Copyright.net Springs Into Action

Mynn writes "Tennesean.com is reporting that copyright.net is now operational." There's another story about copyright.net at siliconvalley.com. Supposedly they just banned 350,000 Napster users on the basis of title scans - obviously they didn't listen to one million mp3 files to make sure they were actually such-and-such a song, that would take years. Sure, this may be a little overbroad - you'll run into situations like the one described here (in German - use a translator), where a webpage offering mp3 files was attacked, except that the *.mp3 files were just text files with the cryptic letters "*aetsch*" in them - but who cares, they're just Napster users, they probably did something bad, right?

Comments

For those who are interested:

[Roofus]

The board of directors of copyright.net appear to all have experience in the recording/publishing industry. Some of them were record label execs.

http://www.copyright.net/copyrightnet/cg_board.cfm

I just thought that was interesting. Who's side are they on?

Banned based on title?

[Zarniwoop]

You better believe it. And a really poor search formula at that.

One of my friends wrote a techno song about, well, gerbiling. You know, the tube, the gerbil (named Raggot in one legend), the stuffing...

He renamed it "Metallica - One Gerbil Too Many", and put it up on Napster. He was banned. Not only does the banner bot not check the song itself or the id3 tags, it's pretty poor at figuring out song titles.


What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?

Hard to find out what they are doing by visiting

[jamiefaye]

Their page for Napster users asks you to give your email address, Napster name, and full personal details before telling you what they will do for you and if it costs anything.

None of the links from their home page lead anywhere which would clarify matters.

While I was not blocked by them, this policy of "taking names" at the front door sure scared me away from seeing what they propose to do for me.

Just admit you're breaking the law

[Skyshadow]

> they're just Napster users, they probably did something bad, right?

Well, duh. 99.99% of Napster users use Napster to locate copyrighted information and download it in a fashion illegal under current copyright law. A very small minority of these people don't; they're either really honest, trying to make some political point that nobody'll ever care about or are doing something worthwhile like trying to get their own music out there.

It's one thing to think that you ought to be able to share music, but I tire quickly of Napster users trying to pretend like they're legally in the right on this one; the self-rightousness of it makes me gag. Face it: more than likely, you're sharing music illegally. If you can't deal with that, don't do it.

Disclaimer: I get my music illegally. I do it because it's convenient and I'm cheap.

----

Re:Just admit you're breaking the law

[dirk]

It's one thing to think that you ought to be able to share music, but I tire quickly of Napster users trying to pretend like they're legally in the right on this one; the self-rightousness of it makes me gag. Face it: more than likely, you're sharing music illegally. If you can't deal with that, don't do it.

Yeah I'm sure governments were quickly tired by the women trying to get the ability to vote (and illegal protests) or people who wanted to end aparthide. Copyright holders want to extend their rights I want to protect and extend mine (fair use). This is my form of protest. Sure it may not be as exciting or dramatic as the other causes cited above, but you know in the comming years it may become just as important. That is what is truly sad. The want gustapo tactics, they'll get a war waged in the press, at public hearings, at the ballot box and most importantly, at the register.

There's one small difference you seem to be forgetting, civil disobedience only works when people are prepared to accept the consequences. You didn't hear the civil rights protesters whining because they got arrested. They expected to be arrested, because they were breaking the law. Napster isn't a protest, it's a way around the law. If it was a protest, people would be trying to get arrested to get the world to see what's going on and that it's wrong. Instead they spend all their time being anonymous and trying not to be booted from Napster, so they can still get music for free.

Re:Just admit you're breaking the law

[L-Train8]

Because some, or even most, Napster users are breaking the law, that doesn't mean you can punish them without some sort of proof or due process. (Well, actually you can because of the DMCA, but that doesn't make it right.)

Copyright.net has not witnessed any mp3 file of copyrighted material being downloaded. They have only seen mp3 files with names similiar to copyrighted material available for sharing. The only other evidence they have is that those files are available on Napster, which everyone knows is a hotbed of piracy, just ask the RIAA. It seems to me that this is a frightening reduction in the standard used to convict and punish people of crimes.

Is it okay to do this because most people are violating copyright laws on Napster? We don't arrest people for walking through neighborhoods where drugs deals take place, even if "99.9%" of the people in the neighborhood are there for the drugs. They have to be seen exchanging money for drugs, the drugs have to be tested to determine that they are drugs and not something that looks similiar. The accused are entitled to a trial, etc. etc. Why is it different on the internet? Because this crime hurts an industry's bottom line more than drug deals do? Is that worth suspending constitutional protections?

