Slashdot Mirror
Napster Judge Groks Filename Variation
A reader writes: "Apparently the Napster Judge has thrown her hands up on the case. Napster has argued, successfully, that they cannot keep up with all the file name variations (and there's an interesting argument for the "Fab Four")."
Why doesn't Napster make a list of authorized material? Oh right, that would take actual work.
On the other hand, it would be fairly easy to implement a list of authorized titles.
Perhaps someone could how this is legally permitted?
Rights are suspended whenever they're inconvenient.
The point the commentor made was if you refuse to take, for example, a blood test, your are AUTOMATICALLY judged guilty - with no trial. Maybe the cop has a shaky hand and you don't want him jabbing you with that dirty needle he just stuck in the 4 crackheads.
By the way, a breathalyzer does NOT measure BAL - Blood Alcohol Level, it measures breath alcohol levels. If you gargle with Listerine in the morning, you'll fail a breathalyzer on the way to work. (Plus its 100% innaccurate on actual drunks anyway - that is a value of 0.5 - which IS legal - may show as 1.0 which is not.)
Police are NOT your friend. Maybe if YOU go up to THEM its different, but when they decide to check you out, they're NOT your friend. Anything that makes a cops job eaiser is wrong. Its not supposed to be easy, its a job - that means they should have to WORK.
Yes there are good cops, but most are in it for the power. Not all those abuse it, but they all look the other way most of the time, figuring "He had it coming" anyway when the blue line gets toed.
That's the whole point of why it's NOT napster's burder to check it. They don't ANY mp3 files of their own. Their just a search engine.
Askign Napster to filter everyone else's servers is absurd, and violation of the server owners physical property. That's like saying if you own a home you have to make sure no criminals walk on your sidewalk or drive past your house, because if you let them go by, your aiding and abetting their escape.
Maybe not.
Even though the rest of the developed (!) countries have an ongoing trend of following the US like sheep in regards to these issues, I think they should really have a medium for comment or contribution. After all, whether Napster likes it or not, it is now in the international light and should be treated accordingly. Then again, would this not fall under extradition treaties (in the reverse sense)...
To provoke this, maybe Napster should make a bold move by obtaining some capital (from whom?) and setting up shop in another country. I'm sure I'd be interested in helping their cause.
Oh, to be one of Robin Hood's merry men, and prance about the woods running from the sheriff.
Fair use is clearly defined although RIAA Canada would like to tell you otherwise.
There's a Recording Industry Association of America of Canada?
All of this Napster vs. RIAA has made one thing clear to me. If the RIAA is going to make me pay for CD's, I'd rather listen to non american products.
Within the last few years, i've greatly enjoyed listening to Japanese Pop Music. Are they going to try to prevent people from listening to Japanese Pop music too?
I know LOTS of people who have purchased Ayumi Hamasaki's Albums because they heard of her through napster, or IRC. Music Trading has alot of potential.
The RIAA is just that. Recording Industry Association of AMERICA. Hey, Hillary Rosen, Whatcha gonna do about people wanting to listen to to music that doesn't come from the U.S.? Gonna tell us we can't listen to that because it wasn't made in the USA.
Gimme a friggin' break.
I agree that this Congressman doesn't have a clue. However, even though Napster use does not constitute theft of property, it may constitute copyright infringement -- especially since there is large-scale trading and nobody is getting paid for it.
To put it another way:
Scenario 1: Your mother hands you $20 in cash on your birthday.
Scenario 2: You see several rioters looting a store. One of them reaches into the cash register and hands you $20.
The only differences between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are that the rioters in Scenario 2 didn't have a right to distribute the cash. To the person receiving the $20, the differences in how the cash was obtained are immaterial. :-)
Phonetic based search systems are language specific. Phonetic based search systems can not handle intentional or significant spelling mistakes involving extra consonants, switched syllabals, etc.
Now, your brain is a giant pattern matching system which can handle significant spelling mistakes. Napster is extremely popular and users will do anything to bypass filters.
So tell you want, you go out and build a pattern matching system a few thousand times faster than the human brain which can understand a few dozen languages and come back.
Can you blame them?
Yep, they're the government. Being a target for blame is one of there most useful functions.
Dude, your connection will get dropped faster than VA Linux's stock price.
As for artists making a living, I think it's more important for them to hang onto commercial copyright (and get good contracts -- contracts that don't make them pay for the "privilege" of surrendering exclusive control of their recordings and copyrights to the record company) than to control non-commercial copying. There will always be a lot of fans who want to buy official product if it's available, and hasn't been bollixed up with watermarks and copy protection.
The bigger issue is that computer technology has called into question the value that the record companies add, and the degree to which they should be allowed to reap the benefits of the copyright incentive the PUBLIC provides to the ARTIST. Instead of answering this question by providing more value to citizens, customers, and artists, the record industry has gone all out to maintain and increase their control at others' expense. What they don't realize is that their own actions have placed them into a tar pit, and the more they lash out against the rest of us in their struggles, the deeper they will sink into the tar pit. With their back catalogs, I doubt that they'll go bankrupt, but I'm certain there will be a heavy financial price to pay just when they least expect it.
And it's so easy to avoid! All they need to do is to reevaluate their business from the perspective of "what do artists, customers, and the public need, and how can we make a profit serving them on their terms?". I could do that, and I'm not even a lawyer or a musician! Instead, they react to the strategic inflection point caused by new technology with an apparent attitude of "What rose-colored view of reality would make us most comfortable, and fit in with the way we like to do things? How can we force people to conform?"
Please follow up with more info, GemFire. I'd appreciate seeing your original letter.
The best way to rebel sometimes is to *bend*. Witness Felten - he very gracefully accepted the fact that the RIAA was trying to silence him, did 'exactly what he was told to do' by them, and gave a worse black eye to the RIAA by doing so (in the form of more press, more negative publicity, etc.)
As far as napster goes, well, they've pretty much shot holes in the RIAA's position by saying to the judge 'you know... this whole filename thing isn't going to work', and then *trying their best* to implement the courts order.
And you know what? the whole filename thing DIDN'T work. They were VINDICATED. That gains them credibility in the judge's eyes.
Sometimes the best thing to do is bend. Most times, in fact. The alternative would have been them to go out in a 'blaze of glory'.
Ed
It would be real nice if you and others that get stupid replies from elected officials would publicly post them on a website somewhere. Or even the non-stupid replies - That would help people vote next time.
Back in the days of Electronic Bulletin Board Systems, many BBS softwares tried to "police" the language of the users, to make sure that words like Fuck, Shit, and all of that list of the famous 7 words and their cousins were not able to be posted...and many ways were found to get around this...so much so that they eventually gave up. Someone should have asked a computer historian if trying to block specific words would everwork...and saved a lot of time, money and frustration in this case.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
The burden is on Napster to obey the law, just like it is for everyone else. They can't turn a blind eye to the copyright infringement that is going on and claim that "oh, I didn't know about *that* case also!" Imaging you trying to argue that before you can get a speeding ticket, you would have to have a cop warn you and a speed limit sign would need to be on every block. This is not good news for Napster. The judge's earlier decision was a compromise to try and let Napster survive. But, just like a pizza delivery company which can only stay in business if their drivers speed and run red lights, the likely result of failure to stay within the law is for the company to go out of business. Now, I have problems with the length of time that the current copyright laws keep works from entering the public domain, I don't like the DMCA, and I would even support compulsary licenses in many cases. However, much of Napsters contributory infringement is on recent works and I can't see getting rid of copyrights all together.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Napster has no credibility...
The filename thing was a game on Napster's part. They knew it wouldn't work, which is why they suggested it.
It was simply technically informed legal trickery.
Please cite this law. I don't think you can.
The only reason radio stations can play nearly any song is because they pay a subscription fee to the RIAA allowing them this ability.
Not to mention radio stations only play songs off the newly release albums that have been authorized by the label as released singles. I don't think there is a coincidence there, I think they control what the radio stations do play because of their desire to effectively market albums.
But then you are going to cite this law which shows I'm dreadfully wrong.
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned regarding this whole filtering mess is that Napster is using some very broad rules for filtering songs. For example, any file that has the word 'Four' in it's name is being filtered. That would include track four of every CD listed... I guess this was an attempt to deal with the Beatles/Fab Four issue. Among other things, this aggressive filtering is severely affecting my room-mates ability to distribute his own music on Napster.
There are a lot of pages of instructions for what to do if you want to add a song to the filtered list, but for some reason Napster supplies NO information on what to do if a song that you hold a valid copyright on is being blocked for no reason.
Should this type of thing be brought to the attention of the judge?
It's not a bug, it's a feature...
Only if it is covered by publishing rights paid by that station, when I used to work at a college station, we wre required to make sure the record was either BMI or ASCAP, as that is all we had rights to play.
No she is just in it for her own money, of course she lacked the insight or talent to come up with the rant on her own. However she has much better breasts than Steve Albini, so she gets a lot more press.
Touring is usually money losing, See the Steve Albini Baffler article if you don't believe me.
you want to make your point you might consider posting your source of that information.
closer to 0.1%
if no one pays for such thing, than such thing will stop being made.
cite your source show me the figures that prove this, because this is nothing more than a pipe dream! Most small bands ONLY make their money from Mechanical Royalties, which comes from BMI/ASCAP, and the record company see none of it. Touring is generally just done to promote a record. See Steve Albini and Dave Lowery's rants on the subject (Both of them are much more aquainted with the recording industry than you are!!)
