Slashdot Mirror
Searching for Pro-Napster Experts and Speakers?
JLF asks: "I chair a local leadership seminar (Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership) for high school Sophomores from Eastern Indiana where we try to introduce the students to a variety of viewpoints on several current events or issues. One issue we want to cover at this year's seminar is copyright law, and more specifically, Napster. I've done some research thru Google and found several leads for experts/speakers who are, for lack of a better term, anti-Napster, but I'm having trouble finding sources of pro-Napster sentiment who can make a strong point in favor of the file-trading that goes in through Napster. So I'm wondering if the Slashdot community might be able to suggest some places I could look for good arguments in favor of Napster ('good' as in it goes beyond the basic 'free music rulez!' argument), or even better, someone in the area (the seminar is being held at Ball State U. in Muncie, IN) who might be good to contact about speaking at the seminar. The format we use is very relaxed, each speaker gives a short (2-4 minute) intro about his-or-herself and then we open the floor up to questions from the students for about 45 minutes. Thanks!"
#1 even in the purest form, this is theft.
#2 no one is going to get up and say it is not.
#3 The only point you have it the record companies are big evil bastards, and we deserve the music for free because they bent us over for years.
#4 They need to find a better, cheap way to distribute music. Until they do I am going to pilage every thing I see.
Just because you don't like the way something works does not give you the right to steal it. If I lived by these ideas with everything outside of Napster I would run all the toll booths in New York because I think they have been binking me out of 6 bucks a day for years, and that is too much. Or I would copy DiabloII on my burner from a friend because I feel the price is too high. Better yet maybe I would steal out of the cash register at work because I think I am underpayed.
Grab a clue, and realize that Napster is just an easy way to steal music. Yea sure it has some good honest uses, and helps some people outside of just stealing music. Just call a spade a spade and say you rogued it, at least then your an honest thief.
Anonymous by Nature.
I spurn the RIAA and its member companies and artists. Ergo, I feel no qualms about using napster to reclaim our collective musical heritage. Napster-style music trading software is like a modern troubador, except instead of coming to my village occasionally and singing a limited set of songs that it didn't write for a few coins, it comes to my computer when I call it and duplicates flawlessly a vast array of songs, for free. Either way, the original author doesn't get to live off their past works - they must work for their daily bread like the rest of us. And, furthermore, the RIAA gets jack, which I'm even happier about.
Just my take. I still pay for live music.
I remember watching a panel discussion on Chicago's WTTW not too long ago, and local independent producer Steve Albini (Pixies, Wedding Present, etc) took a very pro-music-sharing stance during that discussion. I imagin he'd be a very interesting speaker to listen to.
Tally my vote for Larry Lessig. He is a great speaker. And I mean great. Not the flamboyant kind. The smart kind.
:-)
His views on Slashdot are very accurate IMHO (read: slightly condescending, sorry guys and gals) and he is not a "Information want to be free" loony. He knows the law and has a clear picture of how technologies like Napster, and the laws that regulate code, like the DMCA, fit in our society.
I'm sure he's not cheap, but the show is worth it. (Well for an IP lawyer anyways!
Copyrights have to be earned, and they need not apply to everyone in all ways. If it were felt by Congress to promote the progress of the arts to have copyrights not apply to the sharing of files by individuals for no compensation, copyrights just wouldn't apply.
I don't have a serious problem with that - I find it impossible to believe that the current system of copyright laws is actually fulfilling its Constitutionally mandated function.
And remember, copyrights are only sensibly applicable to works that have been published - that is, deliberately made available to the public.
OTOH, I have an expectation of privacy regarding my personal information. Amazon may know what books I've bought from them, but I have never desired them to tell anyone else, for any reason. Only the government, armed with a warrant from a court with relevant jurisdiction ought to be able to violate that privacy.
Although I find them inelegant and would prefer to avoid them, double standards are perfectly reasonable, provided that they function to aid society, and do not impose harm on it. I don't know about you, but the society that I would like best relies chiefly on people, and imposes restrictions on the government, which in turn imposes restrictions on businesses.
It's important not to be wedded to any one system, but to instead favor a goal, though you still want to be careful about how you get there. Certainly if a decidedly better political system than our present one were devised, I'd want to implement it; if a better economic system than a carefully muzzled capitalism were thought up, I'd be all for it. I admit that we're doing okay, but we clearly have a lot of room for improvement, and my sympathies lie with living, breathing people more than anything else.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Oh, they still have to be earned alright. Congress has just set the bar extremely (and possibly unconstitutionally) low.
.sig, I disclaim copyrights on my posts. They go to the public domain as soon as they're fixed.
You may wish to check out the list of things that cannot be copyrighted: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html Remember of course, that Congress could eliminate copyrights on anything at all tomorrow if they wanted to. (through the normal process of lawmaking)
Besides which, if you hadn't noticed my
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I use Naptster or IRC or whatever to look at songs hosted by those people who like music that I do. Then I download MP3s of people I have never heard of. 9 times out of 10 (or more) I strike out. But those few times that I get a winner, I have just found another artist to support. I usually can get their MP3s for all songs that are interesting to me, so I don't really need their CD. However, with the current model, purchasing the CD is the only method of supporting this artist. I also now will go to live shows for this artist (another revenue stream for them). Many are small enough that I would never have found them without this free distribution method.
I would be happy to give the artist the same amount without purchasing the CD, because it would save me money without shorting the artist. However, there will have to be a paradigm shift in distribution before this can happen.
You talk about "the RIAA" as though they are one company. They are not. They are an industry lobby. They do actually compete with each other, and if one company can get rich at anothers expense, they will.
Of course, you could argue that they are some sort of collusive oligopoly, but the onus is upon you to show that (and indeed one doubts that an oligopoly containing so many companies would be viable).
At this link there's a discussion of a pro-napster song that played on NPR. The author of "The Napster Rap" is Eric Schwartz.
They also have a list of links including "Recording Industry Math & Info" links and "Writings on voluntary payments/tipping".
--
Q: What do you get when a Postmodernist joins the Mafia?
HOWTO get better dates on slashdot
Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
A classic treatise from the e-pen of noted intellectual Courtney Love.
If we make Napster-like free file sharing illegal, we'll have to rid ourselves of either computers or democracy.
You can't have both.
This one's from the heart of rock'n'roll's Mr Wild, Jared Lanier.
I doubt Love would get out of bed for less than a Hollywood ransom and a noseful of gak. Might luck out with Lanier, though, if you can contact him in Virtuality before the imminent Eighties revival kicks in.