Re:Just admit you're breaking the law

[dasunt]

Lets play devil's advocate then. Lets assume that if a vast majority of a group is doing something illegal, then all members of a group should be punished accordingly.

Using this logical, an extra tax on blank media (cassettes, cds) to compensate the record companies are justified. This is already in place. However, an extra tax on larger hard drives (say >10 gigs) would also be justified, as well as for broadband users, any cd player that can play mp3s, any mp3 player, as well as any cd burner. Moving away from computers, we should automatically fine people for speeding (after all, most people do drive over the speed limit), as well as start arresting kids for underage drinking and smoking, and all people for drug use.

Its rather absurd now, isn't it? Maybe its better to assume people are innocent unless proven guilty.

You also admit that you download mp3's illegally. Thanks for you honesty, unfortunately, I'm going to use your admission of guilt to further my own argument. The maximum penalties for copywrite infringement include a large fine and a bit of jail time. The penalties can be cumulative. By downloading mp3s, you either think that that you won't get caught and/or the judge won't take the law seriously, and your punishment will be a slap on the wrists. So, by admitting that you download mp3s, you are putting minor copywrite infringement for personal use into the same catagory as speeding, or breaking some other minor law that most people ignore.

Re:Just admit you're breaking the law

[stype]

I'll tell you why its ok. Because using napster isn't a right, walking down the street is. If napster wants to block a million users from using their service, they can. You can bitch all you want, its their service, they can do what they want with it. Banning someone from napster is not a legal punishment, its just a way of stopping them from possibly doing it again. And if they ban someone who wasn't doing anything wrong, well tough. If you don't like napster, stop using it.
-Stype

How is possessing an .mp3 a crime?

[stretch_jc]

Since when is it a copyright violation to possess mp3's of cd's I own? I can see users getting banned for downloading copyrighted content, but if I simply checkthe box to search my hard drive, napter automatically shares every mp3 on my drive, including legitimate mp3's created from my own cd's. I don't see how this is a violation of copyright law, as having these mp3's is covered by fair use.

Re:Saving people the trouble:

[BlueGecko]

Please, don't destroy the box. That'd just give us bad rap. If, on the other hand, hidden links to DeCSS showed up on their homepage...

once again... anonymous p2p proxies

[Travoltus]

I'll say this until I'm blue in the face.
Why hasn't anyone tried putting up anonymous p2p proxies yet? It would make it impossible for these snoop programs to find your IP address.

End of problem!
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,

Translation to English

[SirFlakey]

Translation:

MP3-Removal mistake at the Swiss Music Association (sf: basically the Swiss form of the RIAA)

The Swiss International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI)has missed the joke on a web site when it issued a letter formed like a removal request.

According to this letter the website had offered MP3's for download. In the letter sent to the webmaster Matthias Leisi, the IFPI had demanded to have the MP3's removed and a notice ("This Site is closed by IFPI Switzerland...") to be added to each page on the website.

In addition he was asked to pay a penalty of 500 Franken (sf: approx 300 US dollars) plus an additional 200 Franken for the investigation costs.

Alas, it appears the people responsible for the "investigation" did not put in much effort. If they had, they would surely have found out that the offending music files were not in fact real MP3 files but text files containing the word "*aetsch*" (sf: Got'ya, psych).

--
This is translated to be accurate to content and "style" not necessarily sentence structure. There are likely to be a few grammatical errors and spellings mistakes in there.


--

Whose side are we on?

[tbo]

Some people (*cough*Slashdot editors*cough*) seem to be waffling on this whole copyright issue.

When company X goes after Napster, they complain that Napster isn't breaking any laws--only some of the users are. "Napster shouldn't be responsible for its users' actions," is the message we get.

When company Y goes after Napster users, they complain that they shouldn't be going after individual users, and should stick to the big fish to avoid pissing off consumers. "'Sharing' by individual users isn't a threat--it's commercial pirates the industry has to worry about," is what we hear in this case. These people also seem to think it's unfair to use technology to enforce copyright, but perfectly reasonable to use it to violate copyright.

So, which is it? Who should the RIAA prosecute: users or Napster? Or is the message that we should we get rid of copyright altogether? If so, what will replace it?

Let me rebut some common responses before they happen:

Most artists don't make money anyway!
Maybe so, but the possibility of "going big" motivates a lot of them. Then there's the fact that they need to eat and pay for recording studio time, etc. If they have to work a second job to support themselves, they'll have less time to produce music (which is clearly inefficient, if you know anything about economics).

