Slashdot Mirror
King Will Not Sue Schools Over Napster -- Yet
Jon writes: "In this Daily Cal article Howard King claims, 'We made it pretty clear we're not going to sue colleges, at least not at this point in time. I think at this point my clients want me to continue the educational process.' This article mentions that so far only Penn State University has agreed to ban napster. The UC System (includes Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, etc), Michigan, Princeton can be added to the schools refusing to ban it."
Duke has declined a request from the attorney representing several music performers to ban access to napster.
I do wish to remind all students that your license to use Duke's computing networks is predicated on legal use only, and that copyright infringement is not a permitted use.
-The AC formerly known as Cheebus
Thou blind fool, Love, what dost thou to mine eyes,
That they behold, and see not what they see?
They know what beauty is, see where it lies,
Yet what the best is take the worst to be.
If eyes corrupt by over-partial looks
Be anchor'd in the bay where all men ride,
Why of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
Whereto the judgment of my heart is tied?
Why should my heart think that a several plot
Which my heart knows the wide world's common place?
Or mine eyes seeing this, say this is not,
To put fair truth upon so foul a face?
In things right true my heart and eyes have erred,
And to this false plague are they now transferr'd.
-----------------------
Anonymous William Shakespeare LIVES!
What are they going to do? Sue Microsoft for providing Windows. Sue Dell for making the PCs. Maybe that can sue Logitech (they made my mouse you know).
I remember Steve Jackson Games and their equipment wasn't confiscated for pirated software.
It was confiscated because on of the users on Steve's bbs (and I think maybe also an employee but I can't remember), "knew" somebody that frequented a hacker/warez bbs. Also that was when they were developing GURPS and a sci/fi cypherpunk game at the time.
The Secret Service tried to use that as a basis that Steve's BBS and the game were instructions creating computer based crimes (though the technology discussed in the game wasn't even availible then and alot of it still isn't today).
Steve was able to sue the not only the offending agency's but also some of the specific agents involved, which is if I remember right was a first.
Asking universities to stop providing the bandwidth that makes Napster effective is like asking chicken farmers to stop selling chickens because babys could be put in chicken roasters. If anybody should be policing copyrights, it's Napster itself. They're the ones in a questionable legal position, not the universities.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
As for asking universities to enforce the laws of the nation on their students, that's bullshit. That's what the legal system is for. If the RIAA wants pirates off Napster, let them go after the pirates. It makes very little sense for them to go after the university (who has lots of money and lawyers) rather than the big time pirates (who according to the RIAA are students, and most likely poor and without lawyers). Asking universities to circumvent the court system and start passing judgement on their students is insane. Notice that the RIAA isn't actually saying "Here's the IP of someone who's making 800 songs available, thereby violating our exclusive distribution rights, please remove them from your network", they're saying "Well, Napster's on your network, so somebody somewhere's bound to be pirating. Shut it ALL down." If universities argree to this, they've set themselves in a huge, huge hole. Next thing you know, someone could come along and say "you allow refrigerators on campus, somebody somewhere is bound to be keeping alcohol in them when they're underage, so ban them all". Somebody could come along and say "you make Xerox machines available for student use; somebody somewhere's bound to be photocopying part of my textbook and robbing me of royalty money, shut them all down!" The whole idea of the RIAA expecting ANY university to shut down a service based on the POSSIBILITY of abuse is outrageous, and insane. I'm glad to see schools standing up to this shit; and I'm glad to know that mine would be one of the last to ever ban anything tech related.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
At the risk of saying "me too", I am also a PSU student, and they did *not* ban Napster. I think you can blame the Daily Collegian (serving Penn State's toilet paper needs since 1855) for writing an article about the new policies that was misleading and totally misinterpretive of the policy, quoting student who knew obviously didn't even read the email.
I'm obviously still half-asleep. That last one should have read "...quoting students who obviously didn't even read the email."
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
The University of Northern Iowa has banned Napster AND Scour SX for this entire year, Napster has been banned since last year december.
You can't see this if you have sigs turned off.
While it's great to know that lots of people at these big universitys that cost lots of money to go to are allowing napster to still be used.. unfortunately, most of the smaller schools don't have the money or legal team to take on any battles. My school has already banned napster, and also banned scour sx. I am personally opposed to this, but I have to face the fact that my school (the University of Northern Iowa) is easily bullied by evil lawyers who send cease and desist letters.
