Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Trains Legal Sights On Aimster
AdventureExtreme writes: "The recording industry filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Aimster on Thursday.
The suit was filed in federal court in Manhattan on behalf of major record labels including Universal Music, Sony Music , EMI Group and Bertelsmann's BMG. " An RIAA lawyer is quoted as saying that they plan to seek a Napster-like injunction to bar Aimster users from trading in copyrighted materials. (FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?)
Buddy system for buddy system: if you can trade MP3s on Aimster with buddies on your list, what is to prevent you from E-MAILING MP3s back and forth? And encrypt, them, too, to prevent filtering? All that needs to be done is to create that buddy list. (Something reminds me about those files-by-email servers from the early days of the Internet. Maybe I should set up one of those?)
Anyone who thinks that they are trying to do anything other than insure the extention of their monopoly into a new and vastly more lucrative space is diluding themselves. The absolute inability of our judges and congressmen to see through this most transparent of veils, just goes to show we're a motivated chimpanzee away from making Ronald Reagan's movie career non-fiction.
No, the Napster case invoked the existing legal precedent that if a service had no significant non-infringing use then the providers could be charged with contributory infringement.
In theory, Aimster could dodge the bullet if they can prove that a significant proportion of the material traded with their software was legal.
When are we as a society going to do something about this??? Hit them where it hurts, in the wallet. Why not get a national protest going, and refuse to purchase any music, movies, movie theater tickets for say a week. If that doesn't work, a month!!
/* Of course the airport issue is different becuase we are talking about hundreds of human lives, not just cash, and to compare those as though they were equal is wrong.*/
I humbly submit that airlines and airports don't give a flying *fuck* about human lives. Airplanes cost money. The newest airbus's and boeings cost many tens of millions of dollars. Once the plane is blown up, you lose the potential revenue from the would-be paying customers to ride on the airplane, not to mention the loss of revenue that occurs after major disasters as the "public" goes into ape-shit mode and refuse to fly because they're too scared to.
It's a goddamned shame, but the "corporate" way of doing business doesn't give a shit about anything other than the bottom line, with or without you. After all, who's responsible? CEO's resign, they come they go, who cares? The structure is still rotten to the core. If allowing 1000 people to die will save a company $10 million bucks, you bet your ass they'd do it.
The RIAA and MPAA will walk all over you and me to get what they think is their's. Rights be damned. Cash talks, my friend.
The RIAA's claim for a drop in sales around colleges and universities only looked at sales in nearby brick-and-mortar stores. The RIAA didn't bother to include online or mailorder sales, which happened to be skyrocketing at the time.
I've yet to see credible statistics on overall college-age CD buying in the age of Napster. I would expect it to mirror, or even surpass, the overall increase in sales.
Posting A/C because I do a little of this at work.
;p
You hardly have to stop everything! (Not that you possibly could, of course.) The reason why file trading is going on at such a rate is that the potential cost of file serving is cheap - if you have unlimited service, you don't gain an incremental charge by allowing part of it to be used to d/l stuff, especially if all it entails is leaving a server running while you go to work/sleep/whatever. All you have to pay is the power costs.
The risk of getting caught and having your broadband shot (perhaps leaving you without other alternatives!) is an additional cost. Right now, the risk is incredibly low. However, spending some time and effort, shutting down some servers, getting some poor people (well, poor pirates) dropped, and publicizing the results... All of the sudden, the perception changes. The benefit of serving the pirated material is low, and if this cost is significant to you, you're not likely to serve. At the very least, you're going to be a lot less likely to serve those properties that are held by zealous enforcers, which to the enforcer is good enough, right?
Don't expect support from your ISP. People who run servers are using WAY more bandwidth than the norm! If you're moving 50k of data every second, 24/7, that's a lot more than a dozen Joe Averages. So, by dropping you, the ISP frees up network resources that it can sell to other people (or just improve the performance for everybody already using it, either way is good for them). As a side benefit, all the work is done for them, and all the blame goes to the enforcer and not the ISP. And they're not obligated to refund money! Remember, folks, people who run file servers are TOS abusers, not valued customers.
Nailing individual servers won't stop piracy, no. But if you can reduce it by a few percent (or more!) without too much effort, while NOT trampling on the rights of the innocent in the process, why not?
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Which is why it fucking BAFFLES me why the computer industry is bowing to 'intellectual' property owners' every demand.
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Yeah, it's been posted before... but it's still relevant, and not everyone reads every story. Handy for karma accumulation too :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
...richie - It is a good day to code.
You know, there's a real simple way to deal with this kind of thing. On the day that Aimster gets shut down, everybody who's ever used Napster, Gnutella, Aimster, etc. should STOP BUYING CD'S FOR A MONTH! Just start making a list of the CD's you WOULD have bought, and get them a month later.
Or, even better, if you want to buy a cd, go to a used CD store and buy it there. You'll get your CD, the RIAA won't get any of your money, and you'll help support your local businesses.
It's almost worth it to have FAT32 eliminated from the world...
It may not be great but I would think the RIAA would be interested in trying to shut it down anyway.
their life's work will be merely "product," to be disposed of immediately upon consumption.
Which means we're ready to buy more! .. (in all honestly, most works really don't deserve to be remembered. I think my granddaughter digging out a scratchy MC^H^H Hammer tape might be a scarring experience. For me anyway. Be careful what you wish for.)
Start a trust-based community for CD swapping.
Ain't nothing illegal about sharing a CD with a friend, right?
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Or just as good as STOP BUYING CDs is to start buying them second-hand. Yah, sure, RIAA is still getting their cut on the original sale, but every sale after that fucks 'em over.
If you want to do it ethically, send the artists a buck. Hell, that's more than twice what RIAA would give 'em...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The content is still exactly the same, but the packaging is a bit different. It's still copyrighted.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Okay then. Fire up Napster or Aimster, and search for a High Quality JPEG reproduction of the Mona Lisa. How about a file which describes the inner workings of a Floppy drive? Or perhaps the entire text of 'Macbeth'?
Disappointed? Now search for an mp3 audio file of 'It's gonna be me' by N*Sync.
See a pattern?
Just because M$, the MPAA, and the RIAA are losing money because *some* people use the internet and file sharing services to distribute copyrighted materials doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.
WELL. I mean shit, why should we put our bags on the belt and walk through metal detectors at the airport because *some* people use bombs to blow up airplanes? They're stomping all over my right to privacy! Just because the FAA, the airlines, and the airports are losing money doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.
There may be a problem with the distribution of copyrighted material on the internet -- but that doesn't give organizations like [Microsoft], the [RIAA], the [MPAA], or the [BSA] the right to violate MY rights. (l33t-speak edits are mine)
There may be a problem? Where have you been sitting for the past two years? Regardless of what you may think or what blind eye you choose to turn to the situation, the RIAA isn't going to pounce on something with no justification. Sure they love to overcharge for albums. Sure they rape the artist on profits by keeping the majority of it for their own greedy bank accounts. But I dislike the RIAA for the same reason I dislike Napster and its friends - they all screw the artists. Go ahead and say "Oh, well, they make enough money as it is!" Should they be condemned for cashing in on their talents? Every one of you would do the exact same thing given the chance. I see nobody stopping you from climbing into a studio and putting out an album.
They can't say "we're going to force services like Napster to filter out anything that has the digital music contents of X" -- that violates my right to distribute parodies
Why not? You write a book and decide to sell it for $12.95. I steal the manuscript from your desk, make a shitload of photocopies, and give them away. Are you as an author not going to attempt to regulate that?
And last I checked, parodies differ greatly from the content they parody. Name a parody that is an exact duplicate of the original, and I will withdraw this argument.
they now have to make their product inferior via unnecessary bloat.
Companies have the right to make their software as inferior and as bloated as they damn well please. Consumer reaction will determine whether they continue that process.
They can't say "we're going to keep tabs on every log of the internet," and log IP's, and request that ISP's give us the personal information of IP's that distribute "copyrighted files" -- that's a violation of the right to privacy.
I don't recall anyone ever stating that they were going to attempt to "keep tabs on every log of the internet." And guess what, bucko? Once you're assigned an IP on the internet, your privacy is all but gone. DoS a major government website from your IP, and you'll see how private your connection really is.
In other words, they are free to protect their rights, so long as they do not in any way violate my rights, or anyone elses.
Oh, I see. So they're perfectly within their freedom to protect themselves, just so long as it doesn't inconvenience you, right? Because all of the 'rights' you are arguing about aren't rights. You're merely pandering to popular opinion hoping to score a bit of brownie points. That stack of pirated CDs in your closet is inconsequential, because if they get seized, they're invading your right to privacy.
Aww. It pains me so.
You want to fight something? Fight the RIAA. Fight Napster. Fight the Napster clones. Fight for the rights of the artists. Get out there and spread the word of what's happening, and how the RIAA and all of the file sharing services are ripping off the artists. Do something. Do anything!
Why aren't you doing anything? Oh. That's right. You're only interested in free music. That being the case, you probably just "Pshhh'd" and "Bah'd" your way through my post, because your mind is still too busy trying to justify your actions.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
An analogy is not an argument.
;)
Actually, refutation by analogy is very much a valid method for refuting someone else's argument. If you present a syllogistic argument, and I present an analogous argument of the same form that is clearly invalid, then I have refuted your argument - since in deductive logic, if one argument of a given form is invalid, all arguments of the same form are also invalid. Logically invalid, that is - the particulars of the argument do not matter from a logical standpoint.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
From Introduction to Logic , by Copi and Cohen, section 10.4, pages 367-368:
Actually, I'm surprised I remember it as well as I do. Shall I continue? No?
Here endeth the lesson...;)
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Ahh, see, I should have checked back before posting my screed below ;)
Anyway, it may not be effective in the context of arguing the law, but it doesn't, I think, reflect well on us or our laws to have a legal system that actively resists logical argument...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Actually, if they could manage to ban FAT32, that'd be the first good thing to come out of these lawsuits.
Maybe we can convince them to ban NetBIOS while they're at it.
-
Several years ago, a case out of (I believe California) called MAI vs. Peak Electronics wound up being granted review by the Supreme Court of the United States. MAI's claim against Peak was that Peak violated MAI's copyright because the act of turning MAI's computer on made a copy of data contained into ROM, and that making this copy without a license was a violation of MAI's copyright. Never mind that the copy was required for the operation of the computer -- the whole point was to squash an independent service provider and force repairs to go only to MAI-approved repair outfits. Customers had a license to make a copy, and authorized repair centers had that same right ... but Peak, as an unauthorized repair center (read competition), did not.
