Thank you. Point well taken.
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Funny how Napster being a conduit for transmitting recorded electronic material is supposedely illegal, yet the FBI's new software for checking our e-mail, (hey, is that recorded electronic material), is considered perfectly okay by the government. As long as big business can buy government, the little guy doesn't stand a chance.
This is a new world, folks, and all you anti-Napster, anti-Warez, big business lovers better start getting used to it now. RIAA thinks it is going to win by getting a judgment against Napster; in the meanwhile, MP3's are still being traded on FTP sites, as they have been for the past few years; and people are developing software applications just like Napster and Gnutella all over the world. The RIAA's and the Microsofts are going to win their little battles, but lose the wars. Why? Because of the high demand for pirated MP3's and pirated software. Just because some court says, "Hey Napster, you gotta shut down, this is wrong", do you think the millions of software and music pirates are all of a sudden going to say, "Hey, this is wrong, I better stop!" I think not. The problem with the RIAA's, the Business Software Alliances, the Microsofts, etc. is that they are still operating on an Industrial-Age business model. Sure, the RIAA made a ton of money in the past couple decades, but digital media brought in the information age. The rules have changed! From now on, it's the PEOPLE that are in control, not big business. The product is distributed at high speed at the will of the consumer... RIAA's legal position is wrong--Napster is not the wrongdoer, it is the people using Napster. But the fact of the matter is, RIAA does not have the money to sue each and every Napster user out there, so they took the quickest and most headline grabbing route--sue Napster. Now we have the GOVERNMENT interfering in a civil matter by filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Plaintiff? So much for the separation of powers doctrine of the US Constitution. Government comes to the rescue of big business and lets the world know exactly where it stands.
I'm sorry. Didn't you know? He does suck his nuts.
Well I would surely like to see the White
House lawyers explain to the DJ I met at
a reception this last weekend that,
A computer is not a
a digital audio recording device
a digital audio recording medium
Sure did look like one and worked like one.
I'm not defending Napster one way or another
on this, but more so ?I am worried about our fair-use rights for using our pcs as a
digital audio recording device or medium.
If you read the brief, it seems that all you
have to is put a "Napster" in it's own special
internet device only, and then have a "Napster"
company pay the RIAA like consumer electronic
device companies do....
i have a foil helmet I made out of aluminum foil.
When I put it on I feel much better. All my problems go away. You people should try it.
Take this personaility test.
This just in. Not only has the RIAA filed to make the PC a recording device, and collect royalties each one sold, but also on each newborn child.
It has come to their attention that humans have the ability to listen to content which they control, and manytimes hum or sing the lyrics. All without the content controllers permission.
----
Mods: browse at 0. A Gore supporter slammed my prior anti Clinton/Gore post.
Soccer Goal Plans
When you check on the link for the political contributions from wired, the third highest donation on the list is from : Gail Zappa Intercontinental Absurdities President $104,000 Intercontinental Absurdities is the label of former all around musical whacko and genius Frank Zappa and Gail I believe is his daughter. What makes this most amusing is that his label is the third highest entertainment donator to the democratic party. The very same party that is nominating Al (I invented the internet) Gore for President. If I remember correctly, this Frank Zappa is the very some musician who testified before Congress when Al's wife Tipper was trying to ban all kinds of music and entertainment from public consumption with that screwy political action committee she started. He made her look like a real bitch before the cameras and was one of the people who kept her from domination as the conscience of the entertainment industry. Amazing... fight them from taking away your freedom one day and the next your donating a hundred grand to elect them as president.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/09/09/15522 57&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=threa d&cid=193
:
;-)
I've read your post a six or seven times and I'm amazed at the amount of circular logic
that you used in your argument. The only reason I didn't respond to your post that replied mine is because I left my PC shortly after posting to Slashdot and hadn't checked my users.pl page until
a few minutes ago.
I will only comment on the most unrigorous of your comments.
>>The RIAA rips off artists. So if they are already getting ripped off then that makes it OK for you to rip them off?
>Huh? MP3s get ripped from the ripper off-ers.
Ripping Off means "to cheat".
Ripping in some circles means obtaining an MP3 file from a CD track.
>>if it is OK to pirate music then it is OK to pirate software after all the rhetoric is the same and information
>>wants to be free.
>not exactly right, but you are on the right track. It's OK because it is not piracy to steal from pirates.
This is beyond illogical.
>And a number of the points I raised speak to the actual circumstances, not just the fact that people are selling
>copyrighted material.Look at video rental: nobody bothers to rent and copy videos because they don't cost much.
Music on Napster is free. Are you suggesting that artists should spend time and money creating music simply
to give it away to satisfy your need for free music?
No matter how cheap music becomes nothing changes the fact that it is FREE on Napster.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now to comment on your the post I am replying to.