Courtney love didn't justify Napster, oh no she said "Fuck napster" from Courtney Love takes on RIAA on Salon Technology is not piracy This opinion is one I really haven't formed yet, so as I speak about Napster now, please understand that I'm not totally informed. I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side, in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable than the one I saw today.
Stop propagating this myth
Actually they make their money from publishing rights. Read the definitive state of finances for small bands
major lables: the problem with music
(Albini forgets to mention the procedes from publishing, other than the advance, but in this case it would have been something on the order of $0.08/track, at 10 tracks a record, $0.80/record, adds up to $200,000 for this band, coming straight from BMI/ASCAP, the record companies get none of this) Add up the figures for playing on the road, net income -$15,000.Yes. So is driving faster than 65. What's your point?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I've lived in a couple different states in the US, yes, automatic suspesion of license, no arrest or DWI conviction, you agree to the suspension of license when you ask, yes ask, for the privilege of driving on roads paid for by everyone, not just you.
Well, this works fine for "sharing" with your buddies. However, encryption and anonymity don't mix well. If you want to allow anonymous downloads, how can you tell the difference between RIAA-mole and slashdot-warez-lamer ?
Is willful ignorance a defence ? And would you consider this morally defensible if it were used to traffic (for example) child porn ? I don't see why child pornographers couldn't use the same response -- "we didn't know".
The point is that it's none of my business what you're drinking in the privacy of your apartment, but it is most certainly my business what you are drinking while you're sharing the road with me. The "right to privacy" does not include the right to endanger others (the usual analogy is, your right to swing your arms around stops where my nose starts)
AT&T Canada
and an AOL Canada
Even Wal Mart tryies to pass themselves off as Canadian (anyone else out there think that maple leaf in Wal Mart's Canadian advertising is stupid?).
I could insert a huge rant now about how Canadians are smart enough to know what the "A" stands for and that it really ticks us off but I think I'll watch my Talking To Americans one hour special bootleg instead. :)
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
You commit several logical fallacies in your hypothetical situation.
You presume, without showing, that copying and ditributing an audio performance of a song to be theft.
You then further the claim by saying it is stealing from the people who recorded the song. How so, you refuse to indicate. "But they lose money" you might claim. Again, you would have to prove the loss.
Do yourself a favor, take a survey amognst people you know. Find out how many time one buys an album, and like only one or two songs, and are unhappy they bought it. It is rather common. Indeed, it has become so common, that many people refuse to buy an album for that very reason. They are not willing to spend that much money on a chance at one song or two.
So, the recording industry has made an attempt at selling 'singles'. This failed, primarily due to the inconvenience of having to load all these separate tapes or CDs.
So, if I download a hit track from a recently released album, what _exactly_ did I take from the artist? Nothing. I was not going to buy their album anyway. In order for a theft to have occured, soemthing had to be taken. In this case, and this is not an uncommon situation, no thing was taken from the artist.
Now, before any rabid people want to say the same thing about a car (I've seen that lame-assed plea of emotion before), a car is physical object that once removed from a car lot cannot then be sold again by the dealer. In the case of an mp3 or other digital format, there is no physical object to be removed. Stealing a CD from the store is theft, primarily because it is a physical thing, and that the removal of it prevents the sale, as well as constitutes a tangible loss.
For theft to occur, there has to be measurable and/or tangible loss proven. No such event has transpired here. Merely an allegation with neithe rproof, nor evidence.
In the case of 'your friend' you present, again you make several assumptions not agreed upon by your interlocutor.
You are asserting without evidence that the action would cause my friend loss. As we have demonstrated, no loss has been shown. In addition, you are presuming I would not put a friend's music up for download. Here again, you do so without regard to reality. Many do. And in many, if not the majority of said cases, the friend is thankful. I've had musicians ask me if I could do this for them. Why, you may ask? Simple, it is good for them.
In addition, there are hundreds, of not thousands, of songs available to download that you simply cannot buy in the stores anymore, if ever you could in the first place. Tell us, who is causing more harm to the artist, the person providing their songs for download, or the label that has decided to stop producing and selling their album(s)? Ohhh, how the lines they blur so rapidly, no?
You were likely labelled a troll for putting forth an argument that was entirely flawed, and possibly for the language used to present it. Though I have not seen it, I would almost expect it given your last statements above.
Bill
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
-- Michael Chermside
It would be nice if Napster (the corporation) had a way to gracefully disappear, without giving the record companies total victory. From what I've seen, napster (the application) is essentially useless at this point, and its too late for anything to be done about it. They have totally alienated the user base that they were relying on to support them through their trial, while at the same time continuing to alienate the record companies, leaving them floating without any real purpose.
As Jello Biafra said at Hope 2000.. (paraphrased) "Napster is cool now and all, but will you like them as much when they're the next Disney?"
The rebelious attitude is gone.. the music is gone.. it is time for napster to be gone.
This is a perfect example of why Napster is not the guilty party here. It's the individual people, those sharing the music, that are infringing. Think about it for a moment: The users of Napster are using (admitidly simple) encryption mechanisms to trade songs without getting caught. Now the recording industry is asking the government to force Napster to find a way to defeat that mechanism. Even putting aside the possibilities of tying in the DMCA, this clearly shows that the sharing of songs is beyond the control of Napster, and forcing them to cease would be an unreasonable burden on what can only be called a bystander.
Of course, the RIAA will never, en masse, go after the users of the songs. Those are the people who buy their music.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Perhaps, but realize that if it's the content that's the issue, then Napster is in the clear under the DMCA anyway. They're content providers, and as long as they block any user content which the RIAA (or the copyright owner) tells them is illegal (and presumably that they can verify as being illegal) then they are doing nothing wrong. The RIAA told them which filenames were illegal, Napster did their best to block them. They're a content provider, having complied with the RIAA in this case, so until the RIAA says that another user is sharing copyrighted material under xxx filename, they have no problem.
Or shouldn't anyway...
Read up on freenet. In a very small nutshell, it stores pieces of files, encrypted, on lots of different people's servers. For example, it might encrypt an mp3, split it into 10 parts, and store it on 30 servers (for redundancy). Now it's the internals of freenet that determine where each piece is (all encrypted of course) and how to correctly put them together. This means that the HOSTS are safe--they don't know what they have and have no way of deleting JUST the copyright infringing data. Since they can't decrypt it, they'd have to delete it all to get rid of the illegal stuff. That's not something the RIAA has the power to do, if they can even prove you're hosting the stuff in the first place.
However the end user who downloads the materials is liable. In fact, that's how it should be, ultimately.
Exactly which taxpayer dollars are being spent here?
The judge doesn't work for free, you know. Nor was the courtroom constructed without cost. The staff who work behind the scenes filing and typing for the judge (and who do 99 % of the work, I'm sure) also need to be payed.
In short, unless someone is required to pay the court costs, the U.S. taxpayer will be footing the bill for the trial.
Scenario 3: You see several rioters looting the store. One of them reaches into the cash register and photocopies a $20 bill, hands you the copy, and returns the $20 dollar bill into the cash register.
The only difference between Scenario 2 and 3 is the author of Scenario 2 needs a clue.
Everyone knows that artists never make any money from record sales. They make it all from touring and T-shirt sales....
prolly a bit late, but i was being sarcastic
There's a big difference.
In this scenario, the USPS would more closely relate to the Internet itself than Napster. You see Napster themselves are not actually moving the mp3's, just connecting users who do the dirty work.
Given that, it's not that Napster facilitates the transmission, it's that they offer an active directory of the lists of (copywritten) songs on others computers. I believe it's this directory which leaves them vulnerable to legal attacks from the RIAA.
Huh? Court cost are of course going to be paid by RIAA, or possibly Napster if they loose, there really isn't any chance that the judge would rule otherwise ??? What crack have you been smoking
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
If you want to join the opposition, steer your musically inclined friends away from the majors and toward local recording studios, local CD presses, the global Internet and global record stores (like CD Baby). Trade mp3's with your friends (you're running Linux, right? Surely you can run a private web server, and if you can't, nag your ISP daily) and ferchrissake don't post indie (except TVT Records) albums for all the public to see.
If you want to be an outlaw, you gotta be honest.
(IANAL, but my horoscope says I have aptitude for it)
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
We tried voting her out, but lost something like 40-60. The op-ed columns were surprisingly uniform in their labeling of Tom Campbell as someone who "doesn't quite have what it takes" to make it in the Senate, and even more consistent in portraying her prolific selling-out as "effectiveness" and "getting things done". You can search for some of the juicy tidbits at Media Awareness Project. Here's just one sorry example, with glowing references to the Maxxam Headwaters buyout.
Slashdot readers ought to vote against her based solely on her continuing support of the CDA. Californians ought to vote her out simply because she's as corrupt as they come. 5.5 more years...
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Rude? Would you care to elaborate? I am very curious what they said. Especially Swinestein.
I wish Diane Feinstein would have the gumption to speak out this blatant waste of resources that will at best produce an absurd (and freedom-crushing) precedent.