So they want to teach kids how to steal in school now...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/Wes/Wes2.html
and
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/Wes/Wes1.html
Yes, we all agree it's better to steal an artists work with their permission.
*If* you could get him to come and speak, you'd have an unforgettable event. (And I say that in a good way -- I'm a big fan of LB and suspect Durst [like Mick Jagger] is a super-savvy businessman.)
I suspect that he's a screaming idiot who was lucky enough to get a ton of money for screaming his guts out into a slobber-soaked microphone. He probably spends most of his money on drugs and booze, now that's business!
Oh damn.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I was a HOBY attendee. I just wanted to say that I think it is a great program. I think it is even better that you are trying to introduce the students to more 'technical' current events.
Remember, a truly wise man never plays leapfrom with a unicorn
I have written an article about this.
n ap ster
v e/ index.html
:-)
http://www.mode-x.com/articles.misc.php?target=
Also Courtney Love had a pretty interesting Salon.com piece a while ago:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
It's pretty good, and if she's not an "expert", at least she's someone in the industry
Daniel
Carpe Diem
(he was running for president, and has spoken, if not favorably of napster, at least in defense of the principles are are being broken in prosecuting it)
Most experts and academians are pro-sharing. Those you have found are properbly corporate employees ore layers seeking profit.
The bigger problem, is more to find someone who isnt too farfetched. It has always been a problem for interlectuals that a majority of them are extremely leftwing.
Look for someone who understands economics!
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
I am research assistant to Professor Peter Jaszi. He is widely renowned copyright scholar with interests in the U.S. Fair Use doctrine, heavily implicated by Napster and file sharing. He is usually who NPR, and other radio and TV affiliates call. :)
i o. html.
http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/jaszi/b
If not anyone from the digital freedom coalition.
-- This is not legal advice or solicitation. See an attorney for legal advice. My views, not anyone else's..
It's more consistent with copyright parlance to speak in terms of minimalist or maximalist positions.
The minimalist camp takes a more restrictive (some would argue traditional) view of scope of rights protected under copyright. The minimalist camp is more sensitive to the public interest in discussions of copyright jurisprudence. You might say they are the "pro-napster" club.
The maximalist camp promotes expansions of scope of rights for copyright holders. The maximalists are who you will identify as the "anti-napster" club.
Some people who have written alot in this area are Pam Samuelson
-- This is not legal advice or solicitation. See an attorney for legal advice. My views, not anyone else's..
That's odd half the post disappeared... anyway...
Pam Samuelson who heads the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology and Peter Jaszi, head of American University's IP Program and Clinic are both well published on this subject.
This article will discuss how traditional copyright jurisprudence is butting heads against new maximalist doctrines. See Peter A. Jaszi, Goodbye to All That--A Reluctant (and Perhaps Premature) Adieu to a Constitutionally-Grounded Discourse of Public Interest in Copyright Law, 29 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 595 (1996).
This article discusses the different positions playing out in the TRIPS and WIPO Copyright treaty negotiations. See Pamela Samuelson, The U.S. Digital Agenda at WIPO, 37 Va. J. Int'l L. 369, 374 & 375 n.39 (1997).
-- This is not legal advice or solicitation. See an attorney for legal advice. My views, not anyone else's..
Dude, my comment is so not insightful. Not that I don't like being modded up, but I want it to be for the right reasons.\ =\=\=\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
As others have pointed out, you have to decide whether you want to promote Napster for the community-building (copyright be damned) or point to the "substantial non-infringing uses."
And as for Napster defending itself--I don't know whether the students will care about the detailed legal arguments, but I have to admit I haven't been wildly impressed by the defense arguments in the couple briefs I've seen. Napster can't win while fighting on enemy territory. Fair use does not mean the right to distribute material indiscriminately to strangers all around the globe, as socially valuable as that may be.
If Napster isn't peer to peer I really don't know what is. Peer to peer is a form of distribution which has absolutely nothing to do with technology or network topology.
Napster is a centralized search index that indexes a distributed database of mp3s. Gnutella is a distributed search index that indexes a distributed database of files. They are both peer to peer because they allow anyone with a client to both download and upload material.
Peer to peer and broadcast are methods of distribution. Centralized and distributed are types of network topologies.
actually it seems like you've got mp3.com vs. napter backwards ... if you're on a band's page in mp3.com, it's going to be really hard to find similar music that you may also enjoy. if you find a tune on napster, the person who dug that up often has some other tracks which may fit your tastes.
... sure you can try their top 40 charts, but who's to say you're going to like what everyone else is listening to.
what http://mp3.com can't do is tell a user which kind music they might like, you simply have to pick a category then "throw darts" until you get a hit
on the other side of the coin, if you find someone with similar tastes in music (ala napster or some-other-sharing method) there's a pretty good chance they've already found some tunes that you can get into.
_f
Privacy vs. Piracy, Napster and More
If you are to actually read what I have to say, start with the bottom (the older comments; each is labeled by a header/separator/title thingy. I don't think that what I said would be of any particular use, but if it is, I'd love it if someone told me. :-)
Also, the rest of my writings on a variety of other matters can be found here, so feel free to peruse. Don't feel obligated.
So any famous artist on the pro-napster side would be a good choice in your case. Notice the pro-napster list is about twice as long as the anti-napster list, though i suspect some bias there :-)
The issue is not Napster being bad, but of having a requirement of the tool checking for permission before any data is shared. Does the telephone check to see if you have permission to call a particular person before you are allowed to dial the number?
Fight Spammers!
There are three classes of people where you would find pro Napster sentiment. The first are unsigned artists who are looking for an easy way to diseminate their music. Many of them, and many of their production team LOVE Napster, since it's an easy way to get their music in front of people. And that's the first step to hitting it big- getting your music played by as many people as possible.
The other group of people who you might want to check in with are those who hate the RIAA. I know, it's an "enemy of my enemy" thing, but maybe try a site like http://www.boycott-riaa.com.
Finally there's the obvious place to check. Call Napster and ask their legal team for pointers.
But it's ok to take a CD you just bought at the store and make an "Illegal" copy onto a tape to listen to in your car?
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
I hear Lars Ulrich is available *grin* well, so he's not pro-napster, but he's not a articulate either.
Prince has come forward as a defender of Napster as well, having written about the issues on his website: http://www.npgonlineltd.com
The Offspring had that napster tour, and Radiohead has announced their support of what Napster has done for their fans and their popularity.
True. Anyone who thinks charging money for their music makes it "art" and giving it away freely debases it to the level of a "commodity" makes an excellent Napster advocate whether or not they know it.