Remember, UCLA and the UC Berkley campus don't make up the majority of college students.
You can't see this if you have sigs turned off.
It's THREATSTER! An all purpose Napster automatic legal threat generator.
Even if Napster is banned by universities, I'm convinced that Napster will never go away because there are too many people who find it too easy to rationalize, in every way imaginable, the theft of this kind of property. With respect to the aforementioned question, I doubt seriously that "consistency" is a word that will characterize the most common approaches to this issue - including those of the universities themselves. It's rather hypocritical to suggest that some intellectual property ought to be subject to public theft (music), while they retain tight control over their own.
At any rate it seems to me that most people are violating copyright law, so therefore the law should be nulled.
Huh? I don't quite follow you... are you trying to say that any law that a lot of people break should be voided? There sure do seem to be a lot of drunk drivers on the roads this time of year, maybe we should just legalize drunk driving, then? That make sense to you? If it doesn't, that bit of your argument doesn't either...
The rest of your argument holds though... ISPs have no control of what flows through their lines, they just sell bandwidth. ISP's and universities should fall under that clause. Napster, as a company, shouldn't, unless they became a real ISP, providing bandwidth to users rather than just content.
And the only reason that a college should even consider banning Napster is if it's causing too much network usage for students to get their work done. Past that, RIAA, metallica, dre, et al, should either go after users or sit back and let the RIAA and Napster duke it out in court.
If i dialed my friends computer direct, would the phone company be liable if i xfered a copyrighted song? No just as it would not be liable if i used it to make a threating phone call.
:)
But your friend would. And I think herein lies the rub. Back in my BBS days, that's exactly what you would do. BBSes would even be connected to networks, like FidoNet. Yet they still could be held legally liable for stuff that went across those networks. Remember the case of Steve Jackson Games: their BBS and all of its equipment were confsicated because of pirated software, and much of it was put online by it's users. (We didn't have cool technologies like MP3 in those days
ISPs are really just logical extensions of BBSes, except that most ISPs (with the notable exception of "online services" like AOL or MSN) don't have their own local content. Although some ISPs have portals that are specific to their users, so the lines are blurring. ISPs provide Internet access, but people dialup or otherwise connect to them, and the content does pass through their systems.
I'm not saying that ISPs shouldn't be given common carrier status: I'm just providing background and playing devil's advocate here.
My journal has hot
As I mentioned yesterday, there's an updated Daily Cal article here.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Hell, probably half the RIAA's lawyers would have to remove themselves from the case due to conflict of interest with their alma mater.
Gimme a break dude.
Sure, you can say 'Napster can be used for good'.
We all know damn well that most users use it to pirate music. Sheesh. ANd in this case, that IS the point.
THey aren't banning the tool; they're saying that a tool that is mostly used for criminal activity is showing up, so they're going to KEEP AN EYE on it.
How much more reasonable should they be?
Lastly, if they count total packets going to napster.com, then you should set up a daemon to reload napster's news stuff periodically, keep good records to prove that your were not really getting mp3s, and sue the school when they accuse you of piracy.
How can I say this subtly? I can't. You're a twit. That's called fraud and/or perjury.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Napster sucks! Piracy sucks!
Napster rules! Go, freedom of speech!
Can Napster get its own topic icon?
Aren't we having too many Napster posts?
most numbers I've seen (not pulled out of someone's ass) put the infringing material at 87%, and if you accept that spears/m&m probably make up 20% of that alone, it draws a slightly different picture of its use.
The RIAA and King need to get over it. As the Gunslinger might say, the world has moved on.
--
+&x
wait until Napster actually has an income, before you dismiss their business model (making music sharing VERY easy). There are already large musician groups that get paid for large scale free distrubution (radio), so wait until Napster has record profits before you crucify them for not sharing.
--
+&x
so you're excusing theft until payment can be afforded?
You'll have to define "theft" for me better. I am more than willing to excuse copyright infringement, however. So if that's how you define theft, then you have my answer.
If copyright were defined correctly, it wouldn't be infringement either, IMHO.
not sure what VC money has to do with anything. Yes, they do plan on making a profit, and yes, they should compensate the folks whose material is being traded, BUT, we're not to that point yet.