That was an appallingly bad decision, and Congress added a new section to the copyright code to prevent this from happening again. It's a classic example of a law being written as a specific response to a specific court ruling:
17 USC 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if -
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
(d) Definitions. - For purposes of this section -
(1) the ''maintenance'' of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and
(2) the ''repair'' of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.
Start a trust-based community for CD swapping.
... I was used to spending several thousand dollars a year on movies in particular, first on LaserDisk, then later DVD), is one of the smaratest ideas I've heard yet.
Ain't nothing illegal about sharing a CD with a friend, right?
That, along with the suggestion to STOP BUYING CDs for a month, are the best ideas I've heard in a while. For those to weak to give up their CD/DVD habits (as I have done, and believe me, it wasn't easy
Another possibility: donate DVD collections to local libraries, and use the library as your conduit for sharing media. Nothing illegal about that, and you have 200 years of precedent and a large institution backing you up.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Based on a quick perusal of the aimster website, it appears that it's just a filesharing system tacked onto a chat program. My question is, if they can ban aimster, what will stop them from attacking good old IRC?
Think about it. Files can easily be transferred via dcc, and it'd be trivial to set up a bot to distribute the contents of selected directories to selected nicks, just like aimster.
Where will it end? They (the RIAA lawyers) can't possibly win until the whole of the net has been shut down. And then how will they reap the profits from their online sales?
Feh.
Zarchon
FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?
Shh! Don't give them any ideas!
You all notice of course the RIAA is only trying to take down popular MP3 trading networks right? They're doing this because they want to stop Jonny and Susie teenager from downloading Britney's newest single rather than buy the album which was released amid much fanfare. They don't give a fuck about us fucking geeks who have uber libraries of music. They're trying to stop the easy trading from happening whcih got MP3 into the public spotlight in the first place. They knew legally they couldn't go after people releasing MP3 encoders because MPEG is an open standard and layer 3 audio is merely a function or a larger system. Because they didn't capitalize on network transmission of music they're trying to get MP3 trading shut down so they can replace it with their illtimed system. I'm willing to bet they want to plan to open a subscription or pay-per-play online service to deliver music. They'll offer limited play singles that can only be downloaded by their software or by people who license their codec and encryption method from them. So you could listen to and download lots of music using say..AOL because it would be part of the client. You'll then be able to download entire albums and burn them to a CD using RIAA software. This would work because its easy. People who run AOL or Earthlink or MSN (which comprise most residential internet users) would get all the "legal" music they wanted and others could download a licensed player in order to jam to tunes while on the net.
For slashdot folk this is horseshit. We're going to get fucked over by the RIAA but theres little we can do about it. Voting and whining have never and will never help. You could also conduct peaceful protests and non-militant terrorist actions against the RIAA in public forums. Don't attack any artists or anything, they're doing what they need to make some cash and get their music heard. For every band that goes platinum there's twenty bands who're lucky as hell to sell ten thousand albums. Send all your RIAA artist cds to some dudes and have them dropped off in the lobby of the various RIAA studios; buy CDs used and from swapmeats; start a CD sharing club locally and copy music within the bounds of the HMRA. There is alot of shit you can do to circumvent the RIAA. Shit how about a realtime version of oth.net using LDAP. All you have to do is run a little FTP deamon and directory client on your PC and blamo instant trading network. The RIAA is a pretty big easy fucking target; the problem hitting them is they're hiding behind their signed artists and the FCC, DOJ, and radio broadcasters are all running interference for them.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
You can't mean that! FDISK is the most useful troubleshooting tool available for Windows! Case in point:
"Now enter C:\FDISK. Say yes for large filesystems. Now hit 4. Hit ENTER. Hit ENTER. Hit Enter. Hit Y. Hit Enter. Hit ESC. Hit CTRL+ALT+DEL. What, you Don't have a C:\> prompt? That sounds like a PC problem, you'll need to contact the people who sold it to you."
Works like a charm.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?)
...
Indeed!
And NTFS is a far worse offender!
It has compression -> Obfuscation of pirated music!
It has encryption -> Only criminals need encryption!
What about UFS, or ext2fs? Obscure filesystems written by freeloaders who want everything to be free, and not pay for anything!
Oh yes, the RIAA is going to have a field day with filesystems after they have sued the asses of Aimster, ICQ (file x-fer), IRC (dcc), Microsoft (Outlook Express, Windows File Sharing), AOL (Email), Intel (Network cards) and Cisco for making the routers that pass their music over the 'net!
The insanity
D.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
Aimster's EULA also specifically prohibits the transmission of copyrighted material to which you aren't the copyright owner (it actually pretty much prohibits everything useful on the service, up to and including _storing_ files).
I wonder, should Aimster bring up this defense and get defeated, if this is a blow against the enforceability of EULAs. It could be that the RIAA winds up, in the processing of squashing one technology, opening up a whole other can of worms.
--
One problem with Napster's EULA, however, is that Napster's EULA was anti-copyrighted material in name only. Napster not only failed to discourage the trading of copyrighted material, they found gobs of emails and correspondence from its founders about, basically, how useful the service would be for trading copyrighted material (as well as statements about how much music the founders had gotten off the service!).
On another hand, considering that Aimster "transactions" are also encrypted, and Napster trades were not, it's probably a much easier argument to make for Aimster that they can't govern/filter/control the material that flows through their servers (or the materials the users trade).
Plus, given that Napster was music only, and Aimster is a generic file trading service, it can also be a much stronger argument that people are trading material to which those people own the copyright to. Not everybody can be a musician, but everybody can write crappy haikus, take pictures of their cats at a distance of two inches, or share the "Hello, world" programs they wrote.
--
Excellent point.
You know, there's a real simple way to deal with this kind of thing. On the day that Aimster gets shut down, everybody who's ever used Napster, Gnutella, Aimster, etc. should STOP BUYING CD'S FOR A MONTH! Just start making a list of the CD's you WOULD have bought, and get them a month later.
Hell, you've got how many CD's? And how many gigs of mp3's? You can put off new CD's for a month, can't you?
Don't think it won't be noticed. These suckers keep REAL careful track. A sudden drop is gonna be noticed BIGTIME.
It's all about the money. Vote with yours.
He's just a troll.
I agree copying copywritten works is illegal, and and not a right
Hmm, the Constitution of the US begs to differ. Copyright was meant to protect creative works for a limited time in order to encourage artists to create. Nowhere does it say or imply that copyright is meant as a tool so that corporations can "own" creative works, for extended periods.
You cannot own ideas, even if you think you invent them.
---
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
come off crisp and play up to the cynic
clean and schooled right down to the minute
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
The RIAA is also suing Launch over their Launchcast service. Launchcast is a personalized radio service that learns your preferences over time through song ratings, allowing you to (theoretically) tailor the service to your tastes. It's a streaming audio only service, no file sharing involved. I think this is actually a more aggressive move than the suit against Aimster.
This is the equivalent of suing home depot for selling hammers.. after all.. hammers cause accidents.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
.... when he listened to an intricate 12 parts (IIRC) vocal composition performed in the Sistine Chapel and transcribed it down perfectly from memory.
You see, the Vatican wanted the exclusive on that piece, but Mozart had a really good memory (sore understatement) and threw a wrench in their plans.
Nowadays probably they would cite the DMCA and burn him at the stake...
-- the cake is a lie
Copyright infringement is not piracy, nor is it theft. Theft is defined as depriving someone from the use of something that's rightfully theirs. Piracy is that thing you do where you don an eyepatch and a cutlass and get to sail around the world and rape the land and pillage the women. I believe there are parrots involved two, but frankly, that's just a little too disturbing for me to imagine. Needless to say, neither of these terms have anything to do with copying intellectual property.
How do you prove I dont own the copyright without violating the DCMA? If you cant decrypt ANYTHING without specific permission, then you cant touch my data without knowing for a FACT what it is. THe first time they decrypt something that isnt someone elses copyright, they violate it.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Of course that's mainly based on volume of mp3s traded. Stil it's interesting that everyone has always been talking about how gnutella can avoid punishment because it has no central servers, and it seems that's working! I guess going after individual Gnutella software companies would take more time/megabyte of "pirated" music than aimster(which I assume only has one real producer and therefore more volume per producer).
ehh, no. aimster has its own network. the only thing it gets from aol is a list of screennames, which it matches to aimster names. that way you know which of your friends has aimster. aimster doesn't "piggyback" on anything. it has its own (large) network of servers, and doesn't rely on aol at all.
As has been said, the Law in its impartial majesty makes it illegal for both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges or eat out of garbage cans.
-- John Dierdorf, Austin TX
--
Current copyright laws are, in my opinion, going to put the 20th century's greatest artistic outpourings into a legally mandated black hole. Most artists and authors have an expectation that their work will immortalize them. Otherwise we wouldn't have such things as the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame (as biased and political an organization as it is) or the Grammys, or the Oscars, or any other prizes and awards for great contributions to the field.
The problem with this expectation is that in order for your work to be immortalized, it has to survive beyond the first generation of its fans. Just because the Baby Boomers put down in their book that Bob Dylan was somebody fuckin' great, doesn't mean that I will. And it is my generation that will be responsible for ensuring the longevity of art created by my parents' generation. In order for a work to survive past a generation, copies have to be made. Lots of them. Vinyl albums are incredibly fragile, and are easily scratched by careless children, and left on radiators or in attics and warp. CD's get dropped behind the sofa. Cassette tapes are left on the dashboard and melt. Boo.
Since copying all of these media is now illegal, I won't be making any copies of them. The only entity authorised to copy the media is the record company. They only make copies when they think they'll get a sale. Now, as the generation who popularized the work starts dropping off, sales of the work drop off as well. Fewer copies are made. But the copyright term still stands. Before the copyright expires, virtually every "consumer" of his work will have expired as well. Their collections will be sold at estate sales, thrown in the trash, or left in the attic to decay.
Finally, the copyright expires and people are now free to distribute their own copies of the work. But who cares anymore? The first generation that will be legally able to make free and clear copies of Bob Dylan's work, as I understand it, will be my own grandchildren, who will not be born for another twenty years.