--
Freeper Logic
I think you're taking an overly narrow view of Napster. While it's true that you've got the search engine, you can still browse through everything that a person is sharing. While arbitrarily viewing random shares might not be a very effective way to find stuff, looking for other files shared by someone who already had music that you like is a good way to find something similar but different.
I've thought about this subject quite a bit lately, and the one thought that just can't slip past my mind is this: How do we define, exactly, fair use for IP? The real question is where do we draw the line. I will cover music, as music is most revelent to the Napster discussion. Truth be told at this point, I don't have an view on Napster yet, although I think I might by the time this is done. Everyone here can agree on the two extremes: 1. Copying music onto new CD's and selling them on the street corners is wrong. 2. Listening to music by yourself in your own home using a player the recording company approved is ok. If we stretch downward from point one, most of us can agree that selling the CD's online, or even passing out free physical CD's is not ok either. I would go to say that 99% of us here would agree that actively distrubuting someone else's IP in any form (phsical media or digital), for pay or free, wholy intact is wrong. I guess the big question here is do whole songs constute enough to be a violation? I will pause there and give you a moment to think about it while I make a few more comments on the other end of the spectrum. Notice that I mentioned 1. alone 2. in your own house, and 3. on an approved player under the 'ok' catagory. Why? if you remove any one of the three, some people will disagree with the 'ok-ness' of the action. An approved player is a large portion of this argument. Theroretically, I could use DeCSS to rip movies to my hard drive or MP3 to rip audio and simply listen to the tracks or watch the movies by myself at home. (Before anyone scoffs, I have an impressive MP3 collection of all the CD's I own that isn't shared with anyone.) The problem with this is the RIAA will bitch about 'potential infringement' that I could incur. I think it's a bunch of bullcrap, but it is the way society is allowing itself to be lead. On to the next point, not listening to a CD at home is, technically, illegal. If an artist wanted to get nit-picky, Lars could bust somone crusing down the freeway with the windows down and "Sandman" blasting for unlicensed public performance. Yes, IANAL, but think about that and any movie-and-food parties you had at school. Again, the teachers could of technically been busted, but charges are almost never pressed. Lastly, you must listen by yourself. The reason behind this is YOU have purcased the CD, not your wife, not your brother, and not your friend. While I'm sure fair use entitles you to loan the CD to them (not for long, however, I'm sure the RIAA will go after that next), we can't say for ceritian that it allows anyone other than one person to use it at once. If it does, where is the line drawn? Can you and your family listen? Can your 10 person get together listen? Can your 100 person wild party listen? Can your 1000 person rave listen? That line is a whole other long covluted post from yours truely. Summing that up, we have a WORLD of Grey area inbetween the two endpoints. Napster falls solidly within those bounds. So if you choose (as your post would seem to imply) that anything within the grey area is bad, remember this post next time you're at a party and they play a CD you don't own you wicked nasty person you. Ugh... I was about to start talking about resale of used CD's, and then expand that into the question of "can I resale one track off of this CD?" but I realized whole books can and probally have been writen about this subject. And when you find that book, remember not to Xerox it, ok? Anyways guys, the reason I went so extreme on the 'ok' end is because I want you all to do one thing: learn what your rights are. That way you're more pissed when they are taken away. --Demonspawn Kant speel, don't care.
My appologies for the double post. I should of hit the preview button. Here it is with HTML breaks coded in:
I've thought about this subject quite a bit lately, and the one thought that just can't slip past my mind is this:
How do we define, exactly, fair use for IP?
The real question is where do we draw the line. I will cover music, as music is most revelent to the Napster discussion. Truth be told at this point, I don't have an view on Napster yet, although I think I might by the time this is done.
Everyone here can agree on the two extremes: 1. Copying music onto new CD's and selling them on the street corners is wrong. 2. Listening to music by yourself in your own home using a player the recording company approved is ok. If we stretch downward from point one, most of us can agree that selling the CD's online, or even passing out free physical CD's is not ok either. I would go to say that 99% of us here would agree that actively distrubuting someone else's IP in any form (phsical media or digital), for pay or free, wholy intact is wrong. I guess the big question here is do whole songs constute enough to be a violation? I will pause there and give you a moment to think about it while I make a few more comments on the other end of the spectrum.
Notice that I mentioned 1. alone 2. in your own house, and 3. on an approved player under the 'ok' catagory. Why? if you remove any one of the three, some people will disagree with the 'ok-ness' of the action. An approved player is a large portion of this argument. Theroretically, I could use DeCSS to rip movies to my hard drive or MP3 to rip audio and simply listen to the tracks or watch the movies by myself at home. (Before anyone scoffs, I have an impressive MP3 collection of all the CD's I own that isn't shared with anyone.) The problem with this is the RIAA will bitch about 'potential infringement' that I could incur. I think it's a bunch of bullcrap, but it is the way society is allowing itself to be lead. On to the next point, not listening to a CD at home is, technically, illegal. If an artist wanted to get nit-picky, Lars could bust somone crusing down the freeway with the windows down and "Sandman" blasting for unlicensed public performance. Yes, IANAL, but think about that and any movie-and-food parties you had at school. Again, the teachers could of technically been busted, but charges are almost never pressed. Lastly, you must listen by yourself. The reason behind this is YOU have purcased the CD, not your wife, not your brother, and not your friend. While I'm sure fair use entitles you to loan the CD to them (not for long, however, I'm sure the RIAA will go after that next), we can't say for ceritian that it allows anyone other than one person to use it at once. If it does, where is the line drawn? Can you and your family listen? Can your 10 person get together listen? Can your 100 person wild party listen? Can your 1000 person rave listen? That line is a whole other long covluted post from yours truely.
Summing that up, we have a WORLD of Grey area inbetween the two endpoints. Napster falls solidly within those bounds. So if you choose (as your post would seem to imply) that anything within the grey area is bad, remember this post next time you're at a party and they play a CD you don't own you wicked nasty person you.
Ugh... I was about to start talking about resale of used CD's, and then expand that into the question of "can I resale one track off of this CD?" but I realized whole books can and probally have been writen about this subject. And when you find that book, remember not to Xerox it, ok?
Anyways guys, the reason I went so extreme on the 'ok' end is because I want you all to do one thing: learn what your rights are. That way you're more pissed when they are taken away.
--Demonspawn
Kant speel, don't care.
How is Napster supposed to determine who the copyright holder really is on the files that are submitted to them?
Thousands of songs are written everyday by musicians who don't have the time or resources to formally register copyright on their works. Should Napster refuse to allow trading of any of this music?