Robin Hood has nothing to do with my love of Napster. We are in a golden age of music. Never before has so much music been so available to so many people, at such a low cost to every one.
It never has been or should be illegal to give my friend a cd, nor should it be if I wish to do so with a digital file.
--
+&x
Rader
I think a worse thing would be banning/blocking something like Half-Life from the network - it's a revenue model for Valve, and actually could possibly damage the company, given enough blockings, unlike napster's situation.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Actually, I have a friend that goes to UCSB. Last year, he complained too... Complained that noone bugged him about keeping a warez site up for the whole year. UCSB has absolutely no network Oversight, therefore the place gets red-lined. For instance, up here at UC Santa Cruz, they "limit" dorms to a gig a day (upload) and a very high (but obtainable) download limit. If you break the limit two times, they'll shut you down for a month, and after enough warnings, they'll shut you off for the rest of the year or longer.
If I remember correctly, we have a much better connection than UCSB, but our network still gets busy. Perhaps you should talk to the network people there and see if they can start filtering the people (like my friend) who would do 3-5 gigs of traffic a day up, and as much as possible down (mostly mp3's and music videos).
Hasta luego
Exantrius
You never ever sue when you have a good chance of loosing by suing someone with a better leagal team. How many of the best paid lawyers and judges went to Princeton, UC, Standford etc?
Besides anoying them will cause lots of lost sales when the students start protesting and closing down every record store near the shcools not to mention that many of the "new napsters" have people working on it from thouse schools.
Now going after individual students at those schools will be fair game for them.
It's prohibiting speech that is still free -- the universities have no legal obligation to ban their users from connecting to Napster's servers. The lawsuit isn't over and Napster's service is still running. Damn lawyers. They can't beat Napster in court (fast enough) so they try to do an end-run around the process by cutting off Napster's users.
Don't most colleges act as their own ISP, and isn't it true that ISPs can't be sued for the content that goes through there servers?
And besides, I think Penn State has every right to stop people who are sucking up tons of bandwith. When I got to campus this fall, the network was incredibly slow, and everyone from the Office of Telecommunications seemed to think that it was people who running Napster. The problem is mainly that people who didn't know what they were doing with Napster and would think they were closing Napsterwhen in fact it was running in their taskbar 24/7.
Now, the network is running much better, and personally, I couldn't be happier.
JohnnyO
Is it just me or is anyone else getting slightly annoyed at Napster not having its own topic icon? Considering the quantity of Napster-related discussion recently, I think people would appreciate being able to separate Napster stories from stories about new artist or new compression methods.
Of course, a system involving multiple topics would be ideal, giving people more control over what they read. But I appreciate that implementing this would be a major time investment.
King and the other media/recording goons are not sueing schools for allowing students to run napster because they are scared. They know damn good and well that were they to go after a school, large or small, that they would not only be attacking a single school, but the entire system of which liberal education is based on. This of course would bring schools such as harvard and yale, emory and CSU into the whole thing, of which all controll more political and legal power than (in my oppinion based on personal experiance at least) any other faction in the world. The heads of the companies like TW, Sony, RIAA, MPAA, atc all come from these schools and they will, in the end, remain loyal to their respective schools.
Were such a case to ever REALLY come up in courts, the combined power of the legal schools against the recording industry would just obliterate any claim made by such, and would most likely result in a complete 180 and make napster's case 100x stronger.
...got a cold, going back to bed
-Doug
Q. What's it take to get a story posted on
There is also evidence that computer viruses have been transmitted in the process that owners may not be aware of.
Is it just me or does this sound like scaremongering?
On the one hand the letter states " These scans do not examine the content of a particular computer in any way", and on the other hand they claim to have detected a virus..
Moral of the day .. if you bad kid's run Napster you'll catch a virus .. and you wouldn't want that, right?
Steve
---
~d
From what I understand, most UC schools get their resnet internet access either at discount with help from the state, or for free. I serious do not think this is a valid use of my (and "our" for those of you living in California) tax dollars. Why should I be paying for someone else to napster the network to death? Sheesh.
I would really be interested in your counter opinions or support... That's right... Press that reply button. :)
I made the comment that Napster sent the letter to penn state. I messed up. It was the lawyers for Metallica and Dre and some others...
Make it idiot-proof and someone will build a better idiot.