The possibility exists that there will be few private copies after 75 years. The company that owns them may clear them out to make more room in their vault.
Put that in the wayforward machine and imagine any type of bleak orwellian culture you like. The results are in the long-term detrimental to that which most artists crave: their continued adulation by a rapt audience. It is the cheer of the crowd that keeps them going. Knowing that the cheer goes on after their funeral has to be a significant part of what they expect as their legacy. Over-restrictive copyright laws will cut that legacy short, and their life's work will be merely "product," to be disposed of immediately upon consumption.
I don't see the problem with what you're saying. Basically, the RIAA/MPAA goes after the actual users trading their copyrighted content, and leaves law-abiding people alone. I fail to see how this is anything other than a good solution to the problem at hand.
Visit the
Eh, that means that anyone who is addicted to windows would have to switch to NT to get ntfs. We don't want that (no solid write support in linux yet). On the plus side it would mean that I would have the last piece of reasoning needed to drop half-life and baldurs gate and remove any none ext2 (or in my case XFS) filesystem from my computer for ever.
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
...of course, i wont be using winXP either. Of course if transgaming does their job, I won't be seeing another blue screen ever again (unless transgaming has a disgusting sense of humour and ports that too)
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
it's called contributory copyright infringement. The fact that you dont use it to infringe copyright makes no difference. Why bother bringing up the exact same arguments as we say in the napster case? The judge has already declared them invalid. Maybe you like watching reruns but I'd rather hear a fresh story. Build up a case, go to congress and get the stupid law revoked instead of crying about it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
such short memories we have, or is this a classic case of geek doublethink?
How we know is more important than what we know.
werd. vi (or should I say vim) is for code, and only code. Typing a letter or even an email in it is hell.
How we know is more important than what we know.
fruedian slip: when you say one thing and mean your mother.
How we know is more important than what we know.
that's because it is unsubstantiated propoganda.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'm told by our marketing people that Microsoft is putting gross amounts of money into the WinXP launch. I really hope they bet the farm and then buy one. Ahh.. that would be the final irony, Microsoft dead not due to antitrust lawsuits or strong competitors or (shya) pirates, but due to overspending on marketing hype :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
as in a legal team on crack? No wait, that's Microsoft.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"fuck off"
How we know is more important than what we know.
For fake sake. An analogy is not an argument. Contributory copyright infringement is a law, it exists, just because you close your eyes does not make it go away. If you really want to get rid of it, do something about it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Timothy is a shit head, we know this, get over it (or off him, just dont bitch to me about it).
How we know is more important than what we know.
personally I just use pico it has its own mail program built in ;)
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Fuck off."
How we know is more important than what we know.
you can argue by analogy I just don't think it is ever effective in the context of law.
How we know is more important than what we know.
and it is not informative, it is exactly the opposite.
How we know is more important than what we know.
you might of had something. Please continue, because I havn't "caught on to this concept" either. What are you trying to say, that Napster is illegal but lawful? I'm at a loss to think of an example of something that is illegal and simultaniously "allowed" as you put it. In fact, I kind of hold the word "illegal" to mean "prohibited by law". Please, enlighten us.
How we know is more important than what we know.
you still havn't given me your argument. I used the word "illegal" to refer to ruling that Napster was prohibited by contributory copyright law. I have not in any way stated that because copyright law doesn't say this is ok it must be prohibited. Do you have an argument against my use of the word or not? If so, please state it clearly (1). If not, at least clearly define what you think the word "illegal" means (2) and what the word "unlawful" means (3) and what you believe the difference between these two words are (4) before you start making claims about the common misuse of the word "illegal" (5). We're not mind readers.
How we know is more important than what we know.
FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?
Really, if you have nothing intelligent to say.. It sure makes a lot of sense. Take down the big one and then every other one after that. They *are* breaking the law, it's just that the law sux (or at least we think so). Will they go after the Opennap meta server next?
How we know is more important than what we know.
pfft. Their empire is protected by the law, why shouldn't they excersize their rights? If you are really sick of it, go to congress, get the law changed.
How we know is more important than what we know.
they said it was illegal.
How we know is more important than what we know.
cause you wont be using fat32 under winXP.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Learn not
to press
enter randomly
as you're typing
stuff in, for
fuck sake.
How we know is more important than what we know.
No lawyer can give you a straight answer, exactly how do you string out a law suit? How do you make a court case cost a lot of money? If I can get myself a free lawyer or (shock) I defend myself, where does the money go? Don't say "court fees" like it is some all encompassing answer. Tell me, exactly where does the money go? I'm tempted to get myself sued just so I can find out and write up a FAQ.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This is also the justification for EULA's and reverse engineering laws. After all, if you're not copying anything what does it have to do with copyright? Here is the relevant paragraph:
... which indicate that the copy created in the RAM is not fixed. ... The law also supports the conclusion that [the defendant's] loading of copyrighted software into RAM creates a `copy' of that software in violation of the Copyright Act."
In MAI Systems Corp v Peak Computer Inc 991 F2d 511 (9th Cir 1993) the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit held that "copying" for the purposes of US copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM. At 518 of its reasons the Court said: "After reviewing the record we find no specific facts
How we know is more important than what we know.
poor people get equal protection under the law?
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
Don't go there...
The irritating whining noise from people complaining that other people are using "their" Internet bandwidth for other than the favorite uses of the complainers faded years ago.
Don't start it again, even as a joke.
Please.
Correct. Emacs is for email.
Until the someone inevitably creates a package for Emacs that does something RIAA decides violates copyright, and they have it banned.
Acks,,, Well, it was a damn fine hoax. Thank you for setting the record straight. :)
Laws of nature: cause those outside the legal system to pay little attention to the court case, other than maybe to discuss the case and snicker at its disjunction from our world, then go on and flaunt the law until some legislator notices that having a widely ignored law reduces respect for the law and takes it off the books.
Wrong. Some legislator notices that the law is being widely ignored, and introduces a new law that increases the penalties for violating the old law.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Didn't an earlier article on Aimster point out that it used a form of encryption as an access control, and that the RIAA would be in violation of the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA if they snooped?
What happened to that?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"but the Napster case did set a legal precedent for saying that any service that can be used to transfer copyrighted materials can be challenged and.or shut down."
Sure AIMster is used to transfer copyrighted material. But the laws state that if something can *potentially* be used to commit illegal acts, laws need to be set so that *legal* uses can also be allowed. That is to say, use the least restrictive means to prevent illegal activities whiole still allowing legal use.
Of course this is what was argued in the recent Napster appeal and the judges didn't appear to buy it. Have they made a ruling yet?
Two critical concepts that Timothy is, almost certainly, willfully ignoring in order to stimulate a flame-fest --
* Primary purpose. What was Aimster designed to do? Given their name, clearly they're trying to resemble Napster, which doesn't exactly imply clean hands.
* Substantial non-infringing use. What is it used for? If the usage patterns are anything like Napster's, where usage dropped dramatically once they started filtering, then they're quite possibly guilty as hell.
Timothy's comment is merely a pathetically transparent strawman -- nothing more.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"I'll take the red pill, no, blue. AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH........"
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
Old story: Body in power enacts unethical laws to promote own agenda. People have no choice but to violate the unethical laws. Big disputes ensue over punishment of legal violations.
New spin: Companies buy off US government and enact unethical laws to improve profits. People have no choice but to violate the unethical laws, since no one makes enough money to legally purchase all the music/software/movies they need. Napster, DeCSS, and Aimster suits follow, and appeals of those suits, and so on.
How the story ends depends on how the body in power chooses to enforce the laws.
In the case of software piracy, individuals who swap copies of Windows with their friends never go to federal prison for it, while large-scale counterfit software operations or businesses that use pirated software for their needs usually get busted. This is actually a pretty fair and ethical enforcement of software copyright law in most people's minds, so the law remains. It is ethical and fair because everyone knows that no individual person could possibly afford to purchase all the software they really need (it would put them out of food and shelter), while we all know that if you can afford to be running a business or if you're counterfitting software for your own profit then you're basically ripping off someone else's hard work unnecessarily.
In the case of music, individuals who swap songs over the Internet are not being punished. Only the large-scale facilitators of music piracy are being attacked and shut down. This is exactly the kind of punishment that has gone on in the software world for years with popular acceptance, and yet it raises an uproar among music lovers who feel their ethical rights to swap copies are being destroyed.
I've got news for you: it is no more your ethical entitlement to a service like Napster than it is your ethical entitlement to access a counterfit software operation. The RIAA isn't punishing individuals for copying songs for their friends. The RIAA is punishing large-scale facilitators of copyright violation, and I think most of us can be reasonable people and agree with that approach. It's necessary in order to protect and compensate the people who work hard to create that content for us.
Now, the RIAA has every ethical right to make it as technologically difficult as possible for you to individually make copies, just as you have every ethical right to reverse-engineer those protection technologies to make your own copies. And the RIAA has every ethical right to attack large-scale distributors of reverse-engineering software, just as you have every ethical right to make individual copies of it and swap it with your friends behind the RIAA's back. It's an ongoing battle that achieves balance and compromise through the raging of the battle itself.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
...that the RIAA was only going after SERVICE providers that helped people trade mp3s. AIMster, to my knowledge, is only software that doesn't rely upon a central server (being based on gnutella and all). So how exactly are they going to get an injunction? The whole point with Napster was that Napster provided a SERVICE, NOT software, to help people trade mp3s. Therefore, it wasn't quite like suing someone for using FAT32 for piracy. I think the approprate analogy would be free disk-space type providers that used FAT32 to allow people to store and distribute mp3s =).
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Alot of slashdot people love to vilify corporate america. Yes, I too despise the RIAA, MPAA, and other such organizations that are willing to trade our freedoms for profit. But I also like going to the root of the problem.
America was designed to be a special kind of democracy that, while ruled by people elected by the majority, protected the rights of the minority. But over the years this has been eroded, and the rights of the individual have been put behind the whims of the people and the powerful. Copyright law is a prime example of this. Mr. big media company "donates" large amounts of money to political candidates so that in return we get laws like the DMCA. Many people complain when corporate america "buys justice", but few mention that government is the entity that has created the flawed system in the first place.
So hoot and holler at the big evil corporations (everybody loves a villain to ralley against), but the real bad guys are government. They're the ones in control.