Well, I'm not a California resident, but, it is my understanding that Feinstein is so secure in hir incumbency that she refuses to debate during election season. Californians need to vote her sorry arse out of office.
The Napster client would put in the message, so the source you're downloading from does have the real song. You just can't get it.
Why would anyone use a client like that? If your plan relies on the software on the user's computer doing something that the user doesn't like then it's short term at best. The user just replaces the software with a version better suited to their needs from another source.
They obviously haven't heard of Soundex (note: there are more algorithms than just this one). It would allow them to handle a large portion of those spelling variations. Not to diss Napster, but they seem to be feigning ignorance. If they had any software developers of merit on their team, they'd be able to handle these problems easily.
No, they wouldn't. It's a case of natural selection. Like you say, the right algorithm would block a large portion of spelling variations. So which variations would automatically proliferate? Obviously the ones they couldn't block. Any software like this will have at best a short term effect. People try different variations, the ones that work are by definition the ones that people can then download and make available to others. Software is not going to adapt as fast as people.
Try typing a few deliberate mispellings into a spell checker. Typically you get a variety of suggestions. Often the word you were trying for is not the top choice. If there was an easy way of writing a program that could guess what a mispelled word was supposed to be then it would be in use in spell checkers already. There isn't.
This is a much harder challenge. The objective is to work out what a misspelled (or more accurately I suppose, creatively spelled) word is intended to be when the people doing the misspelling are deliberately trying to evade you.
Of course, you can do it if you're willing to use the rule that any word that might conceivably be used to represent another should be banned, but then it's much easier to skip writing the program altogether and just ban all Napster use because that's the effect. "Metal" might be short for "Metallica" should we ban the use of that word? Are there any song names that couldn't conceivably be codes for something?
Of course, comparing it to copy protection, it's interesting to note that machines w/ rampant pirate (C=64, atari, amiga...) communities have eventually died out.
I don't see any evidence that piracy was more rampant on those platforms than on PC clones. The reason for the death of all of them look much more market related than anything else. C64 in particular just reached the end of its market life, piracy had nothing to do with it. More than anything else the success of the PC clone based on commodity hardware came to dominate the market due to advantages born of many suppliers for the various components and complete systems vying against one another for market share.
Fortunately for Napster, the Judge has let them off easy with a deal where they stop contributing to copyright infringement by filtering based on a list provided by the RIAA. Unfortunately for Napster, if this compromise fails, it will likely mean that they will either have to pay the fines or go out of business
:)
This wasn't a "deal" or a "compromise" it was a ruling by a court of law. Napster is seemingly complying with that ruling, certainly the trial judge seems to think so.
While the burden of proof is on the accuser, it is the burden on everyone to obey the law or suffer the consequences. If you think the law is unjust, work to change it or peacefully protest or whatever.
It's the job of the courts to interpret the law and at present Napster appear to be obeying it. It seems to be the RIAA that find the law unjust in this instance, and I don't doubt that they will work to change it
I'm glad that in your little hypothetical situation, you're making me out to be a thief by not compensating the authors of a song, because after all, we're all evil people deep down, and don't give a rat's ass about anyone else on this godforsaken mudball.
I'm in illinois and i caught a dui a few years ago, i went ahead and blew the breathalyser and went to jail. My lawyer told me if you think there is the slightest chance that you are over the limit and they ask you to blow, you should just stick your hands out and wait for them to cuff you. Don't talk to them, just go and bail out. You will get your license suspended for refusing to consent to the breathalyser, but you probably won't be convicted of the dui.
I'm not sure about other states, but at least in illinois you aren't convicted of dui because you refused, you're convicted of refusing the test.
Of course, if you're drunk to the point of falling out of your car or staggering your way back to the police car you will get convicted of the dui based on video evidence from the car.
VARY INTELLEGENT SIRS.
*TWEET*
Improper use of jeffk-ism. 10 yard penalty. Repeat the down.
When the constituents of a Democracy are sheep, don't you then have a Republic?
I can't wait till my ISP contacts me saying "The RIAA wants us to shut you down because you run a Freenet server" my response will be "Um - ok, whats their beef? Oh copyrighted music? Prove that data lives on my server! What? Its encrypted? Wow. Do I have the keys? Maybe - maybe not. I have no idea. Oh yeah - thats right - you aren't liable for criminal traffic going through your network either if you can't identify it? Well neither can I." Click.
I'd be more like "Encrypted copyright materials on my server? That's really perturbing...I tell you what, I'll pay you $10000 to figure out what the material is...". Then it's DMCA - pow!
Heh.
That tactic has already been tried, and it doesn't work. Once you D/L a song and find out that its bogus, you delete it. (IOW, it *doesn't* propagate. It also doesn't take long to figure out which hosts are supplying the poison pills, and lock them out.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Judge Patel has already demonstrated that she' perfectly willing to just shut Napster down altogether, and if they can't comply with her order to filter the upshot will most likely be an order to go out of business when the trial's finished.
Sure, it gets us a few more months (or years, if there's a long appeals process), but overall I think this is a case of winning a battle that will probably mean losing the war.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Keep in mind, that this is the same judge who ruled that source code is speech (within the first-amendment definition) in the Bernstein case.
If she'd heard the DeCSS case, we'd all be singing her praises, I expect.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
2) You guys are all wrong thinking that Napster needs to test the file names. PSHAW! They just need to test the search criteria. And frankly, if someone uses Napster and searches for Metallica, they are going to type "Metallica" into the search criteria. They want to get positive results, and even if they typed "Mitalica" or "Midalika" or "Metttttallllliiiccccka" the Soundex algorithm would be able to block that out.
Napster is feigning ignorance on the belief that they'll be able to get around a judge who doesn't have knowledge of the real capabilities of software.
If you can think it, you can write software to do it.
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
That makes a whole lot of sense... what's the point of peer-to-peer sharing if they're going to tell you precisely which songs you can share anyway? If that's the case, Napster might as well be a website containing those "authorized" titles.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Well, the RIAA has a valid point. They have told Napster what songs are copyrighted. From a philisophical and probably legal standpoint, the titles and artists are the defining information, and filenames, encoding format, etc. are just "technical details."
The problem is much more fundamental, and really strikes at the heart of human/computer interaction: computers and humans assign significance to data in totally different ways. What we look at as unimportant details are the only things that matter to the computer. Nearly every attempt to close that gap on anything but the most tightly defined problem has failed miserably.
In short, it is not technically possible for Napster to comply with the ruling. What this means from a legal perspective is unclear to me.
Are you sure you won't mind when somebody hacks their transponder to transmit your code? Or just breaks your car window and steals your unit outright? Or when the transponder is used to monitor all of your activities?
hahah... Read up on the Indies a little more. In fact it's the other way around. Radio stations are often being paid to play the top albums indirectly by the label :)
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42903,00 .html
Given my rather limited 'music industry experience' I can verify this stands true across North America in general at very least (See my homepage).
Rod Taylor
How many radio stations do you know of that play anything but the top 40 anymore? Unfortunately , it's become the other way around. If the labels want it on the radio, they pay. Radio stations have almost all the power in that field -- and the labels gave it to them in the 60s through 70s by setting up the middle men. Now if they don't pay stuff doesn't sell. I had a few really good examples of new albums that didn't make it on radio due to this, but I forget who the band is at the moment -- and yes they're bands most people would recognize as regularly having previous hit material. Damn sleep wipes the mind.
Rod Taylor
Make a mental list of all the proper names, rarely used words, and phrasing in most songs and you'll see how easily software can be confused by the whole mess.
Song length wouldnt work too well either as you can just add a silent second or two to your already rot-13'd song name and ID3 tag.
If you really want to punish someone, let them download songs by their real name and just have the client replace the mp3 data with a short speech on a loop for the exact length and data of the song. After 20 or so "You have downloaded a copywritten song" tracks you won't go near Napster again.
Also, I'm curious to know which independant labels want Napster distributing their songs.
Nope.. all but the biggest name musicians make nearly all their revenue from ticket sales.. Releasing albums simply fuels the fire for the performances..
So pppffftt ack..
(apologies to Mr. Breathed)
.sig: Now legally binding!
You should post those letters, let us all see how much they are in the pockets of big business.
They didn't invent filename renamability filesystem writers did.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Has anyone considered the possibility of making it technically possible but _illegal_ for Napster to comply with the ruling?
1. Develop some fancy filtering technique which manages to pick up a particular style of munging of mp3 files.
2. Submit a patent for the filtering technique.
3. Start munging mp3 files that way (legal ones for best comic effect) and putting them on Napster.
Napster can't filter them effectively, although a way exists, thanks to the ludicrous nature of software patents.
Any comments? Why wouldn't this work?
what, is he like 90 years old now? he should be dying of old age soon, anyways.
-jerdenn
Wow indeed. As has been repeatedly stated in essays about the GPL, if there were no such concept of private ownership of creative "property" (i.e., abstract ideas rather than something concrete), then THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THE GPL. Licenses like the GPL exist to prevent entities from using the "ownership of creative property" laws to prevent the distribution of the ideas embodied in source code.
Granted, the situation with no intellectual property ownership would be more like everything having the BSD license.