What if I burn a copy of a Metallica CD, give my own titles to all the songs, and claim that I own the copyright? How will Napster check?
Opt-in is impossible.
Point out that Lars is an idiot and a hypocrite, point to the original notion of copyright in the Constitution, and then tell them that they're violating exsisting law by even talking about the subject. Point at them and say "Look, it's the RIAA," and when they turn to look, punch 'em.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
"Let's all remember; if you are making copyrighted music available to others online, you *ARE* breaking the law, regardles of how rediculous we all think it is."
Napster is being accused of Contributory Infringement, not direct infringement and neither Napster nor the Napster user are actively distributing the copyrighted material.
Simply having the songs on your harddrive is NOT illegal since you may own the CD and ripped them so that you could listen to the music while using the CD-ROM drive for something else. Nor are you required to place those mp3s in any specific directory so, if you want you can put them into your 'Napster Download' directory and still not be breaking any law.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
The point I was trying to make is that the Napster user is NOT distributing the files. Their presence on the harddrive is immaterial. I do NOT log on to Napster to SHARE music - I do it to FIND music (generally works that aren't available in the stores.) Because I keep the music on my harddrive in one convenient space and don't generally do more than clean up the appearance (I'm easy to filter, in other words,) does not mean that I am contributing to copyright infringement or distributing these works. They are, very simply, just on my harddrive in a convenient (to me) directory.
The Napster program was designed to take advantage of this (that people would want to keep their music in one place) and lists those files it finds as available.
Now, if you want to police potential infringers, just abort any transfers and you are, in effect, preventing any infringement.
Again, simply having those songs, in that directory, doesn't make you liable for even Contributory Infringement. They would have to prove that you facilitated people to download from your computer, which they might be able to do for Napster, but I certainly hope they couldn't prove such a thing for an individual Napster user.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
You might try Shawn Fanning. He seems to know a lot about Napster.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
I think the best place to search for pro-Napster (and anti-Napster) info is Slashdot.
From Slashdot stories I could remember two articles :
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Also, when I said "hire" I didn't mean "pay." If we had money, we wouldn't need Napster.
Some may say this is intellectually bankrupt. But like most Americans, Of the six hundred posts on /., I'm only going to remember the one person who agreed with me. So, why not streamline the process?
If you find some hot-shot pro-Napster speaker, Let me know.
ChuckD of Public Enemy gives a roof-raising talk on why Napster is a Good Thing(TM). He'd probably tone down the mutherfuckers a bit for a group of kids. --toby
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
http://www.onamerica.com has an article on intellectual property that may be of interest to this discussion. Perhaps the author could appear to represent Napster.
precisely -- just because you CAN take cookies from the cookie jar doesn't mean it's a good thing. Napster has not shown itself to be able to renumerate artists properly -- giving artists even LESS than the recording industry. As for giving exposure, that's bullshit -- the primary means of finding music on napster is title/artist SEARCH, meaning that you have to know what you're looking for already -- where do you get this knowledge? well, from the looks of it, top 40 radio and MTV. i don't know where they came up with the argument that they existed to promote obscure bands, etc -- it's not a PROMOTING service, it's a LOCATING service.
there's no Pro-Napster speakers that will talk about Napster because they all either: A) believe that INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE AND ALL IP SHOULD BE FREE, or B) are teenagers getting the latest SNOOP DOGG or whoever the hell is flavor or the week.
I'd advise you to look for Freenet speakers -- it's a much less "HIP" movement, perhaps, but a noble cause.
fisfhcuwerk.
this doesn't strike me as defending napster. it makes, finally, as semi-decent rationale for revisiting issues of copyright and perhaps reforming them. napster's only function in this sort of narrative is to show that people desire free exchange of intellectual property.
or maybe they're just too fucking cheap to buy a cd.
fisfhceurkl.
seems to be the illusion you're operating under. You're bitter that people get PAID for their work? Music not serious enough work for you? Meanwhile, truth being : making music is hard work -- I don't give a damn how many half-assed electro tracks you've knocked off using loops on your "borrowed" software; musicians spend good amounts of time and money actually AUTHORING music, not just rearranging a few samples. simply, musicians often do not get paid fairly for the amount of work they do, the fruits of which you enjoy.
I'm glad you still pay for live music, but I'm guessing if you could figure out how NOT TO, you wouldn't.
fishfucekr.
just be frank, cop to theft -- don't hide it behind the same fucking MR.INTEGRITY scheme that 95% of slashdot users promote.
good job of illustrating the general ignorance/arrogance of people regarding this subject. you can't seriously believe that puff daddy and britney spears (who both have really fucking good production values, though perhaps uninteresting music) are simply pushing buttons to come up with tracks.
fisfhcuerk.
at least, i hope not.
I had no idea that Napster was still alive? After I couldn't find any decent music on there, I quit using it, so I assume that everybody else did, too. Are people using Napster to get music that's never been published (garage bands)??
- He's an outspoken critic of how whacked copyright law has gotten.
- Last I knew, he lived in Illinois.
- He's not likely to ride a strict pro-napster/anti-napster line (could be good, could be bad for your desired level of simplification of issues).
- And frankly, most of my low opinion of current copyright law came from volunteer time with PG.
My distaste for existing copyright law predates napster by almost a decade. If a >10 year software patent is ludicrous (and some of us think it is), what sense is there in copyright's stripping us of our god-n-congress-given right to enjoy artistic works until 99.999% are so old they've become irrelevant or lost completely!?I've never had more than an indirect contact with Mr. Hart, never heard him speak, etc. But he's enthusiastic and dedicated to what he believes in to a point where I'd recommend him in a moment above anyone with a vested financial interest in Napster/RIAA/etc.
Somewhere about here, Mike'd say "Free Winnie".
With napster, everyone is so focused on the legality of internet-based file sharing, and everyone knows that copying stuff that isnt yours and distrubiting it is illegal. This isnt just a matter of opinion anymore, legally, napster is dead, the ruling is pretty much known. Napster as a business is only trying to surive long enough to get out the subscription service with partner BMG in july. This subject is already old hat, even for highschoolers. A better topic for debate would be how distrubution of entertianment will pan out on the internet. I personally think this whole riaa vs. napster thing will go down as a case study in b-schools as one of the biggest business mistakes ever made. Napster had at one point 50 million loyal users, and if some sort of partnership was made, instead of sqaushing it, a huge amount of sales could be made distrubuting in a new medium. If only our nationsexecutives could see beyond the next two fiscal quaters...
Spaf has previously spoken out in favor of 2600 in their appeal vs. the MPAA in the DeCSS case through his involvment in an amicus breif. You can read the brief here and the /. discussion here.