[I'm preaching to the chour on this next point.] I think a lawyer for the MPAA said it best during hearings against 2600. He said (I may be paraphrasing) "DeCSS is a digital crowbar." And he couldn't have been more right. ALL software including napster, aimster, and DeCSS are just tools like the crowbar. A crowbar can be used by a firefighter to pry open a door to save someones life, or can be used by some thug to steal your car. But this doesn't mean that crowbars should be made illegal. But again the MPAA clouds the issue, and our rights to use the DeCSS tool are taken away.
Votes get a candidate elected, not money. If enough people became educated about the cancer that is the DMCA it would be thrown out of the books This is a big misconception(IMO ofcourse) that many people have. You see, we're all brought up to believe in "democracy" and "the will of the people". As if "the people" know what's best. But time has shown that pure democracies don't work. The whims of the majority will always abridge the rights of the minority. I remember one really great post on slashdot that said, democracy is two wolves and a sheep sitting down, and voting on what to have for dinner. The grim reality is that most people don't think in ideological terms. I remember reading statistics showing that most people are in favor of laws which ignore the first ammendment, such as banning offensive web sites to protect "the children". Most people just want a strong economy from their politicians. They could care less about the injustices that makes our tempers rise.
How long before the RIAA starts going after the open encoders for Ogg Vorbis and MP3? I bet they'll be a lot more effective in shutting them down than the Frauhauf Institute.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Everyone at /. agree to vote the way I tell you to, and I'll go to Congress and tell them I control a block of 100,000 votes (Or however many /. users there are) and that if something doesn't get done to rein in the corporations, we'll start voting to remove people from office.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Of course, doing this also involves absolutely NO creativity -- Working out how to play that cool guitar solo is completely missing the point of the guitar solo, but that's another issue entirely.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's a pity about MP3.com but I really don't like mp3 as a format anyway due to the patent encumberance things. I'd really like to see a company start up with MP3.com's original business plan, using the .ogg file format and pushing mainly indie groups. Anyone could have seen that my.mp3.com shit getting ready to hit the fan as soon as they suggested it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
FUCK RIAA!!!!
...
Thomas Jefferson
Gnutella
FreeNet
FIDONet/ISSI
and THEN there was PEEKABOOTY.....
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH
FIGHT THE POWER!!!!!!!!! If we can't route with them, we'll route THROUGH them, over them, under them around them....after all, that's how the DARPA devised this thing.
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
Programming is an art form that fights back.
FIGHT THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
What a pain to read. Change your colors. I didn't even know there was a link in there (in the text) until my mouse went over it. I read maybe a paragraph before leaving.
> Last I checked, the MPAA/RIAA don't own the damn data lines.
What about AOL/TimeWarner? They're a good chunk of the MPAA. While they may not own the actual cable, they own all the routers sitting on the @Home and AOL networks...
If they wanted to implement filtering, it's perfectly legal for them to. Of course, some customers would be unhappy, but they'd get used to it in time.
---GEEK CODE---
Ver: 3.12
GCS/S d- s++: a-- C++++ UBCL+++ P+ L++
W+++ PS+ Y+ R+ b+++ h+(++) r++ y+
Stop making fun of fat people, they are humans too. Maybe you can run away from 1 fat guy, but 32 fats guys are sure to catch you no matter how fast you can run. Then who will be laughing?
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
> FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?
No, the next logical step would be to attempt to get rid of TCP/IP. Sure, it sounds ludicrous, but think about it: the Internet's become a real pain for the MPAA/RIAA. They can't control the content. They can't even control what opinions are published about their stuff. Since they can't figure out a way to keep extorting people with the Internet around, the most logial thing to do would be to kill it.
There is definitely some confusion here.
The reason Aimster is being sued is because they are a service. The reason Aimster is being sued, and the reason they are almost certainly going to be found liable for facilitation of copyright infringement, is because they run a service which helps people illegally trade copyrighted materials. The reason Cisco and Microsoft will not be found liable is because they sell products, which are out of the control of the manufacturer after the customers get them (as opposed to Napster and Aimster which require constant maintenance and supervision to operate). The analogy is that Cisco and Microsoft are gun manufacturers, but Aimster and Napster are professional hit men. It is actually quite a black and white distinction, and there is little legal ambiguity about it.
The people the RIAA really wants to target aren't educated consumers like you, or me, or most of the Slashdot community, but the people who just want 'that song from the radio.'
Except that 'that song from the radio' is very often a special radio-edition which are not sold in stores. So you litteraly have to "pirate" it (Arrr! Flee landcrabs!) from somewhere to get what you really want.
Of course, the masses don't care about this, and money follow the masses. So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I've tried BearShare and can't really say I was impressed. Unless I'm after Brittney Spears (which I'm not), it's impossible to find what I'm looking for. Check out my Bio to see what kind of music that is. Hard to get under gnutella, and I've never managed to download a single working file from gnutella.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I don't kill people. They just die.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
They have a Linux version and may or not be working on a Mav version.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
No. They'll just revive the old punishment of chopping it off. After all, they say you are a thief.
Audiogalaxies software is only for windows AFAIK, which means that microsoft works with the RIAA to make sure that it doesnt work properly with all future versions of windows, and the RIAA is happy. Don't you remember the plot to limit mp3 quality to "ween users off mp3 and onto realmedia"?
I am !amused.
How can you say that copyright infringement isn't theft? The Word it's self, "copyRIGHT", describes a right that is given to you be law. Copyright is the right to decide when, and how something you write is distributed. When you copy and distribute someone elses work without thier permission you took away thier right to distribute that work in the manner they wanted. By your own deffinition "Theft is defined as depriving someone from the use of something that's rightfully theirs.", you are depriving someone the use of thier rights as defined by the law.\ =\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
"When I make an unauthorized copy, you haven't lost anything real."
\ =\=\=\=\
Are you saying that if you copy software you haven't taken away the author's right to distribute the software the way he wants?
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
This is a good point. It should also be noted that they might have kept under the radar longer had they not purposely named the program "Aimster," which connotes a similarity of function and purpose to Napster. Of course, I guess that means that my handle is going to be investigated too. I hope someone has some old 1541 discs showing that I've been using the name for over 15 years...
Actually RIAA works like a shark in still water. It ensures the quality of best of breed products. They already downed the technically inferior Napster and they are going after poor design in Aimster next. After they will be done, only the best and most distributed and thus also best networking solutions will survive. They will maybe even help us unite on a general standard for file exchange. I think that one day in near future we will thank them!
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I don't think the routers see extensions. I believe what the previous poster meant was that the routers would block the file type by looking at headers and such. Then we would need to come up with a uniform file type such that all the files' headers would look the same and their extensions would be ultimately meaningless. Bzip2? Gzip? CSS? (imagine that!) Of course, then you have the little problem of, how do YOU know what kind of file it is?
It's like we're playing that game where you bonk the gophers on the head on a machine that's broken and won't ever let the game end. AGH!
kickin' science like no one else can,
my dick is twice as long as my attention span.
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
It doesn't really matter either way. Napster, Aimster, MP3.com, etc are not in the RIAA clique, and hence must be destroyed by any and all means possible.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
This is getting stupid. Next thing you know, you'll be hearing about a lawsuit against Cisco, for routing the packets which are infringing copyright.
One of the biggest problems, however, is that Napster, for the majority of users, is like a 'free' version of that NOW compilation we've seen top the charts for a few years now. The people the RIAA really wants to target aren't educated consumers like you, or me, or most of the Slashdot community, but the people who just want 'that song from the radio.'
The RIAA makes a great deal of profit off of one-hit-wonders, and artists that don't precisely put out full albums of good music. They don't give the proverbial shit about people downloading Frank Zappa; they're concerned about people downloading La Vida Loca and then not needing to buy the CD.
I agree with you - Napster is a great tool for 'getting into' artists. Because I got the wrong song when I searched for 'Without You' I ended up buying the entire Stevie Ray Vaughan catalog. I agree that napster is a powerful tool.
We aren't the ones they're after.
(Unless I've horribly misjudged the slashdot crowd and they're actually all into J.Lo and Eagle Eye Cherry!)
"...the bully claims victory"
There's also an added bonus: The victory in court also sets a precedent which I suppose is another big stick to bully more companies
"I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
4) The Free Software Foundation and the Open Source community. For making something that those huge corporations can't make money off.
"Hey! We can't make money off your freelance work! We will sue you now" Oh, but you can. The GPL allows the selling of GPL'ed work. It only forbids source-closing.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
You poke fun at the idea that fat32 is used to facilitate piracy of IP, but what about AIM itself? after all, isn't Aimster a plugin-like program to use the AOL Instant Messenger software to trade music? Not to mention that you can just trade files directly with AIM...
AOL/Time Warner are in the uncomfortable position of needing to sue themselves into oblivion.
-------
-------
"don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
at least i can fucking think"
Minor Threat
When Aimster jumped the gun and sued the RIAA it was the beginning of the end for them (as if they didn't already have a huge bull's eye on their collective foreheads).
... too many fish, not enough barrels.
The problem with all the companies that have headed down this path is that they're simply too visible. If you want to create a successful filesharing system, don't do it in the open. Make software that can function if you drop off the face of the earth. Gnutella, and derivatives like Toadnode and Bearshare are still around because there's nothing for the RIAA to grab a hold of and sue (both have been around a lot longer than Aimster too).
These companies need to wise up; it's a field-day for the RIAA right now
_f
I'm surprised more people don't talk about this aspect of DVDs. They're good, but they're not great.
While its certainly true that DVDs are sharper and are an improvement over VHS tapes, many of the DVDs I've watched have a set of flaws that become distracting once you're made aware of them.
Of course, the fact that most people find video recorded on SLP VHS acceptable gives you an idea that people are pretty forgiving of video flaws.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I used to hang out in the warez channels on NewNet irc servers. A few years ago the SPA busted all the major channels. It was pretty sad since most of them were 13 year old kids with cable modems. The mp3 channels have search scripts set up that make it as easy as napster. About 5 minutes after the bust new warez channels popped right up to take their place. They never even made a dent. Long live #warezexceed
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
RIAA/MPAA will stay away from the big companies...
But I wanted them to sue Micro$oft next for allowing Exchange to send files in emails.
Of course the next choatic mess would be when Micro$oft used the UCITA to take back their stuff...
this could be such fun!!
(y do I have a headache...)