The labels just produce crap like Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys
We think Britney and Backstreet are crap because we're not pre-teen girls. I bet they think our music sucks, too. You can get all snobish if you want, but the truth is that labels, being businesses, produce what consumers want. If consumers want crap, that's what they get, and lots of it. Sure, some good indie bands get missed, but a lot of others make it, and the ones that don't probably appeal to too small an audience to go big-time... If there were really this huge, untapped market for "good" music, then some new label would come along and clean up.

Music labels already rip off artists
True, the system is broken, but it at least gives some artists some money. It's better than nothing, and, until you come up with a better system, it's the only game in town.

But I do have a better system! It's the Street Performer Protocol
The SPP is flawed for many reasons. Even having payments held in escrow upon condition of delivery of the work doesn't solve most of them. The most obvious of these flaws is the free rider problem. Essentially, it's in your best interest to let others pay, and not pay yourself, since you'll thereby save money and gain the same benefit. It's all basic economics, but I'll rehash a bit of it here: People make decisions based on marginal gain and cost. If you "pay" under the SPP, you have only a very small chance of actually influencing the outcome, whereas you do have a significant cost (the amount paid). Fundamentally, without copyright and other forms of protection, intellectual property becomes a public good--it is neither excludable nor rival. Private industry nearly always underproduces public goods, without some form of intervention.

To see SPP failing in action, look at what happened to Stephen King. After the novelty wore off, not enough people paid. Fortunately, King released the next installment anyway.

As another example of a failure of SPP, why don't we all voluntarily donate money to the government to pay off the debt? We'd all benefit from it. Strangely, it's not happening. The only way the debt gets paid off is through taxes, which are a way of ensuring that everyone pays in some semi-fair fashion.

I'm not going to try to condense an entire economics course here, but I will recommend a book on the subject that's funny and happens also to be educational: Eat the Rich by P.J. O'Rourke.

I hope this provokes an intelligent debate, not a flame-fest. If you want to rebut my argument, please do, but please stay clear of ad hominem attacks. Obviously, I do have some bias, but I also recognize that the future of intellectual property poses a huge challenge, and one that nobody has solved. Any constructive input is welcome...

Re:Illegal search?

[Wesley Felter]

If you are sharing files using Napster, then you consented to let other people know what you are sharing.

This is only half right

[Skuld-Chan]

One thing that still gets me about the DMCA is how it circumvents the US Constitution and skips the section called "criminal rights" (thats the 4th, 5th and 6th ammendments...) - due process, right to an attorney, unwarrented search and seizures might apply here. Even if you can search a person's hard-drive wihtout the users permission or a warrent - does that mean you can use it as evidence against someone? And does that mean a legal agency can annouce you guilty as charged without a trial or legal representation? And even better - does that mean a legal agency can enforce laws (IE banning you off your ISP or disconnecting your phone or whatever). Personally I don't think so.

On the other side I'm kinda hoping that the RIAA shoots themselves in the foot (in the sense that napster probably boosts CD sales) and forces napster to filter out "illegal" mp3's - because then it will be a boon to the vastly under-rated unsigned artist community (who - if you know who you're looking for are really quite good)

Why this isn't a solution.

[luge]

Um, because they'd sue your ISP for allowing you to host the proxy? All these folks who keep arguing that "the net routes around damage" live in a fantasy world- they presume that ISPs will always allow all packets to pass unfiltered and untouched. The ISPs don't really have much business interest in our freedom, or in routing around damage to our rights. If we just leave things up to our programming skills and the myth of the invincibility of the net, we'll lose everything we've built here, and fast.
So... what can you do about that? First and foremost, join the EFF. Run, don't walk, to that website, and make out as big a chunk of cash as you can. Second, run like hell to a book store and pick up Code and Other Laws Of Cyberspace. It isn't the best book, but it does give some very cogent arguments as to why "the net will protect itself" just doesn't cut it anymore. After that... well, after that, keep coding, I guess, and write your congressman when the issues do come up. This is going to be a long and uphill battle, but until we all move to an island nation that isn't intimated by the US and has abundant bandwidth, we can't just bury our heads in the sand.
~luge

They may be liable if they falsely block someone

[Sanity]

Reading the DMCA, someone is legally liable if they wrongly take advantage of the take-down provision. In theory this means that if even one of these people were incorrectly taken-down, they may be able to take legal action. In practice, this is pretty weighted in favour of copyright.net as the test is one of "good faith", which may mean that it must be demonstrated that they were acting in bad faith, which could be tough to prove.

