Slashdot Mirror
99% Blockage Isn't Good Enough, Says Napster Judge
Masem writes: "Articles at CNET and CNN say that Judge Patel has ordered Napster to remain offline until they can offer 100% blockage of copyrighted songs by the plaintiff record companies. Napster officials said that they can guarentee 99% complience, but Patel says this is not good enough. Napster is arguing that this order violated the appeals court's ruling, and are appealling it."
How 'bout: just because blocking child pornography is hard or impossible to do, we should allow printing presses to continue to be sold?
Or: just because distinguishing between legitimate protected religious action and cult behavior is difficult to do, we should allow people to sacrifice goats?
Or: just because you're 99.9995% sure that this hunting rifle will be used on deer we should allow you to have it?
Or: just because hate-speech is impossible to distinguish from political expression, we should allow it?
Or: just because the PRIMARY USE of this hammer is to build houses, not kill people, we should allow you to own one?
Do you really believe that it's okay for government to restrict anything that MIGHT be used in an illegal way?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Put the money in the artist's pockets- that is what I want to do. That, and pay a fair share for the production thereof. If I buy from local bands, etc. at their shows that's what transpires. If I buy from a record store, most of my money goes to people that had little to do with the music I'm buying. I don't like that.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Because the music industry charges usurious amounts and the food, etc. industries usually don't. Because of this, I choose to not deal with them. Largely speaking, I do the same where possible with the print industries as well.
As to your second paragraph, ever read Courtney Love's rant? It's closer to the truth than you think and it pretty much invalidates your claims- because the record labels were the gatekeepers, if you didn't play by their rules and sign, you pretty much didn't get to play in the game at all.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The system has sufficient non-infringing uses, they guarantee 99% compliance (which is worlds better than everything else out there...) and Patel's still not satisfied.
Should we say that Patel's biased at this point and remand the situation to another Judge- she sure isn't acting with neutrality or anything like that.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The Supreme Court ordered that /. posters stop posting until they verify all their facts instead of checking the at the door.
Patel is a SHE.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
How can they assure 100% compliance? Someone, somewhere, will post a file that gets by the blocking software somehow....
Checking that a music file (X) matches another music file (known copyrighted material Y) is a matter of doing a checksum, or otherwise scanning features of X and checking them against features of Y. If the files are exactly the same then you can do a CRC on each file, and if the checksums match, you have a 1-in-four-billion chance that the two files are *not* the same.
But the two files being exactly the same is one hell of an assumption. An intrepid music pirate could feed Y through some kind of distortion to produce Y', which would look different to a CRC. That means you have to look for features in the sound itself. Even with the algorithm produced by the genius 20-year-old, I am very doubtful that you'd have 0% false negative rate. There's always going to be something crawling through. That's the nature of pattern recognition.
I think the judge has made this court order impossible to comply with, barring one option: Napster closes down. That strikes me as more than adequate grounds for appeal.
Finding God in a Dog
Interesting ... now that I think about it, I haven't purchased any CD's since napster stopped being useful either. Not because I was specifically protesting anything, but because I have all the CD's that I want right now, and without napster I have no way of finding new music that I might be interested in. Hmmm...
First off, you make sense, 100%. Your point is well taken, and I agree with it.
But your supporting case is a very weak one. Unfortunately, in the United States, not only could that apartment owner be sued criminally, but he could forfeit the building WITHOUT a hearing of any sort.
His ability (or lack thereof) to know about the activity doesn't matter. If illegal drugs are found on property, that property is forfeit. No trial, no appeals. Bend over and kiss your apartment, house, car goodbye.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
A VCR doesn't natively provide a good way of preventing piracy either... but VCRs are legal. Just because something can be used for infringing purposes does not mean that it can be outlawed. In this case, I definately think that there are significant non-infringing uses (for those that continue to use it, whoever they are).
-------------------------------------------------
As far as I remember it, the copyright laws require the copyright holders to inform the ISP of the names (fingerprints) of the offending files. This ruling seem to be putting the onus on Napster to figure out what files are being traded....
I think that I can understand blocking 100% of files explicitly noted, but predicting all permutations is asking for the eye of the needle. If the RIAA were asked to provide this information, without impinging too much on non-copyright material, they'd just throw up their hands and walk away.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Oficially, Napster is not supposed to be a system to share copyrighted songs. It's supposed to be a way for musicians to share their music. Free music.
And that idea is really great. It'd have been wonderful for music makers if the rules had been respected.