In any event, Spaf's proximity to the event (only an hour and a half from Purdue to BSU) would probably make him more likely to agree to participate, as you're not likely to pull any other experts from a great distance to give a short talk unless you're spotting their airfare.
I hate to say this but the reason Napster is a good orginization is simple... it is a crap filter. In music just 4 years ago, you hear a catchy song on the radio and you want to get it to listen to at home. You go to the store and there is the single... 8-10 bucks. Obsurd. So then you see the full CD 15-20 bucks. So what do you do? You buy the full CD because there must be better songs. Well, the problem is, maybe that one catchy song was the only one decent or catchy and the rest of it sucks!
The people who are afraid of Napster and Napster-Like services are not the Santana's of the world who come out with an increadle CD when they are done making one increadible compilation but the Marketing oriented artists of the world that make one good or teen catchy song and then make 50 other minutes of noise to surround it.
CDs are cheap to make and people want to buy stuff that is not worth listening to. As Napster proved, people on their service still buy CDs... problem to the music industry is the only buy the ones worth buying. Just a few years ago, they could not go to a service that gave them a chance to see how good the entire CD was. A CD may take 5 cents to make and sell for 15 bucks, but people will pay that when the whole thing is worth it. THey do not want to pay 15 bucks for that one good song and then the rest that sucks.
People need to step up to the plate and play. Servces like this force people to perform and, oh my god, make good music. You do not hear Santana, Led Zepplin, Limp Bizket(well some of their music is good for a beat), or many artists that make good music complaining. They make money cause every time they have a CD come out people wanna buy it. Eminem will always make just as much money with or without Napster. He might even make more cause it gives him more exposure, not that he has enough all ready. All, I have to say is welcome to capitalism... Napster should exist... Maybe charge a fee to check out music, I will pay, and I will check for the CDs worth buying then get the ones I want and not be forced to buy an ablum that sucks... lord knows how many I bought before 2 years ago that sucked. ROCK ON SHAWN!!!
I think the problem with finding someone who can stand up and present coherently on why Napster is good is fundamental and inescapable...and also why they are losing in court. The bottom line is that when you get down to it, Napster is primarily used to do something that is prohibited by law. Yes, I know...information wants to be free, and all that. That's not the point...I'm not saying that music SHOULD be controlled by record companies and the neocommercialfacist RIAA. I'm just saying that as the law exists now, it's illegal to do what everyone wants to do when they use Napster.
The key to this is that the way our government works from a citizenship perspective, when we don't agree with a law, we are supposed to change it. Yes I know, "civil disobedience," yadda yadda yadda. Civil disobedience was developed for situations where there are no means to address a problem within the system. That does not exist at the moment.
To enable something like Napster in the future, the laws which prohibit sharing of music need to be repealed. The organizations which lobby in defense of these laws need to be countered. But until the laws are changed, it's going to be very difficult to stand up and intelligently say, "Well, it's against the law, yeah. But let's allow it anyways, just this once?"
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
http://www.napster.com/company/contact.html
I strongly support Napster's right to do what they do, but my support has nothing to do with music.
Napster is simply and only a search engine. It has an advantage over Google in that clients that wish to share files must let Napster know that the files are available. Therefore, it can do a better job as a search engine for a particular type of file because those who wish to share that type of file jump up and down and yell "look at me" until Napster indexes their files.
Other than that, if you examine what Napster does at a programming level, it looks exactly like what Google does, or Altavista, or Yahoo.
Napster is being sued because of the content that it indexes as a search engine. No other search engine has been sued for indexing copyrighted content (that I know of). ISPs have been sued, individuals have been sued, Universities that host files have been sued, but no other search engine has been.
If Napster goes down then a fair application of the law will take down Google, et. al. Of course, there won't be an equal application of law. Can you imagine anyone sueing Google to force Google to block all files that contain references to an ftp site with copyrighted files? I thought not. Neither should Napster be responsible for the content it indexes.
Just for kicks - go to Google and type "pink floyd mp3". You'll be able to download copyrighted material from one of the first ten links. The only redress that record companies have to prevent this is to contact the site that hosts the files and tell them to remove the files or be sued. Google has no liability.
If you could get him to come in, a person to consider might be John Perry Barlow from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He visited my University, and had several good arguments in favor of Napster type services.
this was featured on slashdot before, too. http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/12/1533240.shtm l
After you strip away all lawyer obfuscation, the entire concept of digital copyrights boils down to the understanding of mathmatics and the application of that understanding to ANY arrangement of ones and zeros in ANY file. The anti-napster people may squirm around the issue, but the only way they could ever truely get what they want would be to declare knowledge of mathmatics illegal; forbidden to be conveyed to others or have in your possesion. That said, Its a futile effort the riaa/mpaa are engaged in. They're just peddling influence and renting senators for some regulation they can siphon some cash from before the colapse of their industry ( as they now know it ).
I read Slashdot with .sigs disabled, with a threshold of 1, set to not show scores, and with the 'Light' box checked off. The 'Light' mode disables the display of post numbers, btw.
It's amazing what filtering out most of the flamebait has done to my karma score. I catch myself actually talking to the adults in these discussions from time to time.
Her name is Ani Difranco
"The world is all that is the case."
I would contact IP (Intellectual Property) lawyers in your area. Be sure not to confuse them with PI lawyers.
I know of at least one IP lawyer who is pro Napster, so they *do* exist, and they can talk on the legal issues as well as the moral issues.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
If you are truly out to present both sides of the issue, as i suspect you are, then I would suggest talking to the guys over at 2600.com. Granted, this is a magazine with...ahem...somewhat radical viewpoints, but they are likely to be if not pro Napster, then at least more neutral than some other media-types out there. They are also unlikely to pull a "d00d, |\|@p$t3r r0xx" on you, either. Just a thought. good luck, it's always refreshing to hear of an open-minded teacher, especially one concious to some present issues.
diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock
As a recording artist, already signed and with several albums out, I completely disagree. Napster is (read:WAS) an excellent means of distributing our songs as a supplemental promotional vehicle. Obviously if this was the only source, we'd never get anyware. However, owing to its HUMONGOUS userbase, I was able to encode and entire album (at an acceptable but semi-low bitrate) and get our band from NEVER appearing on Napster to ALWAYS appearing on Napster. Of course, if we didn't tour and promote ourselves via traditional methods, and if the material wasn't good, it wouldn't help. Still, any artist who derides Napster or its users IMO, is behind the times and has bought into the BS rockstar mythos. The reality is, the real $ to be made now (& has always been) in the music business is in publishing rights, merchandising, and by the labels themselves. Artists are never adequately compensated and most $ ever made by a band falls into the "recouperable loss" category, meaning the label fronted you the $ and now you owe them, bigtime. Bands are doing well if they can control the production of and profit margins of their merchandise (ie shirts, stckers, etc). Then again, this reply is far too eloquent and realistic to make sense to someone who's posts have mostly consisted of "burp" regarding this topic. ;^P
The February 24th Economist magazine had the best pro-Napster article I have read (you have to pay for the article online, so I have no link). Basically, they wrote that the record companies were only concerned about protecting their business model, not about artists' rights. They also pointed out that this same argument has happened every time technology has reared it's head... when records first appeared, sheet music publishers thought they would get screwed... when cassettes appear, record companies thought they were going to get screwed, etc. etc.