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Just after Napster started to become popular, one of the ICQ betas (alphas? - for 99a I think), had Napster-like filesharing added. I know this because they posted screenshots of it on icq.com. Boy I wish I had saved a copy of those. I guess AOL told them to remove that feature. Pitty. Did anyone save the screenshots, or get hold of the code?
Zilch
No reason at all. And if they want to close down all the airports, and ground all the planes too, as a precaution, presumably you would happily go along with that.
WELL. I mean shit, why should we put our bags on the belt and walk through metal detectors at the airport because *some* people use bombs to blow up airplanes? They're stomping all over my right to privacy! Just because the FAA, the airlines, and the airports are losing money doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.
Well, ya see, I voluntarily accept those invasions of my privacy because they kinda like help keep me from getting blown up. Not that the risk is real high, but I kinda like keeping it that way.
Regardless of what you may think or what blind eye you choose to turn to the situation, the RIAA isn't going to pounce on something with no justification
Did you actually manage to type that with a straight face?
Why not? You write a book and decide to sell it for $12.95. I steal the manuscript from your desk, make a shitload of photocopies, and give them away. Are you as an author not going to attempt to regulate that?
You're damn right I would. However, I'd do it by suing you, not Xerox.
Oh, I see. So they're perfectly within their freedom to protect themselves, just so long as it doesn't inconvenience you, right? Because all of the 'rights' you are arguing about aren't rights.
Bullshit. Fair use. First sale. Oh, and privacy, free speech, and freedom of association are all constitutionally protected. You may argue they don't apply, but claiming they're not rights is bullshit.
You're merely pandering to popular opinion hoping to score a bit of brownie points.
And all you're doing is whoring for karma by posting something against the Slashdot consensus so that idiots with mod points will try to demonstrate how openminded they are by modding you up.
Aren't ad hominem attacks fun?
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Nope. I don't believe that. Being censored does not mean you've lost the right to free speech, it just means that someone is violating that right. The same principle applies here. The copyright owner still has the right to control distribution, within limitations. Violating that right doesn't take it away.
In addition, being able "distribute the software the way he wants" does not equate to absolute control over distribution. First sale and fair use both limit that control, as does the AHRA under certain circumstances.
OFFTOPIC: Does anyone else think they should just get rid of "Underrated" and "Overrated"? I've only seen "Underrated" used by trolls to mod up other trolls, and "Overrated" is only used by idiots who aren't bright enough to come up with an actual rebuttal to a post they disagree with.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
But seriously, it seems as though this has become SOP over the last few years -- pick a defendant that they can litigate into the ground, then go after them. Then, when the little guy surrenders because they can't spend six figures on litigation, the bully claims victory.
Last October, I asked Mattel for how many cases they actually won -- they still have not answered. I wonder why they have not answered.
Fight Spammers!
He added that the legal action in New York will seek a Napster-like injunction to bar Aimster users from trading in copyrighted materials.
Does this remedy make sense? Without a central sever, how could AIMster bar trading of copyrighted materials?
Incidentally, why is AIMster incorporated? Is it to provide the individuals with a legal umbrella? (It is hard to believe that they have get-rich plans. They seem pretty clued.)
And, hey, wasn't AIMster already suing for a declaratory judgement on its service?
the second one.
WELL. I mean shit, why should we put our bags on the belt and walk through metal detectors at the airport because *some* people use bombs to blow up airplanes? They're stomping all over my right to privacy! Just because the FAA, the airlines, and the airports are losing money doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.
As other posters have pointed out (but I just couldn't help myself), that's the weakest part of your argument. I only have to go through the metal detector if I want to get on the airplane. I'm saying, "Hey, I'd like to use your services, airport.". And airport says, "Sure, you have to pay me some money, and walk through my metal detector.". I can say "sure", or I can say, "go fuck yourself".
In the RIAA case, however, it's entirely different. I could not want any of their music at all. I could simply want to use Aimster for its file-trading capabilities (which I do, on occasion; and never once has it been for a copyrighted work). So I say, "Hey Aimster, I'd like to use your services.". Aimster says, "Su--". RIAA interrupts, "Hey buddy, I'd like to check those packets first. Hey Aimster, go check those packets. Then check with us to see if it's okay. Hmm, these packets are looking a little fishy-- Aimster, we might have to shut you down entirely.".
Of course, that's far from the worst infringement. RIAA shuts down Aimster-- sure, no problem, one corporation kills another, not directly affecting my rights in any way. This is where something like DeCSS is much more clear cut-- that's where they pretty much come into my home and tell me what I can and can't do.
With Napster, it was easy to say, "look, we did a bunch of searches, and we got 99% copyrighted material.". What are they going to do with Aimster, I wonder? The link didn't give any details, but I know that the RIAA isn't on my buddy list. Think they'll try to subpoena a lot of the information?
I wouldn't be so fast to say that Napster caused record sales to grow..there are many, MANY factors involved with that. For example, releasing 3 backstreet boys albums in one year comapred to 2 the year before would increase sales tremendously, and that has nothing to do with Napster. I have yet to see any proof that shows that Napster has directly increased music sales.
By all means, ban using Fat32 file systems. That'll be the fastest way to topple Microsoft and force a move to either Linux or MacOS, which will benefit the world.
Just imagine all the fun you could have, playing practical jokes on people who haven't got a clue how to secure their brand new *nix box.
Gawyn
Freedom of Speech?
"Votes get a candidate elected, not money."
Such a rosey view of the world. I wish you were right, the world would be a better place. Money, violence and the corruption that goes along with them are how candidates currently get elected.
Until we quit acting like sheep and decide that we have had enough, nothing will change. We can bitch and whine all we want but nothing will change until we get off our collective asses and do something about it.
I do agree with you about the corporations. Making money is what they are supposed to do. If you dont want to pay for what they sell, dont. Just be aware of the consequences of your own actions and do as you judge proper.
Consider this: If a person has an excellent memory and a diverse musical talent, s/he can to some extent reproduce a piece of music to someone else without violating any copyright laws (not considering public performance, of course). Well, most of us are not that talented, so why cannot we use technology to augment our limited physical and mental capacity? I know it's not exactly like Braille terminals for the blind, but where do you draw the line?
As to the outlawing of TCP/IP, there will be other ways. New protocols, new physical systems for communication. The geeks will find their way somehow.. By the time this happens, let us hope that the law regains its original idea as something organized by the people, for the people. Until then, let's really screw RIAA and practice our Jedi skills in the telepathic trading of mp3z.
--
I hit the karma cap, now do I gain enlightenment?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
AOL just got the rights to the Aimster domain, so the RIAA will be sueing ... AOL. Ah, what sweet justice. :-)
The Backstreet Boys. QED.
funny,
who would have been a better president then??
GORE??
Even funnier. But I keep forgetting, total government support, and programs such as AFFIRMATIVE ACTION need to be enforced in the united states.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They (in one form or another) have ALWAYS tried to thwart new technologies. Radio, cassette tapes, VHS tapes, DAT tapes, you name it, if its a new technology, they will protest against it, and try to stop it because it goes against the status quo. One would think they would learn after 100 years that new technologies SELL MORE in the long run!! bastards....
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Actually, since MS makes most of the systems used to do the actual copying, why don't they do something sensible and sue Microsoft?
Or is it easier to sue somebody who doesn't have a lot of money?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Maybe you missed it, but the two ways of filtering out "infringing copies" used on Napster are by filename and by acoustic fingerprint. Most parodies use the original music written and often the same tracks layed down by the original artists, and simply alter the words. So if I don't like N*Synch and decide to parody one of their songs, say 'It's gonna be me' and title it 'It's gonna be me -- parody by evilpaul13.mp3' my uninfringing parody will be filtered and no one will ever hear it. I was pretty sure derivitive works in the form of paraodies were protected by the Fair Use clause of the Copyright Act.
FYI, the rights of the individual supercede any held on IDEAS by a corporation, which in fact owns the music you know and so love.
It is about money. Its the same reason you can be pulled over for not having a seat belt, fined and taken to jail. The RIAA is in the same boat as the insurance companies. Seat belts make the insurance companies spend less money. They lobby the hell out of governments, so they can spend less money. The RIAA lost control of an industry, and they are using money to get it back. Some how i doubt this is what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote the Delaration of Independance.
"I have to wonder if we are infringing copyright everytime we whistle *The Simpsons* on the john?"
Last time I checked this was still legal. Since you are by yourself at that time (or should be!) you are engaged in a private performance. However, should you whistle this in front of your family and friends over for a visit this becomes a public performance and you are then liable for copyright infringement.
Check out my website for more on copyright or invest in Jessica Litman's "Digital Copyright" (only if you have a strong stomach. Her detail on the way Congress handles copyright issues is nauseating.)
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
NFS, HTTP, FTP, scp, rcp, ext2, reiserfs, XFS, JFS, BeFS, UFS, rfc1149, Network Neighbourhood, SmbFS, TCP/IP, UDP, paper, any form of analog or digital storage medium, any form of hardware or software, telephones, cellphones, speakers, sterios, radios, radio stations, television, human voice, music itself, humans themselves?
And the list goes on....
--
Garett
No kidding. I thought that getting sued was half the fun with Aimster. To use the DMCA to thwart the RIAA's attempt to shut down trading services by encrypting the data in transmission so that they should really have no way to know what you are trading. This sets up a precedent for protecting the innocent until they are proven guilty.
With Napster it was all too obvious that you were offering up restricted files for public download, with Aimster (which I have not used) it looks as though you need to find individuals with which to trade-- the only way they can know what you are trading is to trade with you (i.e. go in undercover). Of course, this shunts the responsibility clearly to the user. I guess now instead of a largely anonymous trading system, you'll want to make sure that you aren't trading with an RIAA lawyer or an FBI agent. That could get you more than banned from Aimster since they will have caught you committing a crime (if you are sharing their songs rather than stuff you have a right to share).
I do not have a signature
Hey man vector is right. However it is not
poiting steeply enough. RIAA is pressed by
industry into mode where there will be hostile
takeover of free markets and grusome
capitalization on those, for the sake of mighty
dollar. DCMA is just about that greater
capitalization on already present information...
no less. You have to really contort your thinking
to see what your foe is really going to do...
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
The ultimate next step of course is the eradication of all recording and multiplication technology in the world. -me.
