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")."

Comments

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I, tonight, crank out some electronic-oid bit of dance music, and decide to put it in the public domain, I cannot use Napster to distribute it, because I haven't first told them it was ok? I think not.

The RIAA is required to tell Napster what to remove, according to the appeals court ruling. Until they can do that, Napster is doing what is required of them, legally. Morally? That's another question altogether, and one our court system is not capable of answering.

Re:Too late methinks..

[Anonymous Coward]

oh come on...

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

Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Over-aggressive filtering

[A. Craig West]

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?

Re:THE RIAA IS RIGHT

[ewhac]

Downloading copyrighted material without permission of the owner is a CRIME. [ ... ]

Yes. So is driving faster than 65. What's your point?

Schwab

Re:Prove innocence? What about DWI accusations by

[elflord]

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)

Re:THE RIAA IS RIGHT

[jekk]

Downloading copyrighted material without permission of the owner is a CRIME. [ ... ]

Yes. So is driving faster than 65. What's your point?

And that's EXACTLY why we must implement STRICT ENFORCEMENT of speed limit laws! Modern technology should be used to prevent this ILLEGAL activity! All car owners should be required (at their expense) to purchase a special ENCRYPTED AUTOMOBILE ID TRANSPONDER, which would generate little electronic signals capable of being detected. That way, people who speed can receive the fines that they deserve. In fact, if we implement this system immediately, here in the US we'll even be able to afford W's TAX CUT, since the revenue from fines will quickly reach the 10s of billions.

-- Michael Chermside

Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense!

[marxmarv]

Of course she's bought and paid for. She was the mayor of San Francisco!

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

Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense!

[mako]

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.

Patel's not *all* bad.

[jcr]

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

Re:think about it

[norton_I]

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.

Re:Spell Checker

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Re:think about it

[dricher]

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?

This seems to contradict

[Ryu2]

this article today which says that Napster is dramatically stepping up its filters, to the point of major over-filtering (ie, false positives).

the full story

[Rogain]

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."

Now, how to practically leverage this...

[BierGuzzl]

From what I understand of the ruling, the RIAA needs to provide proof of Copyright and the specific filename for each infringement before Napster has the duty to remove access to the infringing file.

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.

Best Tactic for RIAA:

[havardi]

Quietly give up.

How to get your music un-filtered

[yerricde]

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.

not that late

[.Tacitus.]

I still find Napster easy and reliable in finding the music I want. I still do not have a need to go back to IRC for my mp3's.

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.

Re:not that late

[tdye]

Copyright law in the states doesn't specify how often you can copy something, and that's part of this argument. The law doesn't necessarily protect companies against lost revenues due to massive copying of copyrighted works.It also doesn't necessarily grant the unlimited right to make as many copies as possible as long as you don't charge for them.

Basically, Congress never, ever thought you'd be able to distribute a piece of music to 10 million people unless you dedicated your life to the task.

They never thought to ask what happens when you scale up taping songs off the radio to millions of copies while decreasing the time and effort involved to almost nonexistant levels and also practically eliminating the distribution time and expense.

Can you blame them?

What The Judge Said When She Threw Up Her Hands

[istartedi]

It'5 3een a hard daze ni6ht.

Need XML expertise? crism consulting

How is Napster different than the postal system?

[awch]

I've never understood why Napster, the company, should be held responsible for the actions of its users. I can buy that users may be doing something illegal on Napster. However, I'm pretty certain there are people trading illegal stuff through the mail. I don't think the postal system has been held responsible for the actions of its users. Why should Napster?

If there were no legitimate uses for Napster than it should probably be closed down. However, that's clearly not the case here.

What about bands on multiple Labels?

[TomV]

This topic just came up on a Sigue Sigue Sputnik list I read.

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

Re:I don't think this is a win, guys...

[e_lehman]

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.

Ahhh... but time is on our side.

The longer it takes RIAA to shut down Napster and other music trading services, the more users there are and the more convinced those users become that it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO COPY DIGITAL MUSIC. And those users become ever more likely to scream ever more loudly to their representatives if that right is snatched away.

Every day that Napster stalls, the good ship Music Trading gathers momentum, and becomes harder for RIAA to bring back to port.

sleepyfellow.com

[ahaile]

Now what we need is another service that keeps track of all the title mangling patterns, like Beatles -> Fab Four. Make it into an automated plugin for Napster that translates titles on-the-fly and we're basically back to the pre-litigation Napster.

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?

think about it

[slashdoter]

Napster says that it can't filter due to the problems with changing file names, RIAA says Bullshit

RIAA says it can't provide a list due to the problems with changing file names, Napster says Bullshit.

And around we go

________

Re:Hmmm....

[Fervent]

No, really. I submitted this article.

Alternatives to Napster

[Kernel Kurtz]

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

Copyright and Congressmen

[GemFire]

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

Finally, some sense...

[spoocr]

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.) Her lack of insightfulness was really quite frightening - she was basically demanding that Napster implement a sentient filtering program that could out-think the human mind - something most people know to be impossible with our current technologies, and probably won't be available for a very long time. It's quite relieving to hear that she's no longer expecting that kind of thing. It's really not so much the possibility of a ruling against Napster that had me worried - it was the precedent. Had such a ruling been established and enforced, if could have meant that the RIAA/MPAA could probably have gotten away with demanding that [insert data provider/carrier here] install such filtering systems, or shut down. Whoa.

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

Next up...

[baptiste]

Napster is old news. Next is Gnutella, then when teh RIAA shuts them down, whats next? Espra? Well there needs to be some SERIOUS development first. But Freenet has lots of possibilities.. Beyond that - MojoNation?

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!

--

Re:Prove innocence? What about DWI accusations by

[mikethegeek]

"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...

Finally, a verdict that makes sense!

[mikethegeek]

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.

Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense!

[Zeio]

I can't believe the RIAA isn't going to be liable for the damages to the tax payer's wallet with all this complete mindless crap. Meanwhile, 9,000,000 other p2p methods are cropping up and being refined - and the RIAA still get to waste our money litigating this foul argument. Napster has opened the doors for endless attack because they attempted to knuckle under and cut a deal.

I wrote my senators and congressmen here in California, apparently they support monopolies (the replied with rude letters that made me not want to vote for them again =).

Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense!

[Zeio]

The first Swinestein response was a canned form letter - obviously auto generated. Upon being angered by a form letter, I replied asking for a better acknowledgement. She gave me a second letter, a brief history of how essentially she's been paid off, and I can go sit in a corner.

I am very sorry to say I didn't save the letter, well... I'll go fish through it now..... Yeah, I chucked it because it was trash.

It amazes me that in a recent article published about UPS winning the rights to deliver packages in a direct route from California to China from Congress a member stated that it was quid pro quo to be bribed. It turns out UPS gave various Congressmen a total of 1.2 million in contributions (bribes). I'm sorry for being vague, I will dig up the link the statement made by the Congressman about bribery.

This state is fried, isn't it?

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.

Bull.

[TheSHAD0W]

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?

More napster? eesh

[Rory_O]

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.

I Rest My Case

[deran9ed]

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

More information please...?

[lightfoot jim]

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.

2001: A Download Odyssey

[A5WKS24]

Dave: "Download the Metallica song, Nap"

NAP9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"