>Witness the open software movement: now those
>are artists who produce because they can't do >anything else. seems to me intellectual property
>laws protect the uncreative, it's the straw they
>cling to.
Bullshit. These so-called artists work at jobs that use Intellectual Property frequently to restrict the free flow of information, they merely give away their hobbyist work. The most notable example of this is Linus Torvalds that works for Transmeta that has PATENTED the various processes in the Crusoe implemnentation.
By the way, patents are the MOST restrictive form of IP.
PS: Then again maybe this validates your claim that Patents are used by the uncreative
I do mind if Napster loses on the grounds that music file exchange is against the law. I will be dependent on music file exchange to advertise my music to listeners who might then buy a CD from me direct. You _cannot_ argue people into liking music. You have to play it for them and see if they like it... if music exchange over the net is forbidden that leaves only radio- and it's damned impossible to get on radio, even if you _are_ a major label act (but not 'doing tonnage').
If you want to share your music with people then do so! Send it to mp3.com or one of the many other legal mp3 hosting web sites. Or host it on your own web site. There is absolutely nothing stopping artists (fledgling and otherwise) from doing this.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Well, I think 'storage' (i.e. copying) counts as digital recording, but I don't think it can record analog audio, no.
:)
Of course, I also don't have one, but...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The current sharing model that Napster uses *is* illegal.
Napster is not illegal because of the simple fact that u can trade legal mp3s through it as well. This is why those tibetan (sp?) stores are able to sell bongs and pipes, sure you can smoke weed in them, but you can also smoke tobacco, incense, and many other legal substances.
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
"it hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party involved here."
Why the hell not?
Why do people always insulate their chosen parties?
This could make me go out and vote against gore, instaid of Fore nader, But I'm guessing that lil' Bush belives in the same thing, so it probably wouldn't do any good.
Has bush made any statements about this stuff?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Nice to see someone else thinking reasonably about this. I use Napster. I liked Napster. And I don't because I'm making a political statment but because I'm cheap. (I'm the type who never blamed their dog for not having their homework, but that I had simply forgot.)
I'm not in denial about it.
What Napster is doing is facilitating theivary. The differnece between it and DeCSS, is that most people would have used DeCSS for legal reasons. Such as Linux DVD players that don't make you watch the trailers.
It is much easier to find illegal songs then legal ones on Napster. If your looking for legal songs, the convential internet is better as you get a fast reliable connection, unlike Napster with its Cable and Analog modems that are going on and offline. What makes Napster better is that it has illegal songs.
Whether the "non-commercial copying is protected from record industry lawsuits" clause applies to professional digital audio recorders and computers, I don't recall. Fair Use does exist for computers; if you extract the digital audio from one of your own CDs for your own personal use, that is legal, and so theoretically you should not need special protection from lawsuits.
Another monkey wrench in the works is the N.E.T. act, which makes it illegal to distribute copies of copyrighted materials worth more than some $$ amount even if you do not profit from it. This could be used to target those Napster users who provide most of the downloads, and possibly even to target Napster, Inc.
Unlike what some people seem to think, you _cannot_ 'support' me by buying stuff at this time. I don't have the capacity to make CDs on my own yet. I'm trying to get it together as fast as I possibly can, and I'm even kind of excited because I know I can do it better than mp3.com did.
I am amused, in a sick way, at the several posts I've seen that attack me as a greedy self interested person. Um, leaving aside my socialist tendencies and the amount of effort I put into helping others and sharing information, I thought to be a good little slashdottenlibertarian I was _supposed_ to be greedy? Perhaps it's a case of '_I_ am a real go-getter, _you_ talk too much, _he_ is a greedy little pest'. *g*
Though frankly I guess I could be much worse off- I could support Gnome or KDE (run away! incoming flamewar!)
I can understand why you believe that Napster's users are thieves. Napster is unquestionably used almost exclusively for distributing music without the publisher's authorisation.
The real issue, the question that isn't nearly so clear-cut, is whether or not Napster should be held legally responsible for the behaviour of the users of their software.
However, your comments overall seem to suggest that you believe illegality equates to immorality. Have I misunderstood you, or do you truly believe that people should obey laws, no matter how unjust those laws might be?
There's a broader question of whether or not copyright laws actually benefit society more than they cost us, but I wonder if you even consider that to be an issue at all, given your "the law stands above all other considerations" stance.
Your definition of luxury is ... rather odd, to say the least.
Water is a necessity. If something is necessary, it cannot be a luxury. Scarcity doesn't make water a luxury.
I miss Meept.