It was rejected last fall. IOMEGA and IBM were the only huge players in favor for it anyway. HP, Apple and other computer makers who make systems for multimedia rejected it because it would piss off there customers. Just do not buy a Ioemga or an IBM drive and you will be fine. SO relax. Also Dvd's and the new SCSI standard already have cprm or a cprm-like mechanism for the dvd drives. This is why you can't copy .vob files with the drives. The new SCSI and dvd drives obviously work fine under linux. Linus doesn't have to write a cprm driver to get the devices to work. The area of the disk in question needs special software to write to it and its not manditory to use the sectors for proper use. Linux can just just ignore the sectors. Unless your a pirate or use sdmi files there is nothing to worry about. You can still download mp3's to the drive under linux with cprm, assuming it was passed by tha ATA commitee.
http://saveie6.com/
oh darn! I used my hand to copy a protected work. does this mean an injunction will be filed against me using my hand?
FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?
Yes.
Look, all these file sharing services were not created with the purpose to share copyrighted music -- they were created to share files in general: to share whatever kind of files they were capbable of. It is obvious that services like Aimster, Morpheus, Gnutella, and so forth, clearly are not intended for distributing copyrighted files, and have significant legal uses -- thus should be left the fuck alone.
Just because M$, the MPAA, and the RIAA are losing money because *some* people use the internet and file sharing services to distribute copyrighted materials doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way. Sorry, MY right to get any program, to share my hard drive with other users, to share information, and to privacy, is more important than the bogus intellectual property rights companies claim to have(btw, where in the 10 amendments does it mention the right to make tons and tons of money off of something that can be freely replicated?).
There may be a problem with the distribution of copyrighted material on the internet -- but that doesn't give organizations like M$, the RI@@, the MP@@, or the BS@ the right to violate MY rights. The only legitimate way they can stop this activity is a way which does not in any way violate any of my rights, or those of any others. This means they can't say bullshit like "you can't link to this site". That violates my right to freedom of speech and freedom of association. They can't say "we're going to force services like Napster to filter out anything that has the digital music contents of X" -- that violates my right to distribute parodies, and it violates the right of the service provider: as they now have to make their product inferior via unnecessary bloat. They can't say "we're going to keep tabs on every log of the internet," and log IP's, and request that ISP's give us the personal information of IP's that distribute "copyrighted files" -- that's a violation of the right to privacy.
Companies may have a right to profit off of their intellectual property, and to stop intellectual property violations(though this is disputed, by me and others). [By intellectual property violatsion I mean redistribution: if buy their DVD, software, or music, I own it in the same sense that I own a book: I can disassemble it, analyze it, edit it, put notes in the margins(i.e., program comments), take it apart and learn from it, photocopy it for my own personal use, scan it into my computer, whatever as long as I don't redistribute it to other people.] But that does not mean they have the right to do whatever it takes to profit off of their intellectual property, or do whatever it takes to protect their intellectual property.
In other words, they are free to protect their rights, so long as they do not in any way violate my rights, or anyone elses.
What they are currently doing violates my rights, and those of everyone else.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Your grandchildren, if they are ever born, will never see the Dylan albums because the Sonny Bono III Copyright Extension act will keep them locked up with Mickey and Goofy in a perpetual string of "limited time"'s, as the constitution allows.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
They skipped gnutella because, as far as peer to peer systems go, it sucks. Research papers such as Free Riding on Gnutella and Why Gnutella Can't Scale, No, Really articulate this much better than I can. The success rate of pirating music via Gnutella is much less than those of napster, aimster, and community-based hotline servers.
:)
The RIAA admitted this, if you remember
profit of doom
:)
Alrighty.. I think that is the best I have ever seen prophet work when mispelled as 'profit'... the RIAA really is the PROFIT of doom!.. I love it.. you rock.. if you did that on purpose it's brilliant.. and if you didn't, then it's even more perfect (can we say fruedian slip?
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Real tough. Look at what Aimster has going for itself:
The phrase "Can't touch this!" is prominently displayed on Aimster's home page. I don't know about you, but I doubt that the RIAA can counter such a profound statment.
"The servers are UP!" Ouch! Are the RIAA's servers up? If they are, they don't say they are!!
The woman on the website sure has some politcal clout right there. Take that RIAA!
Got friends?
The RIAA and Microsoft may not have the world's most impressive understanding of technology, but what they do know is how to make money.
The RIAA doesn't want a sensible approach to ensuring its materials aren't illegally distributed, not per se; that's just one approach that they believe will make them more money.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the two become close bedfellows, given how much they both want to control the data we access.
You want to share files? We've got that .NET service right here, for a nominal fee.
Aimster's real problem was in "branching out" - I remember when Aimster was first making news, and how the pundits speculated on whether or not it was legal...a decent case can be made for (the original) Aimster being allowed under the Audio Home Recording Act, which essentially allows you to make copies of copyrighted stuff and share with your friends, but also has some stern language about digital copies - in all likelihood, it would be something for an appeals court to decide. But it would be interesting.
And, of course, if it's found that Aimster is breaking the law, then I'll have to record something, copyright it, share via Aimster or AIM file transfer, then send AOL/Time Warner nasty cease-and-desist letters - after all, that would make AIM an infringer, an aid to hackers and pirates, and (worst of all) a circumvention device...and guess who distributes it?
And oddly enough, AIM's "Get File" operation is exactly the sort of thing you do with Napster - you view files on someone els'es computer that they've agreed to share, and download what you want...sounds clear-cut, who's bringing suit?
It is called a paper bag. It could allow me to exchange contraband and copyrighted materials with my colleagues covertly. When are the men in black coming to confiscate my paper bag?
Timorhy refers to CPRM, the Content Protection for Recordable Media standards initiative. This would in effect prevent the transfer of certain content on particular media. The proposal it to implement the 'protection' in hardware with a software interupt, which means probably software could simply bypass the system. It's not entirely clear, as the spec isn't fully defined. This is a vary scary deal which hasn't gotten much press in the United States. Read up. This is important stuff.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I understand that legal precedents in the Napster case have been set, and I understand that the RIAA is using current laws to argue their case. I further understand that they are in business and have a right to extract profits for their efforts. But boy, they way they go about their business, refusing to embrace new technology but stomping out of existence anything that threatens to interfere with their current distribution methods, the RIAA is acting like the mob. "Do what we say and no one gets hurt," is the message they keep sending over and over again. How sad that the law is allowing these bullies to do whatever they want, and their propaganda is causing many persons (even here) to defend their actions. It may be legal, but it's morally wrong.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
*sarcasm* You'll deny them profits in July, and then double their profits in August. *end sarcasm*
I think the better way is to do what someone was recently proposing to do to the oil companies: Target just one company. Get a boycott organized against that one company an send it into the toilet. Make them an example to the rest of the RIAA. Let the RIAA members know that anyone of them could be next.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Better yet..
Tell them by the time you got home, your kids already downloaded it for free.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
RIAA's next targets:
-
- Internet: It allows people to d/l copyrighted files.
- Computers: They think it's a big problem, because it's an easy way for people do exchange music.
- Human Being: The main target. Human beings are able to develop new ways to get copyrighted music without their permission, so, everyone should be banished from earth.
- Earth: All the natural resources for the human being comes from Earth. It's their way to survive. So, RIAA will want to destroy it.
- Universe: What if some Aliens start "stealing" copyrighted music from RIAA? The whole Universe needs to be destroyed too!
- THe other dimensions: Someone could get to our dimension and steal our SO-BELOVED copyrighted music. That's a problem too! Let's destroy them all!
RIAA = Much Power and No Brain
-----------------------------------------------
You think Bill Gates is evil?
Audiogalaxy has rolled over... I don't know how much "illegal" music I've distributed. And that's not counting how much I've done on napster pre-metallica-ban, and scour pre-shutdown.
At the rate the RIAA is going, I hope they keep shutting down trading systems. Every one they've shut down, I've moved to a better one immediatly thereafter. It's evolution amongst the file-sharing services!
Honestly, they're doing the file-traders a great service by shutting down all the crappy ones:
Napster: Took me almost as long to find and retrive a good copy as to listen to it.
Scour: Fewer bad copies, more media to choose from...
Audiogalaxy: I just downloaded 1.5 GB last night!
Took me 10 min of clicking file names...
Now I have over 15 _HOURS_ of music to which I shall listen (royalty free) as many times as I wish.
What comes next? Is it going to download what I want before I want it? Going to grab good house/breakbeat before I need more?
Here, prior art for ya!: I push play in winamp, and it goes and finds good music straight off the net... No maintenance!
Lemme see here... Aimster is part of the AOL Instant Messaging, run by AOL, which is part of the AOL-Time-Warner conglomerate which also owns Warner Bros., a record label, which is no doubt a standing member of the RIAA? This sounds like they want to cut off their own nose to spite their face.
How long do you suppose it will be until the RIAA takes their "pound of flesh" they feel they deserve for completely missing the digital music boat? They are so intent on crushing anything that even comes close to their precious domain, that they will fight this to their last dying breath.
I'm waiting for them to bring suit against TCP/IP or something... You gotta figure that is next.
"It is plainly obvious, your Honor, that this technology enables the transmission of unauthorized duplicated copyrighted material. Therefore, we ask that you impose an injunction against TCP/IP. We just want to protect our god given rights here. WE'RE THE VICTIMS! Honest!"
Sheesh... save it.
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
Precisely what I did with Metallica...though don't tell them that. :)
In a world where the organizations with the most money get to tell the other organizaitons what to do, the fact that the RIAA and MPAA are actively attacking anything that allows people to share their music/movies doesn't surprise me. The quality of most MP3s / DivX movies is nowhere near that you'd find on a CD or DVD, and the mediums aren't that big of a threat to the companies producing the media.
As a result of Napster, record companies actually INCREASED their profits, because people were less reserved about buying a CD if they knew that they would like some of the songs on it before hand. I would -never- but CDs, because I didn't know if I'd like them, but by being able to try it out before I buy it, I purchased an entire CD of music that I downloaded off of Napster.
I have DivX movies on CD - but also a DVD-ROM drive and DVD movies, legally purchased, because I want the higher quality for some things. A $3 burned DivX of a movie is like an MP3 of a song - it's a good trial, and if I like it, I go out and buy the real thing.
The major entertainment associations feel threatened by the new technologies that make it more difficult for them to keep tabs on distrubution. This doesn't mean that the file-sharing is wrong; it means that the RIAA's rules need to be adapted to the Internet age. The best thing they could do that would increase their sales would be to stop policing swapping of MP3s. Then, people like me would go out and buy CDs again, instead of going through the hassal of using Gnutella to find MP3s and burn them onto CDs.