I am a Penn State Student A few days ago, after PSU received a letter from Napster's lawyers, this email was sent out to all of PSU's students. No where does it say anything about Napster being banned outright. Here's the letter:
Dear Penn State Student,
As you may have heard, computer programs like Napster and computer networks have made copying copyrighted material including music and videos easier than ever. The press has reported this phenomenon widely and there has been considerable discussion of it in the Penn State community. You should know that copying of copyrighted material without the permission of the owner is a violation of state and federal laws as well as University policy. The University regards these violations as a very serious matter.
The University has done initial scans of its networks to determine the use level of programs like Napster. These scans do not examine the content of a particular computer in any way but do determine traffic characteristics. The scans suggest that some students may be making extensive use of Napster and other programs that can facilitate illegal copying of copyrighted material that belongs to another person, group, or company. There is also evidence that computer viruses have been transmitted in the process that owners may not be aware of.
Although it is not the intent to curtail legitimate use of such software, the University has an obligation to ensure that its networks and computers are not used to violate the law or University policy. While some seem to take violation casually, the penalties for copyright infringement are serious. All users should be aware of Penn State's program of continuous review of network traffic to identify copyright violations, viruses, or other unsanctioned activities.
If you are responsible for a computer that is attached to the Penn State network in any way, your use of that network is subject to such review. If the review uncovers symptoms of problems discussed above, you will be contacted for further review of your network use. Assistance will be available to eliminate any problems that exist. This will improve network performance for all network users. If the University receives notice that you have used the University network to infringe copyrighted works, your account will be suspended.
Appropriate use of the Penn State computer network and respect for the copyrighted works of others will help to ensure continued access to the widest possible array of software for all University users.
Sincerely,
Rodney A. Erickson
Executive Vice President and Provost
PS: For further information or questions, contact the Center for Academic Computing (helpdesk@psu.edu), Computer and Network Security (security@psu.edu), or your local campus computing organization. Students in the Residence Halls can contact ResCom (rescom@psu.edu).
Make it idiot-proof and someone will build a better idiot.
Just as they shouldn't ban anything. Colleges are supposed to be haven's for free speech, and once you start banning one thing its easy to ban something else. 'We're already banning this, so why not that?' At any rate ANY ISP should be giving the status of common carrier and exempt from how people use thier network. If i dialed my friends computer direct, would the phone company be liable if i xfered a copyrighted song? No, just as it would not be liable if i used it to make a threating phone call. If the RIAA wants someone to sue, its the individuals, not any of the inbetweens. At any rate it seems to me that most people are violating copyright law, so therefore the law should be nulled.
Thats the reason it was banned at my school too. The kicker was it wasn't students downloading that was a problem, it was people from the outside downloading that killed it. Those slow modem users held connectios for so long that things getting out had a lot of problems, while things going into the campus were just fine.
Love is my sin and thy dear virtue hate,
Hate of my sin, grounded on sinful loving:
O, but with mine compare thou thine own state,
And thou shalt find it merits not reproving;
Or, if it do, not from those lips of thine,
That have profaned their scarlet ornaments
And seal'd false bonds of love as oft as mine,
Robb'd others' beds' revenues of their rents.
Be it lawful I love thee, as thou lovest those
Whom thine eyes woo as mine importune thee:
Root pity in thy heart, that when it grows
Thy pity may deserve to pitied be.
If thou dost seek to have what thou dost hide,
By self-example mayst thou be denied!
They want a legal victory against napster in the court system first. Once they have an opinion that it's actually illegal, they'll have a much more solid case against the schools.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The school should be considered a common carrier and not required to ban access to anything BUT if the school is partially funded by tax dollars, the RIAA could have an attack there. Of course, if they manage to get napster shut down, the question is moot.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oh yeah, IANAL, But I Play One On TV.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
On the other hand, it's a nice legal argument from the universities. "We are not responsible for the actions of our students while on line." It's almost the same argument that Napster uses. "We are not responsible for the actions of Napster users."
Unfortunately, Napster doesn't appear to be winning with this argument.
Yeah, but if they sued some large ISP for transporting Napster packets, that's the argument the ISP would use, and the ISP would certainly win. The university's role, in allowing unfiltered Internet access, is obviously much more comparable to an ISP than to Napster.
Suing a college to have them ban napster is kind of like trying to close down interstate 80 because drugs are transported through it. Thats quite stupid and also a waste of money.