It is, in a way, about social justice. The recording, movie, and television industries (among others) have long been lobbying and bribing our government into screwing over the people of this country by warping copyright and patent law. There is little or no public debate allowed. These things tend to be passed with little fanfare or media coverage. The DMCA was passed with a voice vote so we can't even know how our reps voted on it. While most people who are using Napster are doing it just to get the music, many of us would like to see Napster succeed simply as a blow to the industries that have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. (don't even start about the stupid metaphor)
They keep pushing and pushing for more and more control. It's about time they start meeting some resistance. While I don't expect Napster to succeed (and I really couldn't care less about the company itself), I can at least appreciate that they've helped draw some attention to the current state of copyright law, and probably provoked people into creating much better systems for distributing music and other media that are going to be a lot harder to get rid of. The more we keep this fight in the light where people can see what's going on, the more chance we have of getting people to really start paying attention. That's bad for them since they really don't want people to think about what's happened over the last 30 years or so. They want people to blindly accept that they should have the right to own creative works in perpetuity and control all access to those works. I'd like to see people start getting pissed off about that. I'd like to see people demand that copyright terms be shortened and demand that many of the works that should have passed into the public domain long ago be put there now.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Well, except one thing, the databases of everything on Napster are stored on Napster's servers, and if Napster did any query on any popular band of their own databases, they would come up with hundreds, probably thousands of hits. The databases are theirs, that is their service. So if the databases are theirs then they could arguably be knowingly violating copyright law.
One could also easily argue that they are not responsible for the content of their databases because they did not put the content there (at least the content that violates copyright law). This way, they are like an ISP in that they are not responsible for content of the web pages of their customers. Even though Napster knows their databases contain material in violation of copyright law, as long as they don't look and don't try to police it, then they are not responsible. But if they police any of it, then they are responsible for all of it.
I hate to get all political like this, but this is very important.
Shit like this will NOT stop unless we send the republicans and democrats a message.
VOTE NADER.
Even if you don't agree with the guy, he's honest. Personally, I value that a lot more than someone who's just going to tell me what I want to hear anyways.
After all, don't you think it's ironic that Tipper Gore pretty much was the whole reason we have 'Parental Advisory' stickers on albums (said albums which populate perhaps 99% of the average 14 year old's music collection), yet, get so much money from campaign contributions from the same media that they have scorned. The irony.
In the same stroke, the Clinton administration has made several attempts to curb our free speech. The CDA I and II, the DMCA (which will be repealed sooner or later, it's only a matter of time and money), the V-Chip, I could go on.
And the republicans. Did anyone see the carnivore hearings? Almost all republicans, about 3 of them understood what 'email' meant. When the guy from Bell labs tried to explain a packet sniffer to them (which is all carnivore really is), they just sat there with a dumbfounded look on their face. Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why these people were appointed to this board. Elephants are big on defense and security.
Make your own choice, but Nader is not funded by large companies and lawyers, and doesn't have a bunch of ads on TV, but manages to draw an enormous crowd wherever he goes. I could only wonder why.
-Erik-
Why can't the record companies simply reverse auction an artists music and ditch the copyright? Example: Metallica releases more crap music and the bidding starts at $10,000,000. As more distributors or fans sign on to buy -- or as more time passes, the price drops. Begin flaming........... now.
www.hiredinsight.com
Don't get me wrong, I love it and use it, but the type of function that Napster performs is never going to be given the carried out by a publically traded company.
Arguably this is healthy - it pushes us towards real distributed file sharing like Freenet.
As for you folks considering changing your vote - be real - neither party in the duocracy would consent to this.
Let 2 = 3 (it's a variable even though conventionally variables are letters--here, I break with convention).
2 + 2 = 5
Indeed.
Richard Stallman is a man who is heavily concerned with creating a society of free information, where the community help eachother and strive for greater goals of self-awareness. Richard Stallman also loves animals, especially butterflies, so would be an ideal candidate from the point of view of saving the world's ecosystems. I think Richard Stallman should run for President of the USA.
Everything is but a number spoken by itself.
If everyone changed the channel when the ads came on, that would undermine the business model and it would collapse! By changing the channel when the commercials come on, you're showing your true colors as a subversive. That action should be considered criminal and punished!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So Clinton has taken the same stance on Napster that he seeems to have on guns.
Premise: Guns kill people.
Action: Make guns illegal.
Result: Guns can't kill people anymore!
Premise: Napster copies files illegally.
Action: Make Napster ilegal.
Result: People can't copy files illegally anymore!
Anybody see flaws in this logic? Napster doesn't break the law anymore than a handgun does. Stopping/slowing the legal sale of guns is about as effective as making Napster illegal.
Gun Workaround: Buy your guns on the black market.
Napster Workaround: Go back to 1998, using ftp sites for your mp3's.
As a fairly regular /. reader, I enjoy the issues brought up and the usually hotheaded discussions that ensue. However, the quality of editorial opinion IMHO has gone down since I first started reading a year and a half ago, and this is something I'm concerned with, since the editors of /. tend to have an overwhelming say in matters on this board.