My $.02 and a few killobytes.
At the same time, the record industry used the CD as an excuse to grossly inflate prices, citing the "higher cost" of producing CDs compared to LPs. Despite the fact that the average CD costs about as much to produce as a chocolate bar, the price has not gone down and has even gone up.
The piracy has been caused by the record companys' predatory pricing coupled with the deletion of almost anything that adds value for the purchaser. Now they want to sue to make sure that they are not forced back into providing value for the consumer's money. I would be playing "My Heart Bleeds For Thee", but they'd sue me for not paying a royalty.
Its kind of funny that this comes so close on the heals of AOL's website suit with Aimster. I also think it odd that the RIAA has yet to say anything about ICQ's P2P file sharing abilities.
9 ,0 0.html)
Of course I guess that could be because ICQ is owned and operated by AOL.
(http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,1283
Now isn't it curious that AOL isnt subject to the wrath of their cohorts (remember AOL/TimeWarner merger?) the RIAA, who only seem content to attack non-media affiliated developers who can't afford to defend themselves against a lawsuit like this.
It seems to me that we should start focusing on the lawsuits that are not happening to show that the RIAA is using Oligopolistic tactics against non-member companies and groups.
(an Oligopoly is like a monopoly only consisting of a few companies working in tandem with each other to control a market.)
RA7
-
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
Actually, you are right on. Someone or a group of someones should pull together a case of civil rights violations where business interests are blocking and removing our private rights to share our materials.
While I am sure there might be some copyright material being shared, I am definitely certain there are non-infringing activities also being carried on using these P-2-P services.
It is simply inappropriate logic to destroy and remove services based on a portion of its uses. The "obvious" argument that if there are any non-infringing uses that they should be DILLIGENTLY protected by law is just as, if not more important than protecting the copyrights of big organizations. We need to cry for help from civil rights organizations and make this thing happen. I'll be sending my money to support any groups that will aid in quashing these efforts by RIAA and MPAA.
I call my friend from work, and say, Hey, listen to this:
Then I proceed to read to him, verbatim, a copyrighted short story (my hypothetical friend is a verrry patient person).
Does that make the telephone system subject to , as you put it:
<quote>
Napster case did set a legal precedent for saying that any service that can be used to transfer copyrighted materials can be challenged and or shut down.
</quote>
I don't see the RIAA suing SBC or AT&T...
Is it just my imagiation or is our Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech being crushed by non-publicly-accountable corporate interests? I can hear British Royalty sneering at us after all the suffering and dying our Revolutionary War heroes went through... Doesn't Memorial day count for anything anymore?
On an aside, I imagine British Royalty knows how to sneer quite effectively.
"Piter, too, is dead."
I'll play a little game with them:
I'll go buy a CD of whatever artist.
An hour later I'll return it, in the shrinkwrap, unopened, with the receipt and all.
When the clerk at Border's asks me why I am returning it, I'll say that since the recording label is a member of the RIAA, and since the RIAA is infringing on my freedom of speech by shutting down services that I use to express myself, I refuse to contribute financially to the label and to the RIAA.
Then, I will ask the sales clerk to locate a label that is not on the RIAA membership (which I will have printed conveniently) and I will look at that CD (if there is one in the store) and I will buy it. If there isn't one, then I will say that I will go to a different store.
If enough people do that, I suppose labels will steer clear of the RIAA.
Any questions?
"Piter, too, is dead."
...they just don't know it yet. I think that with digital media, they can never again control distribution of it as they did before. New things will pop up as soon as they sue old ones out of business. Because artists can much more easily create and distribute their music, you don't need record companies so much. As soon as a few big artists independently publish albums and sell them over the internet, the RIAA will die. And I hope they do.
Next month's headlines: RIAA Files Injunction Against Member Sony for Copyright Infringement More here.
Actually, (and I'm scared to say this because they might do it) they could possibly fight back for getting on the services (i.e. Napster, Gnutella, etc) and clogging them up with fakes. Average people would quit using p2p trading services rather quickly if every search for Limp Bizkit gave them Kermit the Frog (though I personally wouldn't mind that).
uhhhh... of course not... i have never copied or distributed copywritten material... people do that? heh heh...
-----
-----
so i says to mable, i says
I think all of that was a joke... (I fell for it too)
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Well, strangely enough, they're still buying. I have to say, if there's one result of this whole mess, it's that a lot of people are taking a closer look at the RIAA's business practices. Hopefully this will eventually hurt their profits, even if the illegal trading doesn't.
I hate the way the record execs and managers screw over the musicians, but these types of services are *obviously* designed to allow for the exchange of CDs, etc. For Christ's sake, they weren't even smart enough to come up with a unique name! These guys don't stand a chance. A centralized server controlling peer-to-peer connections isn't the same as a pure peer-to-peer system. Aimster is liable. You can bitch and moan all you want about how unfair it is, but no corporation in Capitalist USA will permit this or lose in a court battle.
I'm getting completely fed up with the RIAA. Rather than simply embracing the technology and distribution medium, they feel a need to thwart all technologies and mediums that threaten their empire. I would have a little more respect for them if they became more proactive and open to new technologies.
- If you can't be promiscuous, what's the point [of sniffing]?
Damn Calculus, it makes our creative algebraic experts loose a job! I say the rich algebraic overlords squelch Calculus before it goes out of control! Bleh, Aimster, ICQ. Who the hell didn't see these file trading systems back in 90? Um I want to message my friend online... but I can't.... Duh, ICQ.... Er I want to share my files with everyone who wants to download them and not have someone in control Duh, Gnutella/ICQster/whatever. Just like probably thousands of other computer geeks, I came up with Gnutella and AIMster in theory, but never implemented it because of the waste of time to code it. But there is always someone with too much time on their hands that will. Its something that is obvious a next step... Its the Hasbro's of the world that want to keep all this intellectal property to themselves so they can bastardize it and hope to get money from you. When everyone would be happier if culture was free after its made... How long until people stop competing against each other in a buisness world, and work together? Yeah, everyone loves to write redundant code to just to compete with microsoft Office, or Quake, or whatnot... We need some sort of value added system, maybe in addition to GNU licence. Something that made sense for buisnesses to buy into.
God spoke to me
I always wonder if RIAA, and other stupid organizations that insist in this kind of witch-hunting, has any kind of technical adivisor. IMNSHO it's impossible to avoid data copying. Let's see, there were disperse sites sharing mp3, and they still exists. Now they're trying to kill Napster, they might try, but they won't get too far.
After Napster, we still have Aimster, and after this they have to hunt Gnutella, and after this they still have to worry with freenet, and then...
Needless to say that they will NEVER win. To be more explicity they will NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER win. And that's it. We will ALWAYS find a new way.
THERE'S NO WAY TO STOP DIGITAL (R)EVOLUTION
Don't worry, I'm too revolutionary [to|every]day
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Listen when you want.
Add, remove at your leisure.
One-off pressings, no large distibution labels.
You don't download and store it, just listen and enjoy it.
All Vinyl.
Free.(open source by definition?)
No RIAA.
follow the link. It's what music should be about. Now if only I could stream it to cars and cellphones....
No whazzup comments or humming tunes used to sell cars and the like.
I have to wonder if we are infringing copyright everytime we whistle *The Simpsons* on the john?
I thought the whole point of advertising was to build brand-awareness, and is that not what the majority of music is these days? Building brand loyalty and awareness? I hate TV, therefore (for me) Napster and friends have become the media advertising machines that replaced TV. I think the media conglomerates are alienating an entire generation of potential revenue.
How far is too far?
--
Actually I agree with you, but that doesn't change my point. I think that if people saw the DMCA they would want to get rid of it. To tell you the truth I don't really believe in a system of government; I believe that the people have the power but it is individual people who wield it because they are the ones who influence the masses. As for how I was brought up... let's just say it wasn't typical of America, I'm moving to Germany as soon as the opportunity presents itself. (I still say that the DMCA would be destroyed if enough people found out about it and we had a good leader.)
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
We are misplacing our hate and anger. The RIAA is made up of corporations, the sole point of a corp is to make money for its shareholders. If they think that they're losing money because of something and figure out a way that they could stop it from happening they're going to try it. If their method of halting this loss of money violates the rights that individuals (should) have that won't mean a thing to them. The only responsibility that they really have is to shareholders; they are not beholden to us in any way except sales, and I don't see a boycott of all music published by corps in the RIAA on the horizon. We do have a recourse though (did you really think this was going to be a pro RIAA post?), politicians. (a horrible recourse but one nonetheless) They *are* dependent on us for jobs, and don't tell me that the companies have enough money to keep the politicians on their side. Votes get a candidate elected, not money. If enough people became educated about the cancer that is the DMCA it would be thrown out of the books. As people who know about the DMCA and other such injustices it is your duty as well as to your benefit to let people know what's going on. When was the last time you dismissed a question from a non /. type person about this stuff because you decided they were too stupid to be bothered with? Or even got out from in front of your computer to tell people about this stuff? I did it today, but I can't be the only one. Stop flaming corporations for trying to squeeze every last drop of money out of the consumer; it's what they do. Instead start sending mail to your congressmen and telling regular people about what's going on. If you won't do that than you don't have a leg to stand on in this issue. Politicians (sadly) are the key to getting our rights back. Oh by the way, I'm downloading copyrighted music off of Aimster as I type this :)
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
"RIAA files suit against Microsoft" -- Besides, isn't most of all piracy done using Microsoft operating systems? Boy, would that be a kicker. Most of Slashdot's population would be confused as to whether to support Microsoft or the RIAA, since they're BOTH evil.
I've got a friend who composes music, mostly for distribution among his friends. He of course encodes his music in MP3 format and then sends them to us over ICQ. When I go on Napster (which I still do -- much of what I look for is not licensed in the United States, though it's still getting blocked by the "filters"), I share his music (with his permission). It's rarely (if ever) downloaded, but still shutting down P2P file sharing software is taking away his rights to share his own music! Why hasn't a group gotten together to sue the MPAA and RIAA under these grounds? Surely the ACLU would help with this!!
---
Cole's Axiom: The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing
I hate to be a profit of doom, but I don't see that they can beat the RIAA if Napster couldn't.