But it hasn't been the case. Napster is a tool for piracy. Only copyrighted materials here. And not only music from majors full of $$$, there's also a lot of songs from little labels as well. Without their agreement. That's bad.
People are crying because Napster is dying. But they don't even realize that they really *stole* commercial songs. This is shameful piracy. Blaming the judge or blaming Napster that only filters 99% is stupid. Blame yourself. Blame stupid users that violated the rules and turned something legal into a 100% illegal stuff.
Internet is nice to share opinions, to ask help, to work on free software and to share *free* stuff. Using it as a convenient way to share warez/commercial movies/commercial songs is a shame. People doing that should better shup up than yell "oh shit, someone wants to stop us from stealing commercial stuff. Fuck him, we will have to install another software to do the same thing, it will take 5 minutes of our precious time".
-- Pure FTP server - Upgrade your FTP server to something simple and secure.
{{.sig}}
in that case, i think a global condom and birth control pill recall is in order.
Impossible. Recalled products have to be mailed back and no parcel delivery service can guarantee 100% delivery.
in that case, i think a global condom and birth control pill recall is in order.
unless of course the judge allows napster to use the rhythm method.
Go read some bible: nubible.com
On the act locally front, I stopped buying new CDs when Napster went away, and I strongly urge everyone else to do the same.
--Mike--
How long before the record companies will offer up something similar as a pay service?
Never, you say?
That's too bad, because that's what the consumers really want. But I guess the consumer is not the record companies concern. (I leave it to a reply to talk about the poor quality of music these days ;-) ).
First of all, Judge Patel is a woman. (Not a male, as you indicated.)
He should really have appointed a special master to help him deal with the technical issues (which are clearly over his head).
Furthermore, a technical specialist has been appointed.
Please read the articles. Just as we become furious with judges who seem out of touch with technology, it is also infuriating to hear condemnations of others by those who are clearly out of touch with the articles being discussed.
However, I do also hope that this will be overturned. It seems clear that Napster is making a "reasonable" effort to bar music piracy.
99% usually seems to be good enough for anything else the government mandates. Hell, 65% is usually good enough.
-- Ryan!
Analagously, you would probably prosecute a landlord who owned an apartment building in which pot was being grown on the roof, because that's something he should know about and stop. However, you would not prosecute a landlord because one of his tenants was growing pot in a closet, and never smoked it in the building, because he would have no reasonable way of knowing about, or stopping that. Likewise, as long as Napster makes a good effort to stop copyright violation, they should be guilt free. The RIAA should then have to sue the users if they are still unsatisfied.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
At one point Napster will figure out that the record industry was happy about the verdict because it ineviatably means the death of napster.
It may cost them millions of dollars to figure this out, but eventually they will. The other file sharing programs are really taking off. Go to Zero Paid and check out all file share programs. Napster has become unnecessary - and their service depends on them being necessary.
This is a horrible judgment. It's insane.
What's next? Are judges going to shut down university computer systems because obviously, some kids somewhere in the system are using their home directories to store w4r3z?
I realize that the judge is really just trying to do the RIAA favor and really stop Napster's heartbeat, but this silly.
People ship CDrs with pirated software through the USPS-- better shut them down, too!
Crap, I tell you. Crap.
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
How can they expect 100% compliance from Napster when video tape/cd-r and mini disc manufacturers have never had a burden like that placed on them.
Wish the judges in the Microsoft case were that strict...
science is a religion
I guess this sets a legal precedent for anyone who has a file distribution mechanism to make sure that there are absolute no unlicensed copyrighted material on their sites.
Does this mean that AIM needs to start blocking Buddy Icons that are infringing on someone's copyrights? I guess so much for my Bart Simpson buddy icon. (But how does AOL know that I don't have proper authorization and clearance to use that icon?)
This means that DNA evidence can no longer be allowed to stand up in court. It's only 99.999998% effective, you know.
Heh, exactly. I'd like to see ONE gov't regulation that requires 100% compliance.
And 100% is pratctically impossible anyways, because if just ONE song out of...say...5 billion gets through, its not 100% anymore.
Personally, she's asking WAAAAY too much from them, considering they're already dead.
Oh look, a dead horse! Let's beat it!
Napster pretty much sits out there and gets beat up on. Then it gets back up and fights again. That takes some guts. More importantly, as long as Napster is fighting, the RIAA lawyers have work to do. When Napster finally concedes defeat, the lawsuits will start targetting distributers of Gnuetella and other sharing tools. That, or they'll start actively targetting individuals. Go Napster! Keep on getting beat on, the rest of us love ya for it.