/. readers pointed out that if an editor moderation system was in place, his comments would easily have earned a large number of -1: Flamebait tags.
/. as well.
/. editors to either take the time and effort to make constructive editorial comments, or to not make them at all. If that's too much to ask, then there are many, many others in the /. community who are willing to try.
For example, CmdrTaco recently aired his opinion that George W. Bush can, in not so many words, go suck his nuts. Since there was no evidence or even argument offered to support such an ad hominem attack, a large number of
My concern with your comments appears in this sarcastic comment: "If you define your terms correctly, black is white and 2+2=5, too.". Now, there is no possible way no matter how you define the terms that 2+2=5, or that total visible light spectrum absorption (black) can be the same as total light reflection (white). But I don't really have a problem with factual errors, because I've grown accustomed to them in
What I am concerned with, just as in the Bush example, is that such comments add nothing valuable to either my knowledge or to the discussion, i.e. is a waste of time. Instead of pointing out that there are systems that are primarily built for audio use (specialty audio systems used for recording, or even CD MP3 players) you instead make flippant remarks to simply try to point out how stupid the other side is. This is not news, and it is certainly not stuff that matters. Such comments can and do incite posters (as flamebait) that in fact hinder rational and constructive discussion, and I would ask you and the other
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I'm wondering how this shows that politicians in office like to stay there. As far as I know, Clinton is not- nor is he able to be- running for office again. Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but I doubt that's the reasoning of the politicians here.
Love, Stu
"Information wants to be free"
Mind you, the word 'free' here is not meant 'free' as in free beer, but 'free' as in free speech.
What you're paying for at the doctor is not the disease information, because you have free access to all the information the doctors has in the freely accessible university libraries. When paying the doctor, you're paying for an *expert* to handle the information.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
For months I have watched people on Slashdot justify violating copyright with crap like
There's no law that says you must own all the latest music. Humanity has lasted centuries without Metallica and Britney Spears, and the fact that you can't play their music at anytime will not kill you. People in third world countries don't hear the latest songs and I don't see them dying of "lack of music" so where does this feeling that you have to have popular come from.
What the fuck does this mean? If it costs money to produce then money will be charged for production (this is ECONS 101). It costs a doctor nothing to look at a rash on my hand or listen to my cough and get a diagnosis, but it costs money for me to get this service. Guess why? It cost a lot of money to imbue the doctor with his knowledge and to provide the doctor with medical equipment. The only information that wants to be free is information that is valueless.
Yes, to gain mindshare. Every indie band that is doing so, is doing this so as to obtain mindshare similar to all the Loss Leader dotcomms whose business plans are routinely trashed on slashdot
- The RIAA rips off artists.
This is my response to all the Napster loving slashdotters. If it is OK for you to violate copyright laws by illegally downloading RIAA sponsored music, then why isn't it OK for corporations to incorporate GPLed code in their closed source products? After all information wants to be free and they should be free to do whatever they want with the information in the GPLed code.So if they are already getting ripped off then that makes it OK for you to rip them off? The current system favors independent artists who instead of selling their souls to the RIAA create their own brand and market themselves. Such as my favorite labels. The Napster regime will only favor Napster. The artists make no money while Napster reaps funds from selling demographic info and advertising to 20 million users.
I guess that violates the intention of the authors of the code similar to how downloading copyrighted music from Napster violates the intentions of the copyright holders.
PS: Supporting Napster is no different from supporting w4r3z d00d5. If it is OK to pirate music then it is OK to pirate software after all the rhetoric is the same and information wants to be free.
On a side note did anyone catch the MTV video music awards the other night? (cricket noises) Ok, well yea I know it's lame but it was on at my gf's house. Anyway Shawn Fanning came out to introduce an act and he was wearing a Metallica t-shirt. The camera cut to Lars Ulrich in the audience, his reaction was priceless.
What I don't understand is people defending these record companies and artists so vehemently. Guess what? These people are still going to be millionaires when you wake up tommorow. Stop whining like the sniveling capitalist whores that you are and realize that the future is upon us. Napster has crossed a line by bringing this freedom to the mainstream. Do you think that if they somehow manage to shut Napster down that the 20 million (and growing) users of Napster will just say "aw shucks" and go to the record store? Not a chance. Instead of fighting against it's time for these companies, and artists to find a new business model that meshes with the technology. If you remember the industry fought against VHS with the same fury. Guess what? A new business model formed. Rented a movie lately?
Maybe this means that the current distributors will be obsolete. I can see how that would be scary to them. That is a hell of a lot of money lost with that business model. If the distributors are smart they should be making plans to distribute on the web and coming up with incentives for fans to download the content from them.