What I don't understand is why people like you think that intellectual property ownership is the same thing as physical property ownership, and get just as fanatical over it as if someone had stolen a car from your driveway. "Intellectual property" is an abstract concept defined for the overall benefit of society, by lowering the risks associated with generating creative works to increase a potential economic payoff for the creators. There is no physical basis for "intellectual property".
I figured it was something like that, but I'll continue the [loaded] questioning. Bear in mind that, as a programmer, I am aware that I am being paid for the "intellectual property" which I am generating, so I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of getting paid for my creative work, but I tend to take the viewpoint that people should be paid for goods & services, not for things which have been assigned economic value through legal machinations.
I'd question the value of a single "idea" which could be so easily copied. Why should society let you coast on the artificial value of a single "idea" (especially if it's a concept so simple that other people could easily use it)?
I'd point out that the heart surgeon is providing a SERVICE, and is getting paid commensurate to the value of that service. In the context of intellectual property, a better example would be for someone to work out & document a better method for a particular kind of heart surgery, then expect all heart surgeons (or the hospitals or medical plan, whatever) to pay them money every time they use it.
As a "knowledge-worker", you get paid for the service that you can provide using whatever skills & knowledge you have gained during your training/experience. Why should you get paid for something you might've developed if someone else develops the same thing, probably without even consulting you or even knowing of your work, just because you came up with the idea first?
I reiterate the original premise of the intellectual property laws - they exist to benefit SOCIETY by giving special short-term benefits to creators. If the current incarnation of the intellectual property laws does not result in a net benefit to the society, then they should be revised to maximize the benefit to society, NOT to the creators. (The creators's benefit will be factored into the net benefit to the society.).
That's a circular argument - the only reason you get paid for your "creations", even though you're not doing any work past the original creation, is BECAUSE an intellectual property "right" has been defined.
Try this one: assuming that there is no intellectual property "right", what kind of service can you provide to people that they will find of value so that they will pay you?
Your argument still presupposes the existence of intellectual property "rights". Because of intellectual property law, those things defined as intellectual property have value, and people have to pay you to use them. If the law didn't exist, then those things wouldn't have value to other people, and people wouldn't pay to use them. They'd pay you to CREATE them, but not just to use them (once the idea was out).
Come up with an argument for intellectual property rights, assuming that we are living in a society that doesn't already have them.
What do you mean? You'll get paid for services rendered, the value to be negotiated between payer & payee, just like any job.
I don't see what this has to do with intellectual property rights. You're getting paid for services rendered. I don't see where you think lack of intellectual property rights would affect this.
My "demand" is necessary to debate the societal value of intellectual property rights - what kind of value do they provide to society, versus what kind of cost do they impose on society. If you start with a society that does not have intellectual property rights, and give them a chance to do a cost/benefit analysis of adding intellectual property rights, then they can draw a conclusion about whether such rights will provide a net value to their society.
It would be more difficult to start with a society that does have intellectual property rights, and then theorize what would happen if you removed those rights (given that such a society is likely to have large "players" which have grown to depend on those rights for their survival).
Please, you don't have to be a nutcase to desire systemic improvements. And if enough people get pissed off, there WILL be change. And the more people who get pissed off before the change occurs, the more likely that change will be catastrophic rather than gradual.
Taking a step back from my Devil's Advocate stance, I don't actually disagree with the basic concept of intellectual property - encouraging the creation of new ideas for the long-term benefit of society by giving the creator some short-term control over the idea, with the promise that the idea will be released after a reasonable interval for use by the generic public. I just disagree with the DEGREE of absolute, practically-unlimited control which has been bought by special interests who would rather make money by manipulating the legal system & restraining the creativity of other people rather than make money by creating a regular flow of NEW ideas.
this article today which says that Napster is dramatically stepping up its filters, to the point of major over-filtering (ie, false positives).
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Ha! Microsoft level FUD! You know NOTHING about the music business.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Dave: "Download the Metallica song, Nap"
NAP9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
Dave: "then try Meetalika, dude...."
NAP9000: "That would be illegal Dave according to my RIAA-clipperchip, by the way, there seems to be something wrong with the main antenna, you will have to go on a spacewalk to fix it."
Dave: "Ok, man."
[dave slips into a spacesuit and then through the airlock]
NAP2000: "Lt. Uruhu, Contact the the RIAA-Borg homeworld, and inform them, I have spun Dave off into space for copyright infringment. They can legally confiscate his assets now. I'm sure Jack Valenti's Preserved Brain will be pleased."
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
So basically any number of possible mechanisms will work to delay the process that the RIAA must undertake when seeking out and identifying specific songs. First, people have been munging filenames quite a bit, but that's really not very convenient for people trying to search for songs with certain words adjacent to eachother, etc (According to this ruling the current filters for word sequences like "Green Day" can be removed).
Instead, we could incorrectly report the length of the file, and even introduce a recognizeable chunk of junk data at the beginning of the mp3 so that the only way to determine whether or not a specific file is infringing on copyright is to download at least up to the point where the junk data ends. Then, have the client alter the file info slightly, if not by altering the Case of the filenames, then by altering the reported length and amount of junk data attached to the beginning of it.
That way if the specific file that was being downloaded is recognized as being infringing it doesn't really matter because that *same* file doesn't exist anymore.
I think you make a good argument, but you miss the other side of the story. Knowledge is power and wealth, that is true. Likewise it is also true that if you monopolize knowledge and the use of knowledge, a few individuals can make alot of money and power (just like in the middle ages). However, what is wealth of a few persons compared to development of our society, furthering research into more advanced sciences that build and support one another and sharing the wealth with those that are currently being held outside the good company (or do they not have the same "worth" as you and your beloved ones)?
To take your heart surgery analogy: If everyone could perform a heart surgery, on themselves or on friends, with just as good accuracy and failure rate as on the best hospitals. Why shouldn't everyone be allowed to do this themselves? This is hypothetically speaking.
Many IT workers are today driven by the goldrush after the initial boom. The science has attracted all sorts of people looking for treasure. However, you completely fail to see the real beauty in information technology and what we can learn from it.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Don't keep those precious letters private; publish them so we all know who to not vote for!
radsoft.net
OK--here's an interesting hypothetical question, brought to mind by the poster above. What would happen if Napster could show that every song distributed through its servers was ripped from a tape of the song made off the radio---wouldn't that change the nature of the case completely?
DAILY ROTATION
Yes, it could. Of course, that's an easy task anyway: there is no material on Napster's servers which is controlled by the RIAA! That's the whole problem: Napster never come into contact with the MP3s being traded by users: they go directly from one user to another. Napster's filtering software (on their indexing servers) doesn't have access to the content of those MP3s - only their filename, bitrate etc. You could try putting fingerprinting software in the client, but then you have trusted client security - which is pretty much no security at all, as anyone following the DeCSS story knows...
The alternative would be for someone to run a 'bot on Napster, downloading every single file from every single user to identify it and report unauthorised material to Napster and ban that account. It could be done: we're only talking about a few terabytes per day of data...
I guess you don't live in England, then. By law in the UK, from what I understand, you can be ordered by a court to disclose keys/passwords to your information; failure to do so (em, I forgot the p/w) means, you guessed it, possible jail time (depends on the "crime"). The Dream Police live inside of my head....
> But removing the songs has proved exceptionally difficult, since Napster users
> constantly make them reappear under different file names. Napster has said it
> cannot keep up with every variation.
Maybe napster could only allow files to be shared which the owners have allowed to be shared, instead of trying to work out what files should not be shared.
This would mean that people need to share mp3s with names which are expected (or close enough), and would probably require quite a bit of work before allowing a share (to check copyright stuff..), but it might be easier than the other option of banning the names of every variation.
This wouldn't stop people sharing copyrighted material using the name of something which is "allowed", but if songs were being shared with completely different names to what they really were then that would make the search pretty pointless
Thank you for summing up exactly what I think. I'm trying to get a band together (just for something to do, really), and its not about making money (that would be assuming we'd be any good at all :-)
Some of my friends and I are just bored. Any artist who is making millions of dollars, well, lets just say its hard to be _really_ creative. Those of us who lead _real_ lives can do better than that.
So, maybe we'll start getting more talented artists in the industry (and trust me most talented artists ARENT), and maybe there will someday be a reason to switch on MTV.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
Bzzzt, thanks for playing, better luck next time.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
So, what they're doing is exactly what they have to: show their shareholders that they are gravely concerned by privacy, and will stamp it out by any means neccessary. A bit of advice for anyone who runs a privately held company: NEVER GO PUBLIC! The money is just not worth the restrictions you will eventually be placed under.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Sorry for not closing the
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
My we're quick with our assumptions! When I was in college two things happened - first I chose to pursue my hobby (computers) through an Information Systems degree (honestly b/c of fear of math; my verbal SAT scores placed me in the top 95 percentile, but my math scores...yikes...).