I wonder if there could be any legal response that could be sent to copyright.net which would cause them to spend more time per-user than would be economical...? Any lawers care to comment on this?

Even though I am slightly irritated that every discussion of legality must be accompanied by an IANAL disclaimer (you don't need to lay eggs to tell a bad one), IANAL.

--

The issue is...

[Dredd13]

... not "should they go after Napster or should they go after the users".

If they want to sue their fans, let them.

The issue is that the criteria they're using is flawed, and they're making mistakes at best (suing people who are innocent) and committing perjury at worst.

If I have a filename "EnterSandman.mp3", is it:

1.) Metallica's Enter Sandman from the black album (copyright owner: Elektra Records)
2.) Metallica's Enter Sandman from a live concert which I recorded legally (Copyright owner: me)
3.) Metallica's Enter Sandman from a performance on the Grammy Awards (Copyright Owner: NARAS)
4.) Apocalyptica's Enter Sandman from their "Metallica by Four Cellos" CD (Copyright owner: Apocalyptica)
5.) A spoken word essay from someone saying how much they hate how Metallica sold out when they wrote pop metal (owner: that guy)
6.) a text file disguised as a Metallica MP3 (owner: the author)
7.) Britney Spears song to intentionally poison Metallica song-searches (Owner: britney spears)

If the file is anything other than #1, then whatever Metallica representative claimed copyright ownership in their affidavit (the DMCA notice is an affidavit) committed perjury, because they claimed to own the copyright on something they had no reason to believe they actually had the rights to.

Now this group may be able to act on behalf of the owners 1,4,7 and POSSIBLY 3 above, but the rest have all got nice counterclaims against copyright.net, possible sanctions, etc.

Simply culling lists looking for filenames and even looking for title info isn't enough. The copyright holder actually has to confirm that the file REALLY DOES contain their copyrighted work, or they're in a heap of trouble, and whenever someone goes after (n>100000) people, you have to know that nobody verified the copyright on each and every item.

D

Waiters starve as voluntary payment model fails

[Sanity]

So if voluntary payment is so flawed, how come the entire American service industry is largely subsidised by voluntary payment? What is the substantive difference between tipping a waiter and paying for music - that makes tipping work so well, but voluntary payment for music fail?

I would argue that the opposite is true. People tend to form an emotional relationship with those whose music they like (just look at the amount fans spend on merchandising), that is much stronger than any relationship you might form with a waiter. If anything, voluntary payment will work better for music than it does for the service industry.

Your simplistic argument about public good, compares information to property, but the difference is that information costs effectively nothing to reproduce and distribute. Whether you force 100% of 10,000 people to pay for something, or whether 10% of 1,000,000 people pay one tenth of the amount, makes little difference to the producer of the information. Why not exploit the fact that the internet permits almost free distribution of your creative output, rather than using oppressive laws to prevent it from happening?

--

Re:Waiters starve as voluntary payment model fails

[tbo]

People have already pointed this out, but there are two essential differences between SPP and tipping waiters:

1) Tipping is not anonymous, and failure to tip incurs societal disapproval (people think you're a cheap bastard).
2) You personally benefit by tipping, assuming you return to the restaurant (you'll get good service next time)

If you actually think voluntary tipping is viable for the music industry, check out Fairtunes's stats. They've been running for something like 8 months, and have only brought in about $7000 US for artists. I believe the two university students who started Fairtunes have spent over $10,000 on equipment and development costs. Unless those numbers increase drastically in the next year or so, I'd say voluntary music tipping is a failure. You can't fault their implementation, either--it's a very well-thought-out system, and I can't think of how they could make it better. The problem is that people suck. If we were all perfectly moral, Fairtunes would work. Too bad it ain't so.

You miss the point.

[schon]

When company X goes after Napster, they complain that Napster isn't breaking any laws--only some of the users are.

True so far...

When company Y goes after Napster users, they complain that they shouldn't be going after individual users

Where? Certainly not in this article.

The complaint is not that someone is going after Napster Users, but that they're illegally going after Napster Users, by violating their civil rights ("Innocent until proven guilty.")

In essence, "company Y" is saying that it's OK for them to break the law, but it's not OK for the Napster users to do the same.

Please don't distort the truth.

(And it's a sad, sad, day when a troll gets modded up to +5 as "informative")