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")."
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.
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)
-- Michael Chermside
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.
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."
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.
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.
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"?
If there were no legitimate uses for Napster than it should probably be closed down. However, that's clearly not the case here.
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
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?
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?
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
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!
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'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
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
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 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
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?
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
Dave: "Download the Metallica song, Nap"
NAP9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"