The second was that I met my future "competition". While taking classes I realized that many students actually hated computers and programming, while I would breeze through programming assignments so I could get home and play with all the neat tools I could afford (thanks to the student discount, this was a lot!). I would stay up late installing Win NT, OS/2, Concurrent OS in different configurations (and this was before the official release of NT 3.1; I had access to bootleg betas, thanks to the university). I would play with Borland C++ Pro Dev, Texas Intruments IEF, VB 2/3, Access 1/2, xBase, FoxBase, PowerBuilder, etc. Many classmates hated their assignments and paid people to do their projects for them (future managers...but that's another story). One asked me, "Aren't you worried about the market becoming saturated with IS " [this was in the early 90's; IT wasn't in use yet]"people?" My answer: no; many are in it for the future payoff; I'm here because I'd be doing it regardless - I love it. They'll burn out.
When I first started with a computer (1979 on an Apple ][ belonging to my uncle and then 1980 with my own Apple ][+) I was in middle school. I played games till bored (how long can you play Lemonade Stand???) and started learning Applesoft Basic, Integer Basic, peeks and pokes...I wrote a graphic Christmas card to my family (to learn the graphic functions). In school we had an SWTPc UniFlex multiuser system. I loved learning the Unix-like CLI and revelled in writing utilities that tied various functions together for new students to use. ... On and on.
Through all this I've picked up a love for the hacker ethic (thanks to Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution), learning, sharing, benefiting others and being benefitted by others.
But I live in a society that rewards hard work, ingenuity, talent, skill, etc., with material goods. I have a family and don't want to have them suffer while I try to subsist on an artist's or philosopher's salary (i.e., nothing). But for my work as a system designer and application developer to be rewarded I have to assert my intellectual property rights (through my company) in order to be compensated for my creations. If not for these rights, then those who would benefit from my efforts would be able to use them without any recompense to me (through my company). That would mean I'd have to do something else to subsist - and the creative flow would slow down, if not stop.
And this last point goes towards you "benefiting society" comments. If the creative workers cannot benefit from their creations, then advances and innovations would slow down as system designers take time to dig those physical, wholesome ditches some people prefer to see as payable work. The last 200 years have had two novelties (1) an explosion of invention, innovation, and societial progress and (2) a strong system of intellectual property right codes and enforcement. Think about it.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Regarding the hacker's ethic: it exists within a defined community of similarly-minded people. When the boundaries expanded the ruthless took advantage of the unexpecting (see Gates letter to the Homebrew Computer club and remember how much Gates, et al, benefited from other people's code). Where can such a community exist today where trust can prevail? I know of two places: those within the boundaries of a common goal and vision - such as a company. I share and borrow from my co-workers freely, without looking for "my edge" and keeping "my secrets" for personal advancement. The other, the GPL (and other Free/Open license) -based communities, where hackers are bound by a legal document, thus giving basis for openness and mutual trust.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I didn't say my "car supply" depended on a single idea...but on the premise that my work is protected by intellectual property law. If it is not then none of my work has to benefit me as it benefits others. It's not the single idea, it's the whole system. If there is no intellectual property right, then why do my customers need to pay me for my creations? I'd point out that the heart surgeon is providing a SERVICE, and is getting paid commensurate to the value of that service. In the context of intellectual property, a better example would be for someone to work out & document a better method for a particular kind of heart surgery, then expect all heart surgeons (or the hospitals or medical plan, whatever) to pay them money every time they use it. See, I told you I had a bad analogy. More than a service, intellectual property has value beyond a single use or function (generally). It has value on merit of its existence. The surgeon doesn't get paid merely because of his knowlegde, but because of putting his knowlegde into action. However, a creative work can benefit others merely by its existence (you don't need the programmers present to run MS Word) apart from its creator. The Dr. is happy to share the technique (for no one will put him out of business by "stealing" it - there are more than enough customers and not enough surgeons).
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I read this over and over again trying to understand the "yeah right" reaction. Finally, it hit me: you don't accept private ownership of creative property. At all. Wow. With that reasoning RMS does not have the "right" to enforce his GPL - afterall the GPL only carries weight if you grant RMS creative ownership rights.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Ah. Well, "people like me" view intellectual property ownership as perhaps more real than (my) car sitting in (my) driveway, because I have said real property through the excercise of my intellect and creativity. That's the 'basis' - I create, you benefit and pay, I buy things. You steal my car, I can buy another, but you take away my intellectual property rights and you've cut off my "car supply".
I'm a knowledge-worker. I've spent years getting the knowledge I have. It's kinda like the heart surgeon asked to justify the $100,000 fee for open heart surgery. His answer: "operating room, tools, support staff, billable time to operate - $10,000; knowing where to cut - $90,000." Bad analogy, but the point is knowing is worth a lot. If you take my intellectual property without my permission, a good case could be made that you are taking tangible assets from me.
IIRC, In the middle ages the church did not allow craftsmen to sell an item for more than the cost of the materials used in making the item. So, a mahagony dinner table would be cheap! Just the price of the lumber. No allowance for creativity adding value to the slab of wood. The real property is merely the materials, but the artistry and effort that transform the boards into beauty -- that's harder to substantiate. In today's world wealth advances through means of intellect.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
You forgot: If Chewbacca is a wookie, then napster must be guilty
Phear my l33t homepage.
Quietly give up.
Have you personally been convicted of DWI based solely on your refusal to take a test? Has someone you personally know? Have you even heard of a specific instance of this happening? Or are you just shouting nonsense for its sensationalist, anti-establishment rhetorical value? For all of Slashdot's posts from people crying about how terrible the US has become and how their constitutional rights have been crushed under the tremendous weight of corporate America, I don't see a huge exodus to parts elsewhere. Honestly, I agree that in many cases the original intent of the constitution has been overwhelmed by interpretations favorable to some special interest or another, and usually those are special interests that are able to gather lots of funds. But even conceding that, there is a reason there are a lot more people breaking their necks to get into this country than to get out of it. This is still a great place to be. If you ever think differently, go check out the political climate in Korea. Ask some old people how their relatives in the North live. Talk to the guys in South Korea (i.e. The Republic of Korea) who are forced to spend two of the best years of their lives in mandatory active military service, and several more years in the reserve. Ask about what they have to do to make sure their government can keep tabs on them if they move. It's a beautiful place, but I promise you that there are lots more Koreans emigrating to the US than the other way around, and it's the same throughout much of the rest of the world. I think Americans need to stop worrying so much about their rights and start thinking about their responsibilities. I think one would follow the other.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
In Japan, the embarassment the driver would suffer at having his disorderly conduct pointed out to his passengers will compel him to avoid that fate. By the same token, many public places have 'no cell phone' signs that light up and have sirens go off when a cell phone call is placed. In America, where rudeness^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ personal freedom is the norm, the driver would break the speaker, and shoot the no cell phone sign until it stopped screaming.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
say I start a band, and I name the band "S@ndman"
First, you would change your name; it's too similar to an existing Electronic artist Sandman. After that, you would sign up with MP3.com. You keep the copyright and $5 of every $10 CD you sell. And because they run the server and listen to everything that goes on it to make sure that no unauthorized cover songs are posted, RIAA/ASCAP/BMI won't attack them.
Will I retire or break 10K?
In particular, where are all of the MusicCity servers?
MusicCity has switched from being an OpenNap network to being a Morpheus network with its own client.
how the hell do you get a hold of the gnapster author
Start with Mike Markley, who maintains the Debian package.
in particular, I want a client that can QUEUE UP SERVERS TO CONNECT TO
WinMX can add this. Why don't you add this feature to your favorite free software napclient?
Will I retire or break 10K?
but for some reason Napster supplies NO information on what to do if a song that you hold a valid copyright on is being blocked for no reason
If you hold the copyright on a sound recording, get your band listed in Napster's legal music registry. Or just sign up with MP3.com and name-drop your music in the chat rooms.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The rebellion is on, napster is just the tip of the mp3 iceberg... and for us Canadians it's not much of a rebellion. Fair use is clearly defined although RIAA Canada would like to tell you otherwise. The fair use laws in Canada have been tested with video tapes and the MPAA lost.
You see in Canada you can copy something a billion times, as long as you do not intend to make a profit. I just don't know if there is going to be a test case, everyone is just too scared to take on the Lawyer rich RIAA.
illenium.net - ultimate sk8 shop online
From http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ22.html#dur ation:
A work that is created and fixed in tangible form for the first time on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author?s life plus an additional 70 years after the author?s death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author?s death. For works made for hire and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author?s identity is revealed in the Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is less.
Works created before the 1976 law came into effect but neither published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978, have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life- plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection.
Hope that clears things up for you.
-SatanicPezDispenser
--
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
http://www.jackiereaper.com
It'5 3een a hard daze ni6ht.
Need XML expertise? crism consulting
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I saw a story a few weeks back about how Patel had said something to the effect of "if users can find the songs, you should be able to block them" (At least, this was my interpretation. I could be totally off.)
If that's really what she meant, then the correct response would be, "Your honor, if American citizens can find a way to break the law, the police should be able to prevent them from doing it ahead of time."
If there were no legitimate uses for Napster than it should probably be closed down. However, that's clearly not the case here.
The beauty of pointers in C code is that you don't have to manipulate huge chunks of data; you can simply point to its memory location and move on. The RIAA wants the data to be filtered. But we're all using pointers to the data which we can change at will w/out changing the inherent data. Someone with some grasp of that concept needs to be involved in the ruling. Not that I know the answer, but someone needs to define "copyrighted song." It's obviously not the "name of copyrighted song" nor "some random encoded bits of the copyrighted song", but the "copyrighted song" itself. Ah, the beauty of digitization - changes the whole meaning of what "is."
Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
tune
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
Fight for consumer's rights at the cost of musician's/artist's rights? There's a real dimwitted battle.
Do you really have any idea exactly what record company an artist is associated with when you download him? Do you know that artist A might only make 35c per cd, but that artist B who has been around for a while makes three bucks? No, you don't. You don't care. You're "protesting the RIAA" whether you're downloading Indigo Girls, Nine Inch Nails, Toad the Wet Sprocket, or Big Head Todd. You're just blowing smoke and pretending that you care about "consumer's rights" because it's a grrrreat way to make yourself feel better for getting free music that isn't supposed to be free.
The thing that really cracks me up is this huge MOVEMENT of teenagers that care about consumer's rights and musician's rights and get all passionate and involved and start FIGHTING FOR THEIR RIGHTS and PROTESTING by... by... by DOWNLOADING MUSIC ON NAPSTER! Yeah! There's an active citizen!
(did the sarcasm come through? did it?)
tune
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
Napster also sends a checksum from analzying itself (the client) to make sure it hasn't been corrupted.
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
Years ago, sSs were on EMI. EMI own the rights, quite legitimately, to the material they recorded at the time, and publishing rights too.
But the band were dropped years ago, recently reformed, created thir own label and released an new CD, PirateSpace. Tony James, the 'BosSs' of Sputnik, made it abundantly clearthat the reason they reformed was the unexpected presence of many websites devoted to the band, and has repeatedly credited Napster with rekindling their career.
So, if filenames are to be banned based on a band name, here's another fatal flaw. EMI have every right to ban Napstered copies of "Love Missile F1-11". But they have no rights whatsoever over "Welcome to the 21st Century". And yet, if the filters are looking for the string "Sigue Sigue Sputnik"... Well, they deserve to be sued by Sputnikworld records for restraint of trade, since Napster is a preferred means of promotion by the new label.
And this is far from the only example.
TomV
Step one: go down to the local music store and buy five albums. This will cost you around sixty bucks, definitely within the means of anyone who buys computer equipment. Feel free to adjust the number according to your income. Try to make your selections a diverse group, bands you haven't heard much before but that you think you would like.
Step two: Rip the music from the CDs and store it on your computer in high-quality mp3 format.
Step three: Give the CDs to friends of yours. Have your friends give you the CDs they got. Rip the music and pass the CDs along.
Step four: Listen to all your music. If all goes well you should have a lot of stuff that is new to you. Listen to it and think about what music you like and what it is about that music that makes it good. Talk with your friends about the music. Keep the good albums in the background when you hang out, when you go on long drives, when you party, when you code, and when you want to sit and listen to something cool.
Repeat as necessary. Make sure you listen to bands you've never heard before as well as old favorites. Then if the new ones are good, you can pass them along to people who you know will appreciate them. Buy music, share music, and listen to music.
--
share and enjoy
Am I the only one thats just a little tired of napster?
I agree that Napster isn't exactly a knight in shining armor for the causes of business integrity and IP reform. But we have to take what we're given: the battle for digital music is Napster vs. RIAA, like it or not. Yes, Napster is a greasy outfit, but RIAA is Stalinesque. Given that, I guess I'm pro-Napster, and I'd guess you are too. If Napster is demolished in the courts and legislature, I don't think we can expect, say, Bearshare to trundle up in 2004 and reverse all the precedents set in Napster vs. RIAA.
I'd like to be rootin' for someone else, but Napster and RIAA are the only players on center court.
These days, you have almost no constitutional protections in a motor vehicle. Cops will run roadside checkpoints on the thinnest of pretexts. Would you believe a Child Safety Seat Checkpoint? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO SHOW LICENSE AND REGISTRATION FOR A CHILD SAFETY SEAT CHECKPOINT? I've seen it in LA. If you turn around they'll pull you over. If you're papers aren't in order, they'll confiscate your car. And you thought we won the Cold War.
There may be two sides, but your argument essentially says "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about if we stop and search you". I know police have the right to ask you for license and registration when they pull you over. I have no problem with impounding a car if they stop someone for a real traffic violation and he has a suspended license or no insurance, but do they have the right to block the street and stop every single car to check papers?
Who would RIAA sue then? This new service, call it sleepyfellow.com, doesn't trade in music, so RIAA can't go after it for copyright infingement. They could try to nail it under the DMCA like the MPAA did to DeCSS, except that the software isn't decrypting, it's encrypting. In fact, if RIAA tried, they might be liable under the DMCA for breaking sleepyfellow's encryption. Could the RIAA reap what it sows?
By law in the UK, from what I understand, you can be ordered by a court to disclose keys/passwords to your information
And that is exactly why Freenet is so funky. It is one of the few cases where you can prove that you don't know the password, thereby neatly sidestepping the RIP bill.
(BTW If this sounds like having to prove your innocence, then you would be correct).
RIAA says it can't provide a list due to the problems with changing file names, Napster says Bullshit.
And around we go
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
AUPs are a wonderful thing. :)
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
The US is a FAR cry from "completely capitalist" and has been for years.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
That is, hands down, the worst Napster analogy I've ever seen.
The key phrase there is 'top albums'. It's only the ones that the labels choose. For anything else the radio wants to play, they gotta pay up.
--
Dyolf Knip
You may look at Napster as blatant theivery, but the thing is, these people created their music for the purpose as consumption. How did they create their music? By consuming other's works. No matter how much they have used their own lyrics and information, they have created their music using the culture of the individuals whom are living in it. Those individuals have a right to take it back as well.
Restricting the free flow of music is restricting the free flow of culture. That is basically impossible.
Most musicians make enough money from their CD sales to survive in luxury above that of the people purchasing their CDs. Some don't. You can't make a living off of music.
The fact is, anyone with any business experience will save up money to distribute their music via MP3 first, then once people get a taste for it, publish CDs. If you jump straight into CD production, you are being stupid, and deserve to go bankrupt.
I may sound a little crazy, but whether Napster wins or loses may determine if the US is nearing socialism, or is still completely capitalist.
Just my deranged, biased $0.02
---
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of theese?
Can you imagine a MOSIX cluster of these?
It all depends on who's leading the flock.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Have you ever actually used Napster? If you're trying to find tracks by any artist -not- in the Top 40, or being played in heavy rotation on some major FM radio stations, you're not likely to find much.
Example : Look for, say, the new Dream single and you'll find yourself swimming in possible sources that have a T1 or better connection. OTOH, look at an older/less popular band, Rush in this example, and you'll less than half the music they ever released on there, and fewer than 5 sources with better than a 56k connect.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
But, this brings up the next problem. Who gets to decied ? I know of someone who is tring to get into the music bussiness and wants his music distributed via napster. He owns the copyrights, he can make that dession. Since his name is fairly close to some other well known artists, how do you correctly filter it ?
What happens when everything is filtered and napster turns to be worthless. Everyone will move on. Honestly, people are not intrested in non-name music (some are, but not many).
No matter how you look at it - "Put a spork in it, your done son." ... urrr, fork :)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
If I submit the story as "Fervent" it gets ignored, but if I submit the same story as "Anonymous Coward", in the same 5 minute period, it gets accepted. Hmmm...
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Power to the people!! 20% of internet using Americans used Napster in Feb. Screw you RIAA! You had your chance, in those immortal words "you snooze, you loose". People want easy access downloadable music. We don't pay for music from the radio, why should we buy into your overpriced cd's anymore? hahahhahahhahahahhahhahhahahhahhahha!!!!
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
There are several programs available to help users defeat Napster's filters. There are also more file sharing apps around than you can shake a stick at, so if you can't find it on Napster, just try a different one.
I've compiled a list of many alternatives to Napster, as well as many of the recent news stories featured on /.
Get them. Use them. Show the RIAA who really controls the internet
The heart of this battle isn't about napster, it's about the people being sick and tired of the riaa's bullying and artifical price inflation. If you're sick and tired for fighting your rights as a consumer, move to china where you have no rights.
I stopped caring the day they became a company and took a dollar
Then you should still be caring.... they have yet to bring in any revenue whatsoever.
Napster can be good for independant artists
Normally I don't bitch about spelling errors, but if you are going to bust on other people for their choice of words you had damn well better make sure your own post is error-free.
Back on track, I feel that if some greedy VCs and possibly Shawn Fanning himself didn't try to turn Napster into a cash cow
Back on track, once again, napster has had $0 in revenue.
Please educate yourself a little more before you make a heated post.
<high-level position here>
<name of stupid small company here>
I'm drifting off topic here, but I've got the feeling that many slashdotters say libertarianism when they really mean anarchism. The idea about anarchism is that you do have a regulated society, but you don't have people with formal power. In libertarianism, you don't have regulation, but people can be bought and you bet there will be a lot of people with formal power.... Now, which one is most likely to succeed in the Real World [tm] is an open question, but my bet is on anarchism.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Artists with bad contracts make no money off records and are forced to tour and sell shirts. The Beatles certainly didn't tour this year and their albums sold out the wazoo. Yoko Ono sure isn't starving.