All the RIAA has to do is refer to the previous results in quote.
I wrote 'profit' on accident, then looked at my post and went CRAP.
I read it over the second time and caught the pun, thinking that I wouldn't change it for the world. LoL
>Why hasn't a group gotten together to sue the >MPAA and RIAA under these grounds? Surely the >ACLU would help with this!!
Why? Moeny and time. No one has the money to hire a lawyer, nor the time to fill out legal briefs alone. Thus the need for lawstudents to get into the act. They at least understand what papers to file, and it would look GREAT on thier resume to show them suing the RIAA and MPAA before they even got out of school...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Pretty soon the RIAA will realize that the entire internet is nothing but a huge conspicacy to steal thier money. I'm pretty sure a few of the bytes that I sent in my last few Quake packets are exactly identical to those found in copywrited MP3's.
Seriously though, I think there is a GREAT case to be made by AMATUER ROCK STAR LAW STUDENTS (if there are any out there) who are looking for a project to do. Sue the RIAA for anti-competitive practices (after all, they are taking away YOUR right to disturibute YOUR music. Imagine how shrill the cries would be if you told them they couldn't sell CDs at blockbuster anymore...)
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
It all goes back to the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
... but Peak, as an unauthorized repair center (read competition), did not.
In this case, it's the RIAA and MPAA. Napster is most likely to wither and die in their fight not because the RIAA may or may not have a better legal case, but because the money will run out. 2600's fight against the MPAA may fall victim to the same problem, even with the support of the EFF.
This is not new.
Several years ago, a case out of (I believe California) called MAI vs. Peak Electronics wound up being granted review by the Supreme Court of the United States.
MAI's claim against Peak was that Peak violated MAI's copyright because the act of turning MAI's computer on made a copy of data contained into ROM, and that making this copy without a license was a violation of MAI's copyright. Never mind that the copy was required for the operation of the computer -- the whole point was to squash an independent service provider and force repairs to go only to MAI-approved repair outfits. Customers had a license to make a copy, and authorized repair centers had that same right
Peak had to settle (they lost, essentially) because the money ran out. They couldn't file the necessary briefs with the Supreme Court because they didn't have the cash to pay the lawyers.
It's the Golden Rule. It doesn't matter that the law is a bad law, or that the copyright owners are money-grubbing b*st*rds whose only interest is in lining their own pockets. It's that they have the money, and we do not.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
Let's cut out the middle man and empower the artist! Let's leave these artless money grubbing hoarders, who obnoxiously deny us cultural richness in the dust!
---And that goes for this up and coming digital encryption technology as well, they can stick it were the sun don't shine for all I care. You won't see me buying into it!
Let's cut out the middle man and empower the artist! Lets leave these artless money grubbing hoarders, who obnoxiously deny us cultural richness in the dust!
---And that goes for this new digital encryption technology as well, they can stick it where the sun don't shine for all I care, you won't see me buying into it!
First Napster, then Gnuetella, now Aimster. Let's have a strike if RIAA wins the case, THEN we will see how the online file swapping application help/hinder the industry :P
Would it not just be easier to spread a heap of viruses encoded onto the most popular MP3z. Maybe a virus that attacks Gnnutella software. The more they would be traded, the more Gnutella would be killed. It would sure be easier than them trying to sue Gnutella out of existence. As it is, most of the Napster clones are crap anyway.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
If they shut down Aimster, where am I gonna get my pics of that hot Aimee Deep girl?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
You may joke, but the legal precedents are being established that people CAN be sued for creating a legitimate tool that gets used in the commission of a crime.
Smith and Wesson signed an agreement with the Clinton justice department to gaim immunity from future lawsuits for the criminal misuse of their legal products.
How long until the RIAA grows the cajones to go after Microsoft? Force microsoft to build License Management into Window 2005? I doubt it, but if the trend continues, they would have the legal foundation to build that arguement upon.
I don't know if the tide can be turned.
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
>>>>>[ "Hello? Hi, I'd like to patent a hex sequence. '00 06' to be exact. Yes, I'll hold..." And we'll have to wait for all the angry, white, lone terrorists to graduate before the newsposts get interesting again...]
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
No, Aimster does not "piggyback" the Aim network. It provides a limited degree of interoperability, but is entirely stand alone and does not require the AIM software at all.
2) Microsoft. They allow people to share folders on LAN so you can copy all your MP3's and DiVX movies off the network, that's copywrite infingement too, you know ?
3) Whoever invented email attachments, for making it possible to tranfer illegal material along with your email, which can also contain copywrited shit.
4) The Free Software Foundation and the Open Source community. For making something that those huge corporations can't make money off.
"Hey! We can't make money off your freelance work! We will sue you now"
Computers don't violate copyrights people violate copyrights
I don't think the EULA argument would work very well - if memory serves, Napster tried the same thing. However, I don't think this means the end of the EULA - Microsoft arguably has as much or more power than the RIAA, and they'd fight to the death to protect those incomprehensible blocks of legalese. Of course, in some parts of Europe the EULA is already dead...
I'm the stranger...posting to
Flunky: Sir, we have a problem...
RIAA Exec: Yes?
Flunky: It's the internet, sir. People are realizing that they can use it to obtain music for free, and they don't need us to rip off artists for them anymore.
RIAA Exec: Oh crud, I always knew this day would come. Well, this calls for high-quality delaying tactics.
Flunky: Excellent, sir. I can set up an ad-laden, overpublicized Napster clone in a few hours. I'll just steal Gnutella code.
Exec: No! That would be unethical. Let's just convince the American justice system that file-sharing over the internet of any kind is bad.
Flunky: Excellent, sir! And perhaps we could even claim that Napster is ripping off the artists, and we're trying to protect them!
Exec: (laughs) Good one! They'll never see that coming!
I'm the stranger...posting to
I respectfully disagree. The "survival characteristic" that the RIAA "breeds" for is not greater decentralization, but legal and political inoffensiveness. If a network truly had no central servers, the RIAA will simply lobby (and probably succeed) to get the use of a client for this network a feleony. The only way the RIAA will leave a network alone is if it simply cannot in any way distribute material the RIAA does not want distributed. The RIAAs lawyers are not brilliant, but the judges aren't either, and the RIAA has whole volumes of intellectual property law on its side.
I suspect that at the end of this, there will be no true file-sharing networks, but just IRC and FTP servers. Personally, I prefer that system anyway - Gnutella, Aimster etc. have always been too laggy for my taste.
I'm the stranger...posting to
With luck, FDISK would also be banned. After all, it is designed to create FAT32 partitions. And if those were outlawed...
Actually, this isn't as crazy as it sounds. For a while, Microsoft and IBM were working on a new hard drive format that would only allow files to be copied a certain number of times. If this happened, the marketing might of Microsoft and IBM would doubtless kill FAT32 very quickly. Of course, we'd be left with a true monster...
I'm the stranger...posting to
The RIAA wants to prevent copying copywritten works on Aimster by shutting down that service. I agree copying copywritten works is illegal, and and not a right, but is it appropriate to shut down a service with legitimate uses because some people abuse it? Remember, sharing copywritten files is expressly forbidden in the Aimster EULA. It is not designed to be a "warez" service See my earilier post "I hate to say it, but..." (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/05/24/2229 219&cid=36).
Incidentally, while your points are good, using the terms "brat", "idiots", "really slow", and using all caps are all extrememly rude, and in fact moddable under the mod criteria. Don't do it, please.
I'm the stranger...posting to
I think the reason RIAA isn't suing AT&T is one of scale. In all likelyhood, your friend isn't going to record your conversation and distribute tapos to thousands of friends. But thousands of people can download an MP3 quickly and easily.
By the way, Dune is the best series ever written.
I'm the stranger...posting to
You're right. I should have said that the RIAA simply applied that principle to Napster and the internet. The problem with "dodging the bullet" is that it's darned hard to tell which material was legal. How do you prove the contents of "coolstuff.zip" are my resume and not a metallica soundtrack?
I'm the stranger...posting to
But who would stick to it?
I'm the stranger...posting to
Aimster is a seperate program that piggybacks on the Aim network, but does not incorporate the AIM software.
I'm the stranger...posting to
From a legal point of view, the RIAA has a point. No, this is not flamebait, but the Napster case did set a legal precedent for saying that any service that can be used to transfer copyrighted materials can be challenged and.or shut down. After all, Aimster is capable of fulfilling the same functions as Napster, to an extent, which makes the precedent very "on point".
The only hope for Aimster, as I see it, is to argue that there is a difference in emphasis between the two services. Napster was intended for sharing hard-to-find media files on the internet, and distributing them easily. The naturally leads to ease in distributing copywritten materials.
What Aimster could argue is that the emphasis of Aimster is not on large-scale copywritten file sharing as with Napster, but on providing users a way to share files between each other on a smaller scale, as with email or ICQ. Aimster can be used to distribute copywritten works, but it lacks the file-searching ability of Napster, among other things, that made it an ideal medium for distributing copywritten works. It's also less easy for a person to give everyone on the service a given file - each potential recipient has to be approved by the person distributing the file.
In other words, Aimster is more akin to an instant messaging client that a large-scale file-sharing network, and that is the only hope it has for survival. Unless, of course, the judge in this case is smarter than the one for napster.
I'm the stranger...posting to
As far as rights online go, this is what we are. Most people are oblivious to what the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft and others are doing, so it's up to us to get the word out and help turn the tide. A lot of posters have suggested we write representatives, boycott CDs & DVDs, or educate the non-technical people around us. I think we should do all these things. But for all our numbers, relative affluence, and intelligence I can't help but feel we could be much more effective. Writing new file sharing programs and supporting the EFF are a start; We should also be doing what every other successful movement has had to do: showing up, in numbers. I went to the recent 2600 hearing in Manhattan and was glad to see others wearing DeCSS t-shirts. But there was only a handful of us. After all the furor on Slashdot I was hoping there'd be an overflow crowd. Justices are supposed to ignore such things, but they would have taken note of a crowd of 2600 supporters, guaranteed. Now, a million geek march on Washington singing "We Shall Overcome" is beyond the realm of fantasy (how's that for an image ;-). But showing up in force for the town meetings politicians love to hold now and such would get noticed. Yeah it's very 60's, but I'm tired of complaining and reading complaints without anyone doing anything about it. I'm certain this is the only way we can really be heard.