If all else fails artists have tours to fall back on. Can't download a live show. Can't reproduce stepping in vomit or stage diving digitally... yet ;)
-valgrim
Karma?
Here's an Introduction to Analogies: the analogy should be something obviously true, that almost everyone agrees with. Many (myself included) do not agree that guns should be fully legal. Several studies have shown gun control to be effective (look at violent crime rates in Canada and the US, for instance). Of course, I'm sure several have shown it to be ineffective -- either way, the issue is even more controversial and uncertain than that of Napster.
I left out this vital point in my initial post, thus leaving the thought incomplete.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
So what the hell is your point?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Well, dictionary.com says...
Thief- One who steals, especially one who steals movable property by stealth rather than force.
Steal- to take (the property of another) without right or permission
Since it can be argued that nothing has been "taken" from the owner an in some cases it can be shown that the MPAA gains additional sales though the extra distribution napster affords (similar to radio) I would hesitate to call all napster users thieves. The only ones who are thieves are the ones who listen to music they haven't bought but would have purchased if they didn't have napster.
The AHRA makes certain wise exceptions in the name of fair use, but cutting out general-purpose machines (like personal computers) from its definition is foolish and arbitrary.
I disagree with that you we should "thank goodness" that the AHRA (and as you point out, many other pieces of legislation) narrowly defines its terms; in fact, I object to this on the grounds that it creates a web of complicated, arbitrary definitions which evade common sense. In this case, ordinary, reasonable acts (like using a general purpose computer perfectly well suited to it for one of its many possible applications) are transformed into illegal, actionable ones ones. I do not think it is reasonable or moral to let the music industry determine via Congress on which of the electronic boxes I own I may record a backup copy of a CD on, for instance, but that's what the RIAA says.
Laws against copyright violation are one thing, laws restricting or taxing tools on the grounds that they could be used in copyright violation are another. (Check the price of the blank media for stand-alone CD-R recorders
Yes, I'd prefer a balder, less weasely approach. which would hopefully make people warier about getting what they want through legislation.
If the government has time to legislate the definition of "digital audio recorder" (or "cut greens") you can bet they're doing it in accord with the definition of the group pushing the legislation, whether copyright holders, florists, whomever. (And I can think of no circumstance under which practically anything to do with cut greens would bear on national defense or otherwise maintaining the Republic -- sounds like a business the state ought to leave its big nose out of.)
Yes, the act makes specific definition of digital audio recorder for its own purposes; do you think the definition is reasonable, fair or complete? I don't. It seems like a definition calculated to let the RIAA squeeze money out of -- and make certain design decisions, such as the inclusion of SMCS, for -- manufacturers of those devices without attracting the defense of general-purpose users, no matter what the eventual use of those recording devices would be.
A line that springs to mind from 'The Complete Walker' (One of my favorite books) is this: "[B]ureaucratic decrees are worst of all because they tend to accumulate and perpetuate and harden when they're administered, as they so often are, by people who revel in enforcing petty ukases."
We may disagree, but there's no reason to be sarcastic or insulting, ok? Since your response to me was, I end this line of argument.
timothy
*(and I only pointed out the silliest parts of that definition -- how about the idea that a device used primarily for spoken word applications doesn't count? Is an item's "primary purpose" always known before it hits the market anyhow? There was a time when the "primary purpose" of the Macintosh was DTP, and it came as a relative surprise. )
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
No. What I believe is going on here is that a bunch of whiny kids who were getting something for nothing are trying to turn their petty theft into some kind of big moral issue. It's not. They're thieves, and deserve to have their means of theft taken away from them. Doing this is easy in this case, as their means of theft, Napster Inc., aided and abetted in said theft through their inaction.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
They do exclude computers.. they are rather specific about it.
Certainly, for a car-mp3 player, sold as such, this may not apply (it's not a PC anymore). I suppose companies like empeg and such could be open to being sued for breach of AHRA. However.. it could easily be argued that the empeg and such are not recording devices. recording MUST happen elsewhere, they only playback.
And this applies to manufacturing and sale. Just because you plan to use the home computer for music is not relevant to the AHRA.
THe point, though, is that, because they DID exclude computers from SCMS, they also excluded them from the exemption (the 'not actionable' stuff).
It's interesting.
And from what I recall of the committee that designed the ahra, they were VERY explicit that personal computers were to be exempt from the act; they did not want the growing computer industry stifled by the music industry.
Why do people seem to think that they have a right to a middle class lifestyle because they arranged notes and played an instrument in a studio two years ago?
That's the whole thing man, you don't have that right. It's an artificial situation created by the lobbying of the record companies. So your whole questioning of "why do I think I have the right" is backasswards. Copyright as a concept was created for the acceleration of ideas coming into the realm of public works. NOT for some long-haired guy to get blowjobs and snort coke cause his face is on a record (which he may or may not have had the talent to make).