I'm looking for someone to teach my young students that thievery is OK, but I'm having a hard time finding anyone. Can you help?
Thx,
Miss Ing ThePoint
Problem is, there are effective ways to prevent misuse of Napster. The most obvious is to make it an opt-in system, rather than an opt-out: prevent Napster from being able to redistribute any mp3's which have not been submitted by their copyright holders. The search engine can verify this by checksumming the mp3 files, and the Napster company can be responsible for obtaining redistributable copies of mp3's from the people who are allowed to give them out.
I just find it interesting that people yell and scream that copyrighted information should be freely redistributable, but then they also yell and scream that personal information must not be freely distributed, for 'privacy' reasons. They're saying that they should have the right to enjoy (without cost) the music/software/book I created, but I shouldn't be able to collect information about their email addresses, their spending habits, their family income, or how many children they have in the house.
I don't think that works as well as you think it does. Suppose you have an opt-in system. Who gets to opt-in? You assume there's a master list of who can create a copyrighted work. But there's not. Anyone who makes a creative work is a copyright holder.
s -0 103-00027.html
a si cs.htm
m l# ques29
l #6
l #c opy
l #1
o lo gy
How is napster supposed to know who is the copyright holder of any given work to submit it in the first place? They can't possibly have a person deal with every file that's proposed, so this has to be done in an automated way. If I want to allow my work to be distributed over Napster, and I send them a checksum and say "Let MP3 files matching this checksum pass" how are they going to know that I actually hold the copyright for that work?
Further, checksumming doesn't really work anyway because any change to the file, such as a bit-rate conversion, will break the checksum. If I want to allow people to covert my file to a 64kbit stream, or Vorbis, do I have to provide a checksum for every legal variant? Moreover, Napster, Inc's servers can't possibly checksum the files, because the actual files never pass through the central servers. The servers's get information from the client software. So the client would have to checksum the files. How long do you think it would take before people altered the clients to provide fake checksums?
I really think that this problem is a lot harder than you might initially imagine.
For a more thorough discussion of the issue, here's a comment I wrote a while back on this basic problem, on the afore-metnioned GigaLaw mailing list.:
http://gigalaw.com/archives/0103/gigalaw-discus
**
The short answer is that there is no reliable way to identify an MP3 other than
having someone listen to it. This goes double for services like Napster which
never handle the MP3s themselves and have to rely on user-supplied data.
As I've mentioned in previous posts, filtering by name won't work. Other
solutions fare no better. Here's the long answer:
There are mechanisms which make is possible to identify CDs and MP3 files, but
they're all voluntary. CDs contain a serial number and a table of contents,
which lets you look up CD information in a database called CDDB (for CD
DataBase). This is how a lot of modern computer CD players get the song titles
and such. MP3 files allow what are commonly called "ID3 tags". They are just
a chunk of the file which is set aside for text, so that information about the
file can be stored there. This ID3 information is generally filled in by the
person who created the MP3, but it can be changed later by anyone who wants to.
These features are very useful for legitimate users: For example, I encode my
CDs into MP3 format so that I can listen to them on my computer and with a
portable MP3 player. The software I use reads the serial number off the CD,
gets information from the CDDB database, and then sets the ID3 tags
accordingly. That way, each MP3 is tagged with the title, artist, and album.
Unfortunately, these features are useless from a copyright enforcement
standpoint because they are controlled by the user. There's no way to make
someone set the ID3 tags correctly, so you cannot rely on their accuracy.
The concept of a hash code is very much like a fingerprint. Hash codes let you
take a file and produce a number that uniquely identifies the file. This
number can then be used to verify whether that the file hasn't been modified,
or to check other files and see if they're the same. Much like a fingerprint,
there's not an 100% guarantee that two files with the same has code are the
same file, but the odds are billions to one against any given two different
files having the same hash code. Theoretically the RIAA could give Napster a
list of hash values for every illegal MP3, and then Napster could detect it any
time one of those files was sent. Unfortunately, this doesn't work in
practice. The strength of hash codes is also a weakness in this instance: If
you change a file in any way, you totally change its hash code. This is good
for detecting tampering, but bad for identifying MP3s. There are inummerable
changes an infringer could make to an MP3 file which would not alter it in any
meaningful way, but still change the hash code.
There is a company called eTantrum, Inc (www.etantrum.com) which has developed
a technique for identifying music based on its audio characteristics, which
should be independent of the file format or other easily-altered features. If
it works as intended, it could be used to identify songs, which is what the
RIAA would like. It is, however, open to question how well it actually works.
Even if it does work, it could still be easily defeated: Currently, Napster
acts as a search engine and broker, matching people who want a given song with
people who have it. The file is then transferred between the users themselves.
Thus, Napster never sees the MP3s themselves and has to trust the users to
supply accurate information. Needless to say, users wishing to transfer
infringing information would provide incorrect data.
Useful references:
Audio CD format-
http://www.disctronics.co.uk/cdref/cdbasics/cdb
MP3 files and ID3 tagging-
http://webhome.idirect.com/~nuzhathl/mp3-faq.ht
Hash codes-
http://www.thawte.com/support/crypto/hash.html
The (in)feasibility of copy protection and water-marking-
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0011.htm
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9811.htm
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0102.htm
eTantrum's MusicID -
http://www.etantrum.com/index.php?section=techn
**
This was in response to :
**
Thus spake Doug Isenberg (disenberg@GigaLaw.com):
OK, now that the district court issued its injunction against Napster, we
know that the service will be required to block the transmission of MP3
files where the file names match those provided by the music industry
plaintiffs. I still think this is a far-from-foolproof solution and will
allow many songs to slip through.