... They're concentrating all of their legal into suing the real menace here: the hospitals! With a crime as horrible as music piracy it is obvious that no normal person could perpatrate it. It must be some kind of genetic mutation. (probably caused by some of the 70's rock our parents were listening to when we were convieved) Hospitals should have spotted this way back and disposed of such enemies of the people...
Click here to read too much about my personal life
What I mean by that is, where does the banning stop? Could colleges and universities be pressured into banning CD-R(W)'s because they *could* be used to copy copyrighted materials? Could they also be pressured into shutting down ftp and nntp, because they also are sometimes used to transmit copyrighted materials? Can the colleges/universities even be pressured into banning anything computer related? I'm curious, because I might be moving into a dorm soon and I'd hate to see the school laying the smack down on my computers.
;)
As far as the bandwidth issue goes, I think they might take a bit of offence to my plans to have dorm-wide deathmatches, but those don't use up *that* much bandwidth, now do they?
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between various reasons for blocking Napster. I'm a student at the University of Connecticut, where Napster has been banned, quietly, since last winter. The primary reason cited at the time was that students utilizing Napster were taking up far too much bandwidth. Since then, we haven't heard from the University about it, and many students use the Napigator/Napster combo, Gnutella, or Scour Exchange. I really don't see that anyone has been deterred from using file sharing software due to legal concerns. Our campus resnet has added some weekly and monthly bandwidth restrictions, in addition to the old daily limit. They've set up a way to monitor the use on your IP, so it is quite easy to avoid running afoul of the limits.
KAR
"The future belongs to those who can look at a challenge and see an opportunity."
Yesterday while reading the GeorgiaTech technique yesterday I noted that the school officials raised a number of valid points such as
Apart from the fact that Tech feels it is not under any legal obligation to enact a ban, attempting to ban Napster without limiting Internet access in other ways is nearly impossible from a technological standpoint. "At a university like Georgia Tech, such a solution is impractical. Further, even if we found a temporary method, our students are bright enough to find ways around it," said Harty.
Too true, blocking Napster's default port simply means that other ports will be used.
"We will, of course, take swift action regarding any specific instances of infringement of your clients' copyrighted materials once they are brought to our attention."
Under the provisions detailed in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Tech is considered an Internet Service Provider.
So there will still be disciplinary action against those who have been shown to violate copyright materials. So what is the point of asking for a ban except as a hamfisted attempt to bully schools that have a combined legal might that dwarfs Metallica's?
I go to Cornell University, and yesterday, the student body got an e-mail explaining intelectual property, but in effect saying that they won't bloak any internet service.
All good technology should be used to piss off people's parents. --Neil Gaiman
I am at Smith College and apparently the bandwith was just sucked up by Napster last year so they blocked it over the summer - as for legal reasons? I doubt that the administration will touch it.
"Smith is listed among an estimated 30 percent of campuses, including Amherst and Hampshire, that are blocking access to Napster, the Internet library that many students use to download recorded music. "We weren't thrilled about blocking, but there was great concern that academic scholarship was being interrupted because of the [network] congestion," said Herb Nickles, executive director of Smith's information technology services." - Boston Globe
Here at the University of Connecticut, they've banned Napster, not because they were asked too, but becuause it was sucking up too much bandwidth for recreational perposes.
Maybe as a music major I can convince them I need access. Not that the ban is holding me back. Napigator satisfies all my try-before-I-buy needs.
-Erik
Penn State of course now is open to all law suites of this nature since they agreed to monitor and block Napster.
I'd love to see King, etc sue a student who does own all of the CDs - which is the real test here.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
oh, i wish the dumb bastard would try to sue harvard...the law school would eat him alive.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Being that it can only search and index mp3 files napster has a very limited narrow use. It just so happens that about 99% of napster traffic is used for illegaly distributing copyrighted material. "can" be used for piracy? It IS being used for piracy even as we speak. The RIAA can't go after the 99% of illegal napster users, so they have to go after the whole thing.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
And don't even get me started on firearms...
..And you know popoular performers better than unknown performers.
Let me start from that... firearms are indeed illegal (if you live outside the USA) and that's because, while you can both use a gun to kill a charging bull or a human, common sense says that most people buy guns to kill humans not bulls.
You need to look at the facts. Who in the world does really use Napster to exchange non-copyrighted material ?