Most people have to work for a living, and then there are musicians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George W. Bush can go suck his nuts!
Lars Ulrich did an interesting skit for the MTV Video Music Awards in which he said, "Sharing is fun when it's other people's stuff."
Okay, so from their definition, my 'sound card' qualifies as a digital-audio recording device, but my PC doesn't? Or, if you want to be stricter about it, at least the 'line-in' on my sound card qualifies, and my CD-ROM drive qualifies. Also, individually, they cannot perform this function without storage, so they *need* the PC to even function as a recording device!
My PC can also check e-mail and connect to the web and program and manipulate images and play video games, but it is a general-purpose machine, so attempting to assign it a specific purpose is stupidity.
Could I argue that many people use a boom-box primarily to listen to Audio CD's and the radio, and therefore it doesn't count as a 'recording device' even though it also can record?
Does my microwave not tell time?
Therefore, I argue that politicians do not represent their constituents at all because they primarily eat, sleep, and pander to corporate interests all the time, and because of this we should hold a Constitutional Convention, and design a government that *primarily* serves the people. Anyone remember that goal?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Even if 10 million legal aged Napster users are pissed off, as discussed not too long ago, most of the people that can vote probably won't.
Errr... overall good post...however...
: "If you define your terms correctly, black is white and 2+2=5, too.". Now, there is no possible way no matter how you define the terms that 2+2=5, or that total visible light spectrum absorption (black) can be the same as total light reflection (white).
Let +: ( R x R ) -> R be defined
+(x,y) = x (+) y (+) 1 where (+) is standard addition; x,y are in R
As shorthand, we write +(x,y) = x + y
Theorem: + is a binary operation on R
Proof: Let x,y be in R. Then x+y = x (+) y (+) 1 is in R as (+) is a binary operation on R
x + (y + z) = x + (y (+) z (+) 1) = x (+) (y (+) z (+) 1) (+) 1 = x (+) y (+) 1 (+) z (+) 1 = (x (+) y (+) 1) (+) z (+) 1 = (x + y) + z
Q.E.D.
Theorem: (R,+) is a group.
Proof: Exercise left to another poster.
So in this algebraic structure, 2 + 2 = 2 (+) 2 (+) 1 = 4 (+) 1 = 5
I do mind if Napster loses on the grounds that music file exchange is against the law. I will be dependent on music file exchange to advertise my music to listeners who might then buy a CD from me direct. You _cannot_ argue people into liking music. You have to play it for them and see if they like it... if music exchange over the net is forbidden that leaves only radio- and it's damned impossible to get on radio, even if you _are_ a major label act (but not 'doing tonnage').
I _particularly_ mind if it is made illegal to rip audio CDs under fair use. I am determined to allow people to do that with my CDs. If this is ever called into question I will unhesitatingly conspire to solicit illegal CD ripping, by encouraging people to make mp3s or whatever out of my CDs, just as I always have. I foresee a time when the RIAA wins against Napster and goes on to make all CD ripping illegal- and that's when they begin really stepping on _my_ toes.
If I was then taken to court for this, I would have intense satisfaction in testifying that I produced all the music, bought the CD blank (paying a tax to the RIAA in doing so), burned it myself, made the label which says 'noncommercial copying OKAY' on it myself, sold it to the customer with the full intention of permitting them to make as many copies as they wished- and then I would ask, what exactly is the justification for forbidding me to do this? It's my music, CD, burner and customer, and I already paid tax to something that does me no good at all and only takes money from me to give to my competition.
In a way I almost hope all this comes to pass so I have such a chance to put a common sense situation before the courts. I already dislike paying tax on CD-R media to prop up the RIAA which is trying to destroy me- the next step is clearly for them to forbid consumers from ever ripping CDs, or exchanging any sort of digital music over the net, and they _will_ escalate it and keep pushing until that state is reached- and at that point they are legally blocking my right to set DIFFERENT terms for my 'music customers', ones that I might feel are not only fair but are a damn good selling point assuming they like the music anyway.
Things are bad, but I promise, they could be _much_ worse- and I'm committed to operating as a direct-selling recording studio legally, going underground does not hold any appeal for me at all. I have a _right_ to sell my CDs and deal with their IP as I choose, they are mine and I am copyright holder and that gives me the right. I will know _exactly_ when the RIAA goes over the line, and they are treacherously close to it right now and could go unbelievably far over it, and probably will.
Again, I don't mind if Napster loses- because I am thinking of the _intent_ here, and obviously the RIAA labels have _no_ intent to share music, obviously the wishes of those copyright holders are being totally squashed. They should be respected- this makes COMPETITION and allows people (arguably more savvy people! ;) ) like me to specifically allow such trading- giving us traders a big advantage, giving our music MORE VALUE because you can do more with it and you can make copies of it and put it on a server for when you travel and etc etc etc the sky's the limit.