The smaller guys are screwed over by the record companies when they start out, so even if they get well known later, they'll never make money off that first and second album. The ones with good contracts that hit it really big could theoretically release music and never tour. I would love to sit at home and just release stuff on MP3 for US$0.50 a song - reduced because the end user still has the job of burning it onto an audio CD. That's the sort of thing that would benefit the little guys. Just set up a web page with shopping cart, hopefully get some radio play, never having to worry about distribution.
It gets complicated after that because you have people copying that and spreading it around just to screw you out of that measly US$0.50. Ideally, you could make some decent $$$, but I don't see it taking off any time soon. So many things can be done with computers that it doesn't pay to try to set up any sort of security scheme to defeat those people too cheap to spend US$0.50 on the song, but eager to spend US$20 of their time to work around that US$0.50. You'll always have the guy recording the last leg of output stream coming from his speakers to deal with and there's no way to catch that; any big attempt to do so would be Orwellian and a waste of any society's resources.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
When everyone is doing it, the mob rules. No one who copies stuff off Napster is ever going to be prosecuted because so many people are doing it the attempt would be like catching Jell-O in a net. The shame will be that in the future we will see a decline in artists as the smaller guys won't be able to make as much $$$. Since it won't be worth it to starve and never have a change of making it big, only the ones that really love the music will stick with it. On the other hand that means that maybe we'll see some real quality music that's worth paying for.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
If your California Senators and/or Representatives were in office during 1998, they NEED to be voted OUT. 1998 legislation - the NET act, the DMCA, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act - all 3 great gains for corporate America and all 3 great losses for the American Public.
I, too, have written Congressmen. Here's the reply I received to a letter I sent detailing how the copyright laws have gotten beyond any possible Constitutional interpretation.
Dear Ms. Aker:
Thank for contacting me regarding copyright law and its relationship to the United States Constitution. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.
I believe the United States government should always remain within the boundaries set in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. Regardless of the length of time the copyright laws allow private ownership to the original creators of a piece of material, I do not believe the material is constitutionally required to be surrendered to the government. Should legislation regarding this matter be brought before the House I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me and please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Input such as yours helps me to better serve the Ninth District.
Respectfully, Nathan Deal
This letter clearly shows that a)he has never read the Constitution, b)he hasn't a single clue what he's talking about or c)that he just wants to say something he thinks might placate me.
I especially liked the part where he says private ownership belongs to the creators - yeah right. And then there's where he seems to think that these works are surrendered to the Government? Excuse me, since when is the Public Domain the government. Expiration of copyright is a limitation on monopoly and YES it is written plain and clear in the Constitution.
When I vote, I simply vote out all of the incumbents, no matter what party they are. If they'd been doing their job we wouldn't be having these problems. The only differences between Napster and the radio is that you can choose what you hear with Napster software and Napster doesn't pay ASCAP or BMI. To the enduser, the latter is immaterial. If recording is legal, recording is legal and several landmark cases have declared that recording is legal. Analog vs Digital isn't the issue at all.
Check out my website - http://www.limitingcopyright.com
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
I really don't understand why Napster can't simply use a variation of a simple spellchecker to prevent people from using the files. I mean, in Word, when you misspell a word it comes up with the word you most likely meant to spell. Why couldn't Napster simply use this to make a filter that sees S@ndman as Sandman and therefore blocks it?
I understand it would take a large team of programmers to find the equivalent terms, but couldn't Napster use Song Length and basic letter obfuscation techniques to make an algorithm that searches Napster and adds equivalents to a list?
That does not mean I endorse this course of action...
Arthropoid, the Right Clam for the Job
Nice incoherent pig slop you've got here, AC, thanks for supporting his point.
Go Kathryn Thurber!
You stupid cunt, the owner of a building or house is under no obligation to buy financially taxing security. As an owner of a house with a gun in it, along with several knives, I am under no obligation to lock the doors when I leave the house -- the same thing applies for Napster: forcing them to implement security mechanisms is an unfair financial burden on a small company, and a violation of their rights.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The law doesn't work like that. You're suggesting an innocent list and that songs are guilty by default.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
You really haven't a clue about the legality when you're talking about 'rights' do you? Radio stations have the legal right to broadcast any songs without consent by default. This has been upheld in law.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Not what you hate.
There's often a huge difference between the two.
Legally informed trickery is even less so. This reminds me of when people use the phrase "merely rhetorical."
Mere indeed!
Being technically informed and legally aware of the use of language is no small matter. Rather than being a simple trick, I'd say this is simply devastating for the RIAA and the MPAA. They have no answers suitable to their position and neither does the court.
The law itself is made of language. If you can't filter names, then you're getting a bit past where the law can help you.
I did my thesis on porn like most folks do thsese days and this same issue is exactly where porn came from. No particular judge ever said, okay, let's just have porn and get over it. It's the problem with the English language that's used to make the laws. You can't define obscenity, you can't filter songs by names. Language is a gas, it's a liquid, it's a plasma but it aint solid for long.
Dude are you a troll or an artist that didn't get a contract?
Even before the internet/napster, big labels were milking the public and the artists..
a) FCC busted a group of the big ones for CD price fixing.
b) most of the contracts offerred to no-name artists were just short of "sell your soul" and/or "sell your soul and we own your life as an artist for the duration of the contract"
Even before the internet became big, the music industry combined with distribution and marketing channels were being described as a racket. (Think AOL-TimeWarner, content + distribution).
Factor in the mainstream success of "manufactured bands" (BackStreetBoys, NewKidsOnTheBlock, etc) and you have to ask yourself, IS THERE ANY PLACE/MEDIUM FOR REAL ARTISTS?
This sig space tolet, reasonable rate.
But seriously, I guess they can't catch all the nnnnnnnn-sync and mettalica files names out there. And who know there could be a band named that.... or maybe not. Oh and also I do have a cold ;)
Nathan
What is scary is that the gov't is(was?) planning on putting a "black box" in cars equipped with the next version of OBD that would enable law enforcement to determine a car's status just before an accident!
"pr0n": An anagram of "porn," possibly indicating the use of pornography. - www.microsoft.com
I suppose you'll want chips implanted in people's heads next so that the government can tell if they're thinking about committing a crime. Or microphones implanted in people's teeth so that every time some high school student says "I'm going to kill you" the county does into lockdown. Brilliant.
And besides, some l337 h4x0r would just figure out some way to turn it into a (mp3 player|linux box|wireless networking card) or hack it to transmit the legal speed limit at all times.
Thinking is good!
-- Chris
-- Chris
$email=~s/[^a-zA-Z0-9@.]//g;
This argument's been used since the very beginning of the Napster controversy. Anyone know what the official answer to it has been in court, or if it's been addressed?
It looks like it's solid to me (Although IANAL), so there has to be some reason why it hasn't closed the book on this case.
-- Chris
-- Chris
$email=~s/[^a-zA-Z0-9@.]//g;
Technological incompetence and ignorance in our judicial system is scary. Those making the rules don't understand the nature of the game, and when that happens, you get things like the DMCA. Lord knows we don't need another piece of legislation like that disaster...
-- Chris
-- Chris
$email=~s/[^a-zA-Z0-9@.]//g;
I can see a judge possibly holding Napster liable for this sort of thing but I don't think it is too likely. This is a sort of case where the DMCA may actually be defending copyright infringement because the file in question is removable, and hence Napster is not liable if they remove it after the request of the copyright holder.
Kinda funny when you think about it....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
b) most of the contracts offerred to no-name artists were just short of "sell your soul" and/or "sell your soul and we own your life as an artist for the duration of the contract"
Agreed. You'd be utterley shocked to find out how many artists DON'T OWN thier music, and end up doing what ammounts to leasing their own music from the record company who owns their masters. This issue is not about music at all it's about how record companies can manifest control over listeners and creators. About 50 cents of the price of a cd goes to the artist, most make more touring and doing live events. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to pay $50 a ticket for a concert?
So what is the difference between your two scenarios? The rioters didn't have the right to take the cash, but what stops them from giving you $20?
I can't wait till my ISP contacts me saying "The RIAA wants us to shut you down because you run a Freenet server" my response will be "Um - ok, whats their beef? Oh copyrighted music? Prove that data lives on my server! What? Its encrypted? Wow. Do I have the keys? Maybe - maybe not. I have no idea. Oh yeah - thats right - you aren't liable for criminal traffic going through your network either if you can't identify it? Well neither can I." Click.
Bring it on!
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
"In the state of Florida, driver's licenses say "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law". And supposedly, your signature on your driver's license is what seals the deal. I wonder if you can take the fifth on such things. Like the Miranda laws."
:)
I guess getting a driver's license to drive on public roads that you pay for entails agreeing to an "EULA"
No activity that requires getting a license from the government is free. Look at over-the-air broadcasting for an example.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"You are guilty until proved innocent when pulled over for alleged DWI. Refusing the blood/breath/urine/sobriety test == automatic guilt, arrest, and DWI conviction.
Perhaps someone could how this is legally permitted?"
Constitutionally, it isn't... But, the sheep populace has accepted the premise that driving on PUBLICALLY FINANCED roads is a "priviledge" not a RIGHT, has allowed a much lower burden of proof to be enacted into law. Now you know why a Republic (rule of law) is superior to a "Democracy" (where the government acts to enact the wishes of a sheep population).