You may say that it doesn't hurt big label's sale and prove anything you want.. but you must admit that it's a common understanding that Napster is used to exchange mostly copyrighted material. When you (not strictly you) do a search on Napster you usually know what you search, right ?
The reason why there are actual humans dictating and enforcing laws is because laws need some help from "common sense".
I'm pro-Napster, I still buy the few rare CDs that I like as a support action. I really hope Napster helps to force a change in the music industry.. but I must admit that Napster actual use mostly involves exchange of copyrighted material.
Now if you tell me that Mr.King (from the heights of his throne) lacks of credibility when he tries to seduce insitutions to enforce laws by his not so well recognized "common sense", then I agree on that.
It seems rather apparent that Metallica's attorney knows they don't have a leg to stand on against the colleges. If the copyright violations of which King complains are so damaging to Dr. Dre & Metallica, why would they wait?
If Napster is so harmful to Metallica's livelihood, why is Metallica choosing to wait to sue our nation's colleges?
Maybe their case is not so cut and dry after all?
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Last school year, Bucknell University did block students from using Napster after realizing that the file-sharing program represented at least 40% of all network traffic and resulted in a total saturation of our T-3 at the peak of Napster's popularity here on campus. Since the staff and administrators at Bucknell care a great deal about their students' welfare, they worked hard to provide a legal alternative that didn't saturate our network.
Their final solution was entirely free (i.e. Bucknell paid $0.00); it involved setting up an iBeam server and coordinating with content provider Launch.com so that anyone Bucknellians can listen to a seemingly infinite amount of legal music beamed off of a dish on top of the campus' Computer Center.
______________________________
Eric Krout
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
The same is happening with Napster. What the music industry really wants to to is stop all file sharing methods. They know that would be hopeless. The recent University decision to stand up to them has the music execs scared of their position being ruled officially invalid by a court which would then allow Napster (and the many napster like clones that would follow) asured eternal existance. By backing off from the Universities, they're free to continue to harass the little guy sharing MP3s, because unlike universities, the little guy can't afford to "win" a long drawn out lawsuit. He has neither the time nor the infinite money like the RIAA does, so he rolls over, and the RIAA gains more case law in their favor. Truly such behaviour is more than deserving of condemnation to the lowest depths of hell.
I most certainly agree that the RIAA deserves to live in the depths of hell. But I think that rather than just shut it down, the RIAA wants to own the technology.
They know they can't stop it, so they want to get a premium for it before they live in the dumps because the artists realize who is screwing over who (hint hint: It's not the napster fans)
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Hmm, here's a though.
Steven King writes scary stories. A scary concept is that special intrest groups such as the RIAA, and their associated lawyers (such as howard king) start "educating" people with far more technology smarts (like MIT) by trying to brainwash them with propaganda that suggests that every single napster user is a thief. I don't consider myself a thief. All of the music on my system I have or will be getting shortly (as in when the new limp bizkit CD comes out). I would hope that many of my fellow napster users do the same. We don't think the artist should be ripped off, regardless of what college we go to.
I wish that Mr. King realize the same.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
ha ha, look at http://www.lowpass.net/index.php3/pr oducts/008. It's hilarious.
From a business standpoint, WE WANT YOUR MONEY YOU LITTLE CHEAPSKATE MOTHERFUCKERS!! GIVE IT! GIVE IT UP! HUH! GOOD GOD!
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
So a Doctor of Technology should be allowed to use Napster but not a normal user, because they aren't academic enough...?
no sig
I believe the poster was referring to the fact that the scans only checked for transfers and those who had a lot of transfers were deemed automatically to have been breaking the law.
Time-Warner is doing the same thing.
at least the record companies have some intent of paying (albeit a piddling) amount to the artists
...
which society is worse off -- the one that has companies that steals from artists to make a profit, or the one that renumerates them???
Interesting quotations. Now I will first say that the society which supports its artists rather than stealing from them is the more healthy, then proceed to explain why I believe Napster is part of the transition towards such a society.
Under the current system, the record labesl do not exist for the artists or for the listeners but for themselves. Any money paid to the artists must first be returned to the label to cover costs. They make investments in artists, but they are guaranteed a return because the investment rather than being a true risk is a debt the artist must repay one way or the other.
