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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!