Basically, since 1933, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been meaningless. How convienient, as they are the MOST restrictive on the power of government...
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
The burden of proof MUST always be on the accuser, and it IS incumbent on the RIAA to tell Napster WHAT to ban!
To do otherwise is to turn the USA into a country where you are guilty and liable until YOU prove you are innocent. That is tyranny.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
This troll's already been fed; can you mod the parent message back up so all its siblings are in the right context? Thanks.
The AHRA says that individuals trading copies is exempt from copyright law, as part of fair use. Napster merely facilitates this behavior. At no time is any copyrighted material on Napster's servers. Why should they be punished?
Hm, true, but from what I gathered... if there was any way to fuck the RIAA (at that time) she'd be all for it.
Course, she hates the 'cruddy' quality of mp3s, and I agree somewhat. Mostly this has to do with awful encoders *coughrealnetworks. LAME@192vbr is pretty good but the almighty Fraunhaufer@256 is about perfect
Then you should still be caring.... they have yet to bring in any revenue whatsoever.
Neither have a lot of failed dotcoms, I can think of a few that should have had a better chance to survive than napster.
Back up a second. Napster sponsored large, free concert tours (Limp Bizkit comes to mind). It seems Napster doesn't have money just due to the lack of income. It seems partially due to bad management. I'll admit, yes a large chunk is due to lawyers... though isn't the ACLU and EFF helping? I can't remember.
Then, I challenge you to provide factual reports on where the money went. (if there ever was any)
The fact is that they don't have money, not a lot of internet companies do today. Its the fact that they expected to make a lot of money for shady activity. That was my point, I never said they were rich bastards, or even close. Shawn Fanning is probably living off Ramen and Water, as a lot of tech people are today, sadly.
Normally I don't bitch about spelling errors, but if you are going to bust on other people for their choice of words you had damn well better make sure your own post is error-free.
I never pick on spelling or grammar, I never said I was the best typest/speller... but his response straight up calling me an "asshole" consistantly was uncalled for, no? I spent time writing my short essay to have clear and consice thoughts (though not error free) and he comes up and starts swearing and flaming. Is that justified?
Course, you can then say was it justifed for me to respond in that manner, but can't we have a little fun in life?
Firstly, asshole, what most people use it for is irrelevant
I like your choice of words. VARY INTELLEGENT SIRS.
It is unreasonable to hold Napster accountable for the fact that peoplem that people blah blah blah
Where, oh where, did I EVER say that napster was held accountable for what the users did? No, I never once said that. The point (if I can use your wonderful choice of words) asshole, was the fact that napster knew exactly what its service was being used for, then lied straight faced about it and pretended it didn't exist.
I said ::I don't care what the RIAA tells me to do, I want to respect what the ARTISTS want. If Lars Ulrich comes up and says "I don't want you do to this with our work" then I won't. When Courtney Love says "Go ahead, and make sure you give the RIAA a finger when you do", I'll damn well support that girl as much as I can
Please, asshole, know what the person said before trying to hold an argument with them, asshole.
feeinding the trolls
Am I the only one thats just a little tired of napster?
I stopped caring the day they became a company and took a dollar knowing full well that their company was founded on people trading music they don't have the 'rights' to. I hate IP laws as much as the rest of the /. community, but their business model depended on college age people trading illegal mp3s. Furthermore, they continued to be under the guise of "Oh, we're only here for the independant artists!"
Sure...
How is that different from the RIAA saying "We're fore free speech and openess" when clearly they're not"?
Napster can be good for independant artists, and I've been introduced to many great new sounds with napster, but the vast majority of the use is trading music that artists didn't give permission for. Note, I said 'artist' and not 'RIAA/Record Label'. I don't care what they say I can and can't do with things, I'd rather respect what the person who created it wishes. Unfortunatly the RIAA/Record label doesn't allow them to speak for themselves.
Back on track, I feel that if some greedy VCs and possibly Shawn Fanning himself didn't try to turn Napster into a cash cow, things would be pretty different today. Frankly, Napster and all the people that are involved in the shadyness can be buried in the bottem of the dotcom cesspool for all I care.
Lets get it over with, one way or another, and mote on to new more promising, more open technologies like jrxe, gnutella, freenet, and others.
This time she didn't shut the entire thing down, like last time she threatened to...
Napster's safe for now...but I guess its quite a shame when we all know that the law is being broken delibrately that nothing can be done about it, that is, if you think the law is being broken here.
Once more, the RiAA showing, they suck again
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
And many of those who do have actually met RMS.
Strictly speaking I think he is an anarchist rather than a communist. He does not believe in common ownership, he believes in no ownership at all.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Answer, you don't. US law has protected sound recordings since the 1908(?) when the copyright act was modified to include copyright on player piano rolls.
The Beatles recordings are all fully in copyright and always have been.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
How blind you must be to think that all your mail isn't violated somehow. *I* even open your Christmas presents before I deliver them.
Dancin Santa
God, I love this country!
Dancin Santa
I'm see I was only wrong on one point. :-)
Dancin Santa
You laugh, in Japan they have a little bell that goes off when you exceed the speed limit. It doesn't shut off until you lower your speed and it can't be disabled cleanly.
Dancin Santa
In the state of Florida, driver's licenses say "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law". And supposedly, your signature on your driver's license is what seals the deal. I wonder if you can take the fifth on such things. Like the Miranda laws.
[insert witty sig here]
I could imagine the prosecutors
Yes ladies and gentleman of the jury the time has now come where you must decide the facts of the case, and make final judgement on the case. As stated by the RIAA, Napster has continously stolen from the mouths of poor millionaire artists worldwide by providing a peer to peer network solution for sharing music in illegal fashions.
It does not matter that most of the mp3 music stored on Napster was purchased in order to actually make the mp3, nor does it matter that you could also record most of the songs from radio onto cassette tapes. It does not matter that studies have show many Napster users actually purchase billions of dollars in music.
Ladies and gentleman of the jury we provide you with fact based statements and stipulations that don't show much, but the RIAA is footing the bill for this case, and my new golf clubs.
You must come to an agreement, that shows Napster, the thieving service that they are, are no better than someone robbing a bank at gunpoint, or the white collared criminal giving away insider trading information with their boiler room tactics.
It is without reasonable doubt, Napster is the Michael Milken, Charles Manson, O.J. Simpson, Kenneth Kimes, Timothy McVeigh of the computing world. Sure they didn't hurt anybody physically, but Metallica's feeling were hurt, and in pop and media culture attention and money are what counts in society today. DON'T let Metallica and the RIAA go hungry
Ladies and gentleman of the jury I ask you find the defendant GUILTY.
fearsome
360 degrees of Karma
uhh, just what is jrxe? a search for it on google returns b.s. slashdot lameness filter won't even let me post the returns it gives -- junk characters are encountered. what gives?
The bad thing is that we allowed this. We are the government. We govern ourselves, or rather, we vote for who will say how things will be. It is our fault for choosing people who later turn around, rid us of all God-given rights, freedom, and dignity, and give us a royal shafting.
In many countries, people are dictated upon and ruled without choice. Here, for now at least, or until they "amend" the constitution to screw you, you have the chance to make a difference with your vote. Don't take it for granted. If companies spend billions in lobbying efforts, common sense only tells you that there is a war going on, so you better start doing something to protect and for the sake of your society, future generations, and your own self. Vote for only those that respect and care for the individual, because in the end, all that matters is the individual. Government was made by the people, for the people. If a person does not respect your liberty and rights, throw him out immediately.
Enough said. A word is enough for the wise.
Having said all this, could you please tell me what your rationale for blind, some would say rabid defense of napster, another very for profit california corporation that does nothing to actually promote or develop the creation of music itself?
sure there are many free/open src/better alternatives, but the fact remains that the majority of people (non geeks) don't know about these and continue to use napster. therefore the majority of the music we want is being shared by napster, not the alternative free/open src/better program.
Well, since RIAA(and MTV, VH1, et al)created the mainstream, I guess that's a necessary conclusion.
-TRiFIXION
You know, you really should see Titanic. Behind all the hype and hyperbole, it really *is* a great film.
And sue Napster and RIAA if they try to use it. Makes you want to love the DMCA.
Exactly which taxpayer dollars are being spent here? I've been under the impression that it is individual media companies, collectively acting under the name RIAA which are bankrolling the anti-napster side, and of course, napster paying legal fees on their side. Even the operating costs of the courts are covered by the litigants, right? I'm not necessarily calling you out, but if you (or someone more in the know than myself) could break this down in a way that I can explain to others who wouldn't otherwise be giving this case any attention it would be much appreciated.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
Dave: "Download the Metallica song, Nap"
NAP9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
Eye halve a spelling chequer; It came with my pea sea; It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key and type a word And weight four it two say Weather eye am wrong oar write - It shows me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long, And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong. Eye have run this poem threw it; I am shore your pleased two no Its letter perfect awl the weigh, My chequer tolled me sew. - Sores Unknown
A judge who's had enough of this crap, just as we have.
I'm enjoying napigator instead, which uses opennap servers.
I question whether they will EVER be able to clean up all of those, since the file-filtering is in the server and not the program.