Certain types of IP law will over-reach, not only respecting the RIAA labels' wishes, but denying the wishes of someone like me through legislative action. And _that_ is where I draw the line. Let the RIAA do _whatever_ with the stuff they own- but keep their *&&^$^@#& hands off MY property!
Just use Gnutella. I'd be really interested to see how the establishment and the entertainment industry is going to stop it. You can't legislate this. You can't monopolize it out of existance. You can try and fight it but you cannot stop it. We're dealing with technology that the world really doesn't understand or know how to deal with. The old establishment will need to learn to coexist with it. If people want to share information, music, naked pictures of men having sex with sheep, or warez you're just going to have to accept it. The old walls are crumbling and you missed the bus. Welcome to the 21st century old media. You're obsolete.
As much as you might like to think so, you don't vote directly for presidents. Read up on the electoral college, and then maybe you'll understand why voting for Nader is a waste of time. You're just throwing your vote in the toilet.
Sorry to squash your idealism, but you don't have a clue.
See this page for a mathimatical model on how the electoral college actually gives more voting power to citizens. Regardless of that, if Nader gets >=5% of the popular vote, the Green Party gets "major party status" and is elegable for public funding in 2004 (just like the Reform Party is now).
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Who are we to say how an artist may earn their money? Take a look at how they make their money, and then say "Oh, they don't really need this much, I think I should steal from them to prove a point about such and such law." And, who knows, there may really be artists who are going poor because of Napster, but not the big ones everyone always hears about (of course, this is pure speculation, as I don't really know the financial status of all artists involved.).
How can you steal something from artists that they don't even have in the first place?The problem is, they do own their music in the first place, in the way that they still get paid royalties, however small, for their work. In this instance, you aren't just hurting some faceless corporate giant (RIAA), but you are also hurting individual artists (well, with the state of today's pop music, I hesitate to use that term.). How in the world do you think the next Britney Spears is going to pay for breast implants if all her music is being distributed, for free, on Napster?
I think the best way to solve this problem of collecting royalties will never really be fully solved, even though many in the Slashdot community suggest online distribution, ala Courtney Love. The crux of the matter is, not everyone has a computer, just that the Slashdot elite assume that everyone does, because they do. My view is that there will always be huge record companies ripping off artists, because everyone still needs to reach normal people through sales of CDs, vinyl, etc.
Whew!
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Why does everyone seem to avoid the free speech issue inhearting in all this? The question is can someone communicate the location of an person, place, or thing which involves illegal content? Let's assume that every file on individual users computers was an illegal copy. Can Napster share the locations for those files? Let's reduce the problem. Let's say there is only one file. If you did a seach on Napster only that file would come up. Napster knows that if anyone copies that file they will infringe on the files copyright holder. The napster software is irrelevent. Napster is irrelevent. Can the New York times print a URL to this infringing file? Let's say that the content was the script for the next Star Wars movie. Is the New York times prohibited from publishing the location of infringing content? If the New York Times can't publish that URL then Napster is guilty of facilitating infringement. If the New York Times can publish that URL then Napster is off the hook because that's what napster does. Publish the location of various content.
The existence or nonexistence of IP laws will affect everyone's business models, not just artists. But if you really want to know if there are artists going to the poor house because of Napster, I can tell you unequivocally no!
It's a well known fact that you have to have an album doing platinum or better to generate significant artist royalties from sales of CD. Up until that point, all royalties are taken by the label to recoup the cost of producing the CD - to pay off their buddies at the studio, their buddies in promotion, their buddies in every part of the pork barrel. The typical working artist will never go platinum, so royalies are a moot point. They survive off of live shows and do not see royalties. You are definitely not hurting them. The exceptional artist that is platinum or better could be affected by royalties, but will already be rich selling out big venues. And even if they are platinum, royalties aren't guaranteed - see that VH-1 episode about the Goo Goo Dolls for an example of this. Their #1 song "Name" was all over the airwaves and they were extremely popular. They album was platinum. They got home from their tour and found a royalty statement in their mailbox - it said they still owed the label six figures for production costs. They had to pay for that and all the legal fees in the ensuing battle by going out and touring some more! And theirs is not an isolated story.
This is not an issue that affects musicians much at all. It mainly affect the pork barrel practices of the labels, but has been recast into a "protect the musician" fight because they believe their case will be more appealing that way. Notice how they haven't been able to find a poster child musician whose gone to the poor house to hold up as an example of the damage napster has done. If there was such an orrurance, you can bet your ass that they would be using it as propaganda!