I've been told that songs on CDs are encoded with a unique "hash" code and
that the code could be used to identify files. I'm trying to understand
this technology better and admit the preceding sentence may not be
technically accurate! Can anyone comment on this and/or provide resources
for background on the technology?
Doug Isenberg, Esq.
Editor & Publisher, GigaLaw.com (http://www.GigaLaw.com)
There's two ways to be pro-Napster. You can believe that it's appropriate and legal for private citizens to give each other unlimited copies of copyright-protected works. You'll have a hard time finding "respectable" people to defend this position.
Or, you can believe that there are some legitimate uses of file-sharing as well as illegitimate ones, and that there's no effective way to prevent the bad uses without unacceptably interfering with the good ones. Under this logic, Napster, Inc. should not be restricted, but law enforcement and copyright-holders have every right to go after people who are misusing Napster. You can probably find a lot of people to support the latter position. Search the web for recent comments from Lawrence Lessig, for example. Lessig is associated with Harvard Law School, and is the former chair of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society there.
Also look at the archives of the GigaLaw mailing list at gigalaw.com for a lot of discussion of this issue by people more qualified than myself.
Courtney Love also spoke out against the RIAA attack on Napster.
"Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it.
I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major label recording contracts. "
He spent a bit of time trying to illustrate how it's not the artists who are being hurt by Naspter - the artists already got burned by the Record Companies. If you want to get this kind of message across, Prince or one of his entourage may be willing to speak.
I can see the fnords!
> I'd be curious to see how articulate she is speaking off the cuff.
Who knows? What is undeniably true, however, is that she cribbed most of that speech from Steve Albini's "The Problem With Music," originally published in Maximum Rock and Roll in 1994, IIRC.
You're right on the money about Metallica, too. If people actually read what Ulrich said, he makes a lot of intelligent, reasoned points that the pro-Napster crowd just ignores.
Peace,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Linkage:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
And it was published in The Baffler, rather than MRR.
HTH,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Courtney Love gave a speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference almost exactly one year ago in which she defended Napster and excoriated the recording industry. It's shockingly articulate. The full transcript is available at Salon.com.
I've found analyst Ric Dube from the firm Webnoize to be an excellent source of info on all things digital music. He's quoted by the press very often, and even has testified before Congress on digital music issues. i'm not sure if he does stuff like this, but he might be a good source of information at least.
Just raise the taxes on crack.
Two things.
1) You are using napster to acquire software by unlawful means.
2) By your own admission, you KNOW anyone can come and copy the music you have already downloaded. This is distribution, my friend. You are making the material available to people for download.
The Napster program was designed *To help people trade mp3*, and the Napster company was formed because doing so was thought (Rightly so) to be wildly popular.
I doubt they would ever sue an individual napster user, you are right. But the piont here is that, regardless of how you want to micro-analyze what individual users do, Napster is in business to help people illegally distribute music. Trying to deny that is SILLY.
Tell me this. Are you trying to say that, in the use of napster, no crimes have been comitted, no copyrights have been violated, and nobody has done anything the least bit illegal? If not, who HAS done something illegal?
If you said 'I didn't know napster was sharing stuff' you might ahve a case.
But you KNOW you are sharing them with people, you are specifically using napster to MAKE them available to other napster users. It's silly to argue that you 'aren't doing anything wrong'.
You having the mp3's is not illegal. You spreading them around without the permission of the copyright holder IS.
Napster is being accused of contributory infringement because their business, as I explained, is based on HELPING PEOPLE SHARE mp3, knowing that it will be wildly popular because people will use it to illegally pirate music.
Napster users *are* directly distributing the material. it's just like if they had a store selling pirated CD's of popular tunes, and it was free. People who took the time could come in , browse, and just grab what they want.
Should people be able to 'share files' on the Internet? Certainly. Should the internet be 'filtered'? No. Waste of resources.
Should Napster be allowed? no. Why? Because.
Napster is a company. Napster is in business (initially) to attract a large userbase, to make money off those users using napster, probably by advertising.
Napster, the company, KNEW they would be popular because tom, dick, and harry would use their service to pirate music (something illegal).
Therefore, Napster, the company, has a business based primarily on helping people do something illegal.
Now.. can people do it anyway? Yes. Should all file-sharing software be illegal? But napster is more than software, it's a company and a service, that exists to help people break the law. This cannot be argued; yes people CAN use it for other things, but that's not why Napster, the company, exists.
Let's all remember; if you are making copyrighted music available to others online, you *ARE* breaking the law, regardles of how rediculous we all think it is. I'm not saying don't do it; I'd be a hypocrite if I did... but let's not get carried away.
Should people be able to share data with each other? Sure. Should you be able to make money of helping them to do it? Sure. Should your business be permitted to succeed by helping people do something illegal? No.
Weren't there several witnesses and lawyers for the defense at their trial? Granted, they might be busy with appeals and so forth, but Napster itself might want to send a spokesperson.
First off, since everyone seems ready to discuss my age, I'm 31.
;-)
Second, I've used Napster maybe twice. I'm a Gnutella man, because sometimes you just want video to go with your audio
Third, I'm a buyer of CDs, movies, etc. in what I suspect is average perportion and magnitude.
Gnutella, Napster and the rest just extend the ways that we have to share our music with others. Before these services, I was ripping my music and putting it on my web site. Not because I wanted people to "steal" it, but because I wanted to promote what I thought was good music. I wanted to share with others. I would go to friends and as: have you ever heard The Raven by The Alan Parsons Project? No? Here, let me give you a URL.
I've never offered non-original content up over Gnutella or Napster (except insofar as my gnut client will offer up a "cache"), but that's only because I've been too busy, and/or too lazy.
You're going to have a harder time finding people who will stick up for Napster than people who will stick up for Gnutella or Freenet. It's harder to build a moral case for a venture-capital funded Server-to-Client architecture system that generates a profit by trading corporate music. Freenet, Gnutella, and the like aren't generating a profit for anyone, they're just a grass roots retaliation on the part of the consumer against the documented crimes of price fixing and collusion that the recording labels are committing against the American people.
Peer-to-peer is one thing. Peer to corporation to peer is another.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
The absolutely best book about the state of copyright law in the US for the layperson is Jessica Litman's excellent Digital Copyright. I strongly encourage anybody who has an opinion about copyright to read this book.
Can your IM do this?