Under the current system artists sign contracts obligating them to the will and financial well-being of the label. In return they are promoted by the label. Signing this contract has been a necessary evil because the system of distributing music in order to promote an artists' tour schedule (which is where artists will make money if they are ever to do so) has been expensive up until now, requiring the production and distribution of cd's and big payoffs to radio stations. It was an old boy network, as well, because one needed connnections to get these deals done.
That is the world which is coming to an end as a result of efforts like napster, and one which the RIAA is trying to protect. If artists can distribute their music through MP3's they do not need labels for distribution. They do not have to censor their music because TimeWarnerAolDisney or Walmart does not like it. They do not have to adhere to a label's production schedule and they do not have to allow themselves to be subordinated to a system in which trite bubblegum crap is hailed far above any real art or message.
On the internet we have our own radio stations and our own kind of digital music network. This is what the RIAA is afraid of and why the RIAA has attacked anyone who strives to promote such an effort. Already big-name artists are defecting, are embracing mp3 and defying the record labels. The little guys were already there because they had no label to defy, nothing to lose and everything to gain.
True it will be hard for artists to convince TicketMaster and the rest of the concert booking establishment to go with the new model, but proof of concept will be millions of fans downloading your mp3, going to your website, attending the concerts you have been able to book.
Eventually I would imagine a sort of artists' guild could be formed, not like a union, but a bona fide guild that negotiates not with the management, but directly with the customers... owners and executives of radio stations and studios, owners of concert venues, and ticket selling monopolies. Maybe even MTV. But really, the whole radio/video concept stands ready for obsolescence. The Internet will eventually be the real venue for viewing videos and eventually movies, for listening to music, and this is precisely what the RIAA is fighting. They are protecting their legalized slavery and monopoly. They do not care about the artists.
Notice that when the artists asked for part of the settlement with mp3.com they were denied out of hand. Of course this was no surprise to anyone who knows what is truly happening here.
The University of Minnesota is threatening students with revocation of internet access if 'caught' using napster.
Whether they actively seek napster users, or just wait until their habit is out of control (i.e. saturating the internet connectivity to a crawl), then revoke access, I haven't quite figured out. I haven't had my access banned, so I don't think they are doing either... yet!
I'm anxious to know when King's going to go after Qwest and AT&T and so on, claiming that pirating goes on on their backbones. I can't wait to see Internet vs. RIAA.
Moo
I can't believe UCLA is siding with the man on the street. When I lived there, I wasn't allowed to run linux in the dorms (no servers... except winblows file sharing, of course). Not sure what their policy is now (I think you have to be questioned and fill out some forms now)
You can read about one student's battle with UCLA resnet here
I've heard from a couple of friends who are part of the Internet offices at Georgia tech that they will also refuse to ban napster.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
I think all of these universities should be congratulated for for one not bowing to the capitalist nature of modern society and at least pretending to take a stand for freedom of access to information. Surely, they don't mind either the press or the ability to mention to incoming freshman that no, we don't block Napster, have a blast. I'll be interested to see whether universities that aren't as well endowed as Harvard or the UC's will also refuse Napster and risk what corporate weight RIAA has.
If chicken roasters were call baby roasters and marketed strictly for that purpose, regardless of the fact that they could also be used to roast chickens, they would be outlawed.
That said, I'm of two minds on this issue. I applaud the colleges who are willing to stand up to the RIAA, and refuse to buckle under presure in the name of free speach and privacy. On the other hand, students have no business tying up the school networks downloading MP3's, copyrighted or not. The purpose of the networks are to assist students in their studies, not for entertainment.
Folks, let's not forget something. Unless I'm very badly mistaken (and I'm willing to admit that I may be), this is still a pending case. Until this case is settled, Napster, and everyone using it, is engaged in a legal, though disputed, activity. Napster is still claiming "fair use" and, regardless what the RIAA says now, it has not been determined finally by a court that Napster or any of its users is committing copyright infringements.
I find it interesting that the RIAA is using the copyright infringement phrase as if the case is over and they've won.
-Jimmie
this is true I am also a Penn State student and who ever reported this was very mistaken. Penn State has decided to keep napster alive on it's network. but it will be monitoring the network for overuse of the program. as reported in a local newspaper 30 students and 1 instructur have been identified and have been sent letter to stop. But this is out of 40,000 students alone just on this one campus and their are 80,000 students in all of the campuses. I think that this artical should be taken down since it is mostly fabricated on the authors part.
