Slashdot Mirror
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?
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.cf
I just thought that was interesting. Who's side are they on?
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?
Still not dead.
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.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
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?
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
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.
--
Jon - TheSpork
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...
If you are sharing files using Napster, then you consented to let other people know what you are sharing.
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.
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.
--
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
-Stype
Bus error -- driver executed.