...so I'll say KRS-One. I'd assume that Alanis Morisette's also big into Napster, but KRS-One you'd actually have a decent shot at snagging. He may be on tour supporting his new album, but he's also a bit of a veteran of the college speaking circuit. Very pro-Napster as well. He'd be an interesting one to talk to: along with being a musician, he worked A&R for Warner Bros. records.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
not all content running through Napster was copyrighted work. there are a ton of local bands, and even large bands that have broken out, that want to "pimp" a song or two. for these groups, services like napster are the perfect platform for getting their songs out to a wider audience. if you want to get some pro-napster folks ... just find a few struggling local bands and have them talk about how are it is to get their music distributed.
_f
Get Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit.
*If* you could get him to come and speak, you'd have an unforgettable event. (And I say that in a good way -- I'm a big fan of LB and suspect Durst [like Mick Jagger] is a super-savvy businessman.)
I think, though, you'll have to recast your wanting a "pro-Napster" speaker into something like "pro-Fair Use" or "pro-File Sharing" or "pro-P2P". In fact, you'd do your students more good (IMHO) if you look for critics of (but not apologists for) current "intellectual property" law. Folks who might shed some light on "Fair use", "Intellectual Property", and "Public Domain".
Even a constitutional expert versed in "copyright" would be a valuable speaker. (Just make sure they're not on the RIAA's tab.)
It'll be very difficult to find someone who will side unconditionally and uncritically with Napster (a corporation, remember!).
I would estimate that close to 90% of all Open Source advocates are also advocates of private file-sharing (which Napster facilitates).
So, to answer your question, find the biggest name in the GNU world and they will probably gladly present their ideas to you and your fellow members.
But, as I know from being the Chairman of my university's ACM Chapter, you must have everything planned out perfectly for them to visit. They will generally tell you exactly what they expect (transportation, meals, hotel, etc.) however, so that's as good as it gets. <whisper> Eric S. Raymond is very picky, and can be downright rude <whisper>
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Dear AC,
I'm looking for someone to teach my young students that independant and radical thought on issues with strong corporate and governmental ramifications is ok in this country, but I'm having a hard time finding anyone willing to speak up because they just get flamed out of existence. Can you help?
I heard the US government was created based on the radical and independant ideas of some dissenters. Am I wrong? Or did you guys throw all that tea away for fun?
I've also been looking for help on teaching ACs the use of a dictionary. dictionary.com says:
thievery: The act or practice of thieving.
thieve: To take (something) by theft or commit theft.
theft: The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
larceny: The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.
Unfortunately, unauthorised duplication does not result in the deprivation of the owner of their personal property. Please use the words "unauthorised copying" or "unauthorised duplication" instead when referring to illicit copying.
Please post answers.
Thx.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I think that about covers the pro-Napster arguments.
I could fill a page about the advantages a micro-payment version of Napster where the money goes to the artists (with a cut - just a cut - to the service).
As it stands Napster is a waste of bandwidth and the sooner it's shut down the better.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Visit my web page - I have 2 articles concentrating on Napster and the debate surrounding file sharing. In a nutshell, here's my opinion:
The ability to find files on other people's computers and to download those files is nobody else's business but the 2 people involved. If a person were downloading music and then selling it the Recording Industry would have a reason to complain, but there is no money exchanged. (Prior to the NET act of 1998, Commercial Gain was a requirement in Copyright Infringement cases. Copyright Infringement, historically, has been a suit brought against other publishers, not agaist the Public.)
If music is broadcast over the radio, it has already been given to the Public. Downloading something one has heard on the radio is no different than using a tape recorder to capture that music when broadcast.
And, if copyright law had some sensible term limits, anything older than 20 years (more than an adequate length of time to compensate the creators) would be in the Public Domain, which would mean all music released before 1981 would, and should, be available for unrestricted downloading. Also, this would enable a service such as Napster to claim 'substantial non-infringing uses,' an argument the court has already wrongly rejected.
Most pro-Napster (non-'let's get something for free' or 'the RIAA makes too much money already') arguments are going to focus more on the unreasonable side of copyright law. It would be very difficult to argue that Napster isn't illegal - I think, under current copyright law, and as Napster is normally used, it is illegal. I just happen to fervently believe that current copyright law is extremely excessive and a complete mockery of what the authors of the Constitution intended. (Read letters to Congress on my page.)
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
... would be Eben Moglen. Of particular interest is a debate he had with Steve Metalitz over whether or not Napster should exist. Pretty interesting stuff...
-- Shamus
Error: Pithy quote not found
Perhaps the reason why there's no easily found Pro-Napster sentiment other than "Napster Rulez!" is that there's no thoughtful argument for why it's "a good thing" to steal people's work without their permission.
Deal?
Murphy's Law of Copiers
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Chuck D of Public Enemy fame spoke positively about Napster at Carnegie Mellon University just last week.
I don't know if he does high school gigs, but you could give it a try.
The EFF has some excellent speakers, and would probably be more than happy to get a guest speaker for a college audience. Whenever you've got a situation like this, eff is usually a good place to start.
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
Well, if you are in Eastern Indiana, the best place to shop for this sort of thing is at Purdue, in West Lafayette.
There are plenty of people there involved in this discussion, and I'm sure there are a few professors in the CS department who would be willing to participate.
Perhaps you could get an all-star team together: Gene Spafford for security aspect =) Doug Comer on P2P...
Honestly, the profs up there have PLENTY of time on their hands (trust me here). All you have to do is ask.
They could likely tell you who might be good to contact. They have a speak out section on their website, touting the Napster Action Network. There's also a list of artists who have spoken out in support of Napster. Or, you might be able to take a look at the forums and find a couple intelligent postings from everyday people who might be in your area...
Here's a history of his Pro-Napster views.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
"Pro-Napster" could mean either
- in support of the idea of free (as in speech) music, supported and executed by the artist community, or
- in support of the massive, widespread illegal trading of copyrighted material that takes place on Napster.
You should be able to find many speakers for the former, few (notable) speakers for the latter.I'm sure that if you contact Napster directly you might be able to get some help. They must have some PR people, at the very least, who could direct you. You might also want to broaden your scope to P2P technologies in general (which Napster technically isn't, but which are facing many of the same Copyright problems as Napster) in which case contacting O'Reilly or the author of That Book might not be a bad idea.
10 Bit Myths about copyright explained
ALA copyright Education Program Contains info about fair use,and Copyright on the internet
www.metallicaisgreedy.com which is packed full of tons of info that is pro-napster, in particular in regards to lawsuits,media,etc
Opinionated experts on Napster?
On Slashdot?
None here. We're all out. Absolutely none. Not at all. We don't have any. Nope. Nosiree. Nada. Zero. Zilch.....
If you aren't looking for someone who is a legal expert as such, it would make a lot of sense to find one of the many artists who have come out in favor of Napster.
Chuck D comes to mind.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.