Sorry, but that just isn't the way it happened. Useful information is at SJ Games' Web Site
so you're excusing theft until payment can be afforded?
i'm not making enough money, so i'm just going to take my groceries from the store -- when i get a job, i'll start paying for them.
i'm sure napster is SWIMMING in fucking VC money, or was at some point -- and i'm sure they decided they'd rather drive the fly cars and get all the honies instead of basing their business on legal content.
man, i know it's tough to compete out there, but that strikes me as essentially not even playing the game.
sure, napster has this "ROBIN HOOD" quality that makes all the kids love it so much, but it doesn't excuse breaking the laws of the country in which they are incoporated -- if they want to do that, they need to go offshore -- you don't deserve the benefits unless you are rightly following the rules.
fisfhcuerk.
hardly a reason to go to university.
..
i don't understand how you can have this "ANTI CAPITALIST I'M A RADICAL" viewpoint without understanding the simple fact that NAPSTER IS, YES, A CORPORATION. they are trying to MAKE MONEY FROM PEOPLE TRADING MP3s, which is precisely what the RECORD COMPANIES want to do to, except at least the record companies have some intent of paying (albeit a piddling) amount to the artists, because they live in the real world, where we have laws about intellectual property (ie, you make it, you own it -- until, of course, you sign your soul over to Warner.)
which society is worse off -- the one that has companies that steals from artists to make a profit, or the one that renumerates them???
i'm guessing the later -- anyone who produces their own "intellectual property" should feel the same.
fishfcuerk.
The college I attend (look at my e-mail address to find out who), does not officially ban the use of Napster or similar systems, (although the AUP does forbid using the network to violate local, state, or federal law). Instead, they choose to block Napster bound traffic at the socks sever. Officially, their justification is that widespread use of Napster displaces bandwidth which could otherwise be used for eduactional uses. However, some in our Computer Services department have hinted that the real reason is fear of a lawsuit, either from the industry or individual artists.
By not officially banning Napster, the administration can hold on to the claim that they do not censor or restrict network access, freedom of speech, etc. Yet at the same time, they can also make the claim, if pressured by the RIAA, that they are being a responsible service provider by not allowing access to the supposedly evil Napster.
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
...the IT department. After all, what they see are soooo many students connecting to that same damn IP for hours on end. The IT department at my college would certainly raise a big stink, since the ISP really stinks (it's supposed to be a T1, and it gets a 230ms ping; can you say, "get another ISP"?)
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I didn't know you could spam and karma whore simultaneously. Hail to thee, Shakespeare Guy.
Seriously, can we keep it to on-topic trolls? Spamming Shakespeare and Emily Dickenson was funny. For about 2 posts.
Eye of Argon at +1 LIVES!
The music industry really needs to move with the times. The colleges are just acting as focal points for their frustration and anger.
-- Hob - Java Spectrum Emulator
As you may have heard, computer programs like Napster and computer networks have made copying copyrighted material including music and videos easier than ever.
...
The scans suggest that some students may be making extensive use of Napster and other programs that can facilitate illegal copying of copyrighted material that belongs to another person, group, or company.
As you can see, the network tests suggest that some students are making extensive use of computer networks, and as we all know from the preamble to this letter, computer networks facilitate copying copyrighted works.
ISPs are really just logical extensions of BBSes, except that most ISPs (with the notable exception of "online services" like AOL or MSN) don't have their own local content.
And that's exactly why ISPs are not teh logical extensions of BBSes. ISPs (except for some temporary local caching) don't store copies of data being trafficked in. They're merely the conduit, much like public highways or phone companies (like you said at the end, common carriers). A BBS is more like a bazaar, actually physically containing all the wares.
Most schools can't afford to pay for the bandwith being devoted to napster, so they're happy for an excuse to ban it. A few like Harvard, whose endowment is up $5 billion for the year to over $19 billion, can afford the bandwith and so allow themselves the luxury of not getting pushed around. But as you can tell if you read most schools' statements on the subject, most are primarily banning it because of network and bandwith issues, and only a few are specifically citing the legal issues.
And don't forget about how many speech codes exist at these universities and colleges. While they may pay lip service to free speech, they've always been quick to ban "objectionable" speech. It'd be entirely consistent in their view to ban napster as "objectionable" speech.