Live shows have always been how the typical musician makes their money. They will continue to make money this way. They will not miss royalties they never recieved. The typical musician on mp3.com gets more money from downloading "pay for play" royalties than they ever would from label royalties, even though the "pay for play" royalties amount to a paltry sum. Any amount of tipping over the internet will exceed the typical royalty payment ($0) that the typical musician recieves.
The bottom line is that we do not need to have "Intellectual Property" around for musicians to make the same or better money than they do now. Getting rid of Intellectual Property would restore a lot of our personal freedoms, but would not place musicians in more financial danger than the current situation. It might bust open the pork barrels in the music industry, but that's fine with me.
We don't need labels anymore anyway. I have a 16 track hard disk based digital studio with 8 channels of effects that can burn straight to CDR via SCSI port, and it's small enough to sit in my lap. I cost $2000 - far, far less than a typical studio session. I can sell my CD off of mp3.com and get a 50% royalty (more than any label offers), and get royalties for every download of one of my songs that are subsidised by their banner ads (a paltry sum, but more than the $0 a typical artists gets from labels as royalties). I can generate interest in my live shows using the net.
That's more studio power and self promotion power than the Beatles ever had. I'm limited only by my own performance and creativity. We don't need the labels anymore. They became self-serving a long time ago.
Anyone notice how conveniently they wait until it's almost in the bag?
It's time to stop use of Lobbyist groups with the most money, getting their way. Maybe if we were able to make mp3's addictive with nicotine---we'd have a leg to stand on!!! Just look at how long the Tobacco industry has been running the government...
Let's sneak onto Chelsea Clinton's laptop. A million bucks says she has MP3's on there!
Rader
I am at +3 so if this is a rehash too bad blame it on the mods.
1. I thought that an MP3 was NOT a true reproduction. Please correct me if I am wrong
2. Napster/Mp3.com are not the only game in town
I can get lists of FTP servers off IRC just as easy and get any MP3 I want.
3. Copyright laws are being abused and need to
be reformed.
4. This is a victim less crime. CD sale are at all time highs.
5. I am sick of hearing about this. reminds me of LGPL vs GPL vs KDE vs CDE vs GLIBC hehehe.
My main point is that Copyright Laws have been
twisted and need to be reformed. If that means that I have to break the law to get music so be
it. I will not pay per read/pay on books or DVDs
If I have to I will break the law. At least I have a GPLed OS and lots of great software thanks to people with vision and perserverance.
PS. You can not put the whole world in jail... Wait... We might all be there and not know it!
Everyone has been saying how Napster plans to make money from their service. If so, then how? I use a mac and master doesn't have any kind of banner ads in it so does the Win9x version? Unless they plan on marketing a different kind of peer-to-peer sharing to business or start charging users to connect, I don't see any way they can make money.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Y' know if I advertize my house as a good place to come and find crack dealers (and there are crack dealers here) then the police will arrest me and I will go to jail. But if I own a building and a crack dealer sets up shop there it isn't my fault... If I send MP3 files via E-Mail my ISP isn't responsable... But realistically Napster is over that line of just providing the means.
When I read the Napster brief in the section where they are that the AHRA exempts them, because it says to the effect that no action may be taken against someone for use of a digital recording device, and a page or two later they quote the Rio decision where a computer did not fit the legal definition of a digital recording device... Open mouth, insert foot.
So if computers aren't included in the defintion, it follows that the clause in the AHRA can't be used to exempt Napster users from copyright infringement (not Napster, remember this is the part where they are arguing that their users are not doing infringing copyrights, and if they aren't, Napster can't be held responsible for contributory infringement since there is no infringement going on in the first place.)
The next step I'd say is to question whether the activity of Napster users fits any strict legal definition on the books at all. If it doesn't (and the laws are littered with terms like phonorecords that bear no relevance to ephemeral mp3 files) then it Napster still might be able to argue that no law makes it illegal to share mp3 files....
This is even on topic, but I'll leave you the reader to work out the moral of this story.
... but you have all the equipment ..."
------------------------
A couple went on vacation to a fishing resort up north. The husband liked to fish at the crack of dawn; the wife preferred to read. One morning the husband returned after several hours of fishing and decided to take a short nap. The wife decided to take the boat out. She was not familiar with the lake so she rowed out, anchored the boat, and started reading her book.
Along comes the sheriff in his boat, pulls up alongside and says, "Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?"
"Reading my book," she replies as she thinks to herself, Is this guy blind or what?
"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.
"But, Officer, I'm not fishing. Can't you see that?"
"But you have all this equipment, ma'am. I'll have to take you in and write you up."
"If you do that I will charge you with rape," snaps the irate woman.
"I didn't even touch you," grouses the sheriff.
"Yes, that's true
------------------------
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
. .Then perhaps you should start to reconsider your point of view on this issue. Your false assumption that inatimate ojects cause harm is incorrect.